Welfare to Work [[FOR REAL)

[canuck]

If not some form of work, why not various forms of educational instruction for those receiving assistance of any kind? Start with a class on basic cooking. Also include classes on economic literacy [[aka personal money management), nutrition, and health. If only 20 percent of the attendees at such instructional classes get something out of it that impacts their lives, that's a positive step for one and all.

That's what my canucky self thinks. Just the idea of connecting with a group outside the usual unstructured mess a lot of people are in is a plus, not a minus.

I think many people would benefit from instruction in money, nutrition and health as you say. A lot of people need to be taken out of their circumstances just to get a distance from the sickening noise of dumb advertizing, dumb TV and internet. If talented and caring instructors can rally families around sanity and discuss alternatives to the garbage of a popular culture based in violence and exploitation, then new starts can effectively be done. And I dont mean anything like "Intervention".

[JBMcB]

Do you know a lot of people who collect government transfer payments and laze around all day?

I personally know maybe a dozen families who get government assistance of some sort. I'd say two are actively working to get off the subsidies. In one family the wife stopped working because, basically, she didn't like to work. She was working a part-time day job, but she quit. In between dropping the kids off to school she basically does nothing.

Another family has a menagerie of pets, three cars, the full cable TV package, a pool, and just bought themselves a new iPad. They use their assistance check to buy pet food.

I could go on. There's the family who can't afford a lawn mower but they have a mint condition 60's mustang that always has a new muffler or fresh rims. The husband who has been on SSI for years because of a neck injury that prevents him from working, but apparently not from playing league baseball.

I have no problem with welfare. However, if the recipient has no skin in the game, and the distributors don't care about enforcement [[a few of these families were called on their abuses and the agencies did nothing) then abuse will be rampant.

I'm all for these programs being used as a safety net. We need to make sure they aren't being used as hammock.

[Chinman]

Please Tell me that any of YOU have applied for Welfare or EVEN tried for ANY Government Program . Shut up until YOU know what it takes and What is needed to have THAT NEED!!!

[Chinman]

I was near the point of losing my house . if it was not for unemployment...which I Paid taxes into... why can't I use those Monies to keep me afloat?

[Danny]

Having people living on government cheese to seek community service would be on excellent ideal for those who are physically fit. What about those who are physically disabled? Would they be able to work to keep their benefits? Before any welfare reform bill passes, the physical well being of the person must be debated and carefully planned.

[Danny]

This is forced indentured servitude, plain and simple. The GOP, from it's high moral perch, gets to pass judgment on who is "deserving". Then force the underserving "lazy" bastards into the system of cheap and free labor they've been recreating since the days of St. Ronald of Simi Valley. They're not going to be happy until we're all toiling away on their plantations.

Several Southern states, including Georgia and I believe South Carolina, have tried to muster similar ideas, tying "volunteer" hours to unemployment benefits. The problem is, all of the time spent "volunteering" is not being spent brushing up the resume, looking for a job, furthering education, developing skills, conducting interviews, etc. It's a vicious cycle, and these GOP bastards know it.

Then they'll go an tell you how they dislike "big government". What a crock.

Tell that to the rich and middle class folks when they work harder, smarter and pay their taxes. Those on welfare and food stamps need to work, too.

[Scottathew]

Some folks have argued "slavery", but I would simply point out that if you don't want to do the work, then don't take the money.

I would love to see a program that takes people on welfare, gets them active and engaged, and perhaps even give them something that they can put on their resume.

Whether or not this program will do that, we'll have to see.

[Wesley Mouch]

This thread has been an eye-opener for me.

The vehement arguments that welfare is an absolute right with no goals attached because the recipients must be treated with respect are not something I can understand.

Anyone out there have a logical argument -- not just a 'oh, its an attack'?

Clinton's [[D) welfare reforms seem to have done well. Why is debate about reform 'off the table' to some?

[Det_ard]

I've worked with a number of local community-based organizations that help those in need. Most of the leaders, people from the Detroit community, aren't thrilled about the culture of dependency that exists and is perpetuated by the handout programs. In fact, some of the organizations they run require some effort be put forth in order for benefits to be received. That's in the best long-term interest of the recipient.

Then you have the two white middle-class guilt-ridden liberals on this thread. It seems their love of unfettered welfare is aimed more at sticking it to the rich man than at helping the poor man.

[Wesley Mouch]

I've worked with a number of local community-based organizations that help those in need. Most of the leaders, people from the Detroit community, aren't thrilled about the culture of dependency that exists and is perpetuated by the handout programs. In fact, some of the organizations they run require some effort be put forth in order for benefits to be received. That's in the best long-term interest of the recipient.

Then you have the two white middle-class guilt-ridden liberals on this thread. It seems their love of unfettered welfare is aimed more at sticking it to the rich man than at helping the poor man.

Ah, your last sentence tells me a lot. Thanks.

I've always wondered why the focus is so often on process, and so little on results. No experimentation. Only follow the alluring idea that money will solve problems. When it doesn't seem that it does. No charter schools. Now I understand that its the hate for the man more than love for the common man.

[Jimaz]

... It seems their love of unfettered welfare is aimed more at sticking it to the poor man than at helping the rich man.

Sometimes inverting a statement tells even more.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Except for people with major demonstable handicaps, there should be no form of public assistance that does not come with a work requirement. If people on public assistance in Detroit, for example, were put in work crews to service our public parks, we'd have the nicest set of parks in the country. There should be an extensive and temporary set of benefits for those that need them, but they come at the cost of: 20 hours a week working for the public benefit, and at least as much time working for your own benefit [[going back to school, taking parenting/home improvement classes, internship, etc). Anyone would be welcome to sign up, but they would know that the benefits run out eventually, and will run out instantly if you don't comply with the rules.

[rex]

not enough jobs left around... The reason people came here in the first place.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sometimes inverting a statement tells even more.

Sometimes. So you buy into the idea that our 'love of the rich man is aimed more at sticking it to the poor'?

Well, as the previous poster said, you can buy into that typically 'guilty rich' school of thought.

I would suggest that there are many 'rich' people who actually do want to help the poor. And they think that asking everyone to help society is noble. And that it helps both the rich and the poor.

So Warren Buffet is rich. Is it evil that he wants to pay more in taxes? How about Soros? Was he evil trying to send black students to South African universities in the 70s? Are they trying to stick it to the poor? I suggest to you that wealth may be an indicator of greed, but it is not grounds to condemn the wealthy nor wealth.

We will be best when we ask all our citizens to engage in supporting our society -- as much as they reasonably can.

[JohnnyFreddy]

I think its a great idea. Too many people living here with entitlement issues. I think everyone should earn what they receive.For some it may be the first step toward getting a job. I just wonder how they'll handle childcare?

Problem is, my friend, where are all these jobs your type keep preaching about...and what is the pay? Just because President Obama has gotten SOME healthcare reform passed [[which, by the way THEY want it revoked/defunded)....doesn't mean it actually covers the poor, because it doesn't, not enough anyway. A lot of these welfare recipients are collecting welfare MOSTLY because they have children and guess what...children need medical attention....mothers/pregnant women need medical attention. The multitude of jobs your ilk are touting...are minimum wage jobs, which doesn't even come close to a living wage....PLUS have to pay their own doctor bills...PLUS these employers are not 'required' to hire them 'full time', therefore aren't compelled to work them full time, meaning they don't even qualify for benefits. Give the poor, the uneducated, the 'foolish when they were young and made some bad decisions' [[ever make a coupla bad decisions when you were young?).....people....give them a chance at life. How about raising the minimum wage to $10.00hr.???? Would THAT work for you???? NO, you all don't want that either. So would ANYTHING work for you, or is it really just, "Do our dirty work, don't get paid shit, SHUT THE F@#K UP !!!!".....or just DIE? Fortunately, there are enough truly righteous folk out there to continue to assist those still unfortunate citizens. Yes, change the system, so those without children, able to work, are required to work...get them off their asses, withhold housing benefits from them, but require them to work. This community service idea is stupid, will not work, and is a waste of time and money.

[JohnnyFreddy]

Ha! Good one!

....yes, definitely appreciated and laughed my ass off over the Illitch comparison/observation....requirement??? HELL YES !!! But people won't see THAT similarily....no way.

[buzzman0077]

I agree and have thought that some kind of local work program tied to welfare benefits would be good. Welfare is and shound not be a right. It is an entitlement. Doing some work, as simple as block clubs in charge of keeping their respective streets / neighborhoods clean of litter would allow the recipient to take some pride in getting paid for a service, and at the same time help improve their own locals so that they can take pride in where they live as well. A clean street / neighborhood inspires people to keep it that way, and would be a fair trade for the assistance people are recieving to get back on their feet.

[ghettopalmetto]

I agree and have thought that some kind of local work program tied to welfare benefits would be good. Welfare is and shound not be a right. It is an entitlement. Doing some work, as simple as block clubs in charge of keeping their respective streets / neighborhoods clean of litter would allow the recipient to take some pride in getting paid for a service, and at the same time help improve their own locals so that they can take pride in where they live as well. A clean street / neighborhood inspires people to keep it that way, and would be a fair trade for the assistance people are recieving to get back on their feet.

A question for you, Buzzman [[and any others who share his perspective):

If a welfare recipient is spending their time cleaning up your street for you, when the hell are they supposed to polish their resume, attend educational/training classes,look for a permanent job, or go on interviews?

Or is it your desire that you keep welfare recipients on the dole and in involuntary servitude, so that they can do the "volunteer" work around your neighborhood that you don't want to do for yourself?

I am shocked and appalled at the Self-Satisfaction and Sense of Entitlement on this thread. Statistically speaking, most of you are just a paycheck or two from collecting welfare. Get over yourselves.

[Wesley Mouch]

A question for you, Buzzman [[and any others who share his perspective):

If a welfare recipient is spending their time cleaning up your street for you, when the hell are they supposed to polish their resume, attend educational/training classes,look for a permanent job, or go on interviews?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the required public service should be full time. One day a week for public service would be really appreciated and be a great contribution.

Or is it your desire that you keep welfare recipients on the dole and in involuntary servitude, so that they can do the "volunteer" work around your neighborhood that you don't want to do for yourself?

I don't understand what you're getting at. This has nothing to do with getting work done for anyone. This is about contributing to society.

Plenty of people volunteer their time for great causes.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the required public service should be full time. One day a week for public service would be really appreciated and be a great contribution.

I agree. What's stopping you?

Some people, whether you realize it or not, have families they need to feed and clothe, and need to try to keep a roof over their head. Their schedules may only allow for work/eat/sleep. A day spent "volunteering" is a day of lost income. They may not be capable of doing the things that YOU deem important for them.

I don't understand what you're getting at. This has nothing to do with getting work done for anyone. This is about contributing to society.

Plenty of people volunteer their time for great causes.

You're passing judgment based strictly on whether or not someone collects TANF payments. No more, no less. It's a bit sanctimonious.

If "volunteering" becomes state-mandated, then how much of a "volunteer" effort is it, really?

[Wesley Mouch]

I agree. What's stopping you?

Some people, whether you realize it or not, have families they need to feed and clothe, and need to try to keep a roof over their head. Their schedules may only allow for work/eat/sleep. A day spent "volunteering" is a day of lost income. They may not be capable of doing the things that YOU deem important for them.



You're passing judgment based strictly on whether or not someone collects TANF payments. No more, no less. It's a bit sanctimonious.

If "volunteering" becomes state-mandated, then how much of a "volunteer" effort is it, really?

Its really simple. I just don't see any reason why welfare needs to be without conditions. You haven't presented anything yet except arguments about how we're all judgmental.

Yes, judgmental. And that's good. And my judgment of your approach is that it hasn't proven to work in the best interests of our challenged citizens. So let's try something else. Standing in the way of anything that isn't exactly your cup of tea harms people. You probably don't like charter schools either, do you? Not the best way. You've got it figured out. And you're right.

Be a radical. Don't be so conservative and a stick in the mud.

That's the biggest problem with liberalism. They're so conservative and unwilling to experiment. They only look to the past for answers and insist that we continue to do things the same way. No creativity.

[313WX]

Be a radical.

Never thought anyone would openly say that with a straight face.

[Detroitnerd]

You know, if you want to attach a moral component to transfer payments, there are much better places to begin than with everyday people trying to make it in a tough world. Why not the "farmer" who makes two phone calls a year -- one telling his farm to plant, another telling his farm to harvest -- and pockets a $1 million subsidy a year while living in Europe? Is that moral? It happens year after year.

What about the scheming owner of a business who threatens to leave town unless his taxes are lowered, and then laughs all the way to the bank while the average folks have to make up the difference? Is that moral? It happens all the time and nobody complains.

What about the people at the very top who bribe politicians to have laws changed so they can "legally" engage in shady dealings? That is patently immoral, and has ruined the lives of millions of people. And yet nobody here is outraged about that?

No, instead, you are all more than willing to make moral judgments about people who are living off transfer payments. Would you rather their children starve? Be reduced to beggars in the street? Would you like to return to the days of debtors' prisons and Dickens?

On one hand, you're right: Ideally, we should all spend at least one-third of our lives contributing to the common welfare of the nation.

But with offshoring, automation, etc., is there really a job for everybody? At best, we'd just be saddling people with make-work to satisfy some vague moral value -- one we'd never impose upon the indolent wealthy or criminal rich.

So, fuck it. It's not the best solution, but if it keeps children fed and people from robbing liquor stores, let them have their lousy few hundo a month. If they're bright and resourceful, they won't need it long. If they're creative, maybe they'll do something decent with the support they're given. If they're lousy and stupid, at least they won't be robbing me on the street because they need money. What's more, they'll spend it, so the money goes back into the community. Give money to the rich and they just sit on it.

Personally, I think that everybody in the country should get a check for $1,000 a month. Everybody. Rich and poor. Even if you're just visiting the country. Even if your flight just stopped through at JFK. Maybe we'd all have more time to help each other -- or at least argue online.

[Wesley Mouch]

You know, if you want to attach a moral component to transfer payments, there are much better places to begin than with everyday people trying to make it in a tough world. Why not the "farmer" who makes two phone calls a year -- one telling his farm to plant, another telling his farm to harvest -- and pockets a $1 million subsidy a year while living in Europe? Is that moral? It happens year after year.

What about the scheming owner of a business who threatens to leave town unless his taxes are lowered, and then laughs all the way to the bank while the average folks have to make up the difference? Is that moral? It happens all the time and nobody complains.

What about the people at the very top who bribe politicians to have laws changed so they can "legally" engage in shady dealings? That is patently immoral, and has ruined the lives of millions of people. And yet nobody here is outraged about that?

No, instead, you are all more than willing to make moral judgments about people who are living off transfer payments. Would you rather their children starve? Be reduced to beggars in the street? Would you like to return to the days of debtors' prisons and Dickens?

You raise valid issues. Tax rebate and incentives & corporate welfare are mistakes. Farm subsidies are a mistake. Crony capitalism is a mistake. You're right there. 100%.

But the existence of stupidity by government doesn't mean that unlimited and unconditional transfer payments are the best nor only way to protect children and their families.

You keep mentioning judgement about people living on transfer payments. That's not fair. My beliefs that we have not yet found the best way to help them doesn't mean I have made a unfair judgement. I have no problem with welfare spending. But I don't think we're doing it well.[/quote]

On one hand, you're right: Ideally, we should all spend at least one-third of our lives contributing to the common welfare of the nation.

Agreed.

But with offshoring, automation, etc., is there really a job for everybody? At best, we'd just be saddling people with make-work to satisfy some vague moral value -- one we'd never impose upon the indolent wealthy or criminal rich.

You may be right about what would happen. Government messes up the best things. But the idea of contributing is as valid as the idea of transfer payments.

So, fuck it. It's not the best solution, but if it keeps children fed and people from robbing liquor stores, let them have their lousy few hundo a month. If they're bright and resourceful, they won't need it long. If they're creative, maybe they'll do something decent with the support they're given. If they're lousy and stupid, at least they won't be robbing me on the street because they need money. What's more, they'll spend it, so the money goes back into the community. Give money to the rich and they just sit on it.

Personally, I think that everybody in the country should get a check for $1,000 a month. Everybody. Rich and poor. Even if you're just visiting the country. Even if your flight just stopped through at JFK. Maybe we'd all have more time to help each other -- or at least argue online.

I agree with you, as I've posted before. I'd rather simply give $1,000 to everyone rather than have government bureaucracies try to enforce moral standards. Here I think we agree.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, I've seen how this worked elsewhere. I lived in New York City in the 1990s, and I saw the proposals for welfare "reform." Quite a few of the proposals I thought were very smart and perhaps a few I might be willing to go along with -- job training, counseling, even some limited means testing -- and a few I thought were punitive and counterproductive -- including the idea that to get the benefits you pick up garbage or do "mandatory volunteering" a la "workfare."

What happened? They basically didn't fund all the good stuff, which was probably there all along to mollify people such as myself, and forced people to work for their welfare, and also used it as a cudgel to weaken the public unions. In theory, it sounded palatable, but they put only the items they wanted into practice.

What's the point of forcing a mother to find child care for her children so she can spend several hours picking up trash in a public park to get the check? So she can pay child care? The end result was straight-up punitive.

So when people talk about "reforming" the system, I now remain opposed. I'd rather have pay some money to take care of the indolent along with the virtuous than let the "reformers" try tricking the public again.

Is it perfect? Nope. But I'll take it for now. I think there are much bigger fish to fry too.