Thread: Welfare

Originally Posted by Gipper

Welfare needs a drastic overhaul these days. The amount needs to be reduced, it needs to require full-time employment, recipients should be mandated to take random, frequent drug tests, and women need to be placed on some sort of birth control who receive funding. These are just tips of the iceberg.

Excellent. I could not have phrased it any better...........

Originally Posted by cthomp

I come from an area that has a lot of people on welfare. My neighboring town is roughly 86%. I can honestly say that when I go through that town I am amazed. It is not rare to see expensive cars, rims, and hear the bumping of expensive stereo systems in cars. For the most part the people are dressed in expensive clothes and shoes. To pile it on it is common to see many people walking the streets in the middle of the day during the week. It frustrates me to see the welfare system abused. However, I am not completely against it. My question is what do you think the welfare system should be like?

I feel it should go something like this. I would like to see the people on welfare drug tested. Next I think there should be somewhat of a stepping system. People that receive welfare should have to do some community service. Maybe two three times a week to earn their check. Give them x amount of days to get a job. Any job, working at McDonalds if they have to. This way their welfare check can be reduced. The system should be organized to help people get off of their feet, not feel its ok to sit at home and just get a hand-out.

Excellent repsonse.........

There is a time in life when people may need welfare. Welfare should be much more conservative. You should be given a card that has all your money on it. Then you use that card to buy things then the government can see what you buy. If you don't hunt for a job or rarely hunt for a job you wil eventually lose your welfare priviliges. Also you should be required to show I.D and a social security number. Basically welfare should be monitired more so the government can know how you're spending that money.

Originally Posted by Mangoman

There is a time in life when people may need welfare. Welfare should be much more conservative. You should be given a card that has all your money on it. Then you use that card to buy things then the government can see what you buy. If you don't hunt for a job or rarely hunt for a job you wil eventually lose your welfare priviliges. Also you should be required to show I.D and a social security number. Basically welfare should be monitired more so the government can know how you're spending that money.

this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.

Originally Posted by jamesrage

I think it would easier just have everyone on welfare show up to the welfare office to collect their welfare where they are randomly tested and have a male and female drug tester on the spot to make sure they aren't cheating.

Just where in that line would Exxon/Mobil, GE, B of A, and the many thousands of Corporate Welfare recipients stand. I think "test them all," acknowledge reality or retreat into your pipe dreams generated by the "Mighty Wurlitzer."

Originally Posted by liblady

this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.

Screw drug testing for welfare. Drug test SSDI folks, or boot them from the program if they test hot for it (eg in the course of receiving medical treatment). Then again, I consider SSDI, SSI, and a host of other things welfare, not just the one or two tiny little programs we can't figure out another name for.

Originally Posted by liblady

this is so typical of people who don't really understand the way TANF works. able bodied people without children DO NOT receive welfare. most states have time limits on welfare as well.

Most people complaining about welfare while they simultaneously oppose a living wage, seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the welfare reform in 1996.

Originally Posted by catawba

Most people complaining about welfare while they simultaneously oppose a living wage, seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the welfare reform in 1996.

Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.

Originally Posted by Gipper

Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.

Thanks for the far right wing perspective!

Originally Posted by Gipper

Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to determine what a "living wage" is? If you want to boil it down, you could argue that minimum wage is a living wage if you eat extremely cheap and share a place with other people/family(ies).

I agree minimum wage or some derivative thereof should be a living wage.

Originally Posted by Gipper

I'm rather sick and tired of people who think that mule work entitles them to this, that, and everything else. If you're not making a market wage, don't blame the market. The blame lies back at the accuser.

In the 90's, hell, even for most of Bush's terms, I might have agreed with this. In today's economic climate it's either incredibly short-sighted or typical Party Line.