Responsibility of Recipients
EdsonNascimento
Posts: 5,522
I've participated in a few and read a bunch of other threads that gets into what we think should be done regarding welfare and such. As I've read them, one thing struck me as being mentioned occassionally, but almost always ignored. And that is - if we assume that we all agree that we want to help those in need (because, honestly, I haven't seen one poster that has said they don't - it's the measure of extent that folks are discussing), then:
What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?
I know it's tough, but I would rather stay away from the tax/don't tax the rich and such. I would really like to know people's thoughts from both sides of the tax/spend issue as to what they think those that receive should/should not be expected to do in order to receive their subsidy.
What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?
I know it's tough, but I would rather stay away from the tax/don't tax the rich and such. I would really like to know people's thoughts from both sides of the tax/spend issue as to what they think those that receive should/should not be expected to do in order to receive their subsidy.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have no idea how to solve the issue, but I do know that money earned is money respected...hopefully some day we can find a middle...Institutionalization of the welfare system among the poor is a scary concept to me...we are at what 40,000,000 people who receive food stamps...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No responses other than Mike's admission that we have no solution. Perhaps we should identify what is necessary and then we could discover a solution.
I don't know if that means we think they don't have any responsibilities, or if we just don't want to broach this subject. Maybe, that's the problem. Eh (shrug).
simply ... i think we need to live in a society that is accountable ... not only people who receive social assistance but everyone ... i mean for every welfare person that is abusing the system - there is some fat cat using loop holes to not pay taxes ... i do think that the goal should always be to have people move past any social assistance ... but that means social programs ... education, child care, training programs ... and all that needs to be monitored ...
Correct.
It has to start at the top long before the welfare recipient. In regards to a responsible recipient, he/she must abide by the rules of ethics & responsibility. If he is an addict, he/she must attend treatment. If he/she was abused, they must attend counseling in groups or one on ones. Depression etc., all must be treated to usher in a balanced lifestyle. Only then, for those that are exposed to these scenarios can you then add an expectation i.e. job, education.
Now, with that said, if someone is just lazy & is trying to scam the system i.e. Collecting & working under the table, definitely some sort of punishment but again it isn't that easy because you have to go back to the top. Prison the answer ? Where he/she will be exposed to even greater criminal minds & minds, I might add, which are now gathered together and being used to survive in a whole new problematic environment of urges.
I think feelings need to be addressed also, early on in a persons life. Is it ok to be feeling this or that ? Why ? How do I conclude these feelings in a positive matter & grow ? Emotional intelligence is the key to develop the necessary attitude for the span of these 60 to 80 years that we may or may not exist.
So, the way I see it, it is basically a struggle between I'D LIKE TO GROW & FIGURE THIS OUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SHOWN THAT I AM OK WITH WHO I AM or I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANY OF IT, SO FUCK IT ALL.
Now, if someone says, ... I'D LIKE TO GROW & FIGURE THIS OUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SHOWN THAT I AM OK WITH WHO I AM ... then ok, I knowingly benefit from paying my taxes but if someone says ... SO FUCK IT ALL ... for whatever reason, how do they now NOT qualify to receive welfare ? What is going to be the grade for slicing the income ? Whatever is decided in the latter, does that not now become unethical because of our responsibility to other human beings to assure no one goes hungry, for example ?
It's ridiculous.
Great question EdsonNascimento.
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
I do remember seeing a statistic about the % of people who receive some kind of welfare that stay on it for over 3-5 years. I think we have to set up some kind of system that weeds them off of it over time (if possible).
Also, there has to be a better way of providing food vouchers that can ONLY be used for basic human needs, and not like you said, ice cream or other unnecessary items.
Some people were advocating community service for some recipients. I think this may cause some problems though, unless the govt can determine who absolutely has the free time available to do such services.
i have a problem with....you buying "j" with tax dollars....that is if you buy them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think this is the reason that giving things isn't as good as meeting the basic needs of the person/family while teaching trades to eligible members of the workforce...People with disabilities and any reason they are unable to work should still be taken care of while working with the person to find something they can do...I am a firm believer in people needing a purpose...
In a state like Minnesota we give cash and food "stamps"...giving Cash on an ebt card allows people to sell them. I realize most do not do it and use the money to buy things, but there are those that simply sell them and they are given that opportunity because of how the system is set up...don't give out cash that anyone can use, they cannot sell it.
We talk about abuse and fraud like it is the majority of welfare users but it isn't....but like I pointed out in a different thread...it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year...that is unacceptable, but instead of more oversight, maybe changing the way things are distributed is a better way. Possibly even creating government run welfare only grocery stores...I don't know...they are meant to benefit society, but I feel like they are keeping the bottom at the bottom...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
On the flip side, I knew someone who had to collect welfare and was upset about it. He tried to tell the state that he didn't need the foodstamps and they told him that he either had to take the foodstamps and use them or else he couldn't get the money even though he qualified for it based on the guidelines the state had in place. Now why would any state force someone to spend its money when that person is saying that it's more than he needs? Isn't that money better spent on other things? Even better, wouldn't that money be better off not being taken from the taxpayers in the first place? I doubt that his guy was the only person to ever have that situation. This guy worked hard to find a job (2, actually) and wound up getting himself off any sort of public assistance even though he could have sat at home and continued collecting. Meanwhile, there are people collecting for years who have no desire to stop because there is nothing preventing them from wasting the money the get.
Giving people money so they can have the things they want shouldn't be a priority for any government. It's supposed to be about need, not using your paycheck for your needs and your welfare for the things you want. Why not implement a system that issues assitance on a reloadable prepaid Visa card and have it set up to only be able to use it for certain purposes (rent, utilities, groceries, pharmacy needs, etc.)? I've known people who turned down jobs offered by neighbors (not pity work like "Want to mow my lawn this summer?" but real jobs where they knew someone who owned a company that did the type of work the other person used to do) or accept a job and just never show up because it is easier to do that and it's very difficult for other people to prove that they are abusing the system. If you get public assistance, the last thing you should want to do is have a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th kid, but I've heard people collecting welfare talk about wanting another kid. Why not? For the average person, a kid means that they'll have extra expenses without extra income (unless the get a raise or promotion at work at the same time). If you're receiving public assistance, another kid means you get a bigger check. China's trying to keep families from having more than 1 kid and we're paying people to have as many as they want.
Regardless, we should never fail to provide basic needs for children. They can't be held responsible for meeting requirements.
I also think that not only does everyone have a right to health care, but that it's in society's best interest to provide it.
Just from a socially selfish point of view, it's not good for any of us to have anyone whose basic needs are not met. We need to look more at who is really benefiting from these welfare programs. WE are. Children are.
Some children are. But all children that are intended to be helped are? Should the parent(s) that are being paid to do so be held accountable for something so we can ensure the children are helped?
That's the funny thing about the "socially selfish point of view" - most times it doesn't consider what's actually happening. It only considers intent. How do we make sure reality meets intent? That's the point.
I'm sorry; I thought the point was WHAT responsibilities welfare recipients should be held to, not HOW to hold them to them.
Again, we need to define our parameters. If you are asking whether parents who do not meet certain requirements should be cut off from receiving food for their children, I think the answer is no. Even if they are spending half the money on their children & half on drugs, I still think half the money being spent on children is preferable to no money being spent on children. But I don't know the specific parameters of your question.
I agree that what's really happening is important. What I think is funny/sad is that we tend to not consider the reality of what will happen if we cut people's funding.
I think there are more pressing issues. Like lets stop spending trillions on needless wars overseas. I don't give a rats ass if some welfare recipient gets high everyday while we spend all that money on useless wars. Bring all the troops home from all over the world, start using that money to have the very best infrastructure, police force, firefighters, education, and social programs. Then I'll gladly focus on those abusing the system.
Well, The first thing I would do is punish the ones who get caught cheating the system. I'm more pissed off at them, not because they are getting my tax dollars, but because they are taking away from the ones who really need it.
I also know that people make mistakes... some of them really stupid mistakes. But, who am i to judge? I never walked in their shoes. I don't care if a woman mistook love with sex when she was 16 years old and in now having to deal with a 4 year old. She needs help and i don't mind helping her.
Or how do I know the guy spending food stamps at the Ralphs market didn't get kind of fucked up from his 3 tours of duty in Iraq or not? I don't know the path he took to get him where he is today.
And I really don't mind paying for a kid's lunch at school because I don't know if that is the best meal he will eat today.
All I know is that there are people who need help and I believe the strong should help the weak.
...
I ain't rich... but I know I have a warm bed to sleep in, in a dry house with food in the fridge if I get hungry. I can help people who need it. But, i'm not going to shut the entire system down because there are those out there that screw it up for the ones that need it.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think this is where we might start getting into freedoms issues..........sure their money is coming from the tax payer, but why should that mean that we dictate what they buy? where does it go from there? "hey, you can't buy a beer for yourself with MY money! buy a water!". "hey, you don't need to buy hairspray with MY money, get a brushcut!". it would be a slippery slope.
but I have always believed that those that are physically able, should be put to work in some capacity.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The only thing I have to say about this is, 'Physically Able' also means mentally and emotionally stable. I don't want a fucking psycho working the taco making station at the Taco Bell who thinks it'd be funny to put Drano in Coke machine.
Hail, Hail!!!
People also talk like it's a possibility to have a 0% unemployment rate and that there are many unfilled positions. At best, we could have a 5% unemployment rate when the economy is doing well.
I'm all for enforcement of expectations of those on welfare to reduce fraud, but that also means states would need to hire many more people to work the caseloads. All ready overloaded case managers can't spend additional time on enforcement, because then those who need it would wait even longer to get benefits. States are laying people off right now, not adding positions.
Why is that mutually exclusive? You can start a separate thread regarding your thoughts on the wars, etc. But, that doesn't prevent us from reviewing other aspects of our spending.
Just because you feel we waste money in one place, does not mean we should take that money and automatically spend it elsewhere. Perhaps, we don't need to spend it anywhere.
But for now, I'd just like to know the thoughts on what we believe someone receiving aid should be required to do in return (if anything).
Just trying to understand this- are you saying that whatever is in place today is what we should expect? That seems to be what your opening statement indicates. That's fine. I'm just trying to get clarity.
(BTW, folks thought 5% unemployment was impossible until Reagan went below that. Agreed that we'll never get to 0%.)
Why not? Why can't we put limitations on what recipients can and cannot do? They still have freedom - freedom to not take what the gov't gives them. And if you're desperate enough, I'd assume you wouldn't mind having limitations. I do think there's a limit on how far that should go.
But to your haircut point - why should they be getting tricked out hair dos when a simple cut is acceptable?
How far does the entitlement go? That's the crux of the question to begin with. I'm guessing you're saying we shouldn't. I guess my next question to you would be - why not?
You're focusing way too much on inhibiting freedoms on others just because they need assistance. Perhaps taking a look at yourself and asking yourself why you're so focused on this issue of controlling what less fortunate people can and can't have just because they're on assistance is the real issue here. You haven't said one thing about actually caring about those who need help; you're just focusing on limiting what they can and can't have.
Sorry, but that's a cop out. I left it open ended on purpose. If you think you want something for 1 program and not another, that's fine. I'm also not expecting we come up with specific item by item responsibilities. But, I do think it's fair to disuss more broad parameters.
And do you really think the drugged out parents you allude to are spending anything on their kids (let alone half)? And is there a better way? I think the point is to understand ideas that might make this better and not be constrained by the current way we do things.
Again, I don't know. Quite frankly, I've learned some from some of these posts. So, I'm glad I asked. I'd actually like to hear from a few other folks that tend to post on some of these other threads, as I imagine I'd learn even more.
I'm not hung up on anything. I don't know what the answer is. I was just wondering what other folks think should be the responsibility of those receiving assistance. If you say nothing, so be it. That's certainly a legitemate viewpoint to have.
You also use less fortunate as an excuse. Its not an excuse, not everybody is born to the same parent/environment/country/ect. All that shows is that some people need to work harder to get where they want and some will have to work less.
it should then be the program's responsibilty to follow up on the person's commitment.
if the person lies....revoke the assistance.
A simple statement makes the whole thread. The bolded is basically all that needs to be "enforced".
Dude. This is getting to be ridiculous. :roll: And that last sentence - some don't "have to work less" as you say. That sentence right there shows ignorance on how much you know about being on assistance and what it's like. They need help, either because they're either disabled (like me, temporarily), cannot get by on the jobs they have because they're minimum wage, are sick, etc. etc.