Posted: 4/11/2009 5:56:35 PM EDT
| Im writing a paper on welfare reform any thoughts? |
| I'm thinking about signing up for welfare, at least then maybe I'll get some of my money back from these lowlife bastards standing ahead of me in line at winn-dixie buying useless shit with their welfare card. I swear to god the next time I see some useless idiot who can't even fucking speak english ask how much he has to pay out of the total for his store brand soda and junk food I am going to fucking explode. |
|
On a serious note:
1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. |
|
Welfare is in a way a form of freedom
You dont have to worry about losing your job, making it to work or anything of that nature. You can be drunk sleep til 4 and look like hell but that check will be there on the 1st. You can do anything you want without worring about what day it is, want to go to that rally or concert its ok since the only thing you have to be concerned about is that the check is there on the 1st. You dont have to save since that check is never more then 30days away, you want steaks you can have them since you will have that money on the 1st. You dont own shit, so they cant seize anything from you, you cant be sued since there is nothing to take, they cant garnish you since you dont have a job but that check will be there on the 1st. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. I agree with the suggestion to drug test, and disagree with the assertion it would not be cost effective. For one thing, there would be a lot less people collecting cuz many would fail the test. Also, they would not have to test everyone. Random testing would probably be effective, and less costly then testing everyone. I also think that they should not be allowed to purchase alcohol, cable television, and other luxury goods etc when on welfare. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. What's this reapply you're talking about? In MY proposal, once you fail, you're done. No if's ands or buts. |
|
Quoted:
On a serious note: 1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? You hit on something there but it will not be turned into a weening system or a time limited system within the next 4 years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. They wont get off drugs even if it means losing their check you could tell them if they are not clean in a month both thme and thier children will die and 60% would still fail the test 30days later. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. What's this reapply you're talking about? In MY proposal, once you fail, you're done. No if's ands or buts. The possibility of that happening is 0% and you know it. What about Tobacco and Alcohol while your at it, these are unnecessary vices frequently used by the poor. Have inspectors go out and raid refrigerators and pat down recipients for tobacco products too? All this costs a lot of money on top of the initial program most taxpayers dislike paying for already. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. What's this reapply you're talking about? In MY proposal, once you fail, you're done. No if's ands or buts. The possibility of that happening is 0% and you know it. What about Tobacco and Alcohol while your at it, these are unnecessary vices frequently used by the poor. Have inspectors go out and raid refrigerators and pat down recipients for tobacco products too? All this costs a lot of money on top of the initial program most taxpayers dislike paying for already. The whole idea of welfare reform that doesn't equal giving more money to more people that don't deserve it is about 0%. I'm just saying if I had the choice, those are the types of reform I would do. |
|
Quoted:
On a serious note: 1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? Not bad suggestions...though the failure of a drug test would render the person unable to receive welfare for a period of 1 year...not lifetime. There are very few things that I believe should have a lifetime impact on one's life...and recreational drug use is not one of them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory drug testing. Test positive? No public assistance. Would not be cost effective. ...........................and if you make them pay for the tests it will get thrown out on "Hardship" or "Racist/Discriminatory" grounds. Initially, no, it wouldn't be cost effective. Once 70% of welfare recipients were kicked off "teh welfares", it would be VERY cost efficient. and 1 months later when they all reapply and piss a clean test? There incentive to do nothing tops there incentive to get stoked. What's this reapply you're talking about? In MY proposal, once you fail, you're done. No if's ands or buts. The possibility of that happening is 0% and you know it. What about Tobacco and Alcohol while your at it, these are unnecessary vices frequently used by the poor. Have inspectors go out and raid refrigerators and pat down recipients for tobacco products too? All this costs a lot of money on top of the initial program most taxpayers dislike paying for already. The whole idea of welfare reform that doesn't equal giving more money to more people that don't deserve it is about 0%. I'm just saying if I had the choice, those are the types of reform I would do. I think a more effective tactic is among the simplest, make them work for their "Benefit". Tell them they have to log 8-10 shifts per month washing police cars/firetrucks, mowing grass, rebuilding the ghetto, etc. and they will get jobs. |
|
I'll ask again, why are so many people here okay with government involvement with welfare, drug testing, birth control etc, but against it when it comes to government involvement in businesses, bonuses and such, it's pretty much corporate welfare, why shouldn't the government have a say there?
My version of welfare reform, I pay taxes, they don't, so I want partial custody of their children, I want visitation rights and a say on how they're living their life, since I am paying for it, I get to decide if they spend their money wisely, cable tv, smoking, booze, trying to get a job, I don't like what I see, I have the right to stop paying. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
On a serious note: 1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? You hit on something there but it will not be turned into a weening system or a time limited system within the next 4 years. Freakin' A. Why is it you can only collect 12-16 weeks of unemployment after years of working and contributing to the fund, but, generations of trash have scammed the system and can collect lifetime while never having contributed a single penny? Citizenship verified. US citizens should not have to pay for foreigners. Can't afford to live her, GTFO. I had to apply for it August 07. A 100% disabled, and a veteran. And I was still jerked around. Heck, even a man from Puerto Rico was going off because the illegals from Mexico got better treatment. Email me if you want details. Criminal records check. One form I had to sign was notification that if I commited any drug crimes, assistance would be terminated. I asked "So, I can murder an entire family, and still collect assistance while on bail, but get caught posessing one joint, and I get cut off?" Yep. A hand up, not a hand out. Most states it is written that the benefits are actually for the children. These mothers should be required to notify the state who the father(s) are, and the state needs to go after them for child support. X number of weeks, then that's it. A small stipend to help pay for child care, and nothing more. Y amount paid, not Z per child. These mothers are getting paid to squeeze out puppies. If you can't support 1 child, why are we paying for children 2,3,4,5 etc from 2,3,4,5 fathers? |
|
Quoted:
Welfare is in a way a form of freedom You dont have to worry about losing your job, making it to work or anything of that nature. You can be drunk sleep til 4 and look like hell but that check will be there on the 1st. You can do anything you want without worring about what day it is, want to go to that rally or concert its ok since the only thing you have to be concerned about is that the check is there on the 1st. You dont have to save since that check is never more then 30days away, you want steaks you can have them since you will have that money on the 1st. You dont own shit, so they cant seize anything from you, you cant be sued since there is nothing to take, they cant garnish you since you dont have a job but that check will be there on the 1st. Since you put it that way................ Where do I sign up ? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Welfare is in a way a form of freedom You dont have to worry about losing your job, making it to work or anything of that nature. You can be drunk sleep til 4 and look like hell but that check will be there on the 1st. You can do anything you want without worring about what day it is, want to go to that rally or concert its ok since the only thing you have to be concerned about is that the check is there on the 1st. You dont have to save since that check is never more then 30days away, you want steaks you can have them since you will have that money on the 1st. You dont own shit, so they cant seize anything from you, you cant be sued since there is nothing to take, they cant garnish you since you dont have a job but that check will be there on the 1st. Since you put it that way................ Where do I sign up ?
sounds fucking awesome dont it. If I had the choice between getting welfare and winning a 2million dollar lotteryprize Id take welfare. Id live better and with less stress. Welfare: money is never more then 30days away. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
On a serious note: 1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? You hit on something there but it will not be turned into a weening system or a time limited system within the next 4 years. I think you should run for President in 2012. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
On a serious note: 1. Time limits 2. Random drug testing. You fail, you are off, and can NEVER get on any social program for life. Period. 3. For women, mandatory birth control (norplant). If you are on ANY gov program, you have ZERO right to be having more kids. 4. You're getting paid by the state/fed government? You work for them, doing whatever they need you do to (within physical limitations). Think of how fast we could build a wall between Mexico and the US if we made all the people in those states on government programs build it? Not bad suggestions...though the failure of a drug test would render the person unable to receive welfare for a period of 1 year...not lifetime. There are very few things that I believe should have a lifetime impact on one's life...and recreational drug use is not one of them. While I agree that there are few actions that should result in a life time of consequences, we're talking about them being on a program to get free shit, not the right to vote, be a citizen, or own a firearm. Welfare is a privilege, not a right, and an abused one at that. I could give a rats ass about people using recreation drugs, but when they're using them, while being lazy F'ers, on MY DIME? Damn them all to hell I say. |
| No government assistance. That's the job of private charities which i would gladly give to. Welfare is slavery, for every hard working man and woman, plain and simple. Rip from my paycheck and give to someone else the government sees fit to have it? That's theft last time I checked. |
| It's coming back. Obama is going to repeal probably the single most significant thing Clinton signed as President: Welfare reform, which reduced the number of dependent families on government handouts and turned the rise of single motherhood. But Obama is a hardcore doctrinaire liberal. Results are irrelevant, intentions are paramount. And welfare reform is too 'mean'. |