what do you think of this?

CuriousKiddosMama · January 2014

We've never really started any debates on here, so I'm not sure if this is something people want on this forum, or if we want to keep it drama free. But since this is money related for all of us, I thought it would be okay to post this.
http://safeshare.tv/w/csrqsTAmSx

What do you think?

Personally, I believe this is one of the huge problems with our budget as a nation. I do believe that we need safeguards in place to help people land back on their feet, but there is a ton of abuse of the system, as this lady shows us all to clearly. I think we need to limit these programs to 1 or 2 years, or a couple times during your lifetime.

Xstatic3333 · January 2014

Ugh. I'm about as liberal as they probably come on this board and even I am appalled by that kind of attitude. At the same time, I know so many people who have legitimately benefited from welfare programs while getting back up on their feet. It is people like this who give all means-tested programs such a bad name. I have seen a few abuses-mostly with unemployment-but three times as many people who used them as temporary lifesavers.

There are a lot of complicated factors at play here, but as an-again, I'm just going to admit it-liberal, what I would like to see is less money going to people like this and more money going to good public schools (with more of an emphasis on job training at the HS level for those can't or don't want to go to college), quality early childhood education (which provides crazy good lifetime benefits and allows single mothers to work), and programs that promote good health and will minimize the number of people who need to be on disability.

In terms of the effect on our budget, I tend to think chipping away at these programs will make less of a difference then getting rid of the complicated tax codes that allow big American corporations to hide huge chunks of their money overseas. I'm also hesitant of cutting off means-tested programs cold turkey because of the ripple effect it can have on the economy. But that radio clip is just about the biggest advertisement for welfare reform anyone could come up with.

IAmSherlocked · January 2014

I'm going to try and be quick--I'm still new around here and just popped on while to keep me entertained while I eat dinner before I head to my other job. I'm trying to write quickly so I hope I can clearly write what my brain is thinking. It's going to be interesting to see what other people think about this.

Honestly, I almost didn't make it through listening to that whole thing, and I can't stand the fact that someone would flaunt the fact that they don't ever intend to get off of welfare. The fact that she "makes" almost as much as I do at my primary job, where I work 50+ hours a week irritates me to no end too. I do think this is a major problem in our country, but honestly I'm not sure what the best way to go about fixing the system would be. I feel like there has to be something we can do to advance economic mobility in this country for the people who actually work hard, but the question becomes where do we start?

I work with low-income families on a daily basis and one thing that the woman in the audio clip said towards the end I can definitely agree with--for people who are currently getting assistance and trying to get off it can be difficult, especially if you have children. Once you start working and make above a certain amount of money, you are totally cut-off, so any assistance you may be receiving to help supplement child care or food costs goes away and in many instances you actually end up in a worse situation than if you had just stayed on assistance, which doesn't make much sense to me at all.

In my opinion there would be some sort of tiered system, instead of the all-or-nothing system we currently have in place. I will say that the majority of people that I work with on a daily basis are hard-working people who are employed at least part time, or they were laid off and haven't been able to find work, and most really do want to get off of assistance. I don't think limiting how many times a person can be on assistance would be a bad idea either.

Of course there are going to be those people who take advantage of the system, but I feel like the people who are like the lady on the radio are few and far in between (or I hope so anyway!).

I will say that I am glad we have some sort of help for people in this country though. Both of my parents grew up in third world countries, and immigrated to the US when they were about 18-20. Where they grew up there was no security net to help the poor, there were no unions to protect workers from bad work conditions, and it was just really bad. Essentially if you were born poor, you stayed poor and you lived in the little tin shack with your whole family and that was just they way life was--you couldn't trust the corrupt government to lend you a hand so all you could do was hang on and hope you get to eat dinner each day. It's easy to get discouraged in that type of situation. So I look at that example and I think there needs to be something there to help those people, but then I look at our country and it feels like, to me, that things are out of control. Our programs are a good start, but they've ballooned way too much and we can't keep funneling money into a system that is really only a band-aid for a much larger problem.

OK, I have to run now. Can't wait to see how this one plays out.

brij2006 · January 2014

Okay, I'm going to start with this. I live in a LCOL area in a county that is at the highest rate of unemployment in IL, and has been for the past 10 years (towns full of manufacturing that went to China). Unfortunately 80% of the kids in our area schools qualify for free or reduced price lunches. So welfare is used by many members of our community, and they are very similar to the woman on this radio show.

So that is where I feel it needs a complete overhaul. This lady brings in $1,300 a month in welfare to support her family. That does not include the amount each month that is paid for with healthcare for her family of 5, and any other cash they may bring in under the table. Even if she were to go out and get a job making $30k a year, she still wouldn't "take home" more money than she currently does after paying all of her expenses. So why should she work?

Maybe this is where I feel that there should be a maximum limit on how long you can use it. Or that over time you start to receive a smaller percentage of assistance. That way there's incentive to support yourself and the choices you made to grow your family.

We have friends who are unmarried and had a child. She quit her job to be a SAHM, and receives foodstamps for her and her son of $350/month. She did not have to pay any money for the birth and healthcare for her or her son, and she receives a housing allowance of $400/month. Her and her BF's rent is $500/month, and he makes $35k/year. So they are choosing to remain unmarried so that she can continue to receive these benefits until their son is in school. She is also planning to go back to school (she had already been for 4 years and never received any sort of degree in that time), because it can be 100% paid for since she's a single parent. She will also get her childcare paid for while she goes back to school.

They're also discussing having another child because they know they want more than 1 and want to do it before they're married so they can receive the benefits. She also doesn't plan on using her degree once they're married. She just "might as well get it while it's paid for." It makes me sick.

CuriousKiddosMama · January 2014

brij2006 said:

Okay, I'm going to start with this. I live in a LCOL area in a county that is at the highest rate of unemployment in IL, and has been for the past 10 years (towns full of manufacturing that went to China). Unfortunately 80% of the kids in our area schools qualify for free or reduced price lunches. So welfare is used by many members of our community, and they are very similar to the woman on this radio show.

So that is where I feel it needs a complete overhaul. This lady brings in $1,300 a month in welfare to support her family. That does not include the amount each month that is paid for with healthcare for her family of 5, and any other cash they may bring in under the table. Even if she were to go out and get a job making $30k a year, she still wouldn't "take home" more money than she currently does after paying all of her expenses. So why should she work?

Maybe this is where I feel that there should be a maximum limit on how long you can use it. Or that over time you start to receive a smaller percentage of assistance. That way there's incentive to support yourself and the choices you made to grow your family.

We have friends who are unmarried and had a child. She quit her job to be a SAHM, and receives foodstamps for her and her son of $350/month. She did not have to pay any money for the birth and healthcare for her or her son, and she receives a housing allowance of $400/month. Her and her BF's rent is $500/month, and he makes $35k/year. So they are choosing to remain unmarried so that she can continue to receive these benefits until their son is in school. She is also planning to go back to school (she had already been for 4 years and never received any sort of degree in that time), because it can be 100% paid for since she's a single parent. She will also get her childcare paid for while she goes back to school.
They're also discussing having another child because they know they want more than 1 and want to do it before they're married so they can receive the benefits. She also doesn't plan on using her degree once they're married. She just "might as well get it while it's paid for." It makes me sick.

This is what agravates the crap out of me too. I know there is a lot of this going on, I worked in a low-income school and heard all sorts of stories of the crap my kids and their parents did. I have an uncle who buys his steaks from a guy on food stamps because that guy wants the money to go buy alcohol or whatever else he needs, not steaks. (And honestly, her $400 or whatever it was a month for food, is more than I spend on my family!) I don't believe the 'help' should go away completely, these systems are there for a legitimate reason as we saw in the Depression when many of them were created, and recently with the bad economic times. But this type of this is exactly why I think there needs to be a limit to it. And I'm not quite sure what would be 'fair' there. You can be on assistance for x number of years in your lifetime, or you can be on assistance for x number of times during your lifetime.... I don't know, but there needs to be some checks in place to this system that is a major part of our governments budget.

brij2006 · January 2014

In the same sense, it would also benefit if they created a program where people could learn soft skills to use in the workforce while they're on assistance. Like, in order to receive your $350/month in foodstamps, you have to attend 2 classes/month on how to create a resume, figure out what your personal abilities are, how to goal set, etc. Give people something to work toward. Yes, it would cost the government a few employees, but it may also cause less people to use the assistance for long periods of time.

hoffse · January 2014

It drives me crazy. Honestly, it does. Conservative, liberal, whatever, this sort of thing really should drive people crazy.

Honestly, I think a way to begin addressing the problem is to change the restrictions on non-profit tax deductions so that it incentivizes increased charitable giving. Right now you can only deduct up to 50% of your gross income. That is a lot for most people, but for the very wealthy - who could afford to give more - it's something that holds them back from giving at capacity. I see it a lot. I also think you should be able to deduct without itemizing. I would give a lot more to charity if I knew I could deduct every dollar I gave away.

In fact, there could even be a new category of just "charitable" that is independent from the 501(c)(3) catch-all (it does include charitable, but it also has religious, educational, etc. in there). Perhaps we could have a new designation for charitable giving for the poor of the United States. The entities that collect that money have to meet certain criteria, and they have to distribute the vast majority of it to the needy. And perhaps donors could get a deduction and a half or maybe even a tax credit up to a certain amount in order to keep those organizations funded.

Why I think this would help: lots of people need help. But applications for that kind of help shouldn't be done on paper, they should be done in person by a member of the group actually distributing funds (so they have a stake in where those funds go), and the gov just doesn't have the local resources for it. But churches, food banks, and non-profits DO help, and they DO look people in the eye who say they need assistance. They are just underfunded, and they can't meet demand even now.

It wouldn't be a total fix, but it sure would be a start.

Xstatic3333 · January 2014

I love the idea of being able to deduct without itemizing! And also the idea of tiered systems for assistance programs. It's so interesting to hear everyone's take on solving these problems.

Wulfgar · January 2014

I have a co-worker who's fiance helps out at food banks. He had to stop going when it was explained to him that a lady came in with a lot of the neighborhood children so she could get more free food.

I go meat shopping at a meat market that have buses come in on Saturdays from Cleveland where everyone pays with food stamps. I have also seen people driving brand new Cadillacs and then paying for their meat with food stamps.

I visited co-workers of my ex-wife who feed hot dogs and mac and cheese to the neighbor children when they could because the children's parents would only buy food for themselves and let the schools feed their children.

I also work with a single mother of three grown children who was on welfare just long enough to get back on her feet. I went to church with a lady that had four children and the last I knew she had a Masters degree in Social Work helping others to get off of aid.

I agree that we need hand ups not hand outs. When I was in Germany, I found out that the longer you are unemployed the less you got in government handouts. We need to do something like this here. For the first year of non-skills training you get full benefits. As time goes by, your aid reduces until you have an incentive to take anything.

I also think it would be best to consolidate aid to one government agency instead of the roughly 77 that I have heard about.

bparkhur · January 2014

Yes, welfare needs reform; I think most people would agree with this. However, it kills me that the mentality of some--which gets sensationalized in news outlets and other forums--is thought to represent the mentality of most. The majority of people on govt. assistance do NOT share this mentality. Do some people abuse welfare ? Yes. Do most people abuse welfare to this extent? No. But stories like these just serve to create a cultural consciousness that assumes welfare recipients are a bunch of lazy drug-abusers who are living the high life on Uncle Sam.

vlagrl29 · January 2014

brij2006 said:

Okay, I'm going to start with this. I live in a LCOL area in a county that is at the highest rate of unemployment in IL, and has been for the past 10 years (towns full of manufacturing that went to China). Unfortunately 80% of the kids in our area schools qualify for free or reduced price lunches. So welfare is used by many members of our community, and they are very similar to the woman on this radio show.

So that is where I feel it needs a complete overhaul. This lady brings in $1,300 a month in welfare to support her family. That does not include the amount each month that is paid for with healthcare for her family of 5, and any other cash they may bring in under the table. Even if she were to go out and get a job making $30k a year, she still wouldn't "take home" more money than she currently does after paying all of her expenses. So why should she work?

Maybe this is where I feel that there should be a maximum limit on how long you can use it. Or that over time you start to receive a smaller percentage of assistance. That way there's incentive to support yourself and the choices you made to grow your family.

We have friends who are unmarried and had a child. She quit her job to be a SAHM, and receives foodstamps for her and her son of $350/month. She did not have to pay any money for the birth and healthcare for her or her son, and she receives a housing allowance of $400/month. Her and her BF's rent is $500/month, and he makes $35k/year. So they are choosing to remain unmarried so that she can continue to receive these benefits until their son is in school. She is also planning to go back to school (she had already been for 4 years and never received any sort of degree in that time), because it can be 100% paid for since she's a single parent. She will also get her childcare paid for while she goes back to school.
They're also discussing having another child because they know they want more than 1 and want to do it before they're married so they can receive the benefits. She also doesn't plan on using her degree once they're married. She just "might as well get it while it's paid for." It makes me sick.

Totally sounds like what my cousin and his 2nd wife did. He accidentally knocked her up with twins when she was 18 and he was 11 years older than her. They waited until the kids were 5 to get married so she could get her nursing school and daycare for free as a single parent. I also believe she was on WIC as well. When they got married I think she was pregnant with their 3rd kiddo at the time....real classy right? Funny thing is she wanted to stay home with the kids but he wanted her to work so now she is making really decent money as a nurse and may end up having to pay him child support. They got divorced several years ago.

Doesn't it make you mad all those that abuse the system and we all work for what we get in life?

what do you think of this?

Re: what do you think of this?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards