Should welfare recipients be banned from having a TV, computer, or cell phone

[koshergrl]

See..this just floors me...

Why would someone who has never been on welfare, tell poor people that they have no hope of applying for, let alone getting, work unless they have Internet piped directly to their LaZBoy??

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. You really do think they're too stupid to breathe.

http://www.labor.ny.gov/career-center-locator/location.php?zip=10007

 

[Noomi]

We need to make life unpleasant for these people to encourage them to work. Reducing benefits always leads to the "mothers" cutting back on food for the kids so the mother can keep her luxuries.

Since computers and cells need an outside provider for internet use, it would be fairly simple to enforce a ban on them. If they really need a computer for something, they can go to a friend or library. TVs are bulky and would be hard to hide when a social worker pays a visit.

A computer to apply for jobs, and a phone to take the call from the employer when they wish to arrange an interview.

Do you want to deny them clothes and drinking water, too?

 

[Noomi]

We need to make life unpleasant for these people to encourage them to work. Reducing benefits always leads to the "mothers" cutting back on food for the kids so the mother can keep her luxuries.

Since computers and cells need an outside provider for internet use, it would be fairly simple to enforce a ban on them. If they really need a computer for something, they can go to a friend or library. TVs are bulky and would be hard to hide when a social worker pays a visit.

no.

you can't apply for a job… or do research for school or anything else if you have no internet.

good luck applying for a job without a cell phone.

"these people"?

i love the radical right.

Bullshit. You can get your dumb lazy ass to a public library or employment office and use the FREE internet, the FREE printers and the FREE assistance provided at those places.

And go and use someone else's FREE phone I guess?

You want to help people, not fucking hinder them.

 

[kiwiman127]

Look folks, in the US we have never had a situation where there was a scenario where there was just one applicant for every job. I believe the best ratio was 1.5 applicants for every job and that happened during the 1990s and we still had 4% unemployment. In other words, we are always going to have poor people. And much like the working Middle Class, the poor working class has been stuck with flat wages (in Real Dollars) since the 1980s. Thanks to flat wages, the Middle Class working class is turning into the poor working class. The job/applicant ratio is 3 applicants for every job. In other words, America's poor is a group that is growing. The US will always have poor people.
The poor and Middle Class didn't create the concept of shipping jobs offshore and these groups didn't go about increasing the concept of automation replacing employees.
You can go on and on bashing people without jobs and in need of assistance all you want but nothing is going to change and as a matter of fact, it's going to get worse.
The global economy is going to be the death of the United States. It's killing the Middle Class and it's creating more and more poor people. I don't know about you folks, but I sure have great concerns about future generations and what America is going to look like 20, 30, 40 years from now. I am willing to bet it isn't going to be pretty.
The bottom-line is those folks that are getting bashed could in the future, could be your children or their children. Think about it.

 

[Brain357]

We need to make life unpleasant for these people to encourage them to work. Reducing benefits always leads to the "mothers" cutting back on food for the kids so the mother can keep her luxuries.

Since computers and cells need an outside provider for internet use, it would be fairly simple to enforce a ban on them. If they really need a computer for something, they can go to a friend or library. TVs are bulky and would be hard to hide when a social worker pays a visit.

Sounds like a good way to get democrats elected.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Turning off a tv or not buying youngster cell phones is sound parenting and not what the op suggested.

Allowing these kids the ability to keep up is a solid priority

So playing with a cell phone or watching tv is "keeping up?" The kids should be doing their schoolwork.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I think we should deny them underwear. it's a luxury garment afterall. You do not need them. Or better yet, lets have everyone who gets welfare benefits be banned from getting any clothing from the market. They should have to get orange jumpsuits to wear. The children too. All provided by the state.

What do you think, SS? Good idea, yeah?

People on welfare should buy their clothes where i buy them - at thrift stores.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

A computer to apply for jobs, and a phone to take the call from the employer when they wish to arrange an interview.

Do you want to deny them clothes and drinking water, too?

I see people using library computers all the time to apply for jobs. And a land line is adequate to take the call.

 

[Harry Dresden]

[

Turning off a tv or not buying youngster cell phones is sound parenting and not what the op suggested.

Allowing these kids the ability to keep up is a solid priority

So playing with a cell phone or watching tv is "keeping up?" The kids should be doing their schoolwork.

going by what you say in these threads you did not do much schoolwork either.......so much for you giving out advice.....

 

[Londoner]

In 1980 we elected a man who wanted to reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. The justification was that this would free-up more investment capital, allowing the most productive Americans to innovate and add jobs (this, Reagan claimed, was a better option than paying more revenue to a corrupt and inefficient government).

So we listened.

Reagan reduced taxes from the 70% range into the high 20s. To make room for these tax cuts he proposed to cut welfare programs. So he waged war on Welfare, claiming that the poor were lazy. This belief that the poor are lazy has become an article of faith for republicans - it is the Archimedean lever for crushing the poor. The Right ignores the fact that there are over 50 applicants for each job - meaning: there are not enough jobs for over 10 million people who want to work, and who are actively seeking employment. (The actual number of unemployed people is likely much higher, as many people have given up looking, not least because they have been deemed unemployable).

The OP seeks to punish people who are trying to find work. He believes they are lazy because he has been told that over and over by his media sources. Many of them lost their jobs during the aftermath of the 2008 Bush Meltdown, brought on by a criminal financial industry that placed trillions of dollars of bets that it could not cover.

Many downtrodden welfare families have hungry children. The OP wants to punish them too by locking them into a life of poverty - excluding them from communication and information, forcing them to wait in line a libraries whose budget the OP & his ilk wants cut.

This is the blueprint for creating a permanent, socially excluded under class, the kind you see in the 3rd world where those born in poverty remain there.

Ronald Reagan's father lost his job during the Great Depression. In addition to getting plenty of government assistance, he was saved by an FDR work program, which was paid for by raising taxes. People called this a handout - a useless make-work program. FDR said it was an investment in the American people. He said that if you give Americans a helping hand during hard times, they will some day move on to be productive citizens. FDR didn't want to see Great American Families be destroyed by an economic crisis that many of them played no part in creating. He didn't want a future scientist or president to be crushed by poverty. He didn't call them welfare queens; nope, FDR had faith in the American people. He said that he would cut foreign aid before he would stop investing in the American people.

Do you think he made a mistake in investing in the Reagan family? Are you mad that he saved these people who could not support themselves? Did the investment pay off?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The OP seeks to punish people who are trying to find work.

No - it's you liberals who punish working americans by your support for the 40 million illegals in america. Kick out these criminal invaders and everyone who wanted to work could work.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Ronald Reagan's father lost his job during the Great Depression. In addition to getting plenty of government assistance, he was saved by an FDR work program, which was paid for by raising taxes. People called this a handout - a useless make-work program. FDR said it was an investment in the American people. He said that if you give Americans a helping hand during hard times, they will some day move on to be productive citizens.

Helping hand??? That's fine, but today's welfare program have gone far beyond that. Today the bums get $35,000 a year and one can live very comfortably on that esp when you just loaf around and don't have to pay for a car and gas. They get free housing and free food and free medical care. Everything is paid for!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

The OP seeks to punish people who are trying to find work.

No - it's you liberals who punish working americans by your support for the 40 million illegals in america. Kick out these criminal invaders and everyone who wanted to work could work.

now its 40 million.....last week it was 20 million....

 

[Bleipriester]

We need to make life unpleasant for these people to encourage them to work. Reducing benefits always leads to the "mothers" cutting back on food for the kids so the mother can keep her luxuries.

Since computers and cells need an outside provider for internet use, it would be fairly simple to enforce a ban on them. If they really need a computer for something, they can go to a friend or library. TVs are bulky and would be hard to hide when a social worker pays a visit.

Computers, TVs, cellphones and other electronic stuff is available at very low costs. Should an unemployed be forbidden to apply for a job online though a second hand PC is offered for 50 bucks next door? And what if electronics are banned and alcohol not?

 

[Spiderman]

We need to make life unpleasant for these people to encourage them to work. Reducing benefits always leads to the "mothers" cutting back on food for the kids so the mother can keep her luxuries.

Since computers and cells need an outside provider for internet use, it would be fairly simple to enforce a ban on them. If they really need a computer for something, they can go to a friend or library. TVs are bulky and would be hard to hide when a social worker pays a visit.

You want to deny a child television because his or her mother is poor?

You're either trolling or mentally retarded.

Denying television is helping not hurting a child.

Have him read a book, draw a picture or (GASP) play outside.

 

[rightwinger]

We don't tax the wealth of rich people.....it is off the table

Why do we go after the wealth of poor people?

 

[Spiderman]

We don't tax the wealth of rich people.....it is off the table

Why do we go after the wealth of poor people?

So a TV is "wealth"?

I didn't even own a TV for almost 15 years (age 17-32) and believe me when I say I didn't miss anything.

 

[rightwinger]

We provide subsidies to farmers. I think they should be denied luxurise like color TVs, air conditioners, newfangeled cell phones and microwave ovens as long as they receive gubmint subsidies

 

[longknife]

158 posts degenerated into trivia and name-calling. So sad.

 

[Chaussette]

Should welfare recipients be banned from having a TV, computer, or cell phone

Of course, because making them even less well-off and less connected to the world is going to really help them find a job and get off welfare.