Idea for Welfare, Unemployment & Child Support

[Sportmotor]

So in other words, you aren't really certain about what you are talking about, just posting something that sounds vaguely moral?

ok.

Sports.  This is just bad policy based on what would sound like a good simple idea.

Neglect is a reason to take kids away, not the occasional toke of pot.

Fraud is a reason to cancel benefits for a parent and in the process punish the kids.  Not that they bought five dollar pain pills to feel good for a few hours.

how can you still be gettin my name wrong after all this time?  kinda shows what attention to detail you pay.
you cant exclude one illegal drug just because you like it or don't, you have one you have to lump them all together and your only argument on this whole thing is child related, Obviously it isn't a perfect plan but it would be a fantastic start to weeding(HA!) out people who abuse the system and are on it just because they are to lazy and don't want to be a productive member of society.

[Sigma]

Or, people who depend on taxpayers for their income:

a) should not have children which they can not afford
b) should not expect someone else to pay for their children
c) should not use the federal government to take money from others so that they can buy illegal narcotics
d) should not be using narcotics while caring for a child (unless you are Stephen's mom, then we can all understand)

[Sportmotor]

your only argument seems to be that you think people who dont pass a drug test should watch their children starve as a punishment.

Its a stupid idea, and only possible for someone that has never taken care of kids themselves.

THERE IT IS! lol
FSU was right and that makes me shudder.
when did I say I have never taken care of kids myself?


My main concern is pro debtors and lazy people using drugs on taxpayer money that are illegal, you have attempted to turn the major focus on children, and neglected the other 2 aspecs.


Sigma I love you BTW lol

[Sportmotor]

lol grown up land huh? Doesnt sound like that you have that stamp on your passport yet.
Loving this btw 

[Coolyfett]

Why is unemployment on the list? Most people on welfare are women, most that benefit from child support are women. Thesw are 3 different situatuons. Where does foodstamps fall in? Could you clarify the agenda here?

Can you get a job if you fail a pee test?

Im not sure I have never failed or tested positive for drugs....It sounds to me like you want these government expenses ended....I think Welfare, Foodstamps and any other lame ass hand outs should end. Unemployment should not...if someone is laid off or termed for something they should be able to file. I didnt realize this one of the many StephanDare baiting Threads....Discussing politics I am not a big fan of, so I will just watch.

[kells904]

boy...this thread is quite a sight to behold...going back to where the wallflowers hang out now, 'cuz I'm not much of a dancer anyway.

[Bostech]

Shouldn't we have same policy for politicians,CEO's,celebrities etc that take out hard earned money while doing drugs,breaking laws,stealing,mistreatign their children and families and of course lying to us???
Or how about military spending that uses general public money for invasions and wars that benefit above wealthy??

[NotNow]

I find it amazing that some do not see the difference between Federal employment and Federal support programs.  Some even can not see the difference between private employment and those same Federal support programs.  And of course the usual complaints about other Federal spending, of which only defense spending is identified as wasteful by the same complaintants. 

Those that serve in the military have EARNED their salaries and RETIREMENT benefits.  Military members are subject to and submit to drug testing on a regular basis.  Silly statements about spending more on underwear in the military than on welfare programs are not only factually false, but irresponsible.  I won't rehash the same old argument here with the same people as always, for they will not change their views and I will not change mine.  But there is a difference between opinion and fact.  If you can not discern that, then perhaps you should reexamine your thought process.  This thread is about the responsibilities of those that for whatever reason partake of public support programs.  Should anything be asked in return?  Should volunteer time or proof of participation in employment programs or health education be required?  Should recipients be required to remain free of illegal drugs?  I am in favor of requiring some responsibility from the recipients of taxpayer largess.  Those that are really in need and are trying to improve their situation will not begrudge and will, in fact, welcome participation in employment and health programs.  I do not oppose using drug testing to vet those that fail to participate or fail to meet other basic guidelines. 

OK, now, try to stay on topic and keep the anti military rhetoric within some kind of reality.

[Dog Walker]

Ignorant and inexperienced on this whole issue here so don't jump on me if I ask a dumb question.

Would it be possible/helpful if people receiving public benefits (not pensions) were required to do some hours of work each week?  Picking up trash in the parks and school grounds, cleaning public restrooms, landscaping on public property, cleaning the beach, working in a public day care center, maintainence in public housing?

I can see logistical issues but also possible benefits from work habit development to contact with social workers at a centralized location.

[Sigma]

Its a great thought DW.  Model something like the Ready4Work program for felons, but for able-bodied welfare recipients?

[Tripoli1711]

I also think that welfare recipients should be subject to drug testing.  I believe everyone has missed one main point of that sentiment for me, and I do not see how it is arguable.  

Drugs are expensive.

If you are a welfare recipient, or on food stamps, etc.. you are receiving a portion of every working American's tax dollars because you are poor.  In fact, you are so poor that our nation has deemed it a moral crisis to not give you some help with your poverty.  Whatever my feelings on welfare reform, etc. my main complaint and concern about drug users on welfare is this:  If we are giving people money so that they can stay afloat because their economic situation is so dire, why/how are they spending $60 for a sack of weed every few days?  Why/how are they spending $20 for a couple crack rocks as frequently as they possibly can?

How much bread could be bought for that sack of weed?  How many haircuts and clean clothes to go out looking for a job?  How many crack rocks does it take for a person to scrape together enough to buy an old car so they can search for jobs or make it to a place of employment otherwise out of reach?  

This is the problem I have with it.  I think marijuana, and marijuana only, should be legal.  I do not have any objection to a person smoking a joint when they get home at night.  To me, it is the same thing as having a couple glasses of wine or a scotch on the rocks after a hard day.  But if we all are paying money to someone because they are so poor that they can barely hang on, I have a sincere issue with them turning around and spending that money on marijuana because it is a total misuse of why they got the money in the first place, and an expensive one at that.

[Miss Fixit]

Ignorant and inexperienced on this whole issue here so don't jump on me if I ask a dumb question.

Would it be possible/helpful if people receiving public benefits (not pensions) were required to do some hours of work each week?  Picking up trash in the parks and school grounds, cleaning public restrooms, landscaping on public property, cleaning the beach, working in a public day care center, maintainence in public housing?

I can see logistical issues but also possible benefits from work habit development to contact with social workers at a centralized location.

Yes, it is a great idea.  One problem is that many welfare recipients are single parents who need to find childcare in order to go to work.  A solution would be to create childcare facilities and require that each welfare recipient work there (in a capacity they were qualified for, not necessarily as a childcare provider) in exchange for childcare.

Like some of the earlier posters, I struggle with the fact that individuals who cannot or will not provide for their children continue to have them and then receive government benefits.  I'm not comfortable flatly denying benefits, however, because these children must be provided for somehow.  

[Dog Walker]

Ignorance again.  I am not familiar with the Ready4Work program.

Years ago in France (and maybe other countries) special jobs were created for soldiers disabled in their wars (mutile' de guerre).  Some were fare takers on buses, railroad crossing guards, restroom attendants, museum guards, ticket takers, etc.  Whatever the work, they were paid a living wage and didn't just vegetate in a room somewhere.  A lot of human dignity comes from work, no matter what the work is.

[Sigma]

Ready4Work is part of the Operation New Hope non-profit.  Basically, its a job training/skills program to help ex-felons return to society with practical job skills.  I think the main program is in the carpentry trades.  THere may be other training, but I'm not aware.

[Sigma]

I've got a pretty good idea where the disconnect is.

Do you have any facts to back up these ridiculous assumptions?  I could be easily persuaded with some facts.