Lawmaker: On welfare? No beer or HBO for you

[BlueStarLizzard]

Social workers, no matter how dedicated/honest/hardworking, aren't going to make any real change either until the system is truly fixed.

which is why i was trying to point out that they can't make any diffrence because of the broken system, it breaks them too.

[Tallpine]

which is why i was trying to point out that they can't make any diffrence because of the broken system, it breaks them too.

Why would the social workers want to lose their customers ?   

Guvment should get out of the business, and leave it to private charity again.

[BridgeRunner]

Then buy food for the kid you're letting stay in your home with your family.

Don't see how it's a bleeding heart issue.  If the kid is a ward of the state, the state is responsible for providing for the kid's maintenance.  Incidentally, this also means that more people--especially relatives--experience less hardship in taking in a foster child.   

Do you disapprove of other kinds of contractors who take compensation for doing a job, or is it limited to people who care for children?

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why would the social workers want to lose their customers ?   

Guvment should get out of the business, and leave it to private charity again.

to a certain extent, gov. social welfare programs are nessary to society. particualry for children and some mentally disabled folks that truely cannot take care of themselves. having such people completly dependent on the exsistance of privit charity orginazations would result in most of these people on the streets and crime/poverty similar to what it was when it was purely in the hands of privet charity.

do you really want to go into large cities and see gangs of street children (including plenty of preteens), plus a major influx of beggers and those who take advantage of the truly poverty stricken? not to mention the larger concerns of uncontrolled desease and filth that comes with it?

no offense, but i am willing to pay for some social welfare as it does have larger social implications then just helping the poor.

[MechAg94]

We just need to rig the system so able bodied people are discouraged from trying to sign on with the same program.

[Nick1911]

Any system built is one that will be abused.  Unscrupulous persons always find ways to take personal advantage of such things.  Either you have kids living on the street with no support, or you have people abusing the system which is designed to keep kids from living on the street.  I don't believe there is a whole lot of middle ground.

Sad, but true.

[BridgeRunner]

do you really want to go into large cities and see gangs of street children (including plenty of preteens), plus a major influx of beggers and those who take advantage of the truly poverty stricken? not to mention the larger concerns of uncontrolled desease and filth that comes with it?

And crime.  Lots of lots of crime.  There are plenty of social benefits to trying to keeping most people from being truly desperate most of the time.

[BlueStarLizzard]

my dad just pointed out something that i also wish to make clear...

i DO NOT support the current political efforts by some to wipe out privet charity in this sphere as privet charity does take a considerable burden off the public programs.

i think that both gov. and non profits working together makes for a better saftey net for those in need.

nick, your right about the fact that theres always gonna be someone that abuses the system, however the system regarding social welfare is really pretty broken at the moment. the people that need the help arn't getting it, the people that don't are, and its becoming a money sink without providing what its supposed to be providing.

[Monkeyleg]

If poverty causes crime, there should have been untold numbers of murder sprees, kidnappings, armed robberies and other violent crimes during the Great Depression. There weren't.

While I agree with the lawmakers intentions, I don't think there's a way to effectively enforce this. Trying to do so would require a bureaucracy that would cost more than the misuse of the welfare payments.

I would be so ashamed at being eligible for food stamps that I probably wouldn't use them. Maybe we need to bring back shame.

[BlueStarLizzard]

And crime.  Lots of lots of crime.  There are plenty of social benefits to trying to keeping most people from being truly desperate most of the time.

presisly.

BTW, its usually the really really poor that feed the really nasty crimnals with victims. things like slavery, child trafficing, ext.
we have enough of that in this world already, and i would really prefer not to add to it.

[BlueStarLizzard]

If poverty causes crime, there should have been untold numbers of murder sprees, kidnappings, armed robberies and other violent crimes during the Great Depression. There weren't.

While I agree with the lawmakers intentions, I don't think there's a way to effectively enforce this. Trying to do so would require a bureaucracy that would cost more than the misuse of the welfare payments.

I would be so ashamed at being eligible for food stamps that I probably wouldn't use them. Maybe we need to bring back shame.

errrr... there was plenty of that kinda stuff going on during the great depression. some of that was admitadly fostered by prohibition as well, but poverty assisted in a lot of it.

that particular time period 'cleans up' a little better in the history books too. we have a majority of higher educated, hard workig people desending en mass to that level of poverty. people that hold the same ideals as before but experancing something that was way below what they were socialized to experiance. its no wonder they held on to their earilier social training, as a means to normalize their experance.

its a little diffrent when you have people who literally grow up on the streets, never experance the social niceties we take for granted and to a certain extent going ferel.

[Tallpine]

do you really want to go into large cities and see gangs of street children (including plenty of preteens), plus a major influx of beggers and those who take advantage of the truly poverty stricken?

No, how do you suggest we change that? 

[AZRedhawk44]

Don't see how it's a bleeding heart issue.  If the kid is a ward of the state, the state is responsible for providing for the kid's maintenance.  Incidentally, this also means that more people--especially relatives--experience less hardship in taking in a foster child.   

Do you disapprove of other kinds of contractors who take compensation for doing a job, or is it limited to people who care for children?

You'll notice that I came up with a couple other solutions at the end of my post that you opted to not quote.

I really don't care which of the three (or an unknown 4th) options act as a final solution.  I just know the problem you raised can be worked around.

[BlueStarLizzard]

errr... guys can we not get derailed... i'm actually liking this thread...

[lupinus]

Here's a thought. Just wipe every dip *expletive deleted*it drug addict crack headed hood ratted baby momma baby daddy lazy POS from the roles. They are able bodied or their only problem is self inflected? They get nothing, let them get up and get their lazy ass a job.

That should cover a good 3/4 of the recipients at least. Then, let's assume the program isn't going completely out the window, they could actually give those who are truly disabled enough money for the basics.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Here's a thought. Just wipe every dip *expletive deleted*it drug addict crack headed hood ratted baby momma baby daddy lazy POS from the roles. They are able bodied or their only problem is self inflected? They get nothing, let them get up and get their lazy ass a job.

That should cover a good 3/4 of the recipients at least. Then, let's assume the program isn't going completely out the window, they could actually give those who are truly disabled enough money for the basics.

i'm pretty sure your estimation of 3/4 is high. like i said earlier, the actually cases of abuse to the system are less then most perceive. its there, its cronic and its bad, but it is not the vast majority.

i would actually say that the majority is folks who got on it legitamately, but due to restrictions and inabilty to get into "weaning" type programs, can't figure out how to build themselves up enough to get off of it. these people live in poverty, do the best they can under those circumstances, but don't dare try to improve because a slight improvement will throw them completly out of the aid, even though they arn't ready to support themselves, yet. they know that losing the aid means long term waiting lists if they lose it and that the slight improvement that throws them off the aid, won't cover what they need to survive, which would force them to reapply, starting the whole cycle again.

[Boomhauer]

i'm pretty sure your estimation of 3/4 is high. like i said earlier, the actually cases of abuse to the system are less then most perceive. its there, its cronic and its bad, but it is not the vast majority.

i would actually say that the majority is folks who got on it legitamately, but due to restrictions and inabilty to get into "weaning" type programs, can't figure out how to build themselves up enough to get off of it. these people live in poverty, do the best they can under those circumstances, but don't dare try to improve because a slight improvement will throw them completly out of the aid, even though they arn't ready to support themselves, yet. they know that losing the aid means long term waiting lists if they lose it and that the slight improvement that throws them off the aid, won't cover what they need to survive, which would force them to reapply, starting the whole cycle again.

I don't know how it is up in your area, although I have been told it's different up there, but in my area (and lupinus's, for we live in the same region of SC), those are pretty much the majority down here. And a quite a few have been doing it for generations.

[lupinus]

i'm pretty sure your estimation of 3/4 is high. like i said earlier, the actually cases of abuse to the system are less then most perceive. its there, its cronic and its bad, but it is not the vast majority.

My mother is disabled with a genetic bone disease and I spent more then my fair share of time in welfare offices. I don't know where you are but in my experience 3/4 is by no means high.

I know far more baby mammas and meth heads on welfare then I do who are actually disabled and in need. And sadly most of them get more then the legitimately disabled.

And for the record this experience covers regions of NJ, PA, FL, and SC. All have been the same.

[Bigjake]

Tallpine beat me to it.

Let's just not have .gov assistance at all.  Charities can get back to being useful.

Taxpayers with guns can sort out any of the malcontents the feel the need to resort to crime or violence.

Fixed!  Was that so hard?

[BlueStarLizzard]

once again, those abusing the system tend to flant it.

i bet you know just as many folks who live in some level of poverty. i would be more of them are reseiving aid then you'd think and you just don't know it, because they're not advertising it.

[Grandpa Shooter]

If poverty causes crime, there should have been untold numbers of murder sprees, kidnappings, armed robberies and other violent crimes during the Great Depression. There weren't.

While I agree with the lawmakers intentions, I don't think there's a way to effectively enforce this. Trying to do so would require a bureaucracy that would cost more than the misuse of the welfare payments.

I would be so ashamed at being eligible for food stamps that I probably wouldn't use them. Maybe we need to bring back shame.

I have had this discussion for many years now and it seems to come back to the same thing.  Welfare is so entrenched in our society it is now a part of the social fabric.  We have the working poor, the working middle class, and the non working middle class (recipients of the redistributed wealth of the Nation).  Just as we have taught our children that it is expected that they will work and contribute to the general well being of the society, those who have made a life of collecting the redistributed wealth, have coached their children in how to survive in what they consider to be a hostile environment.  Until we can teach people that contributing is a higher and more rewarding goal, those who make a living by collecting will continue to do so.

My Lady says they need to re-learn pride, the opposite of shame.  I must say I agree.

[Ryan in Maine]

Was it Goldwater who said you can't legislate morality?

This skeleton needs tissue and organs. There are a lot of variables. A lot of exceptions.

I agree with the morals. Having trouble seeing the legislation.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'd like to share a couple anecdotal stories here.   Now I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here they are nonetheless.

The first is our old neighbor.  I'm guessing she's in her mid to late 30's.  Has two kids.  Unmarried, currently living with a new boyfriend.  She's on just about every form of assistance out there.  And brags about it.  Section 8, food stamps, disability, and plain ol' welfare.  As well as getting child support from her kids dad. Her "disability"?  She has kidney failure, and is on dialysis.  Well, that and she's morbidly obese.  But she's easily able to move around, and climb the stairs to her second floor apartment.  I mean, she *does* have to walk out to the mailboxes to collect all those assistance checks.  But for some reason, she's not able to actually, you know, *WORK*.  But it's not a problem for her to sit out on her porch all day, smoking cigarettes and yakking on the cell phone.  

The other was for a call that I was on.  We pulled up to an apartment complex that was about 75% section 8.  Most of the cars were beaters, but about 10% were *really* nice.  High end cars with all the bells and whistles.  So we pull up to the apartment where the call was at.  Walk in, and the first thing I notice is the lack of furniture.  The only "real" furniture in this apartment is the kitchen table.  Covered with junk.  The couch?  One of those folding camp couches.  Coffee table?  A board on a couple milk crates.  So we head back towards where the patient is at (quick aside.  Why is the patient ALWAYS in the room furthest away from the front door?) and the pattern continues.  No beds, just mattresses on the floor.  No dressers, clothes in piles on the mattresses.  Now, on to the family that is living here.  There's a baby mama, a baby daddy, and 6 (yes, SIX) kids running around the house.  The oldest is maybe 7 years old, 2 are still in diapers.  none are really dressed.  All are dirty.  And the patient?  Pregnant with #7.  Since it wasn't my patient, and the bedroom was pretty crowded between us and the fire guys, I decide to grab the equipment we're not using and take it back out to the living room.  This is where the baby daddy and one of his buddies are having a discussion....  Well, kinda.  One of them is busy playing video games on the 52 INCH FLAT SCREEN TV ON THE WALL.  On the "coffee table"  is just about every video game console.  X-box, X-box 360, Wii, PS, PS2, PS3. .  But no clothes for the kids, and no furniture.  

Anyways, back to the discussion they were having.  Gentleman #1 is telling Gentleman #2 about his financial troubles.  How he may not be able to pay for the LOADED TO THE GILLS Cadillac Escalade that is parked out in front of their run down apartment.  Rims, low profile tires, DVD system, GPS, etc....   How he's worried about them repoing his ride.    And I'm trying really hard not to jump to conclusions, thinking maybe he's not the baby-daddy, but rather a friend that has come over to visit.  

Well, he blew that right out of the water with these simple words.  "Well, even with #7 on the way, welfare don't pay enough..." [to keep up on the payments for the Escalade]



So yeah.  We need some kind of SERIOUS welfare reform.  Because people like this, think that they can just keep mooching off society, being leeches.  Well, its time to rip the leeches off....  Because they're bleedin' us dry!

[HankB]

i DO NOT support the current political efforts by some to wipe out privet charity in this sphere as privet charity does take a considerable burden off the public programs.

So . . . do you like hedges, or do you like plants that kill horses and harm people?

Privet was originally the name for the European semi-evergreen shrub Ligustrum vulgare, and later also for the more reliably evergreen Ligustrum ovalifolium (Japanese privet), used extensively for privacy hedging. . . . Privet is one of several plants which are poisonous to horses. In some parts of the world where they are not native, some privet species have become invasive weeds, spreading into wilderness areas and displacing native species. This is particularly a problem in North America, where no species of the genus occurs naturally . . .

(Sorry . . . couldn't resist.    )

[Seenterman]

I have no problem with a 100% on-call-all-the-time guardian of a ward of the state being prohibited from smoking and drinking while on the job ("foster parent" means no alcohol in the house and no smoking households).  Just not a big deal, IMO.

Ummm. . . Take that, and do this with it.

I have no problem with a 100% of gun owners being prohibited from smoking and drinking while on the job ("gun owner" means no alcohol in the house and no smoking households).  Just not a big deal, IMO.

See how easy that is? Its funny how some here would limit others freedom in just because it seems right to them. Do you guys know another groups that do that?
 
Why should foster parents be banned from drinking alcohol? (I get the no smoking in the household thing, but surly they can smoke outside the household right?)