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.
If 1% of welfare recipients were "healthy" adults capable of working, would you spend greater than the amount they receive total to remove them from welfare? For example, if it cost five million dollars in the state of Virginia to keep 1% of its welfare population who otherwise does not qualify (say they lied on their forms or something), or would cost eight million dollars to research the abusers and instill a system which keeps them off, would you pay for it?
Okay. How about if he/she used the word "implement"...to implement a system.....would you answer the question then?
Also, what's "leftist" about the post? I don't see it as leftist or liberal. It is the conservative contingent who is always posting on this board about getting rid of the "welfare cheats".....whom you think are taking the country under.....so why wouldn't conservatives be willing to pay to have that done?
.....so why wouldn't conservatives be willing to pay to have that done?
Under this scenario I don't think anyone would consider it feasible but I don't think the scenario presented is realistic. 1% abuse is not even remotely close, I can tell you that from my own experience delivering fuel under the heating assistance program. I couldn't put an exact percentage on the abuse and even if I could becsue my sample size was small it may not be reflective of the abuse system wide.
You're missing the overall picture here, getting people off welfare is not the goal. Putting them into jobs is the goal.
Under this scenario I don't think anyone would consider it feasible but I don't think the scenario presented is realistic. 1% abuse is not even remotely close, I can tell you that from my own experience delivering fuel under the heating assistance program. I couldn't put an exact percentage on the abuse and even if I could becsue my sample size was small it may not be reflective of the abuse system wide.
You're missing the overall picture here, getting people off welfare is not the goal. Putting them into jobs is the goal.
So you don't think it would be "worth the cost" to do the research and logistics of implementing a system which would keep welfare cheats out of the system?
Under the scenario presented no, you don't throw good money after bad. This is not a realistic scenario though, the cheats are far more than 1%.
What I support is major overhaul of the system, there is too many problems with it from outright fraud to making too lucrative to be on welfare. For example I knew a woman that was perfect capable of working. She had to leave an abusive husband and because she had a child didn't have much alternative except to go on welfare, that's what it's there for. The issue becomes is now she's in the cycle and had to carefully monitor how much she worked because she would lose her benefits if she worked too much. It's hard to blame her for this because she had a child and made more from the welfare than she could working.
Is she cheating the system? Technically yes she is because she is perfectly capable of working.
If 1% of welfare recipients were "healthy" adults capable of working, would you spend greater than the amount they receive total to remove them from welfare? For example, if it cost five million dollars in the state of Virginia to keep 1% of its welfare population who otherwise does not qualify (say they lied on their forms or something), or would cost eight million dollars to research the abusers and instill a system which keeps them off, would you pay for it?
History has shown that a country can't spend it's way out of poverty.
If 1% of welfare recipients were "healthy" adults capable of working, would you spend greater than the amount they receive total to remove them from welfare? For example, if it cost five million dollars in the state of Virginia to keep 1% of its welfare population who otherwise does not qualify (say they lied on their forms or something), or would cost eight million dollars to research the abusers and instill a system which keeps them off, would you pay for it?
We should pay less to get people off of welfare, and lower the minimum wage.
Cut welfare benefits to the very, extreme, basics of life. Two rice cakes, two eggs, clean water, and a plastic sheeting shelter to keep you out of the elements.
Thats actual welfare, not what Republicans call welfare, unemployment, food stamps, medicare, etc. Seems that all social programs get lumped into "welfare" by this political party, and the difference is, you pay for those programs every week out of your paycheck, not so much with welfare.
No -- why would you have to pay more? We already know that most people on welfare actually have two arms and two legs and IQs over 70, they could work.
Just end welfare as we know it. Have the welfare recipients report to the welfare office for their work duties, stop paying them to lay around all day and have them get busy with neighborhood cleanup, tree planting, etc.
And why have all the separate welfare handout programs? A lot of waste and duplication could be eliminated by just rolling them into one. Those on Medicaid also receive food stamps, WIC, free utilities, Section 8 housing, free meals at school, head start babysitting services also with free meals. Instead of having different program administrators and social workers at all the different kinds of welfare offices, just streamline them into one.
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.
