Of course it would be my state. o well itll be interesting to see if this will add to ever growing recall movement of snyder.

This is going to be interesting. Michigan has one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country. Where are these people
supposed to get jobs?

In 48 months, you can get an Associates, a Bachelors, find a job, start a business, invent and market something. . . . or just sit around and wait for a government check.

Personal responsibility.

I have no issue with this. I think that people shouldn't be able to live their lives off of welfare. Why should I pay for a person to just sit around and do nothing their entire lives? Sure, people sometimes could use some help, and it should be there for people to receive help, but two years is a good amount of time to either train for a job, or find an adequate job to support ones self.

I believe that welfare was actually to be a "temporary solution" to a financial problem for the working family, not a life time leaching of tax payer dollars, like it has become right now.

Perhaps the next thing to do is limiting the amount of children born to welfare recipients, after all why do you need to have children if you need tax payer assistance to feed them.

The answer to all of this is simple:

There are no longer enough working people to pay all of those not working. Why can't people see the simple math in this?

When the number of people paying into the system becomes less than the number of people withdrawing from the system, you run out of money. Period.

Michigan is just the start. This is going to play out all across the US so long as our unemployment and underemployment rates remain at current levels. Underemployed people tend to make less than the threshold for paying into the system...so that group doesn't contribute money to pay for those not working at all. Further, many of those underemployed meet current requirements for food stamps, meaning they are also draining the system.

People need to wakeup to the fact that, despite all the printing by the Fed, there is a finite amount of money that can be doled out before you bankrupt the system. The system is pretty much bankrupt already and it's only a matter of time before it becomes evident to everyone.

This is why I believe we will end up in a civil war-type situation. The have and have nots. Unfortunately, the demographics also open up the possibility of turning this into a racial and/or partisan divide.

Further, simply increasing the taxes on the wealthy will not solve the problem, it will only marginally delay it.

The wealth in this country is dropping faster while the numbers of people needing assistance is growing. The equation just doesn't work in the long run.

It seems like a good start to me. Sure, some people need legitimate assistance, but there are also an awful lot of people out there who are nothing more than professional welfare recipients who are just milking it for all its worth. They can go get a job like everyone else. I'm sorry if flipping McBurgers is degrading and probably involves a paycut compared to leeching off the taxpayers, but life doesn't owe anyone squat. The rest of us had to work for what little we have, why shouldn't they?

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe that welfare was actually to be a "temporary solution" to a financial problem for the working family, not a life time leaching of tax payer dollars, like it has become right now.

Perhaps the next thing to do is limiting the amount of children born to welfare recipients, after all why do you need to have children if you need tax payer assistance to feed them.

Slippery slope there...
If you want less government intrusion, why restrict who can have children?

As for the bill, I dunno...I have yet to read through it. It says lifetime. There are a lot of career auto workers in Michigan who may work for a few months then get laid off and have to collect, then get back on only to be laid off the next year until their seniority kicks in. So, is it cumulative lifetime, or for those who just sit and collect for 4 years?

I think this says something about the state of the State of Michigan. If people cannot find work that pays as much as unemployment in four years, it must be pretty dismal on the jobs front.

Excellent. I could get behind this. Welfare as a temporary assistance while you are down is much better than what we have now. I still think private charities, churches, etc... would do a better job than government bureaucrats, but this is something I could support. Now we need to recognize that social security in it's current form is a ponzi scheme. We need to address that and either turn it into actual, real, privately owned accounts that the government cannot raid for general spending or make it a means tested social insurance program. Same with medicare. I would prefer eliminating both programs, but if payouts were limited to the truly needy my objections would be much more muted. If we are going to have these government programs ( ), then means testing and short lifetime maximum limits are the way to go. Four years is plenty of time to re-engineer yourself and get ready for another field.

I'm all behind this and hope other states will follow suit.

But I bet you a donut. There will be protests and quite possibly riots.