21,000 Detroiters losing welfare benefits

**Bigb23** · September-30-11, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Much better when you're homeless and your ass is on the street.

Those kids will learn to work hard stealing and hooking to make the family nut.

Which is wrong ... unless you're Wall Street

Yeah, let's re-open the workhouses. Dickenian England was so charming...

It seems that the most vocal Republicans have lived off their Great Grandfather's, Grandfather's, and Father's legacy, more than their own. Nice way to complain.

**gazhekwe** · September-30-11, 11:07 AM

Finding a job is easier than keeping said job also. Jobs can be pretty temporary, then on to another one, hopefully. Pretty dicey when you have kids. Let's just say, it isn't all as cut and dried as some of you seem to think.

I got a card the other day that I am carrying, about where can someone get help. United Way / AIRS 2-1-1 Get Connected it says. Hope offered 24/7 Info and resources on Utility and Rent Payment Assistance, Job Search and Placement, Food, Health Care, Child Care, Housing and Temporary Shelter, Rx Expense Assistance, School-Related Programs, Free Tax Prep, And Much More.

It is encouraging to know there is help out there. We bleeding hearts could do our part by contributing to United Way.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · September-30-11, 11:20 AM

Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Back to the time of Dickens. Gotta keep Betsy De Vos in a low tax bracket somehow.

**antongast** · September-30-11, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

That's a false dichotomy. In your argument there are only two choices:

1) Unlimited government assistance
2) Ass on the street

There are more options:

3) Get a f***ing job
4) Still can't get a job? Try f***ing harder
5) Still can't get a job? Keep trying.
6) Too lazy to find a job? Move in with family.
7) Too lazy to find a job? Appeal to a charity for assistance.
8) Get a f***ing job

I would find it amazing if a person couldn't get a job after 4 years! If you can't find a job in 1461 days then you're either not trying or you need to do setup at 8-Mile and I-75 and ask folks for change. The guy with the dog chained to a shopping cart seems to do well.

We're acting as if these free-loaders have been trying so hard to get a job and they just for some reason can't...

Apparently somebody hasn't followed the news since the Clinton administration. See, there was this little thing called "the complete implosion of the entire fucking economy," and what that means in plain English is that "f***ing jobs" are kind of hard to come by these days. They're Fucking Valuable Things, if you will. If you've got one, good for you, but there just aren't enough of them to go around.

Incidentally, the unemployment problem [[and if you don't think it's a real problem, you're wrong) would not be terribly difficult to mitigate. The federal government can borrow money practically for free right now [[real interest rates on some of the shorter-term bonds are actually negative), and use that money to finance...well, anything, really, but my vote is for infrastructure since it's something we need anyway [[I don't think I need a source for this; if you live in Warren and you think our infrastructure is fine, well, I don't want to interrupt your acid trip). This would employ people, get the economy moving again, etc., and cost us practically nothing in the long run. Except for some reason we've decided, contrary to all logic and evidence, that the short-term deficit [[which, remember, historically low interest rates!) is a bigger problem than either nationwide mass unemployment or crumbling infrastructure. So yeah.

**Gistok** · September-30-11, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

There are more options:

3) Get a f***ing job
4) Still can't get a job? Try f***ing harder
5) Still can't get a job? Keep trying.
6) Too lazy to find a job? Move in with family.
7) Too lazy to find a job? Appeal to a charity for assistance.
8) Get a f***ing job

Gee, until you went off on this f***ing temper tantrum, you were makin f***ing sense....

Did it ever occur to you that there are more people, than there are jobs?

**Scottathew** · September-30-11, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Gee, until you went off on this f***ing temper tantrum, you were makin f***ing sense....

Did it ever occur to you that there are more people, than there are jobs?

Did it ever occur to you that if you can't find a job in 4 years you're probably not even trying?

DetroitPole · September-30-11, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

Apparently somebody hasn't followed the news since the Clinton administration. See, there was this little thing called "the complete implosion of the entire fucking economy," and what that means in plain English is that "f***ing jobs" are kind of hard to come by these days. They're Fucking Valuable Things, if you will. If you've got one, good for you, but there just aren't enough of them to go around.

Incidentally, the unemployment problem [[and if you don't think it's a real problem, you're wrong) would not be terribly difficult to mitigate. The federal government can borrow money practically for free right now [[real interest rates on some of the shorter-term bonds are actually negative), and use that money to finance...well, anything, really, but my vote is for infrastructure since it's something we need anyway [[I don't think I need a source for this; if you live in Warren and you think our infrastructure is fine, well, I don't want to interrupt your acid trip). This would employ people, get the economy moving again, etc., and cost us practically nothing in the long run. Except for some reason we've decided, contrary to all logic and evidence, that the short-term deficit [[which, remember, historically low interest rates!) is a bigger problem than either nationwide mass unemployment or crumbling infrastructure. So yeah.

We need most people like you. In particular, on TV. I'm sick of hearing about how raising taxes on millionares is socialism and the solution to unemployment is "their lazy get a job"

**Gistok** · September-30-11, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

Did it ever occur to you that if you can't find a job in 4 years you're probably not even trying?

That makes a nice Tea Party slogan.... I wonder...

**jt1** · September-30-11, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

Did it ever occur to you that if you can't find a job in 4 years you're probably not even trying?

The rule is 4 years over a lifetime, not 4 straight years. If this is the case then your comments about not finding a job in 4 years are certainly not applicable to many, if not most people impacted.

From the Freep"
"Michigan is adopting a stricter four-year lifetime cap on cash assistance"

**Detwa** · September-30-11, 01:36 PM

That lifetime cap is most outrageous to me. I had to get food stamps back in 2001, for about a year. And again in 2008 [[I think), for another year. I'm only 40 but have worked 25 years already, so I've more than paid for my measly two years of food stamps, especially during those wonderful days of too many jobs and high salaries. But if I live for another 40-50 years, you're saying I can only hit hard times for a total of 2 more years? That's really harsh! We need tougher oversight on the food stamp program and usage, but we should not be limiting our society's access to food itself.

**DetroitPlanner** · September-30-11, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dave70

Um, I think I heard on WDET this morning that the bridge cards will be cut off for people who have 5k in assets and a car worth 15k?

How does that even make sense? A $15k car is an asset that is worth three times more than $5k.

**Nikki Pooh** · September-30-11, 04:11 PM

The welfare system was basically a lifestyle rather than a stepping stone for some. How many babies were born into the welfare system. If welfare mothers can make babies, they can find work. Sure, but what was the incentive to get a job? For the welfare system, the incentive was...the more dependents, the more cash assistance.

I agree that the cut off is much needed, but Snyder should have weaned the recipients off of the program. Reduce the cash assistance by 20% in the next 1-2 months, then 40% and so on...

**JBMcB** · September-30-11, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

The federal government can borrow money practically for free right now [[real interest rates on some of the shorter-term bonds are actually negative, and use that money to finance...well, anything, really...

The current debt load of the federal government is nearing 100% of GDP [[Probably well over). When countries hit that level, historically, bad things start to happen.

**BagAJellyDonuts** · September-30-11, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Detwa

That lifetime cap is most outrageous to me. I had to get food stamps back in 2001, for about a year. And again in 2008 [[I think), for another year. I'm only 40 but have worked 25 years already, so I've more than paid for my measly two years of food stamps, especially during those wonderful days of too many jobs and high salaries. But if I live for another 40-50 years, you're saying I can only hit hard times for a total of 2 more years? That's really harsh! We need tougher oversight on the food stamp program and usage, but we should not be limiting our society's access to food itself.

If someone knows better, post it.

But... food stamps have nothing to do with this. Same goes for those disabled. It's not that Michigan has become some unusually cruel state, it just isn't going to give away everything to anybody any more. Remember, almost half the states have a five year limit on "benefits".

I have no doubts there are abuses in this "system". No doubts that there are some that "collect" rather than contribute. And no doubts there are some that really do need some help. So why in hell's name aren't those that know who is abusing this benefit being turned in? You want to help those in need, turn in the slugs and slime. They are the "bad guys" in this deal, not Synder.

**Jimaz** · September-30-11, 06:21 PM

Assuming this money isn't going to come into the area via some other route, what kind of effect is this likely to have on the Detroit economy in general? I imagine some shopkeepers aren't too happy about this.

detroitjim · September-30-11, 07:17 PM

OP left out a zero It's 210,000!!!!!

**Scottathew** · September-30-11, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Detwa

That lifetime cap is most outrageous to me. I had to get food stamps back in 2001, for about a year. And again in 2008 [[I think), for another year. I'm only 40 but have worked 25 years already, so I've more than paid for my measly two years of food stamps, especially during those wonderful days of too many jobs and high salaries. But if I live for another 40-50 years, you're saying I can only hit hard times for a total of 2 more years? That's really harsh! We need tougher oversight on the food stamp program and usage, but we should not be limiting our society's access to food itself.

You do understand you're paying for more than just what comes back to you in taxes, right? You're taxes have to cover all the expenses, the roads we use, the sewers and water mains, etc...

However, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that better oversight would be very desirable. I'd like to help those they need temporary assistance. But I do worry that every time we change the rules, those that want to abuse the system just change with them and still find ways to exploit it.

I still think welfare does just as much harm as it does good. It enables the poverty cycle to continue on for so many people that are content with just getting by the easy way. Breaking the cycle is tough work. Systems like welfare give less motivation to break the cycle.

Some folks like me are just so frustrated as we work hard every week to provide for our family while others don't. I'll make sure my kids graduate high school and move onto college, while others will allow their kids to drop out at the tune of more than 50% [[this is a socioeconomic issue, not race). I'll spend my whole life making careful decisions about where to work, how to spend my money, and how to make sure my children are setup for success. While other people won't work, spend every dime they have [[hell, they don't even have bank accounts), and allow their children to repeat the cycle.

The welfare system doesn't just enable the poverty cycle, it flat-out encourages it.

**Jimaz** · September-30-11, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by detroitjim

OP left out a zero It's 210,000!!!!!

Source? The original article states 21,000. Sincerely.

Yet again, it's from issues like this that we can learn what sets us apart from animals.

**Scottathew** · September-30-11, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Yet again, it's from issues like this that we can learn what sets us apart from animals.

And what do we do when our government and economy collapses because of a system that rewards folks to NOT contribute?

I'm all for talking care of folks during a down time, but we've got to set limits before assistance because a lifestyle for many.

Capping the system helps those that need it, and give a push to those who are abusing it.

**Jimaz** · September-30-11, 10:31 PM

Correction:

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Yet again, it's from issues like this that some of us can learn what sets us apart from animals.

Animals can't learn these things.

**Detroitej72** · September-30-11, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

And what do we do when our government and economy collapses because of a system that rewards folks to NOT contribute?

Since the root of our economic collapse had nothing to do with downtrodden people on welfare, I'd say your comment is irrelevant.

**Novine** · October-01-11, 12:08 AM

"The welfare system doesn't just enable the poverty cycle, it flat-out encourages it."

Don't you wish we could return to the good old days when we didn't have welfare? Those were the days, no poverty, no families that fell into a cycle of poverty, we never had any of that until welfare came along.

**English** · October-01-11, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Since the root of our economic collapse had nothing to do with downtrodden people on welfare, I'd say your comment is irrelevant.

It's so hard to convince people of this, although it's true. I suppose if we had no social services at all, people think we'd be living in Nirvana.

**Patrick** · October-01-11, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by English

It's so hard to convince people of this, although it's true. I suppose if we had no social services at all, people think we'd be living in Nirvana.

Ah, a true libertarian paradise where people sink or swim....Ayn Rand , where are ya?

**Scottathew** · October-01-11, 07:18 AM

Yes, we should instead make a paradise where some folks just naturally work, while others don't do anything, collect welfare, and have more kids. They can then claim they are "poor" while they watch cable TV and text on their $400 phone.

We should then make every excuse we can make for them and continue to enable their need for support indefinitely.

Anyone who expects these people to get jobs after a certain period on the dole should be labeled as mean, heartless, libertarian darwinists.