It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maine Adds Work Requirement to Welfare Benefits

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Oh here we go again. You can count on it every presidential election. Blame the poor. You know, if the poor and working poor could get a loan with practically 0% interest, maybe they could get momentum to get out of the cycle of enslavement.


Yeah, let's give the poor more loans.

Poor people can't get low interest loans for one reason: low-income equals high risk.

Why, exactly, should a bank give free money to someone with no way to pay it back?

The VAST majority of poor people have horrible credit so even when someone does take a chance on them, they prove that they're unable or unwilling to pay it back. The VAST majority of poor people have also proven that they aren't wise with money therefore they'll probably spend their hypothetical low-interest loan on frivolous crap like new TV's, cars that are out of their budget, and other luxury items.

Your post sounds like someone with a chip on their shoulder thanks to their own bad credit.
edit on 4/20/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: retiredTxn

I don't know who these people are. I am 64 with a large family and friends network. Only one single mom who works get food stamps. Who are these people that every one knows about but never turned in for fraud. With such a large number of abusers, somebody knows who they are. Let's go get 'em. Things will get much better the more we kill and make people suffer.



I get your sarcasm.

But really something needs to be done.
The current system is a mess and encourages
broken families which leads to an increase in crime
and generational poverty, and a mentality
that everyone owes able bodied adults
a "paycheck" for just existing or
for breeding like rabbits
with no genuine concern for the
children.


What do you think of my solution at the bottom of the previous page?

It brings in equality for all
(including non-welfare hard working middle class families)
and encourages intact families?



Loans really won't help, they will only encourage more debt
and a cycle of unending credit problems.


edit on 10Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:50:18 -0500am42004amk201 by grandmakdw because: additon change



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


...My solution is:

Free childcare for ALL women with infants over 8 weeks old who make less than 1/2 the national average at their jobs.



Okay. You do know the “average” income in the USA is between $9,554,956.00 and $14,170,000.00, right?


Personal income increased to about 14.17 trillion U.S. dollars in 2013.



There were 141,183,000 jobs in the US in March 2015 according to the CES survey of employers. The CPS survey of households showed 148,331,000 employed persons for the month.








edit on 20/4/15 by soficrow because: ooops. dropped a few zeroes



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I think the option to work 6 hours a week volunteering to get food stamps is too little. If working 20 hours per week is required, why only volunteer for 6 hours?

If a person can't find work, then "working" for food stamps by volunteering is quite a fair trade for the community who is paying for the food. That is not unreasonable at all, nor unfair, nor mean, in fact 6 hours is way too generous for someone who is unemployed and is able bodied.


Unless of course that those six hours are at YOUR place of work and the net result being YOU have six hours less in YOUR wage packet....It's funny how Big Business aint hiring anyone, but when it comes to free labour they have jobs for everyone.


Volunteer hours are normally NOT at places where there is much paid employment.

I ran a center for a county for a few years in which we had two employees.
me (30 hours a week) and a secretary who was paid through a learn to work grant.
We ran classes for children and their families who were in trouble with the court,
it turned out to be a great program with a huge reduction in recidivism.
The school district donated an old school building.
The families, most of whom were really poor did not have to pay
for the classes. The county was poor and could barely pay me and
the part time instructors. This was a "business" that made ZERO
money, one that made no money to pay anyone, but was
really needed to help people.

As director I relied on people who had to "volunteer", do community service,
as part of their sentence or as their sentence.
This is how we got the center painted,
furniture that was donated transported and placed in the center,
some landscaping done, cleaning the center.
There are lots and lots of places who desperately need community service
volunteers who otherwise could not run their programs that benefit the community.

Volunteer hours means for charities,

or organizations like the one I ran,

that can not afford to hire people

but desperately need help to run programs that greatly benefit the community.


Food banks rely on volunteers

We have a job training center in our community
that is run with one paid staff and the rest volunteers
and it is expanding so that they can help more people.

We have a consolidated financial aid type center in our community
that the churches give their benevolence money
to who then check out stories of need and give the money
for rent/utility etc assistance, they run with only one paid staff
and are open full time with computers for job searching and job search assistance.

Volunteering is not unpaid labor for big business,
volunteering is for places that need help to help others.

Our county court kept a list of places that were approved for
community service hours, and people could go in and request
hours at other places. But no one was ever allowed to
"volunteer "at a place of business that was profit making.
That is not volunteering.


Have you never volunteered in your community to know what volunteering really is?

Do you really think an able bodied adult should get money from the government, a "paycheck" if you will, for doing nothing in return? That is treating people like infants and is condescending to able bodied adults.



i notice in all this you mention Volunteers and people doing the Job as part of a court sentence...Since when was being unemployed liable to the same treatment and conditions as someone who committed a crime.?

I also Notice how you talk up this great Business venture of yours, but would you have been so keen in doing the job if you weren't on a pay roll..I didn't see you "volunteering" to do the job for free...Maybe i picked you up wrong..?



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: grandmakdw


...My solution is:

Free childcare for ALL women with infants over 8 weeks old who make less than 1/2 the national average at their jobs.



Okay. You do know the “average” income in the USA is about $955,495.00. Right?


Personal income increased to about 14.17 trillion U.S. dollars in 2013.



There were 141,183,000 jobs in the US in March 2015 according to the CES survey of employers. The CPS survey of households showed 148,331,000 employed persons for the month.









Ha ha, really bad joke

You know I meant the national average for a person or family.

Around $50K for a married couple family.

Around $25K for a single person

Ok, so maybe that should be adjusted to 3/4 of the national average. I'll go back and change it now.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: doobydoll

As it stands, they are getting something for just being alive. Putting in work for your food is a small request to ask for. This stuff costs a LOT of taxpayer money.


If there's a job to be done then pay somebody to do it and let's get them off benefits and supporting themselves, then they won't be costing taxpayers one penny.

Why do you want people to remain dependent on taxpayer hand-outs when they 'put in work'? If everyone else is getting paid for 'putting work in', including yourself, then why shouldn't these people get paid for it too, like you do?



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: xuenchen

There are a lot of retired people who receive social security and need food stamps to survive.
My mother in law who sadly passed away only a,few weeks ago was receiving food stamps. She was 95 . I guess you think they should have made her drag her arthritic frail self off to Mickey d's every day instead.


Try reading the limits of the laws before passing judgement.

try reading the definitions too.

You are at step 1 of 10 right now.



It's not my fault you are bitter.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

It IS a bad joke, but not the way you mean. Total personal income in the USA is about $14.17 trillion, and there are between 141,183,000 and 148,331,000 employed persons. It's simple division:

The “average” income in the USA is between $9,554,956.00 and $14,170,000.00.

If you mean 1% of the population should be removed to calculate the average, you should specify that. The figures you presented are for the "poverty line," not the average income.





Personal income increased to about 14.17 trillion U.S. dollars in 2013.



There were 141,183,000 jobs in the US in March 2015 according to the CES survey of employers. The CPS survey of households showed 148,331,000 employed persons for the month.





edit on 20/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/4/15 by soficrow because: fix



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
i notice in all this you mention Volunteers and people doing the Job as part of a court sentence...Since when was being unemployed liable to the same treatment and conditions as someone who committed a crime.?

I also Notice how you talk up this great Business venture of yours, but would you have been so keen in doing the job if you weren't on a pay roll..I didn't see you "volunteering" to do the job for free...Maybe i picked you up wrong..?


I do a great deal of volunteering.

At the time I was paid for 30 hours per week, I normally put in 40+ hours per week, including nights when the classes were run.

This is NOT treating people like criminals.
Just "giving" them free stuff is treating them like small children who are helpless, that is degrading.
Many generous people do volunteer work and to compare them to criminals is awful.

The "criminals" who helped me were not "criminals", they were people who had traffic issues, and people who made little mistakes in life like all of us do from time to time but they got caught. They were wonderful people and many kept volunteering beyond their "time". One man in particular who became our volunteer handyman stayed and gave us a great deal of help way beyond his required "sentence." So don't you dare disparage these people!

I was simply pointing out how paying back the community
for what is given to you
is the adult and responsible thing to do.
Rather than have the community treat you like a stupid child
who doesn't know better and must be taken care of
because you are unable to contribute in any way to society.
That is condescending and should be humiliating
for those taking the money and not contributing anything worthwhile to society.



edit on 11Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:07:41 -0500am42004amk201 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

I most likely had a different opinion in the 80's. Although I was never out of work during that time. Texas is not just Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio. I have family all over Texas who have experienced the same things. But, at least they were able to find jobs, sometimes requiring them to move all over the state.

Moving for a job is one thing people today are not as likely to do. It's a lot greater distance here in Texas than Maine. I understand it may be difficult to find jobs within one's comfort zone, but sometimes we have to step out of that zone.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
i notice in all this you mention Volunteers and people doing the Job as part of a court sentence...Since when was being unemployed liable to the same treatment and conditions as someone who committed a crime.?

I also Notice how you talk up this great Business venture of yours, but would you have been so keen in doing the job if you weren't on a pay roll..I didn't see you "volunteering" to do the job for free...Maybe i picked you up wrong..?






The "criminals" who helped me were not "criminals", they were people who had traffic issues, and people who made little mistakes in life like all of us do from time to time but they got caught. .


Really, Sounds like Criminal activity to me, ..Maybe it's only Criminal if you get away with it?...No'one was disparaging your Volunteers who may or may not be criminals, I was saying, if you read my post correctly, Why should someone who has found themselves to be unemployed be used as community payback/free labour...you can word it however you like, but at the end of the day, that's what's happening here...

Volunteering should be just that, for Volunteers. If there is a job to do it should have a pay check at the end of it.

It's even worse in the UK, Here the Maximum someone found guilty of a offense can get is a 300 hours community payback order, if you have the misfortune of finding yourself unemployed you can be ordered to work 6 months for free...it's a sick joke.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax


The quality of employment has decreased exponentially. These jobs that are available to those who don't already have employment are as expendable as the people working them. Why go to lengths to be 'attractive' to an employer who will cut you loose at his earliest convenience? Who would replace you with a machine in an instant?


I'm sorry, I didn't realize I should have looked at this situation with my head hung low, tears streaming down my face, all while saying "poor, poor me".

If one says the jobs available are not quality jobs, and if I do get a job I'm going to be replaced by a machine, there is nothing anyone can do to help that person. That is giving up.

I fear for the future of our country if all those out of work feel this same way. 'Nuff said.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

That's what I'm talking about.

Sad many here feel that's too much to ask.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


Really, Sounds like Criminal activity to me, ..Maybe it's only Criminal if you get away with it?...No'one was disparaging your Volunteers who may or may not be criminals, I was saying, if you read my post correctly, Why should someone who has found themselves to be unemployed be used as community payback/free labour...you can word it however you like, but at the end of the day, that's what's happening here...

Volunteering should be just that, for Volunteers. If there is a job to do it should have a pay check at the end of it.

It's even worse in the UK, Here the Maximum someone found guilty of a offense can get is a 300 hours community payback order, if you have the misfortune of finding yourself unemployed you can be ordered to work 6 months for free...it's a sick joke.



Why should people get a "paycheck"
in the form of food stamps
or welfare
or free housing
and not have to give anything in return
when they are capable of doing so?

Why is it ok to take from the community
and not give back?
That is just plain inequality for the people who
work hard for what they earn.

Why isn't giving a "paycheck" for nothing,
simply for just existing,
a form of infantilism and condescension
and a way of treating an able bodied adult
like a little child,
when an adult is quite capable and able
to contribute to the community in exchange
for the "paycheck"?


Not all what you call "criminals" are "criminals", we had one woman who worked for us for 2 weeks. She was older and mixed up her medications and caused a bad accident. No one was hurt fortunately, but the cars were a mess. That could happen to anyone. But the judge had no recourse but to sentence her for DUI because of the severity of the damage. She was not a criminal and I was happy to have her do her community service with our center.

If you equate criminality with giving back to the community,
what is it when you take money that you did not earn,
and not do anything for the money
or make any attempt to pay back the people who gave it
to you with some sort of labor?
Is that morally criminal when one is able to earn the
money given to them?

Or is that being not criminal, but a leech on society,
or is it being infantile when one things society owes
them a paycheck for nothing, and one should not
have to do anything but exist for the paycheck?



edit on 11Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:56:28 -0500am42004amk201 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508
before the economy went belly up in the early 80's in texas they had people coming to the state in droves from other states who's unemployment agencies were telling them to go to texas, there's plenty of jobs!!
many came just in time to see the oil boom falter and wells capped. and then they were told to go elsewhere, there's jobs!! and yes there were tent cities!
at least that's my memory. I was in college in tx when it went bust just to graduate and be told that with so many men looking for work well I stood a cold chance in hades of getting a job (unless it was a job that no man wanted)! since well, the men had families to support, the women well they had men to support them or at least should have!!!



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
After reading 4 pages I can unequivocally say that most of the people against this have not comprehended or in some cases even read the articles.

I see it in almost every thread where people make snap judgement or wildly speculate the meanings in posts without even taking a few seconds to get a clue about the subject first.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Although I agree with the idea to an extent, what will the impact be for those that rely on food stamps to feed their children and how many of those affected are single parents barely surviving as it is.

I have an idea, take the billions given to prop up corporate welfare and help the poor and needy.

Here's an interesting story title:

US cuts corporate welfare and invests in the nation's poor.

Now that is a story....




posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


Really, Sounds like Criminal activity to me, ..Maybe it's only Criminal if you get away with it?...No'one was disparaging your Volunteers who may or may not be criminals, I was saying, if you read my post correctly, Why should someone who has found themselves to be unemployed be used as community payback/free labour...you can word it however you like, but at the end of the day, that's what's happening here...

Volunteering should be just that, for Volunteers. If there is a job to do it should have a pay check at the end of it.

It's even worse in the UK, Here the Maximum someone found guilty of a offense can get is a 300 hours community payback order, if you have the misfortune of finding yourself unemployed you can be ordered to work 6 months for free...it's a sick joke.



Why should people get a "paycheck"
in the form of food stamps
or welfare
or free housing
and not have to give anything in return
when they are capable of doing so?

Why is it ok to take from the community
and not give back?
That is just plain inequality for the people who
work hard for what they earn.

Why isn't giving a "paycheck" for nothing,
simply for just existing,
a form of infantilism and condescension
and a way of treating an able bodied adult
like a little child,
when an adult is quite capable and able
to contribute to the community in exchange
for the "paycheck"?


Not all what you call "criminals" are "criminals", we had one woman who worked for us for 2 weeks. She was older and mixed up her medications and caused a bad accident. No one was hurt fortunately, but the cars were a mess. That could happen to anyone. But the judge had no recourse but to sentence her for DUI because of the severity of the damage. She was not a criminal and I was happy to have her do her community service with our center.

If you equate criminality with giving back to the community,
what is it when you take money that you did not earn,
and not do anything for the money
or make any attempt to pay back the people who gave it
to you with some sort of labor?
Is that morally criminal when one is able to earn the
money given to them?

Or is that being not criminal, but a leech on society,
or is it being infantile when one things society owes
them a paycheck for nothing, and one should not
have to do anything but exist for the paycheck?



So Being unemployed is, by your estimation, enough to have you classed as a Leech...I would go full 180 on you here and say the biggest parasites are those who Leech on the poorest in society....Just in case you haven't noticed..100's of Billions of $$ is going missing from your economy but no-one ever seems to be held account...we'll other than the Unemployed, single parents, Immigrants, sick and disabled etc...



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal



what will the impact be for those that rely on food stamps to feed their children and how many of those affected are single parents barely surviving as it is.



The impact on those people will be "ZERO".

From the OP.



Maine Adds Work Requirement to Welfare Benefits, Drops 80% of Able-Bodied "Childless Adults"



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Daedal



what will the impact be for those that rely on food stamps to feed their children and how many of those affected are single parents barely surviving as it is.



The impact on those people will be "ZERO".

From the OP.



Maine Adds Work Requirement to Welfare Benefits, Drops 80% of Able-Bodied "Childless Adults"


Even starving adults are an embarrassment to the nation. From the OP's second link:


Around the country, food pantry directors are girding for an influx of hungry adults as the work requirement re-emerges....

“We’re going to run out of food,” said Sherrie Tussler, the executive director of the Hunger Task Force Milwaukee. “It’s going to cause wide-scale hunger here in Milwaukee, and we’re in trouble.”

....Ms. Dulack is training to become a personal care aide, but her courses do not count toward the job-training requirement.

“How,” she wondered, “do you expect people to live and feed themselves and survive with nothing?”




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join