You are hereToo many in Anchorage chose not to work and live off the government
Too many in Anchorage chose not to work and live off the government
By Duncan Galland
News flash . . . Mississippi has the most obese people in the nation. Hmm, what else is Mississippi known for being first? Ooh, yeah, it's the poorest state. Wait a minute! What’s wrong with this picture? Aren’t poor people the ones who need all of our help and tax dollars just so they won’t go hungry? Isn’t this the purpose of welfare, to meet the most basic needs of the most needy among us? If the purpose of welfare isn’t to meet only the most basic needs, then what is it for?
Welfare as originally envisioned was just that, a minimalist form of subsistence intended as a stop-gap against people starving to death in the most prosperous nation on earth. We are the US of A. We don’t allow our people to beg in rags by the side of the road to sustain themselves like some banana republic (well, maybe in Anchorage but only if they want to). It was intended as a safety net, but as the evidence suggests, the safety net has become a hammock. The welfare rolls are packed with people who have settled in upon a life of leisure at the expense of the hard-working men and women of this country.
My family and I live in East Anchorage, in a “mixed” neighborhood. Some nice houses, some trailers. Some of our neighbors are Alaska Housing clientele, and while they are very nice neighbors and we like them a lot, most of them don't work. They’re not handicapped. They are able-bodied men and women who don’t work because the government takes care of them and so they don’t need to. And yes, most of them are overweight. They also seem to always have enough money for beer and cigarettes. Now, I have nothing against people drinking and smoking. My point is that if you choose not to work, there should be some consequences. You shouldn’t be able to have taxpayers pay for your food and housing, and then spend your welfare check on booze and cigarettes.
What we need in this country (or maybe let’s just start in this state or city) are political leaders who have the courage to speak out against the false compassion we call welfare. Ultimately, the current system is highly destructive to those who fall into its snare. We are not doing these people any favors. We are not only destroying their health, but their character and their families. Instead of catering to people’s worst instincts, why not help them by teaching them about good character and self-reliance. Why not allow some consequences for those who refuse to be productive members of society?
Democrats will never challenge the status quo because the welfare class is a solid bloc of Democratic voters. We need Republicans to stand up to this insidious program that is destroying the very fabric of American life. Republicans have nothing to lose at this point. If you are a Republican politician, people who feed off the Government tit are not going to vote for you anyway. What you may see happen if you speak up is a groundswell of conservatives who sat out the last Presidential election rally to your side. We are reaping tons of unintended consequences from years of misguided government social engineering. The time to stand up and say “enough!” is long overdue.
Thank you very much for this information. Good post thanks for sharing. I like this site ;) ----------- cam balkon cam balkon çerçeve çerçeve fizik tedavi fizik tedavi otomatik kapi otomatik kapi netlog netlog sohbet sohbet web tasarim web tasarim sohbet sohbet sohbet odalari sohbet odalari bilgisayar fiyatlari bilgisayar fiyatlari -----------
This is so good to see. People do not need to live of the government. People need to step and work and take care of themselves.
orlando dui law
buy clomid cheap, amoxil generic
buy lasix, lexapro order online
order zithromax online, cipro generic
buy soma online
generic cialis online
order tramadol online
online viagra
Yeah I'm pretty happy having to work all the time to have the people sit on that big ol butt. The mom's that have 8 different kids with 8 different daddies for child support and all of the other freebies. Hell I wish I could sit on my butt and make a decent living. Some of these people have the system worked out so good that they even make more money than someone who is working. How does that make sense? But oh wait the obama fans like this because he's helped them more.
Just regurgitating garbage that you probably heard on talk radio and you take it as gospel to evangelize against public assistance.
www.youtube.com/watch
To everyone who wants a scientific treatise on every facet of welfare and its abuses, you'll have to look elsewhere. This piece was meant as an overview of some things that most people, if they are clear thinking, will admit. First, the system as currently configured is rampant with abuse. Second, the government that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers would never have been involved in this type of enterprise. This was (and still is) better left to churches and private charities. Lastly, the whole thing has become a career to countless bureaucrats who will attack anyone who wants to chop some limbs off the beast. (Those mean, uncaring Republicans!)
A couple of rebuttals: 1) Fruits and vegetables are not more expensive than feeding the family at McDonalds. 2) While it may be difficult to get into the Alaska Housing program, once you're in, there seems to be no limit to the number of able-bodied friends and relatives you can have live with you.
...oh my gosh, I forgot to mention that "roof without proof" program. Funny DP,...Its almost common knowledge how 'able-bodied friends and relatives' squeeze into the 1-2 bedroom apt. . Yet,...where's the enforcement?
And your evidence of that is your observance of neighbors that appear to you not to be deserving of public assistance? Or is it now that people are living with people in public housing is the problem and is rampant abuse?
Go ahead and suggest to private charities and churches that they should carry the full load of public assistance. They can't handle what they have now, and that is with public funds to help.
Do you recognize this from the US Constitution?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
or this"?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Or how about this from the Alaska Constitution.
§ 5. Public Welfare
The legislature shall provide for public welfare.
Are you honestly suggesting that the CONSITUTION has provided a pathway for people to live off government assistance? Your posting here is the perfect example of how willingly ignorant americans can be when they are in support of an "ideal". The phrase "...promote the general welfare" is nothing more than an assurance from our government that they will do everything in their power to uphold life, liberty and freedom. The word Welfare is defined in Merriam-Webster as:
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2 a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
Neither of those definitions gives people the permission to live off government assistance. What the article above is stating is exactly right: Someone who CANNOT provide for themselves and would otherwise come to harm or perish should be eligible for assistance. What the Consitution is NOT saying is: "Oh, hey there, I'll go ahead and pick up the tab for your ENTIRE EXISTENCE." What it IS saying is: We will do as much as we can to make this country a place that people can live in peace and generally enjoy their lives.
I really have a hard time believing that the FOUNDING FATHERS, who lived in a time where most people grew their own food, were considering a country where anyone who cares not to work can simply put their hand out and recieve a check each month.
Emperor, I find it disheartening that somone as obviously well written and intelligent as yourself can turn and twist the words of people who lived more than 100 years ago to fit a modern ideal of american lazyness and unproductivity. You are part of the problem, not the solution, my friend.
Let me start by saying that I think the current public assistance delivery system needs to be radically changed. I've offered some of my ideas here.
You've stated the problem incredibly well when you wrote:
"I really have a hard time believing that the FOUNDING FATHERS, who lived in a time where most people grew their own food, were considering a country where anyone who cares not to work can simply put their hand out and recieve a check each month."don't think they should, then turn them in, they may be comitting fraud.
It was much easier and simpler to be self-sufficient when there was room to grow your own food, hunt, fish, and build your own home from trees you cut down from an area. When you could trade and barter for goods and services with your neighbors.
So the question is what would our founders think today? What would "Public Welfare" mean to the founders in todays world? The Alaska Constitution was Ratified by the People of Alaska April 24, 1956. That's not too long ago and yet it still says simply that "The legislature shall provide for public welfare." Still there is a world of difference in Alaska in over 50 years.
I think it is up to us to define what "public welfare" means in the context of today. In my world view post I wrote:
I believe that we, as a whole, have a moral obligation to care for those that are unable to or struggling to care for themselves. I also believe that there should be “strings” attached to our help, namely to move them to as much self sufficiency as possible as quickly as possible.
You wrote: "...anyone who cares not to work can simply put their hand out and recieve a check each month".
It's not that easy. I've provided links to the different programs available and if you're not disabled or elderly and broke, you're not going to get much assistance if any. If you're a low income family with children in the home under 5 you might get some assistance for a limited time. If you're working poor you can get some benefits depending on how much you earn and the number of people in your family. This idea that you can just walk up to a counter and get a monthly check is completely ridiculous. If you know someone that is receiving a check from the government fraudulently, turn them in.
I understand what you're saying and I agree to a point. As I said in the beginning our "public assistance delivery system needs to be radically changed." I think the bigger problem than fraud is lack of efficiency in delivering services, and no exit plan for those receiving assistance. Those are things I think we can fix.
It is really doubtful that 'welfare,' in the terms of government, was meant to be something which would provide the citizens a means of making a living without having to work.
Promoting the 'general welfare' was probably intended quite differently than the above meaning you have attached to it.
How does a 'welfare program' as we think of it enhance the general welfare of Americans ... or Alaskans?
This article suggests that welfare is an on-going, and often generational, way of life. Only when we go back to the principle of welfare being a program to JUST barely provide for a family will we begin to see many recipients deciding to better themselves. That was, and should be, the reason for welfare.
As it is now, though ... the monetary benefits of our welfare programs amount to more in actual dollars than what could be earned in a minimum wage job. Therefore, there is no incentive for many welfare recipients to obtain employment ... at the cost of their subsidized housing, their TANF, their free health benefits, their utility bill help, their food stamps, their WIC, and even in some cases their free cable, internet and telephone service.
So, something really is terribly wrong when welfare recipients often have a more lucrative income than many people who are working.
"So, something really is terribly wrong when welfare recipients often have a more lucrative income than many people who are working."
Minimum wage is 7.75 an hour amounts to about $1,000 per month net. That person would still qualify for public assistance in some programs, most notably rent, utilities, and food stamps. They wouldn't get medical, but the only medical provided is medicaid which is restricted to the disabled/elderly. WIC is also availlable to the working poor as well.
The days of the welfare queens is gone.
... that came from a research firm in the late 1980's ... which unfortunately I did not keep. The research was pretty extensive, covering each state's welfare benefits compared to each state's minimum wage and compared to each state's cost of housing, etc. I believe that at that time, CA welfare recipients would have 'lost' the most by working ... but every single state showed the same thing ... welfare as a more lucrative way of living compared to what it would cost to live off of the welfare program.
The reasons it always stuck in my mind is partly because, sadly enough, I have several relatives who have, for three generations now, been on welfare programs ... and because of what I see and hear in this area ... as well as doing some ballpark figures of my own on what the monetary benefits of welfare are compared to the losses that would be experienced without welfare. Ironically, a neighbor with three children on the welfare program was complaining to several of us about the cost of fireworks this year ... She had to pay over $100 for her little boxful of them.
And actually, the MO 'poverty level' is, just in my opinion, set rather high ... but guess that's because I spent the first five or more years of my marriage without things like a telephone or television or ...
...in 25 plus years. I can only speak to how the programs are ran up here. Is there abuse of the system, of course. It would be as silly to deny there is fraud as it would be to deny there are shoplifters. But neither are "rampant".
Yes, I think the way we deliver public assistance can and should be improved, and I've already described some of the things that I think would make it better. One of the things I think would help immensely is an affordable public option for health insurance. One of the most difficult things for people trying to make the transition from public assistance to self-sufficiency is the availability of affordable health insurance. Particularly for those that are collecting SSI and receiving medicaid. They have to have a verified medical condition in order to receive SSI. If through physical and vocational rehabilitation they are able to begin work some, they have to be careful to not lose their medical coverage, often that is more valuable to them than the SSI stipend.
...the only major change in the 'welfare system' was abut 3 years ago, when the powers that be decided to drop all disabled persons off Medicaid who could work (and also lowered what the state considers 'poverty level') ... which of course included those working in the handicapped workshops. Despite major protests, rallies, and people in wheelchairs trying to get an audience with the governor outside the state offices ... it was passed. Within six months or so, most sheltered workshops had closed down. That was, in my opinion, a sad thing.
Part of the problem with both Medicaid and SSI is definitely is the loss of health benefits.
Went into your link and enjoyed your writings.
...of poorly thought through policy. I hope is serves as a lesson learned by anyone looking to revolutionize public assistance prorgrams.
I'm glad you enjoyed my blog, thank you for taking the time.
... to your blog somewhere in cyberspace or something ... Perhaps you could post it again? I wanted to re-read it and think and maybe reply to some of your thoughts. I liked that you explained what an agnostic is ... most people don't know that, believe it or not!
Also ... I tried to reply through my Twitter account, but all that came up was something that I think said the site was unavailabe ...?
Well, I'm not all that computer wise when it comes to Twitters and Facebooks and all those things.
MO has a new governor now, but so far, with the economy the way it is, doesn't look very hopeful that things will change as far as Medicaid ... They're considering 'maybe' allowing people with 'mental handicaps' being allowed to work at least a few hours a week in the workshops. I hope so ... My brother in IL has worked in one for about 20 years ... it makes him feel important and useful and proud ...and he's just as thrilled with his average $6 a week paycheck as someone else might be with their $500.
I know that's the way VA Disability works. They encourage disabled vets to work even a little each week. It helps them physically, mentally and emotionally.
EmperorBob.com
Emperor's World View
Twitter @Emperor_Bob
Let's start with this: "They’re not handicapped. They are able-bodied men and women who don’t work because the government takes care of them and so they don’t need to." How do you know this? Under the current rules it's nearly impossible to get public assistance if you are not over 65, disabled or have children under the age of 5 living in the home and then there are time limits. So if you think someone is receiving benefits fraudulently report them.
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/apa/
Adult Public Assistance Program was established 15 years ago with the mandate to furnish financial assistance to needy aged, blind, and disabled persons and to help them attain self-support or self-care. People who receive APA financial assistance are over 65 years old or have severe and long term disabilities that impose mental and physical limitations on their day-to-day functioning.
http://hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/gra/
Eligibility for General Relief Assistance is always determined on a month-to-month basis. Applicants must demonstrate and verify an unmet emergent need in the month of application that can be satisfied by GRA. GRA payments are always made to vendors who can provide the needed services.
http://hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/atap/
The Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP) provides cash assistance and work services to low-income families with children to help them with basic needs while they work toward becoming self-sufficient. This program is provided under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
ATAP changed the traditional focus of the state’s public assistance program for needy families to an employment-focused program from an entitlement under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Temporary Assistance stresses family self-sufficiency through employment.
Then there is rental assistance available through Alaska Housing including public housing and other programs including the Family Self-Sufficiency program. (which I think should be the model for public assistance going forward).
My issue is that we have too many different programs, in different offices, with different requirements. In addition to those above there are:
Child Care
Chronic and Acute Medical Assistance
Denali KidCare
Family Nutrition
Food Stamps
Heating Assistance
Medicaid
Senior Benefits
And the municipality has its programs and all of the programs ran by non-profit organizations as well which many receive public funding of some of their programs.
So there is a lot of help out there from a many different sources, the problem I think is that our delivery system isn't very efficient and too often ineffective in the long term.
Some thoughts from my world view related to this topic.
6) I believe in “sufficient government”. Large enough to handle it’s duties but not so large that it smothers us with laws, rules and regulation. I believe that we, as a whole, have a moral obligation to care for those that are unable to or struggling to care for themselves. I also believe that there should be “strings” attached to our help, namely to move them to as much self sufficiency as possible as quickly as possible. I believe there is a tremendous waste in government due to redundancy and overlaps. There are some things that I believe government should not be involved with at any level.
12) Personal responsibility should be the standard in our culture. We should do everything possible to help people attain and maintain that standard. Churches and other non-profits can be part of that, but our government has an obligation to “promote the general welfare”. We need to revolutionize the welfare system, but that doesn’t mean that the government shouldn't’t be a major part of that. Nobody should be reduced to begging on the streets, to the church, their neighbors, or other organizations for assistance. Those institutions are already overwhelmed and many of them receive government grants as well. I would rather my tax dollars go to helping people than 1% for the arts that usually produces the most hideous piece of crap imaginable.
13) Good health and a good education are the two most important factors of a good workforce and society. It’s in all of our best interests to do what we can do to ensure good health and good education, because that is what drives our economy. The affordable availability of education and health insurance to every citizen should be a priority.
And just added:
31) We need to change how we view Child Support. We need to encourage non-custodial parents to stay involved in the raising of their children. Unless there is a history of abuse, the non-custodial parent is a vital part of raising children to be well adjusted and productive adults. [more]
If we were to treat public assistance as a project and "Begin with the end in mind" (Stephen Covey) what end are we looking for as a goal? I think everyone would agree that the only goal should be a self sufficient family that no longer needs public assistance to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
So we have to look at the reasons why somebody is in need of public assistance. What got them here and what do they need to get where we want them to be. There are many reasons why people turn to the public for help. Is it substance abuse, health, child care, transportation, housing, education, job skills, lack of a mentor, or what. Once that is determined, and we know where they are and how they got there, it's a simple matter to help them draw a map to their independence.
I envision a system like the application for Federal Student Aid. The application for public assistance would include resources from the government, private sector, non-profits as well as the applicants own resources. Drawing on the available resources, a case manager would develop benchmarks to measure progress against goals, compliance with conditions set, and coordinate the various components required by the plan. There would be a cap on the total amount of public assistance over a specific amount of time according to the plan.
There are some that won't ever be totally self sufficient and will always require "some" public assistance, but the goal in those cases to get them as close as we can based on their condition. The other end is that there are some people that we simply can't help. Helping them just enables their self destructive acts. It's sad, but true. In those cases we can only take away their children so that at least the next generation has a shot at self-sufficiency as an adult.
What ? Think your making an assumption that the parent(s) will never see the light so take away their children ? Good luck on that one.
If parents are neglectful or abusive to their children the State can and will take them away. They go into foster care, until such time as the parents or some family member is capable of caring for them. In some cases, that time never comes. Some people can't be saved from themselves, the best we can do is try and save their children. But our foster care system has it's own problems as well.
And unfortunately they are allowed to vote. Along comes a guy who promises them everything for nothing and next thing you know....he is president.
One reason for people that are poor being obese is that it costs a lot to eat healthy. By a lot I mean that the basic staples of a healthy diet that includes a variety of vegetables and fruits cost considerably more than a diet of pop tarts, freezer food, and fast food dinners. I think it's more an issue of people not being able to afford to eat healthy that tends to make poor people obese.
Welfare, as I understand it, came well after FDR's New Deal. I could be wrong but I thought the New Deal created social security as a safety net for people that were unable to work because of injury or illness. Welfare on the other hand evokes images of slovenly dressed welfare queens in trailer parks collecting checks from the government for having more children. I am oversymplifying but that's how the two programs come across in my mind.
I couldn't agree with you more though on how people spend their money on luxury items when they can't afford to buy healthy food or make rent on their own. A perfect case in point is the town I served in the Peace Corps called Cool Breezes (no joke). They bought gold chains, lottery tickets, new bicycles, new boats, drugs, booze, and hookers but they somehow could not afford to pay for a working water source or decent food for their children. Basically the village had a skewed sense of priorities. To contrast with their bad choices and laziness, the people in my first village had less in terms of money, no access to paved roads, no access to the coast, and no access to good farming land for their caloric needs, and they were still better organized for managing their water and money. They saved for future repairs on their aqueduct and held regular meetings to make important decisions together as a community regarding their most precious resource, water. What was the difference? Culture and work ethic. Pure and simple. The coastal dwellers got a ton of handouts from the corrupt government officials and they were happy to sit on their butts. The indigenous people in the highlands were self-determined and good workers. By the way, and I thought this was a hilarious coincidence, I served in a country that was once considered a Banana Republic. Can you guess which one?
... canned fruits and vegetables do not cost more than junk food, at least if one is feeding a family. Meals that are cooked and balanced are not more expensive than a TV dinner (or two) for each family member, or boxed macaroni and cheese ... A bowl of cereal is less costly than one or two Pop Tarts.
I may also be wrong, but don't believe Social Security for the disabled started during FDR's presidency. You are so correct, though, in that culture and work ethics are essential ...
In my Missouri county, a disproportionate amount of people are on welfare ... not including seniors on SS, which is odd, because their incomes are generally on average quite low.
There is not a single family I know on the 'welfare program' who has no cell phone, no television, no cable or dish service. There is also a disproportionate percentage of single, teen mothers ... it's an accepted lifestyle for them ... a 'job,' so to speak, that they complain about almost continuously because they have 'no time' for themselves.
A friend who manages a local grocery store decries the fact that food stamps can and are used for steaks, candy, ice cream, chips and cookies, bakery items, colas, etc., rather than 'real' food. It's common knowledge that WIC recipients receive actually more food than they can use, and they sell it to friends or relatives. Speaking of which: Most WIC recipients are aware of the fact that if they state they are 'nursing' their babies, they are eligible for much more than 'bottle baby' mothers are.
Now, food stamps are even accepted in some of the pizza businesses! The $12-$15 for one pizza to feed perhaps a family of four for one meal could feed that family for 2-3 days with homemade chicken and noodles, or chili, or tuna casseroles.
I think we have gotten carried away here and we should be clear about what it is exactly that we're discussing. Canned fruits and vegetables were never mentioned in my post and while I would consider them more wholesome foods than junk or frozen foods, they certainly do not hold the same nutritional value per weight of said drained vegetable as fresh produce. I don't mean to sound snobby but there is a stark difference in the vitamin and fiber value of canned vegetables versus fresh veggies and canned fruits come packed in sugar syrup. My intent is not to split hairs either but those are differences that need to be addressed.
I suppose it also matters whether we're talking about the American basket of goods or the UN Food Programme basket of goods for a diet. Really there can be no comparison but the point stands that the type of food you eat matters greatly in terms of caloric and vitamin value and it's relative cost. Check out this link if you want to see what the international standard for getting by is:
http://www.wfp.org/nutrition/WFP-foodbasket
I would have to say that without a doubt, it costs the consumer more to eat a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, protein and carbs included, that are less processed in the short run. There is the cost of time needed to gather ingredients and prepare the food plus cleanup. On the other hand, fast food takes care of all of that and you have a product that is significantly cheaper in real terms. Some have argued that the cost of health care down the road for people that eat unhealthy is also significant and that is becoming apparent as people pay more attention to the cost of health care these days. I couldn't really make a case for that point of view since the numbers are open to wide interpretations and assumptions.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
It's okay, I understand the difference between fresh and canned fruit (even those packed without syrup) and/or vegetables. However, I also realize that few families provide their children with fresh fruits and/or vegetables ... and it isn't a matter of affordability. It's a whole 'nother generation of mothers out there than the one I was raised in, or the one I raised my children in. Nutrition and balanced diet are not in their vocabulary, for the most part.
Even in our schools ... reading the menus in the newspapers, I'm astounded at the amount of especially starches and sugars that are the main items. Two examples this week (summer classes): Peanut butter and jelly sandwich, macaroni and cheese, corn, two cookies. Hot dog on bun, potato chips, sweet pickle, ice cream cup. Oh, and milk. This is the type of meal that I see my children serving to their youngsters, with the excuse that "they won't eat anything else."
Thanks for the link. How interesting!
Do you remember the days of 'commodities?' The foodstuffs that were provided to needy families and even low-income single adults were more-or-less geared to what their bodies needed to stay healthy ... including cheese, powdered milk and eggs, butter, oatmeal, dried beans & peas, rice, sugar, flour, cornmeal, orange juice, canned ham and chicken sausage and chipped beef. I can't recall, but assume it included canned vegetables and perhaps fruits.
Guess all I was really trying to say is that food stamps without some sort of control over what they can be used for is not the best plan in the world. Food stamp allotment, at least in some states, is based on income plus the number of people they are meant to feed. When my sister was disabled, the state sent sample planning menus/shopping lists, geared to helping them budget their food purchases so that they would last until the end of the month. She would make her shopping lists and I went to the store for her. Bless her heart ... two weeks into each month her food stamps would be gone. I had ways of providing food for her and her children that didn't offend or embarrass her (like, "Oh, gosh ... I made too much of this soup/casserole and don't have room in the freezer for the leftovers.") ... but the bottom line was and is ... a family cannot and should not expect to be able to buy lamb chops or expensive cookies or even potato chips on one month's worth of food stamps, and still be able to make their stamps last through the month.
My story,..I fell from grace. Big money job (firefighter) to subtance abuse. Sub-culture led me to ladyfriend. Ladyfriend incarcerated. Oops,..she had my baby. (knew her for a month during my spiral). I'm unemployed, raising a 2 week yr. old son at the budget motel. I was on welfare w/ food stamps...embarassing, humiliating. I used it for what it was entended for..it helped me. Today he is 12, honor roll student, I own a beautiful home and have a loving wife and gainfully employed. The childs mother has ridden this welfare machine all her life, she also claims disability...crock. Her mother did it and now her 23 yr. old son, never had a job, healthy, lives w/ her...future recipient. She has a newer model truck than what I have, free cell phone, housing...blah,blah ,blah. Her circle of friends are on the same wagon and share welfare tips and scams. It burns me. I worked hard to achieve my goals and material things. I get $50 a month child support. Joke. Politicians, have no fear. Welfare recipients that I know ..don't vote. We need checks and balances on who is a career welfare recipient and re-evaluate. Disability is the biggest scam. .....My point ? This ariticle speaks the truth...I know, I've been there in the worst way.
The fact that you were embarrassed and humiliated by being on welfare says something about you. In the past, that was a given, but now it's an acceptable way of life for many, to the point that they often 'compare notes' and brag about it--and work diligently to get on it and stay on it.
There are many who should not qualify for disability ... but many who are truly disabled. The sad thing is, no one really ever checks on their status, as they did (at least in some midwest states) years ago. It is has, however, become more difficult to get approved for Medicaid disability ... at least in MO. And generally, even the truly disabled end up hiring a lawyer in order to get approved for SS Disability. However, SS usually also approves those who are not so disabled that they couldn't work in some capacity, after they hire a lawyer.
A few years ago, MO did pass a new law which automatically disqualified a handicapped person from receiving Medicaid if they were employed, regardless of their income. Sounded pretty good ... until all the employees in the handicapped workshops had to quit their little 35-65 cent an hour jobs in order to keep their health coverage ... and then many workshops had to close down. Additionally, some disabled who worked a few hours a week in jobs like 'Walmart greeters' and bag boys at grocery stores had to quit their jobs ... jobs which gave so many of them just a little extra income and a lot of sense of pride.
So ... what's the solution? Perhaps there should be, at least where welfare programs are concerned, some sort of 'yardstick' to measure a person's disability, and allowances made for those who at least have the desire and decency to want to work a little if they can? And perhaps governments should start a campaign informing people that the goverment will, in say two years, only pay the doctor/hospital bils for a woman's first baby. As with unemployment, people on a welfare program should have to provide proof of applying for jobs ...
"And perhaps governments should start a campaign informing people that the goverment will, in say two years, only pay the doctor/hospital bils for a woman's first baby."
But a guy gets to impregnate as many women as he can or wants without penalty or censure? Even if that resulted in more abortions? The principle is sound though.
Why not give away condoms and birth control. Pay for vasectomy's, require them if they have children on public assistance over a year. Pay for birth control implants, require them if they have children on public assistance over a year.
Actually, Emporer ... if one thinks about it ... a guy who impregnates a woman has sort of been given permission to do that ... by the woman herself. Probably there's not a female over the age of 12 who doesn't know what causes pregnanacy ... so ... the solution may be for her to either be on some form of birth control, or insist that the guy use a condom. Sure a man should be as responsible about it as a woman, but the fact is, she's as culpable as he is to see to it that their matings do not produce a child. Does that maybe make sense?
Don't know if they still do, but Kansas used to provide birth control pills and implants, at least to women on public assistance ... they also limited (perhaps still do, although it was being protested because they were legislating 'women's rights') the number of babies they would pay for to ... TWO. A nephew and his partner were livid when the doctor informed them that their KS Medicaid would not pay his OR the hospital bill for their third baby. After the birth, the state paid for her implant.
Planned Parenthood in IL and MO both used to provide free birth control pills to low-income women.
Sadly enough, as long as our states continue to pay for unlimited pregnancies, and then provide support for the families who are irresponsible enough to keep having babies, the trend will continue. It breaks my heart to see these 16-17 year old girls becoming mothers, having to grow up too fast, and seeing those children suffer for their parents' selfishness or ignorance.
It's a matter of personal responsibility for both parties. I've raised my boys the same as the girls, if you're going to have unprotected sex then you must be prepared to be held accountable for the consequences. Now that doesn't mean a shot gun wedding because sometimes that's the worse of the choices. Just because the kids are old enough to breed doesn't mean they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of parenthood or marriage. So I definitely believe that whatever measures are taken to curb unwanted pregnancies or children born into families already on public assistance must include both parents. It's more than just financial support as well. The role of fathers in the family, raising and educating children has been diminished to the point that we need to change the culture of fatherhood. We are more than sperm donors and bank machines which is how the system currently views men.
I think it would be more cost effective to provide free birth control, condoms and vasectomies than it is to pay for unwanted pregnancies. Measured in terms of number of abortions, numbers of children on public assistance, or in number of lives that are changed forever at too young of an age.
Wait till Eddie sees this one!
Well now, this writer isn't going to win any awards as a scientist. Personally, I believe that one of the main reasons for obesity is sexual harassment. Our air waves, radio, news, grocery stores etc etc etc are so constantly full of sexual this and that all day long I think a lot of people are just plain insulating themselves. Many a woman who does not believe in divorce puts on weight to get her husband to stop being obsessed with her body parts. And husbands of women like that in countries that allow it, often get willing brides all over again. It's called a "defense mechanism." Which would explain why obesity defies all economic boundaries and settles in countries with enough food and the most input onslaught. Where defending oneself by that choice is not an option (i.e. lack of food) people look elsewhere for ways to defend themselves from such harrassments. Because it's not just peoples spouses who inflict obsessins with sex on each other now. It's everywhere. But since I haven't the data to back that up, I'm not going to try and sell anyone on it. I do hope this picture isn't of the woman I know who works all day long for free handing out food at food banks to those already screened as really needing it. The one who just lost 100lbs (and still has a way's to go) after we sold her down the river 17 years ago to the federal welfare program (SSI) for being unable at the time to find a paying job. You know during those years Clinton was restructuring the State's welfare system. I think this writer needs to find out what Welfare really is now. Not what it was in his grandpa's time. Truth is, what we commonly call "Welfare" now, that is, state assistance programs, is actually one of the hardest jobs you'll ever get in the USA. And it certainly does not pay minimum wage when you count up the hours required of them meeting all the programs requirments. Unless you're one using Medicaid benefits. But those people do have to eat too, at least, some minimum portions every day. I hope that's okay with the writer of this article that the truly disabled get one meal a day? And it's not like they get to buy beer on the medical benefits, or anything else that contributes a calorie, or even three. In fact, on state aid, if you're a women who's just had a baby, you still have to hand over your newborn to (usually) strangers and go work for the state just for those food stamps. And the job gets considerabley harder if you want cash too. Too bad if the WIC staff think you should be nursing the child ourself. Or that it's Pediatritian believes breast milk is seriously better those first few months at the least. Nope, Mom has to go out of the home and do her time. And baby has to have a care taker. Usually, in an infection pool. But that's okay, we'll pay for the medical to pump antibiotics in to kill the infections when baby gets them. Yes, all poor mothers want this for their kids don't they? They're not like loving (non-poor) Moms anyway, right? While Anchorage Assembly is busy considering whether to outlaw discrimination against gays might they provide anti-discrimination rights for the poor? The work requirements are in fact, so stressful that is why so impoverished drunks stand on the medians at Fred Meyer's here in Anchorage, chose begging as their source of "financial aid" instead. And now that I think on it, I don't remember a single one of them being obese. Even in Anchorage. Maybe in Mississippi the street corner bums are fat. Never been there, so I don't know. Now, SSI and SSDI is welfare. And so are a few other federal programs like for senior widows. And those do help it's recipients become become obese. Because most of those progarms actually require the recipients to not work. Not all, but some of those programs do. Still, SSI pays so low it's pretty hard not to have to work by going to food banks on bus systems, hauling the food bank home by hand (if one has a home on SSI-quite a few don't). Such hard physical labor tends to keep people not obese. The truth is, SSI is outright communism, by anyones objective deffinitions,. It really is welfare. It's where the state sent those who could not work a long time ago. And we still do send them there if the State can't make someone work full time for state "wefare" and some professional still thinks they should be fed/housed/etc. And SSI does everything it can to keep the people on it serving those peoples new masters, and no one else. SSDI is a bit better. It can actually be good for those with real disablities, for those who truly can not work. With SSI in place, and Psychology now our national religion, "professionals" can now get not only blood out of turnips but we can now create our own human vegies to then suck the funding out of too. The business of having so many living human carcasses, prone, rolling and even walking around, has become quite the lucative profession. It funds all sorts of other activities now too. No hospital facility could be without some. But I don't know any of real welfare recipients who go into it knowing that's gonna happen to them. I can't think of a one that knowingly chose that. It's a much harder lifestyle than being "gainfully employed." So, how many of the obese in Mississippi are poor? How many are on state welfare? How many are on the real (federal) welfare? And do those answers work for Alaska?
I THINK I read your comment as ... uh ... tongue-in-cheek humor?
If not ... well, geez, I don't know what to say. ~laughing~
The Mississippi part of your argument is not well thought out or researched. I am unsure what you are implying. Your argument appears to go something like this.
Please clarify this point. And what is the rate of welfare dependancy in Miss.? Is it higher or lower than other poor states. The only data I found was 10 years old and indicated that Miss. was reducing it welfare roles faser than other states. What is the connection between obesity and poverty? It is a very good question and has quite a bit of research out there to educate yourself about the issue.
As to the rest of your piece, you are taking your personal experience and generalizing it to an entire system. This is a poor argument and would not stand up to scrutiny. I think the only generalization you can really support is that there are some obese people who live near you, who live in low income housing, who drink beer and by your observation don't appear to work like you do. It raises questions , certainly, but research doesn't support your argument.
The national facts on welfare for families, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, has the vast majority only receiving assistance for 1-2 years. Only 10% receive benefit longer than 6 year. To me that is a refutes your entire argument. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/ch2.shtml#ind9
Is 10% long term dependancy too high? Probably, but what would be the cost benefits to actually rectifying the system and are you willing to pay more money to really fix the problem of long term welfare dependency? I think there are certainly improvements that should be made to the welfare system. But I think the best action we can take is to reduce the risks factors that lead to long-term dependency.
Mostly you seem to be just angry at poor people and again, surprise, THE GOVERNMENT. They are destroying the fabric of American life. I thought that destruction was being brought about by gay marriage, or abortion, or taxes or ..... It is amazing that the fabric is holding together at all after all these vicious domestics assaults. But maybe America has changed, maybe these issues are much more complicated than your poorly crafted arguments let on. Republican when they are in power don't eliminate them, Or maybe there wasn't a time when everything was correct in America, maybe it is always a struggle to get policy, government, private sector and ideology to work.
Settle down, do some research and come back with real arguments and proposals. Standing up and saying enough will get you nothing.