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.
ok, I'll play. Let's say for fun/fantasy land that the census number from a few years ago that the 108 million + people that are on some sort of welfare that I posted up a few posts are all collecting because they really need it/aren't milking the system. They are all truly needy at some level. And they can't better themselves because life decisions are completely out of their control. It still doesn't address the fact that it's an unsustainable number from both a financial standpoint and for a society to function on a healthy level. And when the number of collectors outnumbers the number of people working full time? That's truly a scary number on so many levels that I think should be a major red flag warning that more than a few would seem to think something has to be done other than the status quo of handing out money for years or indefinitely. But I'm apparently wrong as more than a few of you seem to feel this way on this thread. And no matter how small or symbolic, I think at least AZ took a step in the right direction.
You do realize that number includes Medicaid and Social Security benefits right?
Last edited by The_Cadillac_Lawyer; 05-21-2015 at 11:08 AM..
I live in a state that is THE place to come if you want to get state assistance. I look to your state as a beacon to retire to.
In the state I now live, we know what eventually happens when simply giving assistance to those who need it, morphs in to massive organized labor group to administer this help. It turns into a huge voting block. This organized group vote in mass in primary elections, they have the ability to "take out" those that don't agree with them, because they know the average voter mostly skip primary elections. i.e. Get ready all your taxes go up and up and up.
As much as the actual dollars involved in the assistance itself is large, the cost to administer the assistance is huge. These administrators receive, vacation pay, pensions, COLA's on the pensions, early retirees, double dipping pensioners, work place injuries that retire with tax free pensions. As I stated these worker/ administrators organize and unionize, and begin to vote one way... the way that give them more and more.
If a person is young and deemed healthy and receives assistance, they need to have any job in order to receive a government sty-pin to there pay for a fair amount of time. An add on that makes working more attractive, rather than not working at all, because they make more money simply collecting.
It's a two sided coin for sure, some people need help true enough, and some people just make a life learning how to work the system, generation to generation.
I live in a state that is THE place to come if you want to get state assistance. I look to your state as a beacon to retire to.
In the state I now live, we know what eventually happens when simply giving assistance to those who need it, morphs in to massive organized labor group to administer this help. It turns into a huge voting block. This organized group vote in mass in primary elections, they have the ability to "take out" those that don't agree with them, because they know the average voter mostly skip primary elections. i.e. Get ready all your taxes go up and up and up.
As much as the actual dollars involved in the assistance itself is large, the cost to administer the assistance is huge. These administrators receive, vacation pay, pensions, COLA's on the pensions, early retirees, double dipping pensioners, work place injuries that retire with tax free pensions. As I stated these worker/ administrators organize and unionize, and begin to vote one way... the way that give them more and more.
If a person is young and deemed healthy and receives assistance, they need to have any job in order to receive a government sty-pin to there pay for a fair amount of time. An add on that makes working more attractive, rather than not working at all, because they make more money simply collecting.
It's a two sided coin for sure, some people need help true enough, and some people just make a life learning how to work the system, generation to generation.
Don't be like my state!
If we could only somehow figure out how to privatize this process, not unlike private prisons, I'm sure there would be a greater push to provide assistance.
You do realize that number includes Medicaid and Social Security benefits right?
Of course the number includes Medicaid, which is a form of welfare/payout, ie "free" healthcare. However, ssn and many other benefits aren't including in that 108 + million figure:
"Programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and veterans benefits are not considered to be "means tested," so recipients of those benefits are not included in the 108,592,000 figure."
It sounds like you are ok with 108 + million people collecting some type/level of welfare in our country, outnumbering full time workers and growing, and you see no ramifications of this for our society? The status quo should remain and AZ shouldn't place limits on collecting for anyone?
Of course the number includes Medicaid, which is a form of welfare/payout, ie "free" healthcare. However, ssn and many other benefits aren't including in that 108 + million figure:
"Programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and veterans benefits are not considered to be "means tested," so recipients of those benefits are not included in the 108,592,000 figure."
It sounds like you are ok with 108 + million people collecting some type/level of welfare in our country, outnumbering full time workers and growing, and you see no ramifications of this for our society? The status quo should remain and AZ shouldn't place limits on collecting for anyone?
I'm sorry, but the source you cite is a right-wing opinion blog. Further, the sources the author cite are more opinion based blogs. The sources the source cited lead to links that cannot be found. Show us a source that could stand up in court and I'm with you. Otherwise you're not doing a very good job proving your case.
Last edited by The_Cadillac_Lawyer; 05-21-2015 at 12:48 PM..
Of course the number includes Medicaid, which is a form of welfare/payout, ie "free" healthcare. However, ssn and many other benefits aren't including in that 108 + million figure:
"Programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and veterans benefits are not considered to be "means tested," so recipients of those benefits are not included in the 108,592,000 figure."
It sounds like you are ok with 108 + million people collecting some type/level of welfare in our country, outnumbering full time workers and growing, and you see no ramifications of this for our society? The status quo should remain and AZ shouldn't place limits on collecting for anyone?
and it seems like you're ok with letting a couple thousand Americans starve to "save" $4 million dollars, while giving the for-profit prisons an extra $50 million dollars.
The only reason you're getting any resistance on these points is because you're trying to weasel-word yourself out of responsibility for your support of the measure.
If you just said, "it's OK for (certain) Americans to starve if they meet certain conditions", no one would argue with you.
They might call you a cheap, heartless sob and question your patriotism, but there wouldn't be any arguments over terminology or "worthiness".
No matter how you phrase your argument, or how tightly you wrap yourself in the flag, and anoit yourself in the blood of your forefathers - the bottom line is "those people aren't worth saving because (insert a reason)".
and it seems like you're ok with letting a couple thousand Americans starve to "save" $4 million dollars, while giving the for-profit prisons an extra $50 million dollars.
The only reason you're getting any resistance on these points is because you're trying to weasel-word yourself out of responsibility for your support of the measure.
If you just said, "it's OK for (certain) Americans to starve if they meet certain conditions", no one would argue with you.
They might call you a cheap, heartless sob and question your patriotism, but there wouldn't be any arguments over terminology or "worthiness".
No matter how you phrase your argument, or how tightly you wrap yourself in the flag, and anoit yourself in the blood of your forefathers - the bottom line is "those people aren't worth saving because (insert a reason)".
It's a choice, and you're making it, so own it.
Just to state my view clearly, again, for you seem to missing it. I'm all for a time limits on welfare benefits paid out by our state. Otherwise I think for many, it becomes an enabling crutch. You believe that all 108 + million people in our country, and that fraction in AZ, are incapable of work/supporting themselves, bettering themselves in any manner, are all mentally/physically incapable of doing so and should be taken care of by the state indefinitely. No limits. That would be mean. Yes, we disagree.
But I'll play and to your point. Starve? Please. You're being melodramatic at its most painful level, sounding like a politician who's agenda is at risk. Churches and other religious organizations, food banks, shelter, etc throughout AZ would more than take up this slack. Other decisions include moving to other states that still have perpetual benefit programs. Or having a more positive view of humanity as I stated in the 1st paragraph that most people with some effort and motivation can better themselves. You feel they are victims and should be cared for indefinitely and if we don't give them food/water/shelter/health care indefinitely, they will all end up in jail and it's everyone else's fault except the individual in all cases. Got it.
"Long-term welfare recipients are often the most vulnerable, suffering from mental and physical disabilities, poor job histories and little education, she said. But without welfare, they'll likely show up in other ways that will cost taxpayers, from emergency rooms to shelters to the criminal justice system, Schott said."
For those with "poor job histories and little education", perhaps cutting off the the benefits at 12 mo will get them to do a bit of work and better themselves by educating themselves and making better life decisions, yes? I know that's a mean thing for me to say but in this case, I will accept your definition.....I'm a true meanie to believe in such a manner.
And finally, it sounds like you've done well in life with your rental home(s) that you've posted about in the past on these forums. Based on your views above, I trust you walk the walk and give some of these needy/poor families free rental, perhaps even give them money for food and transportation for years on end? And if you haven't done so as of yet, given AZ passed this law, you will step it up in the future? As you said above, "It's a choice, and you're making it, so own it".
I'm sorry, but the source you cite is a right-wing opinion blog. Further, the sources the author cite are more opinion based blogs. The sources the source cited lead to links that cannot be found. Show us a source that could stand up in court and I'm with you. Otherwise you're not doing a very good job proving your case.
As I've posted in several posts before:
"Please focus on the 1st few paragraphs, numbers from the Census, and let's end the discussion right there so I'm not accused of using right/left leaning groups to put out an agenda:"
To further puts things neutral, if you've read my past posts, you know I strongly disagree with both sides of the aisle on most things political and think our political system is badly broke.
So now we can all relax from the right/left game.....pheww.
I'm not trying to prove any case other than stating my view. This is census data. Show me this census data is wrong as I'd like to learn myself.
All I'm asking is a simple question that for whatever reason you don't want to answer....
"It sounds like you are ok with 108 + million people collecting some type/level of welfare in our country, outnumbering full time workers and growing, and you see no ramifications of this for our society? The status quo should remain and AZ shouldn't place limits on collecting for anyone?"
How about this, I'll answer for you what I think I'm hearing.....It sounds like you aren't concerned with these numbers and limits shouldn't be placed on benefits for everyone on any welfare program in the state of AZ. Yes?
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.
Oh, here we go again about the poor poor children. Actually, I do feel somewhat sorry for the kids who are affected by cuts like these ... however, other people's children are not the public's responsibility. The parents (who I often refer to as breeders) are the ones who are milking the system because they know they can have as many kids as they want & still get government money. That's what is really sad, and just plain wrong.
At this point, if welfare cuts affect these irresponsible breeders, so be it. Anybody who doesn't have the financial resources to raise children on their own shouldn't be having children in the first place. Procreation is not a right. Besides, it doesn't take much money or effort to use effective birth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bummer
Helping someone get back on their feet after a "bump in the road" is one thing but ENABLING someone to become so complacent they literally consider their welfare payments (including Food Stamps, Unemployment and free Cell Phones, etc) a right and frequently refer to them as PAYCHECKS destroys.
Creating a Long Term Welfare Lifestyle hurts everyone, especially the recipient.
Definitely, a Time Limit on Welfare is a GOOD THING.
This sums up exactly what I believe, Bummer. There is absolutely no excuse for people to become permanently dependent on gov't assistance. It doesn't help anybody ... in fact, it teaches people to become more dependent and less productive. A good share of people who are living off the public dole seriously need a good kick in the rear end ... and strict limitations on handouts are the best way to potentially accomplish this.
Just to state my view clearly, again, for you seem to missing it. I'm all for a time limits on welfare benefits paid out by our state. Otherwise I think for many, it becomes an enabling crutch. You believe that all 108 + million people in our country, and that fraction in AZ, are incapable of work/supporting themselves, bettering themselves in any manner, are all mentally/physically incapable of doing so and should be taken care of by the state indefinitely. No limits. That would be mean. Yes, we disagree.
But I'll play and to your point. Starve? Please. You're being melodramatic at its most painful level, sounding like a politician who's agenda is at risk. Churches and other religious organizations, food banks, shelter, etc throughout AZ would more than take up this slack. Other decisions include moving to other states that still have perpetual benefit programs. Or having a more positive view of humanity as I stated in the 1st paragraph that most people with some effort and motivation can better themselves. You feel they are victims and should be cared for indefinitely and if we don't give them food/water/shelter/health care indefinitely, they will all end up in jail and it's everyone else's fault except the individual in all cases. Got it.
"Long-term welfare recipients are often the most vulnerable, suffering from mental and physical disabilities, poor job histories and little education, she said. But without welfare, they'll likely show up in other ways that will cost taxpayers, from emergency rooms to shelters to the criminal justice system, Schott said."
For those with "poor job histories and little education", perhaps cutting off the the benefits at 12 mo will get them to do a bit of work and better themselves by educating themselves and making better life decisions, yes? I know that's a mean thing for me to say but in this case, I will accept your definition.....I'm a true meanie to believe in such a manner.
And finally, it sounds like you've done well in life with your rental home(s) that you've posted about in the past on these forums. Based on your views above, I trust you walk the walk and give some of these needy/poor families free rental, perhaps even give them money for food and transportation for years on end? And if you haven't done so as of yet, given AZ passed this law, you will step it up in the future? As you said above, "It's a choice, and you're making it, so own it".
see, here you go again with the weasel-words.
"I'm in favor of letting those with little education and poor job histories starve after 12 months of benefits. Hopefully, churches or food banks or sparkly unicorns will spare them from death when the money runs out, but if not - I'm o.k. with it".
All you had to say. A lot less typing too.
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.
