Political Crew

[BanginJimmy]

I am looking to put together a little project over the next week or so concerning the current welfare system. I want to get both liberal and conservative points of view and ideas involved. I want to really put this together in the coming weeks and possibly send it off to Washington to be ignored by our tireless civil servants as they battle for what we really want and need.

I will post up tomorrow after work with my general outline, but feel free to pick it apart.


I want to keep all bashing and talk of current events out of this thread and focus only on this plan. If this works out well, maybe we can tackle the healthcare issue at a later date.


Anyone else in on this?

[Alan®]

You know I'm always down.

[Deke]

I'll throw in a couple of my pennies.

[preferredduck]

well i noticed an idea of drug testing the individuals the get benefits and that is a good start, it could stop the waste of alot of money.

i checked back on that obama forum yesterday and all those folks dont like the idea.

[BanginJimmy]

i checked back on that obama forum yesterday and all those folks dont like the idea.

I could not possibly care less. As I said in my first post, I dont want bashing of any sort, and that includes Obama. This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current political climate except for the amount of debt we are acquiring. Unless you can follow those simple rules you are not welcome to post in this thread.

[preferredduck]

I could not possibly care less. As I said in my first post, I dont want bashing of any sort, and that includes Obama. This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current political climate except for the amount of debt we are acquiring. Unless you can follow those simple rules you are not welcome to post in this thread.

i was stating a reference to a site that we have seen recently that is really funny.

the point of the post was drug desting for benefits, i think it is a good cost effective way to weed out half of the people getting them. the less money that is wasted on these things the better and we have all seen examples of people who get benefits that don't need them.

i know private investigators are sent for workers comp, sometimes a little more prrof to where and what some of these benefits go for.

[BanginJimmy]

Welfare was designed to be a crutch for people until they can get back on their feet. These days we have a large number of parasites who use it as an occupation. My ideas are not about preventing people from getting or using welfare, but to assist them in getting off welfare permanently. I think this type of reform is even more useful now, in a tough economy, than it is in a thriving one.

My basic plan:

1. Mandatory and random drug testing. You need a drug test to get a job at McD's these days, why wouldnt you need one for for a govt handout?

2. No more money for more kids. This also includes govt paid for birth control pills. I know this is an added expense, but it is cheaper than more added benefits for more kids.

3. Benefits capped at 3 years. If you dont already have a HS diploma or GED, classes are mandatory and receiving a GED is mandatory within 1 year or benefits cease. The 3 year limit is also waivable to as long as 5 years if appropriate progress is made in a 2 or 4 year college program.

4. A program comparable to the HOPE scholarship is made available to any welfare recipients who apply and keep a minimum GPA.


I am sure people can easily pick my ideas apart so let me hear what you have. Where am I wrong, where am I right, and where am I stuck in left field.

[preferredduck]

Welfare was designed to be a crutch for people until they can get back on their feet. These days we have a large number of parasites who use it as an occupation. My ideas are not about preventing people from getting or using welfare, but to assist them in getting off welfare permanently. I think this type of reform is even more useful now, in a tough economy, than it is in a thriving one.

My basic plan:

1. Mandatory and random drug testing. You need a drug test to get a job at McD's these days, why wouldnt you need one for for a govt handout?

2. No more money for more kids. This also includes govt paid for birth control pills. I know this is an added expense, but it is cheaper than more added benefits for more kids.

3. Benefits capped at 3 years. If you dont already have a HS diploma or GED, classes are mandatory and receiving a GED is mandatory within 1 year or benefits cease. The 3 year limit is also waivable to as long as 5 years if appropriate progress is made in a 2 or 4 year college program.

4. A program comparable to the HOPE scholarship is made available to any welfare recipients who apply and keep a minimum GPA.


I am sure people can easily pick my ideas apart so let me hear what you have. Where am I wrong, where am I right, and where am I stuck in left field.

i agree here. i used to work for world finance and there were many many people who were professional government employees who did nothing at all. i think if you are on welfare and have two or more kids i think it should be mandatory to have some form of birth control until your off. look at the lady in vegas who had 8 kids. the taxpayers paid that big ass bill.

another really big money pit is illegal immigrants that come here, have a kid and then get benefits. then they have like 4 more kids and get more money for food stamps then i get paid. and she cannot even speak english to get a job. i have seen this many times waiting in line at wal mart.

[mm2654]

. i think if you are on welfare and have two or more kids i think it should be mandatory to have some form of birth control until your off.

One of the problems with requiring birth control is that there are some strong side affects associated with most of the birth control methods. I would favor restrictions in which the woman would loose all benefits if she becomes pregnant again during the period in which she is on any form of government assistance.

[TSiFTW]

1st off loving the drug testing idea. If you are illegal and have a kid, no benefits for you. Also if you are on welfare you cannot live in a nicer house than me. If you don't wanna work and cannot afford a place to live then you live in the projects. If you don't like the projects get a job and get off welfare. Reps for your plan. I like it for the most part.

[preferredduck]

One of the problems with requiring birth control is that there are some strong side affects associated with most of the birth control methods. I would favor restrictions in which the woman would loose all benefits if she becomes pregnant again during the period in which she is on any form of government assistance.

there is a type of birth control not that is inexpensive to put in and medicaid will pay for it, i forget what it is called but a friend of mine has it. there are no side effects with it like the pill or shots. women easily get benefits when they become pregnant and the more kids they have the more they get. a good example is the octuplet mom. people got pissed when they found out she lied about benefits.

[tony]

Welfare was designed to be a crutch for people until they can get back on their feet. These days we have a large number of parasites who use it as an occupation. My ideas are not about preventing people from getting or using welfare, but to assist them in getting off welfare permanently. I think this type of reform is even more useful now, in a tough economy, than it is in a thriving one.

My basic plan:

1. Mandatory and random drug testing. You need a drug test to get a job at McD's these days, why wouldnt you need one for for a govt handout?

2. No more money for more kids. This also includes govt paid for birth control pills. I know this is an added expense, but it is cheaper than more added benefits for more kids.

3. Benefits capped at 3 years. If you dont already have a HS diploma or GED, classes are mandatory and receiving a GED is mandatory within 1 year or benefits cease. The 3 year limit is also waivable to as long as 5 years if appropriate progress is made in a 2 or 4 year college program.

4. A program comparable to the HOPE scholarship is made available to any welfare recipients who apply and keep a minimum GPA.


I am sure people can easily pick my ideas apart so let me hear what you have. Where am I wrong, where am I right, and where am I stuck in left field.

#2 has to go, the logistics of it for an entire country just seem impossible. The government cannot be there making sure women are taking their birth control. Now, I would be for a system where after so many kids (2 out of wedlock) you either have a tubal ligation or lose your benefit. I feel weird as a man saying something like that since it feels so.. stereotypical alpha male like.

#1 The idea is to lower the cost of the plan correct? You want to pay for drug testing for everyone on welfare? And what happens to those who get kicked off of welfare and become druggies with no income? Each action has a reaction, are you ready for more homeless and possibly higher crime rate, larger incarceration all in the name of getting some pot smokers off of welfare? Does the gain justify the added social headache or repercussion? This one takes a lot of social study and research.

It has to be questioned why are we kicking them off of welfare, is it because they are less likely to be productive or is it to clean up the image of welfare? After answering those questions again it refers back to the notion of, is it worth it?

#2 Are you wanting them to find a job or get educated? That is really the only question I have, I've always agreed with capping welfare.

#4 Is good.

[BanginJimmy]

#2 has to go, the logistics of it for an entire country just seem impossible. The government cannot be there making sure women are taking their birth control. Now, I would be for a system where after so many kids (2 out of wedlock) you either have a tubal ligation or lose your benefit. I feel weird as a man saying something like that since it feels so.. stereotypical alpha male like.

It is complex and I know it is, but it can be done. I go back and forth on the birth control pills myself, but the simple fact is that there has to be something in place to curb the welfare babies. It is a fact that if you grow up on welfare you are many times more likely to be on welfare yourself when you are an adult. Rewarding deviant behavor will simply draw more people to that behavior.

#1 The idea is to lower the cost of the plan correct? You want to pay for drug testing for everyone on welfare?

Drug testing is cheap and I dont propose testing everyone every month. Random testing is all that would be needed. The thinking is simple, you cant get many jobs if you are using drugs, why should you get a handout from the govt if you are? Also involved is mandatory treatment if you do pop.

And what happens to those who get kicked off of welfare and become druggies with no income? Each action has a reaction, are you ready for more homeless and possibly higher crime rate, larger incarceration all in the name of getting some pot smokers off of welfare? Does the gain justify the added social headache or repercussion? This one takes a lot of social study and research.

All this says that you have no problems with somone getting welfare, then using your money to get high. I have a very serious problem with that. All of the things you listed are an everyday occurance within the welfare system. Maybe we should bar anyone with a felony conviction from receiving welfare also.

It has to be questioned why are we kicking them off of welfare, is it because they are less likely to be productive or is it to clean up the image of welfare? After answering those questions again it refers back to the notion of, is it worth it?

The point is to reduce the burden of welfare on the tax payers by helping people get off it. I can assure you though, a HS dropout drug addict is far less productive than a clean college grad.

IMO, yes, it is worth it to rid the system of everyone that uses welfare as an occupation and not the SHORT TERM stop gap it was meant to be.

#2 Are you wanting them to find a job or get educated? That is really the only question I have, I've always agreed with capping welfare.

Getting an education typically results in far better employment oppertunities. There will always be plenty of people to fill the menial labor jobs that are out there. As the US is forced more and more into a service and high tech production economy, people are going to need more education as the menial labor jobs are drying up.

[Deke]

^I'll have to let it simmer for a bit (it's late and I don't have my thinking cap on), but my for the most part, my initial impression is

I completely agree that it's ridiculous that people live their lives on welfare without any intention to eventually get off it.

[mm2654]

I think all four of those ideas sound really good, particularly the one about drug testing. The only thing you might want to change is the five year limit for those seeking a 4 year degree. Most student take 5 years to accomplish this and it might unpractical to expect a single parent to be able to go to school full time every semester while balancing work, school, and parenting. You might want to consider single years extensions made available on a case by case basis with a max of say 7 years. But that's just my 2 cents.

[F8d2Blk]

Just a quick question:
What does welfare consists of? And what does an average family take from the government in a months time? I know some things but I don't know accurate figures.

I think the drug testing is probably the single best policy.
It is more expensive if you do have more kids. But they shouldn't be rewarded. Just make it a minimal increase. Or make them sign a waiver stating no new babies or they could suspend the welfare or something.

[BanginJimmy]

Just a quick question:
What does welfare consists of? And what does an average family take from the government in a months time? I know some things but I don't know accurate figures.

I havent done the research yet either, but welfare consists of food stamps, WIC and the like. There are several more programs that I cant think of off the top of my head.

It is more expensive if you do have more kids. But they shouldn't be rewarded. Just make it a minimal increase. Or make them sign a waiver stating no new babies or they could suspend the welfare or something.

A new applicant should be paid for the number of kids they currently have, just no more increases if they have another kid while they are on welfare. A minimal increase will be considered a reason to have even more kids by some people.

[BanginJimmy]

I think all four of those ideas sound really good, particularly the one about drug testing. The only thing you might want to change is the five year limit for those seeking a 4 year degree. Most student take 5 years to accomplish this and it might unpractical to expect a single parent to be able to go to school full time every semester while balancing work, school, and parenting. You might want to consider single years extensions made available on a case by case basis with a max of say 7 years. But that's just my 2 cents.

Very good point, but if they are on welfare, I would guess they arent going to work full time. I do agree with single year extensions.

[mm2654]

Actually there are side effect, they are pretty rare but can include increased blood pressure, blood clot, heart attack, and stroke http://www.medicinenet.com/oral_cont...ills/page2.htm
If you write the law so that women who get pregnant or have another kid while on government assistance loose their benefits it would have the same effect as a law that would require that women take birth control.
Further more civil right activist would have a field day with a law which required the uses of birth control(they would claim that it is somehow racially motivated or that it violated some woman's rights). I'm not saying that I think its a bad idea or that I would not support it personally, I just think that the supreme court would never allow it.

[preferredduck]

Actually there are side effect, they are pretty rare but can include increased blood pressure, blood clot, heart attack, and stroke http://www.medicinenet.com/oral_cont...ills/page2.htm
If you write the law so that women who get pregnant or have another kid while on government assistance loose their benefits it would have the same effect as a law that would require that women take birth control.
Further more civil right activist would have a field day with a law which required the uses of birth control(they would claim that it is somehow racially motivated or that it violated some woman's rights). I'm not saying that I think its a bad idea or that I would not support it personally, I just think that the supreme court would never allow it.

this is not a pill or a shot, it is something they actually put in there and can be romoved with ease. they pushed my friend to do this after having a 2nd child. i would have to ask her what it is called.

[BanginJimmy]

The law could easily be written in a way that says that welfare is not a right, it is a benefit and that those benefts come with a price and that that price is govt furnished birth control.

[mm2654]

I thing your talking about the nuvaring. But at this point we are really just talking semantics. Either way the law would be written, the goal would still be to prevent people on government assistance from getting pregnant. I just think my way, the government would not force people to do something they don't want to do(take birth control). And in the end cause less controversy

[eraser4g63]

The Original write up sounds good, Though I would change a few things.
1-If they want to take advantage of Gov't benefits then they can pay got the drug test and if they don't want to, then there is the door.
2-If you get pregnant while on said benefits then there is the door.
3-I love the Job or school idea.
4-No buying New cars, New houses, No new Credit or debt may be accrued ( unless you are selling your current vehicle and/or house because you cant afford and are down grading)
5-No Felony convictions and no new Convictions of any type ( misdemeanor or Felony)

[BanginJimmy]

2-If you get pregnant while on said benefits then there is the door.

I thought about this one, but in the end it came down to the fact that it is your life to live. However, that doesnt mean the taxpayers shouldget a larger bill because you dont have the cash to pay for it.

4-No buying New cars, New houses, No new Credit or debt may be accrued ( unless you are selling your current vehicle and/or house because you cant afford and are down grading)

Frozen credit is a good idea. I mean, if you cant afford to feed and house yourself without the govt then there is no need to be buying more things on credit.

5-No Felony convictions and no new Convictions of any type ( misdemeanor or Felony)

Thought about this one and while I like it in some respects, I dont in others. I guess I'm saying this should be handled on a case by case basis.

[eraser4g63]

I thought about this one, but in the end it came down to the fact that it is your life to live. However, that doesnt mean the taxpayers shouldget a larger bill because you dont have the cash to pay for it.



Frozen credit is a good idea. I mean, if you cant afford to feed and house yourself without the govt then there is no need to be buying more things on credit.



Thought about this one and while I like it in some respects, I dont in others. I guess I'm saying this should be handled on a case by case basis.

1-I geuss the beter way to say it is if you have 1 kid and have a second kid then you will get money for the first kid and thats it.

3-I should ad this as well, You must be actively paying off the debt you have once you get a job and creditors should work with you ( though it wont be required)

2-This should mainly focus on Violent crimes, drug related offenses and things of that nature.

[preferredduck]

either way wasteful spending has to be nipped in the butt. somethings gotta give.

[eraser4g63]

either way wasteful spending has to be nipped in the butt. somethings gotta give.

Your taxes are what is going to give.

[BanginJimmy]

Your taxes are what is going to give.

Wouldnt that be taking, not giving? IMO giving would be by choice, taxes certainly are not by choice.

[preferredduck]

Wouldnt that be taking, not giving? IMO giving would be by choice, taxes certainly are not by choice.

if i had a choice i would not pay them. it should go to how it used to be, only on goods and services. not from our paychecks.

[eraser4g63]

Wouldnt that be taking, not giving? IMO giving would be by choice, taxes certainly are not by choice.

Not give as a gift, more like give when you knee gives out because you planted you foot and turned but the lower half of you leg did not. It will probably be just as painful as well.

[preferredduck]

Not give as a gift, more like give when you knee gives out because you planted you foot and turned but the lower half of you leg did not. It will probably be just as painful as well.

thats a good way to describe it for sure. after every paycheck my butthole hurts even worse than before. i think they keep using less lube everytime.

[eraser4g63]

Good news is the Fair tax has been reintroduced into the house again, and now it has Dem support.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show

[Ehron]

What percentage of the current federal budget is claimed by welfare payments? Are you including food stamps and Medicaid?