Short Term Welfare only and I do Agree with Elims that they should be made to take any job which They are capable of doing and not wait for the perfect job. THey need to feed the family and do whatever they can not sit on his or her butt and wait for something that is not beneath them. When you are out of work NO job is beneath you - they are all better. And working folks are better them those waiting for a handout. As A temporary fix - sometimes welfare may be needed, but never long term!!
If Magnolia were in charge... :wink: : 1. State run "leg-up" centers. "Welfare" recipents would have access to state-run child care at these centers. These would be state-run centers - not giving Shanequa next door a state voucher for sitting your kid in front of the TV for hours while she bangs her boyfriend in the next room. These centers would be directed by trained professionals with no cultural bias. Excuses will not be allowed at the centers. There will be no cultural identity classes and no teaching people to blame their woes on others. The mission of these centers will revolve around the idea that each person is responsible for their own success and failures...not any one else. While your kids are in the state-run child care at these centers, you and they abide by the rules. Your agree that your children will be disciplined, taught manners and social skills, and will do their homework if there after school - before being allowed to go outside and play. Hours of daycare will also be allotted for those attending school (grades must be turned in for verification that you are going to school). Also, each center will include career counseling and job-hunting/training resources. Typing classes, interview coaching, etc. Hours for daycare will be allotted for this also. 2. Hour to hour work for welfare If you want money from the state, you work for it. You work 8 hours a day doing state work, and then you get a paycheck in exchange for it. If you aren't willing to do the work, you won't get the money. Earn your wages instead of being given money for nothing. Money for nothing motivates no one. Say you can't work because you've got kids? You get to use the state-run child care - as long as you are working and only for the hours while you are working. The state money saved by having benefactors work for their state money rather than paying a regular state employee AND paying welfare to someone else, will go towards running the centers mentioned above. 3. Family matters In the same way that what your parents make matters when filing for Financial Aid, your family's ability to help you out will make a difference in what benefits you get. No more elderly or sick people being supported by taxpayers while son and daughter come visit mom in the projects...arriving in a brand new SUV. If you can afford an SUV, you can afford to do your part in taking care of your parent. Bring family responsibility for elderly family members back. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to force taxpayers to support your elderly or sick family members so that you can afford a new car and lots of bling. Besides, taking care of your family is the right thing to do, dammit. 4. Housing Want to have your shelter paid for by taxpayers? Like living in the projects? Fine. You'll put in your time for upkeep on the property to help cover costs. There's plenty of lot clean-up, painting, cleaning vacated units, lot beautification, etc. If you refuse to do your part (and this will be monitored), you will be made to leave the projects. 5. Food Food pantries will no longer use volunteers for boxing up food and putting it into cars of those who come for it. Those receiving the food will do so. Great way to teach kids in the welfare system how to work for what you receive. Send the teens and other able-bodied family members to the pantry to work for 2-3 hours and they receive a box or two of food in return to take home with them. In my world... No able-bodied person of working age will be allowed to receive benefits without giving something in return. Older women can go to the state-run centers and teach younger women how to cook on a shoestring, how to change a diaper and bathe a baby, or even just answer phones. Older men can teach younger men how to use tools, supervise housing project clean up, etc. Sometimes, people need to be made to feel useful in order to feel motivated to work. Those in the working-age range will be taught how to earn...not receive handouts. They will be given the opportunity to gain job and life skills. If they refuse those opportunities, they will not receive benefits. They must make honest efforts towards progress, not just show up. Teens will be taught early how to get what you want via honest work. They will be mentored on social skills, life skills, and taught discipline and the importance of education. The youngest children will learn by watching their older siblings and parents break the chain of welfare and become productive members of society. And that's just a start... :lol:
MAGNOLIA: Questions to your rules: #1 What would you do when your daycare centers filled up? Keep a waiting list for over 5 years? #2 A lot of people do NOT have a HSD. So how would they get STATE jobs? On housing if the renter helped out then that would knock other out their jobs. Like Janitors and most the "projects are the towns" so then there you go again with the STATE jobs. ddrdan Your right about he people who really need welfare assistance are blocked from receiving it. People come over to the USA with no form of ID and get whatever they want. But let someone like me walk in and I must show ID, income, if I own a car, any bank accounts, and how many people live with me work and what do they make, this goes into my income. But I don't see anything changing with the way the system works so I just don't pay it any mind. But all this is just my 2 cents! Don't want to make anyone mad!!
The biggest problem with the welfare system is the fact that it is loosely controlled. That leads to so many taking advantage of the system. Unfortunately, tightening down on the present system would only lead to the ones that need the program being shut out. I like the idea of people working to receive welfare. Heck, even if they stuffed envelopes every now and then.
I feel if we have to go to work 40 plus hours a week to receive a paycheck then why can't someone that does nothing during the day/night do something to receive their food stamps. I know we are just a small group of people with different opinions and stating our ideas and beliefs on a discussion board isn't gonna change anything. I am not saying rip the assistance from the truly needy but dang I think something really needs to be done for the ones that are just to lazy to get any kind of job. I also want to note that the only reason I put this poll on here was legitimate and has nothing to do with anyone personally. I was talking to someone the other day about the utility assistance that Social Services has. He said his dad was unable to pay his utilities b/c he was out of work for a short period of time. He went to Social Services first thing in the morning like he was told to do and was shocked to see a very long line before the doors were even unlocked. By the time it was his turn at the window they just put up a sign saying No more funds available. I feel that some of them probaby didn't deserve the assistance and the only time they even bothered to get up that early is once a month to go stand in line to get a free hand out. JMO
Excellent question. Centers would have to be created in areas where the need is greatest, and in numbers that would reach enough benefactors to make a difference. Attrition due to those who simply refuse to abide by the rules, will stem some of the "increase" I believe you are anticipating. Secondly, as benefactors who follow the rules gain job skills and life skills, they will no longer need the center's benefits, thus providing more attrition. As I mentioned, the centers would provide opportunities other than just child care, such as opportunities for education. I would think that GED study would fit fine in there with those. Also, as mentioned, the centers would provide day care for those in training or school, so day care would be provided for those in GED study. Of course the participants would have to be honestly studying towards their GED and there would be a time limit on how long one gets to complete the course and progress to receiving their GED. I disagree. I am a single woman, and I have no problem keeping my .67 acre yard and house mowed, clean, painted, and beautified...and still work at least 45 hours a week at a full-time job. I imagine that at least 20 or so families (if not more) in each housing project building putting in at least put in 2 hours every couple of weeks would get the job done, and without creating conflict for job attendance. Heck, most of us who work full time fit in more time than that for keeping our homes and lots clean. Here's another fact to wake up to...( this is the way it works in Virginia...I'm not sure about other states) How many women on welfare don't even know who the father of their child is? Or...even if they do, state they don't know who it is on their applications? They get the welfare without a blink of an eye. Those women who know who the father is and state his name on their application, are often denied benefits if there is a court order on file ordering the father to pay child support. It doesn't matter if said father isn't actually making the CS payments. If there is a court order for payments, those payments are included in the custodial parent's "income"...thus often disqualifying her from benefits. Real fair, eh? Those who had children within marriage, or who at least can identify the father, are penalized while those who are so irresponsible with creating a child that they can't or won't identify the father, are rewarded. It's time to stop rewarding irresponsible, anti-social behavior. It's time to stop excusing it away.
I think the poll is interesting. The commentary is not in sync with the poll. The commentary on the thread has become how the system is broken, not whether one should have to look for a job while collecting welfare. Welfare is necessary and a good program, but not as it has morphed. It was designed as a sort of insurance program (I pay some and my employer pays some) to bridge people during times of unemployment, but to Oy's point the Dems have made it into a cash cow for some people and a vote getter as a result.
Magnolia, you wanted an example. And Mordorboy and Oy should read this too. I am linking you to the Bills page first so Mordorboy & Oy can see the changes which brought the current delemma are not there buy democratic hands. This bill was pushed by the republicans. I don't care which party did it but I'm tired of you "party extremists" muddering idiocy and passing blame before doing some research. One extremist says it and the other believes it. You guys are really something. For the Wacko's: Note the "Sponser" and then investigate the related bills for the truth. Magnolia, click on the "Text of Legislation" then click on the link at the end of line #5 for the Act and the changes it made. http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=104-193
No offense, but the link at the end of line #5 contains a whole heck of a lot of other links. Can you be more specific of which one you want me to look at that constitutes an example?
The whole thing is all the last changes made to the welfare program. Those are all sections to the bill. If you were really interested in finding the truth you would have scanned a few of the subtitles for changes. Isn't this typical that someone must hand feed those who don't know but want to compain before gaining topical knowledge. Here are 2 changes which reduced the ability of many who really need welfare. SEC. 1120. VEHICLE ALLOWANCE. `(iv) subject to subparagraph (C), any licensed vehicle that is used for household transportation or to obtain or continue employment to the extent that the fair market value of the vehicle exceeds $4,600 through September 30, 1996, and $4,650 beginning October 1, 1996; and `(v) any savings or retirement account (including an individual account), regardless of whether there is a penalty for early withdrawal. Your earning minimum wage and your driving a $5000 car to work, which right now is not a lot of car. Till you sell the car your not eligable. No car ... no work !! Why should I work? Sell the car and start collecting !! It's a stupid system, it only grows recipients which find manipulation of the system is the only method to stay above water. The fact that you can't have any savings is dumb. Making a person totally reduce themselves to "destitutute" before eligability is crazy. If I have $500 in savings and I have to wipe it out so my kids can eat for 2 months while I get back on my feet is nuts. Let these people have some dignity and the ability to save some money while getting back on their feet. "NO" savings is stupid, make a maximum number they can have.
SSI is for people with long term disabitlties not short term.. so what about the ones that have a short term disability?
In your other post you stated: "I am linking you to the Bills page first so Mordorboy & Oy can see the changes which brought the current delemma are not there buy democratic hands. This bill was pushed by the republicans. I don't care which party did it but I'm tired of you "party extremists" muddering idiocy and passing blame before doing some research. One extremist says it and the other believes it. You guys are really something." Well, looking at your excerpt, it talks about cars valued through September 30, 1996, and $4,650 beginning October 1, 1996 Hmmmm....not by democratic hands, eh? Who was president about the time these changes were made? If I remember correctly, it was Bill Clinton who took great pleasure in taking credit for Welfare changes. Prove it was "pushed" by the Republicans. If you have the car, why can't you work? Oh, I get it. You think my tax dollars should pay for someone else's living expenses so that they can have a savings account? Right. What don't you understand about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? You are responsible for paying for yourself. And that means using your savings if needed. Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to have other people pay your way so you can have the luxury of a savings account? :roll:
By the way, smart-ass...it's bad form to provide a link to a hundred links that have a hundred links...and tell someone to find a little bit of info in there somewhere to support your statements. It reeks of being obtuse and lazy. It's up to you to provide substantiation of your point. It's not up to others to hunt through the muck to find it for you. Learn to debate properly or hang it up.
Wow, so my Mazda that has driven me to two jobs for over two years that's worth $2500 isn't good enough for welfare recepients? And yeah, you should have to deplete your savings to go welfaring.
Hmmm. All this intelligent discourse and the OPs are nowhere to be found. I mean, it was a real, valid question...right? :?
Yes it is a real valid question. I have stated how I felt and now I am reading what others are posting. Sheesh some of us don't have to have a post every 2 seconds.
The short term disability insurance policy only pays 2/3 of the average salary after a waiting period of 1-2 weeks, which in many cases is not sufficient to prevent financial crisis.
