Replies

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.

Well given what you say, it might not be a bad thing.

I think the biggest problem would be getting places to change their own mindsets to do this. Too many people would fight for extensions, to change the law, to get it declared unconstitutional, voluntary signup or not.

And, really, you end up where I was proposing after 18 months of govt assistance anyway. Maybe one year would be better than 18 months though. I just saw a study that showed most people on assistance give up looking for a job after about 6 months.