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

[Wayward Clam]

Okay, I am providing four "case examples" of hypothetical people living on welfare. I honestly want to know which of these four people the Windrivers crew demographically believe should be cut their welfare benefits.
(You can check more than one if you feel more than one should be cut.)

If you want more information regarding a specific "case", post a question here, and we will decide for the case of argument what the hypothetical answer to your question is.

There is a box provided for those who believe all the cases should be kept on benefits as well.

[Wayward Clam]

Thanks guys! I was starting to be afraid nobody would answer this...

[TechZ]

I'm too nice to be a politician.

[paraflyer]

Sounds to me like Bob doesn't want to change his career path from whatever he used to do....

[corturbra]

Ooops, realised I had voted but not given reasons....

Case 1 There are jobs available for single mums with children and wanting the state to provide because she feels child care is too expensive is not a valid reason. IF she was to get a part time job, she should receive assistance towards childcare, but not at the present time.

Case 2 I feel that Bob, given his age and illness would find it difficult to obtain employment, it would be helpful to know what his rsi actually is from (typing?). He does seem as though he should put more effort into trying to find work, but he's paid his dues over the years and has an illness so should receive a benefit

Case 3 Carla - In a situation of her own doing for the best part. Why should the state provide because of her drug dependencies/reckless youth? The fathers should be found and made to provide. Harsh I know but you make your bed, you lie in it....

Case 4 Dave, well obviously he lacks the mental capacity to get work through, so in this case, without question he should receive assistance.

Bring on the flamers.... What's your views on this Wayward_Clam? Who have you decided should receive benefit?

[Cleetus]

Bob and Anne both, even though I only voted for Bob. The government should help those seeking to help themselves. Those that aren't need to find somewhere else. But once again, as long as you are seeking to do something on your own as well, better for you.

[techs]

Before I vote I have some questions.
Anne:
Does available work minus child care expenses exceed what she would get on welfare (including health benefits on welfare). Cause if she wouldn't get or couldn't afford health care for her children by working I think she should be able to stay on welfare ( of course the best answer would be she could work and her children still get health care). One other thing, my answer is contingent on what state she's in. In Vermont 99.9 percent of children are covered. In Vermont even if she worked but didn't get or couldn't afford to get health care Vermont provides it.(We are the only state that does, and we have average taxes)

Bob:
What happened to his Soc. Sec disability claim? Did he have a "Substantial Impairment? What jobs did they suggest he could do?

Dave should be eligible for Social Security disability. Since that is not an option I will keep him on.

[Diver01]

I need more info....

Anne: Insurance company refuesed to pay? um Why? Was it Arson? Did Anne burn down the house in an attempt to kill her husband? Maybe she should go to jail instead of collecting welfare?

Bob: Needs to get over himself. Lighten up dude. Take some stress management classes. At the rate hes going welfare is going to do him no good, the stress is going to take care of him just fine. Sounds to me like he refuses to change.

Carla: Stupid drug using idiot. All she wants to do is stay home and use more drugs. Screw her!

Dave: The only truely person deserving of some assistance, but not from wellfare. I certainly hope in his condition that there is some family member that is taking care of him and hes not by himself. He does not need wellfare he needs Social Security Assistance...


Have a nice day!

[Cleetus]

Whatever dude, Carla is the only one trying to make something of herself on the list. She is exactly what welfare was designed for, help them to help themselves find the American dream. Kick her out, and you no longer have an ideal left.

[corturbra]

Whatever dude, Carla is the only one trying to make something of herself on the list. She is exactly what welfare was designed for, help them to help themselves find the American dream. Kick her out, and you no longer have an ideal left.

Perhaps she should have tried it a bit earlier and then wouldn't need the system now? I hear what you're saying but I still think she's made herself a victim of her own recklessness.

If it's all about helping people achieve the American dream, what is that dream? Why should an ex-criminal, ex-drug using person have more rights in the system than someone who has always tried to help themselves?

[Matridom]

I think case 1 only should be pulled for support, She is the only one who is not looking to improve her lot in life.

All the other cases, even though they where ultimatly responsible for their condition (well, in some cases) This does not mean help should be revoked cause of bad decisions in the past. "you made you bed, lie in it" just does not site well with me.

I'm a firm believer in the "work for welfare" program. You want welfare, then come do community work for the gov to earn it... something for something. If they want to spend 10 years on it then, atleast they earned it, and it's technicaly "employment" of a form or another.

I have issues with people who sit at home, get their gf/bf/husband/wife/friend/neighbour to bring their sin card to the local employement center so it looks like they are trying to search, yet have not.

Something for something, nothing for nothing, tis my motto

[Cleetus]

Perhaps she should have tried it a bit earlier and then wouldn't need the system now? I hear what you're saying but I still think she's made herself a victim of her own recklessness.

If it's all about helping people achieve the American dream, what is that dream? Why should an ex-criminal, ex-drug using person have more rights in the system than someone who has always tried to help themselves?

So nobody can improve, they can't work past their former mistakes?

Well at least you weren't also trying to sell me that you are a good christian too, with that attitude.

[corturbra]

So nobody can improve, they can't work past their former mistakes?

Well at least you weren't also trying to sell me that you are a good christian too, with that attitude.

Nope not saying you shouldn't improve, just don't expect my (well yours) tax dollars (pounds) to pay for it.

Christian I'm not... gave up on that bollocks a long time ago. I do have a chip on my shoulder, no-one has ever helped me to get where I am, and I've always played by the book, done the right thing and it pi$$es me off when people who have no respect for others or themselves get better training/housing/help then I ever could.

It should be all about what you put in, I put in loads to the system, volunteer my services to schools/local music projects, yet get/take nothing out apart from knowing I have helped people less fortunate than me. However, why should someone like Carla who has already taken so much, be able to take out more?

Hell man this is cool, like a whole thread about fictional people!

[Cleetus]

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

[Diver01]

I think case 1 only should be pulled for support, She is the only one who is not looking to improve her lot in life.

All the other cases, even though they where ultimatly responsible for their condition (well, in some cases) This does not mean help should be revoked cause of bad decisions in the past. "you made you bed, lie in it" just does not site well with me.

I'm a firm believer in the "work for welfare" program. You want welfare, then come do community work for the gov to earn it... something for something. If they want to spend 10 years on it then, atleast they earned it, and it's technicaly "employment" of a form or another.

I have issues with people who sit at home, get their gf/bf/husband/wife/friend/neighbour to bring their sin card to the local employement center so it looks like they are trying to search, yet have not.

Something for something, nothing for nothing, tis my motto

I absolutely aggree with this!

Simply throwing money at teh problem isnt a solution. In Carla's case, lets say she stays on welfare and completes her rehab and is clean and sober. Whats to prevent her from falling back into the same circle of friends that was part of the problem to begin with? Send her to work every damn day. No Community service, no welfare check for her.