Replies

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.

FORGET THE ‘TRAINING’

Government ‘training’ programs are not any better than anything else the govern,ent does.

They had 12 years of free high school to get all the training they should have needed.

Let them fend for them selves- put the kids up for adoption or in a government boarding school (THAT I can go for- it will teach them to hate the government more than anything else)

No, I am not joking.

I did not see in your proposal the main thrust of dealing with welfare people to be training

Wrong. That IS the main thrust.Had you read further down in the conditions for receiving assistance,you would have noticed that.

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”

You completely misread the contract.And you still aren't getting that it's government involvement on a local or state level,not federal.And,yes...random visits to recipients is a good idea.There must be checks and balances.

HOw about being concerned about the people government continually is taking money away from to give to these people.

This is EXACTLY who I am concerned with-people like you and me..the hard-working,taxpaying individual who's tired of endless "free money" being doled out to those who have no incentive to get out and work for it.

You also assume that these people actually want to train for something better

No,I am not assuming any such thing. This contract is completely voluntary-you either sign it or you don't,but if you do not,you get NO assistance whatsoever.This ferrets out those who will try and pull themselves up by their bootstraps,and if they don't,too bad,no more assistance-ever.How could you read that any other way?

You are so stuck in the mindset that only government can do welfare,

Wrong again.I am actually against the federal government being involved in anything but doing the will of the people who put them in office.I am talking about a scaled-down version of a hand-up approach as opposed to a hand-out approach.You are reading this all wrong.It's not about more govt oversight,or intrusion.Who,outside of the federal government,do you think is going to handle this if not a local or state government agency? A church? The Salvation Army? Get real.

Before that and before our government existed it was private groups and charities that did the work of helping others.

society is very different now from the way it was then. You're asking people to go back to a mindset and culture from decades ago...good luck with that. Meanwhile,we have a huge problem with a bunch of people that either need to get trained and go to work,or just fend for themselves.I daresay with a plan that pushes an ultimatum,you would see more people getting training and finding a job than you see now.In additionally,had you read the entire contract carefully,you would have noticed that the applicant gets 18 months of assistance and no more,ever again,regardless of their situation.Better that than your solution.