Why Work?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The "poor" welfare and assistance recipients have cars and iPhones. That's a lot more than we had growing up. Now I do very well for myself and family and have to pay taxes out the ass to support these people. Forgive me if I fail to give a shit about their plight.,

How do you get a job without a car? I phones and social media are also important job seeking tools. If there are excesses, they should be looked into.

Answer:
I see a lot of people working while using public transportation. With regard to smartphones as job seeking tools, have you ever heard of a job center that doesn't possess a computer and other "tools" to assist you with finding work? People today have gotten so attached to technology (like their "smartphones") that they don't seem to have the slightest clue how they can go through life without them.

 

[francoHFW]

They have low level skills and there's nothing they can do about it...

There's nothing they can do about it? Did you really just say that?

How do you suppose millions of Americans attain and improve their marketable skills?

Magic dust?

Like most loony lefties you seem to believe that people are incapable of navigating their way through their lives without your help.

Keep raising the price of college loans and cutting training for years like the GOP has done, making the poor and middle class pay as high a rate in all taxes and fees as the rich, and this is the mess you get. Mario Cuomo: "Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor." The dupes are functional morons at this point.

So who's in charge of most colleges? Liberals. You know, those money grabbing liberals that could care less that they are milking students and families alike.

The libs are the profs, who know what they're talking about, the administrators are business school GOPers...in HS they're Phys Ed GOPers.

Oh, so what you are saying is that GOP administrators are hiring liberal professors? LOL! Yeah, I'm sure of it. LOL!

Dept heads do that.

 

[Andylusion]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Depends on what you mean by "easy". If you mean 'easy' in that you fill out a post card, and cash rains down on you, no.

If you mean 'easy' in that fact checking the forms you send in is lax, and spending the time it takes to send out applications, then in general, it's fairly easy.

One of the things you people on the left forget, is that the agencies that administer these problems, have their own internal motivations.

The best argument for getting more money given to your government agency, is to use up all the money.
The best argument for getting your agencies budget cut, is having left over money.

If you work for an agency, the last thing you want is politicians looking at your agency going "see they don't need all that money. They didn't even use the money we gave them last year!" Because then your job might be cut.

These government agencies have every reason to check as few applications for government assistance, as possible. That's why you end up with lottery winners that still get food stamps. Multimillionaire, and they get tax payer funded call phones.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too ******* bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

Maybe that's because there was no such thing as food stamps, WIC , MediCAID then. However, "provide for the general welfare" is in the constitution.

And you assume that means social welfare?

No, I wrote that after one two many beers.

 

[Flopper]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Most of those rules either go unregulated or they are a joke.

That's not the case in DHS offices in my area. There are a number of exceptions but if you don't qualify, you don't qualify. I spoke to someone a few days ago that was $3 over the maximum for SNAP benefits and they didn't qualify. Many of the programs, you apply on line. If you qualify then you get an appointment for interview.

 

[regent]

We are stringing our platitudes and not solving a problem. For example, should children in East St. Louis get the same education opportunity as children in Beverly Hills, or does America start the inequality pattern in kindergarten?

 

[Flopper]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Depends on what you mean by "easy". If you mean 'easy' in that you fill out a post card, and cash rains down on you, no.

If you mean 'easy' in that fact checking the forms you send in is lax, and spending the time it takes to send out applications, then in general, it's fairly easy.

One of the things you people on the left forget, is that the agencies that administer these problems, have their own internal motivations.

The best argument for getting more money given to your government agency, is to use up all the money.
The best argument for getting your agencies budget cut, is having left over money.

If you work for an agency, the last thing you want is politicians looking at your agency going "see they don't need all that money. They didn't even use the money we gave them last year!" Because then your job might be cut.

These government agencies have every reason to check as few applications for government assistance, as possible. That's why you end up with lottery winners that still get food stamps. Multimillionaire, and they get tax payer funded call phones.

Asset tests are being eliminated in the federal guidelines for a number programs however states can impose there on asset test. So, yes a person with a million dollars in the bank may qualify for assistance in some places on some programs. However, most programs are very picky about current income.

As far as getting approval on most programs, you fill out the forms or enter the information on line and checks are mostly computer checks. A number of programs also require interviews. The interviewer can flag any client for further investigation.

From my limited experience, most agents who handle applications are civil service workers. They have little reason to qualify or disqualify people. However, they are subject to both state and federal audits.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The "poor" welfare and assistance recipients have cars and iPhones. That's a lot more than we had growing up. Now I do very well for myself and family and have to pay taxes out the ass to support these people. Forgive me if I fail to give a shit about their plight.,

How do you get a job without a car? I phones and social media are also important job seeking tools. If there are excesses, they should be looked into.

Take the bus or train. Lots of people do this. Or buy a scooter or bicycle. Lots of people do this as well.
Enough of this "i'm entitled" crap....

 

[thereisnospoon]

We are stringing our platitudes and not solving a problem. For example, should children in East St. Louis get the same education opportunity as children in Beverly Hills, or does America start the inequality pattern in kindergarten?

They do.....And if you are referring to the amount of money per student, forget it. There are tons of examples of districts where per student spending does not necessarily reflect in student performance. Horse to water.

 

[Andylusion]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Depends on what you mean by "easy". If you mean 'easy' in that you fill out a post card, and cash rains down on you, no.

If you mean 'easy' in that fact checking the forms you send in is lax, and spending the time it takes to send out applications, then in general, it's fairly easy.

One of the things you people on the left forget, is that the agencies that administer these problems, have their own internal motivations.

The best argument for getting more money given to your government agency, is to use up all the money.
The best argument for getting your agencies budget cut, is having left over money.

If you work for an agency, the last thing you want is politicians looking at your agency going "see they don't need all that money. They didn't even use the money we gave them last year!" Because then your job might be cut.

These government agencies have every reason to check as few applications for government assistance, as possible. That's why you end up with lottery winners that still get food stamps. Multimillionaire, and they get tax payer funded call phones.

Asset tests are being eliminated in the federal guidelines for a number programs however states can impose there on asset test. So, yes a person with a million dollars in the bank may qualify for assistance in some places on some programs. However, most programs are very picky about current income.

As far as getting approval on most programs, you fill out the forms or enter the information on line and checks are mostly computer checks. A number of programs also require interviews. The interviewer can flag any client for further investigation.

From my limited experience, most agents who handle applications are civil service workers. They have little reason to qualify or disqualify people. However, they are subject to both state and federal audits.

That's kind of my point. "the interviewer *CAN* flag any client for further investigation".... right. At the individual level, I'm sure that there are some interviewers that are more picky than others. But at the organizational level.... what is the motivation?

Get a bunch of people kicked off benefits? Have money left over at the end of the year, which results in your budget not being increased? Or worse having your budget cut, and end up losing your job?



Take this example from Thomas Sowell. Skip to 7 minutes.

I'll give you the cliff notes. Thomas Sowell got a job working for the government, in the Department of Labor. The job he works on is the minimum wage in Puerto Rico. As the minimum wage was being raised, the employment was going down. Now there were two theories. Of course, the right-wing economic theory is.... raising the minimum wage, drives up the cost of labor, which drives down employment. The other theory by government people and the Unions, was that a series of hurricanes came through, and wiped out portions of the sugar cane, thus requiring less employment.

Thomas Sowell eventually came up with a solution to test the theory. He wanted statistics on how much sugar cane was in the fields at harvest for each of the years. When he came into work and announced his plan for testing the theory, instead of being congratulated on determining what the reality was, and thus could adopt whatever policy is best for the people of Puerto Rico, instead they were terrified by it.

All of that to get to this point. Ignore the minimum wage debate. Not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why was the Department of Labor not interested in finding the truth of the matter? Simply put, the DOL, was getting significant amounts of money to administrate policies in Puerto Rico. If those policies were found to have negative consequences, the budget would be cut, and the people he was talking to would lose their jobs.

Do you see my point? These agencies, within themselves have motivations of self preservation. They have every reason to ignore fraudulent applications, and lax fact checking, and loose interviewing.

It's the exact same thing as going to the BMV. Ever wonder why the BMV is always packed, with a line out the door, and you have 3 tellers working, while there are 7 teller spots, and 2 people off in the corner doing nothing?

It's really simple. If they worked as hard as they possibly could, and the place was empty all the time, politicians would look at 5 people sitting in an empty room and go "Hey could cut the budget for the BMV, because there is no one to serve".

They have every motivation to keep the place packed, and say "hey look at all these people, and long wait times! We need more funding!".

This filters right into welfare and food stamps, and section 8 housing, and all the other government programs.

So they had no incentive to find what was best for

 

[Conservative65]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Most of those rules either go unregulated or they are a joke.

That's not the case in DHS offices in my area. There are a number of exceptions but if you don't qualify, you don't qualify. I spoke to someone a few days ago that was $3 over the maximum for SNAP benefits and they didn't qualify. Many of the programs, you apply on line. If you qualify then you get an appointment for interview.

I was speaking more of the oversight, or lack thereof, when it comes to job searches, etc.

 

[Conservative65]

WHY WORK?

because MOST everyone does not qualify for social safety net programs?

Let me guess, like Jethro Bodine you done "grad-ge-ated" the sixth grade

Many of the people that are on social welfare are solely because they didn't finish much more than the 6th grade. As a result they "qualify" as if the rest of us must be responsible for the results of their choice.

 

[Conservative65]

You couldn't teach a fish to swim. It's no wonder students today don't know shit about history.

This isn't about taxes. It's about you proving you really want to help your fellow citizens. You can do that and taxes, the government nor anyone else has to be involved. You think the government is the only way to do things. You can invest in someone's college simply by writing that check to pay for their tuition. By automatically going to the government well, it proves you don't care as much as you claim. If you did, you'd do it and it wouldn't matter who knew.

Government can certainly make success a helluva lot harder, as shortsighted ignorant greedy Reaganists have been doing for 30 years. You know NOTHING about my teaching, or anything else for that matter as far as I can tell. lol. Helping victims is a horror for you, but giveaways to giant corps and megarich a-holes is fine. Read something. See sig, your policies are a disaster and disgrace.

I know all I need to know about you to know you were a poor teacher. You're so biased, anyone in your class with a different opinion was chastised and beat up for thinking other than the way you thought.

Helping victims is not a horror. Someone whose own choices put them where they are is not a victim. I'm sure you know students that quit school and never came back. If they can't cut it financially, they aren't victims. They are now feeling the results of a choice they made. Someone isn't a victim if they are where they are because of them. Only bleeding hearts make them out to be in order to push their agenda of having someone else pay for those bad choices.

You've got your own facts, provided to you by greedy idiot Pub billionaires. Bring one up, instead of lazy people stealing your money idiocy for page after page.

A high school dropout isn't a victim. Their financial situation is a result of their own choice. That's a fact.

You're doing a great job of keeping people on welfare and the road to crime.

I didn't make THEIR choice to quit. They did. Once again, you blame those that didn't cause the problem and expect the rest of us to support those who caused their own. I don't owe them anything. If they quit and can't make it, too ******* bad.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are stringing our platitudes and not solving a problem. For example, should children in East St. Louis get the same education opportunity as children in Beverly Hills, or does America start the inequality pattern in kindergarten?

If people in St. Louis want better education, then they vote for a tax increase and build better schools or get better teachers. That's the way people in Beverly Hills do it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Depends on what you mean by "easy". If you mean 'easy' in that you fill out a post card, and cash rains down on you, no.

If you mean 'easy' in that fact checking the forms you send in is lax, and spending the time it takes to send out applications, then in general, it's fairly easy.

One of the things you people on the left forget, is that the agencies that administer these problems, have their own internal motivations.

The best argument for getting more money given to your government agency, is to use up all the money.
The best argument for getting your agencies budget cut, is having left over money.

If you work for an agency, the last thing you want is politicians looking at your agency going "see they don't need all that money. They didn't even use the money we gave them last year!" Because then your job might be cut.

These government agencies have every reason to check as few applications for government assistance, as possible. That's why you end up with lottery winners that still get food stamps. Multimillionaire, and they get tax payer funded call phones.

Asset tests are being eliminated in the federal guidelines for a number programs however states can impose there on asset test. So, yes a person with a million dollars in the bank may qualify for assistance in some places on some programs. However, most programs are very picky about current income.

As far as getting approval on most programs, you fill out the forms or enter the information on line and checks are mostly computer checks. A number of programs also require interviews. The interviewer can flag any client for further investigation.

From my limited experience, most agents who handle applications are civil service workers. They have little reason to qualify or disqualify people. However, they are subject to both state and federal audits.

Yes, and those workers also realize that the more people on the dole, the more job security they have. If we ran out of people for lets say the food stamp program, what do we need food stamp workers for? So the workers will tend to bend the rules a bit if possible.

 

[Flash]

[

Many of the people that are on social welfare are solely because they didn't finish much more than the 6th grade. As a result they "qualify" as if the rest of us must be responsible for the results of their choice.

These Liberals hate the idea of responsibility. They think the state owes you a living simply because you are alive.

It is a despicable mindset to justify thievery in order to subsidize irresponsibility.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Many of the people that are on social welfare are solely because they didn't finish much more than the 6th grade. As a result they "qualify" as if the rest of us must be responsible for the results of their choice.

These Liberals hate the idea of responsibility. They think the state owes you a living simply because you are alive.

It is a despicable mindset to justify thievery in order to subsidize irresponsibility.

The living wage term they use is proof of that. They expect those of us with skills to be paid on merit only but those with no skills to be paid based on existence.

 

[regent]

We are stringing our platitudes and not solving a problem. For example, should children in East St. Louis get the same education opportunity as children in Beverly Hills, or does America start the inequality pattern in kindergarten?

If people in St. Louis want better education, then they vote for a tax increase and build better schools or get better teachers. That's the way people in Beverly Hills do it.

So that's the solution? Great idea, wonder if the people in ESL have ever thought of that?

 

[Flopper]

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

Depends on what you mean by "easy". If you mean 'easy' in that you fill out a post card, and cash rains down on you, no.

If you mean 'easy' in that fact checking the forms you send in is lax, and spending the time it takes to send out applications, then in general, it's fairly easy.

One of the things you people on the left forget, is that the agencies that administer these problems, have their own internal motivations.

The best argument for getting more money given to your government agency, is to use up all the money.
The best argument for getting your agencies budget cut, is having left over money.

If you work for an agency, the last thing you want is politicians looking at your agency going "see they don't need all that money. They didn't even use the money we gave them last year!" Because then your job might be cut.

These government agencies have every reason to check as few applications for government assistance, as possible. That's why you end up with lottery winners that still get food stamps. Multimillionaire, and they get tax payer funded call phones.

Asset tests are being eliminated in the federal guidelines for a number programs however states can impose there on asset test. So, yes a person with a million dollars in the bank may qualify for assistance in some places on some programs. However, most programs are very picky about current income.

As far as getting approval on most programs, you fill out the forms or enter the information on line and checks are mostly computer checks. A number of programs also require interviews. The interviewer can flag any client for further investigation.

From my limited experience, most agents who handle applications are civil service workers. They have little reason to qualify or disqualify people. However, they are subject to both state and federal audits.

That's kind of my point. "the interviewer *CAN* flag any client for further investigation".... right. At the individual level, I'm sure that there are some interviewers that are more picky than others. But at the organizational level.... what is the motivation?

Get a bunch of people kicked off benefits? Have money left over at the end of the year, which results in your budget not being increased? Or worse having your budget cut, and end up losing your job?



Take this example from Thomas Sowell. Skip to 7 minutes.

I'll give you the cliff notes. Thomas Sowell got a job working for the government, in the Department of Labor. The job he works on is the minimum wage in Puerto Rico. As the minimum wage was being raised, the employment was going down. Now there were two theories. Of course, the right-wing economic theory is.... raising the minimum wage, drives up the cost of labor, which drives down employment. The other theory by government people and the Unions, was that a series of hurricanes came through, and wiped out portions of the sugar cane, thus requiring less employment.

Thomas Sowell eventually came up with a solution to test the theory. He wanted statistics on how much sugar cane was in the fields at harvest for each of the years. When he came into work and announced his plan for testing the theory, instead of being congratulated on determining what the reality was, and thus could adopt whatever policy is best for the people of Puerto Rico, instead they were terrified by it.

All of that to get to this point. Ignore the minimum wage debate. Not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why was the Department of Labor not interested in finding the truth of the matter? Simply put, the DOL, was getting significant amounts of money to administrate policies in Puerto Rico. If those policies were found to have negative consequences, the budget would be cut, and the people he was talking to would lose their jobs.

Do you see my point? These agencies, within themselves have motivations of self preservation. They have every reason to ignore fraudulent applications, and lax fact checking, and loose interviewing.

It's the exact same thing as going to the BMV. Ever wonder why the BMV is always packed, with a line out the door, and you have 3 tellers working, while there are 7 teller spots, and 2 people off in the corner doing nothing?

It's really simple. If they worked as hard as they possibly could, and the place was empty all the time, politicians would look at 5 people sitting in an empty room and go "Hey could cut the budget for the BMV, because there is no one to serve".

They have every motivation to keep the place packed, and say "hey look at all these people, and long wait times! We need more funding!".

This filters right into welfare and food stamps, and section 8 housing, and all the other government programs.

So they had no incentive to find what was best for

Oh, I agree government will always try to expand. That is exactly why most social programs have very ridge rules for qualification. If you are applying for Medicaid or Food stamps, there is little an agent can do to qualify you if the numbers don't add up. Most DHS investigation of applicants are triggered by either a computer check of information the applicant provided or the interviewer is suspicious of documents provided such as proof of citizenship or legal residency.

 

[Dante]

WHY WORK?

because MOST everyone does not qualify for social safety net programs?

Let me guess, like Jethro Bodine you done "grad-ge-ated" the sixth grade

Many of the people that are on social welfare are solely because they didn't finish much more than the 6th grade. As a result they "qualify" as if the rest of us must be responsible for the results of their choice.

whatever in the whacky wingnut world of white wing conservatism are you talking about?