Stimulus measures that may help your wallet

[PeterPan09]

I don't have a problem with helping....but, that's not what our welfare programs have become....they are a way of life. There are no incentives to live a better life...and no way to achieve it. After awile, a person gives up hope. They believe there is no "better" life. It's depressing what welfare progams have done to folks. The democrats want them dependant on the government...plain and simple. That's how they keep the votes of the poor. Promises, promises and more promises....lies, lies and more lies.

I've heard this complaint a great deal, so there must be some truth to it-but if so, how do we change the system so people DO have hope of getting off welfare and making it on their own? How do we get people help without creating a cycle of dependency?

 

[lovemygoofy]

I've heard this complaint a great deal, so there must be some truth to it-but if so, how do we change the system so people DO have hope of getting off welfare and making it on their own? How do we get people help without creating a cycle of dependency?

First the system needs more "counselors" or whatever you want to call the people that over see the cases. There aren't enough workers for all the cases going on.

I'd like to have a 6-9 month sliding scale if receiving both low income housing and other forms of supplement like food stamps or a monthly check. At the 6-9 month mark, it would be time for a review of the case. If the person hasn't managed to move into something better or found a job then the person would have to start making some choices because the assitance would be reduced.

Once a person that is receiving assitance has gained employment, that person would be allowed to receive the same amount(not both food stamps and a check) every month for 3-6 months. This time period allows someone to get back on their feet, caught up and even maybe get ahead some.

One major frame I'd like seen done is a flat pay program not based on per member family. For instance a family of 4/6/8 in AR would receive $500 a month in food stamps or monthly check. A family of 4/6/8 in CA would receive $800 a month in food stamps or a check. I'd like to think that instead of paying out per family member, this would deter those just plain old living off the system and those popping out kids to earn more money.

At the one year mark someone living off the system would have to make hard choices because, I would limit the amount of time for the system to 18 months total.

 

[Free4Life11]

Here's what you currently will get this year to sit home on your ash can and do nothing if you are a family of four with two kids:

$6,350 Earned income credit (This year with stimulus)
Child tax Credit $2,000

So you're telling me that a married couple with an earned income of $0, would be eligible for an earned income credit of $6350? This doesn't make sense because the amount of the credit is on a bell curve and to give the maximum credit for $0 earned income would completely change the credit.

And the entire $2000 child tax credit is refundable if your earned income is $0? I don't believe that's the case.

Source please. I'm not buying your numbers.

 

[PeterPan09]

First the system needs more "counselors" or whatever you want to call the people that over see the cases. There aren't enough workers for all the cases going on.

I'd like to have a 6-9 month sliding scale if receiving both low income housing and other forms of supplement like food stamps or a monthly check. At the 6-9 month mark, it would be time for a review of the case. If the person hasn't managed to move into something better or found a job then the person would have to start making some choices because the assitance would be reduced.

Once a person that is receiving assitance has gained employment, that person would be allowed to receive the same amount(not both food stamps and a check) every month for 3-6 months. This time period allows someone to get back on their feet, caught up and even maybe get ahead some.

One major frame I'd like seen done is a flat pay program not based on per member family. For instance a family of 4/6/8 in AR would receive $500 a month in food stamps or monthly check. A family of 4/6/8 in CA would receive $800 a month in food stamps or a check. I'd like to think that instead of paying out per family member, this would deter those just plain old living off the system and those popping out kids to earn more money.

At the one year mark someone living off the system would have to make hard choices because, I would limit the amount of time for the system to 18 months total.

Have you worked in this field? It seems so reasonable the way you spell it out.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Have you worked in this field? It seems so reasonable the way you spell it out.

No, I lived it for many years when I was younger. I know many that simply couldn't get off the system because when they would get a job the system would drop them while they were still getting their stuff together. I also know others that just milk the system for all it's worth. I've seen it both ways and think it is a necessary evil but needs to be streamlined to get people off of it not depend on it.

 

[coles1mom]

So you're telling me that a married couple with an earned income of $0, would be eligible for an earned income credit of $6350? This doesn't make sense because the amount of the credit is on a bell curve and to give the maximum credit for $0 earned income would completely change the credit.

And the entire $2000 child tax credit is refundable if your earned income is $0? I don't believe that's the case.

Source please. I'm not buying your numbers.

I'm not following either

I just checked the IRS site 0 income=0 EIC

 

[onelilspark]

I can't believe this bill still. It seems so shocking. I mean, I bought a new home last year (first time homebuyer.) According to this bill, because I did that, I'll be getting $11,000...10% of the value. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?! I mean, shoot, if the gov't wants to go around writing checks, I'm surely going to get my fair share, Lord knows how much I pay in taxes. But I was quite fine not getting $11k from the gov't and there are people who a much less responsible with their money who aren't going to do anything productive with it. Heck, I can use that $11,000 to buy a new car and then get more money. I'm flabergasted that people are okay with the government just giving people thousands of dollars. I'm not. Even if it helps me.

 

[minnie61650]

I can't believe this bill still. It seems so shocking. I mean, I bought a new home last year (first time homebuyer.) According to this bill, because I did that, I'll be getting $11,000...10% of the value. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?! <SNIP>

Home buyers who hoped for a $15,000 tax credit to buy a new home, as promised by the Senate, will be disappointed.

FEBRUARY 12, 2009 Congress Strikes $789 Billion Stimulus Deal

<SNIP>

Home buyers who hoped for a $15,000 tax credit to buy a new home, as promised by the Senate, will be disappointed. A proposed $35 billion credit to support home sales was jettisoned in favor of a more modest $2 billion to $3 billion provision.



The proposal would eliminate the repayment requirement in an existing tax credit for first-time home buyers, and raise the credit to $8,000 from $7,500. Congressional aides cautioned Wednesday that the credit's size was still subject to negotiation.

Link to full article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html

 

[Charade]

Yes, I forgot how darn easy it is to be a single mom and get a college education. Too bad for her and her kids. Let 'em starve....

I pray to never have the lack of compassion I hear from so many people on this board.

Extreme arguments never win any.

 

[Disney Doll]

The sky is falling; the sky is falling!

In reading some posts in this thread I am truly saddened by some of the comments. I am confused by labels of "socialism" when comments are made about willingness to help others in need.

I think some folks need to step back and see the picture from a different view point. There are some truly hurting people in our country (and all over the world!) right now and and it can not be assumed that it was their fault.
Let's have some compassion and try to work through these hard times and be aware and willing to help those in need.

Truthfully, I have no problem helping the less fortunate. I just would prefer to choose where my money to help the less fortunate is spent, and not have the government choose where my money should be spent to help th less fortunate.

 

[luvsJack]

First the system needs more "counselors" or whatever you want to call the people that over see the cases. There aren't enough workers for all the cases going on.

I'd like to have a 6-9 month sliding scale if receiving both low income housing and other forms of supplement like food stamps or a monthly check. At the 6-9 month mark, it would be time for a review of the case. If the person hasn't managed to move into something better or found a job then the person would have to start making some choices because the assitance would be reduced.

Once a person that is receiving assitance has gained employment, that person would be allowed to receive the same amount(not both food stamps and a check) every month for 3-6 months. This time period allows someone to get back on their feet, caught up and even maybe get ahead some.

One major frame I'd like seen done is a flat pay program not based on per member family. For instance a family of 4/6/8 in AR would receive $500 a month in food stamps or monthly check. A family of 4/6/8 in CA would receive $800 a month in food stamps or a check. I'd like to think that instead of paying out per family member, this would deter those just plain old living off the system and those popping out kids to earn more money.

At the one year mark someone living off the system would have to make hard choices because, I would limit the amount of time for the system to 18 months total.

I think you are definitely on the right track here. I think the 18 months would have to be extended to a certain extent. For instance, someone trying to get through a technical/vocational school program would need at least 24 months, if not 36. Of course proof of enrollment and passing grades could always be required. And a requirement to be actively looking for employment immediately after graduation.

I do think that, again, this is looking at only those who are trying to cheat the system. And you are right, there are so many out there that would love to be off welfare, they are just are caught in that vicious circle.

Maybe add to your ideas, some social workers who are actually working to get these folks off welfare; not telling them what they need to do to stay on! Maybe helping them find ways to go back to school and be trained for better paying job; or helping them to find better paying employment in whatever type job they are already in. There are so many training opportunities out there and so many times no one knows about them.

I also do not think welfare should be a free ride. People receiving assistance, who are physically able but do not have a job, could work for the county and/or state at least a few hours a week to earn what they receive. Helping with filing in offices, caring for plants and lawns outside the buildings, entering data into a computer system are all things that would also give a person skills to get a job.

The system is a necessary evil, it just is in bad need of restructuring.

 

[manning]

Some of it benefits my family as well as my parents (After 40 years, father a retired railroad worker) so we will happily accept our "welfare".

Fine by me. I'm just sitting around for the good ole Carter days. You know, high inflation etc. You do know about the Carter days? If not ask your parents about it.