Things are rather slow around here so I thought I'd post some local news that might start conversation.

and before I even tell you what it is, this is not an ILL bashing thread. In all honesty I would prefer that she not even respond on this post at all to keep from falling victim again. All other caveats aside. I found this hot button topic on a Little Rock news channel today and my first reaction was good in theory, poor in practice.

Should welfare recipients get drug tested in Arkansas?
Drug Testing for Welfare Applicants in Arkansas? - ArkansasMatters.com

Major ethical questions arise if they implement this program like Florida is doing.
1. If testing positive are the children involved immediately picked up by child services to protect them from a negligent parent?
2. Do you have to immediately offer assistance for Drug rehab because you expose a problem?
3. Does it just cut the parental benefits and not the childrens? How does the parent make "rent" if benefits are suspended for a year?

and more and more and more....

Yes, I want them clean if my tax dollars are helping them, however I don't see a system big enough to care for all the collateral damage this policy has the potential to cause when enforced.

What's your take?
X


Which way is up?

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Can I just kindly ask why in the world would this thread start another ILL bashing?? Can you kindly explain. I will say this anyone who receives welfare, should be tested, it is our hard working citizens who through their taxes and paychecks fund into the welfare program. Which we all know and realize is constantly being abused.....Peace and blessings.....Catherine

My Mom once told me that her Father said when they start "welfare" that it "would be the ruination of our Nation!"...He was born around the turn of the century so that was a long time ago but he sure was a smart man! I doubt he went to school much past elementary age.

Kindly. As politely as I knew how I asked that you not respond so you didn't get raked over the coals again. Concern for both your well being and mine. I did not want every third response to be yours as has been a pattern as of late.

There is a very old wise saying that goes something like...
Keep giving what you're giving and keep getting what you're getting. If by asking you to add me to your ignore list serves us both in preventing future headaches then so be it.

Now, go back and re-read this slowly and carefully. I'm not bashing you. How can trying to help you be bashing you? I was identifying a foreseeable problem and attempting to avert it by all means possible.

My original statement was In all honesty I would prefer that she not even respond on this post at all to keep from falling victim again.

The request was "prefer that she not respond".
The potential problem "falling victim". From whom? Others that pick apart her posts.

Think back over past fiascos and I wasn't there. period. Kindly.

X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

I think they should be tested. I also think that they should have and enforce a time limit that people can collect for. Sort of like unemployment, you can only collect whatever you have put in. My reason for this is because I know of a family who have been using the system for years and have never made any type of attempt to get off of assistance. These people have used some of the lamest excuses as to why they couldn't work IMO. Here are just a few:
"If we both worked, we wouldn't have any money for extras in life such as vacations, nice clothes or other things"

"Do you think I could afford the rent on the house we are living in, if I wasn't on section 8?"

"I can't work a full time job because by Wed I am tired" and this same person is trying to find an atty to take her case to sue SSI because "being tired" is a "medical condition" and all the doctors who have told her that there is nothing wrong with her are lying because she researched it and she knows that it is a valid medical condition

__________________
~~~~**Maryann**~~~~

I just got a firm grip on reality....
Now I can strangle it

Well, if tired is a medical condition then I must surely be on death's door!

Not that you want to argue with her, but "tired" is a symptom, not a diagnosis. And "tired" like "pain" is a subjective complaint--SSDI deals with diagnoses supported by objective medical findings! Ugh...I dislike people who try and abuse/work the system.

On top of testing for drugs, I think it should be mandatory that all recipients of assistance be made to practice birth control, and if they get pregnant while on assistance (barring a few exceptions--birth control can and does fail) they actually lose benefits instead of gaining them.

If a person tests positive for drugs they should be made to attend rehab--8 hrs/day, 5 days a week with MANDATORY drug testing daily to continue r'cing "welfare". Sometimes getting sober is a job. And once they have maintained sobriety for 30 days, they should then be required to get a job or perform 40 hours a week of volunteer work or be attending school (or a combination of any of the 3 for a total of 40 hrs a week).
And yes, there should be time limits on how long able-bodied people should be allowed to stay on the welfare's dime!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

LOL that is exactly what I told her I said by Tuesday I am exhausted I should be in ICU and hooked up to all sorts of machines

__________________
~~~~**Maryann**~~~~

I just got a firm grip on reality....
Now I can strangle it

Let's face it who is not tired, how many families are working 2 or more jobs just to put food on the table. My father in law who is 83 is still working. I know a mom and daughter who both work only part-time in our local Super Stop and Shop, I literally talk to so many people and over the years have gotten to know them. Anyway long story short, they have some serious problems in their lives, never have enough money, at this point they are 4 months behind on their rent. The father who was much older then the mom passed away last March. Again I have told them so many times, you both need to get other jobs, I feel sorry at times, but then I hear we each work 20 hours a week, I would never work in Burger King. They keep telling me they want to start their own home business of doing something with crafts, they do not even have a computer that works, The point of this whole story is, all the mom talks about is I think I am going to go on Welfare, it is so much easier, why should I work so hard. Anyway it does not seem fair to me at all. Peace and blessings.. Catherine

I have heard this as well, and if you think about it, it is quite telling. Back in "the day" (before welfare, I guess) families truly took care of their own. They pretty much had no choice. There was great reason to work thru differences. The survival of the family was at stake. Now, you don't "need" anyone....there are so many social programs available. I think there is much truth in what your Grandfather said.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Couponsrock I totally agree, your grandfather was a smart man, and sadly too many people take advantage of the welfare system, when the funds really belong to people who truly are very sick and need it.....Peace and blessings. Catherine

I think any getting welfare checks should be tested.

I am so jaded about this topic. I daily see people who come to the doctors office very very often, simply because they know it is paid for. They come for things that we would never go for, simply because we dont want to occur the bill.

They have great phones, nice clothes and their nails done. I would too if I didnt have to take money out of every paycheck to pay for medical insurance.

Ok. I am getting off topic a little. So YES, people should be tested to be on welfare and there should be limits.

We all seem to be thinking along the same lines - Testing is a good thing but how do we address the aftermath of positive test results?!?

I even think I like the Welfare to Work program in Minnesota if it works. (I live in Arkansas) Isn't it like long term assistance is capped at 3 years or something?

I just hate the feeling of getting ripped off and I see this as one area my tax dollars aren't being used wisely for the greater good with such rampant fraud by so many participants.

And I didn't mean to debate the particulars of "deserving/eligibility" so much as our responsibility to the problem once it 's identified (positive drug test).

We all could hit a rough patch in the road but a temporary boost doesn't mean a free ride for y-e-a-r-s in my playbook.

Thanks for the commentary,
X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Who is going to pay for the testing? Are they going to be tested every month, week, year? How many additional people will have to be hired to do all that testing? Are we going to give them drug counseling when it's discovered that they are on drugs? Who is going to pay for that? If they are cheating then get them off the system. If they are not cheating then leave them be or help them find a job. Let's not waste money on drug testing. Let's find ways to get the cheats out of the system instead.

Cheaters are cheaters and who is to say that they won't quickly find a way to beat a drug test? We need other motivations to get them off the rolls. How about they must report to a location every morning at 8 AM. They must bring their lunch and a beverage. They must turn in their cell phones and other electronics at the door. Then they are led into a room with no phone, no TV, no radio. Just chairs, tables and shelves of books. After 8 hours, they are allowed to collect their check and go home. A check a day for a day of reading.

They will either love it, (read like crazy and accidentally get smarter, or they will hate it and soon stop showing up. What they do in that case is their problem. I'm guessing they will either get a job, leach off friends and relatives as long as possible, or end up in jail, (the most likely scenario), where we will once again end up paying for them.

Wow. I had no idea how I felt about this until I started typing. I've been reading the comments since it was started and didn't post because I wasn't sure what I thought. But I knew drug testing was not the answer, unless there are solutions to the drug use, and that costs money as well. The drug use is not the problem. The inability and/or unwillingness to work is. Given the current job market, they don't stand a chance of getting hired anywhere. So more violent and victimizing crime is going to be the solution for many.

Was he concerned WWJD?

__________________
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.

E. Roosevelt

That's why I brought the topic up. I couldn't think the whole plan through to a good ending and didn't know what others might say was a solution.

The whole show up and be accountable for 8 hours creates a quagmire because they don't have anyone to watch the children or the food necessary to pack a lunch or even the transportation to get there.
I'd love for it to be job-related in lieu of reading and if they were incapable of work, let it be mandatory that it be educational but then who pays the teachers & pays for the teaching materials it will take.

Bummer. How do other countries do it right?

X

and PS. Jesus said GET A JOB - Be ye fishers of men! LOL!

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

In an attempt to cut their work comp costs, an employer did just that. If a person was injured, and taken off of work or given stringent restrictions (to where the employer could not accommodate) the employer required the injured worker to show up and sit/lay for 8 hours. Now, granted there were exception (after surgery, communicable disease, etc.) But, by and large the system worked for the company. If someone was truly injured and wanted to get better, then it wasn't a big deal. If they weren't injured, it became evident pretty quickly

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

The childcare/transportation quagmire is the same no matter what they are doing. If they are going to eat during the day then they can find something to take for lunch.

I think any kind of reading is good reading. There are no teachers. There is a room monitor and I think another rule would be no talking at all. This shouldn't be a fun gabfest for them. It should be library quiet time. All day long. And there could be cameras well, to make sure the monitor is doing their job as well. An old school would be ideal. You could put 40 or so in a class room and the monitors could come from the group itself. The monitors would get a bonus at the end of the day if they did well. The monitors could be chosen each day.

And of course we are going to pay for this, but I think the numbers would dwindle rapidly as they realized how boring and long the day was going to be. I'm sure it could be refined even better than my suggestions, but this is an idea in progress for me. My main thing is, take drugs out of the equation of welfare cheats. If you are on drugs you have a problem that is not going to be solved by shutting off your only legal form of subsistence. You take that away and your only recourse is non-legal, because for the most part, these people are not work force acceptable.

I see a lot of trash along the road... Maybe we could have a requirement of 4 days per week picking up trash, cleaning government buildings, serving at a soup kitchen, whatever... 3 days could be focused on getting a job. When you actually get a job, you can have a weekend.

__________________
Kim

I don't know if picking up trash would be a mentally degrading job or not but you know, there are even work shops in prisons that provide "jobs" and teach skills to incarcerated people so what's the problem finding work to eat programs?

Ultimately it's about taking pride in one's self right?

X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

I do not think humiliation is the answer to getting people off welfare. If all the people or even a fair amount of those people get off welfare....where will they go? What jobs are there?

It is a cycle that hasn't had a good answer yet. If we stop welfare and want people to make it on their own, how will they do so? In the beginning, welfare was to aid women with dependent children so that those women could stay home with their children and feed and clothe and shelter them. It has evolved to what we have now.

No doubt we have some people on welfare who are cheating the system. The concentration should be on rooting those people out and getting them off the dole. Let that percentage find work if they can. But to say that people who are on welfare....those who benefit from the program....young children....to say that we need to get them off welfare...where are we planning on putting them? Where will they go? Are there that many jobs that are going unfilled in this country that the market can absorb them? Are there that many jobs that can feed, clothe and shelter a family?

I would like to see figures as to how many people who are on welfare are also drug abusers. Is this anecdotal? I wonder if it is convenient to say all people who are on welfare are cheaters and druggies. I am not naive enough to say that there aren't some who are but it is just like the anecdote about the women who have seven children with seven different fathers who someone's best friend's mailman overheard say "Ima gonna have me another baby so I can get me some more free money from the government!"

JMHO

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

IMHO, welfare should be temporary. I don't believe humiliation is necessary, but I do think an attitude adjustment is completely necessary for "some people" on welfare. Multi-generational welfare families are a result of a system that is not working. We've created a system that rewards people for sitting at home. It's more profitable to not work. In my opinion, that is the problem. Drugs or no drugs - I really don't care... My issue is more with people (who just might be on drugs and might not) who are content to live on welfare and do nothing to change their circumstances.

I have a sister in this boat. She gets assistance and quite a bit of it, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the details. I don't because I can't stand to hear her talk about it. It irritates me TO NO END! Why is it okay for her to have children, not help them with their education (she's homeschooling ), not raise them to be productive members of society, and train them to do the same????? Holy cow. She has the ability to work, but just doesn't. I don't feel like working every day either. I don't feel like working today. I'm tired. BUT, I'm working (not this particular minute, but ). The alternative just shouldn't be an option. If my sister and her family were forced to do SOMETHING consistently to "earn" the help, I believe 100% that she would get a job and become a functioning member of society. So, to add insult to injury?? My niece (who is 18) is pregnant. She doesn't have a high school degree, a drivers license, a job, or a vehicle. Ummm.... think that baby stands a chance?????? No way. We have tried to talk her into adoption, but my sister won't hear of it. She thinks they have the ability to raise that baby. My husband and I have offered to take the child to raise, but nope... So, not only is she keeping the baby, she's already applying for every additional bit of government assistance she can get. Thank you, taxpayers. You want to keep the baby because you can raise it? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, but the entitlement is driving me insane. Ughhh... sorry....

__________________
Kim

Exactly. There are no jobs. What happens when they start bringing the military back from overseas? I hear a lot of them, already, are not finding jobs. There was also the bit about sites like monster.com who won't let you put in a resume unless you are currently working. What kind of crap is that? You can't get a job in the lower brackets without a lot more hurdles to jump over.

My son was out of work for a couple of years. After applying for literally hundreds of jobs, he discovered it was much easier to get a foot in the door for the higher paying jobs than for the lesser paying jobs, like at Lowe's or KFC. The lower the pay, the more questions, tests, and scrutiny is the norm. So the person who has never held a job, or has used drugs, or been arrested, does not stand a chance of being hired anywhere, unless they happen upon an employer who either is desperate for help or has a kind heart.

Regarding WWJD...

These are Paul's words from II Thessalonians 3 (in The Message version)

6-9Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn't sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we worked our fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldn't be burdened with taking care of us. And it wasn't because we didn't have a right to your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example of diligence, hoping it would prove contagious.

10-13Don't you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And now we're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don't slack off in doing your duty.

14-15If anyone refuses to obey our clear command written in this letter, don't let him get by with it. Point out such a person and refuse to subsidize his freeloading. Maybe then he'll think twice. But don't treat him as an enemy. Sit him down and talk about the problem as someone who cares.

I hi-jacked your thread, X. I'm sorry. I didn't answer the original question. But, my short answer... I don't know! Testing seems good in theory, but what do you do with the knowledge???

__________________
Kim

Usanmom as usual always love what you write, you speak from the heart,,I agree that the welfare system should stay in place for those young moms or really sick people , who have small children. It should never be abused by rather a program to use until one can get back on their feet. We do not need any more hungry people in this world......Peace and blessings,,,Catherine

Edited to say sadly there are so many people whom have lost their jobs, and it is only getting worse not better. I truly wish I had all the answers.....Peace and blessings. Catherine

Your hi-jack has good sustenance to the overall issue of accountability within the program at large. It's all relevant to knowing what we can do to try and help solve it.

I knew if I came here and posted I could gain perspective in deciding whether it was the right direction or not. You're helping!

After hearing a recent 2011 statistic that 45% of all persons in America don't pay taxes but then more than 45 MILLION Americans can't pay for their own groceries (they receive food stamps)
We're at a tipping point.
I'm one of the Americans that DOES pay taxes and am NOT on Food Stamps which means my burden is increasing with no end in site. I'm looking for an answer.

See why I'm concerned?
X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

So, older moms who happen to have small children wouldn't be eligible?
Or if your really sick, but don't have children you wouldn't be eligible?

Who decides the cut-off age for "young"? Who decides "really sick" versus "a little sick"? Would mental illnesses be considered for "really sick"? What about fathers? Would they qualify ever?

If you place restrictions on assistance based on age, health status, or gender people could be discriminated against. And that wouldn't be fair to anyone. And if the argument is that exceptions could be made? That doesn't work either--if you make one exception you'd have to make a thousand.

I don't have the answers. I do believe that time limits should be instituted.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Marilyn, but what happens when that cut off date has been reached? What happens then? Does a job for those many people just appear?

I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that if welfare was just to be stopped tomorrow, there would not be jobs for all those people. Those people who have suffered during the last few years due to layoffs and restructuring cannot find a job and if we add another however many people coming off welfare we will have a bigger mess.

The statistic stated above about the high number of people who don't pay any taxes is not quite true.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

In my opinion, I would think that the richest country in the world every person should have a hot meal, a warm bed and a roof over their head. I have worked hard to have those things and I would pay more in taxes if it meant that the kid on the corner could go to the doctor, eat regularly and sleep warmly. I understand that there are people who abuse the system. Crap, there are people who abuse the coupon system! There are always going to be people who ruin everything but I do not want to take the risk of not helping someone who needs it by not helping at all. KWIM?

I am sure I am the minority here at MyCoupons. I do not feel like everyone who uses food stamps is eating better than I am. I have not witnessed that myself though I have heard people repeat that story as truth.....as well as everyone knows someone who is a fifth generation welfare recipient and drives a Lexus and just bought steaks with their food stamps to celebrate their tenth pregnancy with ten different "baby daddy". LOL (oh and don't forget how their particular name will tell you what race they are and what crime they committed)

Anyway, just my opinions.....worth 1,000,000 dollars if you had a check for a million dollars in your wallet right now.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

Reduce welfare by percentage over time, maybe? Make it so benefits linked to having kids don't increase after two children? Provide free, long-term birth control and condoms to everyone, no matter their income? I know it's been recommended that all insurance providers cover birth control at least. I think making good, affordable daycare available to everyone, again regardless of income, would also be a good thing. I realise that, in theory, many services should only be subsidized for low-income families, but when you know you'll only be eligible for help when you're making little-to-nothing, why try for more?

usnamom, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that simply because we are the richest nation in the world that everybody should have a hot meal, a warm bed, and a roof over their heads.

If we give everybody a voucher for that benefit, where is the incentive to take on responsibility for ones own existence?

What I hate about these discussions is that it 'feels' like the position that wants everyone to have their basic needs met is the 'nice side', and the one that is not in favor of that is coldhearted.

From my perspective, we do better as a nation when there is a set of basic expectations incumbent upon our citizenry. I understand that there are people out of work who are looking for work, or who are disabled and cannot work. That is not the segment of the population I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about those who live as part of the culture of bottom-feeding who don't know any different, and who have never truly felt a need-based incentive to change their family tree. I remember reading Angela's Ashes, and how in the beginning of that book the author talked about being in Ireland waiting in line to get their daily dole because the family was poverty-striken, the father an alcoholic, and it was the only way they could eat. It sounded absolutely horrible - and it WAS horrible - but it was also a catalyst for him to work his way to America

And when he got here, things were not all wine and roses - not by a long shot - but there was opportunity. Success did not come easy, but he rose from the squalor of his early existence and ultimately became a Pulitzer winner.

While I wouldn't in a million years wish his existence in Ireland on anyone, I have to wonder if he had been kept 'just comfortable enough' as a child, with a warm bed, three hot meals a day, and a reliable roof over his head if he would have had the determination he had. Would he still be in Ireland, continuing the family cycle of 'satisfied and marginally fulfilled' for another generation if the basics of life just *were*?

Our nation's wealth, IMHO, has nothing to do with what the *individuals* who live in our country *deserve*. I don't think we do individuals OR our nation any favors when we give people just enough to keep them taken care of with the basics. They then see that as their baseline, and don't see themselves as capable of *more*. Project housing was an attempt to do what you suggest, but ultimately that meant microcosms of people who had been conditioned to be complacent living together with way too much time on their hands and little know-how to work towards anything better. The result was gang violence and drugs, and very few kids seem to get out of that life if that's how they are raised.

To me, allowing that to happen is NOT compassionate. I understand the sentiment behind wanting everyone's basic needs taken care of, but I think it is human nature for many people to be satisfied with the lowest common denominator, and those people *find* it and *stay* there because we have a system that allows them to. It is not EVERYONE's nature, but for those who DO have that nature, we've set ourselves up to not just fund their lack of ambition, but to allow their children to grow up in an environment that asserts that such living is the norm... and then we've conditioned their family tree to 'grow' in a direction that is not healthy. The intentions were good, but the results weren't.

The lessons of Jamestown were painful, but a great reminder of the fact that naturlal consequences of complacency aren't pretty. When we remove those consequences, there are *other* consequences that perpetuate ugliness for years and years to come.

Again - I'm not talking about people who have lost jobs and are working hard to find new ones, even though I do think that struggle can build character and wisdom. I'm talking about people who have chosen 'the system' as a way of life and are content to be there.

We live in a pretty nice small town. The unemployment rate is virtually zip here. Housing prices are low. There aren't a lot of Joneses to keep up with. And yet eighty percent of our school children are receiving at least two meals a day - partially or fully subsidized - through our school system. In fact, I think WE might qualify, and that is ludicrous. We're not wealthy, but we can and do feed our kids without any problem. I'm virtually the only one I know, though, without a cell phone plan (I have a cheap prepaid). Far more than 20% of the vehicles in the pick-up line are nicer and newer than mine. I have no doubt that many of those people COULD afford to feed their own children, but they choose NOT to because they don't have to... and that frees up cash for other things.

Those are the subsidies that I think are slowly doing us in. Little by little, we are removing RESPONSIBILITY from the expected equation of life, and the result is not pretty. If you provide a reward or incentive, expect more people to blindly sign on for the deal... even if it's going to be their downfall.

Personally, I have not often heard of anyone getting pregnant because they couldn't AFFORD birth control. It's because they didn't use it, or use it properly.

I'm sorry... but sex is not a required activity. It comes with risks. I know it's not PC to say, but people who are not in a position to be parents shouldn't be having sex. Sex makes babies. It's just a fact, like driving 100 mph through a neighborhood results in accidents.

Call me old-fashioned... but I don't think people HAVE to have sex, and I don't want to subsidize their ability to do so. I don't think it will change anything. People who need free bc can get it, but many don't bother, or don't use it consistently. I don't think it's the business of the government to MANDATE that a private company has to provide FREE bc to it's customers.

What I mean by "the country with the most means" or "the richest country" is that we have so much....freedom, ability to move up in the world, progression etc.

In my opinion, in a "Christian" nation or one that is so proud to say to the other countries "look what Democracy looks like! Don't you want to be like us?", we should want to make sure everyone has a warm bed, a roof, etc. But we don't. We have people crying that no one is "entitled" to those things.

Certainly, everyone should be out working a job that makes enough for them to support themselves and their families. Of course, that seems logical but it is not realistic. Jobs like that are not plentiful for whatever reason. If we spent the money that is proposed to drug test welfare recipients or the welfare to work programs and used it to weed out misuse or abuse, that would go a long way to make the program successful.

I do not think one opinion or another opinion is the "nice" way of thinking. I don't think that WWJD is the right call here either. I hear conservatives speak about "spending my tax dollars on lazy people". They* do not want their taxes spent on people who in their opinion do not deserve it (the entitlement mentality). They* want to just pull the plug on the entire shooting match and let those people work hard to get food and shelter. While it sounds good to hear because no one wants to believe there may be some people on welfare who do not want to be or who want to be able to support themselves. That would go against all the stereotypes of who the "welfare" people are, KWIM? Its nice to think that if the program was scrapped, those people who were not abusing the system would miraculously find a job that will allow them a middle class lifestyle but if it were true and those jobs do exist, why is the unemployment rate so high.

Welfare was/is a program designed to help mothers with children and no father. It was designed so that no child would be without food or shelter. It has evolved to where it is now. Go back, fix the program by figuring out how to stop the abuse.





*no one here, just "they" in general.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I once had a professor who lectured once on the connection between poverty and education. The general thought being that the generational poor (and recieving gov. help) had no or little education. There is the thought that because of the low tax base in poor areas, the schools do not teach and the children do not have the skills to go to further education. The entire family continues to collect their check and food stamps for another generation.

I have long thought that if education was funded fully by the government and all the schools taught the same things so that a high school diploma meant the same thing in Seattle as it does in Harlem or Nogales, Arizona then everyone is playing on a level field for jobs.

It is late here.....I may be rambling...Sorry if my punctuation isn't up to par or my spelling! LOL!

I agree with the thought that something needs to be reworked in the welfare program so that it isn't abused as much. Again, if anyone has statistics to prove how much abuse their is, I would be interested to see it.

On a side note......tomorrow college football starts! GO NAVY!!! BEAT DELAWARE!!!!

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I really don't know that "Christian" should come into play where this topic is concerned.

I know not everyone here is Christian, so this may not sit well with everyone - and perhaps not even with some Christians here... but it's my perspective, for what it's worth.

Christianity is a faith system. It is based on the belief that God exists, that he created man, and that he has a set of expectations for man to follow, and for those who do follow them, there is a reward. For those who refuse to acknowledge and follow him, he leaves them, and his absence and hell are pretty much one and the same.

The expectations he has for his followers are broad in nature. There are things Christians are supposed to *do*. There are things Christians are *not* to do. But ultimately, at the heart of Christianity is the hope that others will come to believe that God exists, that he has a plan, that people have a personal obligation to get on board with that plan, and that the choice about getting on board is theirs to make for themselves. At the very heart of it all is the fact that he loves his creation, and he doesn't want anyone *not* to make it to heaven, but people are selfish and careless, and as it says in Matthew, the gate is narrow that leads to life, and the path to destruction is pretty wide. He wants everyone to understand his love for them... but allows people to make that choice for themselves. We were not created as robots.

That's really the nuts and bolts of Christianity. It's the expectations that go along with practicing the religion that I think you were talking about in this thread.

So... I'll go to the source - The Bible.

In Acts 3, a crippled man asked Peter for money. His response was, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have I will give thee." He then went on to heal the man, who was overjoyed.

I'd equate this miracle with teaching the man to fish, rather than just giving him a fish.

Then there is the story of the men who were given talents by their master, and left to do with them what they could. Here it is, in raw form:

Even where widows are concerned, the Bible is very clear about who the church should support, and who they should require to make their own financial way. From I Timothy 5:

Unquestionably, Christ/God, in the expectations they have for us, require generosity that comes from the heart, and that is bestowed on people in need. My husband and I try to do what we can, where we can, for those we know need the help. We've secretly slipped WalMart gift cards into the Bibles of single moms whose husbands had crapped out on them and they were struggling to make ends meet (and you here on MC are the only ones I'll ever tell that to - lol). We just got a paygo cell phone for a teenage daughter in a family who needs it because of when her school practices get out (long story, but she's ended up walking home in some terrible weather, and it just seemed like a compassionate thing to do to help out this family who has fallen on some hard times).

But those are situations where we KNOW the people, KNOW they are doing the best they can and just got stuck in a predicament, and ... it's just the *right* thing to do, from a Christian perspective.

But nothing in the Bible suggests that it is the "Christian" thing to try to provide everyone's basic earthly necessities. In fact, the Bible suggests the opposite - that God gets pretty angry with people who waste the opportunities he gave them, and that even where widows are concerned, he only wants the church to support those whose families cannot.

He has very high expectations for people.

The real 'agenda' behind Christianity is to get as many to believe in God as can be convinced to believe in him. Christianity asserts that the hereafter is the end game, and that God wants as many people to end up with him as can possibly end up there, and that those who operate under the Christian belief system have an obligation to live their lives according to God's expectations.... and I think it's pretty clear that one element of his expectations are the people need to be productive, and that it is wrong to reward a lack of productivity. In the verse I quoted in an above post (from I Thes., I think...?), the Bible goes so far as to say that if a man does not work, he should not be permitted to eat.

I think it is GOOD for people to provide for themselves and their families. I think it builds confidence and strength and wisdom. I think that is why God expects people to forge their way through. I think it's why he told families that THEY needed to take care of a widow in the family, rather than expecting others to contribute towards her care. That builds family cohesion, and that is good and healthy and will produce more stability and satisfaction and happiness than methods of support that disconnect people from each other by removing their obligations to one another.

The mission of Christianity is not to put a chicken in every pot. It's to point the way to Christ. The *government* - which refuses to acknowledge the existence of Christ - putting a chicken in pots is not the same thing as *Christians* doing it in an ongoing manner according to the stipulations that were put in place to determine who the *church* should support, and whose families needed to buck up and take care of their own.

I also meant to add that I don't think it sounds particularly virtuous - from a Christian standpoint - to shout from the rooftops, "Don't you dare take my money away in the form of taxes to give it to the likes of that lazy bum!!!!"

But I do understand the sentiment. If - for whatever reason - you have money in your possession, I think it should be yours to do what you want with. The Bible is also clear that people are to render to Caesar (the government) what is due him, and that Christians have an obligation to pay any and all taxes that they owe.

Basically, where money is concerned, God says people are, in no particular order:

1. To pay their taxes
2. To support their families (extended and otherwise)
3. To give to the church, and give an amount that comes from their heart
4. To help widows and orphans and the sick and infirm

To do those things is honorable. To fail to do them is shameful.

When I make statements about the government and 'my' tax money, it is based on the premise that 1) the more I give to the government, the less I have to give to my church, 2) the government does a sucky job of managing the money they take from us, and 3) Our church makes decisions on who they help based not on some formula or profile, but because they *know* the people and *love* the people, and *care for* the people they help. And the recipients feel a personal, emotional tie to the church in a way that rarely results in the development of an entitlement mentality. It's rare to see a person live on the 'church dole' for years and years, because the church wouldn't permit it, and the person would not *want* to be in that position long term unless they had a disability and no family to care for them.

I think the more *government* does for people, the fewer people there are that turn *towards* God.

Not required? WHAT?!?I'm always the last one to know ANYTHING around here.

I did laugh out loud and DH asked what I was reading. whoops... LOL!

Now I gotta go back and read that other really good post you had written more slowly so I can take it all in. I wanted to pace myself through it again because I matched up with so many of the points in it.

Cool beanz!
X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

LOL!

Well, from a Christian perspective, I think that married people ARE supposed to have sex. They can be careful (or not, depending on their interpretation of some scriptures).... but it's a 'supposed to'.

But sex DOES make babies.

And babies are a HUGE obligation. They're a whole 'nother PERSON, for crying out loud... and I just don't think that engaging in the activity that makes new PEOPLE should be taken lightly or treated frivolously.

We EXPECT people not to drink and drive. We EXPECT them not to walk around naked on hot days. We EXPECT them not to have sex in public places.

There is this common belief that sex is a right and that sex is a must. The reality is, it's neither of those things. I don't think anyone - not the taxpayers or your insurance company (unless they choose to) should HAVE to pay to give you products to help you have sex, any more than they should HAVE to buy you sunscreen to help prevent skin cancer.

Pregnancy is a behavior-induced condition. If you're not prepared to handle the condition, don't do the behavior. It really IS that simple! We're not wild animals here, folks.

To Marilyn let me add this to my comments before, I personally think there are more younger moms who would benefit from the welfare program, and of course just as long as they need it, it is not forever. As far as older moms if they truly needed it and were sick and disabled and still needed help for their children, then of course they should be included.

To wowitsdark from what you wrote am I to believe that you only believe Married people should be allowed to have sex, here is a small situation, lets say we have a 40 year old couple who have been dating a long time and they do not plan to marry say for another 2 years, do you honestly believe they should not be having relations??. Listen I know how strongly you feel about the bible and God and his teachings, if you can kindly answer.

To both ladies thanks so much for all the input into this topic, again I do not know if anyone would ever have all the answers, yet my grandmother was widowed very young, 32 years old with 7 children, she was a foreigner to this country she came when she was 11 years old, however she was left with mere savings and soon she set out to work 3 different jobs so that her children were well taken care of, the oldest my Aunt Louisa was 14 she helped with the younger ones and each child did what they did to survive, again however we are talking about 1943...Peace and blessings to all. Catherine

I agree. I have to also say, where do we draw the line? If you can afford the cell phone, tattoos, nails, etc, etc..... you should be using that to feed your family. IMO. We need to bring back the pride in supporting yourself. That is gone. There is no stigma attached to unwed teenage mothers anymore, either. It just turns my stomach.

I have a dream of starting a business where I employ "welfare" moms and get them off the public dole. We'll have a food pantry and classes on budgeting, etc. I believe pride and education are the key. It has just become much too "acceptable" to be on Welfare and not have a concern about how it effects others.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree with this idea. Think about it. If you are working at a job, and lose your job, for whatever reason. You find another job that pays a little less than what you were making. You learn to live within that monetary limit. So, you may have to cut out as many dinners out, or going to the movies less, etc. etc. If welfare payments were lowered over time, people would adjust. Or even having 10% skimmed off the top for the set time limit you are on welfare...than at the end of the time, that money is used for a down payment on an apt. or some other thing that would help you out???


If all the "subsidies" were linked together so to speak. I know here where I live, the local United Way agency that I donate to is linked to other help agencies in the area. That way, a "client" can't hop around and get benefits from every agency. Apparently this was especially rampant at Christmas time.

Bottom line, IMO, is that people need to try to support themselves if they are able bodied. Darn shame I wasn't born into the Vanderbilt or Hilton families.....but, it is what it is, and I'm not sitting back on my rear end waiting for someone else to give me my golden ticket.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

WOW, you said in better terms than I could, exactly what I was thinking about Christianity.
Also, along the line of government, it was not created to take care of people financially. The entitlement programs came after the financial crash of the 20's and has gotten out of hand. I know of personally 2 family's who know how to work the system so they don't have to work. One of the family's is on it's 3rd generation now and they are proud of not working and collecting welfare. They think they are entitled to this money.

To ILL, according to the Bible, only married people are supposed to have sex. Age doesn't have anything to do with it.

I don't know what the answer is, but at this time the programs aren't working.
As for drug testing, I don't think it will work. It will cost to much and what do we do with the people who are caught using and what happens to their kids? Social service programs are already overwhelmed.
Judy

A large part of why I feel birth control should be provided is to reduce the ability to use an infinite string of pregnancies as a reason to remain on benefits. Something that's *not* a pill, and has to be removed by a doctor is a lot more likely to keep more children from being brought into a situation where their parents can't afford them. I guess I see this as $600 for an IUD or implant that lasts 5-10 years vs the cost of supporting a child possibly indefinitely. I do know women who've opted to use less reliable methods because cost was an issue, though they've all had private medical insurance.

Condoms are beneficial simply because calling STDs 'social diseases' was pretty accurate, though it's archaic now. Helping someone to avoid catching an illness that's contagious, and will require medical treatment or even lead to disability seems like a pretty big deal.

This is where my liberal sex-ed background and exposure to my husband's EMS job clash horribly. That said, if any kind of policy is going to be effective, it needs to be based on how people really do live, which typically involves sex, by choice, by coercion, or as a means to an end. If we all lived by the Bible I suppose it wouldn't be such a problem, though I imagine there'd be a lot of drive-by stonings.

Unless you are dealing with "someone" who lives by Moses' law, living by the Bible does not result in stoning.



This post has been edited by Chelmo.

Author Edit: I will not note the word that was edited from my post that was reported as being offensive. I just wanted to say two things:

1) If you were offended, I apologize, as that was in NO way my intent.

2) I was speaking in a purely historical context, as there was only one group of people in the Bible who was commanded by God to stone people caught in unmarried sexual activity - and that was the nation of people to whom Mosaic law was delivered. Since, to my knowledge, that group no longer practices stoning, my point was that no one living by anything Biblical would be stoning anyone.

Forgive me for not reading most of this thread but this jumped out at me. Are you saying that anyone not in a position to be parents shouldn't be having sex...at all? I realize that no birth control is 100% effective, but that seems a bit out there. Some couples never want or are able to care for a child. Should they never have sex?

I'm in no position to parent another baby, but I'll take my chances with dh's vasectomy before giving up sex for the rest of my life (or until menopause)

__________________
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.

I don't know about the "poor" schools not teaching. I do know this....at our school, we have a broad spectrum of people....the very rich, and the very poor. It has been my experience that the very poor children have the least amount of parental involvement, and do not score as well on tests at the children who are better off. All of our teachers at the school are top rate and have very high standards for the children at the school. However, when you have a child or 4, that are struggling in your class, and the parents are not much smarter than the child, or just don't want to help....what can you do?? Personally, I try to inspire that child as much as I can, and let them know they are loved and if they try as hard as they can, there are great rewards for them in life.

It is so sad to see the "poor" children getting an award for a great accomplishment, and their parents don't even show up to see it. What does that say to the child???

I know I got off on a tangent here, but, I just want to say that I do believe lack of education does indeed contribute to the dependency on Welfare.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Ha - what I was meaning is that the population generally targeted for 'free birth control' is unmarried people, often teenagers and college kids.

You may not WANT a baby, but if a surprise happened, it sounds like you are in a committed marriage and in a position to love and care for that child.

You're an adult who is big enough to be married and know the risks of sex and are, surely, willing to take on the 'task' of securing your own birth control, watching the calendar, etc..

I don't think you shouldn't have sex - that's crazy! lol But I also don't think that the government needs to supply what it takes for you to not become pregnant. You're a big girl and can obtain whatever preventative things you need on your own. :-)

Whew.... That's a relief lol

__________________
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.

Eep, the 'stoning' comment was just a poke at some of the more archaic Biblical references, it wasn't meant to get anyone in trouble! I'd like to see everyone being responsible about having babies, or not having babies, as is appropriate to their situation. The fewer hindrances, and more social expectation of not having more than you can afford to care for, would contribute to that.