Possible solution to welfare/unemployment

There are a lot of threads on here all the time about the frustration of people milking the system on welfare and unemployment, well has anyone ever brought up this point?

LEGIT QUESTION: For single mom's on welfare (in this example, where the kids aren't babies and are school age) - What do the moms do all day while the kids are in school? From 7 or 8 in the morning until 3:30 the kids are in school. Therefore, why can't they be required to do some sort of work? Not a real job but at least do some government required job of SOMETHING.

Same question goes to people on unemployment, I don't understand how you can literally get paid to do NOTHING. If the tax payer is paying you, why can't there be a program where people on unemployment are required to go do yard work for people in the spring and summer months? Or go pick up trash off the highways? It doesn't have to be trash picking, but surely there is something you can provide back to the city and society as a whole while you are getting paid. Am I right or am I right?

Now obviously single mom's who have babies from newborn to like 4 or 5 years old obviously they have to stay home to take care of them, but after that, they get to milk the system from that point until the kids are graduating high school at age 17.

People on welfare should be forced contraception until they get off it.

"oh i'm on welfare and have 2 kids, lets just have 5 more".

If you aren't in a position to legitimately support a child, you shouldn't be having a kid.

Welfare and unemployment is not the same thing often.

The only way to fix it is to have strict requirements and obviously require people to work some jobs.

because the teamsters would sue the city, for stealing their jobs. btw - the money you get on unemployment comes from taxes you pay in while employed, pretending it is similar to welfare is absurd.

Welfare and unemployment both come from the tax payers, or am I missing something? I don't care what you call it, I am simply stating the idea of getting paid to not do any ounce of work should be changed.

People on welfare should only be allowed benefits for 18 months while looking for their own work. After 18 months, they are given a job by the government and are able to keep their benefits for an additional 6 months before having to come off.

I've thought about this lol. Know some people who've been playing the system for years. Phone Post 3.0

Pura Vida - because the teamsters would sue the city, for stealing their jobs. btw - the money you get on unemployment comes from taxes you pay in while employed, pretending it is similar to welfare is absurd.

I said thought I clarified, these wouldn't be normal public jobs anyone can go out and apply for. These are just made up jobs that the government would create. Such as, lets say for one week of pay you are required to mow 5 lawns a week. The work wouldn't equal out to be a job you could rely on but you should be required to do SOMETHING. Mow lawns, pick up trash, clean the city other ways, something, anything!

PrestigeWorldwide - People on welfare should only be allowed benefits for 18 months while looking for their own work. After 18 months, they are given a job by the government and are able to keep their benefits for an additional 6 months before having to come off.

I've thought about this lol. Know some people who've been playing the system for years. Phone Post 3.0

I just didn't want the direction of my original post to be about how to fix the system, we know the system isn't going to change in that regard that extreme, I am just pointing out that I have never heard a strong argument against my original point. Because this topic is brought up all the time and how people shouldnt be able to be on it for so long etc but it just turns into a big argument.

This is a popular misconception. Most people receiving public assistance already have job. They're the working poor. They work at Walmart, McDonalds, etc. We, as taxpayers, are basically giving these companies a government subsidy for their workforce.

However, if I were to suggest that these companies pay more so that their employees use less public assistance and we, as a result, pay fewer taxes, it makes me a communist for some reason.

Most states have free classes or have programs that don't get taken advantage of much for the newly unemployed. When I was laid off two yrs ago I visited one of these employment centers. It was privately ran but received funding from state and federal programs(go figure). This place had about 10 brand new computers with every single software imaginable on it. They offered simple classes on such things as resume writing and interview protocol. The vast diversity of people in there looking for jobs was amazing. White trailer park trash, ghetto gangsters, I clueless blonde with a masters in communication, and a very testy old guy who did nothing but sit in front of a computer every day. I give props to those people because they were not sitting at home collecting a paycheck. At least they were motivated to do something about their situation. If the gubmint doesn't enforce unemployment then how can they ever expect people to be motivated to get off it? Not to mention that in most states people receiving benefits make more money then those working minimum wage. Phone Post 3.0

  

  

Daredevil73 - This is a popular misconception. Most people receiving public assistance already have job. They're the working poor. They work at Walmart, McDonalds, etc. We, as taxpayers, are basically giving these companies a government subsidy for their workforce.

However, if I were to suggest that these companies pay more so that their employees use less public assistance and we, as a result, pay fewer taxes, it makes me a communist for some reason.

Good point. But it seems hard to find relevant true information on stuff like this. Our local news station has been doing a long ongoing investigation on how there is no accountability in the free cell phone program and how some people are picking up like 5 phones over time for one person.

I will say this, I had a part time job a few years ago where I got hired on the same time as another guy. I was going to get full time but he decided to hire us both part time. It was a minimum wage job with tips, anyway the dude was twice my age, and he was on section 8 housing. He may have gotten food stamps too. But I remember one day he came into work talking about all these xbox games he just bought. Not saying people who get government assistance shouldn't be allowed entertainment, especially since he bought USED games. But it just kinda put a weird taste in my mouth. Then before he got let go he tried to claim workman's comp for some crap that he wasn't even hurt for or the companies fault. Total milker of the system.

Here is the solution.



End it Phone Post 3.0

rcombs - 
Daredevil73 - This is a popular misconception. Most people receiving public assistance already have job. They're the working poor. They work at Walmart, McDonalds, etc. We, as taxpayers, are basically giving these companies a government subsidy for their workforce.

However, if I were to suggest that these companies pay more so that their employees use less public assistance and we, as a result, pay fewer taxes, it makes me a communist for some reason.

Good point. But it seems hard to find relevant true information on stuff like this. Our local news station has been doing a long ongoing investigation on how there is no accountability in the free cell phone program and how some people are picking up like 5 phones over time for one person.

I will say this, I had a part time job a few years ago where I got hired on the same time as another guy. I was going to get full time but he decided to hire us both part time. It was a minimum wage job with tips, anyway the dude was twice my age, and he was on section 8 housing. He may have gotten food stamps too. But I remember one day he came into work talking about all these xbox games he just bought. Not saying people who get government assistance shouldn't be allowed entertainment, especially since he bought USED games. But it just kinda put a weird taste in my mouth. Then before he got let go he tried to claim workman's comp for some crap that he wasn't even hurt for or the companies fault. Total milker of the system.

Abuses certainly happen, I won't deny that.

I think the whole free cell phones thing is absolutely ridiculous.

rcombs - There are a lot of threads on here all the time about the frustration of people milking the system on welfare and unemployment, well has anyone ever brought up this point?

LEGIT QUESTION: For single mom's on welfare (in this example, where the kids aren't babies and are school age) - What do the moms do all day while the kids are in school? From 7 or 8 in the morning until 3:30 the kids are in school. Therefore, why can't they be required to do some sort of work? Not a real job but at least do some government required job of SOMETHING.

Same question goes to people on unemployment, I don't understand how you can literally get paid to do NOTHING. If the tax payer is paying you, why can't there be a program where people on unemployment are required to go do yard work for people in the spring and summer months? Or go pick up trash off the highways? It doesn't have to be trash picking, but surely there is something you can provide back to the city and society as a whole while you are getting paid. Am I right or am I right?

First off, welfare is not the same thing as unemployment. I don't care that you don't care what it's called. It is absurd to treat the two as equals. This is not just a semantic argument.


You PAY INTO your unemployment benefits when you are working. You don't have to pay into anything to receive welfare, so long as you are below a minimum threshold of income.


In regards to your suggestion, you are minimizing the administrative costs of "finding something for these people to do." You gave the mowing lawn suggestion several times. Besides being silly, how would this suggestion be implemented? Who's lawn would have to be serviced? Why should it be Bob's lawn, and not Ian's? You are acting as if the task of creating such a job is trivial and easily able to be integrated.

rcombs - 
Pura Vida - because the teamsters would sue the city, for stealing their jobs. btw - the money you get on unemployment comes from taxes you pay in while employed, pretending it is similar to welfare is absurd.

I said thought I clarified, these wouldn't be normal public jobs anyone can go out and apply for. These are just made up jobs that the government would create. Such as, lets say for one week of pay you are required to mow 5 lawns a week. The work wouldn't equal out to be a job you could rely on but you should be required to do SOMETHING. Mow lawns, pick up trash, clean the city other ways, something, anything!

i get it, this idea has been around, and implemented in various fashions over the years. i still believe the unions would go apeshit, as i recall they have in the past.

MOAOZINHO - 
rcombs - There are a lot of threads on here all the time about the frustration of people milking the system on welfare and unemployment, well has anyone ever brought up this point?

LEGIT QUESTION: For single mom's on welfare (in this example, where the kids aren't babies and are school age) - What do the moms do all day while the kids are in school? From 7 or 8 in the morning until 3:30 the kids are in school. Therefore, why can't they be required to do some sort of work? Not a real job but at least do some government required job of SOMETHING.

Same question goes to people on unemployment, I don't understand how you can literally get paid to do NOTHING. If the tax payer is paying you, why can't there be a program where people on unemployment are required to go do yard work for people in the spring and summer months? Or go pick up trash off the highways? It doesn't have to be trash picking, but surely there is something you can provide back to the city and society as a whole while you are getting paid. Am I right or am I right?

First off, welfare is not the same thing as unemployment. I don't care that you don't care what it's called. It is absurd to treat the two as equals. This is not just a semantic argument.


You PAY INTO your unemployment benefits when you are working. You don't have to pay into anything to receive welfare, so long as you are below a minimum threshold of income.


In regards to your suggestion, you are minimizing the administrative costs of "finding something for these people to do." You gave the mowing lawn suggestion several times. Besides being silly, how would this suggestion be implemented? Who's lawn would have to be serviced? Why should it be Bob's lawn, and not Ian's? You are acting as if the task of creating such a job is trivial and easily able to be integrated.

I got you I get that. But with how long unemployment benefits have been extended to, I think if you stay on it for what the max is (what is it like 18 months or something?), then you are far outweighing how much you put into it.