[gimme1ibertee]

the manpower to check up on these people I don’t want to have to pay for,

But you are ok with throwing money at the problem for years and years on end? The manpower is already there,and you're already paying for it.They're called caseworkers.Get em out of the office and into the field where the people are.Something must be done.

far more humane and moral

Yes,it is far more humane and moral to just tell everyone with children and babies that welfare is over,get out,no more checks as of today.Yeah.That makes MUCH more sense than training them to get out and contribute to the society that they're living off of.

I seriously don’t want government in any form being able to go big brother on any segment of our population - that just gets abused and bigger in the long run.

OK,so we better end the raids to find illegal aliens or drug dealers.
Come on...we're talking about local government agency caseworkers visiting welfare recipients-not a raid by the federal government.

no castrating people,

Who said anything about castrating people? Amazing.Look,the bottom line of this proposal is to get people out and working,get them productive,and hopefully ending welfare once and for all.A little state or county-level oversight is not a big deal.As long as the federal government is out of it,there should be no problem.

printed up list of charitable organizations, churches, food banks, job centers, etc and pass them out to people.

And of course there'd be volunteers to do that...NOT.Do you realize how much churches would be hurt by that? And...job centers? We have "job centers":those are federal agencies-something you distrust.And do they provide training free of charge? Forgive me but you seem a little contradictory.

[Secret Agent Man]

Ending welfare ends the throwing the money at the problem, as you state.

I did not see in your proposal the main thrust of dealing with welfare people to be training. I saw it more to be about random tests and more government more involved with what they are or are not doingto comply with the terms of the contract. You are far more heavy on “you can’t do this or that and we’ll be checking on you” than “we will give you training”. Didn’t get that vibe from your comments.

the bottom line is government has no business being involved in anything charity-related because government is not set up to do charity. I think you know that. you’re only beef is the reaction people who believe they are entitled to benefits will have when they are taken away. HOw about being concerned about the people government continually is taking money away from to give to these people.

You also assume that these people actually want to train for something better, and would rather work for their money than have it handed to them for doing nothing. You have not met the kind of welfare recipients I’ve had the displeasure of running into. They don’t want to work, they don’t want to train, they believe they deserve this and who the hell are you to tell them they need to better themselves? That’s the mindset we’re dealing with here. The ungrateful, unashamed, happy with themselves, welfare recipients.

Read the thread, others were calling for castration for some of them.

If more and more people were needing private services for assistance, it sounds like a good job-growth industry. Perhaps we would see an increase in such groups to meet the demand. You are so stuck in the mindset that only government can do welfare, but they’ve really only taken it over the last 50-some years. Before that and before our government existed it was private groups and charities that did the work of helping others. They were able to also make better distinctions between people who needed help but wanted to make it on their own versus those who just wanted to live off the sweat of others. They were compassionate but they weren’t stupid.