Welfare Reform

samhill wrote:I think it would be a good idea to require some type of work be preformed by all those recieveing any type of public assistance & see how many opt to find work & get off of welfare. And welfare should be for an alloted amount of time just like unemployment, when your times up your out on the street.

That's a slippery slope as well because you're creating jobs that could be filled by real business. I think instead we need to make it undesirable to be on it.

For example set timetable and after X amount of time start ratcheting down the things that make life enjoyable e.g. you can't own an expensive car or even a car at all, jewelry, etc. Force them to sell these things, if the value exceeds X amount then they get it deducted from their welfare.

For LIHEAP which is the heating assistance program the money is sent directly to the dealer in all but a few cases, why is this not done with all welfare money? Instead of giving them cash or food stamps issue a credit card that can only be used at participating business's. All purchases will be documented.

I think having these folks work on things like state park cleanups, painting over/cleaning graffiti, picking up garbage alongside the road, etc is a fine idea. Why should anyone get something for nothing? This only enables the behavior. You want it? Get working....

Drug tests for welfare eligibility. That would take care of at least 50% I'd think.

You a smoker? 25% less in welfare benefits. Take a class on how to quit and be tested for nicotene and you can have more.

Overweight? 25% less. Start exercising, eating right and attend weekly meetings where you are weighed etc and you get more.

Got a cell phone? Deduct the monthly cost of the phone/plan from the benefits. I don't care if you don't have a home phone...you're not working...wtf do you need a phone for?

Have kids and not married? Deduction. Get pregnant again while not married or working...you're done...bye bye. No soup for you.

I could go on...you get the idea

Richard, I am going to write you in, in 2012!

You too, av8r!

GREAT ideas -- this would keep people from pulling up to the supermarket in a tricked-out Escalade & paying in food stamps ...... I see this ALL THE TIME!

Richard S. wrote:

samhill wrote:I think it would be a good idea to require some type of work be preformed by all those recieveing any type of public assistance & see how many opt to find work & get off of welfare. And welfare should be for an alloted amount of time just like unemployment, when your times up your out on the street.

That's a slippery slope as well because you're creating jobs that could be filled by real business. I think instead we need to make it undesirable to be on it.

For example set timetable and after X amount of time start ratcheting down the things that make life enjoyable e.g. you can't own an expensive car or even a car at all, jewelry, etc. Force them to sell these things, if the value exceeds X amount then they get it deducted from their welfare.

For LIHEAP which is the heating assistance program the money is sent directly to the dealer in all but a few cases, why is this not done with all welfare money? Instead of giving them cash or food stamps issue a credit card that can only be used at participating business's. All purchases will be documented.

I agree Richard but I can also think of a few jobs we are forced to do that we don't want to do like sorting the recyclables here in NYS. In my opinion, that should be done at the landfill by inmates and those able-bodied individuals who have plenty of free time, no job and desire for a state check.

In a land where our deficits are growing and our infrastructure is waning, adding them to the hard labor work force at no additional expense should be a no brainer.

For LIHEAP which is the heating assistance program the money is sent directly to the dealer in all but a few cases

I have heard of people getting assistance for heating oil only to let there relatives pump out of the tank for there use or selling the oil while they burn wood . The tanks should be locked and sealed if the gov is buying oil for you .

I hear Illegal Imigrants are good for this country because they fill jobs American workers will not do. Of course not! it is easier to stay home and collect welfare than do those jobs. I guess the problem with welfare recipients having jewelry, cell phones and other luxury items it how do you enforce that? As it is now they get some kind of debit card instead of food stamps.That change was supposed to eliminate fraud where people would pay cents on the dollar for the food stamps. Now they just go to an unscrupulous grocery retailer who does basically the same thing with the card. I agree there should be a limit. These programs were never intended to be long term but to help people who hit hard times so they didn't starve or become homeless. Like any program there are loopholes and there will be those who know every loophole in the book and pass it along. I have heard where some of these deadbeats are sent on job interviews and show up drunk or just don't show up at all. It is a shame that there are people with no pride and want to live this way and yet if you institute a forced program of work for welfare the backlash is how demeaning it is and they are treated like prisoners etc... But I guess it is not demeaning to be a drain on society.

WPA worked once, it should work again. It cost money, but it wasn't welfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

Never really thought about that and I don't know if there would be reasonable solution under any circumstances where the fuel is being delivered to the customer. You could do the same thing with coal. I'm not sure if they take into account the type of fuel or your yearly usage when they disburse the cash. I know most coal customers were getting between $300 to $400 for the year. I know they take your income and other things into account.

I'm pretty sure wood is not covered so even if the guy wanted to put his allotment towards wood which would make much more economic sense he couldn't...

Dallas wrote:WPA worked once, it should work again. It cost money, but it wasn't welfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

Although it was helpful I've seen it suggested that lengthened the depression considerably.

mikeandgerry wrote:I agree Richard but I can also think of a few jobs we are forced to do that we don't want to do like sorting the recyclables here in NYS. In my opinion, that should be done at the landfill by inmates and those able-bodied individuals who have plenty of free time, no job and desire for a state check.

In a land where our deficits are growing and our infrastructure is waning, adding them to the hard labor work force at no additional expense should be a no brainer.

Here in MD inmates trim the grass and pick up trash along state roads. There are two state employees that supervise. The one with the gun drives the van that transports the inmates and the second employee drives the dump truck with trailer. The trailer has the porta-potty. Seems to work well, runaways are rare because the inmates are well screened for "attitude". Inmates in the county jail work at the dump as well as other places. At the dump they assist citizens unloading their junk and run the re-cycle trade shop. It's just a shed with shelves and an minimum of organization. The idea you bring something you can take something. County employees supervise and dispense the money paid for aluminum cans. Most of these inmates, at least the ones I've talked too are in jail because of non-payment of child support. They get their time served reduced for good behavior. The key to making any program cost effective is have the minimum number of supervision employees, while still maintaining public safety.

A large number of those on public welfare have health issues that would preclude any kind of offsetting work to reduce public expense. Some with manageable health issues find subsidized employment with private employers. When I was working my employers cafeteria dishwashers were such employees. The required supervision was greater than for a normal employee. Positions were created more as a public service. The individuals, appreciated a job and over time greatly improved their social skills. It's unlikely a job for punishment or no welfare would work well at reducing costs, just too much supervision needed.

Yeah, John, I am well aware of the welfare client's typical health situation. The bulk of the problems are back and obesity issues. While most recipients are deserving, I can think of three welfare cases in my small town (pop5000), and one welfare case and two workers comp cases just from my 6-employee business, which occured over the last 10 years that are highly dubious. Meanwhile, I have a struggling single mom employee with an IQ of about 80 who could use a bit of medical aid in reward for her hard work but she gets denied while the loafers loaf.

I'd love to pay her more but the total gov robs my cash to the tune of 42% of income. After paying for inventory increases and shrinkage, taxes, debt principal, equipment investments and the like, there is no more cash for health insurance. Further, I don't have enough cash to have a personal retirement account! I look great on paper though!

Recently, I heard this single mom complaining because her daughter's father has been getting govt disability checks for years and there is no visible disability for this clown. He hunts, fishes, works on cars, does under the table plumbing and carpentry, etc. etc. Now she wants the same kind of deal! What she sees as pay--for-play! Can you blame her? The reality is she gets EIC and is too dumb to understand that her fed tax rate is -32%.

I have had it with this crap. These are the people that are often having more children than the productive people. The clown described above has three wives/paramours/live-in whatevers and have produced five kids as a result. The productive people can do the math and avoid what they cannot afford. The welfare abusers don't bother. I hate to sound cruel but I don't want to get to a situation where we are expending more than 50% of our energy on sustaining dead weight that is highly reproductive. It won't be pretty.

Welfare should have a time limit on it like unemployment. The whole program should be temporary help when you're down on your luck, not a lifestyle.

I think that anyone receiving a Welfare check should have to undergo drug testing. And contraception.

mikeandgerry wrote:I have had it with this crap. These are the people that are often having more children than the productive people. The clown described above has three wives/paramours/live-in whatevers and have produced five kids as a result. The productive people can do the math and avoid what they cannot afford.

You really need to watch the intro to "Idiocracy", if not the whole movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sE1E3z7jU

I keep hearing words like "force" and "make". I see lots of rules....typifying big gov't.

What level of "force" do we use to make a poor person sell off jewelry? Do we allow them to hold on to keepsakes? If so, how do they prove they didn't waste "our money" on frivolous stuff. Who decides the definition of overweight? How much nicotine is too much? If you ONLY had a cell phone and no landline....is that ok? My white, reared properly but unmarried daughter just made me a grandpa. Does this mistake make her any less deserving of assistance vs. someone divorced with kids? How and who decides all the exceptions? Pretty soon, you end up with the equivalent of the IRS code book.

The simple problem is we've become a society of entitlements. Between the two of us, my wife and I have over 50 years of service at Social Security. We both retired and Deb now works for an attorney who specializes in worker's comp and SSA disability cases. Believe me, we've seen it all and it's pretty much that simple......"my rights.....my entitlement". Reversal of this is impossible. Keeping in check is....impossible. It's a question of national morality and losing our sense of "me second....others first". As the preamble of the Constitution begins....WE the people....perfect UNION .......ensue domestic tranquility.....COMMON defence.....general welfare. All of these signify a selfless society. We've become selfish. This is largely why Obama won, tickling that entitlement bone, promising that Uncle Sam would be your most dependable and favorite relative.

The problem is we cannot legislate morality nor can you substitute "we the people", neighbor taking care of neighbor, with government programs. Akin to this is the whole sanctity of marriage issue and even the abortion issue. We didn't lose sight of the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage due to a lack of laws and court rulings. We lost sight of our morality. As much as many conservatives, me included, would like to see our courts and legislature step in, morality cannot be easily dictated. True, many laws are based on morals, "thou shalt not kill". But, we've allowed ourselves to refer to a baby as a fetus rather than a person. The distinction has moved from the objective to the subjective. Same with marriage and many other issues to come.

Sorry for the rant. This flies in the face of much of what I said in my "What a great forum" post....getting away from COAL!! I know I sound totally pessimistic but I do think, absent a moral revival of some kind, we will continue down this road of selfishness, leading us to vote for those who feed our growing appetite of wanting but not working. We just voted ina man who will take an oath to uphold the constitution and all it's liberties and freedoms, but yet will rob us of those very liberties by forcibly redistributing the wealth....who forcibly will decide the future of industries like coal based on on an unproven theory of global warming.....who forcibly will decide FOR YOU how you heat your home, light your home, etc based on that same theory.....who will forcibly decide issues of tolerance and intolerance,further affecting what is taught in our schools and eventually reaching into our churches and even homes, removing tax exempt status for churches who teach against homosexuality ......who will skillfully, and with a mask of sincerity, change "We the people" to "We the government'.

terry

P.S. - As I just told my FoxNews fanatical brother. Conservatives have only themselves to blame. They were afraid of nominating a Mormon. Mitt would have kicked butt!