I don't understand why

peach174

Gold Member
Apr 24, 2010
26,444
6,991
290
S.E. AZ
so many people in America think that Entitlements are so good for the people.

All entitlements do is control the people.
You have to follow the rules that the Government sets up, in order to get them.

Welfare rules, you must be single. The more children you have the more you receive in monthly benefits.

SSI - you receive a set amount of money each month and the adjustment raise is so small that all it does, is go toward your payment of Medicare insurance rise in your premiums.
Thus, you are stuck at at a continual amount of monthly payment.
If you work to try and help pay the rising cost of bills, you are punished by Government taking away you SSI for each dollar amount you earn.

This is not freedom from Government. You become the slave to the rules of the entitlement programs.

If we had a system like Chile where you have your SSI in a private account and a guarantee if the market went down you would still be locked in to the benefits accumulated, this is much better. You would also get more than the government bonds do right now.
You can then have your monthly amount to use each month.
You would be able to withdraw more for emergencies if needed.
You would be able to have the funds transfered over to your spouse or your children after you die.
You could also work if you wanted to, or needed to, without Government taking away your monthly checks.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

I have no idea what programs youre talking about, so I can't really tell whether it would be feasible to combine them all into 4 programs. As for giving the states more control over welfare to work, I think that's a good idea.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

I have no idea what programs you're talking about, so I can't really tell whether it would be feasible to combine them all into 4 programs. As for giving the states more control over welfare to work, I think that's a good idea.

Giving welfare over to the states to manage is good, but easing the work requirements isn't and it should have been done by Congress not the President.
When any President can rewrite the bills congress passes, it makes him into a dictator and nulls and voids what our representatives are there for.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

Untrue.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

Untrue.

Yes it does allow changes in the work requirements.

HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.

The states can change the work activities and engagements.
They can change the limitations set forth from Clinton's plan.
It can and will allow more people into welfare programs.
Clinton's program help get more people to work and off welfare.
This one is going to help more get into the program and stay in welfare longer.
 
No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

Untrue.

Yes it does allow changes in the work requirements.

HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.

The states can change the work activities and engagements.
They can change the limitations set forth from Clinton's plan.
It can and will allow more people into welfare programs.
Clinton's program help get more people to work and off welfare.
This one is going to help more get into the program and stay in welfare longer.

That's your opinion. I disagree, and so did Governor Romney.
 
Welfare keeps children from starving, living on the street or being abandoned.

Does it promote failure? IMO, yes. However calling for welfare reform, and saying people should just fend for themselves are two different things.

No one in this country is saying that the poor should fend for themselves.
Welfare reform was done under Clinton and and the repubs. Obama has given it over to the states and eases the work requirements done under President Clinton.

We have over 80 programs for poor children.Each one is causing waste.
We need to combine these programs into maybe 3 or 4 programs. It would be easier to manage and less spending in government employees with government pensions.

I have no idea what programs youre talking about, so I can't really tell whether it would be feasible to combine them all into 4 programs. As for giving the states more control over welfare to work, I think that's a good idea.

FACTS why is it so hard to understand these facts???


The nonpartisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has looked into the amount of duplicate government programs and found a massive amount of waste. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who requested the study, has estimated duplicative spending costs between
$100 billion and $200 billion.

* The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws,
more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development.

* There are 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances.

* 18 federal programs spent a combined $62.5 billion in 2008 on food and nutrition assistance, but there is little information about the efficacy of 11 of these programs because they haven't been well studied.

* "Five divisions within the Department of Transportation account for 100 different programs that fund things like highways, rail projects and safety programs.
* GAO reports there are 130,000 military and government medical professionals, 59 Defense Department hospitals
and hundreds of clinics that could benefit from consolidating administrative, management and clinical functions
* There are numerous redundancies in the military's purchase of tactical wheeled vehicles and procurement.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/01/gao-billions-wasted-in-duplica#
 
Last edited:

Yes it does allow changes in the work requirements.

HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
The states can change the work activities and engagements.
They can change the limitations set forth from Clinton's plan.
It can and will allow more people into welfare programs.
Clinton's program help get more people to work and off welfare.
This one is going to help more get into the program and stay in welfare longer.

That's your opinion. I disagree, and so did Governor Romney.

The part that has been highlighted in bold comes right from the HHS letter.
 
The part that has been highlighted in bold comes right from the HHS letter.

Did you miss the parts where it said:

As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs;
 
The part that has been highlighted in bold comes right from the HHS letter.

Did you miss the parts where it said:

As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs;

Did you miss the parts where is says;

The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families.

Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy.

Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements.
Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for longer periods in certain activities improves employment outcomes.

Gives you a longer time periord for being in school.
Where does the time end for schooling?
 
Did you miss the parts where it said:

Point? 1115 demonstration waivers are required to have a robust evaluation methodology attached to them; if a state wants to try something innovative in its program and gets approval from HHS, they still need to show that what they're doing is improving outcomes or the plug gets pulled (which is why HHS reiterated "States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project" and "Repeated failure to meet performance benchmarks may lead to the termination of the waiver demonstration pilot.").
 
It still does not give dates.

But this is some of the points I was making.
Entitlements make you slaves, you got to live by rules set by the Government.

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

You are not free when you are under the rules of Government entitlements.
 
so many people in America think that Entitlements are so good for the people.

All entitlements do is control the people.
You have to follow the rules that the Government sets up, in order to get them.

Welfare rules, you must be single. The more children you have the more you receive in monthly benefits.

SSI - you receive a set amount of money each month and the adjustment raise is so small that all it does, is go toward your payment of Medicare insurance rise in your premiums.
Thus, you are stuck at at a continual amount of monthly payment.
If you work to try and help pay the rising cost of bills, you are punished by Government taking away you SSI for each dollar amount you earn.

This is not freedom from Government. You become the slave to the rules of the entitlement programs.

If we had a system like Chile where you have your SSI in a private account and a guarantee if the market went down you would still be locked in to the benefits accumulated, this is much better. You would also get more than the government bonds do right now.
You can then have your monthly amount to use each month.
You would be able to withdraw more for emergencies if needed.
You would be able to have the funds transfered over to your spouse or your children after you die.
You could also work if you wanted to, or needed to, without Government taking away your monthly checks.

I don't understand why…so many people in America think that Entitlements are so good for the people.

Public assistance programs are good for children, such as those in foster care, they’re good for the disabled, the elderly, and those incapacitated or those otherwise temporarily out of work.

All entitlements do is control the people.
You have to follow the rules that the Government sets up, in order to get them.

Welfare rules, you must be single. The more children you have the more you receive in monthly benefits.
Ignorance nonsense – there are public assistance programs such as Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid for married couples as well.

SSI - you receive a set amount of money each month and the adjustment raise is so small that all it does, is go toward your payment of Medicare insurance rise in your premiums.
Thus, you are stuck at at a continual amount of monthly payment.
If you work to try and help pay the rising cost of bills, you are punished by Government taking away you SSI for each dollar amount you earn.
Incorrect.

SSI recipients are eligible for their state’s Medicaid program, they pay nothing out of their monthly benefit.

This is not freedom from Government. You become the slave to the rules of the entitlement programs.

If we had a system like Chile where you have your SSI in a private account and a guarantee if the market went down you would still be locked in to the benefits accumulated, this is much better. You would also get more than the government bonds do right now.
You can then have your monthly amount to use each month.
You would be able to withdraw more for emergencies if needed.
You would be able to have the funds transfered over to your spouse or your children after you die.
You could also work if you wanted to, or needed to, without Government taking away your monthly checks.

SSI is for disabled Americans, who are not able to work and are not eligible for SSD, as they’ve not worked 40 qualifying quarters.

You don’t understand because you’re ignorant; based on you post you only know conservative dogma and the misinformation perpetuated by the right.
 
so many people in America think that Entitlements are so good for the people.

All entitlements do is control the people.
You have to follow the rules that the Government sets up, in order to get them.

Welfare rules, you must be single. The more children you have the more you receive in monthly benefits.

SSI - you receive a set amount of money each month and the adjustment raise is so small that all it does, is go toward your payment of Medicare insurance rise in your premiums.
Thus, you are stuck at at a continual amount of monthly payment.
If you work to try and help pay the rising cost of bills, you are punished by Government taking away you SSI for each dollar amount you earn.

This is not freedom from Government. You become the slave to the rules of the entitlement programs.

If we had a system like Chile where you have your SSI in a private account and a guarantee if the market went down you would still be locked in to the benefits accumulated, this is much better. You would also get more than the government bonds do right now.
You can then have your monthly amount to use each month.
You would be able to withdraw more for emergencies if needed.
You would be able to have the funds transfered over to your spouse or your children after you die.
You could also work if you wanted to, or needed to, without Government taking away your monthly checks.

I don't understand why…so many people in America think that Entitlements are so good for the people.

Public assistance programs are good for children, such as those in foster care, they’re good for the disabled, the elderly, and those incapacitated or those otherwise temporarily out of work.


Ignorance nonsense – there are public assistance programs such as Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid for married couples as well.

SSI - you receive a set amount of money each month and the adjustment raise is so small that all it does, is go toward your payment of Medicare insurance rise in your premiums.
Thus, you are stuck at at a continual amount of monthly payment.
If you work to try and help pay the rising cost of bills, you are punished by Government taking away you SSI for each dollar amount you earn.
Incorrect.

SSI recipients are eligible for their state’s Medicaid program, they pay nothing out of their monthly benefit.

This is not freedom from Government. You become the slave to the rules of the entitlement programs.

If we had a system like Chile where you have your SSI in a private account and a guarantee if the market went down you would still be locked in to the benefits accumulated, this is much better. You would also get more than the government bonds do right now.
You can then have your monthly amount to use each month.
You would be able to withdraw more for emergencies if needed.
You would be able to have the funds transfered over to your spouse or your children after you die.
You could also work if you wanted to, or needed to, without Government taking away your monthly checks.

SSI is for disabled Americans, who are not able to work and are not eligible for SSD, as they’ve not worked 40 qualifying quarters.

You don’t understand because you’re ignorant; based on you post you only know conservative dogma and the misinformation perpetuated by the right.


You are the one who is ignorant.
If you were a Senior you would know this.
For Medicare Part B, everyone pays a monthly premium (which goes up each January 1). Each year that goes up the adjustment for inflation goes toward that monthly payment that rises every year.Seniors are on a fixed income.
Seniors pay over 110.00 a month for Medicare and it comes out of your monthly SSI payments.
The Majority of Seniors can not get Medicaid until they go into a nursing home and then Medicaid takes all of the money they have, till they become bankrupt and then Medicaid pays for the nursing home.
If Seniors have a home the children has to sell that home and Medicaid takes that money to pay for the nursing home, then Medicad starts the payments. They kids are nat able to inherent that home.

In order to receive SSI for disability you need to have worked at least the last 10 years before you receive the benefits.
Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year you become disabled.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top