There was workfare for able-bodied welfare recipients in the 1990s. However the workfare program was discontinued. It is time to reinstitute the workfare program for all able-bodied welfare recipients who live off taxpayers. If there was a workfare program, welfare recipients would become more self-sufficient & responsible. Also, there should be mandatory birth control for welfare recipients so they don't have children who will be on the government's dime. Your thoughts?
I created my own self government among our own green self financial solutions tiny house community. Governments today take a third or half your money and tell you what work you can do and what you must live on their grid system of life of Never ending troubles. Freedom and choices in life is far too important for me to brown nose up to slavery. There is a homeless tiny house community in Oregon called dignity village. Totally run by homeless people creating their own employment and way of happy living for the pass 20 years. A great model for every tent city within every major city in a America.
I don't have any problems with implementing work programs for welfare recipients. However, I think many people misinterpret welfare programs. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton implemented programs that got many lifetime welfare recipients off welfare. At that time most states had a two-year limit on drawing welfare. I knew one woman who lived in Illinois. When her welfare ran out, she moved to Arkansas for the two year limit. When she moved back to Illinois to try to draw again, she was refused. All this time she had a working boyfriend and two children by him. She then had no choice but to marry him because child support services got on to her little game and went after him for child support. This happens in a lot of cases. Many states also have lifetime limits of anywhere from 24 months (Arkansas) to 60 months. There is a lot of misunderstanding as to how welfare actually works.
I think studies prove that the work program for welfare program really works because even in many states with longer lifetime limits, it was found that a great percentage of welfare recipients went off the welfare system into permanent jobs and careers within two years anyway.
I think perhaps y'all should be looking at what is happening to these people who are voluntarily quitting their jobs for personal reasons like they don't like the work or don't like the company, etc. Most states won't pay unemployment for voluntary quitting, so how are these people living? Some, of course, have savings to fall back on, but it's a mystery to me how John Doe citizen can just quit his or her job and sit at home. How many of them are showing up in welfare offices hoping to draw welfare because they have children to support? And how many states are awarding them SNAP, WIC, and other services just because they are soft on the children?
Do you think their children should be removed from these homes if these quitters can't feed, house and educate them properly. Perhaps this should be your next question for the forum, Grace.
I know the program works for some people.
I sold my business to a woman who was on a welfare to work program. She was tired of living for government money. She worked for me for three years and was the best worker. I learned how people in her neighborhood and her family had been taking welfare for years. They knew the system and how to get the most out of it.
She wanted something more or herself and her child. She studied business at night because her goal was to own a business. When I told her I was leaving LA and would consider selling her my business, she was so happy.
We worked out the financing and she became a proud business owner. She has since taken the business in directions and done things I would have never thought of doing. It has grown quite a bit.
She was a very impressive individual who needed to learn about the world away from government benefits.
I really believe there are others like her who need a chance to see they can do much better for themselves away from government benefits. The welfare to work program could be the key.
Sterilization. Remove children from parents. The worst part of that is that I think you folks are serious.
I do agree that safety-net programs should be tied to some sort of recipient effort. I think that would be more beneficial for personal growth than just giving away money. But the idea of sterilization and/or forcibly removing children is too much for me.
I kind of agree with you GA. In my job as a legal editor, I was talking with a fellow coworker several years ago, a lawyer who could be considered a Constitutional scholar. He made the statement (that surprised me and will surprise a lot of other people) that under the U.S. Constitution, everyone has the right to have children, but to earn them a living is not a right but a privilege. I was shocked. You mean nobody has the actual right to a job to put a roof over their families or food on the table?" I asked him. His answer was "yes, technically it is only a privilege under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause" not a right." So when people claim that everybody has the right to work in this country, apparently that is not true So, I guess there are circumstances when we must take care of families who are not able to have the privilege of earning a living for their children. I guess they can blame it on their forefathers who wrote the Constitution.
Your lawyer friend almost certainly knows more about this than me, and I agree that it contains no right to have a job. As it should be by my thinking. I am curious about his interpretation that we do have a Right to have children.
Responsibilities and Rights are two different things.
There will always be freeloaders on welfare programs. However, the number is a tiny percentage of those in need. Governments in the west can afford welfare, it shouldn't be tied to work programs. It's much more important to offer advice and help.
And yet half the people in the US, some 175 million people, get welfare of one kind or another.
It is not possible that every other person we see is in need of help; that every other person is mentally or physically disabled to the point they cannot provide their own support.
As far as governments being rich, what you are actually saying is that the people of the west, individuals, are rich enough to provide support for not only themselves but another person as well.
Indeed, governments are only as wealthy as the sum total of the efforts of the citizens. I don't think that this changes my point. Many (most) welfare recipients have paid for their welfare through taxes.
Wilderness, I assume that the 175 million includes the elderly. I'm not a US resident so I may well be wrong.
What do you mean by "welfare", Wilderness?
Does that half of the country include Social Security and those federal and military pensions, are you not receiving social security?
A gross exaggeration, 175 million, to say the least.
WIC. Section 8 housing. Medicaid. Free school lunches. SNAP. The $5,000 "rebate" (although no taxes need have been paid) for having kids. TANF. LIHEAP. Childcare assistance. As you know there are literally dozens if not hundreds of programs to give money/goods/services to the "poor". And yes, over half the country gets them in one form or another. Half our country is deemed incapable of supporting themselves and their children. A truly sad statistic if true...but it is not.
SS and pensions were paid for by the recipient, either outright or in the form of wages. Same for unemployment insurance and for Workman's Comp. They are thus not welfare.
Perhaps the 175 million people is an exaggeration, perhaps not. More correctly it would be half the households, but children also get it through their parents and parents get it because of their children. So I'll stand by the 175 million (half the country) while recognizing it may not go to children but to their parents.
As a Brit, I can't help noticing that you are including things under 'welfare' that are considered entitlements in most European countries. It might be that we have different definitions of 'welfare'.
Welcome aboard, Stephen, your input is appreciated and yes, America is behind in concepts that Europe takes for granted.
Yes, we have very different definitions of welfare. Most of Europe is considerably further down the socialism, or Marxism if you prefer, road that the US is.
Hi, wilderness. I sometimes think that, in the west, there are two belief systems. People of good faith, sincere believers in their political philosophy, simply can't communicate with the other camp. It's a shame, we can learn from each other. This division does not bode well...
I understand, Wilderness. But I was associating "welfare" with the government subsiding the entire means of living for an individual and family. And, yes, there are numerous programs.
Here a few examples of "welfare" enjoyed by the rich and affluent, what do we do about that?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-exam … _b_4589188
Most of what is listed here is a tax break for doing something the govt. (whether city, state or federal) wants done. As such it is a quid-pro-quo; an activity for which the company is "paid" via a tax break.
There is no quid-pro-quo for someone getting free (or nearly free) housing. No return from people getting free food. Those getting the tax "rebate" (that they never paid in the first place) gives nothing in return.
Some are just a silly argument that paying for individuals food stamps or other freebie is actually welfare for the company. A spin without reality.
Some, such as corporate bailouts, I disagreed with when it happened, but am honest enough to agree that in my ignorance a lack of bailout might have caused enormous damage to the country. Failing to provide WIC to a family will not cause enormous damage to the country.
Bottom line is that none of those things are "welfare for corporations" in that a return was expected except for the direct bailouts. Bailouts that probably should not have happened.
So, what was the return? I did not see anything about an obligation to reciprocate. I see no difference.
Who says that is more valuable than child care subsidies? An impoverished citizenry cannot be something the Government ignores to just to fill corporate coffers.
What did these behemoths promise the state's taxpayers in return for the subsidy?
The government wants "what" done and why?
Another article for you to peruse, if you have the time, indicating just much of this subsidy on behalf of corporations is just more wasted money, just like the military white elephant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/h … .html?_r=0
What was the return for what? The agreement to reduce taxes to build in a specific city?
Show that the country benefits from child care subsidies. Not an individual, or 10,000 individuals, but the country. Did we get a new highway? A new dam? A new jet fighter for the air force?
You would have to tell me what those behemoths promised. Your link made no mention of details - just that it was "corporate welfare" without any mention of why it was made.
Again, you would have to tell me. Pick a specific (non bailout) subsidy, research it and tell me the details. I might mention a couple that might qualify; govt. feels we need better solar panels and subsidizes research to discover how to make them. Or it feels we need a COVID vaccine and subsidizes the research to find one. These are the types of things commonly reported as "corporate welfare" but neglect to mention what was purchased with that "welfare".
Your link was behind a paywall. But let me say that in general I am very much against tax incentives to do something the govt. wants done. Let them cut a check to the company so all can see just how much we paid for what we got.
Thanks, Credence 2. I don't think it's a question of being behind. It's another view of society. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Don't let me get started - I could go on for hours. Perhaps the subject of a hub?
Yes, let us know when you have an article available.
The "other view" is a hypocritical one. The affluent part of society believe in capitalist profits and socializing losses. The idea of rugged individualism is the stuff of American folklore, where most of the greatest wealth held is dynastic in nature.
The reality that the ability to move between social and economic class is now more difficult than ever.
I tend to agree. No, better said - I entirely agree. This is not just an American problem. Cracks are beginning to appear all over the place.
Cracks, in the form of unanticipated problems, are indeed happening everywhere. In America, in Europe, in Communist countries - everywhere. The US is not alone in having problems with their societal systems.
Credence2, I am very new to this platform. I see that you have an interesting list of posts so I'll try to work my way through them. I, at the moment, have precisely 1.
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
One of the favorite claims by the Right-wing is that once a citizen receives welfare, they are wedded to it for life. Now I know (hope) that is just so much hyperbole but the point they are making is that once welfare is given, it is a long-term affair.Can any of you who believe that PROVE...
by Don W 2 years ago
I'm seeing lots of comments that seem to imply most recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as the food stamp process, are lazy, lack "responsibility" and are content to live off the government. As is often the case, available facts do not...
by cooldad 11 years ago
I ask this with total sincerety. I firmly believe that certain people in our society should not be allowed to breed. When a man molests a child or rapes someone, they should be castrated. When a mother abuses or kills her child, she should have her tubes tied. I think the...
by IDONO 10 years ago
Who is more likely to vote? Unemployment or welfare recipients?Even though the number of people is far larger of welfare recipients, ( in some form ) I,m guessing more unemployment people will vote. I'm talking numbers, not %. I believe economic issues are very important to unemployment people...
by Deforest 8 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … 9243932001Austerity measures against the people but in favor with big corporations. Cuts to the people and no tax for the corporations. What's next?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
implemented and/or enforced? Much of our hard-working tax dollars are going to able-bodied people who CAN work but DON'T wish to do so? In many cities able bodies welfare recipients are enrolled into programs where they must work in order to receive their welfare check. Many of...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|