One young person's idea of welfare reform

[PtldPlatypus]

(Allegedly) Written by a 21-year-old female:

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

So, what parts of this do you have issue with, and what do you agree with?

 

[bluefrog]

Many of her ideas are unoriginal and she's ignoring the 10 million working poor in this country.

The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Some southern states tried this (eugenics), it wasn't a proud time in our nations history. Drug testing welfare recipients hasn't proven it's value, unless she's arguing we should do it on principle alone.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

How does she expect to pay for the bureaucracy to organize this? How is it going to be enforced?

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

This unconstitutional and bad idea. If there's a conflict of interest why not ban politicians from voting? or anyone who works for the government? Or has a government contract?

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

I actually agree with this one. It should be more like WIC and restrict what can be purchased with snap cards.

 

[jlprk]

(Allegedly) Written by a 21-year-old female:

How many viral e-mails were allegedly written by soldiers, criticizing critics of the Iraq war? They turned out to be written by wise guy domestic conservatives.

 

[speeds]

Have your room inspected, no voting, no choice in food, menial work... if she wants to send poor people to prison so bad why not just make it illegal to be poor?

 

[Denny Crane]

There's merit to a lot of it, but not necessarily in how to implement it.

Does anyone have an issue with those being able to work actually working for a living?

Does anyone have an issue with govt. housing being kept in really good shape? The shape it's in now is terrible.

You can't take away anyone's right to vote.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I love it!

 

[jlprk]

Does anyone have an issue with those being able to work actually working for a living?

Including rich people?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Obviously on the extreme side, but the underlying idea sounds good in theory . . . the writers extreme version wouldn't play out well.

 

[Denny Crane]

Including rich people?

If they need to, sure.

 

[julius]

the idea of reform for welfare is good (and not original) but this is obviously written by someone who just wanted to spin or further the belief that most of the people on welfare are lazy, drug users and waste money on needless things.

Reagan did it with the "welfare queens" code word, and this is no different. It's an extreme version of what should be done, to rile up people to distract us from important things.

There is a ton of government waste (see: military), but instead of dealing with actual logical change, we pay attention to easy talking points that actually don't make a dent. The # of people on welfare who actually abuse the system is probably less significant than the amount of air time it gets.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think Lennay makes some good points here. While I agree with the basic premise of the idea's, some of them are a tad extreme (literally just a tad)

 

[maxiep]

If those ideas were implemented, I think we'd be surprised by how many people quickly found jobs or decided that the social safety net was just too much of a hassle to stay in.

 

[Denny Crane]

the idea of reform for welfare is good (and not original) but this is obviously written by someone who just wanted to spin or further the belief that most of the people on welfare are lazy, drug users and waste money on needless things.

Reagan did it with the "welfare queens" code word, and this is no different. It's an extreme version of what should be done, to rile up people to distract us from important things.

There is a ton of government waste (see: military), but instead of dealing with actual logical change, we pay attention to easy talking points that actually don't make a dent. The # of people on welfare who actually abuse the system is probably less significant than the amount of air time it gets.

There was no mention of waste.

The proposals were severe, but the concepts are to make the programs work better.

 

[MARIS61]

Clearly recognizable (and male) writing style identical to the myriad of chain emails I get purporting to be Bill Cosby or some other celebrity. They always fail the Snopes test.

 

[MARIS61]

Including rich people?

You're overlooking the enormous cost to the taxpayer for the rudimentary skills training and psychological counseling it would take to convert rich people into productive members of society.

Cheaper to round them up and house them in FEMA camps.

 

[julius]

There was no mention of waste.

The proposals were severe, but the concepts are to make the programs work better.

implying that people are buying xbox's, 22 inch rims and flat screen TV's while on welfare is basically the epitome of waste (or fraud).

btw, did anyone else notice the bit about medicaid? Is it even something that is offered to people young enough to have children? Or if it is offered to them, is it offered in high enough #s to warrant that response?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

All poor people should be turned into food to feed rich people's pets.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Clearly recognizable (and male) writing style identical to the myriad of chain emails I get purporting to be Bill Cosby or some other celebrity. They always fail the Snopes test.

Reading around the internet, it was apparently written by a man named Alfred W. Evans as a letter to the editor of the Waco Tribune. You have to be a subscriber to see the original, though.

 

[bluefrog]

Reading around the internet, it was apparently written by a man named Alfred W. Evans as a letter to the editor of the Waco Tribune. You have to be a subscriber to see the original, though.

That's some solid detective work there, Mr. Jones

 

[DaLincolnJones]

implying that people are buying xbox's, 22 inch rims and flat screen TV's while on welfare is basically the epitome of waste (or fraud).

btw, did anyone else notice the bit about medicaid? Is it even something that is offered to people young enough to have children? Or if it is offered to them, is it offered in high enough #s to warrant that response?

yeah it is available to children till age 18. It must be applied for ona yearly basis in many states

 

[Denny Crane]

implying that people are buying xbox's, 22 inch rims and flat screen TV's while on welfare is basically the epitome of waste (or fraud).

btw, did anyone else notice the bit about medicaid? Is it even something that is offered to people young enough to have children? Or if it is offered to them, is it offered in high enough #s to warrant that response?

They're not talking about waste still. It's incentive. No incentive to go get a job if you get xbox's, 22 inch rims, etc., from your govt. check for doing nothing. It's not exactly fraud, either.

There are MANY govt. programs that are rife with disincentives where there should be incentives.

For example, I met a woman the other day who is raising kids on her own. She said she could use a little bit of subsidy help to get by, but the government told her she had to quit her job to qualify for welfare. That's not waste. It's governmentasusualstupidityasusual.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

They're not talking about waste still. It's incentive. No incentive to go get a job if you get xbox's, 22 inch rims, etc., from your govt. check for doing nothing. It's not exactly fraud, either.

There are MANY govt. programs that are rife with disincentives where there should be incentives.

For example, I met a woman the other day who is raising kids on her own. She said she could use a little bit of subsidy help to get by, but the government told her she had to quit her job to qualify for welfare. That's not waste. It's governmentasusualstupidityasusual.

So the answer to her is fuck your need for a little bit of subsidy . . . unless you want to eat beans and rice, be subject gov't inspection of your home at anytime, oh and you can't vote.

I love the no voting idea. Let's put rich people in poistions of power and not let the less fortunate vote who gets to be in control.

Go Money!

 

[DaLincolnJones]

That's some solid detective work there, Mr. Jones

thank you, anything is possiable with the ninnynet

 

[Denny Crane]

So the answer to her is fuck your need for a little bit of subsidy . . . unless you want to eat beans and rice, be subject gov't inspection of your home at anytime, oh and you can't vote.

I love the no voting idea. Let's put rich people in poistions of power and not let the less fortunate vote who gets to be in control.

Go Money!

The answer to her is to give her the subsidy so maybe she can have some upward mobility.

(upward mobility is an economics term if you care to read about it)

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So the answer to her is fuck your need for a little bit of subsidy . . . unless you want to eat beans and rice, be subject gov't inspection of your home at anytime, oh and you can't vote.

I love the no voting idea. Let's put rich people in poistions of power and not let the less fortunate vote who gets to be in control.

Go Money!

The rich people already have all the power. Denying welfare recipients the privilege of voting wouldn't change that.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

So the answer to her is fuck your need for a little bit of subsidy . . . unless you want to eat beans and rice, be subject gov't inspection of your home at anytime, oh and you can't vote.

I love the no voting idea. Let's put rich people in poistions of power and not let the less fortunate vote who gets to be in control.

Go Money!

while the OPs ideas may not be practical to implement, I have to agree with the intent, that is to give peoplea reason to get off what should be temporary aid.

and the other thing..ToB, you seem to be less than happy by not allowing those to vote..hmm theother exterme was made blatently available when a standing president took your tax dollars and provuided free cell phones in a move that guaranted him more votes..

 

[PtldPlatypus]

while the OPs ideas may not be practical to implement, I have to agree with the intent, that is to give peoplea reason to get off what should be temporary aid.

I don't even see that as the main intent, as much as to have people live within their means. The writer pointed out what they perceived as a lot of frivolous spending by recipients of government assistance. The three aspects of the treatise were food, shelter, and health care, with the upshot being that if you cannot afford these basic needs, and you need the government to provide one or more for you, you shouldn't be spending your available resources on other things that are higher up on Maslow's pyramid. I don't see that as unreasonable.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I don't even see that as the main intent, as much as to have people live within their means. The writer pointed out what they perceived as a lot of frivolous spending by recipients of government assistance. The three aspects of the treatise were food, shelter, and health care, with the upshot being that if you cannot afford these basic needs, and you need the government to provide one or more for you, you shouldn't be spending your available resources on other things that are higher up on Maslow's pyramid. I don't see that as unreasonable.

strong point

the government aid machine has become an industry unto itself, not only do any changes have to make it past those who recieve benifits, but those that provide them as well..

This makes it tough to change anything..hence the reason for generational rcipient lifestyles that raise the ire of the working class.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Nobody likes deadbeats and people who siphon off of other people's hard work, but the proposals outlined in the OP leads to a society I want to no part of (minus the food stamp food restrictions).

 

[magnifier661]

(Allegedly) Written by a 21-year-old female:

So, what parts of this do you have issue with, and what do you agree with?

I like the option of people on welfare lose their privilege to vote. You must pay taxes in order to vote. I like that!

The housing is a bit extreme. I don't see that being as big of an issue as those that procreate to get more money. I think there should be a cap for the amount of "kids" you can receive help from. You can still have more kids, but you must pay for them yourself.

I definitely agree on drug testing!

The Lone Star cards are fine because there is a paper trail on purchases and such. If there is a big issue, the government can track purchases and identify fraud.