Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

[Charade]

I absolutely agree with and applaud this idea.

I am not sure what the downside is, other than forcing unwilling people to earn their way. I truly believe that people take care of and respect what they earn. I believe that the only solution to generational welfare is making it less appealing than getting a job.

As I said earlier, would you rather put in 40 hours for welfare benefits, where someone else chooses your job and there is no possibility of advancement/more money? Or would you rather put in 40 hours in a job of your choosing where there is the possibility of advancement/more money? It's a no-brainer to me.

In 1996, Thompson enacted Wisconsin Works, or "W-2," the state's landmark welfare-to-work legislation, which served as a national model for welfare reform. The program required participants to work, while at the same time providing the services and support to make the transition to work feasible and permanent. W-2 provided a safety net through child care, health care, transportation and training assistance. Wisconsin's monthly welfare caseload declined by more than 90 percent, while the economic status of those taking part in W-2 improved. The average family on AFDC had been 30 percent below the federal poverty line. However, at the average wage of people leaving W-2, families were 30 percent above the poverty line.

Works for me too.

 

[momof2inPA]

I must have missed the WIC thread over there. That's a little screwy. I will say though, that my children get health insurance under the Child Health Plus program which I pay a small premium for and anyone can apply regardless of income. Otherwise they wouldn't have insurance and I certainly cannot afford $800 + a month for a plan for them.

I could probably qualify for WIC but I can pay for her formula myself. I don't really have much money at all, especially since I'm a single parent, but I buy generic (label for label the same EXACT thing as name brand) and it costs me about $40 a month. I would rather spend that $40 of my own money than have the govt reimburse the stores $160 or more. I think that WIC should start making the recipients use generic formula.

Maybe this was addressed earlier in this long thread (and your kids are adorable), but I don't think anyone who can afford Disney trips should be getting public assistance for health insurance. That just isn't fair to the taxpayers who are footing the bill for your kids' insurance. I don't think anyone who qualifies for WIC should be blowing money on Disney trips, especially to the Yacht Club.

Hope your finances improve.

 

[momof2inPA]

In 1996, Thompson enacted Wisconsin Works, or "W-2," the state's landmark welfare-to-work legislation, which served as a national model for welfare reform. The program required participants to work, while at the same time providing the services and support to make the transition to work feasible and permanent. W-2 provided a safety net through child care, health care, transportation and training assistance. Wisconsin's monthly welfare caseload declined by more than 90 percent, while the economic status of those taking part in W-2 improved. The average family on AFDC had been 30 percent below the federal poverty line. However, at the average wage of people leaving W-2, families were 30 percent above the poverty line.

Works for me too.

I wonder how many of those people switched from Welfare to Disability, though. It's time we restricted who qualifies for Disability, as well. For instance, obesity is not a disability.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

I wonder how many of those people switched from Welfare to Disability, though. It's time we restricted who qualifies for Disability, as well. For instance, obesity is not a disability.

A hearty amen to that one.

 

[MidgeD79]

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

I like the Wisconsin Solution, too. The only "problem" with it is, the unions oppose it. The menial jobs in question--picking up trash in parks, say--are union jobs. If the jobs are given to welfare recipients, they would no longer be union. So, you'll never see those requirements passed in NY, where I live.

 

[ducklite]

I wonder how many of those people switched from Welfare to Disability, though. It's time we restricted who qualifies for Disability, as well. For instance, obesity is not a disability.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

I know someone who has been trying to get SSDI based on obesity. She's never going to be a size six, but she could easily be a size 16 if she stopped eating sacks of McDonalds three times a day. Honestly, this woman eats the worst diet in the world, then wonders why she's fat and diabetic. And frankly I don't want to support her irresponsible behavior!

That said, there are people who collect SSDI who truly are disabled. A friend of mine collected it for about six months before she passed away from cancer. She had worked her entire adult life, contributing to social security, and IMHO had earned that monthly check. The son of a family friend is mentall challenged and has the abilities of about a six year old, he receives monthly checks, and I would never begrudge that of anyone in his situation.

On the other hand, my DS has multiple conditions that make him eligible for SSDI, however our feeling is that because he is able to work, having him collect would only encourage him to not try to better his life.

Anne

 

[meandtheguys2]

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

Or we could start focusing on character issues, teaching right and wrong, and what stealing is. Make it mandatory like immunizations...

As far as disability, it is very difficult to get it in our area. My uncle couldn't get on it until his lung capapcity had gone down to 30%. He had worked his life in the coal mines.

 

[ducklite]

I like the Wisconsin Solution, too. The only "problem" with it is, the unions oppose it. The menial jobs in question--picking up trash in parks, say--are union jobs. If the jobs are given to welfare recipients, they would no longer be union. So, you'll never see those requirements passed in NY, where I live.

The people aren't being paid for doing those jobs, they are performing community service as a requirement to receive welfare. It's no different than people cleaning graffitti as part of community service after getting into legal trouble.

And the unions are STUPID for opposing it, because it will eventually help to keep taxes flat as more and more people come off the dole and enter the workforce and contribute to the tax base.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

I think you are missing the point.

Anne

 

[MidgeD79]

I think I got the point EXACTLY!! I receive WIC, medicaid for my kids, 2 of the kids get SSI, and I have a Habitat for Humanity home. I go to WDW, have a zoo membership, had 6 kids, buried 3 of them(with no help from the state), work 3 jobs( 1 of those jobs is at a achool where I receive full health benefits( To add the kids would cost over $800 a month), have a college degree, and do my best to keep my sanity. Who are we to decide who can afford what?

 

[ducklite]

I think I got the point EXACTLY!! I receive WIC, medicaid for my kids, 2 of the kids get SSI, and I have a Habitat for Humanity home. I go to WDW, have a zoo membership, had 6 kids, buried 3 of them(with no help from the state), work 3 jobs( 1 of those jobs is at a achool where I receive full health benefits( To add the kids would cost over $800 a month), have a college degree, and do my best to keep my sanity. Who are we to decide who can afford what?

Habitat is not funded by taxpayers, nor is it a handout. I volunteered for Habitat for several years and think it's an amazing program. You pay for your mortgage, and you put in sweat equity hours as a downpayment. Nobody handed you anything as far as your Habitat house goes.

WIC is paid for by tax dollars, and most of us feel that if you can afford a trip to WDW or other similar extravagances, you shouldn't take advantage of programs like WIC, food stamps, AFDC, medicaid, etc. Why should taxpayers fund your lifestyle? (Unless the children you receive benefits for are foster/adopted or disabled children.) Use the vacation money for your needs instead of letting the taxpayers fund your vacation.

Anne

 

[meandtheguys2]

That is it. If you can afford expensive vacations, you can afford to feed your own kids. Why should taxpayers feed and provide medical care for your children so that you can use your money for vacations?

 

[Charade]

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

snark alert! snark alert!

 

[mickeyfan2]

I wonder how many of those people switched from Welfare to Disability, though. It's time we restricted who qualifies for Disability, as well. For instance, obesity is not a disability.

I agree with this as well as the Wisconsin plan.

I have sever asthma. It really gaols me when I meet people who are asthmatic who tell me that they are on disability and I can get it too. WHY??? With proper meds and avoiding my triggers (when possible) I can live a normal life. I am sure there are some who are so bad they need disability, but the ones I have met are not that group.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I think I got the point EXACTLY!! I receive WIC, medicaid for my kids, 2 of the kids get SSI, and I have a Habitat for Humanity home. I go to WDW, have a zoo membership, had 6 kids, buried 3 of them(with no help from the state), work 3 jobs( 1 of those jobs is at a achool where I receive full health benefits( To add the kids would cost over $800 a month), have a college degree, and do my best to keep my sanity. Who are we to decide who can afford what?

You cannot afford those wants when you need the taxpayers (me for one) to pay for your needs. The zoo and WDW are not needed to live your everyday life.

Where is the father(s) of these kids? Is he/them paying their support?

Habitat is not funded by taxpayers, nor is it a handout. I volunteered for Habitat for several years and think it's an amazing program. You pay for your mortgage, and you put in sweat equity hours as a downpayment. Nobody handed you anything as far as your Habitat house goes.

WIC is paid for by tax dollars, and most of us feel that if you can afford a trip to WDW or other similar extravagances, you shouldn't take advantage of programs like WIC, food stamps, AFDC, medicaid, etc. Why should taxpayers fund your lifestyle? (Unless the children you receive benefits for are foster/adopted or disabled children.) Use the vacation money for your needs instead of letting the taxpayers fund your vacation.

Anne

ITA

That is it. If you can afford expensive vacations, you can afford to feed your own kids. Why should taxpayers feed and provide medical care for your children so that you can use your money for vacations?

ITA

 

[disneyjunkie]

I don't think anyone who qualifies for WIC should be blowing money on Disney trips, especially to the Yacht Club.

THE YACHT CLUB!!

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

I'll volunteer.

I like the Wisconsin Solution, too. The only "problem" with it is, the unions oppose it. The menial jobs in question--picking up trash in parks, say--are union jobs. If the jobs are given to welfare recipients, they would no longer be union. So, you'll never see those requirements passed in NY, where I live.

There's a similar program here in NYC. The center I teacher in (city funded and unionized) has welfare recipients "volunteering" there. A few are great, but most have zero work ethic. They have to work three days a week and attend school two. (GED or job training)

My director has hired a few of them to work as aides. One just started last week. After three months she'll be able to join the union. She'll have full/free medical and dental coverage for her whole family. She'll have a 401K plan. She'll receive 25 vacations and 12 sick days each year. Once she receive her GED,(she's working on that now ) she'll be eligible for $2000.00 per year to use toward her BA. Not bad for someone who only works 4 hours a day.

Use the vacation money for your needs instead of letting the taxpayers fund your vacation.

 

[barkley]

one of the reasons some unions are against the concept of wtw clients working in some of the jobs mentioned is because those unions and their members have fought for years to make those jobs attainable by equitable and fair competative means. many government jobs which are union are such that your union membership does not afford you any advantage when making application (you simply retain or gain union membership when hired)-and to be hired you must meet the same minimum qualifications as all other applicants and take the same oral or written exam/interview to achieve ranking on a hiring list. based on your ranking you may be called to interview for an actual job.

unions see using wtw recipients for these types of civil service job as disadvantaging those no welfare clients who have/are working and seeking jobs that traditionaly offer higher wages and benefits than comparable positions with private employers.

it's great if a person is at the least comfortably employed (as in not having to use public assistance for any of their needs) to think of the tax savings such programs would provide them personaly, but i have to wonder how the same person would feel if they, their spouse or one of their children while the most eminantly qualified candidate for a job, has a far superior work ethic-would not even be considered for the position or passed over in favor of someone purely based on that person's history of receiving public assistance. it seems to go against all equal opportunity in employment laws and theories.

 

[ducklite]

it's great if a person is at the least comfortably employed (as in not having to use public assistance for any of their needs) to think of the tax savings such programs would provide them personaly, but i have to wonder how the same person would feel if they, their spouse or one of their children while the most eminantly qualified candidate for a job, has a far superior work ethic-would not even be considered for the position or passed over in favor of someone purely based on that person's history of receiving public assistance. it seems to go against all equal opportunity in employment laws and theories.

We're taling low-end, entry-level positions that often no one wants to do--like cleaning public restrooms. Frankly if my husband or son is working a job like that, then I've got bigger problems than worrying about someone getting hired to do the same job.

IMHO the whole WTW program should make the jobs so uncomfortable for the worker that they'll complete whatever education program asap to find a "real job" and get off the dole, and basically fill slots that we can't fill with paid positions.

Anne

 

[CEDmom]

I haven't read all of the responses. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a committee should be formed and they would issue a formula that people must fill out and be approved before having kids, going on vacation, buying certain items at a store, etc.. You would need approval to go to a movie, the zoo, or an amusement park. The committee would ask for a financial statement and determine where you could visit/eat/dress. A list of where you are allowed to go would be given to you and you would have to show "proof" of approval from the committee before entering an establishment or buying certain items. Maybe the cashier won't be able to ring something up unless a certain "financial" code is entered.
Anyone here wnat to volunteer to be on this committee?

When my hard earned money is involved I should have a right to say who gets it and how it's spent. As long as you can provide fully for your family do what you want.