Butters 0 #1 January 11, 2007 Is the welfare program and enabler program? (Do people receive welfare because they can not work or do people not work because they can receive welfare?)"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #2 January 11, 2007 QuoteIs the welfare program and enabler program? (Do people receive welfare because they can not work or do people not work because they can receive welfare?) Yes and Yes. In other breaking news............ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #3 January 11, 2007 Unfortunately it is not that simple. There are people who actually are disabled. They need assistance. Of course, the reality is too many abuse it. IMHO, the length of help for anything other than documented disabled people should be minimal, 4-6 months. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 January 11, 2007 QuoteUnfortunately it is not that simple. There are people who actually are disabled. They need assistance. Of course, the reality is too many abuse it. IMHO, the length of help for anything other than documented disabled people should be minimal, 4-6 months. Agreed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 January 11, 2007 >IMHO, the length of help for anything other than documented >disabled people should be minimal, 4-6 months. I also think they could do a better job distributing the money. Create a "welfare card" that works only for basic food, rent and clothing. Integrate it to POS systems sufficiently so that if you buy alcohol, jewelry, cigarettes etc it comes back "declined." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 January 11, 2007 Ditto... a Hand up not a hand out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #7 January 11, 2007 Whatever happened to this?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #8 January 11, 2007 Quote Whatever happened to this? "Entitlements" are seldom, if ever, taken away successfully. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 January 11, 2007 Quote>IMHO, the length of help for anything other than documented >disabled people should be minimal, 4-6 months. I also think they could do a better job distributing the money. Create a "welfare card" that works only for basic food, rent and clothing. Integrate it to POS systems sufficiently so that if you buy alcohol, jewelry, cigarettes etc it comes back "declined." I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 January 11, 2007 >I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too >much of the Democratic base. Too bad you couldn't do it as a ballot measure. It's a lot harder for partisan politics to determine the outcome of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #11 January 11, 2007 Quote I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base. You're absolutely right. Wait a minute. Who was the guy that got invited to the white house in the 90s for the signing of a welfare reform bill that was, in part, based on the welfare reform bill passed in his state? I think the same guy ran for president and then passed yet another welfare reform bill. I think it was called "welfare to work" or something. Forget it. Much easier to randomly bash with a broad brush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 January 11, 2007 >Much easier to randomly bash with a broad brush. I don't think it would fly with either party. Democrats would worry about alienating some of the voters they want to woo. Republicans would fear looking like monsters; they're already having some serious image issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #13 January 11, 2007 Quote>IMHO, the length of help for anything other than documented >disabled people should be minimal, 4-6 months. I also think they could do a better job distributing the money. Create a "welfare card" that works only for basic food, rent and clothing. Integrate it to POS systems sufficiently so that if you buy alcohol, jewelry, cigarettes etc it comes back "declined." Isn't that basically the same thing as food stamps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 January 11, 2007 Quote I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base. Hmm interesting.. so would you agree that entitlements in the form of FEDERAL tax dollars spent on welfare in the states is high in only the Democratic blue states????? I think you have ANOTHER FALACY going on Mike... http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html Please note the preponderance of the money that goes to OH MY GOD.. red states.... and the Faith Based inititives... would also increase the welfare entitlements to MORE RED states. Notice on this map where the Federal government spends more in RED states... than in Blue states... http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/misc/redblue.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/000589.php&h=600&w=800&sz=19&tbnid=x_zD6hf7c8FjLM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dred%2Bstates&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2 And then notice the second map down... where the RED States in the voting in the last presidential election... BLows the shit out of that whole democratic base shit now dont it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #15 January 11, 2007 Quote>Much easier to randomly bash with a broad brush. I don't think it would fly with either party. Democrats would worry about alienating some of the voters they want to woo. Republicans would fear looking like monsters; they're already having some serious image issues. When it was a priority of both parties, which is to say that it was a priority of one party to enact the reform and of the other party to say not enough is being done, something good actually happened. In light of everything else going on right now, this is not a priority for either party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #16 January 11, 2007 >Isn't that basically the same thing as food stamps? Similar. Some problems with food stamps: They can be used by anyone, not just the recipient. Most places will make change for food stamps. So people buy one jalapeno, get change, do that six times, then get a bottle of Jack Daniels. They don't work for things like rent. They can be hoarded. You can solve a lot of those problems with a card. Still won't be ideal, of course, but I think it might work a bit better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #17 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuote I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base. Hmm interesting.. so would you agree that entitlements in the form of FEDERAL tax dollars spent on welfare in the states is high in only the Democratic blue states????? I think you have ANOTHER FALACY going on Mike... http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html Please note the preponderance of the money that goes to OH MY GOD.. red states.... and the Faith Based inititives... would also increase the welfare entitlements to MORE RED states. Notice on this map where the Federal government spends more in RED states... than in Blue states... http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/misc/redblue.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/000589.php&h=600&w=800&sz=19&tbnid=x_zD6hf7c8FjLM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dred%2Bstates&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2 And then notice the second map down... where the RED States in the voting in the last presidential election... BLows the shit out of that whole democratic base shit now dont it. Your link addresses Total federal dollars per state. Are you saying all federal spending should be considered welfare, as the concept of welfare is being discussed in this thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 January 11, 2007 QuoteYour link addresses Total federal dollars per state. Are you saying all federal spending should be considered welfare, as the concept of welfare is being discussed in this thread? Do you know where your tax dollars go???? Arent you the guys who constantly WHINE about entitlements??? Cant have it both ways there BUBBA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smiles 0 #19 January 12, 2007 In my province (BC) Canada, welfare wednesday last of every month, is not called welfare any more, called: "Employment and Income Assistance" "The Universal Child Care Plan puts choice in child care where it belongs - in the hands of parents," "Families in British Columbia are able to spend the money they receive as a result of the Universal Child Care Benefit, to help their children as they see fit." The Universal Child Care Benefit are paid to families in monthly instalments of $100 per child for children under six. Employable singles, couples, and two-parent families where all adults are under 65 years of age. support=$185.00 CAD a month $325.00 CAD a month=maximum shelter rate. Employable one-parent families where the parent is under 65. support=$452.06 CAD a month maximum shelter rate=$520.00 CAD a month QuoteIs the welfare program an enabler program? (Do people receive welfare because they can not work or do people not work because they can receive welfare?) If you are disabled (handicapped mentally, or physically- and unemployable you receive a monthly disablitity pension. If you are employable you can line up weekly at 6 a.m. with steel toe boots at the communities labor unlimited and make $10. an hour, ...........I think our minimum wage is $8.50 hr. Alcoholics or drug addicts are not considered for montly disablitliy pension, nor are they considered unemployable. So, you have support amount monthly ---your shelter rate is paid direct to your landlord if you can possibly find shelter for the rate you receive. You are free to party away your assistance the day you receive it........take cabs to the nearest liquor store, live it up for 1 day. Then you line up at the food barns in the community for some stale bread everyday- go to soup kitchens at Salvation Army, go to the Sikh temple for meals daily..............pan handle, do B&E's, hit ladies over the head to steel their purses, home invasions to support your drug/alcohol addiction, plus you are free to blow your Universal Child Care Benefit if you have children........I consider this as enabling. SMileseustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base. Hmm interesting.. so would you agree that entitlements in the form of FEDERAL tax dollars spent on welfare in the states is high in only the Democratic blue states????? I think you have ANOTHER FALACY going on Mike... http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html Please note the preponderance of the money that goes to OH MY GOD.. red states.... and the Faith Based inititives... would also increase the welfare entitlements to MORE RED states. Notice on this map where the Federal government spends more in RED states... than in Blue states... http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/misc/redblue.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/000589.php&h=600&w=800&sz=19&tbnid=x_zD6hf7c8FjLM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dred%2Bstates&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2 And then notice the second map down... where the RED States in the voting in the last presidential election... BLows the shit out of that whole democratic base shit now dont it. Try looking at number of recipients instead of dollar amounts... those same blue enclaves get a LOT bluer.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote I really like the idea, but it would never fly - it would alienate too much of the Democratic base. You're absolutely right. Wait a minute. Who was the guy that got invited to the white house in the 90s for the signing of a welfare reform bill that was, in part, based on the welfare reform bill passed in his state? I think the same guy ran for president and then passed yet another welfare reform bill. I think it was called "welfare to work" or something. Forget it. Much easier to randomly bash with a broad brush. Fact: There are more people on welfare in the cities than in the countryside. Fact: The larger cities (with a few execeptions) vote Democrat QED: Changing welfare would alienate a portion of the Democratic base.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #22 January 12, 2007 >Fact: There are more people on welfare in the cities than in the countryside. >Fact: The larger cities (with a few execeptions) vote Democrat >QED: Changing welfare would alienate a portion of the Democratic base. Fact: red states generally get more federal money than they pay in taxes. Blue states generally contribute more than they get. QED: if democrats are "on welfare" they are still contributing more to the system than republicans. Republicans like to complain about lazy democrats on welfare who are a drain on the system; if they started carrying their own weight (and not depending on democratic states to support them) their complaints might be taken more seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #23 January 12, 2007 QuoteFact: There are more people on welfare in the cities than in the countryside. FALLACY... if you go check the numbers there are huge amounts of people in rural areas on welfare.. especially where .. unlike in cities where kobs ARE avaoilable. in rural areas there are no jobs.... the welfare reform act... does not work in areas where there aint no jobs. A hell of a lot of that welfare goes to RED STATES.... NEXT..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 January 12, 2007 QuoteFact: red states generally get more federal money than they pay in taxes. Blue states generally contribute more than they get. QED: if democrats are "on welfare" they are still contributing more to the system than republicans. Republicans like to complain about lazy democrats on welfare who are a drain on the system; if they started carrying their own weight (and not depending on democratic states to support them) their complaints might be taken more seriously. Yup...farm subsidies and pork-barrel crap is a huge part of it - look at the politicians that brag about 'bringing more federal money to the state" than is collected. It still doesn't debunk my (limited) point about the greater number of individual welfare recipients and the effects that changing welfare (which, in this thread, was defined as INDIVIDUAL welfare) would have on the political process.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteFact: There are more people on welfare in the cities than in the countryside. FALLACY... if you go check the numbers there are huge amounts of people in rural areas on welfare.. especially where .. unlike in cities where kobs ARE avaoilable. in rural areas there are no jobs.... the welfare reform act... does not work in areas where there aint no jobs. A hell of a lot of that welfare goes to RED STATES.... NEXT..... Would that be linked in your prior post? I'd like to see the actual numbers...because the information I recall showed the opposite.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
