Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your forefathers also knew the dangers of letting corporations get too large. That's why they passed the anti-trust legislation at the turn of the 20th century, so that companies couldn't be so large that they priced the competition out of existence. Reagan abolished much of the anti-trust legislation in the 80's, and American corporations went on a spending spree, buying up companies, selling off their assets, and pocketing the profits. Thousands of jobs were lost as a result, but the short-sighted, bottom line managers saw their profits and their salaries rise.

I remember reading an economics piece back in the 70's which essentially said that the Harvard Business School model, which stressed bottom line management, and made higher profits the holy grail of business, would destroy the American economy.

Profit is important, but the Harvard model didn't examine the economic impact to entire communities of these decisions. No business can't operate at a loss for long. Profitable companies seek even bigger profits by driving out Mom and Pop stores, forcing them to close. Nobody goes into business and hopes to break even, or worse. But when profit is the only thing that matters, companies do things that, while legal, are certainly not moral, and which destroy jobs here.

America needs jobs which pay a living wage to all full time members of the work force, without the augmentation of food stamps, or other forms of social assistance for workers. And here's the thing of it. Wages paid are tax deductible for the. With a corporate tax of 35%, every additional dollar paid to workers really only costs the company 65 cents, because they'd be taxed on that money as profit otherwise.

Walmart is a prime example. Three or four years ago, Walmart was the second most profitable company in America, and paid out record dividends. But at the same time, Walmart was assisting its employees to apply for food stamps, medic-aid, and any other forms of social assistance they could qualify for. Walmart employees received so much aid, that every American taxpayer contributed $2,500 of their federal tax bill to the Walton Family, whether or not they ever set foot in Walmart. Walmart employees received $9 billion in federal assistance. How much money do the Waltons need? Wouldn't you like to get your $2,500 back?

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in the US, other retailers found it hard to compete price-wise, so they adopt similar practices to stay competitive, and wages in an entire sector were pressured downward.

MacDonald's put out a financial budgeting package for its full-time employees, which assumed the employee had a second job and was also receiving food stamps. That's pretty much an admission on their part that no one can live on their wage and benefits.

Companies need to be small enough that they can't control an entire industry and force an entire segment of the economy to have their profits augmented in this way. It may be legal but it's not fair to their employees or to the taxpayers.

This is what is driving food stamp usage during the Obama years. Which is it - higher taxes or cheap goods. You can't have both.

I think there are some things you really don't understand about American business.

First of all, a tax write-off does not mean if you write-off ten dollars, the government gives you that ten dollars back. What it means is that if you write-off ten dollars, you simply don't pay any tax on that ten dollars spent which is very little in the scope of things.

Secondly, American business does not run on profit. Their goal is growth.

As an example: let's say you inherited a good amount of money or perhaps hit a lottery or something. After taxes, you have a half-million dollars. All your bills are paid, so the smartest thing you could do with that money is to invest it.

Since you know little about investing, you contact somebody that does. He or she advises you on two choices for a conservative growth: Company one is a company that's been around a long time with a promising future. Their growth is 2.5% Company two also has been around a long time. But their growth is 5.8%. So which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, Company one earns a gross income of 1.5 billion dollars. Company two has a yearly gross income of 2 million dollars. Does this new information change your decision on where you are gong to invest?

Of course not. As an investor, you could care less about their gross earnings. You care about growth because the higher the growth, the more money you make.

American industry heavily relies on investors to operate and grow. It really doesn't matter how much they gross.

I spent my entire career in banking and law, the last 20 years of it spent on Bay Street in Toronto. I have a pretty good grasp of how the economy functions, both in Canada and the US.

If I'm investing, I'm looking at a lot of factors, including the company's environmental record, the salary ratios within the corporation, i.e. how much more are the executives making versus the employees, the age of their manufacturing equipment, and their competition and what they're up to. I'm looking at their R&D, and yes the potential for sustainable growth is a factor. But I may not be your typical investor.

Americans corporations have grown so large and powerful that the tail is wagging the dog. Corporations are there to serve the people and provide them with products, and should be doing what's best for the country, not just the corporation. It's called being a "good corporate citizen".

Wrong. A company or business does one thing and one thing only: creates products or services for profit. That's it.

If you want charity, there are charitable organizations. If you want social clubs, there are plenty of those around too. But a business is neither.

You are correct, you are far from the typical investor. Many of us have money in the stock market to support our retirement fund. In most cases, it's managed by professionals who are required by law to give the best return possible to their customers.

They are not looking at payrolls, environment records or what their CEO makes. They are looking to give their customers the best return they can. If they don't, people switch their retirement plans to a company that will provide them with a better return.

 

[Flopper]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Its for the common good in society, what the hell the government don't make money off of prisioners.

 

[Flopper]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

 

[Flopper]

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

 

[Dragonlady]

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

Probably less television but plenty on the radio. In fact, after I made that last post, I went to sort out my mail, and wouldn't you know it, there's a flyer advertising food stamps. The motto was "FOOD ASSISTANCE IS ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

I applied for welfare, but never followed through. Once they had my name and address, they wouldn't leave me alone. Of course this was many years ago, but people that I know on programs do tell me they are still solicited to get back on them.

 

[Flopper]

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

Probably less television but plenty on the radio. In fact, after I made that last post, I went to sort out my mail, and wouldn't you know it, there's a flyer advertising food stamps. The motto was "FOOD ASSISTANCE IS ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY."

I received something like that in mail but it wasn't from the government, it was from a local food bank.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

Probably less television but plenty on the radio. In fact, after I made that last post, I went to sort out my mail, and wouldn't you know it, there's a flyer advertising food stamps. The motto was "FOOD ASSISTANCE IS ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY."

I received something like that in mail but it wasn't from the government, it was from a local food bank.

I don't see how that is. Last time I heard anything about the food banks, they were broke and emptied out.

 

[Flopper]

The goal of social welfare is not to teach people good behavior. When the cost of catching the cheats is far greater than what you save, then such a lofty goal is not likely to make it through the budget process.

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

I applied for welfare, but never followed through. Once they had my name and address, they wouldn't leave me alone. Of course this was many years ago, but people that I know on programs do tell me they are still solicited to get back on them.

Once you open an application, and you just drop it you will probably be contacted because the agency wants to make sure you understand how to apply, requirements for benefits, etc.. A lot of people that apply for benefits are semi-illiterate, have mental or physical disorders, or just lack computer skills if applying online. Most agencies are required to offer assistance in applying. In fact in many states today, you apply at DHS and they evaluate your application and determine which benefits you qualify.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is like saying cops shouldn't go after bank robbers because it takes up too much time and money. If we had that attitude, what do you think would happen with the rate of bank robberies in this country?

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

I applied for welfare, but never followed through. Once they had my name and address, they wouldn't leave me alone. Of course this was many years ago, but people that I know on programs do tell me they are still solicited to get back on them.

Once you open an application, and you just drop it you will probably be contacted because the agency wants to make sure you understand how to apply, requirements for benefits, etc.. A lot of people that apply for benefits are semi-illiterate, have mental or physical disorders, or just lack computer skills if applying online. Most agencies are required to offer assistance in applying. In fact in many states today, you apply at DHS and they evaluate your application and determine which benefits you qualify.

Or......... it's a political move to try and create even more government dependents.

 

[Flopper]

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

Probably less television but plenty on the radio. In fact, after I made that last post, I went to sort out my mail, and wouldn't you know it, there's a flyer advertising food stamps. The motto was "FOOD ASSISTANCE IS ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY."

I received something like that in mail but it wasn't from the government, it was from a local food bank.

I don't see how that is. Last time I heard anything about the food banks, they were broke and emptied out.

You may not hear much about food banks but they're there providing food, clothing, hot meals and shelters. There are over 63,000, 66% are pantries, 41% kitchen programs, and 11% are shelters. There are probably not as many open now as was during the recession. Most are no bigger than a small garage open only a few days a week but there're some big ones in large cities. Although they get money from corporations, foundations, and government grants, there largest source of support in most parts of the country are individuals. A lot of the food and other items come from local stores but also a lot is donated. Most of their staff are volunteers.

My wife and I volunteered at a local food bank one day a week for about a year. She stocked shelves and I drove a truck to pickup stuff at local stores. We were open 2 days a week for from 9 to 2.

Food banks provide a lot stuff you can't get with SNAP such as toilet paper, cleaning supplies, blankets, backpacks, school supplies, as well a lot of can goods.

The problem that most poor people have is the lack of cash. Most have a part time or temporary job or get TANF payments which last 24 months. Food banks really help because of the stuff they provide that SNAP does not. Anyone who's really interested in social services and the poor should volunteer at a food bank. It's a rewarding experience.

 

[Flopper]

There are a number checks in the social welfare programs to insure the money is going to the right people which stops most welfare fraud. However, it's never enough for Republicans.

Just as we shouldn't surround ever bank in the country with policemen to prevent every bank robbery, we should not build into the social welfare system excessive safeguards that would cost far more than they would save.

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

I applied for welfare, but never followed through. Once they had my name and address, they wouldn't leave me alone. Of course this was many years ago, but people that I know on programs do tell me they are still solicited to get back on them.

Once you open an application, and you just drop it you will probably be contacted because the agency wants to make sure you understand how to apply, requirements for benefits, etc.. A lot of people that apply for benefits are semi-illiterate, have mental or physical disorders, or just lack computer skills if applying online. Most agencies are required to offer assistance in applying. In fact in many states today, you apply at DHS and they evaluate your application and determine which benefits you qualify.

Or......... it's a political move to try and create even more government dependents.

These people work for the state, not the federal government. Why would they want more people on welfare programs that they would have to pay 30% to 50% of the cost.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I had a family member on welfare, all the programs from housing assistance, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. When she finally got on her feet, nobody was begging to her come back. In fact, while she was on the welfare programs, she had either a review or had to re-reply every 6 to 12 months. The only program I have seen actively promoted was Medicaid.

I applied for welfare, but never followed through. Once they had my name and address, they wouldn't leave me alone. Of course this was many years ago, but people that I know on programs do tell me they are still solicited to get back on them.

Once you open an application, and you just drop it you will probably be contacted because the agency wants to make sure you understand how to apply, requirements for benefits, etc.. A lot of people that apply for benefits are semi-illiterate, have mental or physical disorders, or just lack computer skills if applying online. Most agencies are required to offer assistance in applying. In fact in many states today, you apply at DHS and they evaluate your application and determine which benefits you qualify.

Or......... it's a political move to try and create even more government dependents.

These people work for the state, not the federal government. Why would they want more people on welfare programs that they would have to pay 30% to 50% of the cost.
.

And where does the state get their money for welfare programs????

It matters not. State or Federal, why would you want to see less people that you were hired to serve? Your job is to process claims or poor people. If there were no poor people, you don't have a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you ever talk to somebody on welfare? There are no safeguards. In fact if you bow out of the program, they bug you for a year to come back.

It's called job security. The more people on welfare, the better guarantee you'll have a job if you work in that department of the government. Politicians? Democrats love it as well. The more government dependent people, the more likely Democrat voters come election time.

We are probably the only country in the world where taxpayers fund television and radio commercials inviting people to get on welfare. Heck, they even ran those radio ads in Mexico as well.

I have never seen an add telling people to apply for welfare on American television. And there are lots of ads on TV advising the public about government programs.

Probably less television but plenty on the radio. In fact, after I made that last post, I went to sort out my mail, and wouldn't you know it, there's a flyer advertising food stamps. The motto was "FOOD ASSISTANCE IS ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY."

I received something like that in mail but it wasn't from the government, it was from a local food bank.

I don't see how that is. Last time I heard anything about the food banks, they were broke and emptied out.

You may not hear much about food banks but they're there providing food, clothing, hot meals and shelters. There are over 63,000, 66% are pantries, 41% kitchen programs, and 11% are shelters. There are probably not as many open now as was during the recession. Most are no bigger than a small garage open only a few days a week but there're some big ones in large cities. Although they get money from corporations, foundations, and government grants, there largest source of support in most parts of the country are individuals. A lot of the food and other items come from local stores but also a lot is donated. Most of their staff are volunteers.

My wife and I volunteered at a local food bank one day a week for about a year. She stocked shelves and I drove a truck to pickup stuff at local stores. We were open 2 days a week for from 9 to 2.

Food banks provide a lot stuff you can't get with SNAP such as toilet paper, cleaning supplies, blankets, backpacks, school supplies, as well a lot of can goods.

The problem that most poor people have is the lack of cash. Most have a part time or temporary job or get TANF payments which last 24 months. Food banks really help because of the stuff they provide that SNAP does not. Anyone who's really interested in social services and the poor should volunteer at a food bank. It's a rewarding experience.

I'm quite familiar with food pantries and such. I've made deliveries to them from our customers who donate to such places. In fact, one of our customers used GoodWill to assemble some of their products. We used to go to many of the Goodwill outlets across northern Ohio all the time.

And of course, in the city, they hold drives where the goal is for grocery store customers to fill up a trailer of food and products for the food banks. They usually drop a trailer in the parking lot of a popular grocery store and people buy extras to give to the people at the trailer. One of our customers is Habitat for Humanity, and I go there from time to time.

 

[Dragonlady]

And where does the state get their money for welfare programs????

It matters not. State or Federal, why would you want to see less people that you were hired to serve? Your job is to process claims or poor people. If there were no poor people, you don't have a job.

Most social services workers have far more clients than they can adequately service. They're not worried about "retaining customers". They don't work for private industry where they'll lose their job if they don't have work. Social service workers are overworked and poorly paid, in comparison to most jobs which require a college degree.

The myth that the Democrats and the government has a vested interest in keeping people poor is one of the great lies that conservatives tell. It's right up there with "cutting taxes creates jobs".

 

[bripat9643]

And where does the state get their money for welfare programs????

It matters not. State or Federal, why would you want to see less people that you were hired to serve? Your job is to process claims or poor people. If there were no poor people, you don't have a job.

Most social services workers have far more clients than they can adequately service. They're not worried about "retaining customers".

The demand for free stuff is close to infinity, so that's not surprising. It doesn't prove that poverty is endemic, however.

They don't work for private industry where they'll lose their job if they don't have work. Social service workers are overworked and poorly paid, in comparison to most jobs which require a college degree.

The myth that the Democrats and the government has a vested interest in keeping people poor is one of the great lies that conservatives tell. It's right up there with "cutting taxes creates jobs".

You haven't disproven the claim. Federal employees generally make quite a bit more than private sector employees. Furthermore, their benefits are spectacular, and it's almost impossible for them to get fired. If these positions weren't desirable, the federal government wouldn't get millions of applications for them every year.