21,000 Detroiters losing welfare benefits

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Big Dog

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.

Wow, that's a very high level. We need to reexamine how we define poverty.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...rty-in-America

- Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. [[These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

My point, we're not defining poverty correctly.

**Patrick** · October-02-11, 02:56 PM

Ok, so where are these people gonna go? What are they going to do?

**Thames** · October-02-11, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"You believe that people want to be poor? To live paycheck to paycheck or welfare payment to welfare payment?

Well that's how we live.[[ the paycheck to paycheck part). You say that like that's a bad thing. I'm just glad I can still do it.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Ok, so where are these people gonna go? What are they going to do?

The beauty of America is that they are free to do, or not do what they want. The government does not control it citizens.

Once again, we're not just cutting people off, we're only cutting off people that have received 4 years or more of assistance.

**Patrick** · October-02-11, 03:30 PM

Freedom is a mirage in this country.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Freedom is a mirage in this country.

Freedom will be a mirage when the government is responsible for where you work, how much money you get, etc...

Freedom is the choice to either go out there and get a job, or continue to take assistance until it runs out.

Folks may make their choice, and I wish them all the best of luck.

**Patrick** · October-02-11, 03:44 PM

Freedom is the choice to either go out there and get a job

Go where? And what are these "jobs" you are speaking of?

**Jimaz** · October-02-11, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Freedom is a mirage in this country.

... and a rapidly vanishing one at that—and on so many varied fronts beyond just the topic of this thread. There seems to be less effort to maintain the illusion too. That's what worries me. The parasitic saboteurs in power seem very confident that they don't even need to disguise their assaults anymore. Perhaps they're prepared to hand the matter over to the increasingly militarized police.

**gazhekwe** · October-02-11, 07:46 PM

So, if you were doing OK and had your house with AC, DW and microwave, then all of a sudden all hell bust loose and your company shut down and you lost the job you expected to retire from, then found the industry bankrupt and you couldn't find a job anywhere, your unemployment ran out and you are scraping by on odd jobs, you aren't poor? What would you call it, Warren?

**Novine** · October-02-11, 08:24 PM

"Wow, that's a very high level. We need to reexamine how we define poverty."

In your mind, the problem isn't that so many people might be below the poverty line, it's that the line has been set too low. Maybe you should ask why so many people are in that condition.

As for the joke of a list from the Heritage Foundation, using their logic, the poor in America should be happy and content because they're not drinking polluted water from a stream used as a communal bathroom as exists in parts of the third world. Isn't it amazing that people have a DVD player! They're so pricey! A microwave oven? Don't you have to be wealthy to afford one of those? People are giving away microwaves on Craigslist. You can buy a brand new DVD player at Best Buy for $35. Poor people own a house? How can they afford to own a house? A car? They can afford to own a car? They can't be poor! Never mind that you can find thousands of people living in homes in Detroit in conditions that no one would choose to live in. Same with people driving cars that shouldn't be on the road but that people continue to drive because they can't afford to be without one.

Do you live in some kind of bubble? You really need to get out and interact with real people living in real poverty and get a reality check on this life of leisure you imagine they live. If your view of American poverty is from an article from the Heritage Foundation, you don't have a clue about what it's like.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

In your mind, the problem isn't that so many people might be below the poverty line, it's that the line has been set too low. Maybe you should ask why so many people are in that condition.

I don't even know what the Heritage Foundation is. I just Google searched for stats that support my position and posted them.

People in so called "poverty" still have many of the luxuries my family takes for granted. The only difference is that in situations where those luxuries were granted via "government assistance" that those folks got a free ride to the same comforts I have worked for.

If you want to see real poverty take a look around the world. Some of our people in poverty have diabetes from eating themselves into oblivion while they watch their cable television and DON'T work.

Poverty in America isn't that bad. And yes, I don't want to be poor. That's why my wife and I choose to finish high school, go to college, we waited until our mid-20's to have kids, we don't smoke or drink, nor do we participate in a long laundry list of expensive things.

My wife and I have actively chosen not to be poor. My wife grew up poor on a farm. Her family at times was getting food stamps. Her parents did not pay for her to go to college. My wife, despite growing up in a household where her parents divorced and left her to raise herself decided that she wanted something better for herself. She moved out of her parents houses and into her Aunt's house where she finished high school. She marched right on through to college. She got a job because of her degree. And with the money from her job she got her masters, all before the age of 25. She did this WITHOUT the help of her parents, and with some funding help that was available for college for her families' income bracket.

My point is, poverty isn't that bad, and if you don't want to live in so called "American poverty" then you can make your own darn choices and get out of it. Getting a GED requires effort but is worth it. Community college might cut into the budget for some of your luxuries, but getting an associate's degree costs more time than money.

The days of factory jobs that make you rich are over. If you want to have more things in life you need to work harder, spend less, and make wise choices.

When you drop out of high school, have kids in your teenage years, don't go on to college, and then live off the dole, then guess what, you have chosen poverty for yourself through all of your poor choices. That's not to say some people don't end up in poverty through unfortunate circumstance, but the majority of folks are poor because they had parents that didn't teach them how not to be poor, or didn't make the active choices themselves to choose a different path.

If you don't want to be poor, then live the gosh darn American dream and make the right choices.

**gazhekwe** · October-02-11, 08:51 PM

The only difference is that in situations where those luxuries were granted via "government assistance" that those folks got a free ride to the same comforts I have worked for.

On what do you base this assumption, that YOU paid for THEIR luxuries? Do you not realize that many people who receive assistance already had those things when they fell into hardship? What are they supposed to do? Leave their house and move into the streets to make you feel better? You are really clueless, and it is sad that you are not alone in your cluelessness.

**Scottathew** · October-02-11, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

[/I]On what do you base this assumption, that YOU paid for THEIR luxuries? Do you not realize that many people who receive assistance already had those things when they fell into hardship? What are they supposed to do? Leave their house and move into the streets to make you feel better? You are really clueless, and it is sad that you are not alone in your cluelessness.

Remember, this thread is about people who are habitual users of welfare and are now getting cut off due to the four-year lifetime limit in Michigan.

If you've been on the dole for four years, then yes, I and all the other taxpayers have subsidized so called "poverty" [[the kind where STATISTICALLY you have cable TV, a car, multiple TV's, etc...).

I've said in earlier posts that I have no issue with TEMPORARY assistance. TEMPORARY assistance helps you cover your bills until you can get up and going again. But permanent, limitless, ongoing assistance is the kind where your entire life and everything you have is granted through the hard work of other people.

And no, I'm not alone. The voters of Michigan voted representatives into office that would start putting these kind of common-sense limitation into law. And yes, there is a vocal group of people that oppose all these changes, but the silent majority is smiling while we watch fiscal sanity be restored to our state. The silent majority are watching, and smiling as we see so called "recalls" fail to even get enough signatures.

**Jimaz** · October-02-11, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

I don't even know what the Heritage Foundation is....

By that comment alone you unwittingly admitted that your future posts are not even qualified to be read. Thank you for outing yourself thereby saving us all from spending any further time reading what you think is important enough to write.

Sincerely. And I do mean that sincerely.

**Jimaz** · October-02-11, 11:58 PM

It's not about people taking too much. It's about people not giving enough.

**oldredfordette** · October-03-11, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

but the silent majority is smiling while we watch fiscal sanity be restored to our state. The silent majority are watching, and smiling as we see so called "recalls" fail to even get enough signatures.

the silent majority is smiling while children are thrown into abject poverty, smiling while the most vulnerable in our society are allowed to suffer. The silent majority is next on the hit list, do you understand that, Warren zip code person?

**bailey** · October-03-11, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

the silent majority is smiling while children are thrown into abject poverty, smiling while the most vulnerable in our society are allowed to suffer. The silent majority is next on the hit list, do you understand that, Warren zip code person?

Ok, again. how about everyone read the bill before they spew overwrought bullshit. The bill only ends CASH ASSISTANCE TO ABLE BODIED ADULTS. And..that only ends after FOUR YEARS of the benefit.

It will not limit food stamps, child daycare assistance and will not limit access to health care for children. Michigan will still protect its most vulnerable, including senior citizens, pregnant mothers, victims of domestic violence, adults who are physically or mentally incapacitated and adults with a disabled child in the home. Plus, caseworkers will be given some latitude when judging cases, which is particularly important in this first year of the cash cap.

Further, the bill allows for those getting cash assistance to work more hours and STILL KEEP the benefits.

Finally...Michigan was one of only three states that did not have a cap in place. Ohio has a three-year cap. Indiana's is two years.

Seriously people... read then react.

**Scottathew** · October-03-11, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

the silent majority is smiling while children are thrown into abject poverty, smiling while the most vulnerable in our society are allowed to suffer. The silent majority is next on the hit list, do you understand that, Warren zip code person?

What does my zip code have anything to do with this? Because I live in beautiful south Warren I don't get to have an opinion about how my tax dollars are spent?

Furthermore, if children are throw into "abject poverty" [[the kind of poverty where most have cable TV on multiple televisions) after four years of being wholly supported by the government I blame the parents, not the government.

**Zacha341** · October-03-11, 07:49 AM

Point well taken considering there will be many families in Warren affected as well....

Originally Posted by 48091

What does my zip code have anything to do with this? Because I live in beautiful south Warren I don't get to have an opinion about how my tax dollars are spent?

**jiminnm** · October-03-11, 10:29 AM

I have read this thread and there is one question not being addressed by those who think this a bad idea. How long should a government provide welfare? The state has decided it's no more than 4 years. That's 8-10% of what most people would consider to be the length of a person's normal working life. How much is enough?

**bailey** · October-03-11, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

I have read this thread and there is one question not being addressed by those who think this a bad idea. How long should a government provide welfare? The state has decided it's no more than 4 years. That's 8-10% of what most people would consider to be the length of a person's normal working life. How much is enough?

Isn't the answer obvious? Cash benefits should never be cut off ever...for any reason. ever. Anything less than full lifetime support is throwing "children into abject poverty and smiling while the most vulnerable in our society are allowed to suffer."

**Danny** · October-03-11, 11:39 AM

If you all want to change welfare reform, Get democratic control of the Michigan Legislature. Just vote democratic to get rid the republicans serving your district seat then we will get change.

**Scottathew** · October-03-11, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Danny

If you all want to change welfare reform, Get democratic control of the Michigan Legislature. Just vote democratic to get rid the republicans serving your district seat then we will get change.

Excellent suggestion! :-)

**MizMotown** · October-03-11, 11:54 AM

I know someone who knows someone that is being cut off after 16 YEARS. 16 YEARS of no motivation to get a job. Needless to say that the family are squatters with no electricity or heat because the assistance they received was assistance to pay for their DRUG PROBLEMS!

I feel for the folks who REALLY need it but not for a lifetime. I'm not paying for people who refuse to take responsiblity for their lives!

**antongast** · October-03-11, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

I have read this thread and there is one question not being addressed by those who think this a bad idea. How long should a government provide welfare? The state has decided it's no more than 4 years. That's 8-10% of what most people would consider to be the length of a person's normal working life. How much is enough?

I think the difference of opinion in this thread is more fundamental than that. The question isn't "how much is enough?", the question is "given that there will always be some number of people who slip through the cracks of society, what is the most cost-effective way to deal with that problem?" If small monthly payments to each member of that group can keep them from freezing to death in my alley this winter, or turning up at Receiving with third-degree burns from falling asleep on a steam grate, that's an investment I'm willing to make.

Reducing the number of people who end up in long-term poverty situations in the first place is also a worthy goal, and one that should absolutely be addressed. My contention is that it's a separate issue from whether or to what extent welfare benefits should exist, and will require a separate solution. The expectation by some posters in this thread that people whose benefits are cut off will "go out and get jobs" when nothing else about their situation has changed strikes me as completely unrealistic.