Why Work? Free Food.

[Budnicks]

I'm not trying to get political but, if the state is basically giving them a paycheck why not put them to work?    Think about it.   Why can't they be required to put in like at least 20 hours a week cleaning Parks or office buildings?      
If I was going to pay to feed you, pay your rent and clothing then you're going to do something for me like clean my yard or something.    
Again, not trying to get all political but what the Hell......  

Amen to that, I know it sounds callous or insensitive but, I have been saying that for years, give them an on the job training, teach them a skill while they are working for the benefits, it can also cut down on some of the people needlessly applying, if they have to work for it, they may seek different employment, it could cut down on the local govt. cost to do many menial tasks, they pay union labor to do now, that could be done by the people on subsistence, while learning a trade & at least they are earning it... That's just one example...

[73rallye440magnum]

 
If you guys think prison is a cushy ride, it's real easy to get yourself a spot in there any time you want.     

I'm not saying it's cushy. I'm implying they shouldn't have A/C, or cable television. I don't like paying for that crap at my house, and I certainly don't need to pay for it for convicted felons.

[mauve66]

This here is KEY.  When people cry poverty nowadays, we're talking about people with big screen televisions, high speed cable, high speed internet, the latest Apple gadget, eating out at restaurants every other night, 25" rims on their cars, multiple cars, the latest Nike shoe, and they want MORE, such as what the next guy has and they don't.  For comparison's sake, a "middle class" person in Europe has the same standard of living as a "poor, lower class" person does here in the States.  There are a lot of Americans that feel they are entitled to perks and whatnot without working for it or otherwise earning it.  People here just need to wake the frak up, or at least be reminded that they have to work for their luxuries; it's a privelage, not a right or an entitlement, and you can't always get what you want...

Yeah, but have you actually met people who fit this whole description?  Real individuals? 

It sounds to me like just a grouping of every negative lower-class stereotype that comes to mind.  Worst case scenarios do exist but the majority is not like the worst cases.  IMHO there are lots of poor people with more realistic senses of what the world owes them and what it doesn't.  Even those who take free stuff from the govt dont always think they deserve it. 

Yes. Many. It's not hard to find people who believe they are owed something by society (not specifically another person or group). Some are family so I see it first-hand.

From personal experience, the few who despise having to live off the system seldom live off it for very long.

Troy

i agree, my wife see's it first hand, they come in with a story and when the slip and say the wrong thing and get denied then they are back the next month with more "correct" answers.  NV even has a program where some will work 20+ hrs a week but very few want to do it, they VERY irrate when she tells them they have been denied or they have to put down the daddy's information so NV can try to collect the child support from him to compensate for what NV is giving her.  In the mean time she's talking on her $200 i phone with the $100 month bill, waving her $50 nails around and scratching at her $150 "hairdo".  and then its my wife's fault when they "forget" to renew their benefits and they have to wait 30 days to start over again.

and the one i like best, they have an 8am appointment and show up at 1045 thinking everything should stop 'cause they are finally there.  they were too busy to be there at 8am, busy?? busy doing what?? you don't have a job.......................

[stripedelete]

How about this:

If your tax return shows you paid no taxes last year or you have no tax return, you lose your right to vote.  Or maybe your vote counts for 1/2.

In other words, if you have no skin in the game, you have no say.  The politicians will have now cater to the guys "toting the pale" instead of promising more freebies to those who refuse to get in the game.  Those paying taxes will have more leverage to pass legislation that says, "you're able bodied, get to work".   Those who want a "say" will need to get a job.  

Sounds harsh, right?  You can't disenfranchise non-tax payers, right?  Our founding fathers didn't think so.  They said, "if you are not a land owner you can't vote".  It was to avoid the mess we are in today.  

This solution may have a few holes in it, but I think they could be plugged in order to fit today's' issues.  

What do think?      

[TK73]

What do think?
     

Damn glad a lot of contributors to this thread don't "run" things in this country...   

[Mike DC]

Yes. Many. It's not hard to find people who believe they are owed something by society (not specifically another person or group). Some are family so I see it first-hand.

From personal experience, the few who despise having to live off the system seldom live off it for very long.

I wasn't trying to argue that nobody unfairly mooches off the system.  I just think the stereotype that was stated earlier was a bit much.  Lots of people on govt help do fit part of a stereotype.  But all the ones I have ever met (there have been some) had backstories at least a little more complicated than that.  IMHO some of them deserved handouts, some didn't.

I am in 100% agreement with you that a lot of people believe they are owed something by the world in general.  Some of them feel vindicated in taking govt handouts they don't deserve.  Others just take the handouts because they can and don't really seem to have any moral position on it either way.



Handouts aside, IMHO the lower you go on the social ladder, the worse the govt/justice system treats you in general.  (And the bigger role it seems to play your life.)  IMHO a lot of people feel vindicated in taking handouts from one branch of the govt because they feel chronically abused by other branches of it.  I wouldn't do things that way but I understand how that viewpoint can form over time.  

-----------------------------------------  

I'm not saying it's cushy. I'm implying they shouldn't have A/C, or cable television. I don't like paying for that crap at my house, and I certainly don't need to pay for it for convicted felons.

Fair enough. 

Although with regards to the A/C, the inmates aren't the only people spending their days in those prisons.  I'm sure the guards & doctors & other authorities in there play a role in that decision.   

As for cable TV, I don't see much reason to defend that one except that it might be a pretty cheap way to occupy the inmates' time.  Lots of them are functionally illiterate and you can't let them exercise all day and night.  If you don't give them something to watch they get pretty restless pretty fast.  Cable TV costs money but so does broken stuff, injured people, and more of whatever stuff they might use to keep busy besides TV.  Just a theory.

 

[Tilar]

How about this:

If your tax return shows you paid no taxes last year or you have no tax return, you lose your right to vote.  Or maybe your vote counts for 1/2.

In other words, if you have no skin in the game, you have no say.  The politicians will have now cater to the guys "toting the pale" instead of promising more freebies to those who refuse to get in the game.  Those paying taxes will have more leverage to pass legislation that says, "you're able bodied, get to work".   Those who want a "say" will need to get a job.  

Sounds harsh, right?  You can't disenfranchise non-tax payers, right?  Our founding fathers didn't think so.  They said, "if you are not a land owner you can't vote".  It was to avoid the mess we are in today.  

This solution may have a few holes in it, but I think they could be plugged in order to fit today's' issues.  

What do think?      

I like the thought but like you say it would have to have a lot of refinement and clarity, or someone would argue that "welfare" was earned income and allow them to vote. Now, on the same hand I think disability payments should be under a different situation, because if you are legitimately disabled and drawing a disability check, I have no problem with them voting, and unless someone can give me a really good example where welfare is anything more than a mooch off the system, then I think welfare should be completely phased out.

[NHCharger]

Here's another fine example from liberal Massachusetts. Use your welfare card to get cash to bail your ass out of jail for selling heroin within a school zone.


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220411pols_welfare_abuse_runs_deep/srvc=home&position=1

[73rallye440magnum]

Yes. Many. It's not hard to find people who believe they are owed something by society (not specifically another person or group). Some are family so I see it first-hand.

From personal experience, the few who despise having to live off the system seldom live off it for very long.

I wasn't trying to argue that nobody unfairly mooches off the system.  I just think the stereotype that was stated earlier was a bit much.  Lots of people on govt help do fit part of a stereotype.  But all the ones I have ever met (there have been some) had backstories at least a little more complicated than that.  IMHO some of them deserved handouts, some didn't.

I am in 100% agreement with you that a lot of people believe they are owed something by the world in general.  Some of them feel vindicated in taking govt handouts they don't deserve.  Others just take the handouts because they can and don't really seem to have any moral position on it either way.



Handouts aside, IMHO the lower you go on the social ladder, the worse the govt/justice system treats you in general.  (And the bigger role it seems to play your life.)  IMHO a lot of people feel vindicated in taking handouts from one branch of the govt because they feel chronically abused by other branches of it.  I wouldn't do things that way but I understand how that viewpoint can form over time.  

-----------------------------------------  

I'm not saying it's cushy. I'm implying they shouldn't have A/C, or cable television. I don't like paying for that crap at my house, and I certainly don't need to pay for it for convicted felons.

Fair enough. 

Although with regards to the A/C, the inmates aren't the only people spending their days in those prisons.  I'm sure the guards & doctors & other authorities in there play a role in that decision.   

As for cable TV, I don't see much reason to defend that one except that it might be a pretty cheap way to occupy the inmates' time.  Lots of them are functionally illiterate and you can't let them exercise all day and night.  If you don't give them something to watch they get pretty restless pretty fast.  Cable TV costs money but so does broken stuff, injured people, and more of whatever stuff they might use to keep busy besides TV.  Just a theory.

 

Good points. If we could find some sort of beneficial and monitored community work for them to do all day, that would keep them busy and wear 'em out. Maybe that already is the case, I don't know much about the daily ins and outs of the system. 

I do know there is abuse in the system though.

[Cooter]

Not gonna touch the "Rights" of those abusing the system by trying to offer a solution. Same thing happens just on a different level and nobody complains about it with SS....Do you realise if you worked 50 plus years and retired on SS, you would use up everything you paid into the system in the first 5 years of retirement?

Where do you think the rest of those payments come from? Say your retired and on SS for over 25 years?

Yep, your payments no matter how big OR small come from the rest who are still working and paying in, so you are getting screwed coming and going. One you know about, the other you hope will be there when you get of age. Yet, folks feel "Entitled" to their SS cause "They paid into it all those years"...

[73rallye440magnum]

I've accepted that SS is not something I will likely recieve. I wish there was a way to opt out of federal programs. I'll keep my withholding and do as I please with it.

[Tilar]

Yep, your payments no matter how big OR small come from the rest who are still working and paying in, so you are getting screwed coming and going.

That is the way it was designed. When this came about they didn't expect people to get divorced and stop having children and they didn't expect queers to get married and not be able to have kids. If people stayed married for more than a few years and had children there would be zero problems with social security... Short of them taking social security out of solvency, which left it open for congress to borrow money from it and put it in the general fund.

[Budnicks]

When Social Security was originally started in the late 30's, to help the poor elderly population survive, the average life expectancy was much shorter then, like 67 years old or something like, that not 20 + years of Soc. Sec. after the age of 65 retirement life expectancy of now days, let alone early retirement eligibility at 55... The system is antiquated... But They also let the govt. use it like their own personal slush fund... That's Just my Opinion...

[Kern Dog]

I thought that the system was designed well but there have been changes over the years. There are people that are eligible today that NEVER were before, and the systems INflow is slowing down while the OUTflow is increasing. Soon the two will meet, then more will be taking than putting in.
Agreed that the original life expectancy is a huge factor. There are many factors in play with this topic.

[Budnicks]

I thought that the system was designed well but there have been changes over the years. There are people that are eligible today that NEVER were before, and the systems INflow is slowing down while the OUTflow is increasing. Soon the two will meet, then more will be taking than putting in.
Agreed that the original life expectancy is a huge factor. There are many factors in play with this topic.

I don't have the answers but, I personally would like to see a financial status level/setting involved, like if you make more than $50k for a single or $75K for a couple {maybe higher or lower, that's just a number I chose for an example} or more annually in you retirement/pension plan, you are "ineligible to receive benefits", because you "don't really absolutely need them", same thing with Medicare there are a bunch of people getting medicare benefits, that "don't really need the help, they make plenty of money on investments or retirement accounts", to not need the extra savings, it should be for the "needy only, not just everyone, at evey income level", I believe that is what the original intentions for it was anyway, for people that didn't have a pension or health plan & needed help... Also with all us "baby boomers" born in between 1945 & 1960 retiring the system will be under far more pressure than it ever has been, I'm at the end of the baby boomers era, when people got married, bought a house in the suburbs & "Paid property taxes", not everyone living in big cities & in apartments not paying "any propery taxes", that help to support their city, county, state & local govt.s, then they would have a couple of kids, worked their whole lifes at one company or union job, with a benefit plan & insurance, & the cycle would then continue with the children & continued on & on... It is no longer like that demographic any longer, way more people living in big urban/city settings, much more dependent on the system... I was born in 1959 & I really have my doubts about it being there, either program, when I'm eligible at 62-65... That's just my 2 cents, I'm up to like a dime now...

[stripedelete]

Whoa!  Lets not forget that what you pay in to social security is not a tax,  it is a required deduction.    It is the government holding your money until are eligible to get it back.  You can't say, "hey you worked to hard, sacrificed, and saved to much, so we are not going to give your money back".  Instead, let's just give to the guy who did the minimum, drank a twelver every night, and spend what was left on cigs.

I can deal with the fact that the government robbed the till.  But, I will never get my arms around, "you don't need it".

[Budnicks]

Whoa!  Lets not forget that what you pay in to social security is not a tax,  it is a required deduction.    It is the government holding your money until are eligible to get it back.  You can't say, "hey you worked to hard, sacrificed, and saved to much, so we are not going to give your money back".  Instead, let's just give to the guy who did the minimum, drank a twelver every night, and spend what was left on cigs.

I can deal with the fact that the government robbed the till.  But, I will never get my arms around, "you don't need it".

If you stay on either Medicare or Soc. Sec. for 20 years, you will only have paid in a fraction of what you will receive in total benefits, unless you were maxing out your SSI payment every year, then it may be a wash... I'm not saying I have all the answers, at all, but something has to give some were... I with you brother, I hate to see lazy people, the burdins on society or the people that choose to stay on govt. subsistence have kid after kid with no ill effect, get more & more of my hard earned money, get over on everyone that contributes to society & works for what they have,  get anything I paid taxes for, I have always earned every penny of what I have made, I paid for my own education, I pay my taxes, I am self employed, I vote, we are not a "socialist nation" or we shouldn't be at least...

[Mike DC]

 
Social security requires a population to continue growing or at least not shrink.   That is no longer the situation.  The worldwide population is headed for a tip-over soon, and developed/educated countries are at the forefront of that trend. 

[stripedelete]

Whoa!  Lets not forget that what you pay in to social security is not a tax,  it is a required deduction.    It is the government holding your money until are eligible to get it back.  You can't say, "hey you worked to hard, sacrificed, and saved to much, so we are not going to give your money back".  Instead, let's just give to the guy who did the minimum, drank a twelver every night, and spend what was left on cigs.

I can deal with the fact that the government robbed the till.  But, I will never get my arms around, "you don't need it".

If you stay on either Medicare or Soc. Sec. for 20 years, you will only have paid in a fraction of what you will receive in total benefits, unless you were maxing out your SSI payment every year, then it may be a wash... I'm not saying I have all the answers, at all, but something has to give some were... I with you brother, I hate to see lazy people, the burdins on society or the people that choose to stay on govt. subsistence have kid after kid with no ill effect, get more & more of my hard earned money, get over on everyone that contributes to society & works for what they have,  get anything I paid taxes for, I have always earned every penny of what I have made, I paid for my own education, I pay my taxes, I am self employed, I vote, we are not a "socialist nation" or we shouldn't be at least...

[stripedelete]

Social security requires a population to continue growing or at least not shrink.   

Now it does.  But originally it did not. 

Btw, what do you mean by "tip over"?

[Mike DC]

Extrapolating current reproductive trends points to the worldwide population plateauing and starting to decline around 9 billion.  The 3rd world is getting educated and that leads directly to birthrate reductions.

[stripedelete]

Extrapolating current reproductive trends points to the worldwide population plateauing and starting to decline around 9 billion.  The 3rd world is getting educated and that leads directly to birthrate reductions.

I thought that's what you meant.  I read an interesting article along the same lines.  At 80,00 feet, it said, the next two times the population "doubles" will be the fastest in history.  But,  after the second time it will plateau and begin to decline.  Of course, sighting the same reasons you state. 

This post may be a little too tangential to the thread but those statistics give one much to ponder about the future.

[AirborneSilva]

I have no problem helping people whom need help - BUT

1 They actually have to need help
2 We have parks, roads, streams etc. that need cleaning - put your orange vest on and get to work!
3 If you are not permanently disabled you have a time limit
4 no incentive for having babies
5 Be a U.S. of A. citizen and can prove it!
6 DRUG TEST!

[Budnicks]

I have no problem helping people whom need help - BUT

1 They actually have to need help
2 We have parks, roads, streams etc. that need cleaning - put your orange vest on and get to work!
3 If you are not permanently disabled you have a time limit
4 no incentive for having babies
5 Be a U.S. of A. citizen and can prove it!
6 DRUG TEST!

  Amen to that, well said   

[Old Moparz]

I guess the country is going bankrupt much faster due to food stamp & welfare fraud, & not the $100 billion in subsidies given to large corporations that have offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands to completely avoid paying taxes.   

Might be a good idea to get a camcorder to stake out that fat ass, single mom with kids who stays at home to watch Judge Judy all day. She might buy something she shouldn't with the food stamps we all paid for. Throw her in prison so we can sleep better knowing that good, peaceful, citizens like the Bernie Madoffs can redecorate their penthouses & be able to choose whether light pastels might be more attractive than dark colors with a semi gloss.

I hate that people can get away with fraud, but it sure burns me up how people have been trained to worry about non issues while the robber barons take advantage of it & steal way more in 10 minutes than a person like octomom will ever get in 10 lifetimes.   

Trickle down economics? That means you get to keep what trickles down the inside of their leg after they take a piss & forget to shake well.