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'd be lying if I thought single mothers with low income would be able to work, be able to afford day care, and get by on today's cost of living and wages if it wasn't for things like section 8 housing, food stamps, and the like. Fact of the matter is wages don't pay crap and childcare is expensive. Republicans just tell these people to better themselves, go to college, as if they can afford that when they are raising a child, or just point their finger at them and shake it for daring to do dumb things like have a kid out of wedlock when they are young as if it should be a sentence to live in the streets.. because they made "good" decisions they can look down upon everyone who didn't with moral righteousness. Whatever. Tell that to the big corporations who also get bailouts or the farmers who get paid to not plant crops.
I'm unsure how much of a safety net I'd take away as I don't know all the regulations. I do know my sister has been able to get by for 8 years on section 8, food stamps, child support, without having to work. When I mention getting a part time job to her, she says the instant she makes any income they take away just as much in benefits so there's no incentive to work.
.
snipped for brevity...
Your last sentence illustrates part of the problem. As soon as they try to work, they lose their subsidy and other benefits and they are not quite ready to enter the full time workforce. There is little incentive to work. I knew a divorced women with a young son and they got stuck on welfare in subsidized housing, just scraping by. She had been a teacher. With a child to raise by herself, she could have worked at a part time job but the way the system worked, they wouldn't have had health insurance and the subsidized housing based her rent on her GROSS income, not her take home pay.
So she and her son would have had no health insurance and her rent would have gone up because it was based upon money they she didn't even get--her gross, not her net. It was really hard for her to get off welfare because the system would have totally pulled the rug out from under--would have punished her for working. (Once her son was out of school, she did get off though--but she could have gotten off much sooner if the system weren't so messed up.)
Why does no one look at these things and FIX them? Actually, I think health care for all would be one of the answers. One of the reasons welfare people don't go out and get a job is that the kind of job they could get wouldn't have health insurance. A lot of them have to start out at part time to gradually get into full time. There's a weak link when it comes to transitioning off welfare--they often can only get part time work or temporary work or low paying jobs at first. That weak link needs to be fixed so they can transition off and get into the working world.
It's not that hard for a thin female to get a couple of guys to knock her up and live off the government and child support, but that's the guy's fault for being so dumb and sticking it in anything that moves and thinking with their appendages, so I have no sympathy for those men. lol Still, some women actively take advantage of men and the system that way and shouldn't be rewarded for it. If they get child support from 2 or more men, their benefits should remain fixed, the same as if having one child. If they get child support from 3 different men, all benefits CUT completely, including section 8. It's one thing to make a dumb mistake, it's another thing to make it a second and third time. I have mixed opinions on giving extra tax money back for each child as well.. there should be a cap of 3 built into the regulations. I like the idea of Trump rewarding people who stay married.. I think it's a good idea in a society that sees things as disposable and values new experiences and "fun" over loyalty and responsibility.
A "thin female" WTH is that about? I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of getting child support while on welfare. Depending on the state, a parent might receive none of the child support, or a small portion usually around $50. The rest of it goes toward paying the government back for the benefits she receives. Here is a state by state chart, read it for yourself: http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-s...d-support.aspx
I feel like screaming when I read stuff like this, women don't go out boyfriend shopping in order to get pregnant and get more welfare benefits. The average increase in welfare benefits for an additional child is $30-$80 a month, that would be a really stupid reason to have another kid, dontcha think? Not to mention a number of states do not increase the welfare grant for any children born after the parent goes on TANF
Let us start with Military and Pharmaceutical, let alone Health Insurance Companies guaranteed profit from government contracts. Banks borrowing $10 from the government at 0% and loaning out $100 at 30%. Allowing big box retailers to pay less then a basic worker can afford to live on. Allowing corrupt Casino owners to avoid paying their debts to suppliers and contractors instead of being held fully financially responsible for their business losses.
Those are the "Safety Nets" I would like to eliminate.
They used to do this long before government got involved.
By the way, people still starve, die from sickness, are homeless, etc... and yet.. we have all these government programs?
I like how "right wingers" are blind, but it is the progressives that have murdered through starvation hundreds of millions of people throughout history.
Remember this one? "Let them eat less? "
Go ahead, tell me who said it?
Well, there was Pres Regan, who famously said Ketchup is an acceptable vegetable for school lunches.
I have no problem in having adults who are poor entirely due to their own choices starve (although it would more humane just to kill them, I think) -- but it would be much better to have them work in CCC-type programs as instituted by FDR with free child care.
Instead of what we have now, for a period of two years (only) -- but with at least six months' notice to give people time to prepare -- I would like there to be NO social net, and then during those two years are up, to have the social safety net reinvented so that only those who are poor through no fault of their own would be helped. Yes, it would be chaos and there would be a lot of violence, but there are just too many people who don't pay their own way, even if they can, because they know that "the government" (and taxpayers) will take care of them.
My feeling and opinion is that during those two years, most weak adults (in any sense of the word) would die and many violent criminals would kill each other to a large degree; the addicts would end up killing themselves; and those who are very old, ill and destitute would die a natural death at home. I also think that any orphaned children or people who are just victims of bad luck beyond their control would almost certainly be taken in or supported by relatives, charities, and religious organizations.
Yes, I do realize that what I suggest is "heartless", but I have personally encountered too many people on government assistance who are full of excuses, while I know too many others who could qualify for assistance but don't, and they support themselves and their families even though it is, admittedly, often very VERY difficult.
(And, btw, I grew up in what would today be considered a "working poor" family, but my parents had too much pride to apply for any kind of government assistance, and yet we survived and even -- eventually -- prospered.)
Last edited by katharsis; 01-11-2017 at 04:50 PM..
Look over here!! No---over here, here, where the poor are standing, yes, they're the ones taking your money. Got it?
Good-- your truth telling buddy--Rush.
When this message has been played over and over for years, those with their empty heads glued to the radio wisdom of Rush and company will predictably regurgitate their past hungry man helpings of nonsense and never quite understand why they feel that way. Propaganda has done a number on the unsuspecting troll followers of the radio right. Asking for their opinion at this late date only validates the work of Pavlov and the salivating dogs.
I have no problem in having adults who are poor entirely due to their own choices starve (although it would more humane just to kill them, I think) -- but it would be much better to have them work in CCC-type programs as instituted by FDR with free child care.
Instead of what we have now, for a period of two years (only) -- but with at least six months' notice to give people time to prepare -- I would like there to be NO social net, and then during those two years are up, to have the social safety net reinvented so that only those who are poor through no fault of their own would be helped. Yes, it would be chaos and there would be a lot of violence, but there are just too many people who don't pay their own way, even if they can, because they know that "the government" (and taxpayers) will take care of them.
My feeling and opinion is that during those two years, most weak adults (in any sense of the word) would die and many violent criminals would kill each other to a large degree; the addicts would end up killing themselves; and those who are very old, ill and destitute would die a natural death at home. I also think that any orphaned children or people who are just victims of bad luck beyond their control would almost certainly be taken in or supported by relatives, charities, and religious organizations.
Yes, I do realize that what I suggest is "heartless", but I have personally encountered too many people on government assistance who are full of excuses, while I know too many others who could qualify for assistance but don't, and they support themselves and their families even though it is, admittedly, often very VERY difficult.
(And, btw, I grew up in what would today be considered a "working poor" family, but my parents had too much pride to apply for any kind of government assistance, and yet we survived and even -- eventually -- prospered.)
Even in your conservative dystopia that you describe you fail to take into account that the level of instability you describe will decimate the economy, the riots, the social unrest none of that helps business but at least you will get your 5% cut.
They need to make younger people that are abusing SSI work at least part time. Some of them are just working the system and living almost completely free in HUD highrises.
People on SSI are not able to hold down jobs. They are disabled.
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.
