Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Redfish]

its true that the kids did not enter the country illegally, but their parents did. Sorry about that. The parents are responsible for taking care of their children. The parents broke the law and should be deported with their children. We are not running a charity home here in the USA. It is not our job to take care of every needy person on earth.

but if you feel that way you should take everything you own, all of your clothes, food, money, furniture, cars, etc and give it to some homeless person. That's exactly what you are asking this country to do-----------------practice what you preach or STFU.

Oh, my ass. First of all, I'm not talking about kid kids. I'm talking about the kids who were brought here a decade, two decades ago. For all intents, and purposes, the grew up American. They went to school, got educations, for careers, and contribute to the revenue of this nation. What do you propose we do with them?

Your second ignorant comment I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If those kids (now adults) were born here then they are citizens. So they are not at issue in this discussion. We can debate whether its right that kids born here of illegals should be granted citizenship, but for now that's the law.

My second comment is merely taking your stated position to its ridiculous conclusion, which is something you libs never do because it reveals the flaws in your ideology.

Again, not talking about the ones born here. I'm talking about the one's who were babies, or toddlers, now grown, and living their lives.

If they were born somewhere else, they are illegal aliens and should be deported. There is no statute of limitations on illegal entry to this country.

I get it that you feel sorry for them, so do I. But that's not the point, either we have immigration laws or we don't.

If, as you say, they are now adults, why haven't they applied for legal citizenship in the 15 or 20 or more years that they have been here? Why haven't they taken the steps to legalize their presence here?

Well, you see, that's kind of the problem with the laws as they currently stand. I walk into the nearest immigration office, and say, "Hi. I'm here illegally, and would like to fix that please," what do you think happens next? Do they hand me an application, and walk m through the process of gaining legal status, or do they shove me in a cell, and process my deportation, uprooting me from everything I have ever known, and ship me off to some country that I have no connection with, and no desire to live in?

This was kind of the point of the Dream Act. To give those, now adult, kids a way to fix a problem they didn't create, and you guys rather shat all over that idea.

As I said, I share your sympathy for them. I also feel sorry for the families of people killed by illegals in this country, like Kate Steinle. Do you support Kate's law?

Why should a person who has been deported 5 times be allowed to live in a sanctuary city?

Frankly, I don't care if some people get their feelings hurt for being here illegally. Do you think Mexico would feel sorry for you if you ended up there illegally?

As to rounding them up for deportation. FDR did it with the Japanese, Carter did it with Iranians. We could do it very easily.

 

[BlueGin]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

The GOP blocks all that. Thanks. Most places already do your first paragraph. Unknown on the GOP propaganda service...

No they don't. Infact GWB increased benefits.

 

[paulitician]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

 

[Redfish]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

Able bodied welfare recipients should be required to clean the streets, pick up trash, paint public buildings, clean public parks, clean public rest rooms. If they refuse then no welfare check. That's what Japan does and its cities are the cleanest in the world.

 

[BlueGin]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

I agree. They need to enforce the rules they already have in place.

 

[paulitician]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

Able bodied welfare recipients should be required to clean the streets, pick up trash, paint public buildings, clean public parks, clean public rest rooms. If they refuse then no welfare check. That's what Japan does and its cities are the cleanest in the world.

Yes, some sort of Community Service should be required. It's been proven to work in many nations. Those who don't wanna give back, should have their assistance ended.

 

[paulitician]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

I agree. They need to enforce the rules they already have in place.

Enforcement is part of it, but the existing rules don't work anyway. Require recipients to perform some sort of Community Service, and then get Government to take the lead role in finding them work. If an able-bodied recipient refuses work offered, their assistance should be ended. We just need to have some real Welfare Reform.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

That's what Maine did.

If you have no dependents and you want food stamps, you have to have a job working at least 20 hours, be enrolled in a vocational program, or volunteer at least 20 hours a month.

Seems a lot of those people weren't that hungry after all. Most of them dropped out of the program.

 

[dblack]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

I agree. They need to enforce the rules they already have in place.

Enforcement is part of it, but the existing rules don't work anyway. Require recipients to perform some sort of Community Service, and then get Government to take the lead role in finding them work. If an able-bodied recipient refuses work offered, their assistance should be ended. We just need to have some real Welfare Reform.

Heh... sure. This from the poster who claimed:

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Fakey, is that you? Fess up!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now, see? I don't have a problem with that. You see, you guys presume that when Progressives talk about increasing public assistance, we mean "paying people to sit on their asses". Why? There are plenty of public projects - food backs, etc - that are constantly looking for volunteers. I have no problem with making that a condition of public assistance. People who need the help get it, and projects that need bodies get them. Win, win.

Lose-lose for Democrats.

The Democrat party knows quite well that the more people dependent on government, the more potential Democrat voters. They are not about to do anything to deter people from getting on the dole.

If people are forced to work for welfare, many of them might say to hell with welfare and get a job instead.

 

[paulitician]

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

That's what Maine did.

If you have no dependents and you want food stamps, you have to have a job working at least 20 hours, be enrolled in a vocational program, or volunteer at least 20 hours a month.

Seems a lot of those people weren't that hungry after all. Most of them dropped out of the program.

Yeah, if Government's gonna take the lead role in writing the checks, it should also take the lead role in assisting in finding employment for recipients. If the work is refused, the assistance will end. We need real Welfare Reform. Right now it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we can pay people to sit at home, then we can pay them to go out in the community and start fixing roads, clean up garbage, repair public parks and playgrounds, etc.

For the life of me I can't remember where that happened, but it's been tried before. I remember reading about it years ago.

The public unions were outraged. They fought against people doing jobs that their workers were otherwise paid to do, so they put the program to a halt.

 

[paulitician]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

I hear ya, but the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. It would be a very wise investment. If work is offered and refused, the assistance will end. It eliminates all those claiming they can't find jobs.

The current system just doesn't work. If the Government's gonna write the checks, it might as well get involved with finding employment for recipients. It'll be well worth the costs in the end.

I agree. They need to enforce the rules they already have in place.

Enforcement is part of it, but the existing rules don't work anyway. Require recipients to perform some sort of Community Service, and then get Government to take the lead role in finding them work. If an able-bodied recipient refuses work offered, their assistance should be ended. We just need to have some real Welfare Reform.

Heh... sure. This from the poster who claimed:

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Fakey, is that you? Fess up!

I stand by my comments. There is no 'American Dream.' Like George Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except they weren't. Having lived here since before those laws were attempted, I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty there was no mass exodus of "illegals" because of this law. All it did was infringe on the Constitution, piss a whole lot of people off, and cost us business, and money, as tourists, and companies decided to take their business elsewhere, rather than come to such a bigoted state.

Real effective law...

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're still not addressing my question about what is up with your convoluted positions. You're advocating more resources to be devoted for public assistance at the same time you are advocating open borders. I've asked you to explain this several times and you ignore me... so....

No, I'm not. That's what you right wingers don't seem to understand. You seem to think that, because we advocate taking the simplest, least expensive option for dealing with the immigrants already here, that we, somehow, also oppose any measures, or proposals to tighten the borders, and make it more difficult for new immigrants to come in, without following the proper procedures. I don't. Now, I don't support Trump's stupid wall, because it is stupidly expensive, and unrealistic. And the idea that the Mexican government will pay for it, is just dumb. Especially considering the fact that the current President of Mexico has already told Trump that he can happily feel free to shove that idea straight up his ass (yes, he was more diplomatic than that; that is not a direct quote. But that was the general gist of his response). However, I absolutely support taking whatever realistic measures we can to make illegal border crossings more difficult, and, at least stemming (realistically we're never going to stop it entirely, but we can at least make it harder than it currently is) the illegal crossings.

Do you understand what the word "illegal" means?

If you "illegally" break the speed limit should the government give you amnesty? We have laws regarding immigration and entry into this country. People who break those laws should be held accountable, otherwise we no longer have a country.

How? How do you find them, round them up, and ship them out?

And what about the children they brought, who are now adults, living lives, having gone to school, joined the military, and started careers. They didn't choose to break the law. When I choose to break the speed limit I get a ticket. But you don't give a ticket to my five-year-old sitting in the back seat.

its true that the kids did not enter the country illegally, but their parents did. Sorry about that. The parents are responsible for taking care of their children. The parents broke the law and should be deported with their children. We are not running a charity home here in the USA. It is not our job to take care of every needy person on earth.

but if you feel that way you should take everything you own, all of your clothes, food, money, furniture, cars, etc and give it to some homeless person. That's exactly what you are asking this country to do-----------------practice what you preach or STFU.

Oh, my ass. First of all, I'm not talking about kid kids. I'm talking about the kids who were brought here a decade, two decades ago. For all intents, and purposes, the grew up American. They went to school, got educations, for careers, and contribute to the revenue of this nation. What do you propose we do with them?

Your second ignorant comment I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Give them two choices: deportation, or serve 20 years in the armed forces in exchange for permanent-resident status.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, if Government's gonna take the lead role in writing the checks, it should also take the lead role in assisting in finding employment for recipients. If the work is refused, the assistance will end. We need real Welfare Reform. Right now it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

If it were up to me, you wouldn't be able to collect a dime until you were fixed first. One of the problems with our system is that it encourages poor people to have more children we have to support. The more kids, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home in the suburbs, the larger the welfare check and so on.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class children will generally end up as middle-class adults. Same holds true for the upper-middle-class and the wealthy. And yes, it's even true for the poor.

Because (so it seems) poor people have more children on average than working people, HTF are we supposed to solve poverty that way?

 

[Czernobog]

Now, see? I don't have a problem with that. You see, you guys presume that when Progressives talk about increasing public assistance, we mean "paying people to sit on their asses". Why? There are plenty of public projects - food backs, etc - that are constantly looking for volunteers. I have no problem with making that a condition of public assistance. People who need the help get it, and projects that need bodies get them. Win, win.

Lose-lose for Democrats.

The Democrat party knows quite well that the more people dependent on government, the more potential Democrat voters. They are not about to do anything to deter people from getting on the dole.

If people are forced to work for welfare, many of them might say to hell with welfare and get a job instead.

And, yet, here's a "Democrat/Progressive" endorsing exactly that - that public service be a part of public assistance. However do you explain me, in light of your gross over-generalization? I think it's hilarious how you characterize the agenda. We support immigration reform, because we need illegals - who can't vote - to vote. We support women's issues, not because it's right, but because we secretly hate women, and think they are too stupid to use birth control, but we need their vote. We support public assistance, because we're buying poor people's vote with free stuff.

Do you see a pattern here? While we progressives perceive issues of morality, and ethics, all you fake conservatives see is ways to sway voting blocks. One of us is certainly more focused on identity politics, than serving the people...

 

[kaz]

I was not referring to GDP. I was, specifically, referring to percentage of budget. Further more, social security is not public assistance, so any analysis that includes Social Security as an "entitlement" program, is flawed.

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Also, do not forget to count the trillions in Obamacare costs. So far $2 trillion.

ObamaCare: $2 Trillion In Spending, $643M In Taxes, Insurance For $50k a Head - Breitbart

Regarding social security, if you get back more than you paid, it is an entitlement.

Isn't social security included in the 0.7%?

I don't believe so. Social security is retirement insurance. It is not public assistance. Everyone wants to act like it is. I recieve public assistance, because I am poor, not because I made any sort of contribution.

If I didn't make any contribution to Social Security, I don't receive any social security, when I retire. You can call it an "Entitlement", or a public assistance program, all you like. It's just not.

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

 

[francoHFW]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

If we can pay people to sit at home, then we can pay them to go out in the community and start fixing roads, clean up garbage, repair public parks and playgrounds, etc.

THEY ALREADY DO

 

[francoHFW]

We can increase it, but we should also increase requirements and accountability for those receiving it. Some sort of Community Service should be required. Those receiving the help, should give something back to the community. Such requirements have to be met in many other countries.

Also, the Government should take an active role in finding work for recipients. If they're able and refuse the work offered, their assistance should end. Many countries are doing that as well. That would eliminate the many recipients who claim they can't find work. So we can increase Public Assistance, but at the same time we need to increase requirements and accountability.

Many states require proof of employment for EBT/SNAP etc. Also for folks getting unemployment... Proof of weekly job interviews to keep receiving benefits.

They tell them where to work for benefits.