Well fare

[dogs4thewin]

Which will give entire states the option of not providing it at all.

How? Each state provide various departments of labor.

 

[motherprayer]

How? Each state provide various departments of labor.

If Ohio, say, decides that the welfare program is unnecessary, and the program is given at a state by state level, then Ohio can remove welfare completely.

Conversely, if Alaska doesn't have enough unallocated funds to support the welfare system for its citizens, then they will also lose benefits.

Currently, the funds are federal, but the management is by state and county. Each state has guidelines for ensuring their citizens get through and then off cash benefits as quickly as possible. Federal funds preclude any state from denying benefits based on that state's political climate, and state by state management ensures that the funds are looked after accordingly.

As it stands, recipients of any form of welfare, including cash, food, medicaid, and housing, have to prove their income at least once a year for each individual program. That means if an individual receives food, housing, and medicaid, they must certify themselves eligible three times a year. This ensures that those who might try to abuse the system are watched closely. It doesn't stop abuse, but it lessens it considerably simply by making it harder for people to claim benefits in the first place. It used to be that people claimed welfare because it was easy. Now, not so much.

So then we are left with food stamps and housing. Which in my opinion, we cannot do without. The average market rate rent in my area is $1000 for a 2 bedroom apartment. The average fast food worker makes less than $1000 a month before taxes. How do you expect them to live off of that? Especially those who haven't the experience or the schooling to find a job elsewhere.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If Ohio, say, decides that the welfare program is unnecessary, and the program is given at a state by state level, then Ohio can remove welfare completely.

Conversely, if Alaska doesn't have enough unallocated funds to support the welfare system for its citizens, then they will also lose benefits.

Currently, the funds are federal, but the management is by state and county. Each state has guidelines for ensuring their citizens get through and then off cash benefits as quickly as possible. Federal funds preclude any state from denying benefits based on that state's political climate, and state by state management ensures that the funds are looked after accordingly.

As it stands, recipients of any form of welfare, including cash, food, medicaid, and housing, have to prove their income at least once a year for each individual program. That means if an individual receives food, housing, and medicaid, they must certify themselves eligible three times a year. This ensures that those who might try to abuse the system are watched closely. It doesn't stop abuse, but it lessens it considerably simply by making it harder for people to claim benefits in the first place. It used to be that people claimed welfare because it was easy. Now, not so much.

So then we are left with food stamps and housing. Which in my opinion, we cannot do without. The average market rate rent in my area is $1000 for a 2 bedroom apartment. The average fast food worker makes less than $1000 a month before taxes. How do you expect them to live off of that? Especially those who haven't the experience or the schooling to find a job elsewhere.

Well, I just know that like the department of labors are spread across the state, so as you and I both pointed out the more local the better.

 

[motherprayer]

Well, I just know that like the department of labors are spread across the state, so as you and I both pointed out the more local the better.

There is a Department of Public Welfare office in every county of every state. Is that local enough?

 

[dogs4thewin]

There is a Department of Public Welfare office in every county of every state. Is that local enough?

yes I just wish that people would not abuse it at all. The ONLY way to ENSURE people do not abuse something is to not have it, but if you must have it let local people decide who gets it.

 

[motherprayer]

yes I just wish that people would not abuse it at all. The ONLY way to ENSURE people do not abuse something is to not have it, but if you must have it let local people decide who gets it.

Can you clarify what you mean by "local people deciding who gets it?"

 

[dogs4thewin]

Can you clarify what you mean by "local people deciding who gets it?"

Make sure that the "final say" rests with the locals as to who qualifies.

 

[motherprayer]

Make sure that the "final say" rests with the locals as to who qualifies.

Locals as in local population, or local politicians?
Local as in borough by borough?

How would the final say be decided, also?

These things would have to be ironed out before anyone took an idea like that seriously.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Locals as in local population, or local politicians?
Local as in borough by borough?

How would the final say be decided, also?

These things would have to be ironed out before anyone took an idea like that seriously.

Well I am saying have the locals keep a tighten handle on their own people. If they know who needs help then there will be less abuse, just by the mere fact that it would be known how you handled your money and if you mismanaged your money was why you were having trouble OR if you actually need help.

 

[motherprayer]

Well I am saying have the locals keep a tighten handle on their own people. If they know who needs help then there will be less abuse, just by the mere fact that it would be known how you handled your money and if you mismanaged your money was why you were having trouble OR if you actually need help.

How would they discern who actually needs help and who doesn't? By the clothes they wear? The car they drive? What phone they have? What would be the criteria?

 

[dogs4thewin]

How would they discern who actually needs help and who doesn't? By the clothes they wear? The car they drive? What phone they have? What would be the criteria?

by their income like it is now except tighten it up. In other terms where the community is very close you can do it this way if you know someone spends money on cigarettes or alcohol (usually in tight communities you know who can not afford such things. In other communities income but they do need to tighten it up. I wonder if RANDOM drug tests could be an option?

 

[motherprayer]

by their income like it is now except tighten it up. In other terms where the community is very close you can do it this way if you know someone spends money on cigarettes or alcohol (usually in tight communities you know who can not afford such things. In other communities income but they do need to tighten it up. I wonder if RANDOM drug tests could be an option?

It definitely could be, but it is hard to pay for drug tests, even random. I have no objection to random testing OR even qualifier testing.

The income guidelines are tight enough as they are. They change every year according to cost of living and inflation.

You also have to understand that not every community is tight like yours seems to be. The guy working at the local WaWa doesn't know who is on welfare and who is not, and to ask welfare recipients to carry some form of ID is a bit much.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It definitely could be, but it is hard to pay for drug tests, even random. I have no objection to random testing OR even qualifier testing.

The income guidelines are tight enough as they are. They change every year according to cost of living and inflation.

You also have to understand that not every community is tight like yours seems to be. The guy working at the local WaWa doesn't know who is on welfare and who is not, and to ask welfare recipients to carry some form of ID is a bit much.

a bit much? but I thought the government wanted to do as much as they could to avoid abuse?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A small clean up was done in the earlier part of the thread. Let's remember the flaming rule, okay?

FreeinChrist
Supervisor

 

[motherprayer]

a bit much? but I thought the government wanted to do as much as they could to avoid abuse?

It creates a class system.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

It creates a class system.

More specifically, it creates an underclass.

 

[motherprayer]

More specifically, it creates an underclass.

Exactly

We have too much in the way of status symbols as it is, and having an "ID Card" to identify that someone is on welfare only calls attention to their state, not okay.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Exactly

We have too much in the way of status symbols as it is, and having an "ID Card" to identify that someone is on welfare only calls attention to their state, not okay.

What does the use of food stamps or that card do or people knowing someone lives in section eight housing?

 

[motherprayer]

What does the use of food stamps or that card do or people knowing someone lives in section eight housing?

They already have a food stamps card though. It is called an Access Card. I was under the impression you were talking about a separate ID.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

What does the use of food stamps or that card do or people knowing someone lives in section eight housing?

...seriously?