A New Welfare System

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   


And.."keeping welfare to the esentials"...what else than fricking ESSENTIALS would that welfare money allow? Besides, if they really decide to buy drugs, a big screen TV or whatever from their welfare money, it's their problem.
reply to post by flexy123
 


As it has already been said, the EBT cards provide money for food, and cash. Some people only get the food benefit, some get both.

And honestly, more to the point of all these discussions, it's not their problem, it's the tax payers problem.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 





Now, we have Obama Phones. 10 years from now, everybody will be scrambling for the next 'free' item.


Don't know how many times this has been said, been proven with links, but this so called Obama phone started in '08 during Bushs' admin. And yes, many people scrambled for their 68 free minutes a month, which is what is was when it started. It's now 250 minutes a month. For the poor, to make calls needed from home-or wherever they want [gasp!] or need to call from. That's 4 hrs + 10 minutes a month=not much conversation going on there..what.. ten minutes a day for 25 days.

You know, many people who live on your so-called 'welfare', do so because they have little choice. Some have medical conditions and require electricity 24/7, and cutting off or limiting the hours of power would literally kill them.

There are a few people who abuse the system, find them and make them pay, but don't make innocent people pay for the crimes of the few.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
hitler, is that you?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised


How about a new system, a new way of doing things?
You're out of a job, on welfare? Fine. The Government will put you in a Government-run Apartment.
Hot water is timed. You have 4 members in your family? Press the button to start the shower. It will run for 5 minutes, then go cold. You can do this for each registered member of your family.
Electricity is metered. You have a certain amount of wall-socket-power each day. Your lights work between the hours of 6pm and 12am.
Your food is rationed. You catch a Government-bus or walk to Government-run 'Cafes' to receive your meal. You swipe your card, take your food into the eating area, and have a meal. This can be done for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
You need to travel? You have travel credits. Catch a Government-bus to your destination. Need to travel further? Apply for more credit, which will be deducted from your card.



You advocate prison for those who are unemployed then yeah?



Everything will be on your card. It has Photo I.D. You must input an 8 digit PIN. You must scan your fingerprint.

You must report to a job-search centre 3 days a week.

If you commit a crime and are caught, you are jailed for 1 year in a labour-prison.

Control is the only way to ensure Welfare is kept to the essentials.



Hell, lets just give everyone one of those chips and terminate their existence when they step out of line and then we'll save loads of money!!

Is this a serious thread!?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


If you think that's bad you should listen to what I say. I am pro-evolution which means I dont want to pay a cent towards helping other unless they are close friends or family. I would let them all go without food and shelter.

But that is besides the point. One thing I noticed about the general reactions to proposals such as this, is the reaction you gave. But allow me to put this into perspective. If you chose to get money from someone and they said, "Ok but only if you follow these directions." What part about it is wrong? His proposal is not a form of control, it is the rules of an option.

Regardless of what you agree with, the problem is still going to be there. The issue we have is that we spend far far far too much money on government aid. 800 billion a year? Thats what we spent on the war in Afghanistan over the last 10 years combined.

I know first hand what it is like to be in a household where the government supplies everything and it sickens me. I went to a house this week where a mother of three boys who ranged in ages from 6 to 16 received "disability" checks of about $700 a month each for each child, all because they had ADD. She received government housing about $900 a month. Food EBT about $800 a month. Free cell phone with monthly minutes. Welfare check. College tuition. And guess what? She and her son got caught selling drugs from her house for more money.

The issue is that no government should have people who are dependent on them. No one should enable lazy drug dealers.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
If you want to get rid of high Welfare costs a few things can be done. Get rid of the present housing system where extravagant money is paid for cheaply built apartments. The cost to the government/recipient of these low income apartments is often way higher than costs of apartments in the area. The people who build these apartment buildings often rape the government. Our government promotes waste, thinking they are stopping someone from getting a little money.

If a person has to move back home with their parents, there is no reason that they couldn't get the food card and a fifty dollar rent payment for their parents to cover extra expenses of them staying there. I am talking about after college is out and they cannot get a job. Presently, the person needs to go into low income housing to get help with food or be getting their own place. If someone is caught screwing the system, cut them off and demand they come up with money to pay back or else. We can't treat people who need help the same way as those who abuse the system.

I could come up with fifty modifications that would work. Problem is the people running the welfare system would complicate it and make it wasteful and tie it up with bureaucracy. They want to add to a system to make it better just so they can say they had input if it works. These department heads then blame others when it fails because of their additions. I'm not even going to bother helping them because of this, we have gotten the wrong people in charge high up into the system. Too much paperwork, keep things simple so people internally can have an easier job.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hefficide
 


If you think that's bad you should listen to what I say. I am pro-evolution which means I dont want to pay a cent towards helping other unless they are close friends or family. I would let them all go without food and shelter.


You are entitled to want or not want. This is why we live in a Republic, where we vote for things. So that the best interests and needs of the whole, outweigh the demands and wants of the few.


Originally posted by Dynamike

But that is besides the point. One thing I noticed about the general reactions to proposals such as this, is the reaction you gave. But allow me to put this into perspective. If you chose to get money from someone and they said, "Ok but only if you follow these directions." What part about it is wrong? His proposal is not a form of control, it is the rules of an option.

Regardless of what you agree with, the problem is still going to be there. The issue we have is that we spend far far far too much money on government aid. 800 billion a year? Thats what we spent on the war in Afghanistan over the last 10 years combined.


These are talking points. Here is fact:


Source

You'll notice that just the "interest" and "other spending" tally up to more than the "welfare". And that military spending is 2% higher. It is a habit of certain interests to lump all necessary costs to run a society, sans military, into one "catch all" and then use that as their base conversation point. It's very misleading.

Oh, and that 12% welfare slice of the pie? It includes unemployment as well.


Originally posted by Dynamike

I know first hand what it is like to be in a household where the government supplies everything and it sickens me. I went to a house this week where a mother of three boys who ranged in ages from 6 to 16 received "disability" checks of about $700 a month each for each child, all because they had ADD. She received government housing about $900 a month. Food EBT about $800 a month. Free cell phone with monthly minutes. Welfare check. College tuition. And guess what? She and her son got caught selling drugs from her house for more money.

The issue is that no government should have people who are dependent on them. No one should enable lazy drug dealers.


So many things come to mind. Exactly why would you:

A) Associate with criminals?
B) Know exactly what benefits they receive, including the amounts?
C) Be qualified to assess the validity of any doctors diagnoses ( or misdiagnoses ) about the children?
D) Not report these things if you were aware?

That ignores me taking time to, yet again, dispel the myth that her "free cell phone" is sponsored by taxes. It is NOT paid for by the tax payers. It is a scam that the phone companies themselves operate - and they make a killing on it. The taxpayers do not fund the program.

I suspect the story might be anecdotal or apocryphal? Or a little hyperbolic? Even if not; Punishing everyone from a social class for the behavior of the few? Historically speaking, this approach doesn't work out very well.

Whatever the case, the future is nowhere near as dismal as the right seeks to make it seem:


Source

For the record, I stopped drinking the Kool Aid when I was a kid. Now I stick to my tea.

~Heff
edit on 10/19/12 by Hefficide because: clarity



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


www.usgovernmentspending.com...obamaphone.net...

You're charts support my numbers. The one I posted actually posts the numbers. Also the other link is one of several government supported free phones depending on what state you live in.

To answer your questions about how I know these things first hand is because I investigate medicaid and welfare fraud. Not that any of those above points matter. My sole argument was, and to be more elaborate, that if our taxpaying citizens are forced to support the non working class then why is it not fair to force them to follow a simple set of rules? We need to regulate that money better because it is constantly abused. It boggles my mind that between government income and drug related income in some households I have investigated were pulling over $60, 000 a year! And they got income tax!

Why is it alright with anyone that we spend almost as much on welfare as we do on defense? A mere 40 years ago this was unheard of!

I know many people who grew up in the 30s and 40s. They tell me how hard they had to work and how little they had. No AC, low hot water, shared bedrooms, and low electricity were common among the hard working lower class. Nowadays you don't see a single welfare income family without X Boxes, big flat screens, new cellphones, and newer cars.

The trend we have built is a growing one. And its not one that helps people get back on their feet, its one that has built an empire of government dependant people, and that is extremely dangerous.

This welfare system began as a means to drop poverty and It was supposed to be temporary. They started it with poverty levels around 10-12% of the population. Once it was implemented the numbers dropped below 10%, maybe 7%. But after a few years it went right back up. No matter what you do there will always be a small percent of people who want to live in poverty and are happy just the way they are.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dynamike
 



Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

USAC Facts - not an Obamaphone.

You have yet to state what rules you would want impressed upon beneficiaries of public assistance. Your opening statement was:


Originally posted by Dynamike
f you think that's bad you should listen to what I say. I am pro-evolution which means I dont want to pay a cent towards helping other unless they are close friends or family. I would let them all go without food and shelter.


Then you state that you investigate welfare and Medicaid fraud. Do you not feel that your personal feelings are a conflict of interest for your stated vocation? I would certainly worry about that if I were in your shoes.

For the record, I think the entire system needs an overhaul - but not at the expense of the sick, elderly, children, disabled, or those who need temporary help in times of great adversity. I happen to have a great deal of experience in these areas and an immediate family member who works for one of the private companies who are contracted to administer Medicaid. So I know many of the inside truths. One truth is that many of these services are currently suffering from severe budget cuts - but still must retain their Federal employees. The result? Offices staffed deep with employees who have very little power to do anything. They simply don't have the resources they did just a few years ago. Trimming down that workforce and putting them on a performance based pay structure would greatly enhance the system and would free up money for the actual programs they are supposed to be dealing with to begin with.

Since you state that you work in this industry, then you should have access to the actual percentage of public assistance recipients convicted of fraud. Correct? I would like to see those, please, as a basis for discussion. Your anecdotal stories are interesting, but they do nothing to support actual data. In my experience, sweeping generalizations are usually emotion based and factually inaccurate.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Oh and that big slice of healthcare, don't even get me started on that. Medicaid costs about 25% of most states budget. Able bodied 20 year olds with multiple children who they can't support are getting free medicine while elderly people who have worked their whole lives have to decide if they are going to afford their medicine or food for the month. I know this too from personal experience working for over 5 years in the pharmaceutical business.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I have an even simpler solution: Eat the poor. That's where we are going isn't it?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I suppose I was going for a shock response. Honestly I am just frustrated with the constant uphill battle. I do want to help people who need it without abusing it, who will use it as a crutch and not as a lifestyle. When you deal with 4th generation family members of welfare recipients all day you tend to see only the broken side of the system.

As far as what percent of recipients receiving welfare who have committed or have been suspected of comitting fraud I couldn't tell you. I could try to find out. My field involves all forms of fraud and I have a large portion of it dealing with welfare and Medicaid fraud.

I suppose when you are the hand that everyone bites when you feed them you tend to not want to feed anyone anymore.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I think we should put a cap on CEO pay. They make too much money as it is. Any money that goes over the cap is recycled to helping the poor. If you can afford a $5000 a plate dinner at Mitt Romney's fund raiser I think it's time to take away some and give it to the poor. Hell people in America are paying more for plate of food then some make in 6 months working at Walmart.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


What do you think of this video? InfoWars- Obama Phone



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by KentuckyMan
reply to post by Unrealised
 


Apparently like many other's you do not know there is no such thing as food stamp's anymore.

They get there food allotment money on a E.B.T card.
They can only buy food with it...Not many drug dealer's trust a drug head's ya know..
There not gonna go here is ya a dime bag ..now go buy me a turkey and eggs and milks lol

Not to mention 99% of the case's where people see People use EBT cards on beer or smoke's...It has there own money on it..
Like in kentucky i know for a fact There food stamps child support and ssi or disability goes on the same card....
So Unless you can prove the people are not spending there own money technically ya grasping at straw's.
If you can see my point.



Thank you! Researching and fact finding is a lost art on ATS these days. Apparently having unlimited access to information at one's fingertips is just too much trouble to bother with....


OP BTW- Each State determines whether or not EBT cards can be used to purchase alcohol and/or tobacco....
edit on 19-11-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I have a friend who is disabled , from three car accidents. She actually lives with a broken neck they can not do surgery on, wears a brace, has daily seizures , and can barley take care of herself. she has a son that has austism, aspergers, and is not mentally competent .

She has been battling the state to get him social security because there is no way he can work.
His doctor has submitted paperwork stating this, and she has been denied for the third time now .
Her one son who can work , has to stay at home to take care of them both.

She can not afford trash service , they have dug a hole in their back yard and burn it, they wash their clothes in a bathtub because their washer broke, The foodstamps run out before the end of the month and we help them with food. ... The lady at the welfare office actually told her if he was not white, he would get it.

I dont understand that. Disabled is disabled. She tried putting him in a group home, but he was not able to cope there, and was removed. I know these people, that Teenager Can NOT work, but yet they keep denying him.
Now they are getting a lawyer, and the laywer wants all his medical records from when he was diagnosed ( age 2) til now, and each one has to be notarized. Thats gonna cost them, a ton which they do not have.

Yet people who do not need it get with ease based on skin color. Why is that even an issue with SS security?

The mother was disabled in the second wreck real bad. She did get medical help after that from the state.
When she was hit int he third accident , she got a real big settlement, and the state took the entire thing because she has medical access. She probably will not live past another year, and they are living like this.
The only way that kid will get help is when she dies. That is really really sad and makes me so mad.






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join