Mich. governor signs 48-month welfare limit

reply to post by DanUKphd

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.

I understand what you are saying.

What you are not taking into consideration is the fact that there is a percentage of welfare recipients that already engage in "double dipping." There is a percentage of welfare recipients, or secondary recipients, that receive government assistance but still engage in criminal activity to supplement that income.

I dont think there are any hard numbers or studies to look at on this subject. Probably because we would not like what we see.

The real question that your statement brings up is are we offering temporary assistance to these people so that they may get back on their feet and become productive members of society or are we bribing people so that they do not go out and commit crimes and victimize the rest of us?

I like to think of welfare as a helping hand. But is it? I do not like to think of welfare as paying someone off so they do not commit a crime against me.

And that may be how it is sold to the American Public. It is packaged and sold as a "helping hand" instead of a "bribe." More people are willing to put up with contributing to welfare if it is viewed as a "helping hand."

What goes hand in hand with that is if what you say is true, we would have to "write off" those whose welfare benefits expired and did not conform to getting a legitimate job. These people would have to be dealt with by the police and the justice system. Crime rates would go up and so would the incidents of arrest, police involved use of force and sentences to jail.

I am giving no appraisal of the right or wrong answer because I simply do not know. But, one would have to be willing to "write off" certain members of society because there are some that are incapable or unwilling to conform to the norms of society and get a job.

Finally. The issue is were broke but when times were good the checks kept getting bigger and bigger but now they can't reducw pyments because do gooder lawyers will be all over them so they set the limit and back dated the time. Hopefully many will move back to the states they came from to get Michigans higher checks. He was smart enough to wait till cold weather to keep the rioting down by spring we should have a whole new state

Originally posted by DanUKphd
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.

So what is your solution? Continuing to pay them forever in order to avoid the possibility crime will increase? Nothing like encouraging blackmail: if you don't pay us your money forever, we will steal it from you. What the heck kind of mentality is that? Further, this already played out on a world stage and look how that's turned out. We gave weapons to the now terrorists in order to push out Russia and now those weapons are turned towards us. Same scenario, different weapons.

reply to post by marg6043

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.

Again, you bring up a good question.

Can you really limit the amount of children someone has? Well we could talk about forced birth control but I do not think anyone is on board with that. So the only other solution is telling these welfare recipients that we will only subsidize a maximum of two children, possibly even one.

That brings up yet another question. What happens if they exceed their child limit? Is it the child's fault that the parents are irresponsible? Should children starve because his or her parents are irresponsible? Again, one would have to be willing to accept the consequences of these tough decisions. These are the consequences. Are you willing to accept them?

reply to post by the owlbear


I know, I been sarcastic, after all I live in GA and talk about welfare state, but that doesn't stop welfare recipients from no getting a job and having children, most of the children are from single mothers with different fathers and yes we have laws to enforce child support, but how can they, when we also have one of the highest unemployment numbers in the nation.

Still it is sad when I hate government intervention, but darn how can you keep having children when you can not afford to feed them without government assistance.

This angers me, that as a responsible parent my husband and I decided that we could only afford 2 to give them the best we could give them, pay for education and I been able to dedicate my full time to their lives when they were young as a stay home mom. (I did worked part time but without conflicting with their school time).

We did it without falling on welfare, or any gov. assistance.

I also agree that welfare should be temporarily for a hard worker and its family falling on bad times, of for a single parent that also has fallen on hardships.

Sad it is . I also agree that tax pay roll is falling in the nation, so who is going to keep paying for those that needs services when the jobs they have do not taken them from the welfare cycle.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


No, we can not, I remember when my Island was incorporated into the US as a Commonwealth, when the US took over PR they found out that is was nothing but a high poverty level of mix race citizens, families even in poverty were too large, (my father and siblings were about 16), so the government introduced mass sterilization.

That has been part of our shadow ugly humble beginnings as part of the US and has been scorn since through our history.

reply to post by marg6043


So what do we do then?

And that is the rabbit hole that we find ourselves venturing down.

You spoke on how you took personal responsibility to fully take care of your own children without government assistance. You spoke on how you limited the number of children you had to within your means. You spoke of getting a part time job. All the responsibilities and duties of a good parent and it is commendable.

There are those out there that make a living off of not taking personal responsibility and forcing, yes forcing, the taxpayer to take care of them indefinitely.

What is going to get us out of this mess is a combination of personal responsibility and making tough decisions. We all need to take personal responsibility for ourselves. And we all need to make tough decisions and stand together when the consequences of those decisions present themselves.

Everyone wants to speak of making tough decisions. Even those that are elected to represent us. But when it comes down to actually making those decisions, very few stand up and say "I am willing to make the decision and accept the consequences."

Some random musings...

Take the money saved from this program and earmark some of it to:

1 - create industry-specific job training centers
2 - establish training programs for people in these centers
3 - create job-placement programs partnered with top companies in the region

This would accomplish:
1 - reversal of flow. What was once a burden is now a bonus. People the state was GIVING money to are now PAYING money (in taxes)
2 - help fill the need in certain job sectors. I'm mostly familiar with IT jobs and I know for a fact that there is a huge need for programming/support people, at least down here in DFW.
3 - Positive role-model creation and social engineering. Kids would no longer grow up expecting to follow mommy and daddy (if known) into a life of entitlement.
4 - Job creation by way of construction (the centers), teaching (instructors) and administration.


just some thoughts....

Originally posted by beezzer
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 thought the same thing at first... then I realized:

1) If they are on welfare, how are they going to pay tuition, finance a business, pay for materials to invent something?

2) It is a 48 month LIFETIME limit... so if they have a bad stretch because of the economy in their 20s and then another bad stretch in their 40s due to something like medical bills or something.. well, let's hope they didn't use those 48 months up in their 20s.

I really do get that we need to do something about these folks that are ALWAYS on welfare, but I am not sure the solution is to poke holes in the "safety net" in the middle of a terrible economy.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Is call welfare overhaul, but the welfare system in our nation like our government is run by special interest and a corrupted system.

Nothing is going to change in the nation, because those in power either do not have the desire or like it just the way it is to keep the people Dependant on government hand outs, while the nation turns into two dominant classes while eliminating the middle working class.

reply to post by rogerstigers
The bill makes allowences for illnesses, part of your "bad stretch".
Investors can and do pay for start-ups. They are called "Angels" and invest (help) in new businesses.
Schools? Scholarships, grants, loans, work-study programs.
Same way the rest of us schlubs made it through.

I'll bet a lot of them just wait out the four years and then pack up and reapply in another state. Welfare benefits should have a nationwide limit.

reply to post by beezzer


And how many people with a degree or business are either out of work with little to no chance of that changing soon or business that have or will go under and leave those business owners up a certain creek without a paddle.

If it was as easy as your post states things would be so much better for everyone. I have a four year degree and am considering more school and have my own business and I am fighting to make ends meet. I surely have NO idea where money for school will come from.


Be real it IS NOT so easy as "oh ,just go to school for two years ",get a degree and you will never have financial issues again. I know of 3 people in huge financial trouble because there is NO work and these people have education.

I live in Texas so this isn't in my vicinity so I can't say much about it directly but I think it is really kinda stupid. I think also that before they dump these people who have worn out their welcome on assistance they might wanna help them as best they can , to get work. Otherwise we WILL defo see the crime rate rise , in my opinion.

Sorry for they way this look I am on my phone today trying to type these things with this tiny touch keyboard and bad eyesight. Lol. cheerio

Originally posted by lpowell0627
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?

Then stop the welfare for the rich FIRST!!! The system is strained because of the tax breaks and subsidies to the big corporate and the military industrial complex that is dragging down the system. The poor is not as much of a problem as the rich.

reply to post by SHABBYCAT
Simply put, you have 4 years to find a job.
Nothing says you have to find a job in that area. But 4 years. If you can't figure out what you're going to do with your life in that amount of time, then you may have larger issues than finding work.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
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.

Bingo. Great post.

It's the end of the illusion. What will happen next will make life harder for everyone in this country, not just the poor. When the game grinds to a halt, watch your back. There will be zombies everywhere.

The increased crime and disorder will then empower the police state to lay the hammer down on the populace. If you are apart of the privileged class, you will be able to move freely. This is all planned. It won't be the terrorists that cause you to lose the rest of your freedom, it will be your own people.

reply to post by beezzer


I'm inclined to agree with you on this issue. Welfare should be for families who need help at a bad point in their lives. It should not be a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

I could even understand keeping someone on welfare for 4 years given they are going through school to advance themselves into a high paying career. I just cannot justify paying someone to sit around the house, doing drugs and collecting a paycheck.

I'm not saying that all welfare recipients are drug users, I am suggesting that a certain time limit needs to be put on welfare so that people just aren't living on uncle sucker for their entire lives.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SHABBYCAT

 

Simply put, you have 4 years to find a job.
Nothing says you have to find a job in that area. But 4 years. If you can't figure out what you're going to do with your life in that amount of time, then you may have larger issues than finding work.

I agree with your sentiment that people should not lay down and quit if things get bad nor should they be rewarded for it, but everything is easier said than done.

sorry double post

reply to post by SHABBYCAT


What happen to you happen to my daughter also, with two bachelors degree in science and research he found out that in America Indians students (from India no US citizens) have priority when it comes to tax payer grants for research.

She tried for a year to get a grant to research but even when she graduated with honors Indian students were chosen.

So she settler for a job in a bank, after two years she feels cheated and understand what America has become, now she is back in school trying to get become a Physicians assistant, thanks to her medical background she has been able to cut the school time in half.

Sad what our American students have to endure in their own country.

Very soon America is going to be the most over qualified nation with workers in minimum wages working in Wal-mart and fast food chains.

But still receiving welfare assistance to be able to feed their families.