Facing $1 billion deficit, Arizona sharply limits welfare (Chandler, Young: section 8, 2015)

[AzScorpion12]

Originally Posted by trudawg

Sadly, this is the polarization that surrounds this issue. People without knowledge tend to make assumptions based on their limited experience.

Though we've never received welfare per se, we did get WIC when our twins were born while we were 22 years old and had limited income. We definitely needed it, and I am forever grateful for it.

Yes but in your case you needed it to get by for a short time then got off it. To many people are using it as a way of life and their kids are following right in their footsteps. Having multiple kids from multiple fathers isn't why welfare was put in place. I'm all for helping those who truly need it but most don't and there's way to much fraud going on to the tune of millions of dollars every year,at least here in Ma there is.

This is just like when they continuously extended unemployment benefits. I can't tell you how many people I heard say "I'll get a job as soon as my benefits run out"! At some point people need to take some self responsibility,start making right choices and stop expecting everyone else to pay for their poor judgment/mistakes!

[cactusland]

Its a good thing. You don't have money, you don't have money. It doesn't come out of nowhere. If you keep acting like it does, you end up like CA.

[Wally Sconce]

Socialism is great till you run out of someone else's money.

[WriterDude]

I'm not sure how anyone could NOT be of two minds about this. Social safety nets are critical, while at the same time, it's hard to see the community expected to pay because someone is having a hard time (often because of their own choices). I totally get that sometimes people are dealt a bad hand, but sometimes people hit on 16 because they know they can fall back on the public wallet if they go bust.

I'd much rather see people reconnected with their families when they hit a hard time, rather than have them connected to public funding. "Oh, you told your family in Michigan to go fly a kite, came down here with your girlfriend they disapprove of, then lost your job. Well, here's a plane ticket to Michigan, your Mom's phone number, and a prepaid calling card."

And yeah, some families are dysfunctional, full of abuse, neglect, and worse. But plenty of families aren't. Using public money as a pretend family with really deep pockets isn't working. Worse, when people aren't required to first evaluate family resources, that helps undermine the strength and structure that family connections are uniquely able to provide.

[Colt AZ]

Originally Posted by cactusland

Its a good thing. You don't have money, you don't have money. It doesn't come out of nowhere. If you keep acting like it does, you end up like CA.

Originally Posted by Wally Sconce

Socialism is great till you run out of someone else's money.

Originally Posted by WriterDude

I'm not sure how anyone could NOT be of two minds about this. Social safety nets are critical, while at the same time, it's hard to see the community expected to pay because someone is having a hard time (often because of their own choices). I totally get that sometimes people are dealt a bad hand, but sometimes people hit on 16 because they know they can fall back on the public wallet if they go bust.

I'd much rather see people reconnected with their families when they hit a hard time, rather than have them connected to public funding. "Oh, you told your family in Michigan to go fly a kite, came down here with your girlfriend they disapprove of, then lost your job. Well, here's a plane ticket to Michigan, your Mom's phone number, and a prepaid calling card."

And yeah, some families are dysfunctional, full of abuse, neglect, and worse. But plenty of families aren't. Using public money as a pretend family with really deep pockets isn't working. Worse, when people aren't required to first evaluate family resources, that helps undermine the strength and structure that family connections are uniquely able to provide.

[The_Cadillac_Lawyer]

You can't expect other people to make decisions as if they possess the same life skills as you. The greatest epiphany I had was when I realized that not everyone thought like me and just because they didn't (or couldn't), it didn't make them any less of a person.

Two things I heard from my father nearly everyday of my life (1) Nobody owes you anything, and (2) Never ask another man for a dime.

Sure, I struggled when I was laid off, but never seriously contemplated public assistance, my pride wouldn't allow it. However, not everyone has had the same values instilled in them as my father instilled in me.

I have no problem paying my fair share to help others who are not as fortunate. I'd rather have an imperfect system that helps those who may legitimately need it than nothing at all.

I'm sure my words won't sway anyone's opinion, however hopefully you'll refrain from being so damn quick to judge someone who's life doesn't reflect your own.

[Colt AZ]

Originally Posted by trudawg

Two things I heard from my father nearly everyday of my life (1) Nobody owes you anything, and (2) Never ask another man for a dime.

Yep.

Better than: (1) I didn't ask to be born, so... (2) The world owes me a living!

[CSD610]

One woman in the article gets a check from disability SSI for dyslexia yet I do not qualify for any disability SSI for the Auto Immune Liver Disease that I have and I have dyslexia as well and finished high school and went to college and have worked most of my adult years.

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by WriterDude

I'm not sure how anyone could NOT be of two minds about this. Social safety nets are critical, while at the same time, it's hard to see the community expected to pay because someone is having a hard time (often because of their own choices). I totally get that sometimes people are dealt a bad hand, but sometimes people hit on 16 because they know they can fall back on the public wallet if they go bust.

I'd much rather see people reconnected with their families when they hit a hard time, rather than have them connected to public funding. "Oh, you told your family in Michigan to go fly a kite, came down here with your girlfriend they disapprove of, then lost your job. Well, here's a plane ticket to Michigan, your Mom's phone number, and a prepaid calling card."

And yeah, some families are dysfunctional, full of abuse, neglect, and worse. But plenty of families aren't. Using public money as a pretend family with really deep pockets isn't working. Worse, when people aren't required to first evaluate family resources, that helps undermine the strength and structure that family connections are uniquely able to provide.

It makes sense, but not everyone has family they can rely on, or family AT ALL. That isn't the whole answer either.

I'm in the middle. There SHOULD be a limit, but at the same time 1 year seems pretty harsh. Not one year at a time but in their entire life? What if something happens and they really need it again? House fire? Car accident? Serious illness? Death of a spouse? One or more than those things in a lifetime can quickly eat up that 12 month allowance.

I don't have the answer. I think this is heading in the right direction, though.

[new2colo]

Sad. This will hurt children more than anyone else. Most of the people on welfare have children living with them. Placing such harsh restrictions on aid that is intended to help these children is wrong. More people will be forced out onto the street, crime levels could rise from people who are cut off of welfare doing desperate things for small amounts of cash, and charitable agencies will be completely overwhelmed. It is sad that this is being done under the guise of wiping out the state's deficit when this is federal money. Poor people are not the reason that this state is $1 billion in the hole. Bad decisions by the legislature are why we're in such ridiculous debt.

Like I mentioned earlier this will just lead to an increase in crime committed by people who don't know where to turn. Many of these people will end up in jail or prison, just contributing to the coffers of the private prison industry, which taxpayers already subsidize. As it is often said, the measure of a civilization is how it treats it most vulnerable citizens. If we go by that measure, I would say that this is turning into a pretty uncivilized place.

What's sad is that this legislation will affect thousands of Arizonans who are not trying to "game" the system. Some of them have simply encountered a rough patch in their lives, maybe for a second or third time. Cutting these people off without offering viable alternatives is mean spirited and wrong. Many of those in support of this legislation don't care though. They will continue to go on and on about illegal immigrants receiving welfare and people needing to look for work, despite the fact that those affected are US citizens and quite a few actually have jobs or are attaining some form of schooling.