Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
welfare used to have limits to people with children and a limit of years you could be on it
..until they did away that to where anyone and everyone could get it
reform it now, good luck
we have too many dependents on it...
Been there and done that; we reformed Welfare in 1996 and we don't need to do it again. Since enactment of the Welfare Reform Act, the role of the federal government in public assistance has become limited to overall goal-setting and setting performance rewards and penalties. The act turned over primary responsibility for administering the welfare system to the states.There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Welfare programs vary greatly from state to state, in amount of benefits, rules and enforcement, and even the existence of some programs. It's not uncommon now for people to move to neighboring states to take advantage of programs or benefits not offered in their state. This was the case with autism some years ago. Some states offer practically nothing and other states offered generous benefits. Hopefully that has changed.There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
I believe all states have centralized data banks. There are over 75,000 state social service workers, 4,000 in California alone that administer social programs. In addition most large counties also have departments of social services. I don't think information sharing within states are a problem. However, sharing information between states can be problematic because the federal government maintains mostly summarized data.There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Ah Corvus...this is one of those ideas that sounds good...until u think about it. Welfare disbursements, including food stamps and Medicaid services are based on centralized data banks, and transferring them to local venues would not only fragment salient data but would be costly and inefficient, since counties and towns have variable abilities to deal with complex info...especially in rural areas.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I believe that if the data were made available to cities, the data would not prove a problem.
However, you make an excellent point concerning rural areas. I had not considered that. Considering most of my family lives in places without neighbors for miles, and as such I spend a lot of time in rural areas, I should have thought of that. Hmmmmmm.
Actually, if you read my OP, I mention perhaps giving control to county level governments. Although I originally said that in reference to areas that fell just outside of city limits, a county controlled welfare system would allow for the local gov't to reach rural areas and cities alike.
The Welfare Reform Act of of 1996 established limits. Most recipients are required to find jobs within two years of first receiving welfare payment and are allowed to receive welfare payments for a total of no more than five years.welfare used to have limits to people with children and a limit of years you could be on it
..until they did away that to where anyone and everyone could get it
reform it now, good luck
we have too many dependents on it...
Welfare programs vary greatly from state to state, in amount of benefits, rules and enforcement, and even the existence of some programs. It's not uncommon now for people to move to neighboring states to take advantage of programs or benefits not offered in their state. This was the case with autism some years ago. Some states offer practically nothing and other states offered generous benefits. Hopefully that has changed.There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
There are probably no federal programs that have been more misunderstood than welfare programs. Since Welfare Reform, there are really very few federal rules related to the programs. Most of the rules are limitations on benefits, maximum length time benefits can last, and reporting requirements. Rules with regard to the amount of the participation in some programs, benefits and eligibility is left to the states. So when someone complains about generous welfare benefits, those complaints are aimed at the federal government when they should be directed to the state for it is the states that determine eligibility and benefits and enforce the rules. For example, TANF and AFDC in Mississippi is one fifth what it is in California and half what it is in Florida.Welfare programs vary greatly from state to state, in amount of benefits, rules and enforcement, and even the existence of some programs. It's not uncommon now for people to move to neighboring states to take advantage of programs or benefits not offered in their state. This was the case with autism some years ago. Some states offer practically nothing and other states offered generous benefits. Hopefully that has changed.Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
However the programs are still essentially federal. The localities do the actual administering of the programs but the fact that the money is block granted puts a large amount of power in the federal government’s hands. I was more commenting on the OP and the impression that I got – he wants the feds to have nothing to do with welfare at all.
Further, most people do not refer to welfare as a single program. I see it (and I think most people agree) as any program where the recipient has not paid for the benefits. IOW, SNAP, Medicade and TANF are ‘welfare’ programs where SS and Medicare are not. Under that guise, various welfare programs are not limited and are run by the federal government. Of course this makes a discussion on the topic rather difficult as there are a thousand different rules and sources for the various welfare programs out there.
o.k.
So you think hospitals and clinics should be run by volunteers?i dont believe that usa should pay for medical care
There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
The practical solution is in the middle--allocate X number of dollars per state per person. Let the states decide what programs are most effective (basically block granting) for the conditions on the ground there. For instance, in Virginia, they could take the per capita receipts for all the wealthy/upper income people in the DC suburbs and reallocate it to the rural areas that are not nearly as densely populated if they so desired.
Why do people obsess over welfare? Why not obsess over jobs moving overseas? Or corporations (money) controlling elections? Or business keeping money hidden overseas? Or the import of foreign automobiles made by union workers who have socialized medicine and embargo American cars? Or why nothing is made in America? Or closing factories in America and moving them to cheap? Or poor wages that make life hard and hardly trickle down wealth? Should I go on?
And as far as the biblical shaming of people in need why not bring back the Old Testament religion with stoning and death for all wrong doers? We could bring back stocks and for she who sinned by losing a job exported to China have her locked in for a few days. That'll teach em.
Quote from p24 'Assault on the Middle Class' in 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' authors, Barlett and Steele.
"Yet by 2011, the Chinese had taken over the market: by then, more than 50 percent of the solar photovoltaic panels installed in America were made by Chinese companies. Chinese solar imports jumped from $21.3 million in 2005 to $2.65 billion in 2011.
What happened? In the last decade, the Chinese government set out to capture the market for manufacturing solar panels. It pumped the equivalent of billions of dollars into the country's nascent solar industry in low-cost loans, subsidies to buy land, discounts for water and power, tax exemptions, and export grants. Government aid to subsidize an export industry is illegal under global trading rules, but the Chinese forged ahead and soon cornered the world market on solar photovoltaic panels. China's exports of solar cells and panels to the United States rose a phenomenal 350 percent in just three years, from 2008 to 2010.
As massive volumes of Chinese government-supported solar cells and panels surged into the United States, prices in the domestic market collapsed. The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing, in an October 2011 trade action, explained the consequences:
The resulting price collapse has had a devastating impact on the U.S. solar cell and panel industry, resulting in shutdowns, layoffs, and bankruptcies throughout the country. Over the past eighteen months, seven solar plants shutdown or downsized, eliminating thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania." Excerpt page 234, 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele
"Pam Sexton, a market researcher and engineer with two college degrees, described her version of the American dream like this: "The American dream is that you can work hard and be rewarded for your hard work. You'll be able to have a home and family and prosper and have medical care and nor have to worry about expenses and bills. This is a country of opportunity." But Pam, along with thousands of others, lost her telecommunications job in 2009, and the dream died: "I feel like the last few years that's all disintegrated or evaporated." It is a refrain we've heard across the country." Ms Sexton lost her job because ATT shipped it to India. p246 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele
I don't think block grants would make much difference in how the money is spent. Welfare programs are run by the states with the states paying nearly 50% of the total cost. Most eligibility requirements are established by the states so the states have quite a bit of control on where the money goes.There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
The practical solution is in the middle--allocate X number of dollars per state per person. Let the states decide what programs are most effective (basically block granting) for the conditions on the ground there. For instance, in Virginia, they could take the per capita receipts for all the wealthy/upper income people in the DC suburbs and reallocate it to the rural areas that are not nearly as densely populated if they so desired.
There is no debate necessary: welfare is a system that needs cleaning one way or another. I believe one way it should be reformed is to transfer control of welfare to city or county level governments. It is of my opinion that each individual city/county would be better equipped to deal with welfare fraud than the Federal Government, hundreds of miles away. In order to pay for that, the government could put cities in charge of certain taxes, at least enough to cover the added expenses of funding welfare. In addition, anyone found guilty of welfare fraud would be banned from receiving it- for life.
Will anyone refute my claims?
Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.
Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.
The practical solution is in the middle--allocate X number of dollars per state per person. Let the states decide what programs are most effective (basically block granting) for the conditions on the ground there. For instance, in Virginia, they could take the per capita receipts for all the wealthy/upper income people in the DC suburbs and reallocate it to the rural areas that are not nearly as densely populated if they so desired.