Which of these (hypothetical) people would you cut from welfare benefits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

SO you'd rather her go back to giving head and quickies to pay for the blow and diapers for the kids?

---

Again not saying that, but if after all the welfare what happens if she decides that real life is a pain in the a$$ and it's better where she was before? Some people you just can't help, and why waste the effort?

Why not put the money/effort into finding the fathers of the children and get them to pay and face up to their responsibilities?

Imagine for a moment that Carla had robbed your house or mugged your wife/kids to pay for a fix, how pleased would you be to know that you're now paying for her to live in a better house than yours?

Yep she should improve and learn from her mistakes, but she needs to prove herself first and put right some of the wrong she did. So if it came down to her and Bob, who would you give the welfare to?

Someone who has taken all and more or someone who has given all their lives?

I voted for Bob, but the Anne situation is really confusing. Why no insurance? Insurance can't just refuse to pay, they have to offer a reason or else they would lose in court. Plus she has three kids. I would be for cutting Anne's personal benefits IF the state provided daycare services for the children in addition to the fact that the kids can attend public school. Then there would be NO reason for her to not work. She could even work at a job while the kids were in school. If she had any family, I would hope that they would help her with raising the kids. There really isn't enough information provided to make an educated decision on her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corturbra

Again not saying that, but if after all the welfare what happens if she decides that real life is a pain in the a$$ and it's better where she was before? Some people you just can't help, and why waste the effort?

Why not put the money/effort into finding the fathers of the children and get them to pay and face up to their responsibilities?

Imagine for a moment that Carla had robbed your house or mugged your wife/kids to pay for a fix, how pleased would you be to know that you're now paying for her to live in a better house than yours?

Yep she should improve and learn from her mistakes, but she needs to prove herself first and put right some of the wrong she did. So if it came down to her and Bob, who would you give the welfare to?

Someone who has taken all and more or someone who has given all their lives?

---

Yep, I'd cut from Bob and from Dale before her. She is trying, and if we are to just let her alone to do it all alone, chances in my mind that she has a greater chance to fail. But if as a community we help her out, get her past her past and as a productive citizen she will contribute well beyond the measly few cents of your taxes that actually went to her.

Dale should be in a home.

Bob lived his life and now wishes to quit, Carla is still beginning hers.

just bob. mainly because of failing vocational re-training programs 3 times. that seems to say he's not interested in doing anything other than what he used to do which he can't do anymore.

on Annes case, being the sole parent for one child is a full time job. being the sole parent for 3 is probably insane. I have no problem letting the state pay her to be a stay at home mom provided she is putting forth the maximum effort to raise upstanding citizens and is willing to seek work at such a time that it is more viable for her (kids in school - olders kids being able to babysit younger ones etc) sending her kids to childcare and her to a welfare to work program does the state no good if her kids end up on the street collecting welfare as adults because they had no parental figure in their life and were raised in daycare while mom worked all day. . . it just costs the state more money in the end. if she collects welfare and is serious about being a good mom, that is a job, and probably the most beneficial job to the state because her kids will grow up as useful members of society.

if the crack addict with babies from different fathers is willing to look for work and change herself then by all means she should have the benefit.

we all make mistakes in life some much bigger than others. And I'm sure we can say we always recieve help from someone or something (family, friends etc) to overcome those mistakes. even if it's as simple as someone in the hospital billing department setting up a payment plan for that bill you just can't afford to pay right now, or the credit card company wiping out the charge on your card for the ebay purchase that never showed up. . . . .we all need and receive help from time to time to get us out of binds.....there is no reason that a person willing to work and willing to change shouldn't get assistance - that doesn't just mean money - but job training, education etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Yep, I'd cut from Bob and from Dale before her. She is trying, and if we are to just let her alone to do it all alone, chances in my mind that she has a greater chance to fail. But if as a community we help her out, get her past her past and as a productive citizen she will contribute well beyond the measly few cents of your taxes that actually went to her.

Dale should be in a home.

Bob lived his life and now wishes to quit, Carla is still beginning hers.

---

So Bob is past it and deserves no help? Dave who is mentally unstable through no fault of his own should get less help?

Guess we have to agree to disagree then... :thumbs2:

I have to say Cleetus, it's good to see an intelligent debate here for once. I'm almost enjoying my first leap into the world of politics... :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corturbra

So Bob is past it and deserves no help? Dave who is mentally unstable through no fault of his own should get less help?

Guess we have to agree to disagree then... :thumbs2:

I have to say Cleetus, it's good to see an intelligent debate here for once. I'm almost enjoying my first leap into the world of politics... :thumbs:

---

I probably came across wrong, sorry

Bob if willing to improve himself to get back on his feet, then deserves a helping hand to get there. But if he chooses to feel sorry for himself, then no, it isn't a helping hand anymore. Exactly with what I am saying with Carla.

I believe in helpig the person make it on their own, take the assistance so you can regain pride.

As far as Dave, well, I honestly thought guys like that are in homes or in special communities or something and not really on welfare as someone with a 7 year old mentality can't function on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Dave should be in a home.

---

If the situation was real he probably already is. no way someone with the intellect of a seven year old can maintain a life paying bills, rent, cooking meals etc.

but those homes, even state sponsered ones still cost the patients money and a lot of times that money comes from welfare / social security (disability)

so if you cut dave's, benefits, he can't be in a home and will be out wandering in your neighborhood sleeping on the streets and probably quickly dead. . . . . so he needs those benefits as much as anyone on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kato2274

If the situation was real he probably already is. no way someone with the intellect of a seven year old can maintain a life paying bills, rent, cooking meals etc.

but those homes, even state sponsered ones still cost the patients money and a lot of times that money comes from welfare / social security (disability)

so if you cut dales, benefits, he can't be in a home and will be out wandering in your neighborhood sleeping on the streets and probably quickly dead. . . . . so he needs those benefits as much as anyone on the list.

---

Ok, thanks, didn't know that. Thought the money came from somewhere else.

I think that refusal should be on a case by case basis. Not one of these people are as bad cases as some I know. There people using food stamps to buy .05 cent candy taking the change then buying beer. Or trading the food stamps for sex or lying about a disability so they can collect money and sit in the bar. The system isnt perfect it needs to be policed maybe if these people had to do public work for this money it wouldn't be so attractive. Maybe some of the mothers could watch the kids for reimbursement from the state so the others could do other jobs. Dont know if thats an answer but it might be a direction to look, but then of course lots of these people dont really want to work anyways do they?

Well let's see...the one closest to my heart is Dave, because that is my son, though he is 26 and functions at a 5 year old level. He lives at home and has been recieving SSI since he was 21. He does get some home benefits from the State of Alaska. Putting him in a home has never been an option for my wife and I.
Anne - This one is awfully close to my sister's situation in 1997 after her husband died tragically. She fought with the Insurance Company for over a year before they paid. Actually she never did go on the dole and the kids earned survivor benefits through SS until they were 18 (about $890 a month per then it's now about $1080 per now). Sorry Anne your off the roles.
Bob - Hmmm...interesting case that is like my wife's situation (she has MS). As was mentioned before his SSD benefits should be in place along with his long term disability insurance through work that should kick in (usually 50%-60% of his averaged salary over a 3 year period). Sorry Dave there is no reason for you to be on welfare - hell in most places you wouldn't even be eligible. Even if your LTD is suspended you are still recieving SSD and most likely Medicare.
Carla - I agree with Cleetus, but she should stay for only so long. It's funny about the tattoos there is now a program in place in several different States that will pay to have tattoos removed from individuals 21 and under. I see the criminal record as the biggest problem. I know where I work now and where I worked in AZ a "felony" precluded you from the hiring process.

So Dave and Carla are in. Bob and Anne are out. Since I can only vote for one it will be Bob.

That's not a fair pole. Maybe if you add these people..

Ann - 22 single with one child, not seeking work, saw child as welfare ticket.

Mary - 48 married but seperated, husband in jail for rape, spent her entire life getting jobs, filing false comp claims for a back injury, now has decided to just go on welfare.

Bob - injured in a car accident, now in a wheelchair, doesn't want a job, doesn't care, is happy to remained stoned the rest of his life (not on welfare but SSI).

Jim - injured in a car accident, disability has run out, was at fault and drunk in the accident, seeking a job after completing an associate degree but unable to keep the job due to his drinking.

There's no hypothetical here. These are people I knew.

EVERYBODY: Thank you! This is one of the most interesting discussions I have seen around here in a while. I am very impressed with the reasoning behind everybody's reasons, even if I disagree with many of you and you're all disagreeing with each other. :D

Further information as requested by people:

Major Kong: You CAN vote for more than one person to cut, I guess you didn't notice that. I dunno if NooNoo can help or if your vote is locked in stone at this point.

OVERALL: I haven't attempted to nail down a particular state (or even country) that they are all from. Laws are different in different places and I don't have any idea how Texas is different from Newfoundland, etc...

ANNE: Anne is obviously not living in Vermont, I am very pleased to hear that Vermont has such progressive child care. Anne is either living somewhere where the only child care available is paid or for some reason she has been denied by the gov't the requisite access/funding for it. In terms of the insurance, for the case of the example, the insurance company IS at fault and SHOULD have paid the claims. She is attempting to take them to court but cannot afford the legal bills for the case and it is in its third year so far of dragging through the courts. (I've heard so many horror stories about this sort of thing...)

BOB: When I created this example I was thinking of two men I know, one who was in the same computer program I started in, and a guy who helps out at the local food bank. Both have back injuries, not repetitive stress, but I gave Bob RSI so RSI the example will continue to be. In terms of his Soc. Sec. Disability Claim, either it has been denied or they haven't given him enough money to live on. In terms of what jobs were recommended to him, I would assume they are jobs that one or more of his retraining programs were intended to prepare him for.

I envisioned Bob as someone who gave it a college try to get retrained to do something else, but couldn't handle learning new things, mostly due to his age, but possibly due to his injury. However, in the example, he has indeed stopped trying.

CARLA: Carla has no hope of finding the biological fathers of her babies. Either she didn't know them that well or they disappeared when they found out she was pregnant. For the sake of having a complete example let's go with one of each.

DAVE: Dave does not have any family members available or willing to take care of him. I know people like this IRL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silencio

That's not a fair pole. Maybe if you add these people...

---

I admit that your people DO exist, and that few people would say keep them on benefits, the only disagreement is what percentage of people on benefits are like them...

I was also asked what my own views were on this... and I have to confess I am not sure. Carla and Dave I would definitely keep on benefits. Anne I have sympathy for; I would keep her on benefits but attach a condition that they are repayable if the insurance company is forced to pay her. Bob I wouldn't have sympathy for except that like I say, I know two people in the situation, and it seems to be a lot harder for an older person to retrain than it looks... I honestly don't know what I would do about him, and that's why I haven't answered my own poll yet.

I'll admit, using silencio's examples makes the decisions a lot easier...

I have a question. Is there a doctrine of guidelines over what qualifies for what benefits and are there people who's job it is to specifically check up on whether or not people receiving these benefits are deserving of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

...BOB: When I created this example I was thinking of two men I know, one who was in the same computer program I started in, and a guy who helps out at the local food bank. Both have back injuries, not repetitive stress, but I gave Bob RSI so RSI the example will continue to be. In terms of his Soc. Sec. Disability Claim, either it has been denied or they haven't given him enough money to live on. In terms of what jobs were recommended to him, I would assume they are jobs that one or more of his retraining programs were intended to prepare him for.

I envisioned Bob as someone who gave it a college try to get retrained to do something else, but couldn't handle learning new things, mostly due to his age, but possibly due to his injury. However, in the example, he has indeed stopped trying...

---

It sounds to me as if Bob should have counciling for his obvious mental depression. One does not give up trying after a lifetime of work without some sort of serious issue, and a mental issue can be more debilitating than a physical one.

I would force Bob into paid counciling for a finite time with the understanding that it is his last chance.

Ten percent of you (as of today) would cut a guy with a mental intellect of 7 years? I can't believe anyone would advocate that.
Geez, isn't that heartless?