Mich. governor signs 48-month welfare limit

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Mich. governor signs 48-month welfare limit


news.yahoo.com

Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday signed into law a stricter, four-year lifetime limit on cash welfare benefits, prompting advocates for the poor to warn that tens of thousands of residents will find themselves without cash assistance on Oct. 1.

Michigan's first-year Republican chief executive said the state will offer exemptions to the limit for those with a disability who can't work, those who care for a disabled spouse or child and those who are 65 or older and don't qualify for Social Security benefits or receive very low benefits.

Some recipients who are the victims of domestic violenc
(visit the link for the full news article)



+5 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This is going to be an interesting story to watch, not only how the public reacts but also how it affects things such as crime, drug use, housing and social trends across some of the poorer areas in Michigan.

Could this move be the spark that leads other cities in our nation to follow suite and return the system to what it was intended to be - a "TEMPORARY" form of assistance or will it be demonized and slammed much like the AZ immigration bills have been?


Personally- I have no problem with this bill as it does not affect me but one thing I've noticed is how more scrutiny and blame for societies ills seems to be pointing the finger at the poor. Beginning with the drug-testing requirement in FL and now this, could this be a sign of simple frustration? We all know that social entitlements cost tons of money (which WE pay for through taxes) but how come nobody is attacking the rich or corporate? Why doesn't the MI government lower assessments, enforce regulations or investigate abuses of big industry in the state? I'm sure they could easily make a few million in fines.

That last question was more rhetorical, I know. They'd rather attack the poor because the poor have no chance of fighting back. They don't have teams of lawyers. They don't have lobbyists buying off officials. They don't have a voice.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by orbitbaby
 


china


+38 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 





Personally- I have no problem with this bill as it does not affect me


Of course it will affect you. If you live in any state that enacts this sort of bill then chances are you'll get robbed. On the 1st of October your chances of being mugged, burgled, goes up by 10,000 to one. Actually it's more than 10,000 because some of those who get their benefits cut will turn to drug dealing to make ends meet, and the more addicts there are the more crime needs to be committed to support their habit.


+7 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


Sorry, but it needed to happen. The limit is 4 years. It's not like they are limiting it to 6 months or something. If you can't get it together in 4 years, well then maybe it's time for you to seek other avenues. I know people personally that have been on the system for 8+ years and had no intentions of changing it. They just sat around and collected their check, and did not care as long as food was on the table and rent was paid. It is this kind of people they are trying to kick in the ass and get them motivated to support themselves.


ETA: Estimated first year savings for the state is upwards of $65 million!
I say a good step in the right direction!
edit on 9/7/2011 by SpaDe_ because: wow



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You took the words right from my mouth..I hope they do this in ALL states. I'm sick of some of these lowlifes..sucking the govt tit. We need more entrepreneurs..



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


Yeah this is interesting I agree. I am not against this, but I don't really know if it's good/bad.

Mi is f*cked! Literally. Flint... Detroit...

The issue behind it all started at the top too, the state's politicians have always been screwed up.

So who is at fault? The gov or the people? Should people get freebees forever because of it?

I predict a lot of people moving out of Mi.

*Closes eyes, crosses fingers and chants*

"Please dont come here, please dont come here, please dont come here"



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


This is great news for Michigan, although I would image that means that everyone in Detroit will probably starve, so maybe those people can go over to Windsor for some Canadian socialism. The only thing that sucks about this is that it is 48 months instead of 12.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DanUKphd
 


meh..if txrabbit is from texas he'll just shoot the bas-tard..they have conceal carry right? All states should go to conceal carry...wild west baby...bring it on.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


The problem is that with the manufacturing base of the country now in foreign nations is actually no meaningful pay jobs that will take you off welfare.

Most people that work in minimum wages with extended families are also recipients of welfare.

Sad but true, the government wants to "create jobs" but the jobs it creates while looking good in the unemployment books and the GDP figures do not take the workers from welfare assistance.

So right now the government uses tax payer dollars to "create jobs" but still needs tax payer dollars to pay for services

We are becoming nothing more than a welfare state, why? because you can not support a nations economy on minimum wages with not industrial base.


edit on 7-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
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.





new topics
top topics
 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join