I don’t know, because Congress is in such a stalemate this is the only way to maneuver to a viable solution. It is a bit of a chess match after all. One could argue that all entitlements are bad. Would entitlements be right if the nation was currently at 0, no production and no debt? Why does Obama wanna cut social security and take guns away?
The fact that the GOP wants to and has already cut huge sums from the budget of foodstamps is disgusting. Small Children, the elderly, the disabled and people who work minimum wage jobs are the primary beneficiaries of programs like foodstamps, welfare and social security. Why the hell is that who you pick on when making budget decisions? The reason republicans give always uses the 2% welfare fraud rate as part of their justification to cut the lifeline that feeds our most vulnerable population. Perhaps someone who is a member of the Republican Party can enlighten me about how they manage to sleep at night knowing that because of the legislation of their party, millions of homeless children starve.
By James L. Riggs
@keeperisme, I am not a republican, however I am a conservative. I hope this will suffice. Please understand I can not speak for the republicans or other conservatives. What I can do is give you my opinion.
First of all I don’t pick on anyone. I don’t want anyone to go without food. To be real honest, I don’t know anyone, from any party, who wants anyone to starve.
Please allow me to take this in steps.
I will start by saying the elderly and the handicapped who have no way to feed themselves should be eligible, without question. Neither can work to provide for themselves. You can take my tax dollars all day long for them.
Next is children, big or small. Children should be taken care of by their parents. If the parents have put themselves in a situation that they are not providing food for their children then the children should be taken away until they are able to do so. This should not be seen as a cut and dry situation, some things would have to be taken into consideration, like the present economy. You can blame who you want on that. In a reasonable economy if neither parent is working and there are jobs available then, yes, remove the children. Even if the parents have to move to a different part of the country to find work, then that’s what they should do. A parents first obligation is to their children, period.
I think we can all agree that minimum wage jobs are meant to be entry-level, not career jobs. However, again given the current state of the economy you would have to make some allowances.
With all that being said, lets look at what the real problem is.
I want to start this area of discussion with those who have multiple children with, or without, multiple partners. The majority of these folks can’t afford one child, let alone 3, 4, 5, or more, yet they keep cranking them out. Why can’t we put some safeguards in place? If a woman on welfare gets pregnant, whether she already had kids or not and knowing she can’t afford children, then to continue receiving it, she would have to have her tubes tied, or whatever, after delivering the baby. As for the men, if they have children while on welfare, the same rule applies, he gets a vasectomy. (this is not a matter of civil rights, it’s a matter of responsibility or the lack thereof.)
Part two on this would be the length of time a person could be on welfare. (Excluding the elderly and the handicapped.) In a decent economy, most people shouldn’t need assistance for more than six months. Given differing circumstances this could be extended to a year. We have a serious problem in this country of welfare becoming generational. The numbers of generational welfare recipients has grown into the tens of thousands.
The third part of this would be some criteria that would have to be met by the recipient. They would have to pass a drug and alcohol test. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a drug addicts needs, nor should they pay for someones Saturday night booze party. Also, for the time a person is on welfare they have to forfeit their right to vote. The welfare voter would ultimately vote for whoever would increase their welfare check, instead of voting on the issues of the country. Lastly they would have to do 2 days a week of community service, with a voucher for daycare for those 2 days. Failure to follow the criteria would result in the removal of any children and welfare benefits stopped.
This is just spitballing off the top of my head. I’m sure there is more that could be done so that taxpayers aren’t cheated and those that truly need help could receive it.
You said something I find interesting. You said, “The fact that the GOP wants to and has already cut huge sums from the budget of foodstamps is disgusting.” Why are you laying this solely on the heads of the republicans? Maybe the republicans put this forward as a way to cut some of the budget, but have you been paying any attention at all as to what’s going on in Washington lately? Anything, and I mean anything, that the republicans have proposed has been shutdown, quick, fast, and in a hurry. Why haven’t the democrats shut these cuts down too? They have shown they have the power to do it, if they want to. Why did they let this go through?
About your last question, @jlriggs57aol-com, that’s a good question. Why PRIMARILY republicans would have been a better wording, as the GOP is largely responsible, but democrats are responsible as well.
While I don’t support drug addicts or paying for “someones Saturday night booze party”, Florida has tried drug testing welfare recipients and lost $46k (http://www.newser.com/story/144300/welfare-drug-tests-cost-florida-46k.html), and found that just 2.6% of welfare applicants tested positive for drugs. So it’s not that much of a problem
Your idea that those on welfare shouldn’t be able to vote is unconstitutional. I think it is a bad idea because without the ability to vote, they would be unable to defend against having what is often their lifetime cut. That isn’t right.
@keeperisme, As you say only 2.6% of welfare applicants in Florida tested positive. What would the numbers be in L.A. or New York? The cost of the testing could be recouped by taking a small amount out of each individuals welfare check to pay for their test.
The whole point is to keep politicians from getting elected or re-elected on the basis of how much they will boost up the welfare benefits. Then no matter what other bad things this elected official does he still gets back in because of this cycle.
I did not understand the statement “lifetime cut”. If you are speaking of the generational welfare recipients, who spend their whole lives on welfare and then their children are on it for their lifetimes and so on, this needs to come to an end anyway, with the exception of the elderly and the handicapped. If you feel that people, who are not elderly or handicapped, should be allowed to live their entire lives on welfare, we will just agree to disagree on this point.
Right now in the U.S. there are 12,800,000 people on welfare and 46,700,000 on food stamps according to the current statistics on the site below. I will say that the numbers will fluctuate with whatever the economy is at any given time. To me these numbers are ridiculously high. Even if these numbers were in half in a good economy, it’s still way too high.
I can’t tell you that the things I have suggested would fix the problems, all I know is that we need to start somewhere or this situation will continue to grow and grow until we become a welfare nation.
I completely disagree with just about everything that’s been said!
For 70 years more money has been spent fighting poverty especially since LBJ actually called it “The War On Poverty”
More people than ever before are below the “Poverty level”.
Last year only one state S Dakota had a reduction in population below the poverty level (0.27%)
All others increased from 2 to over 5%
Illegitimate children continue to increase up to 74% in African Americans for example vs about 12% after WWI. Not picking on them,just a fact,all other ethnic groups are also increasing this situation.
Is it possible all the public safety nets simply make less personal responsibility possible.
Of course you can’t take away a persons children or limit their ability to bear children.
But you can stop making it easier and more acceptable to ignore the responsibility for your own life.
Maybe that’s the problem. It’s not so scary to jump in the water when there are a lot of lifeguards.
At any rate I don’t think anyone can say what we are currently doing is working so why do more of it?
Possibly you hadn’t thought about it but as long as there are children there will always be people who will want to throw tax dollars out to feed them, which is fine. But when you have hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who are having kids just for the hand-outs that come with them, then something needs to be done.
If you look at the last thing I said on my previous post you will see that I said that I can’t say my ideas will fix the problems, but it has to start somewhere.
Being the thinking person that I know you are, you know that, knowing there is a problem and just complaining about it, solves nothing. Knowing there is a problem then offering possible solutions is the beginning of resolving the problem.
I would gladly like to hear what you would suggest as a possible solution to this situation.
I think we all agree we need to get people off of food-stamps. We can’t limit the number of children someone can have (China has that law and one of the world’s fastest growing populations). I also think it to be immoral to force sterilization onto welfare recipients, because ideally, they won’t be on welfare forever and a vasectomy is a permanent solution to what we want to be a temporary problem.
Overall, I believe that while cutting all entitlements is an easy fix, it will cause more issues than it would solve (mass homelessness, starvation at levels seen only in the poorest third world countries, mass disease on the streets (leading to more ER visits by people without insurance, thanks to the would be cuts in medicaid). While charities would cover some of the new slums created by cuts in entitlements, it wouldn’t nearly be enough to make a dent in the third world country status of some of this possible America.
My solution: Forget the drug testing (that costs more than it would save, look at Florida), and taking away their suffrage (That’s unconstitutional). Subsidize a mandatory community college education (or send them to public schools, if they’re a child) for all welfare recipients. If they have a job, reimburse them for the work they missed while completing the education requirement. If they are disabled or elderly, the only thing we should be cutting them is a break. While it will be expensive to start out, I think it will eventually lead to savings, and an uptick in the economy due to all the new people with skills ready to join the workforce and make more than they did on welfare.
@keeperisme, Those would be good suggestions for those who are on the welfare rolls that are in-between jobs. What would be the solution for the generational recipients, who are the biggest users? They do not want a job, they don’t want to further their education, they don’t want anything except their food card and a check.
You say it takes away rights if we do anything to control the number of kids these folks have, what about the rights of people whose taxes keep getting higher and higher as the welfare rolls get bigger and bigger.
If we are to say that it would take away their rights if we control a welfare recipients ability to multiply like rabbits then what recourse do we have? For these generational recipients we can either, control the number of kids they have, kick them off the welfare rolls, or do nothing and just keep giving them the money and food cards, which just encourages them to keep having kids so they can continue to get the benefits.
Why in the name of Sam Hill are we holding ourselves to some kind of political correctness on people who are playing the system and cheating the people of this country out of their tax dollars? The plain and simple truth of it is that these people are having children to basically, hold as hostage and saying, “you better give us what we want or these kids will starve.”
So far I haven’t heard anyone give any suggestions that holds the recipient responsible for their actions, all I’ve heard is defend, defend, defend. There has to be some consequences or nothing will change, we will continue to pay out to these people, their children, their grandchildren, and so on.
In a warm fuzzy world these people would love to get a better education in order to eligible for more and better jobs, but the reality is that they don’t want anything but the government, (We The People) to take care of them and theirs, for the entirety of their lives.
They are counting on everyone to feel sorry for them and just let it stay as is, so that nothing changes. By not making some hard decisions and some real changes we are saying that the way it is, is okay. If it isn’t then we would change it.
What I would like you guys to do is to come up with some real world solutions, not to say that they would be perfect, but something that holds the recipient accountable, with consequences attached.
@jlriggs57aol-com I never said it takes away the rights of those on welfare- I said legislation to limit the number of children someone can have simply doesn’t work. Look at China. They have a 1 child per family law for all citizens, and it doesn’t work. They have one of the fastest growing populations on Earth. Just thinking out loud here, but the only solution I could think of is to require birth control for female recipients of welfare. I’m not sure how the female community would feel about that. I’m gonna say they won’t exactly be the biggest fans of it. If someone could figure out a way to enforce it and pay for it, all the better. I’ve got nothing in those respects.
@keeperisme, oops sorry. Wasn’t trying to point any comments at anyone in particular that’s the reason I used all participants in my reply. I will try to be more careful as to not making it seem I am talking to a given person when I am not.
Birth control would be fine if they actually used it. Paying for birth control wouldn’t be that tough, take it out of their check before they get it.
I don’t know what the definitive answer would be, but it seems the steps would have to be a bit stringent with extreme consequences to get the point across and keep it effective.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.