One young person's idea of welfare reform

[donkiez]

Another option would be to have a minimum wage that can actually support a person or family in today's society while keeping welfare benefits the same. That would make welfare much less enticing.

 

[maxiep]

Another option would be to have a minimum wage that can actually support a person or family in today's society while keeping welfare benefits the same. That would make welfare much less enticing.

Good luck ever finding one of those jobs. They would disappear in a heartbeat.

 

[maxiep]

The issue is one of incentives. I don't think anyone on this board is against the social safety net. However, it should be a hardscrabble lifestyle; it should provide the necessities and nothing more. People should have to work for it, if they're able. It should not just be a check written, but also showing them how to pull themselves out of their condition. If they are illiterate, they should be taught to read. If they don't know how to use a computer, balance a checkbook, nutrition, etc. Teaching people basic life skills is sometimes necessary.

What also goes unspoken is that there is an apparatus in government that wants to keep these massive levels of food stamps, welfare, etc. It means continued employment for bureaucrats and a continued power base for Democrats.

It's time to have higher expectations for the poor. Our current system is the very definition of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". I believe those on public assistance are capable of so much more. Furthermore, earning something rather than having it given to you makes you appreciate it more, and helps with your self-esteem. It ends up being a positive feedback loop.

This prescription is nothing more than tough love. Yeah, it's tough, but it's also love.

 

[Nikolokolus]

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.

Spoken like a true plutocrat. And it's not a "privilege" it's a right.

 

[julius]

Spoken like a true plutocrat. And it's not a "privilege" it's a right.

did you just say that mags is as fat as the planet pluto, or that he's a dummy like the disney character pluto?

 

[julius]

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

I'm not so sure this is such a good idea, because it reeks of the "land owning white guys" voting rules of the early part of the country. Plus, does that mean someone who is going to college, and not working, shouldn't vote?

We've tried the "rich/working only" voting, and thank god we don't do that anymore. Plus, I really doubt many of the people who are on welfare/dirt ass poor, vote anyways. Almost half the country doesn't as a whole.

I definitely agree on drug testing!

I do too, but I think it's not nearly as big of a problem as straw-men make it out to be.

 

[magnifier661]

Spoken like a true plutocrat. And it's not a "privilege" it's a right.

And that "right" can be taken away if you get a felony. Obviously, that right can be taken away.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not so sure this is such a good idea, because it reeks of the "land owning white guys" voting rules of the early part of the country. Plus, does that mean someone who is going to college, and not working, shouldn't vote?

We've tried the "rich/working only" voting, and thank god we don't do that anymore. Plus, I really doubt many of the people who are on welfare/dirt ass poor, vote anyways. Almost half the country doesn't as a whole.

Shit I didn't think of it that way. You have a damn good point.

I do too, but I think it's not nearly as big of a problem as straw-men make it out to be.

I don't either, but like certain jobs; you can have random drug testing. I think anyone with a drug addiction problem shouldn't have free government money. Maybe process them like those that are positive for good jobs. First warning, you go through a AAA program and have even more random tests. Second warning, x amounts of months suspension of help; with the option to transfer into a drug treatment program housing.

 

[julius]

And that "right" can be taken away if you get a felony. Obviously, that right can be taken away.

So Felonies are the same as either not paying taxes (due to not having a job or making enough $)?

btw, income tax isn't the only tax people pay the government.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

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..

Well the vote thing is a constitutional right (as been pointed out) so taking away someones right to vote is like saying you can't own a gun if you don't work.

If a president strategy is to garnish the votes of the less fortunate, i would tell them to check the stats on who actually votes and to change strategy. But yes, if the country gets to such a state where a free cell phone will change the outcome of an election . . . well that country probably needs a Democrat in office. What's the other alternative, revolution?

 

[magnifier661]

So Felonies are the same as either not paying taxes (due to not having a job or making enough $)?

btw, income tax isn't the only tax people pay the government.

No I am saying that "The Right" can be taken away from you. Nik was speaking as it couldn't be taken away. Obviously it can

 

[julius]

Shit I didn't think of it that way. You have a damn good point.

Well, a broken clock is correct twice a day when it's looking for a blind squirrels nuts. Or something.

I don't either, but like certain jobs; you can have random drug testing. I think anyone with a drug addiction problem shouldn't have free government money. Maybe process them like those that are positive for good jobs. First warning, you go through a AAA program and have even more random tests. Second warning, x amounts of months suspension of help; with the option to transfer into a drug treatment program housing.

I think people should drug testing for all jobs, but that's just because I think that way. The problem is, cost. It probably costs more in drug tests than it does in what they'd be saving (of course, I freely admit that might just be a talking point i remember from months ago..you know, one of those facebook/twitter memes)

 

[magnifier661]

Well the vote thing is a constitutional right (as been pointed out) so taking away someones right to vote is like saying you can't own a gun if you don't work.

If a president strategy is to garnish the votes of the less fortunate, i would tell them to check the stats on who actually votes and to change strategy. But yes, if the country gets to such a state where a free cell phone will change the outcome of an election . . . well that country probably needs a Democrat in office. What's the other alternative, revolution?

But make it clear that this "right" can be taken away from you. And the right to own a firearm.

 

[julius]

No I am saying that "The Right" can be taken away from you. Nik was speaking as it couldn't be taken away. Obviously it can

I see. I personally don't see how why a felony takes away that right, but i'm not about to argue in favor of getting rid of that clause.

 

[magnifier661]

I see. I personally don't see how why a felony takes away that right, but i'm not about to argue in favor of getting rid of that clause.

Or the right to bare arms. Both are taken away when you are a convicted felon.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

But make it clear that this "right" can be taken away from you. And the right to own a firearm.

When talking constitutional rights, one would hope it would take more than being unemployed to have that right taken away from you. Pretty harsh and unconstitutional

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Or the right to bare arms. Both are taken away when you are a convicted felon.

So people on welfare are equivalent to convicted felons?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Well the vote thing is a constitutional right (as been pointed out) so taking away someones right to vote is like saying you can't own a gun if you don't work.

Actually, it's not. The constitution (or rather, various amendments) only spell out reasons why someone can't be prohibited from voting (birthplace, race, gender, taxes). So specifically, what Mags originally said about "taxpayers only" would in fact be unconstitutional. But there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting denying the vote to recipients of welfare.

 

[magnifier661]

So people on welfare are equivalent to convicted felons?

No, I am saying that people on welfare shouldn't vote. They could influence decisions on the working class that they don't care about. I bring up felons in response to Nik, saying that this right cannot be taken away. That is wrong.

 

[julius]

No, I am saying that people on welfare shouldn't vote. They could influence decisions on the working class that they don't care about. I bring up felons in response to Nik, saying that this right cannot be taken away. That is wrong.

someone, who is much smarter than I, should find out how many people are on welfare, how many of them don't work, how many of them have "welfare babies" and how many of them vote (in both comparison to the society at large, and different economic groups).

I would, but I've already lost interest in finding out.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

No, I am saying that people on welfare shouldn't vote. They could influence decisions on the working class that they don't care about. I bring up felons in response to Nik, saying that this right cannot be taken away. That is wrong.

But it's taken away because they don't have a job? Contrary to popular belief on this forum, many simply can't get a job . . . our country should punish them for not paying taxes. And in your model what about S/O that stay at home while other works. So s/o doesn't work and doesn't pay taxes. They have to marry to vote? And what if they area gay and living in a state that doesn't recognize marriages . . . they don't get to vote?

Hell while we are playing with the constitution, let's take all welfare people and move them to the Yukon in Alaska and make them live and work for the gov't until they find a job. Out of sight, out of mind.


Hope nobody reading here has loved ones on welfare . . . this whole discussion and how to treat people on welfare could be very offensive to some.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hope nobody reading here has loved ones on welfare . . . this whole discussion and how to treat people on welfare could be very offensive to some.

Only if one responds to the conceptual discussion from an emotional instead of objective place. The concept of how to weed out and disincentivize the welfare abusers from the legitimately needy is not unreasonable.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Only if one responds to the conceptual discussion from an emotional instead of objective place. The concept of how to weed out and disincentivize the welfare abusers from the legitimately needy is not unreasonable.

Weed out?

We are talking about taking away their right to vote if on welfare. My god, these people are not criminals.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, it's not. The constitution (or rather, various amendments) only spell out reasons why someone can't be prohibited from voting (birthplace, race, gender, taxes). So specifically, what Mags originally said about "taxpayers only" would in fact be unconstitutional. But there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting denying the vote to recipients of welfare.

Not directly, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”

(Bush v. Gore had a bit to say, as well)

 

[Nikolokolus]

And that "right" can be taken away if you get a felony. Obviously, that right can be taken away.

Being poor is not a crime.

 

[Nikolokolus]

No, I am saying that people on welfare shouldn't vote. They could influence decisions on the working class that they don't care about. I bring up felons in response to Nik, saying that this right cannot be taken away. That is wrong.

No. I said it's a right after you called it a privilege.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We are talking about taking away their right to vote if on welfare.

Actually, we're talking about voluntary temporary cessation of voting as a condition of welfare receipt. Nobody is forcing anything upon anybody.

Now, removing emotional appeals from the equation, why don't you help me understand why you believe this to be a bad idea?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Actually, we're talking about voluntary temporary cessation of voting as a condition of welfare receipt. Nobody is forcing anything upon anybody.

Now, removing emotional appeals from the equation, why don't you help me understand why you believe this to be a bad idea?

As if being poor or needing assistance is somehow completely voluntary. Don't get me wrong I'm all for punishing the deadbeats and cleaning up the system, but this idea that citizenship is somehow conditional on job status or one's bank account is beyond short-sighted. Imagine this policy being enacted during the Great Depression; suspension of voting rights for 25% of the population for ten+ years because there are no jobs to be had.

 

[bluefrog]

Only if one responds to the conceptual discussion from an emotional instead of objective place. The concept of how to weed out and disincentivize the welfare abusers from the legitimately needy is not unreasonable.

Eugenics? Voting rights suspension? Why are people advocating such drastic measures to punish all in poverty for the 2% of people who abuse the system?

Poverty is a human problem, if we remove emotion from the discussion we come to inhumane conclusions.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is unconstitutional to take away the vote due to poverty, even if it is for govt. assistance in return. I provided a link to the SCOTUS decision that says so.

We're not a corporation, where it's one share one vote and only those who can afford a share get to vote.