It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What if....Welfare

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:00 AM
I am placing this in the Mud-Pit due to the potential for ugliness. But what if the GOP suggested a major reduction of benefits (say 30%) but expanded eligibility to include more recipients (say 15%). However the exact numbers would workout. So that welfare would actually be a hand up rather than a career choice. The reduced benefit would require a beneficiary to work a job to make it and lower to minimum wage workers would have help without the need for a drastic doubling of the wages like the Fight for 15 proposes.

I can see the spins from the two parties already. But would this be a better solution all around? Help for more people provided you are willing to help yourself? Naturally the physically and mentally incapable would have better benefits. But the goal is to help more people while eliminating career welfare leaching of the system by those that can work but choose not to do so.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:14 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

What if... What if there was a politician who brought the issue of "Corporate Welfare" to the forefront? In this area You have members of the Simplotts and the Walton Cabal (ChinaMart fame) that are already exorbitantly wealthy but STILL use U.S. Taxpayer money to further their personal wealth. Now these Waltons are already in the Top 10 of wealthiest folks yet they have a burning desire for more w/ZERO risk of their own funds..

Heck just look at any city that has a major league sports team and see who gets the stadiums built and then see who they split the proceeds with...

I type that We offer Welfare Recipients a "Lump Sum Option" and once they receive their pay-off they're done.

Remember the Auto bailouts? Did You see where the CEOs still received their exorbitant salaries AND bonuses? How about a few years ago when Morgan-Stanley lost $9 BILLION and they lied about it and said they only lost $4B then the Lady in charge gets a salary of $130M for the 2 years...

Yeah until a politician or ANYONE brings this up then as far as I'm concerned they can pee up a rope.. I have way more in common w/the person receiving Welfare than I do w/a politician who is attacking the non-elite and wanting to start making changes at THE WRONG END OF THE SPECTRUM!!!

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:16 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

How does health care fit in?

A friend of mine had a fair paying job as a janitor at a private college back in the day. He ended up needing a kidney transplant and in order to get the medication for his constant upkeep of his kidneys he had to quit his job to go on welfare! This was back in the 80's and back then he made $12 an hour, so he had a decent paying job for the time, however the medications he needed to live cost MORE than his monthly take home.

See where I am going? Welfare seems to have many issues good and bad as to why people may have to go on it versus the standard "people are lazy" meme. For my friend, who ended up dying from his kidneys anyways, being on welfare meant saving his life.

BTW, he was royally pissed off, he had to quit his job, but he had no other choice.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: JimNasium

This is simple fix called "tax reform." Flat tax. One rate for everyone - business and personal.

And there are politicians who bring this one up every election cycle.
edit on 25-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:30 AM
a reply to: seeker1963

That still happens today. My job is transporting people to doctors appointments and other non-emergency care. All of them receive that ride as part of their benefits. Since I carry wheelchair clients, a third of my trips are to dialysis clinics. But I also make a number of trips to the VA and too many (in my opinion) to methadone and Suboxone clinics.

And before it is asked. The company I work for subcontracts, so no I am not making "government pay scale money" or benefits for that matter. The Fight for 15 might actually end those "free rides" unless there is something in the contract to protect that by eliminating non-essential rides or rate/budget adjustments. Or a combination of things.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:39 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

You know, that's an interesting question, but I've got a problem with the proposal.

First off, I can't imagine the GOP introducing anything resembling welfare reform; its a third-rail type topic and they'd only get burned, but that's just my thinking. Secondly, I believe, not sure, but believe that the work requirement is in place now and was introduced under Bill Clinton's administration.

My problem with your proposal is that the US economy is morphing so quickly with robotics and automated assembly lines that every year there will be fewer and fewer entry level unskilled, or even, semi-skilled jobs left to perform. So, of necessity, "welfare" of at minimum 3 types is going to have to be broadened and improved because there simply won't be any jobs for people to occupy. The three types are cash assistance, nutrition assistance, and housing assistance. Major reforms are necessary........for one thing we need to find a way to stop unskilled unemployed to stop breeding more unskilled unemployed. For another, we need to focus on housing; the rate of homelessness is out of control.

Any way, those are a few of my thoughts.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:41 AM
I still think welfare should be calculated as a sum total of the all the possible disbursements from various entitlements programs measured against the mean income of an area. Pick a percentage of that amount that is about 20 to 25% below that mean income. Roll all those entitlement programs into that one disbursement program.

So basically, people making welfare or less than the area's mean by that percentage (20 to 25%) are eligible to receive disbursement assistance. Since that disbursement comes from ALL the other programs: rent, food, medicaid, etc., it replaces them.

That means people will become responsible for making their disbursement cover those areas is their responsibility and is at market rate, but it also means the government will no longer be meddling to keep certain portions artificially low either which means things ought to settle out at a more reasonable rate than before.

And you can never make too much. You means test it meaning that as people on the program make more, the percentage they receive in disbursement gradually draws down. No sudden catastrophic loss of everything like today's programs do. It should be structured so that by the time a person is making the area's mean, they are not taking any more in disbursement.

This should have the benefits of ending some of the artificial government meddling in the marketplace while allowing the many bureaucracies that administer benefits now to be outright cut as the responsibility for money management is shifted back to the individuals which is more hand-up anyhow. And it encourages people to wean themselves off by not trapping them in an all or nothing system.

Oh, and I forgot to say that whatever your disbursement percentage ends up being, it ought to be enough you can scrape by, not enough to be comfortable, but you can never go below it.
edit on 25-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:49 AM
Maybe Bill and Melinda can buy everyone in the US a house. Some day, population
control will help the welfare problem. The growth rate of the poor can be reduced.
It is important to control birth rates and the poor we have now we are stuck with
as well as those yet to be born. In the future it will be important who is to be born
rather how many and letting anyone indiscriminately procreate at will. In the old
days, it was important for human population growth to build genetic diversity but
it doesn't seem appropriate to allow unchecked population growth today, in the
modern age.

a reply to: TonyS

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:53 AM
a reply to: JimNasium

To keep myself from becoming frothing at the mouth about corporate welfare (and it would be a short trip if I didn't do this) I think of it as being akin to research grants given to universities. Except with universities people develop their masters and doctorate thesis based on that work. Whereas with companies they bring new products at a lower price point to market.

For example, I remember seeing CD burners priced at $1000 and $100 for a single blank disc back in the day. Of course mass produced CDs were still $17 minimum back then too and were packaged in long cardboard sleeves with additional or expanded album art to compete with LPs.

A dirty secret about the bailouts is that some companies operate by making payroll by means of short term bank loans until their product sells. Like locomotive manufacturing or commercial jets. When banks stopped making those loans, Uncle Sugar was the only place to turn.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: Drawsoho

Yes, well, letting in unchecked immigration from countries where the idea of population control hasn't been established doesn't achieve that goal.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:08 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

My opinion only.

You'll never get rid of abuse of any welfare system. There will always be a percentage that abuses it, a percentage that uses it.

Regardless of the numbers, availability, cost.

I think there should be a time limit instead of a benefit limit.

Being on welfare should never be a choice as a career.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:10 AM
You will never have people getting off of welfare until they want to be. To many folks are willing to not try to be self sustaining.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:16 AM
a reply to: TonyS

Yes, there is a work requirement or education/ training barring employment. There is also a lifetime limit of three years. Both of these are regulated as well as the "actively seeking employment" provision of unemployment compensation. However the exemption to both of those things is martial status and number of children in household under 18.

The other route, often taken in conjunction with child bearing, is disability. Although some wait until they can no longer or are unwilling to have more children.

Unfortunately the fastest and surest path to disability is to be diagnosed as bipolar. It is considered a fast track compared to crippling injury which can take 3+ years and selecting the right lawyer to sue the government on your behalf.

By comparison, bipolar diagnosis is a matter of going to the right doctor who files it in exchange for seeking treatment through them. All of this is of course on your dime. Waste, Fraud and Abuse? Yep, good luck getting it shut down. But it isn't all bad, I get paid to take some of them to those appointments too now and then.

I guess what you could say that I have seen something and am saying something. But rather than just bitching, putting forth an idea to solve some of the problem. Obviously I am spitballing an idea to see if there is some merit to it.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:22 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

There shouldn't be a blanket "disability" category.

I'm disabled but I am able to work.

Just because a person has a disability shouldn't preclude them from working.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:33 AM
a reply to: Bluntone22

Well that's the real trick isn't it? We all know about the 50 cent on the dollar shopping done with the EBT cards. But what happens to that cash afterwards? Beer, cigarettes and drugs is assumed. But would it surprise you that sometimes that cash is used to by a small volume of contraband that is then broken down for distribution and then sold in order to make a small but considerable profit? (Kept it in the T&Cs) Other bits of hustling happen too like gambling, selling loose cigarettes, and everyone's favorite...prostitution.

While those are minor criminal elements, acceptance paves the way for more major criminal elements to take hold. And then the neighborhood goes down. No where is this more rampant than in Section 8 projects where childbirth for financial gain leads to children running amok. And I am not addressing racial or cultural points here. Think more Lord of the Flies when children run with no guidance or discipline. Just that under such conditions, things escalate towards entropy quickly.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:34 AM
I hate to be a broken record but I will say it again...

PLEASE ago to your nearest ER at any given time on any given will be overrun with non emergencies or anchor babies who will cost the state millions over the next few decades...

This is not conjecture but fact...and a physician in the er(which my wife is) can NEVER refuse care for a person and typically has no idea whether the person has insurance or not...

But our healthcare is being so abused it would make the lot of you sick...billions upon billions of dollars are being thrown away by a group of people who have no care whatsoever about the consequences of their abuse of the hospital system...

It is a wonder our economy in Texas has thrived as long as it has with such an albatross chained to its neck....

I beg you to simply pop in an ED(especially if y'all live in a metroplex with a level I trauma center) and just take a glance at the "sick" people...


posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:36 AM
Ultimately it wouldn't work because ultimately welfare as we employ it doesn't work.

Welfare begets more welfare. A hand out is just that. Once you start shoring up a failing economy with it the more people choose it over seeking work.

Especially poorer people that have dreary jobs for little money. They would rather not work than subject themselves to hours of dirt labor for little pay.

People with marketable , well paying job skills don't need it, they readily find another job.

A good microcosm study of that is New York bankruptcy in the 70's. The whole house of cards came crashing down, one reason was the welfare state became to big a drain on the economy. Captured brilliantly in Koyannisqautsi, the derelict apartment buildings explosive demolished in here...

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:40 AM
a reply to: DBCowboy

Quite right. And there are various programs that put people to work if they want to do so. As a CDL holder, losing a limb or eye revokes the CDL. Although I would be quite functional for other avenues of work other than driving.

Point I was making is that some will path that way in order to avoid having to work or meet the work requirement.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: Christosterone

I didn't want to address race but I can tell you that the majority of our riders are single white, female, 30-50 age range. On Sundays that number is skewed to 20-40 age range and is mostly to and from methadone clinics for daily matainance fixes. The second most common rider on Sundays are MR/DD to and from work with a 60-40 ratio of females to males.

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:04 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

Without getting to personal, I do get questioned from time to time as to why I still work?

Society has encouraged people not to work. Maybe I'm older, from a different generation, but Going out on a disability as the last resort. Not a career option.

Welfare should never be seen as an option to choose from when looking at your future.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in