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.

 

Maybe welfare recipients could help improve their state

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
***I am not looking to offend anyone with this post. I understand there are some honest people that have no choice but to receive financial help from the government. ***

Im sure in every state there's a problem with people taking advantage of the system. Popping out children just to collect checks, claiming to have faking medical illnesses and working under the table, while collecting food stamps (and driving expensive cars). It's just way too easy for dishonest people to get a free ride, while the rest of us getting chunks of our out of each check.
As I was driving down the coast today, I was seeing how much trash is on the beach. It got me thinking. The state of California is too broke to hire people to clean the beaches up regularly, so why not put welfare recipients to "work"? Same goes for the public parks. What about the DMV call centers that are swampt with calls. Can't they go down there to help answer phones? How about the disabled vets that have a hard time running their own errands, couldn't they help them out too?
Like depending on the situation, maybe putting in "X" amount of hours each month, for a certain job, before they could be granted each check. Not only would the state greatly benefit, it'd give the recipients some experience to put on their resumes. Or it could be that extra push to make them go out there and find a job they'd really want. For the ones with kids, they could have others collecting from the government watch them (or maybe even a daycare type situation), and the babysitting be apart of their "job"/hours needed.
What do you guys think?




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: makemethink

Compulsory labor, conscripted service, these are just some of the naturally inevitable outcomes of existential dependence on the state.

It all seems so horrifyingly reasonable.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Back to the Future circa 2020

Civilian Conservation Corps


The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families as part of the New Deal. Originally for young men ages 18–23, it was eventually expanded to young men ages 17–28.[1] Robert Fechner was the head of the agency. It was a major part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal that provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 (about $547 in 2015[2]) a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: makemethink

Compulsory labor, conscripted service, these are just some of the naturally inevitable outcomes of existential dependence on the state.

It all seems so horrifyingly reasonable.

If it makes working for the state worse than working for a living, I'm all for it.

Welfare programs should be necessities and incentives at the same time.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: makemethink

Compulsory labor, conscripted service, these are just some of the naturally inevitable outcomes of existential dependence on the state.

It all seems so horrifyingly reasonable.

If it makes working for the state worse than working for a living, I'm all for it.

Welfare programs should be necessities and incentives at the same time.


I understand the resentment but, these are threats to liberty that rise above blaming the recipients of destructive policies. Remember that they are the victims, not the beneficiaries whether they recognize it or not.

It is the policies and their underlying ideological doctrines that must be defeated in open intellectual argument. Having disproved the myths associated with interventionism, its institutions can be peacefully annuled.

Anything less would leave unanswered questions which will fester until they arise again at some unanticipated future date.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I don't mean dissolving these benefits. I mean creating centers where those in need would go and be a contributing factor to distribution of benefits.

After all, someone has to do that work, if you want something free, go get it!



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: makemethink
***I am not looking to offend anyone with this post. I understand there are some honest people that have no choice but to receive financial help from the government. ***

Im sure in every state there's a problem with people taking advantage of the system. Popping out children just to collect checks, claiming to have faking medical illnesses and working under the table, while collecting food stamps (and driving expensive cars). It's just way too easy for dishonest people to get a free ride, while the rest of us getting chunks of our out of each check.
As I was driving down the coast today, I was seeing how much trash is on the beach. It got me thinking. The state of California is too broke to hire people to clean the beaches up regularly, so why not put welfare recipients to "work"? Same goes for the public parks. What about the DMV call centers that are swampt with calls. Can't they go down there to help answer phones? How about the disabled vets that have a hard time running their own errands, couldn't they help them out too?
Like depending on the situation, maybe putting in "X" amount of hours each month, for a certain job, before they could be granted each check. Not only would the state greatly benefit, it'd give the recipients some experience to put on their resumes. Or it could be that extra push to make them go out there and find a job they'd really want. For the ones with kids, they could have others collecting from the government watch them (or maybe even a daycare type situation), and the babysitting be apart of their "job"/hours needed.
What do you guys think?


Could you please explain why do you have a problem with people claiming welfare?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: makemethink

Why can`t there be a participant citizen status? if you participate, everything is free, food, clothes, entertainment, and if you do not participate in any way, well, out in the cold you go..

When its my time to be a tyrannical overlord, i shall try this.. a cashless society..


edit on 13-1-2016 by solve because: because one more thing..



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Always a touchy subject in any country on any forum. Governmental help is acceptable but I know what you mean. God forbid I was ever in charge of the UK.

What was that? your 18 and have never worked a day in your life? Heres 2 years in boot camp for you!

What was that? Your claiming X stops you from working? Here you go! A job to do from home, dont want to do it? Bye bye benefits.

Seen too many people get something for nothing and expect more when I struggle to keep a 1 bedroom flat with a future wife and a 5 month old baby.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
OP there is just one conundrum with your opinion. If welfare recipients should work for their money then
a) there must be jobs available to do, why not just hire them? and
b) if they work, why not pay them the going rate?

The answers are clear. There are not enough jobs and I am totally against people who had bad luck in life having to work for less than others. And lets face it, welfare is less than minimum wage [at least in the UK].

Forcing people to do work for a pittance as punishment for a bad life is slavery.

I know that a lot of people abuse the system and IMO they should be punished by existing laws. But there are a lot of people who can't work for actual reasons [sometimes there are just no jobs or they are too ill to work]. Especially the first lot who wants to find a job should not be abused. If there are jobs, give them to them and pay them the going rate.

We had this here in Britain, where people were forced to work very menial jobs for their welfare, with the promise that they 'could' lead to a permanent position. Turned out that big companies abused these people, got them for half the price and never planned to give any of them a permanent position.

They were taking the pi55 out of suffering people, who often were graduates or fathers who lost their jobs and were desperate to work.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

Why not have them do like 15 to 20 hours of community serive? Have them clean up the highways sweep up at local municipal buildings. The point is most people take advantage of the system and things like that could have deter people from abusing the system.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I think a bit better approach than 'forced' labor, is create a system of benefits that encourages self-sufficiency rather than dependence.

Its not that far fetched, other than perhaps going against current plans of strict, unflinching dependence. If properly implemented, it would not only cost less, it would allow those people to contribute to the world around them.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
All this economics, it's almost as if we weren't dealing with human beings. Questions like these are matters for morality. A work ethic must be instilled into the learning process, and the value of work and making a living must proceed from the bottom up, never forced from the top down.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zerodoublehero
Have you not read hecates post? Yes, get them to sweep the highway. But what happens to the guy already employed to sweep the highway? Oh, the authority realises that they can get benefit recipients to do it for nothing so the fire their original sweeper.
let's make this perfectly clear. IF THERE IS WORK THERE TO BE DONE EMPLOY THEM TO DO IT AND PAY A LIVING WAGE, whether that's sweeping roads ,cleaning municipal building or any community work it should be payed for doing that job not expecting it to be done for free. And please don't say "oh, it's not free as they are getting benefit". Benefit is payed by the government not the local authorities. The local authorities get the work done for nothing.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Zerodoublehero
Have you not read hecates post? Yes, get them to sweep the highway. But what happens to the guy already employed to sweep the highway? Oh, the authority realises that they can get benefit recipients to do it for nothing so the fire their original sweeper.
let's make this perfectly clear. IF THERE IS WORK THERE TO BE DONE EMPLOY THEM TO DO IT AND PAY A LIVING WAGE, whether that's sweeping roads ,cleaning municipal building or any community work it should be payed for doing that job not expecting it to be done for free. And please don't say "oh, it's not free as they are getting benefit". Benefit is payed by the government not the local authorities. The local authorities get the work done for nothing.



This is exactly what happened when they tried this in the UK

Putting people into forced employment in retail free of charge just means that the employer lays of staff and avoids paying wages putting people out of work only to be forced into working for unemployment benefit???

Nope that simply does not work.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Here in Hawaii, if your child is under 6 months you don't have to work. Other than that, most people need to work or volunteer for at least 30 hours each week, and then your welfare is reduced for making an income.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: makemethink

In this socialist leaning society, this does seem reasonable. But currently, they don't want the poor working, they just want to give out handouts in return for votes until they have this country exactly where they want us all, then they will do the inevitable of forced labor.

Until that day though, its probably not as easy as you might think. In my state, an adult can only collect welfare for three months without having at least part-time employment. It is meant as short-term help until at least part-time (minimum of 22 hours per week) work is acquired. If the recipient does not find such employment in that three months time, they are simply out of luck. And that unemployed three months of food stamps is only once in your lifetime, you will never get it again without being employed at least part time.

The only exception to that rule is mothers who have small children at home, or people living in the most economically depressed counties in our state. The county I live in is an exempt county, and there are only two such counties in my state, but here in my exempt county, the unemployment rate is now at 11%, the highest in the state. So they have made an exception to this, and one other county and allow a longer period of time without employment.

But its not just a free ride. Anyone with a drug charge can never receive any form of welfare, even for their children. There are quite a few rules to becoming a recipient - for the disabled, they must be legally declared 100% disabled, and it's not easy to get a handful of doctors all to declare a person 100% disabled. Much harder to fake than you imply.

I do agree that existential dependence upon government is a bad thing though, it should be a temporary thing for hard times, and usually, at least in my state - as far as I can tell - is used as properly as possible by most. It is possible that your state has less oversight and management of their welfare programs than does mine, however.




edit on 13-1-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: makemethink

Maybe welfare recipients could help improve their state.

Yes perhaps they can help improve their state by being given increased payments so there is more economic stimulus going into the economy.

Personal welfare payments bounce through the back accounts of the recipients and straight into the local economy and in the mean time they survive financially.

Money spent by recipients of personal welfare is the best money there is in the economy. This is because such people by far fewer imported goods, its good for the environment because they tend to buy second hand goods and they recycle things much more so than those earning much more.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Another victim who has fallen for propaganda. The premise of your thread is based on rumors myth and propaganda by the elite to divide the poor and middle class to keep them bickering amongst themselves so they aren't paying attention to how the rich are ripping them off. Besides the poor make a great scapegoat and don't have the means pay for propaganda like the wealthy do.

Let's take a look what it's really like to apply for and be on welfare in California.

You go into the office and spend hours waiting in line so you can fill out a stack of forums about the thickness of a small novel. Then you spend hours more so you can turn it in and get an appointment.

At the appointment you are drilled on every aspect of your life. You have to provide:
Birth certificates for everyone living in the home.
Social security cards for everyone living in the home.
Drivers license or I.D. for all adults in the home.
A copy of your rental agreement
Copy of utility bills.
Bank Statment
Car registration
Pay stubs if you are working.
Proofs that you aren't receiving income elsewhere and they ask about every possible source.

They double check all of these sources. They check DMV records, they call banks, you really can't hide any information.

If you have a car registered in your name that has a Kelly Blue Book value worth more than $2,000 they deny you and tell you to sell it. It doesn't matter if the car doesn't run and is smashed up, they base it on the KBB.

You then have to go and sit and watch an hour long video on the rules and regulation on what would be considered fraud, and another long video on eating healthy.

If approved, you then go in for fingerprints and a retina scan. Yes, I said RETINA scan. Then you may get your card or you may have to wait given on your situation.

You have to work or be involved in a job search activity 20 hours a week for a single parent and 32 hours a week for a two parent home. The biggest barrier to this is child care and transportation.

You have a 52 month lifetime limit. Ones those 52 months are up, you can never apply again.

A single person without children is limited to 3 months.

If you have another child without a 10-month break in aide prior to the birth, that child is ineligible from receiving aid for life!. Did you catch that one? You can never get aid for that child ever, even if you go off of aide for 5-10 years.

Now, given that very few people on aide live any where near the beach or within reasonable driving distance, many of whom will never see the ocean in their lifetime, I am going to venture to guess that the OP has never been to California, if they have, they have only visited a place like Los Angeles or San Fransisco, both places in which make up barely a fraction of the land mass in California.

Please stop feeding the propaganda of the elite.
edit on 1/14/2016 by calstorm because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/14/2016 by calstorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Hecate666

Why not have them do like 15 to 20 hours of community serive? Have them clean up the highways sweep up at local municipal buildings. The point is most people take advantage of the system and things like that could have deter people from abusing the system.


That's my point. If there is a job open to clean highways, then hire them for it paying the going rate. In Britain a lot of people who get 'benefits' are actually working already, yet because they don't earn enough they are also eligible for some help towards rent or taxes.

I know the kind of people everyone wants to see working, trust me, I am not naive. But I hate it when decent people, who have fallen on bad times are treated like vermin just so the rest can feel happy.

The gist is that people are just angry because those on welfare don't have to work and you do. That's what it boils down to.

What you fail to see is that those who want to work but can't find jobs, need time off to apply for work etc. and those that are really lazy layabouts do not live the high life, despite wearing new trainers.

If you are jealous of living in dodgy areas and always be under the thumb of the government, then that's your problem.

I am not jealous of them, I want to chose where I live, have enough money to live a decent life, not worry about crime too much and generally be relatively free from the governments clutches. [I know this because after 25 years in a professional job, I fell ill and now I am a government scapegoat and plaything to whatever new idea they are having, even if it is to my detriment, but that's a different story].

Don't be jealous, but see this as a good thing, you are not just paying for them, but also for the eventuality that YOU may lose your job and then you'd be soooooooooo glad that you don't have to sleep in the gutter and your family can eat.

ETA: Some people are really unemployable, trust me, they may have a mental illness for example. Paying them some money will keep most of them of the streets and off bigger crime. If you prefer thousands of homeless with no money roaming the streets, robbing others in order to eat, you'd be happy to pay a little bit for this to stop. That is how the welfare state started in Britain. Beforehand it was just chaos, mayhem and crime.
So there is two reasons not to begrudge welfare.

edit on 14-1-2016 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join