I support your idea 110%. It's crazy that we are paying for these people to sit at home on their butts and get free clothing, food, housing, medical care, etc.
2007-08-09 13:47:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by endo_chic 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No offense, but obviously you don't know much about the welfare system. For American recipients who do not have a child younger than 1 year old (in some states, 3 months old), they have a back-to-work program that teaches you how to LOOK for a job, how to create a resume and cover letter, and how to interview. If you do not live up to the expectations they have, your benefits get reduced, and if you continue to not live up to the expectations, your benefits get taken away.
Also, they now have limitations on how long you can receive benefits, again also for the American recipients. You can now only receive cash benefits up to five years TOTAL. Even if you got off, then got back on, the total length of time you can receive benefits is 60 months.
Now, that said, they are EXTREMELY lenient on the recipients who are not American. The Mexicans and the Russians seem to be able to get away with receiving lifelong benefits without the requirement of going to work.
I believe there does need to be another welfare reform, and the statutes and limitations do need to be more closely monitored. Not only that, but they do need to put a limit on how many children a person on welfare can have. I'm sorry, but for someone to keep having children just so they can keep getting benefits is ridiculous. They need to keep track of stuff like that and do something to put an end to welfare abuse.
And for PETE'S SAKE, STOP thinking that everyone on welfare sits around on their butts all day and does nothing. While that may be true of SOME people, that is not true of ALL people. When I was young, my family was on welfare. BOTH of my parents busted their A$$E$ every day but it just wasn't working. Neither of them EVER sat on their butts and did nothing. And now? My mom has an accounting job at a credit union and my dad is working in radiology. Why? Because they got the hand UP when they needed it. And back then, the welfare system offered education to people, which they don't do anymore. And instead of taking advantage of the welfare system, my parents busted their butts to get off it and provide for their families.
I have been on welfare. I was a single mom with two children and I just could NOT make enough money to make ends meet, to get my children the things they needed. I NEVER sat on my butt and did nothing all day. The only time I was on welfare that I didn't work was when my child was an infant. Then I started working every day, long hours, busting MY A$$ to get off of welfare.
Do not make the mistake of categorizing everyone on welfare into the same category. You would be IMMENSELY surprised at how many people on welfare HATE being on welfare and are busting their A$$E$ every day to GET OFF of it, but because of the low pay rates and the high inflation rates, it's hard to do.
2007-08-09 13:57:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lady Raven 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think welfare should be replaced by PERSONAL responsibility. Those who truly CAN'T provide for themselves were served quite well by private charities before government welfare and would be again if it was eliminated. Neither welfare or work programs are authorized by the US Constitution.
2007-08-09 14:38:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is called workfare. It is in place in several areas. There is evidence that it stretched the dollars or local governments. However it seems there is little evidence that it leads to full time work. Perhaps some mandatory schooling in an area that will give them a highly marketable skill.
2007-08-09 13:58:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by eric l 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The main welfare program, TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, already has a work requirement and has had this since 1996. It also has a 60 month cumulative life-time limit on assistance. Then indolent poor are a popular but false myth,
2007-08-09 13:46:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Good idea. You forgot to add in the job skills they will learn.
2007-08-09 13:45:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by viablerenewables 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
americans would do the jobs americans wouldnt do if the state wasnt paying them to sit at home on their butts, i.e. welfare. there would also be more work if there wasnt a required minimum for pay for jobs that dont merit that wage.
2007-08-09 13:44:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by crikeyme_mate 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
You forgot something! It's called "slavery" by those that are content to live the standard of living they are.
"Slavery" was a system where the people we were feeding and caring for were asked to work for those things. They objected.
"Nuff said!
2007-08-09 13:54:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by billy brite 6
·
0⤊
3⤋