I wish someone would end welfare

[SuperDemocrat]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're a sick sob that thinks people should live on the street and when they do they're treated like shit. Most of these people probably worked their ass off just to get paid peanuts by their super rich boss that laughs all the way to the bank.

Limited welfare is a good thing and I think we should spend more on getting them more skills through community college, trade schools, etc. Just to say that we need to triple the size of the street class on our streets is sick.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

 

[imawhosure]

My good person. I respond to you as a conservative who wishes to cause you no harm.

As a thinking person, how can we end welfare when work pays less? To suggest that most of these people have actual marketable skills is ludicrous. We have through our wanting to help, created a perpetual cycle of poverty, especially for women.

Nobody in their right mind, is going to go and give up more economic power, to go to work and make less. Under these economic conditions, even the poorest know their probability of moving up the economic chain to make the move to work profitable is highly unprobable.

Until we solve the problem of Americans moving up the food chain, this problem has no probability of being resolved; and while I am a conservative, I concur. You do NOT throw people to the wolves with out a reasonable probability of success. As of this writing, they have less than 10%. And so, if you really want to end this, we need to change course to a jobs initiative instead of an eco initiative.

I know, I know, it is a tough decision; but you asked, I gave the answer, and now as an American, it is up to you to decide.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

How many perpetual deadbeats are we talking about?

 

[S.J.]

Make them work for the money. Not wanting to work is the main motivation for those who apply for welfare.

 

[Andylusion]

You're a sick sob that thinks people should live on the street and when they do they're treated like shit. Most of these people probably worked their ass off just to get paid peanuts by their super rich boss that laughs all the way to the bank.

Limited welfare is a good thing and I think we should spend more on getting them more skills through community college, trade schools, etc. Just to say that we need to triple the size of the street class on our streets is sick.

Most of them work their ass off? Since when? Where are these people who work their ass off?

The people who work their ass off, are not on welfare.

And spending money to get people 'skills' is a joke. You can't force people to learn. You can force them to take a class to continue to collect welfare. But that's not the same as forcing them to learn.

Remember the requirement that a person on welfare must "seek employment"? That's why you see people applying for jobs they don't qualify for, and have zero chance of getting. But they do this, because all that is required is to 'seek employment'. So you fill out a bunch of applications "district manager of mega corp" even though they have no degree, no experience, and no skills that apply to such a job.... and even though they have no chance of getting the job, they get to collect welfare because they completed the "seek employment" requirement.

I was actually coached to do this. That's another story.

Point is, there are many people gaming the system. Very few are "working hard". If they are working hard at anything, it's working hard to collect more welfare without working hard. If these people put half as much effort into working an honest job, as they do at collecting government hand outs.... they'd be rich by now.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

That was already done by Clinton, you ignorant twit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

My good person. I respond to you as a conservative who wishes to cause you no harm.

As a thinking person, how can we end welfare when work pays less? To suggest that most of these people have actual marketable skills is ludicrous. We have through our wanting to help, created a perpetual cycle of poverty, especially for women.

Nobody in their right mind, is going to go and give up more economic power, to go to work and make less. Under these economic conditions, even the poorest know their probability of moving up the economic chain to make the move to work profitable is highly unprobable.

Until we solve the problem of Americans moving up the food chain, this problem has no probability of being resolved; and while I am a conservative, I concur. You do NOT throw people to the wolves with out a reasonable probability of success. As of this writing, they have less than 10%. And so, if you really want to end this, we need to change course to a jobs initiative instead of an eco initiative.

I know, I know, it is a tough decision; but you asked, I gave the answer, and now as an American, it is up to you to decide.

Work does not pay less. Please....try harder. Effective snark takes a little bit of effort and relies on accurate premises.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You're a sick sob that thinks people should live on the street and when they do they're treated like shit. Most of these people probably worked their ass off just to get paid peanuts by their super rich boss that laughs all the way to the bank.

Limited welfare is a good thing and I think we should spend more on getting them more skills through community college, trade schools, etc. Just to say that we need to triple the size of the street class on our streets is sick.

Most of them work their ass off? Since when? Where are these people who work their ass off?

The people who work their ass off, are not on welfare.

And spending money to get people 'skills' is a joke. You can't force people to learn. You can force them to take a class to continue to collect welfare. But that's not the same as forcing them to learn.

Remember the requirement that a person on welfare must "seek employment"? That's why you see people applying for jobs they don't qualify for, and have zero chance of getting. But they do this, because all that is required is to 'seek employment'. So you fill out a bunch of applications "district manager of mega corp" even though they have no degree, no experience, and no skills that apply to such a job.... and even though they have no chance of getting the job, they get to collect welfare because they completed the "seek employment" requirement.

I was actually coached to do this. That's another story.

Point is, there are many people gaming the system. Very few are "working hard". If they are working hard at anything, it's working hard to collect more welfare without working hard. If these people put half as much effort into working an honest job, as they do at collecting government hand outs.... they'd be rich by now.

How many people are gaming the system? Got a number?

 

[Clementine]

I'd like to see us dramatically reduce the need for welfare. It will always be needed for those who fall and for the disabled. For the able-bodied, it should be temporary. I am alarmed at the number of people who are doomed to end up on it because they are neglecting to learn skills to get them through life. With 5th generation welfare recipients, you can see that the lack of ambition and discipline being taught by parents. I am so sick of the left insinuating that people are doomed because of skin color or because they are growing up in the wrong place. When will the left start telling individuals that they have potential to become anything they want to be and that blaming your lot in life on racism or wealthy people is nothing but a cop out? Of course, the left encourages government dependency. They always have and each year they find new ways to recruit new dependents and use lies to convince people that it's not their fault that there is no other choice for them. Must rely on the benevolent liberals for a meager life with the promise of more. Decades have passed without improvement.

In order to get people back on their feet, or to just make sure they "launch" when they become of age, we need available opportunities and people who are ready to accept them. Government doesn't create jobs, but can sure create policies that are either friendly toward job creation or detrimental to employment opportunities. Billions poured into our schools haven't improved conditions in too many of them and that is highly suspect. Would love to see a break down of where the money was spent.

With Obamacare, crony capitalism and other oppressive policies, small businesses are barely surviving and many see each employee as a huge liability. And many companies are forced to meet quotas for minorities, which means they aren't able to choose the best people to run and work in their businesses.

 

[S.J.]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

That was already done by Clinton, you ignorant twit.

And who ended it, you ignorant twit? Here's a clue, he's from Kenya.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So much bullshit. It's stifling.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

That was already done by Clinton, you ignorant twit.

Obviously it wasn't, you and your ilk are still leeching the system, hag

 

[Carla_Danger]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

That was already done by Clinton, you ignorant twit.

And who ended it, you ignorant twit? Here's a clue, he's from Kenya.

He did not end welfare reform, you ignorant twit.

 

[Andylusion]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

How many perpetual deadbeats are we talking about?

Millions. I don't have raw figures to prove that obviously, because what you consider a deadbeat, and what I and others consider a deadbeat, are different things. As far as I'm concerned, if you are able bodied, then you should work or starve to death.

If you can move your arms and legs, and function on an ape-like level, then you should be in a warehouse doing pick and pack. A trained monkey, can pull an item off a shelf, and put it in a box, and close the box. You can do it, or you can starve.

If you want a better job than that, then it's your responsibility to improve your own lot in life.

 

[Clementine]

How many people are gaming the system? Got a number?

I'm sure you are aware that there is no way to know that since it would require the kind of investigation that no one is going to cooperate with. You'd have to actually check people's stats to see if they have ever worked and if they are even citizens. Fat chance that will happen.

Most I know go by the people they've known personally and it's not hard to see the fraud. When government decides not to closely oversee their programs and refuse to take a hard look at things, you know they are aware of problems but don't want them to come to light.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've noticed in my lifetime that people who think the only recourse for them when things get bad is welfare tend to learn how to manipulate the system pretty well. I know there are lots good people who just get on it but it seems that for every one normal person there is at least one other deadbeat who is on it perpetually. Crack the stats on neighborhoods where a majority of people are on welfare and you will see that that neighborhood is gang infested deadbeats. I know a lot welfare goes to rural areas but those asses should just move to the city and get jobs and there is plenty of them because Obama created so many of them (no really he did).

How many perpetual deadbeats are we talking about?

Millions. I don't have raw figures to prove that obviously, because what you consider a deadbeat, and what I and others consider a deadbeat, are different things. As far as I'm concerned, if you are able bodied, then you should work or starve to death.

If you can move your arms and legs, and function on an ape-like level, then you should be in a warehouse doing pick and pack. A trained monkey, can pull an item off a shelf, and put it in a box, and close the box. You can do it, or you can starve.

If you want a better job than that, then it's your responsibility to improve your own lot in life.

Millions? We have millions of able bodied, sane adults who have a job offer and refuse it so they can stay on public assistance?

How many millions? Let's pin down this number.

 

[S.J.]

Perhaps reform welfare is a better idea. Cap the amount of time one can be on it, require work for benefits, encourage job training

That was already done by Clinton, you ignorant twit.

And who ended it, you ignorant twit? Here's a clue, he's from Kenya.

He did not end welfare reform, you ignorant twit.

Here, educate yourself, you ignorant twat.

Obama Administration Ends Welfare Reform as We Know It

 

[hortysir]

Pretty good Wiki paragraph


In 1983, researchers Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine the duration of spells of poverty (defined as continuous periods spent with income under the poverty line), looking specifically at entry and exit. They found that while three in five people who were just beginning a spell of poverty came out of it within three years, only one-quarter of people who had already been poor for three years were able to exit poverty within the next two.[8] The probability that a person will be able to exit poverty declines as the spell lengthens. A small but significant group of recipients remained on welfare for much longer, forming the bulk of poverty at any one point in time and requiring the most in government resources. At any one time, if a cross-sectional sample of poor people in the United States was taken, about 60% would be in a spell of poverty that would last at least eight years.[8] Interest thus arose in studying the determinants of long-term receipt of welfare. Bane & Ellwood found that only 37% of poor people in their sample became poor as a result of the head of household’s wages decreasing, and their average spell of poverty lasted less than four years. On the other hand, entry into poverty that was the result of a woman becoming head of household lasted on average for more than five years.