-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
michigan seeks law that to collect welfare you must preform community service
- Thread starter wdoall
- Start date
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
They should try that over in England for those deadbeats that reside at Buckingham Palace.
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Yeah he gets a pass. I could probably enjoy drinking a couple of pints with him.
It sounds like something that somebody came up with that has no idea how reality works because it might sound good on paper but doesn't work out well in real life, at least if we are trying to be fair.
Alright, so you want people on welfare to do community service. So how do you get those people to the place of where they have to perform it? Remember these aren't criminals where the onus should rightfully almost totally be on them because they screwed up. They are just people that are poor. If somebody lives out in the middle of nowhere or at least far from where they have to serve community service who transports them to it? Remember these are often people with no car, no reliable transportation, and no access to transit services. If they are going to be transported there by the state it will cost a crap ton of money and pretty much negate much of the purpose of making them do community service in the first place. (That's if the real reason is to have them contribute to the community and not just as a veneer of an excuse to purposely make it difficult for them to get so they don't have access to welfare.) Are the people that have to do community service and can make it on their own going to get reimbursed for the ware and tear on their vehicles and the gas they have to pay to get there. Making them spend more while on welfare is counterproductive to the whole point of giving them welfare in the first place.
If the state is going to make people do this who is going to watch them and direct them in doing it? Remember that cost money and each money spent doing that is counterproductive for the purpose of having them do community service in the first place.
Are these people going to have to work with actual criminals that also have to do community service? That doesn't seem reasonable for people to be put in that environment because of poverty.
If welfare recipients are going to be forced to do community service does that mean they take actual jobs away from people that would normally have to do it? That's one of the biggest problems with a concept like community service, especially when you increase the pool of people by gigantic amounts like this would. We are no longer talking about a handful criminals here and there doing some minor work. This has the potential to become a vast pool of people that take away jobs others could be doing. People that would normally be paid, because you know, it's an actual job. It would be quite sad and ironic considering it could very well put more people on welfare that no longer get paid to do those jobs, thus counteracting the whole point of it in the first place. That is if it's really about people working for what they get in the community. Just like prison chain gangs before it has a great potential of being a cheap exploitable workforce select people in the community can abuse for their own benefits at the cost of others, even those not doing the community service.
If these people are going to be forced into community service does that mean the state will pay for things like child care while they can't be with their children? Does that mean the state will be forced to pay worker compensation or some other type of liability if the people they have doing the service get hurt in the act of it. Things like workers compensation and other liability insurance for it can become a gigantic amount of money? Does this mean the state will be forced to give those people adequate health insurance? Remember that each dollar spent on that nullifies the whole reason for having people do this in the first place if this is about smartly spending resources.
This sounds like something where people just didn't think things though.
How about this instead. The state doesn't give out welfare unless the person is reasonably incapable of doing any job the state needs nearby them. Instead by law the state is forced to give anybody that wants a job a job nearby them that pays, a living, not a surviving, wage. They give those people a reasonable amount of starter money to get things in order so they can get and work at those jobs in the first place. They give those people good benefits and health insurance, and then if those people refuse they can be denied welfare. Now that would be fair.
Alright, so you want people on welfare to do community service. So how do you get those people to the place of where they have to perform it? Remember these aren't criminals where the onus should rightfully almost totally be on them because they screwed up. They are just people that are poor. If somebody lives out in the middle of nowhere or at least far from where they have to serve community service who transports them to it? Remember these are often people with no car, no reliable transportation, and no access to transit services. If they are going to be transported there by the state it will cost a crap ton of money and pretty much negate much of the purpose of making them do community service in the first place. (That's if the real reason is to have them contribute to the community and not just as a veneer of an excuse to purposely make it difficult for them to get so they don't have access to welfare.) Are the people that have to do community service and can make it on their own going to get reimbursed for the ware and tear on their vehicles and the gas they have to pay to get there. Making them spend more while on welfare is counterproductive to the whole point of giving them welfare in the first place.
If the state is going to make people do this who is going to watch them and direct them in doing it? Remember that cost money and each money spent doing that is counterproductive for the purpose of having them do community service in the first place.
Are these people going to have to work with actual criminals that also have to do community service? That doesn't seem reasonable for people to be put in that environment because of poverty.
If welfare recipients are going to be forced to do community service does that mean they take actual jobs away from people that would normally have to do it? That's one of the biggest problems with a concept like community service, especially when you increase the pool of people by gigantic amounts like this would. We are no longer talking about a handful criminals here and there doing some minor work. This has the potential to become a vast pool of people that take away jobs others could be doing. People that would normally be paid, because you know, it's an actual job. It would be quite sad and ironic considering it could very well put more people on welfare that no longer get paid to do those jobs, thus counteracting the whole point of it in the first place. That is if it's really about people working for what they get in the community. Just like prison chain gangs before it has a great potential of being a cheap exploitable workforce select people in the community can abuse for their own benefits at the cost of others, even those not doing the community service.
If these people are going to be forced into community service does that mean the state will pay for things like child care while they can't be with their children? Does that mean the state will be forced to pay worker compensation or some other type of liability if the people they have doing the service get hurt in the act of it. Things like workers compensation and other liability insurance for it can become a gigantic amount of money? Does this mean the state will be forced to give those people adequate health insurance? Remember that each dollar spent on that nullifies the whole reason for having people do this in the first place if this is about smartly spending resources.
This sounds like something where people just didn't think things though.
How about this instead. The state doesn't give out welfare unless the person is reasonably incapable of doing any job the state needs nearby them. Instead by law the state is forced to give anybody that wants a job a job nearby them that pays, a living, not a surviving, wage. They give those people a reasonable amount of starter money to get things in order so they can get and work at those jobs in the first place. They give those people good benefits and health insurance, and then if those people refuse they can be denied welfare. Now that would be fair.
wdoall
My hand is my best friend!
and I understand those points but I also know quite a few people who are able bodied, can work and don't want to cause its easier to sit and collect welfare and this will actually make them try to get a job instead of sucking of society. also I regularly run a group of community service people and very few of them are criminals most of them are traffic related and cant pay their fine or minor marijuana possession charges
There are people who truly need assistance but I'd say for the most part, they are people working the system. Many of them have nicer cars than I do. And have iPhones, designer clothes and go out to eat quite a bit. They spend their entire day figuring out how to get more free shit and money from the government. Make them do community service and while you're at it, drug test them!
xfire
@ChrisFreemanX
The limited data available suggests that drug testing welfare recipients costs much more than it saves. If the idea is to humiliate people then it's a winner, but if it's to create good public policy, it falls incredibly short. Targeting welfare, food stamps, veterans services, aging and disability isn't the way to find budget solvency. Until we address defense contractor entitlements we're only going to put a mere dent in the deficit.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/30/the-myth-of-welfare-and-drug-use.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/30/the-myth-of-welfare-and-drug-use.html
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use
by Jamelle Bouie Aug 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
Testing government-benefit recipients snares very few abusers, but humiliates desperate people. That’s why the GOP keeps adding screening laws. By Jamelle Bouie.
Last year, Utah Republicans passed and enacted a law that mandated drug testing for welfare recipients.
Now, if you’re the kind of person who forwards apocryphal stories about voter impersonation and drug-addled welfare queens, this makes sense to you—obviously, if you’re on public assistance, you’re probably using drugs. But, if you the kind of person who takes facts seriously, this is a ridiculous idea.
While drug use is more common among women receiving welfare, the overall incidence rate is small; in one study, only 3.6 percent of recipients satisfied screening criteria for drug abuse or dependence. Among food-stamp recipients—another group targeted for testing—the rate is similarly low.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just that—a myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466—or 2.5 percent—showed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing “gained” from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOP’s continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the state’s welfare program. “It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers,” Schaffer said. “We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.”
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed—a rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
Republicans haven’t proposed testing for church clergy or oil executives. Instead, they’re focused on the vulnerable, with schemes that would embarrass a Bond villain.
Of course, none of this has dampened enthusiasm for these laws, which is why Republicans in Michigan’s House of Representatives have passed a bill that requires tests if there’s “reasonable suspicion” a welfare applicant is using drugs or other illegal substances. Likewise, a Tennessee Republican in Congress wants to do the same. North Carolina lawmakers passed a similar law, but—in something of a surprise—it was vetoed by Governor Pat McCrory, who in a statement, said “This is not a smart way to combat drug abuse.”
It isn’t. It should be said, however, that the focus on cost and effectiveness obscures a broader point: Mandatory drug testing for welfare benefits is unfair and immoral. Drug use isn’t a problem of poverty; it’s found among all groups and classes. Indeed, if we’re going to test welfare applicants—who receive trifling sums of money from the government—it makes as much sense to test bailout-receiving bankers, loan-backed students, defense contractors, tax-supported homeowners, married couples with children (who receive tax credits), and politicians, who aren’t strangers to drug use.
In other words, if stopping waste is your goal, then drug screening should be mandatory for anyone receiving cash from the government, which—in one way or another—is most people. But Republicans haven’t proposed testing for church clergy or oil executives. Instead, they’re focused on the vulnerable, with schemes that would embarrass a Bond villain.
Trapped in its right-wing, anti-government mania, the GOP has become a party defined by its disdain for the poor, and esteem for the wealthy. It’s the reason Mitt Romney railed against the “47 percent,” built a convention around praise for “job creators,” and endorsed an agenda that reduces the debt by decimating social services. Indeed, when Republican politicians aren’t attacking the disadvantaged for their alleged lack of virtue, they’re calling for us to shred the “hammock of dependency,” as if low-income Americans spend their lives in comfort, resting on the government dole. To the Republican Party, a comprehensive health-care law—inspired by conservative ideas—is more offensive than a country where millions go without insurance and care.
In this GOP, at this time, it’s only natural that Republican lawmakers would go after welfare recipients. Since, to many in the party, they deserve it.
ritingfunny@yah
Freeones is my hero!
Bobby Kennedy made lots of enemies because of his views on Welfare. He felt the way it was set up, it was little more than an incentive to remain on the public dole. There are lots of things that need done in most communities that go undone because of money constraints. Picking up trash, painting over graffiti, raking leaves in public parks, cleaning restrooms, etc., are things that could be done by welfare recipients, and more than that, it will vest people in their communities.
Chopper3000
Stick with Freeones
Brilliant another American that thinks England is the same as the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
HappyHapyJoyJoy
Moderator
HehehehehehehehehehahaHyena
Closed Account
Marry me. I want your babies.
xfire
@ChrisFreemanX
By God, I want COPD granny, legless Vietnam Vet uncle Pete, congestive heart failure cousin Phil, and the whole damn nursing home out there picking up trash off the side of the road. Keep Texas Beautiful, one elderly, disabled, or mentally retarded motherfucker at a time!
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
This is not too uncommon and I don't see the problem, unless it's purposely meant to humiliate someone or interferes with school/job training.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I thought this was taken care of by Clinton. 3 years on welfare and get out. Disability and SSI are completely different programs and those eligible should be protected. Community service? The best community service anyone could do is to get a job. The problem is that the community service positions are the same as the municipal positions and the government is paying these people HOW MUCH? Go look up how much they make and how long they have been there. I'll guarantee you that for every one that retires, shoots up the place, or dies (they never quit except to have a family) you can replace them with 2 at minimum wage and still save money.
Whoe there boys, this ain't gonna sit too well with the unions. First thing they're gonna say is,"Less money for us means less money for your campaign."
Whoe there boys, this ain't gonna sit too well with the unions. First thing they're gonna say is,"Less money for us means less money for your campaign."
No, I know the cost would be too much. And I don't think it's to humiliate people, I just don't think it's fair to be able to sit on your ass smoking pot and not work and still collect money from the government. I'd say go out on a limb and make the person applying for the assistance pay for their drug test, they don't cost very much. Obviously, this idea is very flawed since there are actual people who really can't afford it but I'm saying it to weed out the losers who are just trying to get a free ride. Honestly, no matter how you look at it or whatever ideas you have to fix welfare, it's a very flawed system and always will be. I don't even think about it anymore b/c I get so annoyed and pissed off.
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
Yeah, I wonder if a left leaning group like CBPP that works with public programs affecting low income families would have an agenda in keeping the current welfare system in place?
NY Times and Time Magazine both refer to it as "left leaning" and "liberal" respectively.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27web-budget.html?_r=2&hp&
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2111798,00.html
