Welcome to PatsFans.com

People on government assistance

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Turd Furguson, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It seems more and more people today are on gov't assistance and less and less are helping foot the bill.

    What would people think if there were some kind of condition that came with receiving public assistance such as you have to perform some kind of public service for the government such as working for the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity or some other form of service for 1 year provided you received assistance for a year.

    Much like if an employer pays for your education, they stipulate that you have to work for them for at least one year afterwards or else you pay some of that back.
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,728
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    I've never understood why that's not done. Even a single parent or someone disabled can put stamps on envelopes or make phone calls, and maybe even learn a skill at home that will help land a job. The only thing I can think of is that maybe there are legal issues involved, i.e., if someone does work (even if it's the kind you suggest), the employer assumes more responsibility than they can handle.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,061
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +328 / 1 / -9

    Racist & Insensitive, a Blatant disregard for for Civil Rights and clearly a slap at the Constitution.
    :bricks:
  4. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm not even suggesting full time work even. Maybe something along a community service hours scale. Receive gov't assistance for a certain period of time and you must perform x number of hours per year and that number would obviously be incremental.

    The only exceptions to this rule would be for those too disabled (mostly mentally, not physically) to work.


    Its high time that the taxpayers feel like their money isnt totally going to waste and its also time that these folks actually feel like they're contributing to society rather than just suckling from it.
  5. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    True and, unfortunately, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. The Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security worsens by the day and more and more special interests groups are demanding their piece of the pie. Heaven forbid we ever actually elected a politician with the guts to suggest spending cuts.
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,795
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +290 / 4 / -2

    It won't happen Turd, and the reason why is because there's zero accountability when it comes to welfare bennies. Why? Cuz no one is going to take away someone's entitlement. It's the "save the children" mentallity. You can require someone to work 10 hours a week at a community center, but when they don't show up, are you going to strip them of their welfare? You might want to, but I can guarantee you that there will be a certain group that won't. My idea has always been to limit the amount of time someone can recieve welfare. I wouldn't have limits for the disabled or impaired, but for anyone of able health, I'd have a program that gae a subsidy, and job training, with the stipulation that once the training were complete, they'd be placed with a job, and subsequently would be on their own. Once you'd been through the program, you can't get benefits again. The problem with the current subsidy system is that their is no pressure to ever get off. What we have now is generaltional welfare, and a society that is being raised with an ideology of dependence, and a sentiment that tells them they deserve to be taken care of by the government. That recieving a subsidy is their right. As the rolls grow, so does the cry for more money, and more funding to increase welfares reach. It's quite sad, and when Amnesty happens, it's only going to get incredibly worse.

    This country is over people. [​IMG]
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Oftentimes the person on Welfare is a single mom who can't afford child care. That seems like an easy one to solve though. Group 5 or 6 single parent households together. Interview all of the parents and find the one most suited to run a mini day care center, train her (almost certainly) on the ins and outs of large scale child care and link her welfare to a contract for providing child care for the other 4 or 5 who now have no reason to not get a job. If you took it a step further you could even expect the caregiver to take additional training in small business management towards perhaps transitioning her 'gig' into an actual successful business rather than a subsidized one.
  8. 363839

    363839 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    That's a damn good idea, sdaniels.
    Ever think about running for office?
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, really.
    That is a great idea.
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its not my idea. I heard it somewhere years ago and I don't know why its not being used.
  11. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Is that true? I always hear stuff like that, but I'm not sure if it really is the case. Is there a resource where we can find out who gets welfare benefits?

    As to the idea of forcing someone to open a daycare, why wouldn't that person just open a daycare and make a profit rather than do it for a crappy welfare check? My guess would be you wouldn't have too many people jumping at that chance! In principle I definitely like the thinking, getting people off their asses and working, but in practice it may not work.

    Of course the easy answer would be for the women to take responsibility and not have children they can't support, but to suggest that is almost criminal at this point.
  12. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Personal responsibility??? WHAT ARE YOU MAD????

    Of course that's almost criminal in our bass-ackwards society. But to me, it explains more and more why people turn to the government to make decisions for them. Rights and responsibility come hand in hand....... the more responsibility you abdicate, the more rights you lose. I'm not making a conspiracy theory here, I don't think it's conscious (though some may enjoy the results), but it's just the way it is. So this current trend of not taking responsibility FOR ANYTHING leads us only to a path of loss of freedoms.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  13. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I used the lazy/weasel word 'oftentimes.' I did that because I really don't know how many standard, two parent families are on welfare. I do know that single parents have a particularly tough row to hoe though. I couldn't say for sure, but I doubt there's a lot of 20-60 something year olds with no kids to care for, who are collecting welfare.

    You aren't forcing anyone to open anything. The only requirement would be accepting the child-care service and getting a job rather than using a lack of child care as an excuse to not hold one. I think a lot of people on welfare would be interested. Many people are curious about running their own business, the risk of failure holds them back. The state subsidizing this 'business' would eliminate the risk and it wouldn't bother me in the least if those participating grew out of state subsidy and took their 'business' private.


    I don't know if its quite criminal. I consider myself to be pretty left-leaning and I have no problem with having more respect for those that wait until they're ready for kids over those that don't; but we need to deal with the situation we have, not pine for a better one.
  14. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    well said by both of you STFarmy and sdaniels, I'll be interested to see if anyone here knows of a place to answer the question of the demographics of welfare.
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,960
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +174 / 5 / -21

    If you were to inact a community service portion of all of this, it would take another layer of gov't to enact and oversee.. so unless there is a more efficient way of doing this the cost would probably double in 10 years. With that being said, most people on welfare do not enjoy being on welfare.. most are there because of the cycle of poverty, poor education and having kids..

    My thoughts about all of this were to take all the non supporting dads, give them a choice of home confinement or weekend trash crew, give them some kinda jump suit that are high visibility to protect them and make them walk the highways on weekends picking up trash. Give them a minimum pay, but do not pay them.. instead credit it toward their back support.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,728
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    Stokes, I think there are too many types of welfare for the question to be easily answered. There's SS, subsidized school lunches, AFDC, foodstamps, Medicaid, veterans aid, subsidies to farmers, unemployment insurance, foster care, housing aid, earned income tax credits, and to complicate it further, some of the aid is state and some federal. Obviously, with AFDC (Aid for Dependent Children) there's a large number of single mothers, but with many of the other programs it's probably different. (And I can't find a good source of info that provides a detailed breakdown of who gets what.)

    It probably wouldn't work because daycare facilities, rightly, are fairly tightly regulated. But, it might work as a sort of collective babysitting effort.

    Interesting how your conservative views left out any mention of the man. Maybe that attitude is part of the problem, too?
  17. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +91 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    I think he is thinking about SSI, and not your social security, which I think we can all agree is YOUR MONEY, actually it is less money than you would have, if you were allowed to set the same amount of money that the government took from you, and invested it (in the American economy).

    SSI, is given to the "disabled"

    Russian immigrant have taken this to a new low, claiming that they can not adjust to life here in America and they are "disabled" and believe it or not, they are getting SSI, due to this.

    I say remove all forms of welfare, everything, allow charities to run these programs, they will do it more effieicently and much more cost effective than the government. Imagine no more "housing developments" or medicare!

    If people have less accesss to "free money" they might actually work. The unemployment rate is this country is under 5%, which basically is the percentage of the population which is unemployable (drug addicts, handicapped people, etc.).
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,728
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    Yeah, FTW is right, I meant SSI.
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,795
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +290 / 4 / -2

    Why penalize only the dad? Why is it that women always get a free ride for their culpability? Last I checked it takes two to tango. The bottom line is that people don't frown upon government assistance anymore. It used to be embarrassing to be on welfare. Well, it's not anymore. People will take a hand out even when they don't really need it, because it means they have less of a burden on their own lives. Welfare comes in a multitude of ways. From actual cash payments from the government, to MHFA or HUD subsidized property, to local housing authorities & their voucher programs. You don't know how many people I've shown subsidized units to, who openly tell me how they want the subsidy so they can work less. It's truly sad. The more you reward irresponsible behavior, the more irresponsible behavior you'll have.
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,795
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +290 / 4 / -2

    In what way? Everyone wants it both ways. They want an equal society, but when it comes to making babies, it's always the eeeeeeeeeeevil guys fault, and not the poor, victimized woman. It takes two to tango buddy. When a child is born, both individuals need to be accountable. It's a double standard in this country that isn't always discussed.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>