Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let charities take on the temporarily disadvantaged. They KNOW how to budget their available funds, and they know how to make sure they aren't giving charity to those who don't truly need it.
Let's be serious, a lot of charities KNOW how to pad the pockets of the people running them and are even less efficient than the government
Notice that the welfare rolls drop dramatically once some mandated training/work is required.
They aren't being kicked off the rolls..just asked to work and/or go for education/job training.
Some vocational training was also an option and folks did not select that? I mean why not? Different mentality than you or I have that is for certain.
The question is, as one poster presented, what is the availability of these programs. Were there any people that wanted to be involved in volunteering or vocational training but did not find any opportunities in their particular area. That's a question that remains unanswered. If people simply chose to forgo benefits rather than having to work for them, that's one thing, but if people lost out on benefits without having the opportunity to work for them, then that is another entirely.
Personally I'm all for having people to put something back in for the benefits that they are receiving if they are able-bodied. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever and the additional volunteering or vocational training certainly wouldn't hurt as something else to be put on a resume.
The question is, as one poster presented, what is the availability of these programs. Were there any people that wanted to be involved in volunteering or vocational training but did not find any opportunities in their particular area. That's a question that remains unanswered. If people simply chose to forgo benefits rather than having to work for them, that's one thing, but if people lost out on benefits without having the opportunity to work for them, then that is another entirely.
Personally I'm all for having people to put something back in for the benefits that they are receiving if they are able-bodied. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever and the additional volunteering or vocational training certainly wouldn't hurt as something else to be put on a resume.
Get a job (20 hours a week), get training or volunteer (24 hours a month).
This requirement was placed on adults with no disabilities and no children.
And the rolls dropped from 12,000 to 2500.
Recall that the Fed put a waiver in place for SNAP such that single adults could get SNAP and didn't have to work.
Maine did not renew that waiver.
That waiver still exists today and states are free to ask for it.
The question is, were there any people who had no viable opportunity to volunteer or access to vocational training. If someone simply wants to receive benefits and not do anything in return then that is one thing, but if people did not have an opportunity to do so, then that is something that the state needs to assess and improve upon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
