Welfare

[Lonestar_logic]

All forms of government funded welfare needs to be abolished.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What started as a safety net, providing basic food clothing and shelter for people who fell on hard times, has become a way of life for many. When the govt provides not only the necessities, but luxuries such as cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV and free college (if they choose), why work? People have no desire to get themselves out of poverty, because it aint so bad. (Disclaimer: I am talking about multi generational slackers, not people who use it for its intended purpose) Maybe it's time to "get back to basics."

If you're an American who is handicapped, you are intitled to it.

If you're an American who is poor, the rich are entitled to force you to fight wars, work your ass off and and keep you poor.

No one is forced to fight wars. What part of "all VOLUNTEER military" do you not understand?

You must be a liberal.

 

[Flopper]

What started as a safety net, providing basic food clothing and shelter for people who fell on hard times, has become a way of life for many. When the govt provides not only the necessities, but luxuries such as cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV and free college (if they choose), why work? People have no desire to get themselves out of poverty, because it aint so bad. (Disclaimer: I am talking about multi generational slackers, not people who use it for its intended purpose) Maybe it's time to "get back to basics."

I wouldn't call feeding a family of 4 on $68/week living in luxury.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What started as a safety net, providing basic food clothing and shelter for people who fell on hard times, has become a way of life for many. When the govt provides not only the necessities, but luxuries such as cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV and free college (if they choose), why work? People have no desire to get themselves out of poverty, because it aint so bad. (Disclaimer: I am talking about multi generational slackers, not people who use it for its intended purpose) Maybe it's time to "get back to basics."

I wouldn't call feeding a family of 4 on $68/week living in luxury.

You should change your name to "fibber"

Now show evidence that a family of four only receives 98 bucks a week.



98 bucks wouldn't even pay my bar tab....

 

[jillian]

I guess this is as good a place as any to post my question. I recently had a discussion with an african american woman, (im a white guy), regarding the current state of the black community, especially how it's become so crime ridden and desolate. She stated that the welfare system started the decline due to the fact that when welfare came out, it was strictly for mothers and their children, and if there WAS a father involved, he had to "leave" or else welfare wouldnt be granted. In other words, welfare caused the abundance of "welfare queens" , "fathers" being absent, and how this trend still influences todays black youth leaving home at around 18 years old. Now if this is truly fact, I can remotely see how this policy would create the current situation, but everyone tends to see reality differently. Please, I dont want to hear from white power goofs, racists, etc, you can just keep to your sad fantasies. I'm just trying to become a better person and understand the social implications and/or reasons for social circumstances.

interestingly, i don't believe this garbage for a second.

 

[blastoff]

Was watching the TV news in Chicago one night several years ago. A reporterette was doing a story on welfare and interviewing a young single black mother who already had 2-3 kids and living in one of the city's housing projects. And, she was pregnant again.

The reporterette asks her son - maybe 6-7 years old - if he was excited at the pospect of the "pitter patter or little feet" that would be arriving soon? The question went right over his head as he appeared not to understand the expression. She picked up on it and then asked instead if he was excited mom was going to have another baby, a new brother or sister to join their happy family. The boy understood that and had an answer. He was excited about the new arrival because "then they would be getting cable."

So at a young tender age that little boy knew if mom gets knocked up it's a ticket to more stuff. And I highly doubt he came to such a conclusion all on his own.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I don't think it's just welfare that killing black families.

It's drugs.

Not the using of, but the selling of drugs.

Like you said, welfare is for mothers and thier children, so the "father" still had to get a job. but since he never sees a male figure going to work, or his mother going to work, he has no idea how to "go to work". So to find some guidance, he turns to the gang, who then start him on the path of becoming a dealer.

The cycle repeats and gets worse with each year. Was it 2009 that it was announce that 70% of ALL black kids were born bastards?

Ending prohabition will solve much of this issue as black men will have to get jobs or go hungry.

 

[brokenarrow]

Was watching the TV news in Chicago one night several years ago. A reporterette was doing a story on welfare and interviewing a young single black mother who already had 2-3 kids and living in one of the city's housing projects. And, she was pregnant again.

The reporterette asks her son - maybe 6-7 years old - if he was excited at the pospect of the "pitter patter or little feet" that would be arriving soon? The question went right over his head as he appeared not to understand the expression. She picked up on it and then asked instead if he was excited mom was going to have another baby, a new brother or sister to join their happy family. The boy understood that and had an answer. He was excited about the new arrival because "then they would be getting cable."

So at a young tender age that little boy knew if mom gets knocked up it's a ticket to more stuff. And I highly doubt he came to such a conclusion all on his own.

I guess if she had enough kids she could start her own plantation.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I guess this is as good a place as any to post my question. I recently had a discussion with an african american woman, (im a white guy), regarding the current state of the black community, especially how it's become so crime ridden and desolate. She stated that the welfare system started the decline due to the fact that when welfare came out, it was strictly for mothers and their children, and if there WAS a father involved, he had to "leave" or else welfare wouldnt be granted. In other words, welfare caused the abundance of "welfare queens" , "fathers" being absent, and how this trend still influences todays black youth leaving home at around 18 years old. Now if this is truly fact, I can remotely see how this policy would create the current situation, but everyone tends to see reality differently. Please, I dont want to hear from white power goofs, racists, etc, you can just keep to your sad fantasies. I'm just trying to become a better person and understand the social implications and/or reasons for social circumstances.

Welfare has been detrimental to people regardless of race. It rewards behavior that would otherwise not allow individuals to survive further reinforcing bad behaviors and decisions.

It has nothing to do with white or black but everything to do with economics and postive economic reinforcement of negative behavior.

 

[Flopper]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

Some people, when given the choice to stay on welfare or work a tough job for not much more money than the welfare check will continually choose welfare.

Its just how it is. Not all welfare receipients are like that but many are.

 

[AllieBaba]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

While they certainly don't live in the lap of luxury, I have MULTIPLE multiple-generation welfare families.

They have babies young, they view independence as moving away from home with a kid or two and getting their own welfare case. True story. I have women who have 3 different dads for their kids, who are continuing to have babies, and who have never lived any other way. Their parents and grandparents are also my clients, and their ultimate goal is for DISABILITY based upon a life of NEVER FUCKING WORKING.

 

[Two Thumbs]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. That's not true. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. That does occur, so why not spend the rest of the time getting an education? If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

Actually we are well into the 7th geneartion of leisure class people living off the gubmint.

If you don't know that, then you must be living in la la land.

 

[Flopper]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. That's not true. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. That does occur, so why not spend the rest of the time getting an education? If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

Actually we are well into the 7th geneartion of leisure class people living off the gubmint.

If you don't know that, then you must be living in la la land.

Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Nationally, about 231,000 families have reached a time limit; at least 93,000 families have had their welfare case closed due to a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. Most of the people that remain on welfare permanently are physically or mentally disabled such that holding down any form of meaningful employment is not possible.

Welfare Time Limits: State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families — Overview

There is abuse in all systems. Abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system. Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010.

Read more: Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010

 

[AllieBaba]

People do not choose welfare over jobs. That's not true. The sad fact is that most people on assistance have temp jobs, and part time work, not steady work but work. That does occur, so why not spend the rest of the time getting an education? If the myth of 3rd generation welfare mothers living in the lap luxury makes you happy, then have at it.

Actually we are well into the 7th geneartion of leisure class people living off the gubmint.

If you don't know that, then you must be living in la la land.

Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Nationally, about 231,000 families have reached a time limit; at least 93,000 families have had their welfare case closed due to a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. Most of the people that remain on welfare permanently are physically or mentally disabled such that holding down any form of meaningful employment is not possible.

Welfare Time Limits: State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families — Overview

There is abuse in all systems. Abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system. Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010.

Read more: Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010

The fact that there's abuse of the tax system has nothing to do with the welfare situation, however. So that reference is a logical fallacy.

The policies you speak of are not cut and dried time limits on all welfare. Theoretically, there are time limits to TANF (cash) assistance in Oregon (this is the state I'm familiar with), similar to those in other states, and that limit is 5 years. However...you don't count the time except in certain situations. DV tanf time doesn't count against the limitation. TANF under a certain period of time doesn't code against the total, either. In fact, I've yet to see a single client anywhere get cut off from TANF because they have reached the 5 year limit.

Though there may be people in the cities who have been on continuously for 5 years and been cut loose. I THINK, however, that once that time limit is reached, and they go without benefits for a period of time, it is reinstated.

There is no limit whatever on foodstamp benefits and medical, however. Or SSI, which is essentially welfare for the disabled who have never worked.

We reduce benefits based on time limits all the time. For example, a pregnant woman gets plus medical; two months after she has her baby, we switch her over to OPU/STD which is a reduction in benefits (technically) because OPU isn't a plus program. HOWEVER..OPU is essentially a closed plan, so by doing this "reduction" we get them into a program with a higher income standard...and it's a program that all new applicants are denied entry into.

So yeah, you can portray it as poor welfare people being dumped unceremoniously but that isn't the way it works AT ALL. We don't even cut benefits when people aren't complying with ANYTHING on their case. We'll suspend them, then wait for them to come in..then reinstate, and re-engage them, and give them mulitiple multiple opportunities to continue their eligibility even when they are obviously not interested in complying. Then and only then might a person's benefits be reduced (for that head of household ONLY, not for the other need group members) or stopped for a while.

 

[chanel]

NJ grants exceptions to victims of domestic abuse, who have medical issues (drug addiction?), who are "unemployable" (assholes) and who continue to have babies. Rewarding bad behavior while those more deserving are kicked off. That's compassion?

 

[AllieBaba]

NJ grants exceptions to victims of domestic abuse, who have medical issues (drug addiction?), who are "unemployable" (assholes) and who continue to have babies. Rewarding bad behavior while those more deserving are kicked off. That's compassion?

And a government agency can't be compassionate. The libs, who notoriously have zero compassion, think that an agency can do that job for them. Not only that, but the agency can do that job for them...AND make everybody else have to pay for it too!

It's not compassion at all. It's a bribe system.

 

[Flopper]

Actually we are well into the 7th geneartion of leisure class people living off the gubmint.

If you don't know that, then you must be living in la la land.

Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Nationally, about 231,000 families have reached a time limit; at least 93,000 families have had their welfare case closed due to a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. Most of the people that remain on welfare permanently are physically or mentally disabled such that holding down any form of meaningful employment is not possible.

Welfare Time Limits: State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families — Overview

There is abuse in all systems. Abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system. Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010.

Read more: Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010

The fact that there's abuse of the tax system has nothing to do with the welfare situation, however. So that reference is a logical fallacy.

The policies you speak of are not cut and dried time limits on all welfare. Theoretically, there are time limits to TANF (cash) assistance in Oregon (this is the state I'm familiar with), similar to those in other states, and that limit is 5 years. However...you don't count the time except in certain situations. DV tanf time doesn't count against the limitation. TANF under a certain period of time doesn't code against the total, either. In fact, I've yet to see a single client anywhere get cut off from TANF because they have reached the 5 year limit.

Though there may be people in the cities who have been on continuously for 5 years and been cut loose. I THINK, however, that once that time limit is reached, and they go without benefits for a period of time, it is reinstated.

There is no limit whatever on foodstamp benefits and medical, however. Or SSI, which is essentially welfare for the disabled who have never worked.

We reduce benefits based on time limits all the time. For example, a pregnant woman gets plus medical; two months after she has her baby, we switch her over to OPU/STD which is a reduction in benefits (technically) because OPU isn't a plus program. HOWEVER..OPU is essentially a closed plan, so by doing this "reduction" we get them into a program with a higher income standard...and it's a program that all new applicants are denied entry into.

So yeah, you can portray it as poor welfare people being dumped unceremoniously but that isn't the way it works AT ALL. We don't even cut benefits when people aren't complying with ANYTHING on their case. We'll suspend them, then wait for them to come in..then reinstate, and re-engage them, and give them mulitiple multiple opportunities to continue their eligibility even when they are obviously not interested in complying. Then and only then might a person's benefits be reduced (for that head of household ONLY, not for the other need group members) or stopped for a while.

My point is that abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system.

If you're concerned with how long people stay on welfare, then you need to address that issue with your state. Each state establish it's own limits.

 

[AllieBaba]

Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Nationally, about 231,000 families have reached a time limit; at least 93,000 families have had their welfare case closed due to a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. Most of the people that remain on welfare permanently are physically or mentally disabled such that holding down any form of meaningful employment is not possible.

Welfare Time Limits: State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families — Overview

There is abuse in all systems. Abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system. Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010.

Read more: Tax Cheats Cost Uncle Sam $3 Trillion; Cost You $2200 in 2010

The fact that there's abuse of the tax system has nothing to do with the welfare situation, however. So that reference is a logical fallacy.

The policies you speak of are not cut and dried time limits on all welfare. Theoretically, there are time limits to TANF (cash) assistance in Oregon (this is the state I'm familiar with), similar to those in other states, and that limit is 5 years. However...you don't count the time except in certain situations. DV tanf time doesn't count against the limitation. TANF under a certain period of time doesn't code against the total, either. In fact, I've yet to see a single client anywhere get cut off from TANF because they have reached the 5 year limit.

Though there may be people in the cities who have been on continuously for 5 years and been cut loose. I THINK, however, that once that time limit is reached, and they go without benefits for a period of time, it is reinstated.

There is no limit whatever on foodstamp benefits and medical, however. Or SSI, which is essentially welfare for the disabled who have never worked.

We reduce benefits based on time limits all the time. For example, a pregnant woman gets plus medical; two months after she has her baby, we switch her over to OPU/STD which is a reduction in benefits (technically) because OPU isn't a plus program. HOWEVER..OPU is essentially a closed plan, so by doing this "reduction" we get them into a program with a higher income standard...and it's a program that all new applicants are denied entry into.

So yeah, you can portray it as poor welfare people being dumped unceremoniously but that isn't the way it works AT ALL. We don't even cut benefits when people aren't complying with ANYTHING on their case. We'll suspend them, then wait for them to come in..then reinstate, and re-engage them, and give them mulitiple multiple opportunities to continue their eligibility even when they are obviously not interested in complying. Then and only then might a person's benefits be reduced (for that head of household ONLY, not for the other need group members) or stopped for a while.

My point is that abuse of the tax system is a far greater problem than abuse of the welfare system.

If you're concerned with how long people stay on welfare, then you need to address that issue with your state. Each state establish it's own limits.

Your point is irrelevant in this conversation.

And I'm not concerned. You are. You brought it up. So I talked about it.

 

[chanel]

I believe NY and CA are the only two states without time limits. And what do they have in common?