21,000 Detroiters losing welfare benefits

**gazhekwe** · October-02-11, 09:29 AM

We are cutting it off at whatever period of time, adding up to a lifetime of 4 years. It might be less than a year this time. Why do you think everyone on welfare just gets it and stays on it forever? Why do you think everyone on welfare lets their kids drop out of school? Why do you think all dropouts are from welfare families?

PS If you had ever been on welfare, you'd know it isn't a piece of cake. It is not easy to be on it or stay on it.

**aj3647** · October-02-11, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Yeah, so what plan does Snyder has to provide these people with jobs, or [[to play the angel's advocate) provide these people with transpotration to the few McJobs out there. A Wendy's and Belle Tire hiring on 23 mile and Van Dyke does nothing to help the Detroiters who are hardest hit by these austerity measures.

I don't understand this mentality of "I am entitled to a job within a 10 mile radius of my house. I shouldn't have to move, the jobs should come to ME!"

If you live in Detroit and can't find a job in Detroit, then look elsewhere. And I'm not talking about the burbs, I'm talking about outside the state. Texas, Wyoming, wherever. Throughout the history of this country, people have migrated to where the jobs are, nobody just sat around complaining that the jobs weren't flocking to within walking distance of their house. It's a lot harder to find work when you limit your search to one tiny geographical area.

**iheartthed** · October-02-11, 11:23 AM

I wouldn't be so worried about violent crime and robberies spiking as I would about social unrest. Every capitalist country in the world implements a social welfare system. Why? Because every capitalist country on Earth has a pretty significant wealth disparity between rich and poor. If you want to keep the folks on the bottom from burning down the fucking village then you better at least bother to keep them from starving......

**bailey** · October-02-11, 11:24 AM

Just curious where all the outrage was when Jenny Granholm signed this law into effect in 2007. Oh yeah.... when Democrats do it, it's "reform". When a Republican is in office when the "reform" clock hits midnight....it's evil wall street fat cats kicking children to the wolves.

**iheartthed** · October-02-11, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

Just curious where all the outrage was when Jenny Granholm signed this law into effect in 2007. Oh yeah.... when Democrats do it, it's "reform". When a Republican is in office when the "reform" clock hits midnight....it's evil wall street fat cats kicking children to the wolves.

Well, to be fair, she also didn't just push through a corporate tax restructuring that gave all of the big businesses a big tax break.

**bailey** · October-02-11, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, to be fair, she also didn't just push through a corporate tax restructuring that gave all of the big businesses a big tax break.

apples and oranges. Tax cut or no... that cut off date was coming.

**aj3647** · October-02-11, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't be so worried about violent crime and robberies spiking as I would about social unrest. Every capitalist country in the world implements a social welfare system.

True, but there has to be a proper balance. There has to be moderation. If the pendulum swing too far in favor of social welfare and entitlement programs, namely you have so many people collecting massively generous benefits and far too few people paying in, then what you end up with is Greece.

Look at Greece. That country is a poster child for out-of-control entitlement spending. We need social welfare. We need a safety net. But the simple fact remains that you still have to PAY for those programs. Michigan can't pay anymore. We're in the red. We're deep in the red. Something's gotta give. And for the record, I don't agree with the tax breaks Snyder gave to Big Business, but even if there were no tax cuts, Michigan was going to have to make painful cuts to social programs. It's the same at the federal level. Obama wants to raise taxes to help offset the deficit, which I agree with, but he also recognizes the need for cuts to social spending, namely Medicare and Medicaid. They've just gotten so big and so expensive, it's not sustainable. And many things in Michigan that have been nice to have simply aren't sustainable.

Let's not follow the path that Greece took, look at the mess they're in now.

**gazhekwe** · October-02-11, 11:59 AM

You are lumping entitlements, ie, things we have paid for and are thus entitled to, like Medicare and Social Security, in with social welfare, ie, things we all pay for that help people in need. That is typical of the arguments to "reform" or "eliminate" government programs that assist people. Take "entitlements" out of the mix. This thread is not about "entitlements", it is about welfare, assistance paid for by us all to help people in need. We should realize that those very people in need may indeed have contributed significantly before falling into need. They may well rise to the contributing level again.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Yeah, so what plan does Snyder has to provide these people with jobs, or [[to play the angel's advocate) provide these people with transpotration to the few McJobs out there. A Wendy's and Belle Tire hiring on 23 mile and Van Dyke does nothing to help the Detroiters who are hardest hit by these austerity measures.

It's not the government's job to provide you with a job.

It's going to require effort, dedication, and hard work to find and keep a job. Welfare with a four year cap provides a safety net should you fall, and allows you more than ample time to find a job.

**Detroit_uke** · October-02-11, 12:40 PM

Including Michigan - there are 46 states with either a 48 month or 6o month limit on welfare benefits. Arkansas has a two year limit. There are 3 states left with no cap - Mass., Nebraska and Oregon. So...45 states have had a cap before Michigan - is there this much outrage in those states?

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

We should realize that those very people in need may indeed have contributed significantly before falling into need. They may well rise to the contributing level again.

Yup, and a welfare program with a four year limit more than helps those in need while cutting off those that are content with not working. There's a lot of hard working folks that need welfare, the limit makes sure it's there for those people, and cuts off those that don't try.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit_uke

Including Michigan - there are 46 states with either a 48 month or 6o month limit on welfare benefits. Arkansas has a two year limit. There are 3 states left with no cap - Mass., Nebraska and Oregon. So...45 states have had a cap before Michigan - is there this much outrage in those states?

Very good point. I would also point out that when the voters of Michigan elected all these republicans as well as Snyder, they expected and wanted this kind of common sense reform that still takes care of people, but puts a reasonable lifetime limit on assistance.

Keep in mind, I'm not some kind of right-wing tea party republican. I voted for Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job. If Obama were up against McCain and Palin again I would, hands down, without reservation vote for Obama again.

**antongast** · October-02-11, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

It's the same at the federal level.

No, it isn't. Michigan is required to balance its budget every year, while the federal government is not. In fact, the federal government has access to extraordinarily cheap credit right now. Deficit reduction during a period of high unemployment, nonexistent growth, and near-zero real interest rates on US debt is a completely insane policy objective. Obama should be injecting massive amounts of money into the economy right now, and paying for it in a few years once the economy is in better shape. Cutting spending now is only going to depress the economy further over a longer period of time, and it likely won't even get rid of the deficit, because a crappy economy depresses government revenue and increases demand for social programs.

**Thames** · October-02-11, 12:57 PM

The news has a separate article where they interviewed recipients.

One woman has been collecting for 10+ years because her son was born with special needs.

She said her son is healthy enough now so that she could go back to work, but she’s going to appeal for a work exemption. She said she did that a few years back and won so she’s going to do it again.

If her son is healthy now, why would she fight for another work exemption? Her if child is disabled, then he’s probably on SSI too.

From the article:

“How can they expect for someone who has been out of the work force for 10 years taking care of her son to jump out there and find a job in one month's time?" Dygas, 45, said.”

Why didn’t they ask her what she’s been doing the last ten or 5 or even 2 years to make herself marketable?

If this was supposed to be a sympathetic article, it’s lost on me. She is the poster child for why limits are necessary.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110930/...#ixzz1ZeCqmZZ5

**antongast** · October-02-11, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Thames

Why didn’t they ask her what she’s been doing the last ten or 5 or even 2 years to make herself marketable?

If I'd spent the last ten years taking care of my sick kid full time and somebody asked me what I'd done during that time to "make myself marketable," I would punch them in the face.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

Obama should be injecting massive amounts of money into the economy right now, and paying for it in a few years once the economy is in better shape.

I think the US needs to balance the budget.

However, rich folks need to pay their fair share. All income should be taxed at the same flat rate. No more tax breaks for the rich.

In terms of how we should be spending, I feel that we should be dumping our money into alternative energy and put folks back to work by building wind turbines, hydro dams, and solar farms. This would tackle two problems, short-term jobs, and long-term energy independence.

**Thames** · October-02-11, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

If I'd spent the last ten years taking care of my sick kid full time and somebody asked me what I'd done during that time to "make myself marketable," I would punch them in the face.

She said her child is healthy now. ^^

And yes you can learn new skills, even while caring for the sick.

She had the time to appeal the system and win. That is a full time job in itself.

**antongast** · October-02-11, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

I think the US needs to balance the budget.

In the long term, I agree. But it's a question of timing, and this is just about the worst possible time to try to do it. The smart thing to do would be to wait for the economy to recover, and then run a surplus for a while.

**coracle** · October-02-11, 01:28 PM

I can understand the pain it's going to bring to people that have depended on Welfare payments for more than 4 years; because the speed with which it's being applied is overwhelming. But surely deep down recipients must have always been concerned that they could not go on living forever off the rest of us and giving nothing in return.There are obviously some special need cases that cannot exist without it and they must be catered for, but those that can do stuff should be persuaded to do stuff. Maybe for a while they could be put back on Welfare in return for 40 hours per week doing tasks in their cities like grass cutting and snow removal or learning something to ease the transfer to becoming contributors.The root problem is that their ranks continue to grow and we don't hear of many coming off Welfare by choice; although there must be some.
I'm in agreement with the objectives but I think it's being done with undue haste. Like all social programs when somebody is giving out money they didn't have to earn it's always inclusive rather than exclusive to those that apply because there's no incentive to stop spending money that's not theirs. We need to make sure that Welfare monies go to the those that are unable to live without it and not to anyone that qualifies by wanting it.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

In the long term, I agree. But it's a question of timing, and this is just about the worst possible time to try to do it. The smart thing to do would be to wait for the economy to recover, and then run a surplus for a while.

You do have a good point. I just hate to put it off any more. That's why I do like the balanced approach Obama is taking of making cuts, and raising taxes.

I totally disagree with the Tea-Party holding the debt-ceiling increases hostage. The time to argue about spending is when you're passing a budget. You don't pass a budget, but then not raise the debt ceiling. I'd like to see us switch over so that passing a deficit budget implies a raise of the debt ceiling.

**313WX** · October-02-11, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

It's not the government's job to provide you with a job.

I never said it was.

But it is the government's job to get money circulating throughout the state [[if you want businesses to open up), and you can't do that if most of your citizens are strapped for cash.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I never said it was.

But it is the government's job to get money circulating throughout the state [[if you want businesses to open up), and you can't do that if most of your citizens are strapped for cash.

Yes, but 41,000 people are not most people. Only one half of one percent of Michigan's residents are effected by the 4-year limit on welfare. That's 0.004%.

This change will effect people, but not not a very large percentage. Once again, this isn't the elimination of welfare, it's a four year cap that I think makes total sense. We're stilling helping people, but with common sense limits.

**gazhekwe** · October-02-11, 02:35 PM

There has been a movement among employers/recruiters to exclude the unemployed from the application process. Monster.com had a restriction against unemployed applicants. A grassroots effort persuaded them to remove the restriction, but that does nothing to stop employers from just disregarding the applicants who are unemployed if they so choose.

**Big Dog** · October-02-11, 02:44 PM

41% of the US population is below the poverty level. There are few jobs. Let's get rid of helping the poor, so it gets to be 61%. Wrong picture, me thinks.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

There has been a movement among employers/recruiters to exclude the unemployed from the application process. Monster.com had a restriction against unemployed applicants. A grassroots effort persuaded them to remove the restriction, but that does nothing to stop employers from just disregarding the applicants who are unemployed if they so choose.

I've been a part of an employee search and we have not excluded people based on being unemployed. If we really like their resume, we bring them in. If they've been unemployed the last six months then we ask them why. If they say, "my company downsized\outsourced, etc..." it still would only be a small factor in the overall decision.

At the company I work for if someone has the skills they can get a job, regardless of whether or not they are currently employed.

But I do agree with you that employment gaps do undoubtedly lengthen the amount of time it will take you to find a job.