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.


Your thoughts on welfare reform?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
Out here in CA there is an issue that is becoming more and more pressing in my eyes, CALworks.(welfare) Welfare is NOT meant to be a way of life. Welfare is simply meant to be transitional assistance when hard times fall on a family (haven't we all been there at some point?) I myself have never been on public assistance, I have gone hungry (on my own without children involved) and would understand people in this situation especially with children.

The whole welfare issue has a lot more to do than just benefits to illegals. The entire welfare system is disgusting. Here is something specific to CA, i'm mainly talking about CA because of exactly how bad it is here.

California has about 12 percent of the nation’s population. Under a rational system, we’d expect the state to have about 12 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients. But the reality is far worse—our state has about 30 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients. In comparison, Texas has 8 percent of the nation’s population, but just 3 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients.

What right minded individual or group of individuals would promote "baby factory families." (Which are the families you see with an kids ages 10,9,7,6,4,3,2, infant. And yes, I see a lot of these in California....90% of the welfare recipients simply abuse the system. They are rewarded for their laziness and refusal to work. For example, I had a friends son recently have a child.

Here is what they get for an unplanned, irresponsible birth.

An 800/mo 2 bedroom apartment.
~450 in CASH AID (can buy drugs/alcohol etc with)
~500 in food stamp aid
~Countless dollars in family planning, free doctor visit etc etc

Granted he lives in Oregon, which is probably the most pro-welfare state in the Union (Grew up there, and its worse up there than in California, which is widely known as the welfare state)

This system horribly needs to be reformed. First, there needs to be a time limit on benefits within a certain period of time. Second there needs to be some kind of "work for benefits" program, such as litter pickup or other things that benefits that specific community as a whole. If you read that article, it says 22% of work eligible people actually reach their weekly work goals, while 64% didn't work a SINGLE hour. NOT A SINGLE HOUR IN A YEAR WHERE THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED THOUSANDS OR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN BENEFITS.

I'm sorry for my unorganized rant ATS, I had to get up and interrupt the rant for about an hour, and I could write so much on this subject that sometimes I think I try to cram too much info into too few words.

Maybe my thoughts align more with the animal kingdom on this one, if you can't get your own, you don't get any. You WORK for everything you have. I think the U.S welfare system is a joke. It needs to be severely refined. If these people were seriously just experiencing a rough patch in their life and are out of work and need a hand up. You got it. If the person has a genuine desire to provide for himself and family on his own and has been searching for a job? Provide him with a job that benefits the whole community as I've said earlier. Put them to work. They want to work, so why not tap into an available asset?

If you're a lazy, worthless non contributing person to society and you expect ME to sweat to put food on YOUR table? I'd like to.....well, I don't think it would be appropriate for ATS for me to say exactly what I'd like to do, but I'd like to see them all rounded up, taken far out into the woods and left to do all their OWN foraging and work. Yes, a little harsh I know. But, if they can't providefor themselves in the incredibly cushy lifestyle that civilized society has provided us the chance to experience, then I'd REALLY like to see them actually have to SURVIVE (sub provide here) for themselves out in the REAL world. (nature)

I'd like to hear other Californians and non Californians thoughts on welfare in general


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:48 PM
This system was not designed with lazy people in mind. It was designed to help the largely self-reliant Americans that had fallen into hard times and needed a hand.

Unfortunately, today's sense of entitlement amongst the population has allowed the system to be used and abused by generations of families. It is sad to see, but that is our reality.

So let us change it.

Oh wait, that makes us racists.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:06 PM
Here's the catch-22 with a lot of welfare stuff: you can either stay on welfare totally, or you can get a job, have those benefits drastically reduced...and now you've got to pay for child-care.

I think there should be a six-month grace period to give folks a shot to look for a decent job, etc. I've been on benefits before as a child, and I can assure you that it wasn't because my parents were lazy deadbeats.

I think we should restructure it so that you get help getting a job, have to put 1/3 of your income to your government provided housing, buy your own food but have benefit max of 150 per child a month (to be reduced based upon parent income level), and have childcare paid for.

Another thing we can do is crack down on deadbeat dads and make them pay child support; if they don't have a job, we can help them get one. Now, with said child support check, 1/3 goes to housing, 1/3 goes to food, and 1/3 goes to childcare. If dad tries to duck, he gets a two months grace period before he goes directly to jail and every single cent of that extra spending money he could earn while behind bars for spending money would be used to pay child support. And if he refuses to work for spending money, he can spend his time in solitary until he gets his act together; I have zero pity for a man who won't support his kids. Zero.

You get three shots before you get your kids taken away and are promptly kicked out onto the streets. If you don't have a vehicle, and live in a non-metropolitan area, we can set up a system to help you get one (that you pay for of course).

I also vote that people on welfare be means checked just like everybody else is by the IRS. If you're on government aid but have an expensive new vehicle (can't tell you how many times I see this), then you better be able to account for it or you're going to prison for fraud and all sorts of other lovely things.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:38 PM
Well granted Clinton did some good and bad in office, I always thought his Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 was a good welfare reform program:
I also think recipients should be drug tested.


ETA: What do you guys think about the "get paid to get sterilized notion?" I have mixed feelings on it, depends on the news that day.
edit on 20-1-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
I can't speak to the rest of it, but its pretty obvious to me that a greater portion of CA residents will qualify for assistance versus TX residents based on local cost of living alone.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
I can't speak to the rest of it, but its pretty obvious to me that a greater portion of CA residents will qualify for assistance versus TX residents based on local cost of living alone.

I think the numbers may be skewed because we have more illegal immigrants receiving benefits. (This statement is pure speculation on my part though)

Also, I'm not familiar with the cost of living in Texas, But outside the major cities (L.A SF SD) material cost of living is a lot lower than the metro areas. Groceries are high everywhere, which I don't get because we grow and produce a ton of fruit and veggies....but thats a different rant for a different day.Sometimes I wish I wasn't stuck here, stupid career/home/wife/kids

On the subject of pay for sterilization, I don't see why not. I mean I don't necessarily want my tax dollars being funneled to that, but when you think about the two barbaric wars we are fighting, the massive amounts of wasted spending, it doesn't seem like that bad of an idea because its actually SOLVING a problem.

You know, that just made me think. All these reforms etc etc, I don't see how the govt can't see that these things need to be done. I guess the climate in Sacramento and D.C takes a while to change. But then, that would require SOLVING a problem. Which our govt doesn't have in their vocab.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:15 PM
The cost of living nags at me a bit. For example -- a 3 bedroom 2 bath home rental in Austin Tx looks to be about $900-$1100, whereas prices for comparable 3 bedrooms in Orange County, CA today *appear* to be closer to $1500-$1800, based on craigslist ad's.

Now -- I recognize that Craigslist is no source, and that YMMV depending on where you live, and so forth, but there definitely appears to be a much higher rental baseline in CA compared to Texas. Add to that higher taxes, higher cost of fuel and energy and higher costs for medicine and food and it seems pretty clear to me that the "breathing room" for a two-earner family in CA is significantly more shallow then in Texas, no matter how you slice it.

Of course, these are loose numbers based off a 20 minute perusal of Craigslist, and don't necessarily mean anything. *shrug*
edit on 20-1-2011 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:53 PM
I agree with you 100%. Statewide the rental baseline is very high. I will argue that you should have compared Orange Country to the Dallas Ft. Worth area, or even Houston. Austin is a baby compared to the monster that is L.A. I don't know. SoCal is a different state than NorCal (apologize for the slang) to me.

It could also be me out of touch with the average American, not that I'm rich or anywhere near it, but I'm blessed with a great career that allows me to live worry free when it comes to money. The higher costs equate to more stuff to do out here than Texas I'd imagine, I've only been to Texas once,San Antonio 25 years ago for Air Force bootcamp so I'm not qualified to say that. Its what us Californians call the "luxury tax" 25 years ago I could understand, but CA is so ran down in 2011 that it no longer applies.

I was actually shocked when I went to look at the rental prices even in Sacramento (somewhere more comparable in size to Austin) and the rent (depending on location etc) $1000-1500 for an average 3 bedroom. So those are similar, but everything else here is not as you've stated.

Not that any such records are kept, but I'd like to see the nationwide percentages of exactly who is on welfare. I bet the demographics would be pretty interesting.

Edit: I'm not sure if this has any bearing who qualifies and who doesn't, but my brother who makes 2,000 (pre-tax) a month couldn't qualify for food stamps.

edit on 20-1-2011 by spolcyc because: add

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by spolcyc

Here is a thought...end it. And take the excess money to provide for our disabled who cannot work and the retirees, in other words put that cash to SSI SSDI AND SSA.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by spolcyc

Yeah -- I apologize. Austin is the only place I have ever actually visited in Texas, and I am sure that you are right -- Dallas would have been a more fair comparison. I am actually surprised to hear that Sacramento has come down so far. It used to be fairly high as well.

For reference -- I grew op in Westminster / Long Beach, and have family in SFO, but haven't been "home" except to visit in 20 years, so my perception of California's expensiveness is just that -- a perception.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:07 PM
We fled California in 2008 because we saw the decline coming. I used to prepare taxes in the San Bernardino, CA area - think low income, multi kids, multi fathers being the average client.

I can pretty much assure you that your friends will also storm into a tax office, oh right about now if they have a minimal job, have their tax returns done up - single mom w/ kids and minimal income - and walk out with a $2,000-$4,000 tax handout in the form of Earned Income Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit. Oh, and most of these folks know exactly how the system works - they'll start calling tax offices in June wanting to know the maximum earnings for maximum credit. Make too much and the credit decreases, marry baby's daddy and the credit decreases due to combined income. And they'll sit across the desk from some tax preparer, who most likely pays taxes, and demand to know why they're "only" getting a five grand handout with three kids.
By the 2nd week of February I was always ready to slap the next person whining about this "freebie" that came out of my pocket.

(Uh, EITC was a pretty touchy subject with me when I taught tax class...)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by Mountainmeg


I've gotten it for the last couple of years. It doesn't bother me much because:

I paid into the system HEAVILY for 15+ years.

Was laid off three times in 5 years by three of the largest companies in the world when my work mysteriously vanished overseas (Telecom).

And now make about 1/3 what I used to make while busting my bottom re-educating myself full time, in addition to working.

Both my kids are mine and my wife's. She is disabled. I consider EIC to be a consolation prize, and a hand up as I try to retool one more time for the fickle job market here in the US.

Your mileage may vary.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by 0zzymand0s

Yeah, but you're the kind of person that should be getting a benefit like this in a case like that. I've gotten it one year too when hubby was laid off & no work for almost 2 years and I have a disabled child so I'm home caring for him. I also didn't mind the divorced mom of two who was raising her children, working what she could and attending school to get better opportunities. That's the type of person who should be getting some assistance.

But, every year I sat at that tax desk, the majority of clients had a HUGE entitlement attitude and grumped every year about how "little" they were getting while I'm thinking "Dang, someone hands me $5,000+ of money *every year* you would think I'd be grateful!". And if you looked back through their returns, it was huge amounts for YEARS. And they want to know how much they can earn before the EITC decreases next year. THOSE are the folks I wanted to smack...

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:53 AM
In Ohio people are required to work for some benefits. Cash assistance is one of them. You go to work for 30 hours a week for your 500 bucks a month. Some people are exempt from it though. If they have children under a certain age or are disabled, etc. They could make a lot more money if they went out and got an actual job! Even Mcdonalds pays better than that!

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by Mountainmeg

Thank you.

I would definitely prefer to make enough money that I didn't qualify for next year, thats for sure.

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:30 AM
I believe if we want to know where and whom are tax dollars are going to than it should be public record. How many people who are currently recieving benefits who are not legally entitled to them are going to want their names exposed? It is far to easy for someone to collect welfare benefits and commit fraud. God forbid we should embarrass anyone into going back to work or at least attempt to. There is no incentive for anyone to want to go get a job. They basically have a free credit card to use as they please. Visit the grocery stores on the first week of the month to get a clear picture of just how bad our welfare system is. Here's what you will see I gurantee it: Cart after cart loaded with none of the five food groups, just frozen fast foods, and treats. If these people are not working and have nothing but time on their hands than why don't they cook! You will not see anyone spending anytime looking at prices, they just want it and in it goes. Why not, it's free! At the checkout you will notice they don't watch the items being rang up. I wish the stores would put up a "No Qwest card accepted" register, but then there wouldn't be anyone in it. If this isn't bad enough we have fast food restaraunts advertising "We accept Qwest cards". What happens when these people become ill not to mention extremely over weight from eating so much unhealthy food? Not to worry, they just grab their free medical card and head to the doctor. We need to set mandatory education programs for people on welfare, not just to re-enter the job force but now we've created poor eating and spending habits.

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:11 AM
I dont think the welfare system is as bad, as you desribe it. Of course there are people abusing it and making themselves a comfortable life at the cost of the rest of us. But i think they are the minority, the problem is just that these few misbehavors are attracting more attention than all the people who are really in need of the payments.

top topics


log in