Let’s take that ‘taker’ scenario out to its logical conclusion

In response to Briggs Arrington’s “An open letter to President Obama,” I would like to paint you a picture of life as a “taker” as you described.

(Mr. Briggs is planning to “arrange to be laid off” from his job so he can live off of government assistance.)

OK, so I’m imagining that you are a white male over the age of 60, but for the sake of argument, let’s say you are a married father of two small children.

First of all, you say you would “arrange to be laid off” from your job and would live off of what you already have in addition to government assistance.

First of all, if you have over $2,000 in the bank in any form, you are disqualified from food stamps, TANF and Section 8, so you’d have to “arrange” to get rid of that too.

So let’s say you are laid off and would qualify for unemployment. That alone would immediately disqualify you from the food stamp program, welfare and any Section 8 housing. So let’s say you just plain quit.

OK, so you have two kids and a wife who would also like to sit around eating bon bons with you. So you apply for Section 8.

Have you ever seen a Section 8 house? While there are some exceptions, most Section 8 housing that you could afford with no job whatsoever would be a housing project. Also, there is a waiting period for Section 8.

You would NEVER qualify for Social Security Disability unless you were truly disabled, attorney or no attorney (my father is a Social Security disability lawyer). So that is out.

The Obama Phone was actually started by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and called LIFELINE, providing a phone to income-eligible people in order for them to be able to call 911, a doctor for a sick child, a phone number for a prospective employer to call, etc. Lifeline has just expanded to cover cell phones since they are cheaper than land lines now. So you would have a phone.

That leaves food stamps and welfare. So, a family of four (with two children) would qualify for $658 a month in food stamps.

OK, so now you say you would get welfare (AFCD, Aid to Families with Dependent Children). Well, guess what!? It does not exist anymore.

Now there is the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and you have to be in a work program for at least 30 hours per week to qualify, one parent has to be out of the home and only children qualify for TANF. (Even then the maximum amount for a family of three is $325 per month)

So, let’s see — a family of four with no income could possibly have a roof and $658 a month for food and a phone.

Sounds like a fabulous life. The life of a “taker.” You might want to rethink your plan.

My point is that to be out of work, or to be a single parent, or to be a taker, is no picnic. It’s a hard life that no one wants, contrary to what your party (or Rush Limbaugh) might have you think.

Melissa Miller

Peachtree City, Ga.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Interesting

A comment has been sequestered'

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
You have to be kidding

Disability is not that hard to get with the right doctor..It was really sad last time I went to the Casino and there were a lot of "disabled" folks gambling.

Also if you have no visible source of income you can qualify so people who work off the books or work in illegal operations show no income.

There are poor people who deserve a hand out but too many game the system.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Obama the Food Stamp President

Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/23/Exclusive-Food-Stamp-... GP

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Here's a moocher scenario but, it's real....

Child tax credits for illegal immigrants. According to the Treasury Department’s IG, the most outrageous of these claims was the 9,000 illegals who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010.

Just another example of the "Guv" pissing money away.

And guess what......nothing will be done about it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
STF-History has taught us much..

History has shown us over and over and over that as a Social Program becomes the way of life for certain socio-economic groups then the perceived social benefits that were initially intended actually morph into perceived ownership of the program itself by those same socio-economic group it was designed to assist.

Once they claim ownership of said program it becomes, in their perception, a "Right".

The answer is NOT "more" programs or embracing the ideology from which these programs where spawned.

Taking the problem down to the micro level... Human nature is no different then the reasoning that there are signs "Don't Feed the Bears". Animals become used to finding food easily. They start associating humans with food and before long they turn on the very humans feeding them and in extreme cases they can lose the ability to actually feed themselves.

Punching it back up to the macro level..Children who are allowed to do nothing...live free..and not forced to work tend to never leave home and come back time after time after time after failures in life.

Government entitlements is not only equivalent to "Feeding the Bears" it is also a barrier, albeit a thin one, to insulate one from failure. You never want to go out and risk failure if you are always allowed to safely live in your own World.

Failure is what makes us better.. in every-way. We learn. We learn we don't like it and take steps to insure it doesn't continue. When Government or "do-gooder" feel good programs cushions that fall from failure or even prevents it you take away the learning curve that makes us better people.

Without the incentive failure gives us.. you get tamed humans that can't feed themselves and have no choice but to stand in-line for handouts.

So "embracing" all of the failed programs like planned parenthood, free contraceptives et..al.. this only encourage the very behavior the program designers where trying to correct. More free stuff does not guarantee results.. it only guarantees dependency.

I will give you an example.. What was the stated original purpose of "Planned Parenthood"..? To educate young women about the results of sex without contraception to prevent Pregnancy.

Has it worked?

After 30 years of PPH abortions rates are still at an all time high..so again did it work?

When you offer Abortion on demand there is no threat of failure...and... when it is offered for FREE you cushion that fall or pain that failure creates.
Thus there is no incentive to change ones behavior.
So the original intent has morphed into ownership by the very socio-economic group it was intended to assist and now it is a "Right".

This is what you want us to embrace...really?

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Friendly reply to Lindsey

Mr. Lindsey – I do not dispute your “feeding the bears” analogy, and I am not arguing with your logic. I do wish to push the envelope further along with you.

Abortions number around 1,000,000 a year in the USA. Conservatively assuming that even half of these prevent a welfare mother and child, there is a very pragmatic reason for tax-payers to support abortion on demand as a cost effective strategy. I will not argue whether is instructive to the mother “bear.”

On the overall issue that was addressed by Ms. Miller in her letter to Cal, here is my quandary. Welfare benefits are very modest; i.e., the bears on the dole get a subsistence diet. How might we entice the bears to abandon their meager free lunch for a more abundant banquet that they might arrange on their own? We must find a strategy to demonstrate the benefits of self-sufficiency and the multiple rewards of capitalistic endeavors. I propose that modeling by successful peers considered to be similar to the “bears” might be the most proficient enticement. What do you think?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
STF

Welfare should be workfare.

There have been many attempts to get modern day welfare recipients to "work" for their handouts. Almost EVERY time it is tried either the recipient class themselves protest or some other "do-good" group does it for them.

They claim it is unfair to make them work.. It is their "right".

During the Great Depression welfare was the only thing some had..but they worked for it. They dug holes while other's filled them back in. Not productive in the least but they were at least EXPECTED to work.

Look around at some of the poorest areas with high populations of welfare recipients. Look at the conditions of the house and neighborhoods. I have remarked often.. it is not a shame to be poor... BUT... it is however a shame to live like you are poor.

You see garbage, old cars, old appliances, broken toys, torn screen, paint pealing from every surface...WHY?

The why could be as innocuous as the person living there is an invalid..maybe, but I suspect the people that live there are "domesticated" they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. In other words they have hung a sign on their front door "Please Feed the Bears".

You saw this in New Orleans during Katrina. Many of those you later saw on the roof tops pleading to be rescued and then on TV blaming the Government (Bush) about "not caring" about them.

These same people had been told for YEARS that a Cat 3 storm would break the levies and flood New Orleans. Katrina was a Cat 5 yet even after a WEEKS warning they waited for Government to come and get them. Instead of simply packing up the car or walking across the Danziger Bridge to safety they waited. WHY.. They had been told they would be taken care of. They had been tamed and had lost the ability to fend for themselves.

STF-unfortunately the only way we will ever break the "right" cycle is to force the recipients to work for the handout.

We can accomplish this in one of several ways..
One suggestion...

1. Have recipients work by cleaning up the Projects where they live.
Why do we have City workers paid for by tax-dollars cut grass, clean up garbage and paint while others also tax dollar fed sits inside and enjoys the free landscapers?

However, this will never happen...Welfare, Medicaid, ADC, Wick et.al.. have all become entitlements which certain socio-economic groups have claimed ownership and is now considered a "right".... and we all know these "rights" like abortion "rights" can never be touched.

Gun "rights" can be trampled... but.... the "Right" to other peoples money and the "Right" to a status well above anyone else simply because of poor choices is now a fact of life.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
How can we instill self-respect?

Mr. Lindsey – I think there is much to your suggestion, “Have recipients work by cleaning up the Projects where they live.” Achieving this goal requires recipients to have as much self-respect and pride in their residences as they do for their cars or other prized belongings. This indifference may be the result of a character flaw, a deficiency in developmental training, a social norm in the Projects, or some other deficit. Apparently, it isn’t universal among people from a low SES (see Suggarfoot’s postings on this blog). Could the potential for ownership or permanency modify this attitude? Are there other avenues to instill self-respect? I fear that without these attitudinal changes, few pro-social behaviors will follow.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Ahh...now there's the rub-STF

You have now hit upon the crux of the issue.. Self Respect.

How do you get it if you don't already have it.

One of the basics of our "Human" Nature is pride. Pride in our accomplishments. This instills in us self respect simply because you want to maintain that accomplishment be it whatever form it takes.

When you are given anything not as a gift you didn't earn you have no sense of pride in accomplishing what it took to acquire it. This is one of the dirty little secrets of the Habitat for Humanity project. First the title alone instills a sense of being taken care of.. Habitat. That is what we give animals... "home environment: the natural conditions and environment in which a plant or animal lives, e.g. forest, desert, or wetlands"

The recipient did not earn the home, has no invested value in the home and so has no pride. The dirty little secret is that a majority of these homes have to be re-built just a few years later from abuse of the "owners".

Self-Respect is a must if we are to take these takers and make them producers. To give them "programs" from benevolent Government entities will not work..we just keep feeding the Bears.

My feeling on this is it is going to take Community leaders to take a stand. Stop perpetrating poor race relations for their on benefit ie...Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and these new breed of leaders must make the community understand that just sitting around collecting checks does nothing to pull oneself out of the morass they are in.

Recipients must learn to earn. They have to learn to earn what is it they need. To be "given" just enough to eek by does nothing but breed contempt and complacency.. and then comes the politicians and professional race baiters to agitate that feeling blaming the "other" party for keeping them down.

STF- it may soon come a time where certain benefits are going to be cut off.. Not be uncaring mean "Conservative" Politicians, but by circumstance.
We, the USA, are quickly running out of credit. China, as I predicted 2 years ago, has stopped buying our debt, also as I predicted the Fed started buying it.

It is most likely to late to bring this generation of recipients out of their situation with little pain. They will be forced to either become independent and self sufficient or they will suffer greatly. Unfortunately Society has not given them the skills to do so.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Sometimes they shoot or relocate the bears

If they are a nuisance - for example, eating from people's trash cans, they are relocated or shot. Humans first, animals second.

Of course if the bears decide to sit around the Thanksgiving table with us and we let them, the shooting and relocating option is off the table. Then when the bears start shopping at Krogers, what can you do? Later the bears figure out a way to get EBT cards and then they shop at Krogers with our money. Sometimes they are at Fresh Market as well. Either way, the bears always seem to have more food than I do when they are in front of me in line. Maybe it is all those cubs. I mean somebody has to feed and pay for all those cubs. Right?

If you want the bears to be self-sufficient, train them to do their job, any job. Stop the handouts before they forget how to hunt and forage.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
I think we should shoot them!

I don't know how much they get in food stamps, as far as the Section 8 housing, she was way off as I posted the link. She probably is off on the food stamps too.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Retraining the bears

Mr. Morgan – Thanks for your reply. However, according to Ms. Miller (above) the bears really are given a very meager allowance for food (your experience notwithstanding). The real question is how can we “train them to do their job, any job?” I’m very interested in an effective and pragmatic strategy to accomplish this.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I guess not dropping out of school would be a start - update

Enforcing that? Hard to do, but it would certainly seem logical to require school-age children living in Section 8 housing to stay in school or mama loses her subsidized housing. Or is that somehow racist?

Or, if you must drop out of school, you must go into the military or Peace Corps or some such thing.

And speaking of schools, since it is pretty clear that not everyone is on the same educational and career path, why not offer some serious alternatives to the college-bound programs that only benefit half the kids. Technical schools and trade schools can skip some of the courses in high math and English Literature (but not English and certainly not history - meaning real history, not revisionist history) and prepare them to work in some trade or occupation that does not require a college degree - or even a traditional high school degree.

Bear cubs learn to forage for food at an early age from their mothers. If the environment makes it easier to forage in people's trash cans or Kroger than to forage in the woods - that's what they will learn to do.

Updated Tuesday AM - I was pleasantly surprised to see that Kim the Councilperson was coming to Rotary this week to give us a presentation on something called the "Fayette College and Career Academy". Sounds like a good start on the technical and trade school idea expressed above.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
where did you get your figures?

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/housing/RentalAssistance/programs/downloads/2...

It plainly states 3 bed room (1 for the adults and 1 for a girl and 1 for a boy)is $1110.00 a 4 bedroom is $1211. 5 is %1392, 6 is $1570

I have seen where they rent and it is ...NOT... the projects, though it may be when they get through.

They also move tons of people in with them (some with criminal records, but hey, a lot of the section 8 have those already) and they don't tell you about the ones that have a job that live with them.

It is very hard to prove they live there and not 'visiting' so you face a lawsuit if you can't make it stick.

Section 8 for the 'lifers' is wrong. I might add all these people get free electic and food stamps. Anyone that says contrary is a liar.

As the renewals come due, or as records of police being called to the same places, I'm slowly getting them out. The person I'm helping with their property is elderly and was sold a bill of goods by Section 8. They don't screen these people and they give your tax dollars to convicted criminals. Their background check consist of seeing if the person is low income, if they have a METH conviction or if they are a pedofile!!!! THIS PROGRAM SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH OR OVER HAULED.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SECTION 8/FOOD STAMPS
Quote:

THIS PROGRAM SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH OR OVER HAULED.

Not 'done away with' for there are those who honestly need this type of assistance - especially after such events as SANDY. However, now that the 'political season' is calming - all of the numerous welfare programs that are supposedly serving the people at an inordinate cost need to be overhauled!! I stood behind a lovely family, (father, mother, three children) who appeared to be doing a 'months' shopping with a combination of coupons and food stamps. Without the 'food stamps' and buying 'off brand' food items, they would have been in trouble trying to provide nutritious meals for their children. Most items were canned/bottled goods; very few fresh items (to be expected) - and unlike California, a family cannot have a year round garden to fulfill nutritional needs. I did note some canning items - which she used coupons for rather than 'food stamps'. I admired this family for making the best of a difficult situation. Either it may have been dad's day off - or both parents may have been unemployed - I have no idea. Their children were well behaved, the parents spoke intelligently, and obviously had done some pre-planning before their trip to the grocery store. I have seen a number of families like this in the last three years in Fayetteville and Peachtree City. (Trying desperately to hold on to a 'middle class' existence.)

If one looks at the 'big cost' of welfare funds - it is not Section 8 housing or Food Stamps (Some of our veterans families qualify for 'food stamps'.) It is Medicaid. The cost of health care and prescription drugs has gotten out of hand in this country. Without a solid health care program that is affordable, we will no longer be the global healthiest citizens. (if we are that now) We need to stop protecting the class who funds outrageouly expensive political campaigns; the so-called job creators who haven't kept up in 14 years; and all of us need to sacrifice and do what we can as individuals to get our country back on sound footing. . . . political party, gender, class, race - be da____d

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Foodstamp President

The only thing that Obama has been able to accomplish is to increase the number of people receiving foodstamps.

Heckuva job, Barry!! Thanks a pantload. YOU ARE THE FOODSTAMP PRESIDENT!!

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
A Must Read for all the Lemmings

Ms. Miller - Thank you so much for this reality check. Your letter is a "must read" for the lemmings that contribute 80% of the blogs to The Citizen. I wish Cal would set an automatic link to your essay for every blogger who typed "taker," "moocher," or "socialist."

As you so readily elucidate, no reasonable person would trade places with a welfare recipient. The problem of unemployment and underemployment in our country is a significant social ill that deserves reasoned responses instead of simplistic Tea Party/Fox News/Rush Limbaugh platitudes. Attitudinal modifications and educational attainments are necessary to instill a culture of productivity to the underclass. Vilification and name-calling only entrench underachievement. Militant conservatives, like Palestinians, are adept at throwing stones but inept at seeking solutions. True fiscal conservatives and economists realize that incentives drive behavior instead of condemnation.

Again, thank you for your insightful contribution.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
How many studies and tax dollars have been wasted?
Quote:

" Vilification and name-calling only entrench underachievement."

Had the sociologists and economists just known what "strange" knew all along.....we could have nothing but contributors in our country.

Who knew that the personal responsibility was really there? Who knew that the repeated bad decisions were all an act? Who knew that they really know how to escape the generations of poverty? They are all just "entrenching" themselves in this continuous cycle as payback for all the name-calling. Seems like the obvious next step is to immediately rename all "entitlement programs" to "reparations for vilification". Better yet, now we can eliminate them all and balance that budget (well, if we had a budget anymore).

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
So what's your strategy?

Conservatives on this blog and elsewhere are proficient at pointing out the problem with underachievement and irresponsibility within the underclass. I don’t disagree.

How do you propose to arrest and reverse this reality? How do you change a culture of irresponsibility and underachievement? Merely criticizing them and discovering novel ways to point out their inadequacies has been a mainstay of conservative action, but it is not solving the problem. Isn’t it time we searched for an incentive-based solution instead of patting ourselves on the backs for coming up with new ways to denigrate the underclass?

I’m not looking for a dodge, but rather a reasonable action plan that has the potential for success. The underclass is reproducing faster than those of us with money. Thus, the recent election is a harbinger for the future that we must recognize and respond to strategically instead of defensively and critically.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
force responsibilty on them

"The underclass is...REPRODUCING... faster than those of us with money."

That is the key to the whole thing. They ARE reproducing faster because they are irresponsible and the 'gimme' deal pays more if you spawn. Look at what I posted about what HUD/Section 8, pays for a 3/4/5 bedroom house in Fayette county, Ga. Then realize the place to break into a 4/5 bedroom is something like a John Weihland neighborhood. More kids is sometimes the key to a nicer neighbornhood that they move to and tear up.

If the program was reformed so that if they kept spawning, it was made clear to them, the system would ..NOT.. reward by paying for a bigger house, you would see some serious family planning. As it is, they are beating the system.

Why has this government decided to be a welfare government? It isn't the corner stone this country was built on.

Mother nature sees to it that the weak/irresponsible in the wild die off, we have been spoon fed by the politicans it is ...OUR... responsibility to take care of them. What you will see if that is not curbed is the same as in nature when some sub species over populates by some fluke. It ruins the balance of nature and some better species die off because of them.

The programs should be reformed. AT LEAST...take the criminal element and kick it to the curb so it doesn't keep preying on the rest of society. Let them die off. Let nature take its course.

This would mean making the politicians who pander to them responsible, and in turn, the politicans will make the programs responsible. What we have going now is nothing more than a sinking ship that is sucking the life out of this country.

This country is rotting from within.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
There is no strategy that will work for those getting freebies

Responsibility is taught, or it isn't. My parents taught me. Their parents taught them. See how it should work? You castigate conservatives and say all we do is criticize underachievers and point out their inadequacies. Then in your next breath, you admit that you agree. You are just too compassionate and decent to say those things out loud, we all know how that goes. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of your conclusion that vilification causes more harm. Reality won't ever wake you from your feel-good, liberal wet dream. People have to want to change, but they apparently prefer Obama phones instead.

I do know this, your idea of more incentive-based solutions does not appear to be helping at all. Here are a few numbers I looked up real quickly. Federal entitlements were around 62% of the total outlay in 2012. Guess what? 20 years ago we spent less than half on entitlements. In the last 10 years, anti-poverty programs are up 49%. Food stamp spending has tripled since 2002 and Barry is really helping that trend. Health programs have increased by 38 percent and that does not factor in the real meat and potatoes of Obamacare. Housing assistance has increased by 48%.

So, how many more incentive-based solutions did you have in mind?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
keeping up the lazy

both these are very good articles. They point to the same old problems I've been raving about. Public housing was once created for the poor and unlucky to get a leg up. As the 1st article points out, in the beginning that is what those that 1st used it did. Then entered the welfare Mothers that took the handouts and spread their legs for the rest of their life and spawned more of their ilk. They clogged the system and bred. That is what is on the payroll today. The only answer is to do what Charlotte is trying to do. PUT TIME LIMITS ON THEM AND THEN THEY ARE FORCED OFF THE GOVERNMENT TIT. The elderly, the retarded, the crippled, all would benifit because they could finaly get on and have a legit right to stay longer. The others should be treated as what they are moochers, give them a chance, if they don't take it, throw them out. Many many woman WORK and raise their kids along. They buy houses and raise good kids. How? They do it and no one else does it for them. I know, because I was one of them. I raised by child along, worked, and was never assisted by family or government. It was very hard, but in the end my child learned from watching their parent never give up. Having a house full of kids is NOT a reason to be on the gov payroll. I knew better than to have more and I knew what caused them.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_public_housing.html

"How then might we dismantle the public housing system, without hurting its most fragile residents? Any attempt to do so would have to be gradual, especially in a place like New York, where subsidized housing is such a large part of the residential real-estate system. Some housing projects would have to remain as de facto poorhouses for the most dysfunctional. But by placing time limits on new tenants entering public housing—as the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, has done (see “How Charlotte Is Revolutionizing Public Housing,” Spring 2000)—it would be feasible to reduce the overall number of subsidized housing units steadily. Knowing that the promise of a lifetime of subsidized housing was gone (along with a lifetime of welfare payments since the 1996 reform), young single mothers would be less likely to enter the system—and perhaps less likely to have children out of wedlock in the first place. Some current tenants (the least dysfunctional) could be offered housing vouchers that they could use in the private housing market in exchange for vacating public housing. The voucher would come with a time limit, too, to discourage dependency. As the number of tenants fell, it would then become possible to sell some public housing buildings (or at least the sites, after the demolition of the emptied buildings) to private buyers, bringing more property back onto the tax rolls.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_2_how_charlotte.html

That's why what's happening in Charlotte, North Carolina, is so important. With little fanfare, Charlotte's public housing authority is providing a blueprint for transforming the nature of public housing or even, over the long term, phasing it out. The key to Charlotte's new approach is time limits. This simple idea promises to make public housing more like the new welfare system—short-term aid, provided on the assumption of the recipient's serious effort to improve her situation. "What we're saying over and over again to our residents," explains Charlotte Housing Authority chief executive officer Harrison Shannon Jr., "is 'in, up, and out.'" Charlotte, in other words—along with a tiny handful of the nation's 3,200 public housing authorities—is thus seeking to make public housing policy reinforce welfare reform's message of self-reliance, rather than weaken it.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Thanks for sharing a workable idea.

It appears that time limited assistance might be a workable solution. I wonder if we can reproduce this program in other cities and states outside of North Carolina.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Time limits= less entitlements

The main thing is for the taxpayers to wake up. As I tried to make obvious by my story, a lot of this is breeding. Some have got it and some don’t. Just as I could never train someone to be an artist and love art, others could never train me to be a brain surgeon. I don’t want to, and it isn’t in me. There are some people who are …born…genius. I tried to make clear to you, for many who would qualify, public assistance is unthinkable. They are the winners. If you read the stories I posted, you know these are a far cry from welfare Moms. You also know the world needs more “Susans”.
The country needs time limits on Welfare Moms so they don’t sit at home and spawn. You are feeding and housing the unfit to reproduce for the others to take care of. There is no logical reasoning in this other than the taxpayers have been brain washed. Wake up!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Sweetfeet & A Solution

I have long been an advocate for state-sponsored ovary removal after a 2d out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
AtHomeGym
Quote:

I have long been an advocate for state-sponsored ovary removal after a 2d out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

Dude, that is some cold stuff.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Rolling Rock & "cold stuff"

OK, let's see YOUR solution to changing mores and personal behavior! I suppose you support giving them all fertility drugs and hoping for triplets!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - I agree

pretty cold.

I am sure you agree it's better to have the state raise all out-of-wedlock kids instead or just pay their mothers for being so responsible. We all know how well kids turn out when they are raised by single moms supported by the state. It works out really, really well.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer

It is not like to you to dish out a non-sequitur.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
However Rolling,

I am not surprised that you use a red herring to confuse logical fallacy with sarcasm. Most liberal thinkers use deflection when confronted with facts that point out their flawed thinking.

The government needs to get out of the "baby" business by withdrawing support of single mothers. Self reliance, independence, personal responsibility and strength are born out of suffering with poor decisions made by individuals. Single mothers should be no exception and it is not government's role to support them or their children.

How's that for "cold"?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer

Please try to pay attention. My comment was directed at the proposal to remove a woman's ovaries by order of the state. That is cold. You are the one who used the deflection technique in defense of an outrageous statement.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling

OK, it is cold, I agree. History has shown the state is used to sterilize the unworthy only in Socialist regimes. My defense of an outrageous statement? MY point is that the government needs to get out of the "baby" business. Then you won't have people proposing state solutions that include sterilization.

Deflect all you want Rolling, its your nature. Pay attention indeed!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
to all you bleeding hearts

you are spawning a whole generation of deadbeats!

"Many many woman WORK and raise their kids alone. They buy houses and raise good kids. How? They do it and no one else does it for them. I know, because I was one of them. I raised by child along, worked, and was never assisted by family or government. It was very hard, but in the end my child learned from watching their parent never give up. Having a house full of kids is NOT a reason to be on the gov payroll. I knew better than to have more and I knew what caused them"

I will say this also. There are many good woman out there that do it the hard way, they try. Breeding DOES matter. I am pure bred "Scot Irish" down to my toes. Many "Scot Irish" are the old Normans. (Montgomery) Yes, we are inbred, but what a breed. We don't give up and we are proud, and that is what sets us apart. We call it as we see it and let the chips fall where they may. You like us or you don't.

I'm not alone, I had many friends like myself. I remember my best friend growing up. She had 2 kids and kicked out her husband for cheating on her. She had no money and it was easy for men to get out of childsupport. She worked and put herself through law school and supported those children on her own. I went to her house for supper one night and cried when I left. She had the children set the table with her grandmothers china, cloth napkins, and the silverware was put out, all 5 pieces in the right spots by her girls. we sat down and ate peatnut butter sandwiches made with the scrap peatnut butter out of the bottoms of jars that weren't enough left to to make a sandwich with. Her relatives put it all in one big jar and gave it to her. It was the strangest thing I've ever seen. Her statement was, "We may be poor, but my children will be taught manners".

She got cancer, but came out of the hospital to walk in her graduation with drip tubes hanging out. She beat the cancer. She then went to La. and got certified there only to sue her ex for thousands in child support. She had him picked up and put and jail and not released till his new wife took out a 2nd on their house to bail him out. She practiced law in Mississippi and never lost a case. She called me one day laughing that she made the opposing lawyer lose it and he chased her out of the courtroom and down the street cussing her. Meanwhile Susan was laughing her butt off. She died of cancer a years later, but she never gave up. She was a hell cat who raise 2 daughters that went on to be lawyers. One of the two she sent to Europe for graduating. The child was robbed, but not wanting to tell her Mom washed her clothes in the ocean and slep the last night on the beach.(I wouldn't recommend that) When Susan told me, she was proud of her daughter,she stated, "She is just like me"

So there you have it, there are a lot of strong woman out there. I have other stories of friends like Susan. These are woman who never laid back and let the system support them. They are also woman who made a commitment to the children they had to raise them well and put them first.

Responsible woman don't 'breed'. Do you think it is fair that we support people like the perminate welfare Moms? I don't.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Single Moms

There was one single mom in our history that raised two children; attended school with the assistance of grants and scholarships (her parents were not wealthy); coordinated programs that provided assistance to others; etc. Her children? One is now President of the United States. The other is a college professor. This single mom died while trying to figure out how to pay her hospital bills. Only in America. Surely, as a country, we can do better for those who, as you say, are hard working and responsible. In California - where there was an earnest attempt at a 'Welfare to Work' program, there were success stories of women who used their skills to join the work force and provide for their families without state assistance. Then came the recession. Last hired, first fired. The reform of welfare should start with the ending of the abuse of the system; then cutting where necessary. There are too many people doing the same job in the bureaucracy of the current system. Cutting without thought to the consequences is folly. When inordinate cutting is done, consumers go back on the dole, business suffers, etc., etc., etc. TAKE POLITICS OUT OF THE EQUATION!!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Can't be done, DM...

...as the outlay of taxpayer monies IS politics. If you don't want to be involved in it, don't be a part of it. Until then, you're subject to the winds & whims of the government machine. I doubt you'll find it much different in any other national, or state, systems. Those who are dependent on the gov't, whether through their own fault or not, will always be part of the politics due to this very nature of that which they are subject to.

You can yell from the tallest tree 'take politics out of it', but again, the gov't is all about politics, because they're responsible for the responsible spending of OUR money - and I for one want it spent wisely, and tightly accounted for.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
KC

Those who thought they controlled the 'taxpayers' money had a rude awakening on Nov. 6. They had paid for the vote (both parties), but the people voted. It may soothe hurt egos to say that the 'other side bought the election, but the election was lost by the party who underestimated the voice of the people. If the 'politicians' don't listen, there will be another change in 2014.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
No Mamn I am sorry you are wrong...
Davids mom wrote:

Those who thought they controlled the 'taxpayers' money had a rude awakening on Nov. 6. They had paid for the vote (both parties), but the people voted. It may soothe hurt egos to say that the 'other side bought the election, but the election was lost by the party who underestimated the voice of the people. If the 'politicians' don't listen, there will be another change in 2014.

The Election was not bought it was given away.

DM please answer a question..I know..I know.. I keep asking but you keep dodging..but please answer just this one...

Name me a "special" interest group that was not promised a piece of the taxpayer pie?

We cannot survive as an entitlement Country. Greece, Spain and Italy have already discovered that fact.

"Listening" to the people DM only gets us more in debt. JFK would be ashamed of the Democrat Party of today. It is NOT about what the Government can do for YOU.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

Name me a "special" interest group that was not promised a piece of the taxpayer pie?

How about those who make over $250,000? If anyone is listening, a balanced approach must include additional revenue as well as cuts in spending. If anyone is listening, a serious reform of the tax code. The 'code words' take from the rich and give to the poor' has been overused and seen through. The perception of the Republican Party is that it has been taken over by a radical right wing who is now vascilating, looking for leverage rather than working for the middle class. The rich have been promised that their piece of pie will not be touched . Quite a special interest group - who are turning away from 'The Party of Lincoln', before that party is seen as responsible for going over the fiscal cliff. These are interesting times, right SL? The Republican business persons are going to open up, create those jobs, so that the consumers can pay for their products. The game to make Obama appear as a failure did not work. On to the next plan - salvage the Republican Party. Quick - check those talking points to answer my 'spin'. They're there!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm who said the Bush Tax Cuts....

where off the backs of the Middle Class?

And now what are "they" saying?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

Dm who said the Bush Tax Cuts....
where off the backs of the Middle Class?

???? Interesting non - question. What? No talking points to counter the 'rich' as a special interest group? Go back to your talking points, they may have the answer you're looking for. I answered your original question. Have a nice day.

I know, I know/ where =were

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM check the archives...

That was you. Now you hum a different tune.. Just saying.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom
Davids mom wrote:

There are too many people doing the same job in the bureaucracy of the current system.

Absolutely!!!!!

But golly gee; take politics out of the equation. Do you think those unions would mind this??? You know these are the same unions that Biden had rallied claiming that those Evil Repubs wanted to reduce their ranks.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

As long as there is the perception that a party ( any party) that is more interested in 'winning' then in listening. . that brand of politics will lose. The important lesson learned on Nov. 6 is that the people have the last word at the voting booth. - no matter how much money is spent. You're right, can't take politics out of the equation. - just be sure to have 'listening to the constiuents' as an important part of the equation.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Someone has to win?
Quote:

As long as there is the perception that a party ( any party) that is more interested in 'winning' then in listening. . that brand of politics will lose.

And what happens when both parties are guilty of this?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

We're witnessing that now. Let's hope the result is that the American citizens win by Congress and the White Hoyse doing what is best for the US. - as Lincoln tried to do. A united country for all. Not easy - but essential.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Solutions based on outcomes and incentives.

Meany – I’m not a liberal, but rather a realist. I wish conservatives would step up and work on the solutions instead of leaving it to liberals to continue their failed policies.

Instead of running right wing ideologues for office, conservatives should do everything possible to prevent unwanted children from being born. Planned Parenthood, free contraceptives, and safe access to abortion are in the best interests of fiscal conservatives because they are much cheaper than government support of minors in these failed liberal programs. This is merely one idea that conservatives should champion.

If you are correct that behavior patterns are established in childhood and completely resistant to change later in life, then prevention is even a more of a necessity in your worldview. Rantings fix nothing.

You misunderstand incentives. Economists explain behavior in terms of the payoffs or incentives one gains from a certain behavior. Money is only one incentive. I am interested in understanding why people perpetuate a negative behavior pattern and then changing the payoff so it no longer works. Your response seems to indicate that you see incentives as government handouts. I would be very interested in conservative-established incentive paradigms that might work much better.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
STF, do you have...

...data on how many welfare recipients have made it off, and stayed off, the welfare roles? I know of 2 - my sister and a Lotto winner in Michigan (and she had to be kicked off as she kept taking the $$ she was 'entitled' to [her words!]); I'm sure there must be others. As a/an government-run program(s), it has to be achieving its desired end.

From what I understand, many recipients believe the jobs they can get with their education, experience, and work history pay little better then the dole the receive. One would think the answer lies here, in job training and/or education, and if such programs exist, as I'm sure they do, it hasn't apparently been working very well.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Stranger

Are you advocating governmental control of family size? We already have Planned Parenthood and free contraceptives. We already have access to abortions, no doubt occurring as we speak. Do I need to ask you how all that is working? I don't disagree with your statement on this being cheaper than government support of "failed liberal programs". But, riddle me this. How do you think the left would paint conservatives for espousing those policies? Conservatives would have a nefarious goal. Do you see that slippery slope? Maybe conservatives should embrace them, but not discuss them out loud?

If you disagree that behavior patterns are established in childhood and completely resistant to change later in life, then tell me where I am wrong. I would be interested in your explanation of why these negative behavior patterns perpetuate.

Now on the last thing, I must admit that you've caught me. I don't have any idea what incentives would work, and apparently nobody else does either. We've used the easy incentive that normally works and that is an abject failure. Currently, government handouts are more attractive to some than personal responsibility. What are the incentives you have conceptualized and why would they be more attractive than money? We've got to win those votes somehow.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Friendly reply to Meany

Meany – I don’t understand the concern that liberals will vilify us if we merely stop arguing with them about “reproductive rights” and give them what they want. Let insurance companies and Planned Parenthood give free contraceptives. Don’t block abortion rights. It would be difficult to spin this as government control since we are merely not obstructing what the other side wants.

For instance, the conservatives in Mississippi have made it almost impossible to get an abortion. There are only a few doctors in the whole state who can perform the procedure because of the onerous regulations the legislature has established. The result = Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country. Many of these offspring and their mothers will end up on welfare rolls. Why not merely stand aside and stop blocking a solution? In this case, conservatives are exacerbating the problem because of ideology rather than pragmatism.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
STF

I have already agreed that we should just step aside and stop that argument. As far as abortions go, right or wrong we are never going to see the day that is reversed and people are going to do what they want anyway. If you reread, you'll see I stated maybe we should not fight those issues, but not really push them either. If you can't understand how that could be twisted as the GOP having an ulterior motive for suddenly supporting it, then maybe one day you'll figure it out.

As far as Mississippi goes, what a shame. There is apparently no other alternative that can be used to reach those kids. Nobody can or does teach them right from wrong. Your Planned Parenthood and free contraceptives don't seem to be working there. So, the only alternative that would save them from using their body parts too early is abortion? Well, abort away I guess. That is where we are as a society when there is no other way to impart responsibility.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
"How do you think the left

"How do you think the left would paint conservatives for espousing those policies? Conservatives would have a nefarious goal. Do you see that slippery slope? Maybe conservatives should embrace them, but not discuss them out loud?"

No one is saying MAKE them do planned parenthood. But MAKE them understand we will pay for no more children than they have when they enter the program. The choice/responsibilty is theirs. Knock themselves out, have a million. But they, and they alone, will pay for them.

I do without things everyday that I can't afford. I love children, but one was all I could afford. To have more would be selfish and irresponsible to the one I had already. As you say, there are a million ways out there to control the number of kids you have, so the idead of just having them..won't cut it.

If the taxpayers, like myself, have to be responsible...why not them too?

I sincerly believe there is too much gov aid. That is what churches and charities are for. Why are we a welfare state? I have long since left the road of being 'politically correct', I don't care. Maybe others should join me. We are forgetting we make our on politics, rules and regulations. We are just being led around by the liberals. Maybe the rest of you haven't seen up close and personal what we are supporting, I have and it stinks!

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Here is the problem SF

Stranger was trying to look outside the box for ideas conservatives could push to help with the problem. My point was that the very same issue the liberals push would be redefined as victimization and intimidation by the left if we tried to push it as well. They are masters at that and it sells so easily.

The other problem is when you say the choice/responsibility should be theirs for additional children. It is now and that doesn't matter. The left would never accept strict controls like that and that is why this whole entitlement reform business is really a non-starter. People and unions don't easily give up things already given. The state of the nation be damned.....

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
History is a great teacher..if you acknowledge it.

History has shown us over and over and over that as a Social Program becomes the way of life for certain socio-economic groups then the perceived social benefits that were initially intended actually morph into perceived ownership of the program itself by those same socio-economic group it was designed to assist.

Once they claim ownership of said program it becomes, in their perception, a "Right".

The answer is NOT "more" programs or embracing the ideology from which these programs where spawned.

Taking the problem down to the micro level... Human nature is no different then the reasoning that there are signs "Don't Feed the Bears". Animals become used to finding food easily. They start associating humans with food and before long they turn on the very humans feeding them and in extreme cases they can lose the ability to actually feed themselves.

Punching it back up to the macro level..Children who are allowed to do nothing...live free..and not forced to work tend to never leave home and come back time after time after time after failures in life.

Government entitlements is not only equivalent to "Feeding the Bears" it is also a barrier, albeit a thin one, to insulate one from failure. You never want to go out and risk failure if you are always allowed to safely live in your own World.

Failure is what makes us better.. in every-way. We learn. We learn we don't like it and take steps to insure it doesn't continue. When Government or "do-gooder" feel good programs cushions that fall from failure or even prevents it you take away the learning curve that makes us better people.

Without the incentive failure gives us.. you get tamed humans that can't feed themselves and have no choice but to stand in-line for handouts.

So "embracing" all of the failed programs like planned parenthood, free contraceptives et..al.. this only encourage the very behavior the program designers where trying to correct. More free stuff does not guarantee results.. it only guarantees dependency.

I will give you an example.. What was the stated original purpose of "Planned Parenthood"..? To educate young women about the results of sex without contraception to prevent Pregnancy.

Has it worked?

After 30 years of PPH abortions rates are still at an all time high..so again did it work?

When you offer Abortion on demand there is no threat of failure...and... when it is offered for FREE you cushion that fall or pain that failure creates.
Thus there is no incentive to change ones behavior.
So the original intent has morphed into ownership by the very socio-economic group it was intended to assist and now it is a "Right".

This is what you want us to embrace...really?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
S. Lindsey & Failure

No Steve, failure doesn't make ALL of us better, it only makes SOME of us better. There will always be a percentage who will continue down the road to stupid decisions and actions, resulting in repeated failure. Hey, it's human nature--can't escape it! Nice thought though. BTW, how did that pistol challenge thingy work out?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Placed 2nd in the Glock Challenge...

Had a misfire and lost 3 seconds.. Beat by just 1.8 seconds... Next year that 1st place Trophy will be mine.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SL: Well said

Best blog I have ever seen from you and well done, sir.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Thanks..Nuk.. Not just a pretty face 8-0

I can think from time to time. But then again this subject you and I already know about..

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
DON'T FEED THE BEARS!

You said it all so well. I agree with everything you have said on the topic. But I do feel enough is enough. There is just so much money. If someone gets Fed handouts and uses them for a leg up, the program worked. If someone is given a certain lenght of time and sat on their butt, had more kids, and still doesn't know what to do....well we need to recognize them for what they are. A failure. Not the countries, their own. I say boot them off and go on to the next person who might take the opportunity and do something with it. If someone is drowning and you never give up trying to save them as they pull you both down...well, you are both gonna drown. It isn't complicated. Some people you are never going to change. Some people shouldn't be helped. Some belong in the gutter, they like it there. That is fine, but don't pay for it. Move on when you see a mistake....next

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Meany, Sugarfoot, and Mr. Lindsey - Thank you

Meany, Sugarfoot, and Mr. Lindsey – Thank you all for your reasoned responses on this blog and attempts to understand and grapple with these very difficult issues.

I certainly don’t have all the answers to these problems, and I am very open to conservative approaches to their solutions. I still resonate to any contraceptive program that prevents unwanted births to people who cannot afford to care for their children. Whether we use the existing mechanisms or new ones, the ounce of prevention is a wise course of action.

Cutting off additional federal and state money for additional children seems reasonable; however, I fear that the decision to have unprotected sex and the consequences of this action are not proximate enough to establish a cause/effect relationship in irresponsible people. That doesn’t mean that it is a bad suggestion, just that it may not stop the action. Remember, we are talking about irresponsible people. The additional children will bear the brunt of this consequence. Perhaps that is merely the natural consequence of being unlucky in being born to this population.

I would like to see some conservative-designed welfare reform program that might find a way for time limited monetary assistance to be followed with some kind of limited money contingent on the person getting and keeping a job (even a modest one). Then the supplemental payments could be withdrawn after employment attitudes and actions had been established. This would have to be incentivized by practical experience of employers who understand the mindset of this group of people instead of a government bureaucrat.

I also would like to see laid off middle class workers who have a history of positive employment and fiscal responsibility to be hired to mentor irresponsible people who are on the verge of being kicked off of welfare benefits. Seemingly simple actions like showing up to work on time need to be modeled and encouraged if this population is to be effectively employed.

These are merely a few ideas that may not even work. But I truly want conservative strategists to be at the table when ideas are being batted around.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Stranger, what about the changes to TANF????
Quote:

"I would like to see some conservative-designed welfare reform program that might find a way for time limited monetary assistance to be followed with some kind of limited money contingent on the person getting and keeping a job (even a modest one)."

Maybe you need to send that memo to Barry and his band of fools. Ask him why he thought it was a good idea to remove the federal work standards for welfare. Back to the days of hula dancing and attending Weight Watchers qualifying as "work". Oh yeah, bed rest qualifies now too apparently. Bye-bye welfare reform......

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
I hope it is not this hapless.

From the responses, it appears that none of us have solutions that the others believe have a chance of success. That’s disappointing because the numbers of the aforementioned population are rising while the higher socio-economic class is actually declining. We found a way to go to the moon and now Mars. Surely some reasonable people can generate some workable ideas instead of merely commiserating about our hapless fate.

And Meany about the TANF. The conservative governors have long asked for freedom to craft their welfare programs to the needs of their states. They (reasonably) disliked being forced to adhere to national standards. Obama’s gesture to suspend some federal control of the program and cede it to the states was actually a very positive opportunity for the conservatives. I can’t understand why he was vilified for this, since he was actually complying more with the wishes of conservatives than liberals. I prefer the most local control of any government regulations over what might emanate from Washington. This is not a blanket endorsement of the President, merely recounting one time that he might have gotten it right.

pandora
pandora's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/16/2005
Is it possible . . .

That this crappy economy means there are fewer jobs to be had, so people who were formerly employed find themselves without the means to provide for their families now need some type of assistance? And this applies to former, productive members of the middle class, some of whom are even white?

Or the increasing number of returning veterans with PTSD who can't hold a job without some type of ongoing assistance or care (look up the percentage of homeless people who are veterans of the military the right so loudly claims to support).

Or that the onset of retiring baby boomers is ballooning the numbers of those getting social security and medicare (the government programs TEA partiers are so fond of ignoring) -- and as someone who isn't a baby boomer but has paid into the SS system for 30 years and doesn't expect to ever see a return on that particular pyramid scheme catastrophe that is looming, I consider it a government handout.

Is this everyone receiving government assistance? No. But it is a contributing factor to the increasing numbers. I think the point of the column is that the name-calling (and blaming of Obama exclusively) don't help. In fact, they are in many ways as hypocritical as the screaming to stop abortion, while limiting birth control and failing to teach sex ec, but not giving a rat's behind about the life saved once it is born).

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
It... is... possible

the system needs to be reformed. I have told on here that Section 8 big wigs stated the only thing they check before giving a Section 8 housing voucher paid for with our tax dollars is. 1. Income 2. if they are a pedofile 3. if they have ever been convicted of METH (I presume only because the rental house will have to be torn down if they cook METH in it). Any and all other crimes are good to go. This is just plain wrong!!!! I don't want my tax money going to house something that is a criminal.

Has it ever occured to you that ..if... the system was reformed...the ones like you mentioned above ...could...be helped? As it is, there is just so much money and the 'lifers' are swilling it. The waiting list for Section 8 is about 3 years in most places.

I know what I'm talking about, I've taken over the managment of an elderly person's rental property who got sucked into renting from Section8 because the person is 90 and was told Section 8 did a background check and stood good for the rent. What I found was horrible abuse of the landlord. I have seen/talked to these Section 8 voucher holders. I know what I'm talking about. About 75% are more shouldn't be own it, and that is a conservative estimate. Once it was about helping the disabled and old. It can't even reach those people cause the 'lifers' that like to 'spawn' won't get off. They are much more damaging to the system than the old people on SS as they have a shorter life span by the time they start drawing SS. The 'lifer' HUDers can draw off the system from their 20s to their 70s!!! They need to work like everyone else that are paying for them.

pandora
pandora's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/16/2005
Suggarfoot

I certainly don't intend to dispute your first-hand experience, and reform or overhauls are fine -- any government run system requires close supervision. I'm just tired of the hypocritical criticism of programs based exclusively on hearsay and then translating that to everyone who receives some kind of government aid.

The problem with closer screening/scrutiny is that it also costs money for more employees to do those screenings/checks/verifications -- possibly more than paying those who slip through (because we know how our government tends to operate). Theoretically, no able-bodied adult should be able to receive any type of long-term aid unless they have children they must care for. Most of the aid is currently set up as temporary, and I know more people in need of temporary aid these days due to the economy, they qualify, most don't want to use that option, and if they decide to pursue it because they have dependents, it is very difficult to obtain.

Use of a program does not always equal abuse of that program, and many folks conveniently overlook the safety nets they personally use.

I don't think any individual American supports 100% of the uses of taxes they pay, and they never will. But completely doing away with some of those programs and safety nets isn't realistic, either.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
as of now the 'lifers' own the saftey net

What is so sad is that there is no time limit on Section 8. That takes away the saftey net for the ones who really need it. They can't get on. The ones that got there 1st aren't giving it up. What I have seen 1st hand is able bodied people leaching off the system. I have seen others who really need to get on and can't. It disgust me when I walk in these places and you can smell pot. Grown able bodied men who are ...NOT.. on the lease sitting around in front of the big screen plazma tvs. You can say they live there as you always see their big fancy cars there, morning, noon, and night, but PROVING it in a court of law is another thing. SECTION 8 doesn't stand behind you. Far from it, they are just happy their job is done, one less hassel to deal with. Case closed.

The system needs to be reformed. It needs to have 1. a time limit 2. help the mentaly disabled 3. Have strict guidlines on who they give a voucher to!!!! Such as no criminals! If the same criminals are found there morning, noon, and night, and not on the lease, a way to throw off the person getting the voucher. There are some scary people living in some of our homes. Nice homes, in what was a nice neighborhood. It is so unfair. 4. Put the fear of God in some of the gov workers and politicans that make the abuse possible. Make them understand(gov employees) that in this climate, there are a lot of people walking the street that could do their job as well, and probably better, if they don't enforce the rules. Make the politicans understand they won't get re elected if they don't hear the taxpayers and do their biding!

pandora
pandora's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/16/2005
edits:

sex ed.

And the "white" comment was sarcasm directed at the increasingly accurate portrayal of the Republican Party as rich, racist, white men lashing out at a President of color.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MOC & Entrenchment

Maybe, let's see how loud they scream when Congress looks to reduce size/scope of the food stamp program next week!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
meany

so well said.

common tater
common tater's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2009
ghetto?

Ms. Miller - have you ever been to the ghetto? I'm not sure I would qualify Concord Village apartments or the Wynnmeade neighborhood ghettos. Head on over southwest Atlanta for some clarification. I'm glad I live where I do but if push came to shove and my circumstances changed I'd do just fine living right of the golf cart path, near the cozy Braelinn shopping center, in my little piece of the ghetto.