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.
I actually agree there should be limits on the amount of time someone receives welfare. But this quick cut off date considering the state of the economy especially in Detroit, is concerning.
Quote:
Gilda Jacobs of the Michigan League for Human Services said she expects about 41,000 people to lose their cash assistance payments on Oct. 1 when the state's new budget year begins. That includes 29,700 children, according to the Michigan Department of Human Services.
When Christie Todd Whitman was Governor of NJ, she actually had a plan to deal with the Welfare recipients and that is to require them to work part-time in order to obtain a check. But somewhere between Codey and McGreevey, those rules were laxed.
Yeah, cutting it off suddenly isn't a good idea. People need time to plan, and that's why I hope if this goes down, some money has been saved or they have someone to help them, or else it's dead family time
I also agree on a time limit. I think Clinton's welfare reform actually showed an increase in employment.
Yeah, cutting it off suddenly isn't a good idea. People need time to plan, and that's why I hope if this goes down, some money has been saved or they have someone to help them, or else it's dead family time
I also agree on a time limit. I think Clinton's welfare reform actually showed an increase in employment.
Exactly, there was welfare reform across many states in the late 90's, but somewhere along the way, both Republicans and Democratic Politicians got lazy. This can not be blamed more on one party than the other. At the turn of 2000 entitlements common sense just went out of the window.
I think the whole 48 month thing is much ado about nothing. No one will starve to death, and everyone will do what they have to do to get by. Yea, the number is arbitrary, but so is any other number. I mean, why not say 60 days? That's just as arbitrary as 48 months.
If an infant spends the first four years of its life living on it's family's cash assistance, does that mean no cash assistance for the rest of the child's days?
Yeah, cutting it off suddenly isn't a good idea. People need time to plan...
It doesn't take 5 years to plan a trip on a Greyhound Bus. If you can't find work, then you move to a city where there is work and if you still can't find work, there are 192 other countries out there.
The illegals might be illegal, but at least they have the brains to go find work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aganusn
I think Clinton's welfare reform actually showed an increase in employment.
That was the Republicans' reform. They put an end to the massive transfer of wealth from the people to the landlords, by re-writing the Democrat's ridiculous rules that allowed a landlord to charge $1,200/month for an apartment that normally rented for $300/month, and they created TAN-F to replace the other abortion the Democrats created.
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.
