Responsibility of Recipients

Here's what I think about it:

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.

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

Blockhead wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

. 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.

EmBleve wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ 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.

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.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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).

_ wrote:

(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?

_ wrote:

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.

Blockhead wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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).