Spot-checking and sting operations. The introduction of the debit cards has cut down on fraud. I suppose one could buy lobster and resell it…
I’m not sure why they are acceptable from either side. The old two wrongs doesn’t make a right thing would apply here I think.
(Let alone my generally held view that if liberals wish to play one of their strengths, which is a general open-mindedness and unwillingness to categorize and label, they should apply it to all circumstances (including conservatives and white males, not merely their pet projects, nationalities, and cultures). But that is straying far from the point of this thread.)
I have a few ideas.
- Here in WV, you have to either work or go to school (or both). One thing we could do is recipients who never finished high school MUST get a GED. No exceptions.
Graduated from high school? Get some form of higher education. College, vo-tech, apprenticeship, beauty school, whatever. Something that will help you support yourself after your 5 years is up. Five years is enough time for anyone to get trained for a career.
I would rather see someone on welfare go to school full time than work at Wal-Mart full time. The person in school is doing something to make themself more employable, and in 5 years, they’ll have a job. The one that works at Wal-Mart for 5 years, using welfare the entire time, will be WORSE off after those 5 years are up. Not only will they still be stuck in a dead end job, the income that was supplementing will be gone, but their income from Wal-Mart will probably be no better, and plus they will have gained no new skills to find a better job.
I don’t know if we can literally force people to go to school but we can definitely make it worth their while. There used to be a marriage incentive, was $100 a month, I think, before it got cut.
Why not make an education incentive? Go to school and you’ll get extra money per month. AND, if you choose to take out student loans to live on while you’re in school, the state won’t penalize you for it.
- Let welfare recipients work a certain amount with no repercussions. At the moment, in WV, if you work, your medical card is immediately cut, gone, regardless of how much you make. Your benefits will also be slashed. If you are someone that is in desperate need of a certain medication, getting a job literally leaves you worse off than not working. There are probably lots of people who could work, as long as they have their medication, but since they’d lose their medical card, their hands are tied. It’s either not work or, oh, go without insulin. They’re definitely not going to find a job in this area that offers benefits, that’s for damn sure.
A family of 3 here gets $340 a month in cash. Nobody can pay their bills on $340 a month (not if they have a car, anyway). Putting back money to serve as their own safety net when they go off of welfare is out of the question. Allow them to bring in a gross income of, say, $500 per month without losing their medical card and getting anything else slashed (or, if we do want to slash the other stuff, don’t slash it so HARD as we do now). That’s a piddly minimum wage job working 24 hours a week, no sweat. They’d see probably $400 of that, after taxes. They could not only probably make it on $740 a month, but could also save some money for the future. Also, if someone in the household is working, they will be eligible for the EITC at tax time. A family on welfare might be able to, oh, buy a cheap car on that refund. At the very least they could stick it in the bank.
When someone goes off of welfare because they’ve finally gotten a job, sometimes employers hold out your first paycheck for up to two pay periods. Let’s assume you get a job, oh, June 15th. That means there’s no welfare at all coming in on July 1st, because you’re working now. Meanwhile, you won’t see your first paycheck until July 15th. The second you get that first paycheck, you are ALREADY behind on your bills and have already started another cycle of always being in the hole. Unless you have found a job that pays MORE than what you need per month, you’re permanently screwed. You’re starting out in the hole, and you’ll never get out of the hole.
If people on welfare were allowed to work just a little bit without fear of losing much-needed medical care, I daresay most of them would use the money for their bills and savings. That way, when they’re finally kicked off the dole, they have something to live on while they’re trying to find a job.
Other plusses of welfare recipients working: they’re stimulating the economy. After their time on welfare is up, they won’t have a bigass gap in their resume that they are ashamed to have to explain to potential employers, as they’ve been doing something all that time.
But what about the ones that blow the extra income that they’re bringing in? Tough shit. Let 'em sink.
But as the system exists now, everyone is SET UP to sink as soon as they go off of welfare because the system so drastically punishes those who need/want a little bit of extra money. There’s always going to be lazy, no-good people who want to be on welfare. Let’s allow welfare recipients to work a little bit with no repercussions, though, and we’ll find out who is all about fixing their future and who just wants a handout.
That’s what the card is for now-you can’t sell food stamps because you get a credit card type deal.
Shodan, the point is not stocking up on junk vs. healthy, or whatever. It’s about not having to micromanage EVERYTHING a person does because they’re on welfare. And again, a lot of times the junk food IS the cheaper stuff. Fresh fruits and veggies and meats are more expensive than ramen and mac and cheese.
My doctor told me that my dry mouth, that I’ve had for years and never thought much about (which is a side effect of taking carbamazepine) likely contributed to my infections, and to my tooth decay. Check out the second link I posted in that quote.
SteveG1, thus my 
I had a friend in college whose aunt was in a similar situation. She was (IIRC) scitzophrenic. She could work as long as she took her meds. However, she could only get meds if she stayed on welfare (or disability, I don’t remember). If she got a job, she lost her medical card, eventually couldn’t afford her meds, became delusional, lost her job, got back on welfare, got meds, got better, got a job. . . . and around and around.
No now they just give the card along with the pin # to the drug dealers whatever and get the cash or drugs in return. Just hop onto google news and do a search, happens more then I thought it did.
Another benefit to my plan would be the elimination of that as an attractive trade for drugs, and that would help the children actually get the food that the state is trying to provide for them.
I didn’t think anyone was talking about ramen and mac and cheese. Fresh fruits and veggies are not more expensive than lobster and steak. Nor are they more expensive, on a nutritional basis, than twinkies.
Of course you can point out that certain fruits and vegetables are costly, and I’ll grant you that if you want to eat rare lotus of the eight pointed star imported from eastern Molestaria, that might cost more than a box of twinkies. But then we can play a different game. Can you feed someone with the same nutritional value off a box of twinkies as you can with an equivalent amount of money spent on rice and beans?
Well, I posted my suggestions for a better and more equitable system earlier (post 145 or was it 154?) and nobody saw fit to comment. I also saw fit to react to the “poor people are stupid and lazy so screw 'em” sort of glurge that was cropping up. So, once again, one side is allowed to make untrue blanket statements based on nothing, but the other side is not(?). Two wrongs don’t make a right. But, that argument seems to always come from the side that initiated the glurge, and only after getting a nasty response.
When I first entered the public assistance program in Indiana, you had to be enrolled in a program of not more than two years as a condition of benefits (in most cases; there were exceptions). That was replaced by not more than one year, and then later not more than six months. You can’t learn a skill in six months. This requirement became used mainly as a means to knock people off public assistance (“You’ve been in a training program for six months now, so you should now be able to find a job. Your benefits are now terminated. Have a nice life.”). Many people found ways to avoid the requirement, such as by getting pregnant (which exempts you from these requirements). The rules were especially harsh on college students – if you were a college student they would actively try to push you out of college and into their completely useless training programs.
Call me cynical, but I’ve seen virtually every positive reform intended to help people get out of poverty twisted by conservatives and bureaucrats (mainly the former) into mechanisms for keeping people in poverty. And there is a disturbing tendency for pilot or experimental programs that seem to be working to get defunded, cancelled or gutted, invariably in the name of a conservative-backed so-called “welfare reform”. Why is it that conservatives are so engaged in keeping the poor poor?
I guess I never thought about that because I don’t really have problems with drymouth. My tenure with the lovely pink pill has been relatively snag-free.
Sam
I’d like a cite on this, please. While fraud does exist still, it’s been cut drastically, and that’s even likely an understatement, since the introduction of the EBT cards.
I’m don’t know to which issues she was referring when she brought up Alaska and Hawaii, but regarding Alaska I can tell you why even state-wide rules won’t work. For example, we’ll take Kotzebuhe, Alaska (yes, I’ve been there, and it was involving the grocery industry. Don’t ask :)). There are no trucks or trains heading into or out of Kotzebuhe, so all of their food is flown in on airplanes. While this does raise the price on food across the board, the increase isn’t consistent across food types, which is what I would have expected. Cereal in Kotzebuhe is slightly higher than Anchorage, for example, but Milk is often three times as high. For those playing the home game, yes, it is due to item weight. A gallon of milk cost them over $5 back then, while it was under $2 where I lived in the midwest. A 24 pack of Coke, which went for about $5-6 at home was being sold for $15.99.
While Alaska might be a bit extreme, the problem is that there are many things that affect prices, all the way down to the city level. In fact, it is often different by neighborhoods. Next time you’re in the poor part of a big city, head into the grocery store. You’ll find that most things cost just a little more than they do at the expensive stores in the nice neighborhoods. We’re still back to the exact same problem. Exactly where and how do you draw the lines, without adding so much overhead that it becomes more expensive to distribute the benefits than the value of the benefits themselves?
Elucidator said:
Tdn said:
Fuck the both of you. Sack of shit, scumbag, lying morons. Fuck you. Really.
But let me tell you how I really feel.
The lowest weaselly stupidest most immoral thing you can do on a message board, IMO, is make up something loathsome and pretend it’s the other guy’s position.
It demonstrates laziness dishonesty and intellectual weakness.
Piss off.
I’m starting to wonder if poor people shouldn’t be allowed any recreation. How about they all sit in the dark and play shadow puppets. Of course, then we’ll have to fight over candles vs. flashlights, and are scented candles a luxury.
I’m starting to wonder if people who work for a living should be allowed to keep any of their money or have any pride at working hard to feed their families. How about we simply let poor people shoot them all in the head, kick them into ditches, and take their money. Of course, then the poor would all have jobs, because it’s the working people who are holding them down and wanting them to fail, because it makes working people feel better to have poor people around.
The only problem with this rant is most of the poor people are people who are at least trying to work for a living.
Get your head out of your ass. Lots of people with full time jobs are poor.
It seems to me that nobody has responded meaningfully to my basic point, which is:
If the safety net is set higher in terms of hardship and suffering than the worst job in the country, than you are encouraging people to rely on it. The higher the safety net in terms of the level of relief it provides versus a menial job the more you are subsidizing and encouraging nonproductivity.
People are smart. Why would somebody reasonably spend 80 hours a week manning a newsstand for minimum wage without benefits if they can get housing and food and leisure of an equal or higher standard without working 80 hours a week. You’d have to be stupid.
Vietnamese and Mexican immigrants come to this country illegally to do most menial and undesirable jobs in the country without benefits and frequently below minimum wage because people relief is a viable alternative for Americans instead of those jobs. They don’t have to compete for them. They are willing to work more for less because they understand poverty.
Zabali:
I will suggest to you that your circumstances aren’t really what we are talking about here. First off, your relief as I understand it is disability. The safety net should allow you to live in dignity. Doubly so if you’ve previously worked and paid the payroll taxes to insure yourself against disability.
It seems to me from your description, that it does. You have a computer and you can play Everquest, go to a movie, and you have the alternative of having simple luxuries when you plan for them and when it’s prudent. As for the dental, frankly, I would be selling my computer and eating fucking gruel and begging payments at the dentist to get my abscess fixed. It would be high on my list of priorities and I would sacrifice a lot to get it done.
As a suggestion, are their dental schools in your area? There were a lot in Louisiana while I lived there, and I was able to get truly excellent care for free. It means it takes 5 times as long, you have lots of students watching and trying their hand with your teeth, but ultimately you are in the hands of a master dentist who is teaching the students. I had a root canal done at a school outside N.O. and it was the best I had (and I’ve had four.)
Failing that, payments may be an option. The AMA on line lists dental aide for the needy in the area.
Next up, the welding seems fantastic. I admire the sacrifices you are making so that you and your SO can provide for yourselves the things you want for yourselves. With the commitment you and your SO are demonstrating I’m confident you’ll succeed. You seem to be a story of relief doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Another issue that’s been brought up has been the “It’s not your money, so it’s none of your business what we do with it theme.”
My thought is that it is our business. That this is a fact is inherent in the very nature of the food stamp program. It is not cash. Food stamps can only buy certain items.
Personally, I feel that relief carries responsibilities upon citizens not on it. They have the responsibility to make sure the programs are appropriate, work, provide a minimum safety net, and the means for people to get back on their feet. When they do these things, I feel that people are obligated to support them no matter the burden.
The entity administering the program has the responsibility to ensure that those dollars are legitimately aiding only those in true need. If they are not, than those people in true need are not getting the help they need and deserve. The people paying for the taxes are not getting their end of the bargain fulfilled.
The person receiving the relief has the responsibility to make the most of it and to take only the barest minimum they need. If they take more than that bare minimum they are stealing from those that are doing without, and stealing from those that are supporting the program.
So, I say it is my business. I say it’s everybody’s business. If I see a child being beaten or neglected, it is my business to do something about it. If I see someone being raped or mugged, it is my business to do something about it.
If someone is making an extravagant purchase with food stamps, that is also my business. That is my government failing. That is food being stolen from the truly needy. That is a person embezzling from the government. That is a person who is breaking the social contract.
It is also most certainly the business of a person who is receiving aid and using it legitimately. The fraud that is occuring gives a bad name to the program and gives unfair stigmatization and shame to those who use the system as it was designed.
Another issue that’s being thrown around is the deserve thing. Deserve has nothing to do with social aid. It’s not a matter of deserve, it’s a matter of need.
This is not a matter of compassion either. It’s a matter of ethics. We have social aid because of ethics. A social program and a government cannot be compassionate. A society cannot be compassionate. Individuals can demonstrate compassion. That’s it.
One is not being compassionate, kind or worthy in any kind of fashion to advocate a government program to help needy people.
One needs to handle these things with intelligence. It was compassion that suggested government housing projects in the 60s and 70s that have directly caused more poverty and suffering and hopelessness for millions of people than they would otherwise have born.
God save us all from a “compassionate” government.
I need a place to cook the rice and beans – beans have to be soaked for 24 hours before you can do anything with them, and both require at least a stove and a source of clean water. Twinkies, I can eat straight from the box.
So if I don’t have clean water or a stove, I can feed a lot more people with Twinkies than with rice and beans.
As for fruits and vegetables: A pound of apples (three apples) contains 240 calories, about 15% of your potassium requirement, 24% of your Vitamin C requirement, 66g of carbs, and 60% of your daily dietary fiber. One Twinkie has 150 calories and 5 grams of fat and really not much else. A pound of apples sells for between $1 and $3. A ten-pack of Twinkies sells for $3.29. In other words, your apples deliver between 80 and 240 calories per dollar; Twinkies, on the other hand, deliver about 500 calories per dollar. If you’re trying to fend off starvation, calories is your major concern, and so the 500 calorie per dollar option is your better choice.
Apples offer a relatively good calorie/dollar ratio and they keep better than most produce, too. For a real stinker, look at lettuce, which gives almost no nutrition, is relatively expensive, and doesn’t keep well at all. Clearly there is no excuse for a poor person to be buying lettuce. Dollar for dollar I suspect lobster yields better overall nutrition than lettuce.
Can we have one conversation on this board that doesn’t turn into a whinefest about the eeeeeeeevil conservatives? This is why no problems are getting solved: too busy blaming the other side.
Clinton’s the one that made sweeping welfare changes, ya know. Last here here in WV, it was a Democrat-controlled Legislature backed by a Democrat Governor that made such drastic cuts to the welfare program. Whether the libs or conservatives are in office, I doubt the welfare system has EVER worked in inner city DC.
The poor generally don’t vote, and if they do vote, it’s definitely not for conservatives. Why the hell would a conservative want to KEEP someone poor? If they’re poor, they’re not out there stimulating the economy, starting businesses and providing jobs like rich people do.
It doesn’t make sense for liberals to want to keep people poor, either. If they’re poor, they can’t be taxed to fund all of those liberal pet projects.
I don’t either side wants to KEEP poor people poor. Nobody normal wants to see people who depend on the government to live, can’t take care of themselves, live below the povery line, go without basic necessities, etc. Only the most sadistic of assholes grin whenever they see a family that can’t afford to feed their kids.
I think both sides are full of people who don’t THINK, at all, when they go to make these stupid welfare reforms and decide what the rules should be. They don’t think, because most of them have never been poor. If you want to know how to make the welfare system do what it’s supposed to do, you don’t ask someone who drives a Jaguar and earns well over 150k a year. You ask the people that are on it, their caseworkers, etc. They’re the ones who see the program’s flaws and strengths, not some suit in Washington that probably doesn’t personally know even one person that lives below the poverty line.
The problem is that neither side particularly CARES about the poor, because, again, the poor usually don’t show up on election day, and they have no political power. If politicans knew that, oh, 70% of welfare recipients were going to show up at the polls in 2006, we’d see drastic changes in the system. As it is, I doubt 10% show up for any given election.
If liberals truly cared about the poor, they’d design a welfare system that WORKED instead of keeping people dependent for life. If conservatives truly cared about the poor, they’d cooperate.