Should we put limits on welfare

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I know we're a big rough & tough country... lot's of testosterone... guns... wars... the death penalty, but maybe we can give the poor & broken citizens a few crumbs. Let them have their welfare. A little compassion... maybe?

Ah yes, the lazy and the leeches need help.

Edit: That was not totally fair, the majority of people on welfare are like that, people down on there luck acively looking for work, single mothers going through school ect deserve help, the rest should be left to there own devices.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
What's amazing to me is how many DirecTV satellites I see when driving by Section 8 housing. Nice to know where the tax $$ is going towards - socialized cable television

Gonna have to call BS on this on.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I know we're a big rough & tough country... lot's of testosterone... guns... wars... the death penalty, but maybe we can give the poor & broken citizens a few crumbs. Let them have their welfare. A little compassion... maybe?

Ah yes, the lazy and the leeches need help.

Edit: That was not totally fair, the majority of people on welfare are like that, people down on there luck acively looking for work, single mothers going through school ect deserve help, the rest should be left to there own devices.

I'm curious, how do you know what the majority of the people on welfare are like? You could be right, but you could also just be falling back on the idea that if you are poor, it must be because you deserve it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MCsommerreid

Originally posted by: conjur
A brief synopsis of my opinion on this:


Two years of full benefits (including child care) to allow someone to obtain job training or, say, a two-year degree. After the 2nd year, the benefits are greatly reduced as the recipient should now have a good job but keep a bit extra going to give them a good foundation (esp. to cover costs of child care) After the 3rd year, no more Federal benefits. If a person still has no job after 3 years, they must then rely upon private charity.

I totally agree with conjur, except I think 3 years might be a little too long for anything but say state child care, which should be accessable untill the child is old enough to stay home alone or the family gets an income it can live on. Perhaps full assistance and job search aid for 1 year, then childcare and partial aid for half a year, and then just child care untill the family is self sufficient or the child is old enough to stay home alone.

There should, however, be regular checks to make sure that the family isn't wasting their money or their time. Satilite TV on welfare? Welfare is cut off then and there. Newest air Jordans? Goodbye welfare.

The costs would probably be taken up just by adding the new tax payers and perhaps a small tax increase on the exorbinantly wealthy.

As I said, my post was a very brief summary. There are many ways to reduce the outlays to a recipient based upon their progress to become self-sufficient. The biggest problem is child-care/transportation. It's harder for someone w/o a car to get to/from work/school and if there are children involved, that really makes it difficult.

But, satellite TV/cable TV? Come on, many places can't get decent reception and, seriously, how many people that literally cannot afford food are putting up dishes? Let's be realistic here. And to cut off benefits if they do get cable/satellite? Would you prefer they go to concerts? The movies? Sit and do nothing at home? Many places cannot get decent reception. I don't see cable/satellite being that big of a deal. Esp. since it's only $30/mo. or so.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

Thanks Mr. Compassionate Conservative.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

Thanks Mr. Compassionate Conservative.

Forced charity is the antithesis of compassion.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

Thanks Mr. Compassionate Conservative.

Forced charity is the antithesis of compassion.

Forced wars suck too....including money out of MY pocket.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
What's amazing to me is how many DirecTV satellites I see when driving by Section 8 housing. Nice to know where the tax $$ is going towards - socialized cable television

Nah, they're usually DiSH Network :laugh: :laugh:

Go stand outside your local SS office and observe...

 

[PrinceofWands]

I won't support cutting help to the poorest people in the nation until all support to the richest is abolished...no more corporate welfare, no more executives getting away with light sentencing, etc.

You also have to have an evironment where it's possible to support yourself (and your family) before you can truly complain about social support systems. It's rapidly becoming impossible to earn a living wage in America...fix that and welfare will reduce on it's own (though not disappear entirely since there will always be lazy and sponges). Until a person can get medical care and food for their child (never mind themselves) government support is pretty much absolute.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

Thanks Mr. Compassionate Conservative.

That's cause he still lives in his mom's basement. With the education he's received, he'll have a good time hopping from Dairy Queen to Burger King and back... and he'll know the true meaning of welfare.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

I have a better idea. Let's just find out who's not an upstanding citizen, and shoot them. We'll include the weak, the sick, the old, the homosexual, the mentally retarded... there are also ethnic groups who do not contribute to society, and should be eliminated. Right?

Meuge, I'm affraid your sarcasm will blow past Stunt, Dissipate and RichardE and they will take you seriously. You shouldn't give them ideas.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nice of you to say a "bachelors is nothing"; I have a bachelors and got a job merely 1 month out. I had an average only 5 percent higher than my classmates (decided to have a social life at uni instead) and got a job over 30% more than the average for my graduting class.

The company has offered to pay for my MBA down the road and has invested tens of thousands of dollars in training for me. If that's nothing at the age of 22, you need to get off your high horse

So, you got lucky. It's quite possible that in 5 years your company will fold, or downsize, or be managed by a crook, and you'll be out looking for job, and may have to go on welfare. Yours is anecdotal evidence, as is homercles337's. Hell, Ralph Klein was a HS dropout. Does it mean we should all drop out of HS and hope to become Premiers of the richest Canadian province some day?

Edit: typos

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I won't support cutting help to the poorest people in the nation until all support to the richest is abolished...no more corporate welfare, no more executives getting away with light sentencing, etc.

Finally, someone talking sense.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we should simply eliminate welfare. Period.

QFT.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I won't support cutting help to the poorest people in the nation until all support to the richest is abolished...no more corporate welfare, no more executives getting away with light sentencing, etc.

You also have to have an evironment where it's possible to support yourself (and your family) before you can truly complain about social support systems. It's rapidly becoming impossible to earn a living wage in America...fix that and welfare will reduce on it's own (though not disappear entirely since there will always be lazy and sponges). Until a person can get medical care and food for their child (never mind themselves) government support is pretty much absolute.

I agree with everything you say there, except the bolded part. There are handicapped people and the elderly that we need to take care of too.

I believe that no child should ever go hungry or not have adequate medical care.

 

[Skriptures17]

I am less wooried about the welfare bill, and far more worried about the War bill.

 

[conjur]

Notice the pattern in this thread? All of those wanting to cut welfare completely are the chickenhawks and the warmongers. They have no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the military and for welfare programs and other subsidies for the countries we occupy but they'll be damned if one dime is spent on an American.

Jesus would be so proud.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skriptures17
I am less wooried about the welfare bill, and far more worried about the War bill.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm


Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: conjur
Notice the pattern in this thread? All of those wanting to cut welfare completely are the chickenhawks and the warmongers. They have no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the military and for welfare programs and other subsidies for the countries we occupy but they'll be damned if one dime is spent on an American.

Jesus would be so proud.

I don't support the war, or welfare, nice try though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skriptures17
I am less wooried about the welfare bill, and far more worried about the War bill.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm


Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

I wonder what this chart from that neocon think-tank looks like now.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
A brief synopsis of my opinion on this:


Two years of full benefits (including child care) to allow someone to obtain job training or, say, a two-year degree. After the 2nd year, the benefits are greatly reduced as the recipient should now have a good job but keep a bit extra going to give them a good foundation (esp. to cover costs of child care) After the 3rd year, no more Federal benefits. If a person still has no job after 3 years, they must then rely upon private charity.

That'd be 3 times as expensive as today...
Why do we need to support those too lazy to get a job?

All your plan will accomplish is two years of slacking and people finding a job in the last couple months.

i disagree..i think there are a lot of people who end up in a bad position because of parenting..once they realize it and want to make something of themselves its too late..if they can get a start on a degree i guarantee their chances for success will be much higher..yes some idiots will take advantage but what about those who deserve a 2nd chance?

i dont think the system should be devised with extreme paranoia about certain people taking advantage....and another thing that a lot of people dont consider is..what would it be like if some of these people were not taken care of? i can guarantee crime rates etc would go up..we need more creative solutions than just cutting it off

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RichardE
If we say, put a 8 week limit of Welfar. 8 weeks of not having to work per year, after that you are cut from the system. Instead of just handing out money, we force them to do work for the cheques. Cleaning garbage, acting as crossing guards, ect, the mudane tasks that society needs. What would be the benefits or consequences of doing this?

As an individual who had to use welfare programs, I agree that a limit should be put on welfare. However, I think it should be longer than 8 weeks. People often run into hard times beyond their control and they need help. I was promised a job with a salary of $55,000 per year, conditional upon me passing a state licensing test. I passed the test and the company moved me out. However, for 8 months they continually screwed up the required paper work and I couldn't get my license. So for 8 months, instead of being paid $55,000 per year, I was being paid $28,000. We lost all our savings and everything. We had no money to retain a lawyer and no job to go to after they would have fired me for suing them (although not legal, they'd have come up with some other reason). We had nothing, so I decided to go back to college and finish my degree to help ensure that something like that would not happen again.

Other people find themselves in similar circumstances beyond their control. Others just find themselves in situations they got themselves into. However, I would suggest a period of 5 years. That would give anyone the necessary time to get 1) GED, 2) Vocational training, or 3) a college degree. This would provide them with a good education, a real chance to get a decent job, and a salary that would allow them to actual help pay back some of the money that was given to them.

After the 5 year period, they would be required to wait some additional period of time before being able to apply again, say 5 years. Workforce Services has departments across the country that can be used to find employment, so there is no reason they can't find something after having 5 years. Also, make the continuation of their benefits be conditional upon receiving training or being enrolled at an educational institution.

Nobody needs to be a welfare their entire life, but not everyone is fortunate enough to make it through life without being given the shaft by someone.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I won't support cutting help to the poorest people in the nation until all support to the richest is abolished...no more corporate welfare, no more executives getting away with light sentencing, etc.

Finally, someone talking sense.

Welfare is out of hand, and we need to limit it. But after this many years, some people are legitimately depending on it to be there when they need it. Then again, is it the government's job to write paychecks for nothing? Nope. Any waay tyou look at it, that should never be the government's responsibility. And we are not talking about corporate welfare or sentencing. That is different. Start your own thread. This is about the millions who live off the government like leeches, sucking away your and my money. Though maybe there are good exceptions.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
A brief synopsis of my opinion on this:


Two years of full benefits (including child care) to allow someone to obtain job training or, say, a two-year degree. After the 2nd year, the benefits are greatly reduced as the recipient should now have a good job but keep a bit extra going to give them a good foundation (esp. to cover costs of child care) After the 3rd year, no more Federal benefits. If a person still has no job after 3 years, they must then rely upon private charity.

That'd be 3 times as expensive as today...
Why do we need to support those too lazy to get a job?

All your plan will accomplish is two years of slacking and people finding a job in the last couple months.

I think the idea is that once the person earns a college degree, they'd be able to support themselves forever and never need assistance again. Teach a man to fish, you know...