PDA

View Full Version : Welfare were do you stand ?


Grumpy
06-22-2009, 05:15 PM
Were do you stand on this. Should people be allowed to stay at home collecting checks without trying to better themselves ?

Should there be a limit as to how many children are supported to stop some from constantly popping them out to increase their take home pay ?

Thoughts ? Rants ?

Grumpy

Twodogs
06-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Did you see what one of Obama's first "acts" was. Repealing some deal that required female recipients to do a work search. I'll look up the facts for the doubters later. I guess they need to stay home and "mother" the little buggers.

Grumpy
06-22-2009, 06:59 PM
The only thing they will do if allowed to stay at home is reproduce..

Twodogs
06-22-2009, 07:07 PM
Yep, that's how they get their raises. I work in the city occasionally and will go to a burger joint or the like for lunch, and it never ceases to amaze me how many able bodied "people" are in there that are obviously NOT working. Not unless they have a job that allows them to wear their pants around their ankles, and display gang sign shit. Funny thing though, they allways order better shit than I do. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of them have a women with a passle of youngins sittin in a section 8 somewhere.:mad:

soundhound
06-22-2009, 10:22 PM
our country's welfare system in totally screwed, no doubt about it. i live in an area where i'd be hard pressed to say what percentage of the population is receiving some sort of benefits, but would not hesitate to say it's well over half.

and when i see some fat, nasty woman in the grocery store, pushing two buggies slap full of meat, with at least 5 kids running around the store, unsupervised, it definitely makes me angry.

i've sat behind teenaged girls in high school and overheard them talking about having another baby so they would get a bigger check. on more than several occasions.

unfortunately, you just can't cut of the welfare. if suddenly the checks stopped coming, there would be anarchy. all the people who could no longer receive support would NOT go out and find jobs, they would start breaking into houses and businesses.

and you almost can't blame them for not working. there are certainly not any good jobs available to them, mostly due to their lack of skills and education. and if they take a low-wage job, their benefits get cut, and they suffer financially. they are better off drawing benefits!

sad thing is, it's the children who suffer. they come into the world dependent on government aid. they are raised by people who are dependent on government aid. they are surrounded by people who are dependent on government aid. it's no surprise that they wind up receiving benefits themselves.

there are no simple solutions, but i have a couple of ideas. one, any person receiving benefits should have to perform community service in exchange. there are plenty of things that local governments are paying people to do that welfare recipients could take care of, if nothing more than picking up trash. two, you have to educate them. if they can't get a job because they lack skills, then provide them with skills.

to quote an old addage: give a man a fish and feed him for a day. teach a man to fish and feed him for life.

merrylander
06-23-2009, 07:40 AM
One question, do you really think you can raise a child on what they pay out? I will admit that there are women out there stupid enough to think they can but perhaps we should have educated them better than we have.

noonereal
06-23-2009, 02:58 PM
The image of welfare and the reality of it seem to never cross paths.

Personally I am thankful I don't have to live as people on welfare live.

Grumpy
06-23-2009, 03:01 PM
Its a game that some play in big metro areas. How much can they milk from the goberment without ever lifting a finger or breaking a sweat.

Years and years spent living in slum conditions raising children, popping out kid after kid to support themselves. The ones who suffer are the children. Not to mention they grow up knowing nothing other then how to milk the system and be just like their babys mother.

noonereal
06-23-2009, 03:13 PM
Its a game that some play in big metro areas. How much can they milk from the goberment without ever lifting a finger or breaking a sweat.

Years and years spent living in slum conditions raising children, popping out kid after kid to support themselves. The ones who suffer are the children. Not to mention they grow up knowing nothing other then how to milk the system and be just like their babys mother.


This takes place in the metro areas you say.....:rolleyes:

Grumpy
06-23-2009, 03:24 PM
Takes place everywhere. More so in the larger metro areas. Smart ass ! :)

noonereal
06-23-2009, 03:59 PM
LMAO!!!!!!!!!

That is the best reply I have had here, thanks.

Clearly I think much different than most posters here, what ya gonna do.;)

merrylander
06-24-2009, 07:35 AM
The whole historical reasons why government got involved in welfare makes for interesting reading. Growing up in a small town in Quebec, it was started by my uncle and another gentleman, we did not have 'welfare'. When one of our neighbours got into difficulty everyone pitched in and haelped. It was just what you did, no questions asked.

In bigger cities life was more impersonal and it fell to various organizations to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, many of these organizations were of a religious nature and tended to only help their own kind.

This was where government stepped in, but begrudgingly and so did a half-assed job of it. As has been noted above regarding fishes and fishing, they gave out the fishes but not the lessons in how to fish. Sometimes to do a job right it takes $$$ and the pols did not want to spend the $$$.

wajobu
06-24-2009, 12:14 PM
Work-fare not welfare.

merrylander
06-24-2009, 02:22 PM
Oh right, I believe everyone should (be able to) work.:rolleyes:

Brett A
06-24-2009, 02:42 PM
The image of welfare and the reality of it seem to never cross paths.
QFT

Civil societies have always taken care of their most vulnerable citizens. With that sentiment, I'm all for some kind of safety net.

The current system is a cluster f&ck with plenty of abusers (Can you blame them though? When have you passed on an easy give-away?) But it is small thinking to assume that all recipients are undeserving.

I bet we could purge the truly undeserving from the roles, fund more careful screening and oversight for those who truly need help, and still save a lot of money.

I think thought that we should start by purging companies off corporate welfare and wasteful military contracts. They are truly less deserving.

OvenMaster
06-27-2009, 10:06 PM
Depends on where you live. Me, I'm in MA. There are some mighty tough restrictions on what used to be called "welfare".
First of all, there's a five-year lifetime limit. After you use it up, you're out. Done. No more.
Second, "welfare" is only a couple hundred dollars a month, tops... not usually enough to cover rent, never mind food, fuel, electricity, etc. And you can ONLY get it if you have dependent children and practically zero assets. If you're a couple without kids, or single and truly down on their luck, it's "No check for you!"
Third, there are food stamp programs, but you're automatically enrolled in job search and training programs. Good luck with that and a shitty economy!

There are people whose unemployment benefits have run out and there are no places to turn except homeless shelters or doubling up with relatives. I'm with Brett that there should be ways that truly deserving people should get the help they need while the system abusers should get the boot.

http://www.massresources.org/massachusetts_welfare_programs_d.html

merrylander
06-28-2009, 07:14 AM
The one that really gripes me is when I see homeless veterans.

A strange thing happened yesterday, I got an invitation from the American legion and a nice certificate supposedly in recognition of my war-time service. Excuse me? They don't come any more 4F than I was/am. Had a namesake who fought for the Union in the civil war but he is long gone.