Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches In Their Place

originally posted by: sylent6
What these people can't work three 8 hour days out of a month????

I think you mean volunteer three 8 hour days a month. Working would be 80 hours a month.

You know even volunteering for 24 hours a month still only works out to $6.25 an hour. Isn't that still below the Federal Minimum wage??? Plus it's not even cash to spend as they choose, but food credit money only.

Still seems like they're being stingy. At least pay the minimum wage ya cheap asses.

a reply to: queenofswords

A really good solution idea! There are problems with this new law that hurt the people who need it the most. Those who don't really need it will leave.

originally posted 6)!8 Aazadan

originally posted by: TheJourney
These kids are getting these moochers $5 a day for food and drink! The luxury...and they have the audacity to act like they're not bankrupting the country..

$5/day is a lot relatively, if you're single with low income (the types of people that have to work under this program) it's closer to $2/day, atleast here in my part of Ohio.

Well, it's less than the government defines as a thrifty but healthy food budget.

Food Costs

a reply to: queenofswords care givers need training and experience. It's not really a voluntary position. I wouldn't be happy if I was expecting care and an unexperienced volunteer turned up, not knowing what to do and only there to receive their benefits.

Has a fair days pay for a fair days work completely escaped the lexicon of modern language. Consigned to history like workers rights.

Surprising to see so many cheer on this return to serfdom, without a second thought. "Im alright Jack" is the new mentality of the age, to Hell with everyone else

originally posted by: Phage
Right. Because welfare recipients have unlimited funds at their disposal so they can spend more freely than those who don't.

Either you're being difficult or I'm not explaining it well, perhaps it's a difference in our circumstances. I'm in the group of people that would be affected by this if I were in Maine. Despite my financial situation, I know that I can have a child and it won't negatively quality of life (aside from having to take care of a child). Food, healthcare, rental assistance, school supplies, and so on are covered. It would actually financially benefit me a bit. For example I would jump from $55/month in food stamps to cover 1 person to $357 to cover 2. It would also bump me up several points on a HUD list and give me housing so that I'm not living in the worst neighborhood in one of the highest crime rate towns in the country. A place where the annual chance of being a victim of theft is 1 in 12 and burglary is 1 in 50 (of course that's city wide, it's higher in my part of town). And I would be getting that housing for less money than I do now.

If that's the route I wished to go, there are certainly incentives to do so. I've seen many others who I no longer associate with go down that route. I can't say I approve of what they do, but I can't really blame them either.

It's not about unlimited funds. The poor assuming they're using these programs legally are not going out and buying big ticket items with them, or really anything other than the intended use (a few do break the law but it's overstated). There's no spending sprees for gaming systems, or big screen TV's, or brand new cars, or a fancy computer. Instead, when you see a poor person with these items, said item usually came from a Rent A Center and the person is paying well above market value in a never ending small installment plan using the small mount of disposable cash they have per month.

originally posted by: TheJourney
Well, it's less than the government defines as a thrifty but healthy food budget.

Food Costs

Male 18-50. I have never eaten on that much money per month (thrifty plan) in my life even at times where I thought I was eating well. My current food budget is half of what they claim.

a reply to: mOjOm

Still seems like they're being stingy. At least pay the minimum wage ya cheap asses.

That is just silly,why on earth would you pay the minimum wage when you have even cheaper labor through mandatory volunteering ....

originally posted by: trollz

Republicans in Maine are celebrating an epic victory with their successful welfare reformation

Governor Paul LePage of Maine passed a measure last year that requires recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program to complete a certain number of work, job-training, or volunteer hours in order to be eligible for assistance. The new requirement has resulted in a dramatic decline in food stamp enrollment

Now that individuals have to complete either 20 hours of part-time work a week, volunteer for at least 24 hours per month, or get involved in a vocational program, the amount of SNAP recipients has dramatically dropped from 12,000 to approximately 2,500

Source

Ha.. Haha..
Good job, Maine! If someone isn't even willing to so much as volunteer for 24 hours PER MONTH, then they don't deserve free handouts.

You seem to be on the verge of hating people on welfare, why?

Are you equally opposed to corporate welfare? do you know about corporate welfare? has the man on the TV told you about corporate welfare?

Are you aware of the banks create money out of thin air? if you are have you asked yourself if that banks can do why can the govt do it.? Are you aware that if the govt used it powers to create money just through a signature like the banks do that they can create all the money needed to provide all the goods and services needed in the society and by the economy?

Are you aware that if the govt did this there would be adequate money for all that is needed and none of us would have to pay any tax at all because the only reason we do now is because the banks will not permit the govt to create money and so the govt has to borrow money from the banks and the 'tax' we pay is actually the interest the govt has to pay on the money borrowed from the bank.

In view of this information I'd really like to know why you hate welfare for individuals?
thanks for responding to my questions.

The poor are always hit hard, punished for being poor.

I remember just last year when I was out of work I was sent on a "volutary work program" they say volutary but if you don't do it your money is stopped, and it's not alot, just enough to buy basic generic food.

Anyway this work program was working in a charity shop and cleaning public parks, total hours have to make up 40 hours per week for 3 months, on my last day on the work program I got a nice letter through the post informing me I have been sanctioned for 3 months because they don't belive I was searching for enough jobs during my volutary work program.

That's why I despise paying taxes and avoid it whenever I can now because most tax money does not go to the right people where it's needed most.

a reply to: mOjOm

you can buy a fountain drink.
you can buy a cooked chicken as long as it has been placed into a container and served cold.
you can also buy candy, chips, and energy drinks.

a reply to: Mugly

Nope, you can't by energy drinks. Well, you aren't supposed too. Some stores ring them up as sodas though, mostly convenience stores run by people from India or the Middle East. You just have to go to the right ones.

I see the same "them and us" mentality pervades the US as it does over here in the UK. Here's some UK facts :

* The UK spends 3 billion on unemployment benefits
* Vodafone evaded a tax bill of 4 Billion and was let off by the tax office.

So who do you think the right wingers are going after ? Vodafone or the unemployed?

Seems like thats the way these days. It's OK defraud the government of billions when you have billions and thus have obscene profits and bank balances. But if you are unemployed you are treated like the scum of the earth.

Welfare leech => terrorist.

Ipso facto.

What I've been reading here, is some people are upset that Food Stamps are no longer free and clear with no reciprocation.

Interesting.

I was in a really bad situation last year, and I applied for assistance,and was turned down. I'm single, with no dependents, and had they offered this program I would have JUMPED at the opportunity to give something back for something that was going to be GIVEN to me. But instead I got turned down.

Did I turn to a life of crime? No.

Did I go out on the corner and beg? No.

Did I get angry? YES!

And then I did something about it. I started my own business, got a part time job, and moved on.

This is what this kind of program is all about. It's to teach responsibility for YOUR life, and not dependency.

Anyone who is single, and able to work, yet refuses to give 24 hours a MONTH back into the system that is literally feeding them doesn't deserve the benefits.

"But what if they have no way to get there!" If they have the will, they will find a way.

There is nothing wrong with asking for someone to give back a little of their time and effort for the food that's being given to them. And if you see wrong in that, then you are simply advocating for allowing people to take, without giving.

Sounds good, although I doubt the quality of any work done by someone forced to volunteer.

Weird double post...

a reply to: trollz

Is it just me, or is the article only talking about food stamps? I didn't see any reference to welfare (e.g. government assistance for the poor including child care, housing and even food)

Perhaps I am wrong?

After a Bachelor's Degree and 16 years straight of being totally self sufficient....I found myself struck down by a sudden and permanent disability. Thank God for SNAP (food stamps), TANF (cash help, I qualified for $230 per month) and it took 2 years but now I'm receiving SSI (disability) to live on every month. So let me say these programs are ESSENTIAL to the people who need them. I've also known 'the working poor' who work full time but still need food stamps to keep their heads above water.

When I qualified for TANF (cash) one of the requirements was to report to the Workforce Commission. I had to get a note from my doctor to be exempt (disabled therefore unable to work). So I had to jump through a couple of hoops, but it got straightened out. My point is, there are already similar measures in place and I agree 100% in holding people accountable. They REALLY should assign one caseworker per household to address all the needs at once and tailor a plan for that individual to improve their situation.

Here's what I can say about the 'welfare system': It is the most convoluted, wasteful cluster f**k you can imagine. Workers who don't know what the heck they're doing, that can't give you a straight answer about their own system. Constant bombardment of redundant paperwork. I'm a fairly intelligent person and navigating the 'system' was one of the most taxing things I've ever done. I honestly don't know how really dumb people even do it.

Medicaid/Medicare fraud is a majority on the part of the doctors...not the 'leech' patients. And while I'm sure there are welfare 'leeches' I would be willing to bet their piddly food stamp benefits don't even come close to the waste and fraud of the system. I could name 5000 ways they could improve the system, but I guess it's easier and more popular to target the 'leeches'.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
No, this is legit.

They are excluding people who have dependants, etc. As yet, no one in this thread has raised an objection that really has merit, outside of the "You can't force people to volunteer". And to that I say: they are doing work typically done by volunteers....not doing volunteer work.

Call it "community service" if you like that term better. This is simply turning the hand out back into a hand up.

Sounds about right, now if we can just Texas on board with this program. We have leeches up the waha around here.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im kind of baffled how this is not a good thing.

Various reasons.

But most importantly: our current model is outdated and is artificially kept alive by buzzards.

We are between two worlds: the old world in which we all had to work our tails off to survive - because we did not HAVE the knowledge and technology we have now. And the new world in which machines might do most of our routine work and we might be free to live as we like and focus on taking care of each other instead of taking just care of ourselves.

We already have the machines. But we did not adopt new ethics and seem to be stuck with the medieval "thou shalst work thy tail off" ethics. Also, there are the REAL leeches - the filthy rich self-proclaimed "upper class" thieves - whom control our media, our schools and most of the rest of our society. Hence we are constantly being told lies and half-truths. And we believe these lies even though more and more suffer from them.

Firstly, we force people to do work even though there aren't sufficient jobs anymore. We lie to them that "all can have a job". And if they don't have "a job" they are told to be preying on society, they are told THEY are the leeches even... So, they take any job and if they can't get one feel worthless - and are treated a such, by everybody! If they finally can get some job they will take it even if they do not like it - far too many have boring, uninteresting jobs that do not match their profiles. But they can't quite to make room for somebody else that might like that job - because we don't feed them if they do, we don't take care of them if they do. Regardless if they are nice, good people, that might contribute to society otherwise - as long as it is not in a payed-for job, we tell them they are worthless.

If they have a job the buzzards scare them by telling them lies about the need for austerity. They then tell them to work more hours each week, more weeks each year and more years of their life. They make this easier by taking away their pensions and social securities and stash the money in their own pockets. In effect, labour becomes worthless. The buzzards profit while the rest of us suffer. We stupidly let them, even defend them, as they are "good for the economy". Sure. But they aren't good for the people.

If we continue like we do we will re-establish some kind of medieval society in which people are enslaved and work for literally nothing but some scraps of food, a bed and a uniform provided by their noble and filthy rich employers. And we're very near to doing that. Manual labour already is on the brink of becoming worthless and even jobs that require higher education are rapidly becoming less and less worth.

I know, there will always be good people that set up a business and would rather starve themselves than to lower the decent salaries of their employed - but they are, alas, honourable exceptions. Buzzards are a disease and they are everywhere. Say for example the idea of 'job-training'. Sounds good, ay? But .. to be succesful it requires the availability of matching jobs. If matching jobs aren't available, it is rather stupid to diminish the chance of getting a job even further by having a "volunteer" do that job for a handful of foodstamps, don't you agree?

Of course, the buzzards love it: they can now choose from hundreds of thousands of people instead of a handful, can pay lower wages (which increases THEIR income) and if you are one of those "filthy, lazy no good for nothing unionists" they can simply fire you and replace you with a more "loyal" person - aided by the ever increasing "flexibility" in the labour market created by mostly right-wing parties whom are mostly payed by the buzzards.

So, we end up with fewer, lower payed jobs, and the buzzards get richer and richer, buying more and more political influence with the money they stole. Well, yes, they provide work - untill they find out that a new machine is far cheaper - they than sent home their underpayed labourers, never mind their fate. "Tough, but we need to compete!" (do we?)

You may think that education is the answer. This, after all, would allow people to get jobs in the "higher" segments. But that does not work either: firstly we don't all have the talents to earn a degree. Secondly, the buzzards do their uitmost to make higher eduction something for only their kind, by ensuring it is too expensive for most. And even if we, the people,were to provide "free" education to all - and say we all had the required smarts - who needs kazillions of engineers, doctors and lawyers only to sit behind a till or collect garbage? If we all have degrees what then is the value of such an degree other than that we realize how stupid we are?

In the end, the ones without talent and sufficient money to buy an education would end up starving, unable to compete - and the garbage collectors would have Masters degrees...

Remember this one?



I actually had tears in my eyes when I listened to this outcry. This, my friends, is reality right now!

Thank goodness - the younger generations seem to dig this far better than the baby-boomers. There may be hope still!