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.
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.
I've said plenty about my situation on page 1. The way you talk about this issue, it clearly seems like you are hung up on it.
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.
yes, there seems to be a great deal of stereotyping and unfounded, misguided assumptions floating around.
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.
yes, there seems to be a great deal of stereotyping and unfounded, misguided assumptions floating around.
If only people generally knew what is like to have to rely on assistance. It's no fun, it certainly is far from a lot of money, and certainly nothing to brag about. I rarely talk about it because it's embarrassing and I would rather actually work than be disabled. It sucks not being able to walk well nor have two good functional hands. If only Edson and Blockhead were in my shoes they'd understand.
Their responsibility is that they should follow the expectations and requirements of whatever program they're receiving support from. Many people who post on here about welfare don't know much about it and talk like everyone goes to the atm and out comes free money. Also, the topic jumps around because OP's don't narrow what they're talking about. Is welfare unemployment, food stamps, disability, Medicare, Medicaid, cash TANF, day care subsidies? etc. In many states there is an expectation to do a 'back to work' program that includes volunteer work if you receive cash. There is also requirements when receiving food stamps around looking for work if you happen to be unemployed at the same time. People think more people are on welfare, when actually numbers are decreasing.
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.
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%.)
I think, for the most part, current expectations are reasonable. I would like to see more in place for job training and education, but that also means extra $. I don't feel comfortable with the whole idea of "since you get taxpayer money, you are limited to x,y, and z". Drug testing is an example of this.
I'm not seeing any unemployment numbers under 5.5% in the 80's.
If only people generally knew what is like to have to rely on assistance. It's no fun, it certainly is far from a lot of money, and certainly nothing to brag about. I rarely talk about it because it's embarrassing and I would rather actually work than be disabled. It sucks not being able to walk well nor have two good functional hands. If only Edson and Blockhead were in my shoes they'd understand.
I am assuming that they have not been in a similar situation, nor do they have the capacity right now to empathize with the largely legitimate sector of recipient populations. (no offense to them, it just seems that way from their posts). One never knows what may happen in life....
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.
yes, there seems to be a great deal of stereotyping and unfounded, misguided assumptions floating around.
If only people generally knew what is like to have to rely on assistance. It's no fun, it certainly is far from a lot of money, and certainly nothing to brag about. I rarely talk about it because it's embarrassing and I would rather actually work than be disabled. It sucks not being able to walk well nor have two good functional hands. If only Edson and Blockhead were in my shoes they'd understand.
You can sure type good with out two good functional hands...
Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you. When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
You can sure type good with out two good functional hands...
Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you. When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
That's an unfortunate situation in that circumstance (that particular school) undoubtedly, but you can't generalize the entire recipient population based on that.
When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
That's an unfortunate situation in that circumstance (that particular school) undoubtedly, but you can't generalize the entire recipient population based on that.
But you can because you've been in the position or empathize?
20% are on it for over 5 years, are you telling me it takes 5 years to find a job. I have posted in other threads the minium ammount you would have to make to be eligible to recieve welfare/food stamps in Ohio. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would put you well over that ammount.
If someone is on welfare, for example, then that person is supposed to need that money in order to meet their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). A $200 iPhone or Android phone with an $80/month plan isn't a need and isn't what the government had in mind when they decided to give that person money. Their kids are in dirty old clothes, but at least mommy and daddy have shiny electronic toys. That person isn't getting what they get because it's needed, that person is getting it because he/she is irresponsible and/or lazy. Imagine if a friend came you and asked to borrow money so he could pay his mortgage this month. Being nice, you give him what you can. A week later, you find out that he is taking a vacation to Disney World or bought a new 50" LED TV. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't be pissed?
Now I'm not saying that all receipients of public assistance do that, but there needs to be something in place to ensure that the money goes to the people who truly need it and something needs to be in place to ensure that the people receiving the money are making an effort to get themselves to the point that they no longer need it. Otherwise, the system is just designed to waste money that could be put to better use and all receipients of the funds get the stigma that only a portion of them really deserve.
To go further with it, the people who are getting assistance and are abusing the system aren't just wasting the taxpayers' money, they are also essentially stealing from the people who honestly need the money. There's only so much money allotted to these programs and if there are leeches abusing the system, they are making everyone else's slice of that pie that much smaller. So there might be a new mother who jsut lost her job who is getting assistance, but it isn't quite enough to get by and she's still in danger of losing her house even after cutting out the luxury items like her phone's text and data plan and cable TV. Two blocks over is someone using the money to buy a PS3 and get a tattoo, has every premium channel her cable system offers, and makes the rent or mortgage payment every month with money left over. That's a problem.
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.
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.
If only people generally knew what is like to have to rely on assistance. It's no fun, it certainly is far from a lot of money, and certainly nothing to brag about. I rarely talk about it because it's embarrassing and I would rather actually work than be disabled. It sucks not being able to walk well nor have two good functional hands. If only Edson and Blockhead were in my shoes they'd understand.
I am assuming that they have not been in a similar situation, nor do they have the capacity right now to empathize with the largely legitimate sector of recipient populations. (no offense to them, it just seems that way from their posts). One never knows what may happen in life....
That is complete and utter nonsense. I actually applaud Jeanwah for being open about his situation and his effort. I completely understand that you can't create a one size fits all system. And, some folks will be self motivated, and there will be very little necessary.
Making assumptions that one can't empathize is silly. As with other threads, nobody is saying they don't want to help. The only question I am asking here is what is the responsibility of the recipient. If someone like Jeanwah exceeds your requirements on his own, then wonderful. That's what we as a society can only dream of. But, that doesn't mean the question isn't a fair one or certain answers mean you don't empathize or want to help.
Again, what is their responsibility? I'm not asking are there people out there that already meet that criteria? Your criteria may be - whatever they want to do is fine with me. If so, you can just answer that.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
But you can because you've been in the position or empathize?
20% are on it for over 5 years, are you telling me it takes 5 years to find a job. I have posted in other threads the minium ammount you would have to make to be eligible to recieve welfare/food stamps in Ohio. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would put you well over that ammount.
Yes, I can empathize, for personal reasons. I have never received assistance myself but I know many who have/do.
I was told by a friend that her medicaid was stopped because she made over $400/month. She could still receive it for her children, but not for herself. Now, if someone is alone, say, and makes $900/month (with 2 jobs).... how can that possibly cover rent, utilities, food, car payment, not to mention health/dental issues?? Answer: it cannot--and you're still not eligible. Unless you are, or have ever been, in a similar situation, it's not fair for you to make generalizations about all recipients. Yes, I agree with your point that some who could get jobs don't.
"On average, at a given point in time, about 70 percent of current AFDC recipients have received AFDC for more than 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months."
"The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years. But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years"
"A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years."
. If someone like Jeanwah exceeds your requirements on his own, then wonderful. That's what we as a society can only dream of. But, that doesn't mean the question isn't a fair one or certain answers mean you don't empathize or want to help.
Again, what is their responsibility? I'm not asking are there people out there that already meet that criteria? Your criteria may be - whatever they want to do is fine with me. If so, you can just answer that.
point taken. Your question is a valid one, I just don't know what the answer would be, and I think any answer would be very difficult to monitor. I would have to think about it further....it's kinda overwhelming.
You can sure type good with out two good functional hands...
Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you. When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
i don't see why it is necessary to be so condescending to jeanwah. what, just because she is opposing your admittedly anecdotal personal experiences and somewhat biased views, that by the way we have read ad nauseum on this forum, she is now worthy of attack because of her disability or impairdd function?? pretty low if you ask me.
i want to see your stats on this, because anybody can make up numbers and post them as fact. afterall, this is the internet. how do those numbers, if they are actually true and not inflated, generalize to the student population throughout this country?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
But you can because you've been in the position or empathize?
20% are on it for over 5 years, are you telling me it takes 5 years to find a job. I have posted in other threads the minium ammount you would have to make to be eligible to recieve welfare/food stamps in Ohio. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would put you well over that ammount.
Yes, I can empathize, for personal reasons. I have never received assistance myself but I know many who have/do.
I was told by a friend that her medicaid was stopped because she made over $400/month. She could still receive it for her children, but not for herself. Now, if someone is alone, say, and makes $900/month (with 2 jobs).... how can that possibly cover rent, utilities, food, car payment, not to mention health/dental issues?? Answer: it cannot--and you're still not eligible. Unless you are, or have ever been, in a similar situation, it's not fair for you to make generalizations about all recipients. Yes, I agree with your point that some who could get jobs don't.
How is someone making only $900 or hell even $400 dollars a month? Minimum wage average is $7.25. Working 40 hours a week would = 290 dollars a week. x 4 (weeks in a month) = 1160 a month.
Hell my grocery bill for a family of 4 is $115 a week. and we have plenty of Healty food.
How is someone making only $900 or hell even $400 dollars a month? Minimum wage average is $7.25. Working 40 hours a week would = 290 dollars a week. x 4 (weeks in a month) = 1160 a month.
Hell my grocery bill for a family of 4 is $115 a week. and we have plenty of Healty food.
For one, you're not including taxes that are taken out. For two, it happens, trust me, I know. And your calculations are straight black and white for somebody who is lucky enough to find a full-time job---and you did not include rent, car payment, and utilities.....oh--OR health/dental issues...and getting insurance with that kind of income is laughable so you just don't go to the doctor or have to let your teeth rot out or have them pulled.
. If someone like Jeanwah exceeds your requirements on his own, then wonderful. That's what we as a society can only dream of. But, that doesn't mean the question isn't a fair one or certain answers mean you don't empathize or want to help.
Again, what is their responsibility? I'm not asking are there people out there that already meet that criteria? Your criteria may be - whatever they want to do is fine with me. If so, you can just answer that.
point taken. Your question is a valid one, I just don't know what the answer would be, and I think any answer would be very difficult to monitor. I would have to think about it further....it's kinda overwhelming.
I agree. That's sort of why I asked it. It is overwhelming, especially when you have to consider actually running it.
But as Monster Rain put it best - we could help those that "deserve it" (and that is obviously open to interpretation, so please don't get hung up on that) more if we figured out how to create standards that help people more than just hand outs (using that for folks that do nothing about their situation. Not in broad general terms). That doesn't just mean eliminate people from the rolls. Hopefully, it means setting up a structure that allows (forces?) everyone to succeed to the best of their abilities and not allowing them to settle for - that's what I was born into - can't help it mentality.
Quite honestly, if we had a system that worked, I might not mind raising the "poverty" level definition because as you and others have pointed out - what we do provide may not always be enough (and the total $'s in the program might actually be less). But, the problem is, we're not addressing those that abuse the system unfarily vis a vis those that need it and try to improve their lot. That's what led me to ask - what is their responsibility? I think if we define that, we can begin to craft something that works better for everyone.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i don't see why it is necessary to be so condescending to jeanwah. what, just because she is opposing your admittedly anecdotal personal experiences and somewhat biased views, that by the way we have read ad nauseum on this forum, she is now worthy of attack because of her disability or impairdd function?? pretty low if you ask me.
i want to see your stats on this, because anybody can make up numbers and post them as fact. afterall, this is the internet. how do those numbers, if they are actually true and not inflated, generalize to the student population throughout this country?
Dude, it was a joke,
ANyways you need to take your own advice and quit being so condescending to me about hating/ not wanting to help the poor.
I will try to find the stat on my wifes school but since it pales in comparrison to the poorer areas of the Nation I doubt I am generalizing. You seem to have an opinion based on nothing... As least my opinion comes from someone actually working with these people and seeing the abuse first hand.
Quick funny story: A child in her 6th grade calls we being examined for being ED (emotionally Disturbed) and some other ADHD "disease" She was in the meeting with the Mother and Middle school principal. The school was offer ways to help the child, the mother was pushing for him to be diagnosed as ED as she explained she needed more money, and if the child is diagnosed then the GOV will give her more assistance (money). The school agreed to this (not sure of process) and the mother said to the child after walking out of the meeting "I am proud of you boy, we are now going to get more money and I will get you that Android (phone) we've been talking about".
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.
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.
My bad. I thought when you asked, "What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?" and said you were asking a question that is usually ignored, you wanted to know WHAT responsibilities those receiving "welfare & such" should be held to and were trying to discuss something different than the same stuff that is always discussed.
I don't think a reasonable discussion can ever be held until we define our terms, and I haven't seen the terms of your question defined. Since I asked & was ignored, I give up.
In answer to your question above though, yes, in my scenario where someone is spending half their money on drugs & have on food for their kids, they are spending money on their kids. If they're not, I wasn't referring to them.
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.
??? They are dependant on the Gov. to provide their needs. They should be allowed to set any regulations they want. Just like my employer does. Is it inhibiting freedoms when a parent sets rules for children/teenagers, Is it inhibiting freedoms that I can't do whatever I want in the work place? At what point do you draw the line in inhibiting freedoms. You need to understand that they are dependants (dependant on someone else to provide the basic needs of their life). Why aren't you compaling about the inhibiting freedomes on 11 year olds. How dare parents be allowed to tell their kids what to do...
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.
(1) No, it's not like your employer does. Does your employer tell you exactly what you can & cannot buy with the money s/he gives you? I believe that's what was being discussed. If you believe we should tell welfare recipients what they can & cannot buy, whatever. But please stop with the bad analogies.
(2) Again with equating poor people to children? Really?? Sad. :(
I agree. That's sort of why I asked it. It is overwhelming, especially when you have to consider actually running it.
But as Monster Rain put it best - we could help those that "deserve it" (and that is obviously open to interpretation, so please don't get hung up on that) more if we figured out how to create standards that help people more than just hand outs (using that for folks that do nothing about their situation. Not in broad general terms). That doesn't just mean eliminate people from the rolls. Hopefully, it means setting up a structure that allows (forces?) everyone to succeed to the best of their abilities and not allowing them to settle for - that's what I was born into - can't help it mentality.
Quite honestly, if we had a system that worked, I might not mind raising the "poverty" level definition because as you and others have pointed out - what we do provide may not always be enough (and the total $'s in the program might actually be less). But, the problem is, we're not addressing those that abuse the system unfarily vis a vis those that need it and try to improve their lot. That's what led me to ask - what is their responsibility? I think if we define that, we can begin to craft something that works better for everyone.
The 'deserving' and 'hand out' part is the part that gets me on the fence. It would be extremely hard to determine, if not impossible, which recipients are abusing the system. Similarly, even if there were policies in place regarding responsibilty of recipients, there would just have to be an astronomical increase in the monitoring or enforcement of said responsibilities. This is one thing that overwhelms me about it---even if there were a set list of options of responsibilities--WHO would be keeping track of that for millions of people?? Also, your point about succeeding to the best of ones' ability and not settling for the 'can't help it' mentality--I think, in a way, that answers itself in relation to the latter part of your post--because sometimes people can get more money NOT working than they can when they ARE working (including health benefits). But that's a problem with the whole system. (one of the main issues I take with it is the health care aspect--which is another thing entirely from this thread).
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.
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.
My bad. I thought when you asked, "What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?" and said you were asking a question that is usually ignored, you wanted to know WHAT responsibilities those receiving "welfare & such" should be held to and were trying to discuss something different than the same stuff that is always discussed.
I don't think a reasonable discussion can ever be held until we define our terms, and I haven't seen the terms of your question defined. Since I asked & was ignored, I give up.
In answer to your question above though, yes, in my scenario where someone is spending half their money on drugs & have on food for their kids, they are spending money on their kids. If they're not, I wasn't referring to them.
They sound like great parents, you must be so proud of them that they are spending HALF on their kids... Since they are not getting drugged up at work they must be doing it at home infront or when they should be spending time with their kids. And you laugh at me for wanting these kids to be a more stable environment (foster/adoption)
(1) No, it's not like your employer does. Does your employer tell you exactly what you can & cannot buy with the money s/he gives you? I believe that's what was being discussed. If you believe we should tell welfare recipients what they can & cannot buy, whatever. But please stop with the bad analogies.
(2) Again with equating poor people to children? Really?? Sad. :(
(2) They are both dependants, dependant on someone else to live (provide basic needs of life, food, shelter,)
(1) No my employer does not becuase I am providing my employer with my good/services. I am earning the money. But while I am at work they are rules set in the work place in order for me to earn that money.
What servies are welfare recipients who don't work providing. Nothing... So since we can't put rules on their "work" we should be able to put rules around what they are allowed to use their assistance for. Since you don't see a problem with them using "our" money how every they want. I am sure you are fine with them selling their families food stams for drugs and money right. You support that?
Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you.
Good! So you understand now that the experiences of the few are not generalizable to the many. Thank God; that should put an end to your previous line of reasoning then.
its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance.
Assistance = kids not going hungry, therefore people seem to love their kids not going hungry. I'm happy to know they are good parents who care about their childrens' wellbeing.
The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
Let's say you are a low-income parent, trying to put food on the table. You would likely have to be at work during parent-teacher conferences. You probably are paid by the hour and don't have any/much leave time. Your options, then, are to miss the conference & work to feed your kids, or miss work to go to the conference, have less ability to provide for your family, & possibly lose your job. You of all people, who talks so much about how people should work their assess off to put food on the table no matter what, should not fault people for making the decision to continue to work in this situation.
Let's say you are a low-income parent, trying to put food on the table. You would likely have to be at work during parent-teacher conferences. You probably are paid by the hour and don't have any/much leave time. Your options, then, are to miss the conference & work to feed your kids, or miss work to go to the conference, have less ability to provide for your family, & possibly lose your job. You of all people, who talks so much about how people should work their assess off to put food on the table no matter what, should not fault people for making the decision to continue to work in this situation.
Glad you brought that point to light! My thoughts concur.
"On average, at a given point in time, about 70 percent of current AFDC recipients have received AFDC for more than 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months."
"The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years. But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years"
"A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years."
Publication Date: May 23, 1996...hmmmm
I found this to be interesting:
"The strongest predictors of whether a welfare recipient will leave welfare for work are recent work experience and educational attainment, including mastery of basic skills."
"Some families who spend long periods of time on the welfare rolls are likely to need more assistance than is provided by traditional welfare-to-work programs to make a successful transition from welfare to work. Providing this additional assistance will require flexibility, a broad range of "allowable" welfare-to-work activities and additional or redirected staff resources."
and this:
"Behind these total time estimates, are very different patterns of welfare use. Some recipients use welfare for a short period of time, leave and never return; others use welfare intermittently, returning for short-term assistance when a job ends or when a family crisis occurs. Still others spend long periods of time continuously receiving welfare. Because of these different patterns of welfare use, it is difficult to talk about an "average" welfare recipient. My research shows that, on average, women who ever use welfare will receive assistance for about six years and current recipients will receive assistance for about thirteen years. While accurate, taken by themselves, these figures are misleading because they give undo weight to the experiences of the extremely small number of recipients who spend very long periods of time (as much as 25 years) receiving welfare. These very long-term recipients do, in fact, exist, but they are the exception, not the rule. Thus, it is not accurate to describe the "typical" length of stay on welfare as 13 years."
so, we can assume your other stats were just made up bullshit...?
But you can because you've been in the position or empathize?
20% are on it for over 5 years, are you telling me it takes 5 years to find a job. I have posted in other threads the minium ammount you would have to make to be eligible to recieve welfare/food stamps in Ohio. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would put you well over that ammount.
Yes, I can empathize, for personal reasons. I have never received assistance myself but I know many who have/do.
I was told by a friend that her medicaid was stopped because she made over $400/month. She could still receive it for her children, but not for herself. Now, if someone is alone, say, and makes $900/month (with 2 jobs).... how can that possibly cover rent, utilities, food, car payment, not to mention health/dental issues?? Answer: it cannot--and you're still not eligible. Unless you are, or have ever been, in a similar situation, it's not fair for you to make generalizations about all recipients. Yes, I agree with your point that some who could get jobs don't.
How is someone making only $900 or hell even $400 dollars a month? Minimum wage average is $7.25. Working 40 hours a week would = 290 dollars a week. x 4 (weeks in a month) = 1160 a month.
Hell my grocery bill for a family of 4 is $115 a week. and we have plenty of Healty food.
FICA Medicare withholdings
Federal tax withholdings
State tax withholdings
Social security withholdings
Unemployment withholdings
Workers' compensation withholdings
And, if they're lucky...
Health insurance
Dental coverage
Vision coverage
Retirement withholdings
Accidental death & dismemberment insurance
Life insurance
Long-term disability insurance
And, where I work...
Parking fees
Plus, MANY employers won't let people work a full 40 hours per week. Sometimes they can get second jobs, but usually (in my experience) they're required to work exactly 30 hours at one job but no one will hire them to work just 10 hours at another job. Of course, MANY people work more than 40 hours/week (giving them less time to spend with their kids and at parent-teacher conferences).
Let's say you are a low-income parent, trying to put food on the table. You would likely have to be at work during parent-teacher conferences. You probably are paid by the hour and don't have any/much leave time. Your options, then, are to miss the conference & work to feed your kids, or miss work to go to the conference, have less ability to provide for your family, & possibly lose your job. You of all people, who talks so much about how people should work their assess off to put food on the table no matter what, should not fault people for making the decision to continue to work in this situation.
Their PT conferences are at 7:30 so nice try. Also my Dad and all my friends parents were able to make it to all the PTC without loosing their jobs. THey all had the same responsibility of putting food on the table. PTconferences don't come up at suprises they are usually scheduled when the school year starts. I am sure giving your employer a month notice would be acceptable and I doubt any employer would not try and work with your schedule, especially if they are doing hourly work they could easily find someone to take their shift for that day. Quit with the excuses.
Comments
I've said plenty about my situation on page 1. The way you talk about this issue, it clearly seems like you are hung up on it.
I think, for the most part, current expectations are reasonable. I would like to see more in place for job training and education, but that also means extra $. I don't feel comfortable with the whole idea of "since you get taxpayer money, you are limited to x,y, and z". Drug testing is an example of this.
I'm not seeing any unemployment numbers under 5.5% in the 80's.
Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you. When you have 20 % on it for over 3 years and 20% on it for over 5 years. its hard to convince me that those are misguided assumptions. My wife works at a inner-city school with over 80% assisted families, 85% free lunches, and about 50% get to take home meals for the entire weekend (school funded). And these people seem to love assistance. The school gives out gift cards just to entice parents to come to the parent teacher conferences. Still about 10% show up. Sorry but these are not msguided assumptions.
where are you finding your stats...?
That's an unfortunate situation in that circumstance (that particular school) undoubtedly, but you can't generalize the entire recipient population based on that.
20% are on it for over 5 years, are you telling me it takes 5 years to find a job. I have posted in other threads the minium ammount you would have to make to be eligible to recieve welfare/food stamps in Ohio. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would put you well over that ammount.
If someone is on welfare, for example, then that person is supposed to need that money in order to meet their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). A $200 iPhone or Android phone with an $80/month plan isn't a need and isn't what the government had in mind when they decided to give that person money. Their kids are in dirty old clothes, but at least mommy and daddy have shiny electronic toys. That person isn't getting what they get because it's needed, that person is getting it because he/she is irresponsible and/or lazy. Imagine if a friend came you and asked to borrow money so he could pay his mortgage this month. Being nice, you give him what you can. A week later, you find out that he is taking a vacation to Disney World or bought a new 50" LED TV. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't be pissed?
Now I'm not saying that all receipients of public assistance do that, but there needs to be something in place to ensure that the money goes to the people who truly need it and something needs to be in place to ensure that the people receiving the money are making an effort to get themselves to the point that they no longer need it. Otherwise, the system is just designed to waste money that could be put to better use and all receipients of the funds get the stigma that only a portion of them really deserve.
To go further with it, the people who are getting assistance and are abusing the system aren't just wasting the taxpayers' money, they are also essentially stealing from the people who honestly need the money. There's only so much money allotted to these programs and if there are leeches abusing the system, they are making everyone else's slice of that pie that much smaller. So there might be a new mother who jsut lost her job who is getting assistance, but it isn't quite enough to get by and she's still in danger of losing her house even after cutting out the luxury items like her phone's text and data plan and cable TV. Two blocks over is someone using the money to buy a PS3 and get a tattoo, has every premium channel her cable system offers, and makes the rent or mortgage payment every month with money left over. That's a problem.
That is complete and utter nonsense. I actually applaud Jeanwah for being open about his situation and his effort. I completely understand that you can't create a one size fits all system. And, some folks will be self motivated, and there will be very little necessary.
Making assumptions that one can't empathize is silly. As with other threads, nobody is saying they don't want to help. The only question I am asking here is what is the responsibility of the recipient. If someone like Jeanwah exceeds your requirements on his own, then wonderful. That's what we as a society can only dream of. But, that doesn't mean the question isn't a fair one or certain answers mean you don't empathize or want to help.
Again, what is their responsibility? I'm not asking are there people out there that already meet that criteria? Your criteria may be - whatever they want to do is fine with me. If so, you can just answer that.
I was told by a friend that her medicaid was stopped because she made over $400/month. She could still receive it for her children, but not for herself. Now, if someone is alone, say, and makes $900/month (with 2 jobs).... how can that possibly cover rent, utilities, food, car payment, not to mention health/dental issues?? Answer: it cannot--and you're still not eligible. Unless you are, or have ever been, in a similar situation, it's not fair for you to make generalizations about all recipients. Yes, I agree with your point that some who could get jobs don't.
"On average, at a given point in time, about 70 percent of current AFDC recipients have received AFDC for more than 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months."
"The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years. But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years"
"A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years."
i want to see your stats on this, because anybody can make up numbers and post them as fact. afterall, this is the internet. how do those numbers, if they are actually true and not inflated, generalize to the student population throughout this country?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Hell my grocery bill for a family of 4 is $115 a week. and we have plenty of Healty food.
I agree. That's sort of why I asked it. It is overwhelming, especially when you have to consider actually running it.
But as Monster Rain put it best - we could help those that "deserve it" (and that is obviously open to interpretation, so please don't get hung up on that) more if we figured out how to create standards that help people more than just hand outs (using that for folks that do nothing about their situation. Not in broad general terms). That doesn't just mean eliminate people from the rolls. Hopefully, it means setting up a structure that allows (forces?) everyone to succeed to the best of their abilities and not allowing them to settle for - that's what I was born into - can't help it mentality.
Quite honestly, if we had a system that worked, I might not mind raising the "poverty" level definition because as you and others have pointed out - what we do provide may not always be enough (and the total $'s in the program might actually be less). But, the problem is, we're not addressing those that abuse the system unfarily vis a vis those that need it and try to improve their lot. That's what led me to ask - what is their responsibility? I think if we define that, we can begin to craft something that works better for everyone.
ANyways you need to take your own advice and quit being so condescending to me about hating/ not wanting to help the poor.
I will try to find the stat on my wifes school but since it pales in comparrison to the poorer areas of the Nation I doubt I am generalizing. You seem to have an opinion based on nothing... As least my opinion comes from someone actually working with these people and seeing the abuse first hand.
Quick funny story: A child in her 6th grade calls we being examined for being ED (emotionally Disturbed) and some other ADHD "disease" She was in the meeting with the Mother and Middle school principal. The school was offer ways to help the child, the mother was pushing for him to be diagnosed as ED as she explained she needed more money, and if the child is diagnosed then the GOV will give her more assistance (money). The school agreed to this (not sure of process) and the mother said to the child after walking out of the meeting "I am proud of you boy, we are now going to get more money and I will get you that Android (phone) we've been talking about".
My bad. I thought when you asked, "What is the responsibility of those on the receiving end?" and said you were asking a question that is usually ignored, you wanted to know WHAT responsibilities those receiving "welfare & such" should be held to and were trying to discuss something different than the same stuff that is always discussed.
I don't think a reasonable discussion can ever be held until we define our terms, and I haven't seen the terms of your question defined. Since I asked & was ignored, I give up.
In answer to your question above though, yes, in my scenario where someone is spending half their money on drugs & have on food for their kids, they are spending money on their kids. If they're not, I wasn't referring to them.
(1) No, it's not like your employer does. Does your employer tell you exactly what you can & cannot buy with the money s/he gives you? I believe that's what was being discussed. If you believe we should tell welfare recipients what they can & cannot buy, whatever. But please stop with the bad analogies.
(2) Again with equating poor people to children? Really?? Sad. :(
(1) No my employer does not becuase I am providing my employer with my good/services. I am earning the money. But while I am at work they are rules set in the work place in order for me to earn that money.
What servies are welfare recipients who don't work providing. Nothing... So since we can't put rules on their "work" we should be able to put rules around what they are allowed to use their assistance for. Since you don't see a problem with them using "our" money how every they want. I am sure you are fine with them selling their families food stams for drugs and money right. You support that?
Again with the judgments & assumptions. :roll:
Good! So you understand now that the experiences of the few are not generalizable to the many. Thank God; that should put an end to your previous line of reasoning then.
Please help me understand this math. So there is not anyone who receives welfare for greater than 3 but less than 5 years?
Assistance = kids not going hungry, therefore people seem to love their kids not going hungry. I'm happy to know they are good parents who care about their childrens' wellbeing.
Let's say you are a low-income parent, trying to put food on the table. You would likely have to be at work during parent-teacher conferences. You probably are paid by the hour and don't have any/much leave time. Your options, then, are to miss the conference & work to feed your kids, or miss work to go to the conference, have less ability to provide for your family, & possibly lose your job. You of all people, who talks so much about how people should work their assess off to put food on the table no matter what, should not fault people for making the decision to continue to work in this situation.
Publication Date: May 23, 1996...hmmmm
I found this to be interesting:
"The strongest predictors of whether a welfare recipient will leave welfare for work are recent work experience and educational attainment, including mastery of basic skills."
"Some families who spend long periods of time on the welfare rolls are likely to need more assistance than is provided by traditional welfare-to-work programs to make a successful transition from welfare to work. Providing this additional assistance will require flexibility, a broad range of "allowable" welfare-to-work activities and additional or redirected staff resources."
and this:
"Behind these total time estimates, are very different patterns of welfare use. Some recipients use welfare for a short period of time, leave and never return; others use welfare intermittently, returning for short-term assistance when a job ends or when a family crisis occurs. Still others spend long periods of time continuously receiving welfare. Because of these different patterns of welfare use, it is difficult to talk about an "average" welfare recipient. My research shows that, on average, women who ever use welfare will receive assistance for about six years and current recipients will receive assistance for about thirteen years. While accurate, taken by themselves, these figures are misleading because they give undo weight to the experiences of the extremely small number of recipients who spend very long periods of time (as much as 25 years) receiving welfare. These very long-term recipients do, in fact, exist, but they are the exception, not the rule. Thus, it is not accurate to describe the "typical" length of stay on welfare as 13 years."
so, we can assume your other stats were just made up bullshit...?
FICA Medicare withholdings
Federal tax withholdings
State tax withholdings
Social security withholdings
Unemployment withholdings
Workers' compensation withholdings
And, if they're lucky...
Health insurance
Dental coverage
Vision coverage
Retirement withholdings
Accidental death & dismemberment insurance
Life insurance
Long-term disability insurance
And, where I work...
Parking fees
Plus, MANY employers won't let people work a full 40 hours per week. Sometimes they can get second jobs, but usually (in my experience) they're required to work exactly 30 hours at one job but no one will hire them to work just 10 hours at another job. Of course, MANY people work more than 40 hours/week (giving them less time to spend with their kids and at parent-teacher conferences).