Gov. Synder wants welfare cuts!

[Detroit_uke]

The states with no time limits are: Massachusetts, Oregon and Nebraska.

[English]

In another state. Cutting welfare has been a slow back and forth game between states for a while. The state that gets the most welfare recipients off its rolls and preferably moving out of the state wins.

This. And the race to the bottom in the U.S. of A. continues. God bless America.

[English]

I don't disagree that welfare reform is needed - and those milking the system have to go. Yet Exxon can get away with pay $0 in federal taxes in 2009 and no one bats an eye, Fannie and Freddie will cost us $154,000,000,000 and nobody gives a shit, but some poor son of a bitch collecting a few hundred dollars a month is an affront to the Almighty. Priorities, I guess.

And yeah, there are plenty of low-lifes who don't want to work, or as I have encountered more often, have no idea how to work, behave, dress, or perform in a professional environment. That comes undoubtedly from generations of poverty. No excuse, but I guess if no one in your family has ever had a real job it doesn't really help your chances.

" Or, you can go and get a 40 hour a week job and only get a little bit more money that you would have on welfare."
Of course, people can just walk out of their houses and get 40 hour a week jobs. I mean, this is Michigan after all. If you are privy to where in Michigan people can just go and get full time jobs, you can sell it and get rich. I can tell you it ain't Wendy's. I'm pretty sure you're just sadly deluded.

Of course there are things like fast food jobs, but look at the ghetto - there are rarely even those anymore. To reach those, the perpetual underclass often need to catch a couple buses to the suburbs, and we all know how well-funded and reliable our transportation system is. That is, if it even exists in your community, since many have opted out.

So guess where are a bunch of poor, desperate wretches going to go? Look forward to getting pistol whipped in your driveway. Coming to a suburb near you! And you'll wonder why.

Thanks -- my sentiments exactly. Specifically the bolded. Sure, we can tell people "TRY HARDER!" but in some cases, it takes a Herculean effort to rise out of poverty. We laud the successes often because they are the exception that proves the rule.

[Zacha341]

Interesting points. I wonder how organizations like NSO [[Neighborhood Services Organization), United Way, The Urban League etc. are going to be able to respond to this? Many of them have their own problems with reduced fiduciaries and other funding cuts? How will this impact Section 8 funding...?

And yes, thanks for the reminder that welfare reform has been a part of the democratic agenda too... to think otherwise is to believe that the 'changes' in education started under Snyder when they clearly were underway full swing under Granholm. So long as we ascribe to the low-hanging fruit politic that the DEMS give us the goodies and the Repubs take stuff away we're going to keep voting these folks in!

Heck even the conservatives got a 'surprise' with Snyder's "schools of choice" mandate! Which to them was hardly 'conservative' like!

Sure, the republican agenda is in large big business oriented. Got that, but so is it on the dem side, just being more oblique about it while pandering to the poor with unsustainable entitlements for votes. The 'assumed', and prescribe political behaviors and policy making will continue to shift and become more unpredictable - onward.

#1... there are already measures in place to cushion the blow for those truely in need:
The Department of Human Resources is scheduling appointments with affected families to extend housing and job placement assistance for three months to those actively seeking employment.

Further exempt from the time limits are those:
who have a disability and are unable to work, those caring for a disabled spouse or child, those who are 65 and older who receive little or no Social Security benefits. Victims of domestic violence that required the assistance of law enforcement may also be temporarily exempted.

Then, of course, there is this:
Recipients who lose cash benefits will remain eligible for food assistance, Medicaid health care, child care and emergency services. DHS Director Maura Corrigan said the agency is partnering with non-profit groups to provide recipients with a “soft landing” during the transition.

Oh yeah... and there is this little item that is conveniently ignored by so many:
The four-year limit was first signed into law in 2006 by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm...

[Zacha341]

^^^ My concern is that we may end up with more vast areas becoming 'tent city' like in California. But unlike Cali we have a brutal weather thing called 'winter'...

The 'state' is pushing back: people will have to respond more communally. More people drawing together sharing resources including housing... otherwise this is going to be very ugly.

[Zacha341]

Yep, well stated.... especially as the middle class slides downward in the 'race to the bottom' march...

Thanks -- my sentiments exactly. Specifically the bolded. Sure, we can tell people "TRY HARDER!" but in some cases, it takes a Herculean effort to rise out of poverty. We laud the successes often because they are the exception that proves the rule.

[lilpup]

^^^ My concern is that we may end up with more vast areas becoming 'tent city' like in California. But unlike Cali we have a brutal weather thing called 'winter'...

There's been a tent city in Ann Arbor for quite some time now. Every so often they've been forced to move but they just find a new space and set up again.

[Zacha341]

What do they do when it gets 'kill you' cold? Does A2 operate homeless shelters/ warming centers? Are these families or individuals primary to their 'tent cities'?

There's been a tent city in Ann Arbor for quite some time now. Every so often they've been forced to move but they just find a new space and set up again.

[Scottathew]

So guess where are a bunch of poor, desperate wretches going to go? Look forward to getting pistol whipped in your driveway. Coming to a suburb near you! And you'll wonder why.

I hope they get shot :-)

No matter how poor I get I would never resort to violence and thuggery.

People seem to forget that the government should not be your support system. Whatever a government can give you, it can take away.

However, if you empower yourself and don't rely on the government, then it's not an issue.

Also, take a look at our country's definition of "poor". We're talking cell phones, cable TV, and enough food to cause diabetes and morbid obesity.

I've seen a lot of "poor" folks. They don't look like they've missed too many meals.

[Scottathew]

This. And the race to the bottom in the U.S. of A. continues. God bless America.

I know. It's a shame we expect people to try. To work hard. To earn what they get. After all, it's not their fault.

It's a race to the bottom when we expect people to actually work for a living instead of having kids so they can get more welfare money.

[oldredfordette]

Demonization and hatred of the poor continues.

[bailey]

No.... I don't seem to recall that specific law implemented 5 years ago.... actually I'm at a loss to remember ANY specific laws implemented in 2006... I''m sure the various layers of government passed many laws that year that were hadly more than a blip on the radar....

Then again, I may have been in the Hamptons with my Bridge Card that week.....

I don't understand the joke. are you saying that Granholm DIDN'T sign in limits in 2006?

Then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signed a bill that created a four-year limit starting in 2007. But that law exempted many welfare recipients, including those whose caseworkers said they were making progress toward finding employment

So, here were are FOUR years after Granholm's limits were implemented and many of those exemptions are preserved here but just more strictly enforced. So one can, conceivably, receive these benefits for well over 48 months. but yeah.. it's heartless corporate welfare giving republicans kicking widows and orphans to the curb.

Demonization and hatred of the poor continues.

I'm just curious how many years of money taken from your pay to pay for others NOT to work are people comfortable with? When does public assistance become a lifestyle choice?

Personally I feel 4 years is more than enough. not to be cliche but there is a difference between a hand up and a hand out. Too much of our welfare system encourages status quo.

[Ravine]

Demonization and hatred of the poor continues.

Yep. That's what I was wondering: just what the hell are those folks supposed to do? It's not like every last one of them is a no-good malingering freeloader who has no justification for being on the dole. What's the implication? "Maybe you should just die, or something?"
And yet, Assisted Suicide is taboo.
Christ Alfuckingmighty.

[DetroitPole]

[[Very good post)

But there's the problem. Some people are motivated to get a job and get into the workforce.

However, other folks will see that they are no better off working. Working 40 hours gets them in the same place as they were when they didn't try.

Thus, reform is the only way.

Personally, I would rather see it eliminated. Your family should be your support structure, not your government.

What if you don't have a family? What if your family is just as bad/worse off than you? What if your family is depending on YOU? What if your family is the negative influence you are trying to rise above?

A lot of questions that you don't seem to have encountered on your journey but millions of people are facing. People do not come from the same [[apparently) fortunate circumstances that you did, which you do not seem to understand.

Most of my family is dead. I'll see if I can hang out on their plots if I fall upon hard times. Thanks for the advice.

[Scottathew]

What if you don't have a family? What if your family is just as bad/worse off than you? What if your family is depending on YOU? What if your family is the negative influence you are trying to rise above?

Then approach a charity.

Let's let charities give out charity.

Giving people money doesn't help them. Charities don't give out money, they give food, clothing, and in some cases provide shelter.

Why?

Because when you give poor people money they convert it into lottery tickets, alcohol and cigarettes.


How about a compromise: You can't be on welfare for more then 12 months in a row or a combined total of 12 months during the last 10 years. If you hit either condition you're cut off.

[Detroitnerd]

Some of you hosers just won't be happy until the New Deal is fully repealed and we are living in the 19th century again. I so wish you would all move to Guatemala right now and enjoy the paradise you'd have our children live in -- all by yourselves.

[bailey]

Some of you hosers just won't be happy until the New Deal is fully repealed and we are living in the 19th century again. I so wish you would all move to Guatemala right now and enjoy the paradise you'd have our children live in -- all by yourselves.

funny when it was Granholms administration these limits were seen as responsible reforms....but now that it's Snyder its all about hating the poor/class warfare. the irony....it burns.

[Detroitnerd]

funny when it was Granholms administration these limits were seen as responsible reforms....but now that it's Snyder its all about hating the poor/class warfare. the irony....it burns.

I can't stand people who figger, well, if you disagree with me, then you're just from the other party, so I'll start talking about what I perceive to be your party and then -- hahahaha -- I got you!

Sorry, bailey. I am an independent voter, and was no fan of Granholm.

Aww, too bad. Now you have to talk about the actual issues instead of snickering on one side of the aisle or the other.

[jcole]

Then approach a charity.

Let's let charities give out charity.

Giving people money doesn't help them. Charities don't give out money, they give food, clothing, and in some cases provide shelter.

Why?

Because when you give poor people money they convert it into lottery tickets, alcohol and cigarettes.


How about a compromise: You can't be on welfare for more then 12 months in a row or a combined total of 12 months during the last 10 years. If you hit either condition you're cut off.

"Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why? "

[Scottathew]

LOL, if I am a scrooge then so be it. I'm just rather weary of people making a living off of doing nothing, while making no attempts to get a job or do anything with their life other than have more kids so they can get more money.

How did this country survive back when people had no government safety net at all?

[Detroitnerd]

LOL, if I am a scrooge then so be it. I'm just rather weary of people making a living off of doing nothing, while making no attempts to get a job or do anything with their life other than have more kids so they can get more money.

There are some canards in there. For instance, the idea that anybody would have more kids so the "eagle shits more money." This has been debunked before. Maybe, some foolish young person did that for the first child; if so, they would be quickly disabused of the folklore by the harsh reality.

If you want to demand that people contribute to society if they get government money, what of the billions of dollars of government money that go to corporations that offshore jobs, pollute unfairly, discriminate unjustly, and harm the national economy by not paying fair taxes? What of the "farmers" who earn millions by making two phone calls a year? What about all the bankers who crashed their firms and then were bailed out by the public?

No, let us not discuss these wholesale criminals. Let us keep knocking the little people who take from us retail. So they can eat?

[One Shot]

I thought he wanted a monument?


Surprised that commercial hasn't been talked about yet! Moroun at his best.

[bailey]

I can't stand people who figger, well, if you disagree with me, then you're just from the other party, so I'll start talking about what I perceive to be your party and then -- hahahaha -- I got you!

Sorry, bailey. I am an independent voter, and was no fan of Granholm.

Aww, too bad. Now you have to talk about the actual issues instead of snickering on one side of the aisle or the other.

Ok...lets talk about the actual issue. Answer my question posted above. How many years is enough? 10? 25? life time?

[Detroitnerd]

Ok...lets talk about the actual issue. Answer my question posted above. How many years is enough? 10? 25? life time?

Well, considering that 70 percent of the American economy is consumer-driven, guaranteed lifetime benefits seem like a good Keynesian solution to some of our woes. Anyway, living on welfare sucks. People don't choose welfare over jobs. Stop offshoring jobs. End a few wars. Nationalize a few banks. We could save trillions on the big-ticket items and maybe stop sniping at the little guys.

[Jimaz]

From today's Free Press: Brian Dickerson: The poor? They're leaving Michigan, too

To hear state Rep. Ken Horn tell it, the four-year limit on cash assistance that Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law this week is just what's needed to stop the stampede of unemployed people pouring into Michigan from other states with less-generous welfare benefits....

Between 2008 and 2009, for instance, when 43,778 people with incomes of less than $15,000 moved to Michigan from other states, another 63,689 in the same income range checked out.

Karen Holcomb-Merrill, policy director for the Michigan League for Human Services, says Michigan has actually witnessed one of the nation's larger decreases in cash-assistance cases over the past few years.

Between October 2007 and October 2010, Holcomb-Merrill said, Michigan saw a 3.7% decrease in its caseload -- the 11th-highest reduction in the nation and the second highest in the Midwest. Only Minnesota had a larger caseload reduction [[-12.1%). Iowa [[7.2%), Illinois [[20.2%), Ohio [[30.2%) and Wisconsin [[37.8%) all had caseload increases between 2007 and 2010.

Michigan's caseload dropped an additional 3.5% from October 2010 to March 2011. Former Democratic state Sen. Gilda Jacobs, currently president and CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services, says declining welfare caseloads refute Horn's assertion that Michigan had become a magnet for the poor.

"There are not people moving here to get benefits," said Gilda Jacobs, the former Democratic state senator who now serves as president of the League of Human Services. "That's a myth."...

But what of the census data and caseload figures from the Department of Human Services? I asked Horn. Could he point to any quantitative evidence to support his contention that Michigan was seeing a disproportionate in-migration of work-averse citizens?

"No," Horn conceded.

Why does this particular issue attract so much deception? Is it just greed? Hatred? Both?