Responsibility of Recipients

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

brandon10 wrote:

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.

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).

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

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%.)

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Mark It Zero wrote:

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?

Jeanwah · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Mark It Zero wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

_ wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

Blockhead · May 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

ajedigecko · May 2011

when the person applies for assistance....ask the person, "what can you do to give back?"

it should then be the program's responsibilty to follow up on the person's commitment.

if the person lies....revoke the assistance.

Jeanwah · May 2011

ajedigecko wrote:

when the person applies for assistance....ask the person, "what can you do to give back?"

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".

Jeanwah · May 2011

Blockhead wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

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.

EmBleve · May 2011

ajedigecko wrote:

when the person applies for assistance....ask the person, "what can you do to give back?"

it should then be the program's responsibilty to follow up on the person's commitment.

decent ideas...the 'follow up' part would be a cluster, though. :problem: And the question would probably be met with alot of blank stares.

Jeanwah · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

EmBleve · May 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

Jeanwah · May 2011

EmBleve wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

Go Beavers · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

EmBleve · May 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

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....

Blockhead · May 2011

Jeanwah wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

inmytree · May 2011

Blockhead wrote:

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.

where are you finding your stats...?

EmBleve · May 2011

Blockhead wrote:

Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you.

But it also doesn't mean that the other millions on welfare ARE lazy.

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Blockhead · May 2011

EmBleve wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Just because you are not lazy does not neam the other millions on welfare are the same as you.

But it also doesn't mean that the other millions on welfare ARE lazy.

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Responsibility of Recipients

Comments

Categories