What If?

[Madeline]

Suppose we had a social program motif under which an able bodied adult who received aid had to repay that aid in some fashion? Not the children, and not the elderly or infirm, just able-bodied adults.

I have in mind something very low level, so their ability to function economically would not be impaired -- like a repayment that did not exceed a certain percent of income, etc. And just FYI, benefits that flow from employment -- worker's comp, disability and unemployment insurance pay outs -- are not the sort of social program I would consider. IMO, you "buy" these sorts of insurance and shouldn't be penalized if you eventually have a claim.

I'm thinking more of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, subsidized child care, Medicaid, etc. Let's say you grew up middle class, started a family and hit a snag in your early thirties, costing your fellow citizens $10,000 to get you and your children back on your feet.

If we did this, would people feel less resentment about the social programs we have? Would there be less waste? Or would it just be pointless window dressing IYO?

 

[Granny]

Many of our problems overlap each other and fuel the continued ballooning costs of all of them - whether financial or behavioral.

At the risk of being beaten to death by angry teachers, I would like to start with education. I realize that schools are already way overcrowded and that teachers sometimes have a workload from hell. Because the vast majority of welfare recipients are not very educated, why can't we start by mandating that those parents must to go to school as a condition of receiving welfare support? Why not have those parents in the classroom with their children every single day of the school year - a "learn as your child learns" sort of thing. In the case of multiple children there could be a "weekly rotation" sort of thing so the parent can have classroom time with each child. The parent could sort of supply "individual attention" that teachers simply cannot do. The parent would be responsible and accountable for their child's classroom behavior - maybe it would result in less classroom disruption, bullying, violence, etc. or reduce continued violence in the home and in the streets. It would mean that these parents and their children will at a very minimum get 12 years of education, a diploma, be more capable of finding a job that will reduce or move them off the welfare dole. Home Ec. should cover a broad spectrum of issues and be a required class for parents - a least one day a week - maybe they would learn some good healthy eating habits and also be wiser in how to get the most out of their food stamp dollars (learning to budget) - might help with the obesity problem.

Twelve years is long enough for someone to be on welfare. Educate the parents - they now have the tools to get some kind of employment. Educate the children - give them hope for the future and maybe they will never be on welfare rolls at all.

 

[dilloduck]

Half of America will end up supervising the other half and I guess we can just print fake money to pay the ones doing the supervising. I'm afraid were aapproaching the time when it's everyone for themselves and those they care about. The rest are lost causes. Maybe some other nice country will help them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Suppose we had a social program motif under which an able bodied adult who received aid had to repay that aid in some fashion? Not the children, and not the elderly or infirm, just able-bodied adults.

I have in mind something very low level, so their ability to function economically would not be impaired -- like a repayment that did not exceed a certain percent of income, etc. And just FYI, benefits that flow from employment -- worker's comp, disability and unemployment insurance pay outs -- are not the sort of social program I would consider. IMO, you "buy" these sorts of insurance and shouldn't be penalized if you eventually have a claim.

I'm thinking more of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, subsidized child care, Medicaid, etc. Let's say you grew up middle class, started a family and hit a snag in your early thirties, costing your fellow citizens $10,000 to get you and your children back on your feet.

If we did this, would people feel less resentment about the social programs we have? Would there be less waste? Or would it just be pointless window dressing IYO?

If we did this, make those who receive government handouts pay them back directly and proportionately, then these very programs would cease to be handouts and cease to be entitlements. They would instead be considered investments, much like the social security that people receive (people pay into it their whole lives so its not an entitlement, its a governmnet sponsored forced retirement savings plan).

How would we ensure that those who receive the "loan" are forced to repay said loan directly and proportionately though. How would we do it without allowing for government sponsored indentured servitude to pay it back?

I dunno....I like the path your on but the details are tough.

EXAMPLE1 :

I lose my job.
I can't find one.
I get $10,000 from the government to help me through the rough patch
I find a job
I now pay x% of my income to the government until the $10,000 is repaid

Example2 :

I lose my job.
I can't find one.
I get $10,000 to help from the government.
I can't find a Job


What happens in example 2?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Well, maybe this is a solution to a couple of problems... Maybe people who are collecting government aid could donate a kidney or something to help out the folks who need transplants? This way, you would truly being giving back to your community!

 

[Madeline]

Suppose we had a social program motif under which an able bodied adult who received aid had to repay that aid in some fashion? Not the children, and not the elderly or infirm, just able-bodied adults.

I have in mind something very low level, so their ability to function economically would not be impaired -- like a repayment that did not exceed a certain percent of income, etc. And just FYI, benefits that flow from employment -- worker's comp, disability and unemployment insurance pay outs -- are not the sort of social program I would consider. IMO, you "buy" these sorts of insurance and shouldn't be penalized if you eventually have a claim.

I'm thinking more of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, subsidized child care, Medicaid, etc. Let's say you grew up middle class, started a family and hit a snag in your early thirties, costing your fellow citizens $10,000 to get you and your children back on your feet.

If we did this, would people feel less resentment about the social programs we have? Would there be less waste? Or would it just be pointless window dressing IYO?

If we did this, make those who receive government handouts pay them back directly and proportionately, then these very programs would cease to be handouts and cease to be entitlements. They would instead be considered investments, much like the social security that people receive (people pay into it their whole lives so its not an entitlement, its a governmnet sponsored forced retirement savings plan).

How would we ensure that those who receive the "loan" are forced to repay said loan directly and proportionately though. How would we do it without allowing for government sponsored indentured servitude to pay it back?

I dunno....I like the path your on but the details are tough.

EXAMPLE1 :

I lose my job.
I can't find one.
I get $10,000 from the government to help me through the rough patch
I find a job
I now pay x% of my income to the government until the $10,000 is repaid

Example2 :

I lose my job.
I can't find one.
I get $10,000 to help from the government.
I can't find a Job


What happens in example 2?

Let's say you are 55 when you lose your job, and never do find another. For seven years, until you are eligible for Social Security, the government aids you to the tune of $10,000 a year or a total of $70,000. Here are some possibilities:

* You have "aged out" and owe nothing.

* You have no earned income and so you pay nothing, but upon your death, if you have assets the government gets repaid first.

* The government insures your life for $70,000 and passes that expense on to you, with the government as the beneficiary.

I dunno, PLYMCO_PILGRIM. I was just wondering if such a change would reduce waste, resentment or is too silly an idea to consider.

 

[Madeline]

Half of America will end up supervising the other half and I guess we can just print fake money to pay the ones doing the supervising. I'm afraid were aapproaching the time when it's everyone for themselves and those they care about. The rest are lost causes. Maybe some other nice country will help them.

So IYO the idea has no merit, because it would be too hard to administer? What if we privatize the repayment supervision, dilloduck? Pay a bunch of young lawyers (or whomever) say, 10% of the amounts collected?

 

[Madeline]

Many of our problems overlap each other and fuel the continued ballooning costs of all of them - whether financial or behavioral.

At the risk of being beaten to death by angry teachers, I would like to start with education. I realize that schools are already way overcrowded and that teachers sometimes have a workload from hell. Because the vast majority of welfare recipients are not very educated, why can't we start by mandating that those parents must to go to school as a condition of receiving welfare support? Why not have those parents in the classroom with their children every single day of the school year - a "learn as your child learns" sort of thing. In the case of multiple children there could be a "weekly rotation" sort of thing so the parent can have classroom time with each child. The parent could sort of supply "individual attention" that teachers simply cannot do. The parent would be responsible and accountable for their child's classroom behavior - maybe it would result in less classroom disruption, bullying, violence, etc. or reduce continued violence in the home and in the streets. It would mean that these parents and their children will at a very minimum get 12 years of education, a diploma, be more capable of finding a job that will reduce or move them off the welfare dole. Home Ec. should cover a broad spectrum of issues and be a required class for parents - a least one day a week - maybe they would learn some good healthy eating habits and also be wiser in how to get the most out of their food stamp dollars (learning to budget) - might help with the obesity problem.

Twelve years is long enough for someone to be on welfare. Educate the parents - they now have the tools to get some kind of employment. Educate the children - give them hope for the future and maybe they will never be on welfare rolls at all.

I think this idea has value, Granny. I really do. I like the way you think, Madam!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

At least your thinking madeline while most seem to just be reacting.

 

[Madeline]

Remember the movie "Dave", PLYMCO_PILGRIM? In one scene, he has to imitate the President, and so he gets his accountant friend in and together they balance the budget.

IMO, our problems are not all that hard to solve. You and I could doubtless do well together. The problem is human nature. All the senses of entitlement, bellyaching, selfishness, etc.

 

[High_Gravity]

Many of our problems overlap each other and fuel the continued ballooning costs of all of them - whether financial or behavioral.

At the risk of being beaten to death by angry teachers, I would like to start with education. I realize that schools are already way overcrowded and that teachers sometimes have a workload from hell. Because the vast majority of welfare recipients are not very educated, why can't we start by mandating that those parents must to go to school as a condition of receiving welfare support? Why not have those parents in the classroom with their children every single day of the school year - a "learn as your child learns" sort of thing. In the case of multiple children there could be a "weekly rotation" sort of thing so the parent can have classroom time with each child. The parent could sort of supply "individual attention" that teachers simply cannot do. The parent would be responsible and accountable for their child's classroom behavior - maybe it would result in less classroom disruption, bullying, violence, etc. or reduce continued violence in the home and in the streets. It would mean that these parents and their children will at a very minimum get 12 years of education, a diploma, be more capable of finding a job that will reduce or move them off the welfare dole. Home Ec. should cover a broad spectrum of issues and be a required class for parents - a least one day a week - maybe they would learn some good healthy eating habits and also be wiser in how to get the most out of their food stamp dollars (learning to budget) - might help with the obesity problem.

Twelve years is long enough for someone to be on welfare. Educate the parents - they now have the tools to get some kind of employment. Educate the children - give them hope for the future and maybe they will never be on welfare rolls at all.

Your assuming most people on welfare are lazy and uneducated, if the person on welfare has a high school diploma or even a college degree should they still have to go to school with their kids than? I don't know if you noticed but alot of the people unemployed right now and on welfare are educated and just can't find a job because the economy is shitty.

 

[Madeline]

Many of our problems overlap each other and fuel the continued ballooning costs of all of them - whether financial or behavioral.

At the risk of being beaten to death by angry teachers, I would like to start with education. I realize that schools are already way overcrowded and that teachers sometimes have a workload from hell. Because the vast majority of welfare recipients are not very educated, why can't we start by mandating that those parents must to go to school as a condition of receiving welfare support? Why not have those parents in the classroom with their children every single day of the school year - a "learn as your child learns" sort of thing. In the case of multiple children there could be a "weekly rotation" sort of thing so the parent can have classroom time with each child. The parent could sort of supply "individual attention" that teachers simply cannot do. The parent would be responsible and accountable for their child's classroom behavior - maybe it would result in less classroom disruption, bullying, violence, etc. or reduce continued violence in the home and in the streets. It would mean that these parents and their children will at a very minimum get 12 years of education, a diploma, be more capable of finding a job that will reduce or move them off the welfare dole. Home Ec. should cover a broad spectrum of issues and be a required class for parents - a least one day a week - maybe they would learn some good healthy eating habits and also be wiser in how to get the most out of their food stamp dollars (learning to budget) - might help with the obesity problem.

Twelve years is long enough for someone to be on welfare. Educate the parents - they now have the tools to get some kind of employment. Educate the children - give them hope for the future and maybe they will never be on welfare rolls at all.

Your assuming most people on welfare are lazy and uneducated, if the person on welfare has a high school diploma or even a college degree should they still have to go to school with their kids than? I don't know if you noticed but alot of the people unemployed right now and on welfare are educated and just can't find a job because the economy is shitty.

I dun think Granny was suggesting the parents attend with their kids so the parents can be educated, High Gravity. It's so the kids behave, the teachers get help and the children have a better chance at success.

Any teacher you alk to would likely say, more parental involvement in school would aid the kids.

 

[High_Gravity]

Many of our problems overlap each other and fuel the continued ballooning costs of all of them - whether financial or behavioral.

At the risk of being beaten to death by angry teachers, I would like to start with education. I realize that schools are already way overcrowded and that teachers sometimes have a workload from hell. Because the vast majority of welfare recipients are not very educated, why can't we start by mandating that those parents must to go to school as a condition of receiving welfare support? Why not have those parents in the classroom with their children every single day of the school year - a "learn as your child learns" sort of thing. In the case of multiple children there could be a "weekly rotation" sort of thing so the parent can have classroom time with each child. The parent could sort of supply "individual attention" that teachers simply cannot do. The parent would be responsible and accountable for their child's classroom behavior - maybe it would result in less classroom disruption, bullying, violence, etc. or reduce continued violence in the home and in the streets. It would mean that these parents and their children will at a very minimum get 12 years of education, a diploma, be more capable of finding a job that will reduce or move them off the welfare dole. Home Ec. should cover a broad spectrum of issues and be a required class for parents - a least one day a week - maybe they would learn some good healthy eating habits and also be wiser in how to get the most out of their food stamp dollars (learning to budget) - might help with the obesity problem.

Twelve years is long enough for someone to be on welfare. Educate the parents - they now have the tools to get some kind of employment. Educate the children - give them hope for the future and maybe they will never be on welfare rolls at all.

Your assuming most people on welfare are lazy and uneducated, if the person on welfare has a high school diploma or even a college degree should they still have to go to school with their kids than? I don't know if you noticed but alot of the people unemployed right now and on welfare are educated and just can't find a job because the economy is shitty.

I dun think Granny was suggesting the parents attend with their kids so the parents can be educated, High Gravity. It's so the kids behave, the teachers get help and the children have a better chance at success.

Any teacher you alk to would likely say, more parental involvement in school would aid the kids.

Oh ok, I misunderstood.

 

[Madeline]

Here's another question: every single adult on unemployment certifies weekly or so that he is ready, willing and able to work. We can all agree, networking, remaining active and using your skills helps an unemployed person find a new job.....so why are they allowed to stay at home?

Why aren't the unemployed put to use as volunteers around their communities as a condition of unemployment? Do 20 hours a week, with a flex schedule in case you have an interview, and there should be some effort to mix the collecting trash hours with the skilled hours.

Is this viable, IYO?

 

[High_Gravity]

Here's another question: every single adult on unemployment certifies weekly or so that he is ready, willing and able to work. We can all agree, networking, remaining active and using your skills helps an unemployed person find a new job.....so why are they allowed to stay at home?

Why aren't the unemployed put to use as volunteers around their communities as a condition of unemployment? Do 20 hours a week, with a flex schedule in case you have an interview, and there should be some effort to mix the collecting trash hours with the skilled hours.

Is this viable, IYO?

If you do that doesn't that take away time they can be using to find jobs?

 

[Madeline]

Here's another question: every single adult on unemployment certifies weekly or so that he is ready, willing and able to work. We can all agree, networking, remaining active and using your skills helps an unemployed person find a new job.....so why are they allowed to stay at home?

Why aren't the unemployed put to use as volunteers around their communities as a condition of unemployment? Do 20 hours a week, with a flex schedule in case you have an interview, and there should be some effort to mix the collecting trash hours with the skilled hours.

Is this viable, IYO?

If you do that doesn't that take away time they can be using to find jobs?

Good question. Mebbe so.

Is 20 hours a week too much time? Or you think the entire idea is silly?

 

[High_Gravity]

Here's another question: every single adult on unemployment certifies weekly or so that he is ready, willing and able to work. We can all agree, networking, remaining active and using your skills helps an unemployed person find a new job.....so why are they allowed to stay at home?

Why aren't the unemployed put to use as volunteers around their communities as a condition of unemployment? Do 20 hours a week, with a flex schedule in case you have an interview, and there should be some effort to mix the collecting trash hours with the skilled hours.

Is this viable, IYO?

If you do that doesn't that take away time they can be using to find jobs?

Good question. Mebbe so.

Is 20 hours a week too much time? Or you think the entire idea is silly?

I don't think the entire idea is silly, it may be a possibility for people to do on the weekends but than your going to have people who have issues with it, like maybe no car to get there, no one to watch their kids, etc. etc.

I can also tell you this, the unemployment offices are over worked as it stands, if they were going to institute a new program like this mandating unemployed people to work you would have to hire more people to regulate it, and right now the states cannot afford to hire that many people to do this. They can't even make the time to track whether these people are actually looking for jobs, so I can tell there is no manpower or time for an idea like this. Better to just send them the checks I guess until their benefits expire.

 

[Madeline]

If you do that doesn't that take away time they can be using to find jobs?

Good question. Mebbe so.

Is 20 hours a week too much time? Or you think the entire idea is silly?

I don't think the entire idea is silly, it may be a possibility for people to do on the weekends but than your going to have people who have issues with it, like maybe no car to get there, no one to watch their kids, etc. etc.

I can also tell you this, the unemployment offices are over worked as it stands, if they were going to institute a new program like this mandating unemployed people to work you would have to hire more people to regulate it, and right now the states cannot afford to hire that many people to do this. They can't even make the time to track whether these people are actually looking for jobs, so I can tell there is no manpower or time for an idea like this. Better to just send them the checks I guess until their benefits expire.

Better, as in drop it it's not worth pursuing?

Most long-term unemployed are at a fairly high risk for depression. The social interaction, routine and activity of having to "work" would be good for them. Plus, it's never wise to remain at home for long periods of time with nothing to show on your resume. Any sort of volunteer work, even if it isn't using your best skills, is better for you prospect-wise.

Just thinking; I ain't married to this idea.

 

[High_Gravity]

Good question. Mebbe so.

Is 20 hours a week too much time? Or you think the entire idea is silly?

I don't think the entire idea is silly, it may be a possibility for people to do on the weekends but than your going to have people who have issues with it, like maybe no car to get there, no one to watch their kids, etc. etc.

I can also tell you this, the unemployment offices are over worked as it stands, if they were going to institute a new program like this mandating unemployed people to work you would have to hire more people to regulate it, and right now the states cannot afford to hire that many people to do this. They can't even make the time to track whether these people are actually looking for jobs, so I can tell there is no manpower or time for an idea like this. Better to just send them the checks I guess until their benefits expire.

Better, as in drop it it's not worth pursuing?

Most long-term unemployed are at a fairly high risk for depression. The social interaction, routine and activity of having to "work" would be good for them. Plus, it's never wise to remain at home for long periods of time with nothing to show on your resume. Any sort of volunteer work, even if it isn't using your best skills, is better for you prospect-wise.

Just thinking; I ain't married to this idea.

I'm not saying its not worth pursuing, I'm just saying a program of this magnitude would require the States to hire more workers to keep track of the program, keep attendance to make sure all the unemployed are attending etc. from what I hear the States are broke as it is and they are handling more unemployed than they can cope with, I know states like California are swamped dealing with their unemployment, I really think they just don't have the resources to cope with such a program.

 

[Madeline]

I don't think the entire idea is silly, it may be a possibility for people to do on the weekends but than your going to have people who have issues with it, like maybe no car to get there, no one to watch their kids, etc. etc.

I can also tell you this, the unemployment offices are over worked as it stands, if they were going to institute a new program like this mandating unemployed people to work you would have to hire more people to regulate it, and right now the states cannot afford to hire that many people to do this. They can't even make the time to track whether these people are actually looking for jobs, so I can tell there is no manpower or time for an idea like this. Better to just send them the checks I guess until their benefits expire.

Better, as in drop it it's not worth pursuing?

Most long-term unemployed are at a fairly high risk for depression. The social interaction, routine and activity of having to "work" would be good for them. Plus, it's never wise to remain at home for long periods of time with nothing to show on your resume. Any sort of volunteer work, even if it isn't using your best skills, is better for you prospect-wise.

Just thinking; I ain't married to this idea.

I'm not saying its not worth pursuing, I'm just saying a program of this magnitude would require the States to hire more workers to keep track of the program, keep attendance to make sure all the unemployed are attending etc. from what I hear the States are broke as it is and they are handling more unemployed than they can cope with, I know states like California are swamped dealing with their unemployment, I really think they just don't have the resources to cope with such a program.

Good point. I wonder if they could ask the non-profit community to absorb these costs? After all, these very same organizations would reap the rewards and presumably, save some cash.