I'm not talking about the eldery or truly disabled, I'm talking about the "mentally disabled" who could work if given the right environment, and people who just need welfare for various reasons. Do you think they should have to do some part time work for those benefits? It could even be something they could do from home.
2007-07-02 10:49:19 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The "working poor" usually don't get all these benefits, contrary to popular belief. It doesn't take much to not be eligible. These are usually the people that suffer most as well since part of their pay check goes into these programs.
2007-07-02 10:57:39 · update #1
I was watching PBS the other night and it was on the FDR program to get America out of the Depression. The thought occurred to me that what a great idea it would be to get all welfare recipients into a program that was much like the WPA. Either that, or pay for these people's education to advance themselves. This would include mentally disabled people as well. It would be a much wiser use of welfare funds than simply giving them a check. Their lives would be richer and more productive. It would also help their self esteem. We could also have day care programs that the WPA would hire the workers to take care of the welfare children while their parents worked in this program. It would have to pay a living wage of course, but it would ultimately pay for itself because our country would be making a more productive and more educated work force. FDR had it right all along, it just needed to be extended into the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
2007-07-02 11:02:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't have any problem with them doing a little something if they are capable.. the only problem is that in many cases as it stands now when they start making a little honest money, the government starts taking the aid away and they can't get ahead... so ... they are down and out and need government aid to stay up with the game but at the same time when they try to take the next step they gain nothing for it.. they make the same money whether they work or not? Now granted there comes a point when you have to stop giving them money... but let them get a little ahead of the game.. heck maybe even put some of the money back into education or training in a skill if you just don't want to give them money while they are working... but when you create an environment where you can work or not work and get the same money what do you think most people will choose? so again.. sure.. let them work.. but avoid creating a do nothing environment out of it.
2007-07-02 11:02:03 · answer #2 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Following the regulations put in place by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, most states, if not all, have a program which requires the participants to work or volunteer as a requirement for receiving cash assistance. In addition to this requirement there is a five year lifetime limit to receiving cash benefits. States are allowed to reduce the lifetime limit and/or strengthen the work requirements, but not the other way around. Basically they cannot make their programs any less stringent than what the federal government has set forth.
2007-07-02 11:18:02 · answer #3 · answered by What's The Point 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Welfare benefits are so pitifully low, I think it would be easiest and most economical to do away with the work requirement altogether.
Then, the employees can give rewards and incentives to their workforce, not forced or reluctant labour. The authorities could also plan for the right jobs in the right place as well.
Most people (except drug addicts and alcoholics) have energies that are all willing to put to a use of some kind. As an employer, the problem is some of them are chaotic that they cause more trouble than they are worth, or the dependency types that take so much telling what to do, it is easier to do the job yourself.
Some workers cause so much negativity in the workplace, that the result of employing them is a fall off of both production and morale.
2007-07-02 11:03:43 · answer #4 · answered by Perseus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually welfare recipient have been required to work (so called workfare) since the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Participants in the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (the largest of the welfare programs) are required to work or attend job training to qualify for assistance.
2007-07-02 11:09:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Not all jobs require drug test. I would not agree to it. That problem is being fixed with the new type debit cards. You have make nearly nothing to get food stamps. Technically, the do take a drug test when apply for Medicaid. You want more homeless on the street? At least the kids have a home. The food stamp card in not a Visa or MasterCard debit card.
2016-05-21 04:49:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that they should have to work, but at the same time it should be able to work a max of 2 months after losing a job as well. after that, they're cut off. For those who'd try to milk the system, over the course of a year they should have at least 6 months of employment to show for. Doesn't have to be all one job, but six months minimum. No minimum income required, just proof of work (w2's cover that).
2007-07-02 20:37:28 · answer #7 · answered by sicarn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think welfare should be abolished and the government should stop interfering in the free market, which is the cause of unemployment. The Federal Reserve and the IRS should be shut down immediately, if not sooner. The Minimum Wage should be repealed everywhere. Taxes should be outlawed as a form of extortion (the government can run itself on voluntary donations or go bankrupt if there is no demand for it).
If we had a true free market, there wouldn't be any unemployment and there would be alot more economic growth.
2007-07-02 10:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes. In fact, I'd like to see welfare reformed like this: Give the safety net to the working poor (married or not) and give the ones on welfare 2 years to get into the working poor or else.
ADDED: In theory, I agree with the notion of disbanding welfare, as it is a form of socialism. I don't think it is pragmatic to continue with that thinking, however, because meanwhile, nothing changes.
2007-07-02 10:55:10 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If they are capable, then by all means. I was involved with a non-profit and that was our entire labor force, they were great, happy to be independent and although they were not rocket scientists they did a goods days work for good money.
We were not supported whatsoever by the Democrats and in fact the only money we would get came primarily from Republican donors and some directed to us by Republicans in Congress.
2007-07-02 12:27:20 · answer #10 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋