A General Question for Opponents and Defenders of Welfare

Do you think welfare would be better or worse if able-bodied recipients were expected to work for their welfare? Would this make welfare more palatable to you as a citizen?

I do not mean this as just a "work-to-welfare" program but an actual obligation to civil service hours in exchange for benefits.

Ideas concerning welfare reform, do you agree with any or all of these and why:

1. A sign in system and job placement akin to community service - jobs working in recycling plants, reputable charitable organizations, street cleaning, etc. A certain amount of hours stipulated in writing, with your check withheld for not completing the hours.

2. Mandatory drug testing for recipients. Proof of treatment for drug and/or alcohol related problems contingent upon benefits, if it is discovered you have a substance abuse problem.

3. Mandatory classes through a state-run employment agency (similar to Michigan Works!, I believe many other states have similar offices). Outlined goals by a social worker such as: expectancy to take classes to receive a GED, money management classes, resume building workshops, job search workshops, information on community college courses, etc

4. Limit on the amount of benefits available based on children - for example, a set rate for the upkeep of a family of four, no extra benefits beyond that.

5. Proof of an active job search, including social worker "call backs" to companies that interviewed the recipients to ask about their demeanor.

6. The above outlined in a contract that the welfare recipient must strictly follow within reason (excluding sickness, death in the family, etc)

 

Seems reasonable.

However, I would favor civil service over actual jobs in most instances. Without expanding on the thought too much I would assume that someone who is not eligible for welfare or may not want welfare would benefit more from a bonified job than a welfare recipient who is already receiving benefits.

I suppose that could perpetrate a cycle of poverty, but I am not entirely sure.

 

I'm neither for nor against welfare, i just don't believe EVERYBODY should pay for it, the same way that EVERYBODY shouldn't pay for internet-access for everyone. Not everyone wants it.

It should instead be offered as a service by private insurance companies. That would be far more efficient, and cheaper than what our current system of tax for welfare or your proposed work (invented work, yes the government would simply invent work that doesn't need to exist) for welfare.

 

Yes, I believe they should have to have proof of a job search if they don't have one. If they are not then make them do work of they lose welfare.

 

Yes if you recieve aid you should contribute to your society in some way. It not only off sets the costs but helps promote a healthy community, healthy self image, and can teach valuable skills.

 

Welfare should not be a federal duty, period.

If you want to talk about it from a state stand point, that's fine. Personally, I consider the needy to be a voluntary charity issue.

The indigent can be a state or local issue.

 

I am happy with the welfare system as it is. If you gave them (whoever "they" are, as you refer to them as one class of people) more food stamps, you approach a diminishing return: as no one but the crazies are "living on the street, homeless and poor", most to all of them are getting by on what they have. I must admit personally, I eat Ramen noodles often- I actually like the taste and it fills my belly and it costs 40 cents to make a meal, so people on food stamps should all be able to get by with the welfare-for-food they receive.

Yes- once you start imposing caveats to receiving food stamps, you will lower the recipients but we are talking about a 10-25% reduction, not a mass exodus. Furthermore, the organizational effort it would take to manage a variable welfare working class outweighs the savings of not having such requirements at all, considering the money it would cost to set up those work-for-welfare programs in the first place. Perhaps it would be rewarding to you if you knew the people getting free food would be working for it, but it would actually end up you costing more.

The overwhelming majority of people who receive public assistance are people who qualify for public assistance... most of my cashiers get food stamps- even the full-time ones. Yes, they work full-time but no- they don't earn enough to make it on their own. Since they qualify for it, they should have every right to them, as per Federal Requirements.

Working retail and having an objective mind allows me to explore such issues- like the customers. I would say 75% of the people who pay with food stamps are either single mothers with children, the poor working class or the disabled- all of which SHOULD get public assistance. I have yet to see one person with Nikes and bling buying their Ramen noodles with food stamps.

I think the greater issue is how much more we should be spending to take those on public assistance to tackle the societal problems they face- discrimination, lack of education and opportunity, and the cramming of them all into ghettos with a concrete (not glass) ceiling above them. A poor child born into poverty should be able to be President one day- the opportunity should be there if they reach for it and presently, it does not exist.

 

That is exactly what www.pvsi.net mandates

 

Providing public sector jobs is a great idea in a recession, but I wouldn't call it "welfare".

Many people who receive free stuff will indeed blow their savings on addictive drugs and never get an education to pull themselves up, let alone look for a job. This is not a reason to enact barriers to getting the free stuff; instead, this is a basic proof of why giving free stuff is bad, and people should always be expected to earn their way. Here's a long-term government solution to help struggling Americans: subsidize/improve education, provide job placement services, and eliminate the minimum wage. Don't give handouts or try to control decisions.

 

Yes, the sector jobs would open as well. Although the point was more on temporary labor for a set amount of benefits, with the ultimate goal of creating financial independence for the person while creating a service for the public.

Hence, reformatory measures to stop such things. They enter into a contract which demands they behave in a certain way in order to receive assistance.

Hence, programs to make people work for their aid, in which case it is not "free" but earned.

I agree with the first two. I don't see how eliminating the minimum wage would help matters. I honestly think it would turn America into a third world economy. You would have employers everywhere saying "sorry I can only afford to pay you 2 bucks an hour take it or leave it." Can you name me one single successful first world nation with a very low level of wealth disparity and a high level of social mobility that has no minimum wage? Do you really think these dire economic times are a good time to experiment with such a dangerous idea?

 

Abolutely far better, however...still unnecessary. Charity should be a private act.

Better than what exists at present, however. I see a couple of problems, nonetheless:

I can see Government Unions getting bent out of shape, because we could literally remove a ton of Government positions and replace them with these sorts of workers.

I can also see this as a vehicle for Big Government types to expand the Government payroll under the guise of Welfare.

 

Unfortunately, charitable organizations obviously don't generate enough wealth to help the poor in a lasting substantial way. Nor do they have the organizational power to help large portions of the population find work.

If they did they would accept the burden and the government would gleefully retract services. Further, charities are more often than not scams and ways of embezzling money. They promise to feed African kids and send a minuscule percentage toward them, meanwhile the director of the organization is driving around in a Bentley. When you send money to these late night sad charity commercials, you think you are giving the poor kid with flies on his face a chance at life, but the sad fact is you are paying for the commercial you are watching and the director who makes 200K or more a year.

Not really, because as I mentioned the program would be modeled after court ordered community service which is constantly implemented by the court system with no ill effect.

How so?

 

Take two steps back and look at your quote for a second: demanding that people behave in a certain way in order to receive assistance is strongly paternalistic and deeply fascistic. Pay people for what they produce, not whether they live how you think they should live.

Uh.... Again, I wouldn't call this 'welfare', but whatever.

Not if they wanted to hire anyone remotely competent. Take my job, for instance. I work in a call center, which doesn't really take any special skills, yet any responsible person who lives in this area and has some spare time can easily get a job here and make $8.15+ an hour 30+ hours a week. ...But I digress. The point of this post is how wrong the OP is about public sector job requirements.

 

wow!!! 8 bucks an hour?!?! Does that leave you with any cash left for anything after paying for your gas to get there??? Toilet paper is about 8 bucks now. There goes one hours pay.

 

It should be left up to the states.

 

It would also be a good idea to require all personages taking welfare to be eugenically sterilized as well.

 

There's some good ole right wing strategy for ya!!
Question though...wouldn't sterilization hurt the inbred republican population???

 

The population will be culled.

As a Far Rightist (who is distantly related to Carl Schmitt ) am working to make sure that when we win this time that blood shall flow ankle deep in the streets.

 

No. I'm sorry. People on welfare have enough problems, we don't need to be making them jump through all these hoops. Some of them can't jump, anyway.

Remember that most welfare recipients are children.

 

no worse that is too conservative a plan for welfare recepients

their problems are much bigger than forcing them to work for minimum wage or volunteer work for their welfare, they need more opportunities and no strings welfare during free training or education

 

Well they are asking for aid, which is voluntary. I don't think there is anything fascistic about asking them to contribute to the system they are benefiting from. It isn't about behaving a certain way, it is asking them to work for what they are receiving. It is much better than them receiving no aid at all, or receiving help without contributing in return.

And in the long run, it will help them to become independent of their help. As far as drugs, they have no right asking for aid if they have substance abuse problems, because that is what destroys poor communities, if the assistance helps eradicate their addictive, community-destroying problems, isn't that better??

I don't see how this proves my OP wrong. It isn't a matter of saying how people "should" live as much as a targeted way of using welfare to allow people to become more independent and expecting civic contribution to their community...

 

Perhaps so, but that only matters on whether or not we choose to empower states over federal government..and how we accomplish this.

 

Well obviously children would be exempt, I said "able bodied" recipients. And my idea would be a more stream lined, easy to enter process that is more demanding and based on temporary need, with the ultimate goal being financial independence.

 

This is very simple. Are you, at heart, a social Darwinist (which would include both violent and non-violent ideologies; capitalism is socially Darwinistic but not violent, whereas Nazism is socially Darwinistic but is violent)? If so, who cares about helping the needy, whether or not it was their faults? If a crippled old woman who worked all her life but spent her savings trying to survive, can't get a well-enough paying job, so what? Let her starve and set an example to other people who want to try and live that long. Not a good idea to let yourself get old and feeble, is it?

If you're a utilitarian who wants to take from the economically fit and give it to people who suck at life, then I guess you know your solution.

The only way to resolve utilitarians vs social Darwinists is for them to fight to the death over the issue. After that brutal war, only one of the two ideologies will remain, and each side would hope that their ideology survived, along with themselves and their families.

That's the way it goes.

 

What able-bodied and able-minded people are receiving welfare?

As I understand it, it is only for the disabled and for single moms who can't afford to pay day-care to go and work.........who will pay for day-care while they do this 'welfare' work requirement?