PDA

View Full Version : Bills Would Require Michiganders To Work For Welfare, Pass Drug Test


UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-19-2013, 09:02 AM
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/09/18/bill-would-require-michiganders-to-work-for-welfare/

LANSING (WWJ) - Could this mean the end of welfare as we know it?

A bill has passed in the Michigan Senate that would require those receiving public assistance to do some “volunteer” work. Another bill, which passed the House Commerce Committee, requires drug testing, revoking benefits for welfare recipients who refuse the test or who test positive.

“What [the legislation] does, it says, in order for your to receive your cash assistance, your welfare check, you must provide some kind of community service to the community,” said the volunteer work bill’s sponsor, State Senator Joe Hune, who represents Livingston and Shiawasse counties in Mid-Michigan.

Hune says he was inspired by a constituent who began to volunteer while on welfare — and that community service evolved into full employment.

“The whole intention is to make certain folks have some skin in the game, and I don’t feel that there’s any problem with making folks go out and do some kind of community service in order to receive their cash assistance,” Hune said.

State Sen. Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield, thinks the bills take aim at people who are already suffering their lowest moments.


“These people, they already need as much money as they can get, they wouldn’t be asking for it if they didn’t need it,” he said. “It seems that this philosophy that everyone must have skin in the game, you know, it’s like you may have some financial issues, you may be down and out … That kind of philosophy to me — if you’re healthy bodied, I can see it — but for a lot of people, I just think that it is very intrusive.”

How, specifically, would the programs work? Hune said he purposely designed the bill to be ambiguous.

“We … kind of left it up to the Department of Human Services to implement it, kind of how they see fit,” said Hune. “Sometimes when the legislature puts something in action and puts too many details in place, there can be problems with the system.”

The legislation would not affect those on food stamps.

The volunteer bill now heads to the House of Representatives’ Families, Children and Seniors Committee, while the drug testing bill heads to the full House for a vote.

“A lot of people are embarrassed to even be there (asking for benefits), and they have this put on them — It’s this feeling that ‘This is what the public wants.’ But the public doesn’t want to see people beaten down,” Gregory said.

Rohirrim
09-19-2013, 09:05 AM
They should call it the Works Progess Administration. :spit:

houghtam
09-19-2013, 11:01 AM
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/09/18/bill-would-require-michiganders-to-work-for-welfare/

I agree with much of this, but not the drug test part.

Michigan is a medicinal marijuana state. You cannot say "your doctor can prescribe you medicine...but if you take it you can't be on welfare."

It is either a legitimate medicine or it is not. The people have spoken. It is no one's business...it violates patient doctor privilege.

Fedaykin
09-19-2013, 11:27 AM
Saying no TANF (i.e the cash assistance these bills are targeting) for you if you're a druggie is something I could easily get behind -- if the people receiving welfare were only able bodied adults. But, as the right loves to ignore when they rail against welfare, the overwhelming majority of people receiving TANF cash assistance are children and the caregivers of children.

Some quick stats (2010) about the target of this legislation:

Number of TANF recipients: 4.3 million
Number of ADULT TANF recipients: 1.1m (0.3% of the U.S. population)
Number of adult TANF recipients who did not have children dependents: 2.3% (or, about 25,000 people nationwide)
Number of CHILD TANF recipients: 3.2 million (1% of U.S. population)

How does punishing children for their parent's/caregiver's problems suit anyone's interests?

How does forcing a single mother on welfare to have to pay for child care while he's doing "volunteer work" solve _any_ problem?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

Rohirrim
09-19-2013, 11:33 AM
Saying no TANF (i.e the cash assistance these bills are targeting) for you if you're a druggie is something I could easily get behind -- if the people receiving welfare were only able bodied adults. But, as the right loves to ignore when they rail against welfare, the overwhelming majority of people receiving TANF cash assistance are children and the caregivers of children.

Some quick stats (2010) about the target of this legislation:

Number of TANF recipients: 4.3 million
Number of ADULT TANF recipients: 1.1m (0.3% of the U.S. population)
Number of adult TANF recipients who did not have children dependents: 2.3% (or, about 25,000 people nationwide)
Number of CHILD TANF recipients: 3.2 million (1% of U.S. population)

How does punishing children for their parent's/caregiver's problems suit anyone's interests?

How does forcing a single mother on welfare to have to pay for child care while he's doing "volunteer work" solve _any_ problem?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 08:05 AM
It's not good policy to incentivize pregnancy amongst those without the tools to be parents and who generally are a drain on society. My plan would be very different and none of you would support it, but it would take care of the problem.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 08:14 AM
It's not good policy to incentivize pregnancy amongst those without the tools to be parents and who generally are a drain on society. My plan would be very different and none of you would support it, but it would take care of the problem.

Euthanasia has been tried before. People get squeamish about it.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 08:29 AM
Euthanasia has been tried before. People get squeamish about it.

I am aware and no, not that. I would however institute work program with harsh penalties for non-compliance. No work, no money.

Rigs11
09-20-2013, 08:32 AM
I say propose a bill to build that fence on the border that the righties want, then open up some job openings and see how many of these welfare recipients apply for them. put them to work.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 08:39 AM
I am aware and no, not that. I would however institute work program with harsh penalties for non-compliance. No work, no money.

Again, what's served by punishing children for their parent's faults? And again, how does making a single mother work, more or less guaranteeing that she will have to spend almost all the money she receives on childcare, solve any problem?

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 09:09 AM
Again, what's served by punishing children for their parent's faults? And again, how does making a single mother work, more or less guaranteeing that she will have to spend almost all the money she receives on childcare, solve any problem?

Because that's their lot in life for the decisions they make. My point is there has to be consequences. But it's not just money they get. They can get section 8 housing, free food, and a number other benefit. I would also make the child's, barring any mental problems, welfare based on their grades. They have to earn it. I don't want to leave children out in the cold, but I am tired of paying for this endless cycle of poverty.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:26 AM
Because that's their lot in life for the decisions they make. My point is there has to be consequences. But it's not just money they get. They can get section 8 housing, free food, and a number other benefit. I would also make the child's, barring any mental problems, welfare based on their grades. They have to earn it. I don't want to leave children out in the cold, but I am tired of paying for this endless cycle of poverty.

Their lot in life for the decisions their parents made, you mean. Wow, you're heartless.

You're just another person who has never known need.

Do a little research on grades and achievement of the underprivileged and get back to us.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 09:44 AM
Because that's their lot in life for the decisions they make. My point is there has to be consequences. But it's not just money they get. They can get section 8 housing, free food, and a number other benefit. I would also make the child's, barring any mental problems, welfare based on their grades. They have to earn it. I don't want to leave children out in the cold, but I am tired of paying for this endless cycle of poverty.

Yep, because children choose who they are born too. Damn idiots should have chosen rich parents!

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:48 AM
Yep, because children choose who they are born too. Damn idiots should have chosen rich parents!

I've got it! We can call it the "Your Cross To Bear Act"!

smh

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-20-2013, 10:47 AM
Awwww.... you guys trout out the kids. So you guys think that kids should have to say with high parents. Great stand guys!

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:56 AM
Awwww.... you guys trout out the kids. So you guys think that kids should have to say with high parents. Great stand guys!

What's the difference between being high on prescription Vicodin, Prozac or OG Kush? It's not your business what has been decided between a doctor and a patient. As a conservative I thought you were all about the government staying out of people's lives, and doctor/patient privilege is a long standing pillar of medicine.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-20-2013, 11:48 AM
What's the difference between being high on prescription Vicodin, Prozac or OG Kush? It's not your business what has been decided between a doctor and a patient. As a conservative I thought you were all about the government staying out of people's lives, and doctor/patient privilege is a long standing pillar of medicine.

Actually high parents are checked out parents and that is child neglect. Way to stand up for child abuse.:wave:

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 11:51 AM
Their lot in life for the decisions their parents made, you mean. Wow, you're heartless.

You're just another person who has never known need.

Do a little research on grades and achievement of the underprivileged and get back to us.

LOL. I am self-made man. I've needed and I went out and earned on my own body, mind and spirit. Again, as long as we as a society incentivize pregnancies of the poor, we will continue to exacerbate the problem. I know what their grades are and that's why we'd get them to where they need to be.

Blart
09-20-2013, 11:55 AM
http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1341885297708_7685428.png

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 11:58 AM
Yep, because children choose who they are born too. Damn idiots should have chosen rich parents!

Obviously I am talking about their parents.

What I am talking about is intellectually practical solution. Is it perfect? No. Are there winners and losers? Sure. Is there are better way? Maybe. However, you are talking emotionally. Being emotional creates problems, it rarely helps.

Blart
09-20-2013, 12:00 PM
I am self-made man.

When I was a toddler I built my own pre-school and paid for my own teachers. I bought a car for my parents, I built the roads so they could drive me to school, and paid for their healthcare to insure they were healthy enough to drive.

Blart
09-20-2013, 12:02 PM
Being emotional creates problems, it rarely helps.

Talk evidence then. Show me where a country has implemented your draconian plan of abandoning great swaths of society, and suddenly saw it flourish.

I can show you the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_welfare_eff ect_on_poverty_reduction).

houghtam
09-20-2013, 12:12 PM
LOL. I am self-made man. I've needed and I went out and earned on my own body, mind and spirit. Again, as long as we as a society incentivize pregnancies of the poor, we will continue to exacerbate the problem. I know what their grades are and that's why we'd get them to where they need to be.

Please. You don't get grades for poverty stricken children to raise by saying "if you don't get good grades, you don't eat!" How ****ing ignorant.

And as far as "intellectually practical" goes, it's about as "intellectual" and "practical" as saying "eat the poor".

There is literally no intellect involved there, to say nothing of compassion.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 12:13 PM
Talk evidence then. Show me where a country has implemented your draconian plan of abandoning great swaths of society, and suddenly saw it flourish.

I can show you the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_welfare_eff ect_on_poverty_reduction).



First of we aren't abandoning everyone. What we're trying to do is change behavior and increase education. That's the way you combat this problem. However at first, the measures would seem harsh, but it has to be done. 1 million people don't matter at the cost of hundreds of millions more. We're talking about making a decision at a high level. You seem to struggle with those concepts.


To put it better. If you were the Captain of ship and we're place with a decision to save some people or no people. Which would you decide?

Blart
09-20-2013, 12:15 PM
First of we aren't abandoning everyone. What we're trying to do is change behavior and increase education. That's the way you combat this problem. However at first, the measures would seem harsh, but it has to be done. 1 million people don't matter at the cost of hundreds of millions more. We're talking about making a decision at a high level. You seem to struggle with those concepts.


To put it better. If you were the Captain of ship and we're place with a decision to save some people or no people. Which would you decide?

Well I guess before I judge it, I'd have to hear your solution. Second, has this solution been attempted anywhere, and what were the results?

Before unleashing a new idea on a society as large as the USA, it would be preferable to test it on smaller populations.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 12:17 PM
Please. You don't get grades for poverty stricken children to raise by saying "if you don't get good grades, you don't eat!" How ****ing ignorant.

And as far as "intellectually practical" goes, it's about as "intellectual" and "practical" as saying "eat the poor".

There is literally no intellect involved there, to say nothing of compassion.

Speaking intellectually is to speak without compassion. And it is practical. Again, you guys are speaking from a position of emotion. Which has gotten us to this point. See it's a all a matter of motivation. If you don't motivate people and incentivize waste, don't be surprised when you're sitting in a pile.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 12:18 PM
Well I guess before I judge it, I'd have to hear your solution. Second, has this solution been attempted anywhere, and what were the results?

Before unleashing a new idea on a society as large as the USA, it would be preferable to test it on smaller populations.

Well put.

I'd just like to say again, I'm in favor of defunding the military, even though I have nothing to replace it.

That's about as dumb as this pea-brained idea.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 12:19 PM
When I was a toddler I built my own pre-school and paid for my own teachers. I bought a car for my parents, I built the roads so they could drive me to school, and paid for their healthcare to insure they were healthy enough to drive.

That's not what I mean by the term "self-made man".

I swear debating with some of you is like playing cards with my sisters kids. :)

Blart
09-20-2013, 01:48 PM
Speaking intellectually is to speak without compassion. And it is practical. Again, you guys are speaking from a position of emotion. Which has gotten us to this point. See it's a all a matter of motivation.

Being incompassionate is being unemotional? Some of the most uncaring, stupid people in history were highly emotional: adam lanza, aaron alexis, ayn rand.

If you don't motivate people and incentivize waste, don't be surprised when you're sitting in a pile.

That's rhetoric. I can spout rhetoric too. If you don't educate, cure, or treat people with dignity, don't be surprised if they produce garbage.

As a purely emotional creature full of whimsy and flights of fancy, I'd like to see some evidence supporting your position.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 01:55 PM
Obviously I am talking about their parents.

What I am talking about is intellectually practical solution. Is it perfect? No. Are there winners and losers? Sure. Is there are better way? Maybe. However, you are talking emotionally. Being emotional creates problems, it rarely helps.

I'm not being emotional at all. I'm asking about the practicality of punishing children for their parent's inability to take care of them. What economic or social problem do you think that solves?

What are you going to test 2 year olds on to make them earn their way?

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 02:00 PM
Speaking intellectually is to speak without compassion. And it is practical. Again, you guys are speaking from a position of emotion. Which has gotten us to this point. See it's a all a matter of motivation. If you don't motivate people and incentivize waste, don't be surprised when you're sitting in a pile.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

No you're speaking from a position of absurdity. Again, what are you doing to do to make a 2 year old earn his keep?

hint: the reason children are treated like children is because they are not yet capable of taking care of themselves.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 02:10 PM
I know. We can ration 2 years old's welfare benefits based on how many times they mess their diapers!

More than two diapers a day? Clearly you're not being a responsible toddler and also obviously getting to much to eat and drink. 50% cut.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 02:28 PM
Hey little sally, you're behind. All the other kids have learned how which blocks fit through the holes. No lunch for you until you figure it out!

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 02:30 PM
Hey timmy. You failed your spelling test. That's really bad. We'll be setting the thermostat to 55 degrees until you improve!

houghtam
09-20-2013, 02:51 PM
Do you get extra points for overachievement? For instance if I potty train my 2 year old early, does he or she get MORE food? Is this measured in dollars or product? Do they have to consume it or can they bequeath it to others? I could see the potential of my kid being incentivized to perform well and then sell their extra food to the stupid kids. Self made man right there!

God, what an idiot. There are no words. I can only hope he was a product of home schooling, otherwise...yeesh.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 02:53 PM
That's not what I mean by the term "self-made man".

I swear debating with some of you is like playing cards with my sisters kids. :)

Yeah, except we're playing bridge and you're saying, "You got any 4's?"

LOL

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 03:59 PM
You can treat children like crap. No problem. Starve them. Beat them. Discard them. Ignore them. Whatever.

Just make sure you build plenty of prisons.

You'll be needing them down the road.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 08:12 PM
Actually high parents are checked out parents and that is child neglect. Way to stand up for child abuse.:wave:

Tell that to any parent who has ever had surgery. So when my mom had foot surgery when I was 10 and had to take pain pills I was being neglected?

Wow, you're pretty dense.