What are necessities/ luxuries for poor americans?

[rivrrat]

People who receive welfare funds (i.e. cash) are required to work.

It says they must FIND WORK within two years. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about from the first day of benefit eligibility, they work for the local community for their paycheck.

With regard to unemployment benefits, they're also not a simple give-away, and most people who are out of work don't qualify, anyway.



Most states require that the newly unemployed person must have worked a certain number of "on the books" hours in the previous 12 months - meaning, they must have worked X number of hours at a job where the employer took regular deductions from the employee's paycheck for income taxes, SSI, etc. The few that do meet this requirement don't get a full paycheck either, but roughly just a third of their previous income. It's no gravy train, even if you do manage to catch it.

Yes, it is a simple give away. Once you qualify, and most people who have held a job DO qualify, you get a check. Weekly, bi-weekly, depending on the state. But, unemployment isn't as big a deal to me since it's limited, and it's paid for by employers. If that money isn't spent on benefits, it just goes into a black hole. Better that people benefit from it if it must be paid by the employers.

As noted above, welfare recipients are actually working for the money that you, AND THEY, as taxpayers, provide to fund the program.

Yeah, in maybe two years. If they don't game the system to buy more time, and please don't sit there and try to claim they can't do that. Because they DO. And all of this varies from state to state.

I like the idea, but it may not be as easy as all that.

First of all, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 15 million Americans that are currently unemployed. That averages out to 300,000 per state. Keep that in mind...

Not everyone who is unemployed needs job skill training. Only those who need it... well... need it.

The federal government provides most of the funding for welfare programs but doesn't run them at the state level. As I understand it, most states are desperately strapped for cash, and cannot afford to hire thousands of additional workers. In fact, some states are laying employees off or asking them to take time off without pay to ease the financial burden on the state. So, the federal welfare money would be the only way a state could fund all these additional jobs, which would take money away from funding food, housing, and medical assistance for the needy.


In the area of community service, while the thousands of new welfare-recipient workers wouldn't be paid, there would be a dramatic increase in the need for community service trainers, supervisors, managers, etc., to not only run the current programs, but to plan, schedule, and manage the daily work detail that thousands of new "employees" would create. Where are those people going to come from? Most people with the time and inclination to do volunteer work are already doing volunteer work.

The welfare-work system you propose would require that the community service work done by welfare recipients must be documented by someone, and I can only assume you'd want a credible state/government agency to oversee this (i.e. people who would need to be paid), instead of relying on the Boy Scouts or the Knights of Columbus to correctly complete and properly submit the necessary documentation/paperwork for free by untrained community service groups.

Beyond this, the magnitude of such an endeavor would be staggering. Imagine trying to coordinate and train thousands of people to start tutoring children, building homes in low income areas, assisting the elderly, socializing animals at animal shelters, acting as museum docents, performing habitat restoration, contributing to the operations of volunteer fire departments and emergency services, or helping with civic beautification. It would be circus.

Too bad it's already working in some places beautifully. I can't recall the governor's name in one state that implement this and maybe someone else will post here with it. It's not like this is an idea unique to me. It's been put into practice with positive results in various locals and with various slight differences.

Ah. What a shame. And you were doing so well, too. :naughty

Yeah, doncha hate it when conservatives and liberals get called on their stupid ****?

 

[Glinda]

It says they must FIND WORK within two years.

Correct. If they do not find work in two years' time, they will no longer receive benefits. If they do find work before two years has passed, they will no longer receive benefits. Two years is the maximum time limit to receive benefits, not the minimum.

I'm talking about from the first day of benefit eligibility, they work for the local community for their paycheck.

Putting an average of 300,000 people to work per state would require quite a bit of additional paid manpower to coordinate the new welfare employment department you're advocating. Can you share with us your logistical plan and funding overview for how this can reasonably be accomplished in each state, particularly in light of the dramatic financial woes most states are currently experiencing?

Yes, it is a simple give away.

No, unemployment benefits are not a simple give away. There are hoops to jump through initially and ongoing requirements to be met, as I have already documented.

most people who have held a job DO qualify

No. Fully two-thirds of the 15 million that are currently unemployed do not qualify for unemployment benefits, as I have already documented.

As noted above, welfare recipients are actually working for the money that you, AND THEY, as taxpayers, provide to fund the program.

Yeah, in maybe two years.

No, on a daily basis. Even unemployed people buy things (sales tax), and unemployment benefits are considered taxable income by the IRS.

If they don't game the system to buy more time, and please don't sit there and try to claim they can't do that. Because they DO.

Given that there's no such things as a perfect system, I have no doubt that a few people are able to circumvent unemployment benefits rules, but as I have already documented, there are hoops and hurdles to qualify, and weekly/monthly requirements the recipient must meet in order to continue receiving benefits. It can't be that easy, and the numbers can't be that high. I guesstimate maybe 2% to 3% of the total number of unemployed, but would be interested in your documentation on this.

First of all, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 15 million Americans that are currently unemployed. That averages out to 300,000 per state. Keep that in mind...

Not everyone who is unemployed needs job skill training. Only those who need it... well... need it.

I'm not seeing the connection you're making between the documented number of unemployed Americans and the unknown number of people you believe need job skills training. Can you elaborate?

Too bad it's already working in some places beautifully… It's been put into practice with positive results in various locals and with various slight differences.

That's good news if it's true. Can you offer any documentation on this?

the liberal notion that the government should just hand everything to anyone who asks

Ah. What a shame. And you were doing so well, too. :naughty

Yeah, doncha hate it when conservatives and liberals get called on their stupid ****?

I'm calling you on your stupid ****.

 

[bennyhill]

If you have so many leeches playing the game why dont you report your socalled friend to the police! Here we have hypocrits in America. They all know sombody is breaking the law but dont have the balls to report him to the police. Who is more wrong the man who breaks the law, or the citizen who doesnt help the police. Hypocrits should go to jail for failing to do there civic duties.

 

[rivrrat]

Correct. If they do not find work in two years' time, they will no longer receive benefits. If they do find work before two years has passed, they will no longer receive benefits. Two years is the maximum time limit to receive benefits, not the minimum.

Varies from state to state. But, that's not what I said. I said they should work from day 1.

Putting an average of 300,000 people to work per state would require quite a bit of additional paid manpower to coordinate the new welfare employment department you're advocating. Can you share with us your logistical plan and funding overview for how this can reasonably be accomplished in each state, particularly in light of the dramatic financial woes most states are currently experiencing?

Ask the states and counties that have already implemented such programs.

No, unemployment benefits are not a simple give away. There are hoops to jump through initially and ongoing requirements to be met, as I have already documented.

LMFAO There are no hoops. You fill out paperwork. If you've worked enough in the last xx amount of months, you get unemployment. There are no hoops.

No. Fully two-thirds of the 15 million that are currently unemployed do not qualify for unemployment benefits, as I have already documented.

I guess those are the folks who are chronically unemployed. Can't hold a job long enough to even qualify for unemployment. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

Given that there's no such things as a perfect system, I have no doubt that a few people are able to circumvent unemployment benefits rules, but as I have already documented, there are hoops and hurdles to qualify, and weekly/monthly requirements the recipient must meet in order to continue receiving benefits. It can't be that easy, and the numbers can't be that high. I guesstimate maybe 2% to 3% of the total number of unemployed, but would be interested in your documentation on this.

Documentation? It's called continuation of benefits. You can apply for said continuation at the end of your benefit period. It's an option available to everyone ON said benefits. Not to mention just flat out lying.

And again, no hoops or hurdles. No requirements to be met except for the requirement to look for work.

I'm not seeing the connection you're making between the documented number of unemployed Americans and the unknown number of people you believe need job skills training. Can you elaborate?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are unemployed people on welfare, etc, that need job skills to find work. People who have zero marketable skills. Those people are the ones in need of job skill training. Everyone else WITH marketable job skills are not the ones in need of job skills training. It's not that difficult to understand.

That's good news if it's true. Can you offer any documentation on this?

As soon as I can remember the governor's name who implemented such a program, sure. It was actually someone here that posted that link. I know they've done similar things in locales across the country, but those are things I read and didn't commit the URL to memory. I'm sure some searching around could find info though.

I'm calling you on your stupid ****.

Not my fault liberals and conservatives have some stupid ideas.

 

[Geo Patric]

rivrrat,

i think you are making a mistake in assuming that there are people out of work primarily due to "lack of skills".

the simple truth is that we have, have always had and will always have people out of work because there is simply not enough useful, profitable work for all the people we have. The very notion of the "unemployed" is a result of the sudden and devastating confluence of capitalism and industrialization. It is an essential element of competitive economics.

and it is an IMPORTANT part. Where a cynic might see us maintaining a "surplus" a more realistic view would be to see them as "reserve".

think of the military reserve. Lillies of the field, as it were, that neither toil nor spin... until we NEED them.

Now, profit based business do not bother to keep such "reserves" on the payroll, at least not at the lower levels. They are too easily and cheaply replaced to spend the money on maintaining the pool. Most corporations maintain considerable midlevel executive reserves, though.

Keynes, as has been mentioned, recognized this and advocated using state dollars to maintain them. He was right.

And, ya know, as we become less and less a productive and more and more an information and service culture. those "reserves" look more and more like "surplus". But we are not going to be adding new jobs, we are going to be losing more and more as time goes by.

the solution of simply "training" them is.... very outdated and not likely to be of much use.

geo.

 

[rivrrat]

rivrrat,

i think you are making a mistake in assuming that there are people out of work primarily due to "lack of skills".

the simple truth is that we have, have always had and will always have people out of work because there is simply not enough useful, profitable work for all the people we have. The very notion of the "unemployed" is a result of the sudden and devastating confluence of capitalism and industrialization. It is an essential element of competitive economics.

and it is an IMPORTANT part. Where a cynic might see us maintaining a "surplus" a more realistic view would be to see them as "reserve".

think of the military reserve. Lillies of the field, as it were, that neither toil nor spin... until we NEED them.

Now, profit based business do not bother to keep such "reserves" on the payroll, at least not at the lower levels. They are too easily and cheaply replaced to spend the money on maintaining the pool. Most corporations maintain considerable midlevel executive reserves, though.

Keynes, as has been mentioned, recognized this and advocated using state dollars to maintain them. He was right.

And, ya know, as we become less and less a productive and more and more an information and service culture. those "reserves" look more and more like "surplus". But we are not going to be adding new jobs, we are going to be losing more and more as time goes by.

the solution of simply "training" them is.... very outdated and not likely to be of much use.

geo.

I'm talking about training those that need training. Not the ones that don't. I realize that not everyone needs training. Hence my saying that the ones that don't need training shouldn't receive training.

 

[Mach]

Now, profit based business do not bother to keep such "reserves" on the payroll, at least not at the lower levels.

Entirely unskilled? Probably not too much reason to keep them around. Just about any other low-level position? Up to the individual business. I know most companies keep buffer employees as they grow. Large firms routinely have to hire and keep on staff, the entire team while they wait to see if they win a bid. They can't be qualified for the bid if they don't...they even have customer visits to verify in person the staffing exists (inspectors). So I think you're making a broad, rehtorical claim that sounds reasonable to you, but in reality just isn't that way.

They are too easily and cheaply replaced to spend the money on maintaining the pool. Most corporations maintain considerable midlevel executive reserves, though.

Being easily replaced doesn't imply low-level.
But either way, if your position is easily replaced, it's not like it's a mystery as to how to get out of it:
1. self employed. Immigrants do this day in day out, barely knowing English.
2. On the job training
3. formal education
4. informal education, mentorship, etc.

the solution of simply "training" them is.... very outdated and not likely to be of much use.geo.

It's been replaced by the even older notion of:
they have the opportunity to train themselves, and beyond that, you aren't required to pay for them to remain untrained.

Do you do a lot of hiring and training? I don't want specifics, but I'm telling you the minute you do this, you get exposed to the reality of the general populace. You can't just call people lazy or incapable because the reality is there are a near-infinite number of reasons people choose to not excel in the workplace, and by any measure the vast majority is because they don't try as much as they undoubtedly could. Just saying.

Some people do not want to be effective resources. Forcing others to act as though they are, and take a loss because of it, is tiresome.

 

[Geo Patric]

Some people do not want to be effective resources.

yes. and i would say that they are perfectly justified in doing so.

otherwise we are faced with the notion that we are subject to the group (the gummint or the business community or.... ) rather than the other way around.

geo.

 

[Glinda]

I said they should work from day 1.

Yes you did. And I asked you your plan for making that a reality. Do you not have one?

Ask the states and counties that have already implemented such programs.

You are making the claim that your "welfare employment department" idea not only exists but works fairly well… somewhere. Can you document any of this?

There are no hoops. You fill out paperwork. If you've worked enough in the last xx amount of months, you get unemployment. There are no hoops.

Yes, there are. According to federal law (regardless of the state), to receive unemployment benefits, one must first qualify, then file weekly or biweekly claims and respond to questions concerning continued eligibility – generally, this requires documentation that you have tried to find work (names/addresses of those you contacted for work). If you do not file the claims properly or on time, you are denied benefits for that benefit period (weekly/biweekly). If you are found to be lying about searching for work, your benefits are terminated. If you are offered work and decline (doesn't pay enough, too far to drive, etc.), your benefits are terminated.

I guess those are the folks who are chronically unemployed. Can't hold a job long enough to even qualify for unemployment.

Then your guess would be wrong. However, if you had read the documentation already provided, you would know that the huge majority of part-time and temporary workers do not qualify because they haven't worked enough hours. (And there are employers who "game the system," too; they lay people off just short of the required number of hours so they don't end up paying for it. A local college here does just that.) In addition, those who are self-employed or contract workers generally do not qualify because their employer is not taking income/unemployment taxes out of their paychecks (from which federal unemployment funds are secured). Federal unemployment law requires the following and each state can add additional requirements:

What does it take to qualify?
There are four criteria, and many people who have been laid off don't meet all of them. First, your employer must have paid into the unemployment fund on your behalf; this doesn't usually cover temporary or part-time employees. You had to have worked for your employer for a substantial period, usually at least one or two years, depending on the state. And you had to have worked each week for at least 35 hours. You cannot have been let go for cause or, with some exceptions, have left voluntarily.

If they don't game the system to buy more time, and please don't sit there and try to claim they can't do that. Because they DO.

Given that there's no such things as a perfect system, I have no doubt that a few people are able to circumvent unemployment benefits rules, but as I have already documented, there are hoops and hurdles to qualify, and weekly/monthly requirements the recipient must meet in order to continue receiving benefits. It can't be that easy, and the numbers can't be that high. I guesstimate maybe 2% to 3% of the total number of unemployed, but would be interested in your documentation on this.

Documentation? It's called continuation of benefits. You can apply for said continuation at the end of your benefit period. It's an option available to everyone ON said benefits. Not to mention just flat out lying.

Ok, so you have no documentation to back your assertion that some significant number of people are "gaming the system."

As for continuation of benefits, those who wish to "game the system" did not make the extensions to unemployment benefits happen. Our federal government did that, and not "everyone ON said benefits" qualifies; it depends on the jobless rate where you live.

How long do benefits last?
The standard length is 26 weeks, or about six months. Last June, Congress extended benefits for an additional 13 weeks, and in November it gave seven more weeks of support to workers who had gotten the 13-week extension. The November legislation also allows up to 26 extra weeks of unemployment benefits — for a total of 52 weeks — for workers in states with a jobless rate higher than 6 percent. These extensions are not permanent.

An Extension for Unemployment Benefits
As the name implies, an extension of benefits allows for a continuation of unemployment compensation payments above and beyond the initial 26 week period. There are two types of extended unemployment benefits: 1. Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and 2. Extended Benefits (EB).
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)
• Under EUC, the number of additional weeks you can receive will depend on the unemployment level in your state.
• In states with unemployment rates above 6%, you will be eligible for an additional 33 weeks of benefits. If the unemployment rate in your state is below 6%, the extension of unemployment benefits is 20 weeks.
• Emergency Unemployment Compensation is a result of legislation passed during 2008, and is set to expire at the end of 2009, unless Congress votes to extend it.
Extended Benefits (EB)
• Extended Benefits (EB) offer an additional extension of benefits once EUC has been exhausted. Again, the length of time you will receive additional benefits depends on the level of unemployment in your state.
• In states with unemployment rates above 6.5%, you will be eligible for an additional 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. And, if the unemployment rate in your state is above 8%, the extension of benefits is another 7 weeks (for a total of 20 weeks).

So, yes, some people may qualify for extended benefits, but these extensions are not permanent. Eventually, those who do not find work will stop receiving unemployment benefits. It's not an open-ended thing by any stretch of the imagination.

And again, no hoops or hurdles. No requirements to be met except for the requirement to look for work.

Ah, so now you do agree that there are ongoing requirements to be met, in order to keep receiving unemployment benefits.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are unemployed people on welfare, etc, that need job skills to find work. People who have zero marketable skills. Those people are the ones in need of job skill training. Everyone else WITH marketable job skills are not the ones in need of job skills training. It's not that difficult to understand.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about job training; you brought that up. I merely questioned why my noting the number of unemployed caused you to respond with a completely unrelated, and as yet unmentioned topic. While it is surely true that there are some unemployed people who could use some training, I still don't see what that has to do with my mentioning the number of unemployed.

But, you seem to see a direct correlation between the number of unemployed and the idea that a few of them might need training, so I'll indulge your odd deflection: How many people do you estimate will need this additional training? What is your solution for training all these people you believe need training? How many trainers will be needed? Who is going to pay all these trainers? Given that nobody is hiring anyway, where do you suppose these retrained people will find work?

As soon as I can remember the governor's name who implemented such a program, sure. It was actually someone here that posted that link. I know they've done similar things in locales across the country, but those are things I read and didn't commit the URL to memory. I'm sure some searching around could find info though.

Well, I hope you find it. I'd be interested in knowing the details.

Not my fault liberals and conservatives have some stupid ideas.

When you can prove that all (or even most) liberals believe "that the government should just hand everything to anyone who asks," I'll let it drop. Until then, you've got some homework to do.

 

[rivrrat]

Yes you did. And I asked you your plan for making that a reality. Do you not have one?

Why the **** would I need a plan? That's not my job.

You are making the claim that your "welfare employment department" idea not only exists but works fairly well… somewhere. Can you document any of this?

I told you, if I ever remember the name of the ****ing governor that cut his welfare recipients in half, I'll post it. But I can't remember his name to do a search.

Yes, there are. According to federal law (regardless of the state), to receive unemployment benefits, one must first qualify, then file weekly or biweekly claims and respond to questions concerning continued eligibility – generally, this requires documentation that you have tried to find work (names/addresses of those you contacted for work). If you do not file the claims properly or on time, you are denied benefits for that benefit period (weekly/biweekly). If you are found to be lying about searching for work, your benefits are terminated. If you are offered work and decline (doesn't pay enough, too far to drive, etc.), your benefits are terminated.

Holy ****. You have to fill out paperwork weekly. OMG. What massive hurdles. :roll:

Then your guess would be wrong. However, if you had read the documentation already provided, you would know that the huge majority of part-time and temporary workers do not qualify because they haven't worked enough hours.

Yup. Why should someone get it when they haven't worked enough?

Ok, so you have no documentation to back your assertion that some significant number of people are "gaming the system."

I said they lie on their forms. It's really not so hard to do.

So, yes, some people may qualify for extended benefits, but these extensions are not permanent. Eventually, those who do not find work will stop receiving unemployment benefits. It's not an open-ended thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. Which is why I stated I don't have much issue with unemployment. That and the fact that it's employer paid.

Ah, so now you do agree that there are ongoing requirements to be met, in order to keep receiving unemployment benefits.

I didn't disagree before. I simply said there were no hurdles or hoops. Looking for work while one is unemployed in order to receive benefits is HARDLY a hurdle or hoop. Especially since it's so easy to lie about it.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about job training; you brought that up. I merely questioned why my noting the number of unemployed caused you to respond with a completely unrelated, and as yet unmentioned topic. While it is surely true that there are some unemployed people who could use some training, I still don't see what that has to do with my mentioning the number of unemployed.

Because the number of unemployed is irrelevant to the number of people who would need training. Training wouldn't apply to the full number of unemployed. When I mentioned training, you mentioned this number of unemployed and logistics. I said that not all of them would need training, only a percentage of them.

But, you seem to see a direct correlation between the number of unemployed and the idea that a few of them might need training, so I'll indulge your odd deflection: How many people do you estimate will need this additional training?

How the **** should I know?

What is your solution for training all these people you believe need training?

Same way they do it now. Only require it unless they're doing community service.

How many trainers will be needed?

How the **** should I know?

Who is going to pay all these trainers?

Whatever department they work for, I expect. Most likely, some of them could come from the unemployment line itself.

Given that nobody is hiring anyway, where do you suppose these retrained people will find work?

WTF are you talking about nobody is hiring?

When you can prove that all (or even most) liberals believe "that the government should just hand everything to anyone who asks," I'll let it drop. Until then, you've got some homework to do.

When you can prove that they don't, I'll change my opinion.

 

[UtahBill]

Churches aren't worthwhile charities? They don't run homeless shelters, soup kitches, orphanages?

Most of them don't.....

 

[cpwill]

When it comes to who donated how much, I would like to see those numbers without the donations to churches that have no welfare programs...

then the number will be roughly the same. virtually every church is heavily involved in various charitable giving.

 

[UtahBill]

then the number will be roughly the same. virtually every church is heavily involved in various charitable giving.

Then things have changed a lot since I attended Bandera Street Baptist church, or Market Street Baptist, or several others that my mother dragged us to. Occasionally a "missionary" would come by and show us some slides and we would pass the plate, but there were no soup kitchens, no helping the homeless, etc.
Of course, that was the late 50's and early 60's.....we must have had less unemployment back then....

 

[Glinda]

Why the **** would I need a plan? That's not my job.

You've asserted quite vigorously that your "welfare employment department" idea (if you prefer a different term for your plan/idea/suggestion, I'll be happy to use it) has merit, and I'd like to believe that it does. I'm asking you to provide specific details for your idea – how it would actually be coordinated and implemented and funded in the real world - and/or the details for the programs that you assert already exist and function rather well.

In the realm of debate, if you make an assertion, it's incumbent upon you to back it up with documented, factual evidence. If you can't do this, just say so, and we can drop this attempt to deflect the discussion and move on.

I told you, if I ever remember the name of the ****ing governor that cut his welfare recipients in half, I'll post it. But I can't remember his name to do a search.

That's fine. When you can remember, please fill us in. Or, you could be a bit more creative and do a search of, say, "welfare benefits incumbent upon doing community service" or "community service required to receive welfare benefits" or something similar. Unfortunately for you, if you're unable to document your assertions, I'm afraid I just can't accept your vague recollections as fact. Nor should anyone else.

Holy ****. You have to fill out paperwork weekly. OMG. What massive hurdles.

No one mentioned "massive" hurdles, merely that there were ongoing requirements that must be met to continue receiving unemployment benefits. Can you tell me who said this?

Yes, it is a simple give away. Once you qualify, and most people who have held a job DO qualify, you get a check.

And this?

There are no hoops. You fill out paperwork. If you've worked enough in the last xx amount of months, you get unemployment. There are no hoops.

And this?

And again, no hoops or hurdles.

So, yeah. You've asserted that all one must do to receive unemployment benefits is qualify for the program. I've shown that there is a bit more to it, and you've finally conceded that this is correct, and that your initial assertion was faulty. That you believe the ongoing requirements to be beneath your recognition doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Why should someone get it when they haven't worked enough?

No one said they should. The point was raised in response to your assertion that the majority of people who receive unemployment benefits are

the folks who are chronically unemployed. Can't hold a job long enough to even qualify for unemployment.

I've provided documentation that this is simply untrue.

I said they lie on their forms. It's really not so hard to do.

No, you didn't say that. You said that some undefined number of welfare recipients are "gaming the system," in hopes of receiving benefits long after the law says they are no longer eligible. I pointed out that the current temporary continuation of benefits is not a result of those on welfare extending their own benefits, but the result of actions taken by our government on their behalf. Are you disputing this fact?

I didn't disagree before.

Sure you did.

Yes, it is a simple give away. Once you qualify, and most people who have held a job DO qualify, you get a check.

There are no hoops. You fill out paperwork. If you've worked enough in the last xx amount of months, you get unemployment. There are no hoops.

And again, no hoops or hurdles.

Because the number of unemployed is irrelevant to the number of people who would need training.

Well…. yeah. It is completely irrelevant. That's why I asked why my stating the number of unemployed resulted in your completely irrelevant response that:

Not everyone who is unemployed needs job skill training. Only those who need it... well... need it.

I mean, even you agree it makes no logical sense.

But, you seem to see a direct correlation between the number of unemployed and the idea that a few of them might need training, so I'll indulge your odd deflection: How many people do you estimate will need this additional training? What is your solution for training all these people you believe need training? How many trainers will be needed? Who is going to pay all these trainers? Given that nobody is hiring anyway, where do you suppose these retrained people will find work?

How the **** should I know?

Same way they do it now. Only require it unless they're doing community service.

How the **** should I know?

Whatever department they work for, I expect. Most likely, some of them could come from the unemployment line itself.

WTF are you talking about nobody is hiring?

Ok. You don't have any answers/ideas as to how this "welfare employment department" would function or be funded or managed or coordinated, nor any real understanding of the vast dearth of work available in today's job market. Again, you've offered a nice idea, and I can imagine that it might have merit, but I just don't see how it can be effectively implemented in the real world. I guess you don't either, and I can accept that. But, since you can't provide documentation that such a thing exists, or how well it works, and you won't give us your own personal ideas on how best to implement such an idea, can we drop this "welfare employment department" idea (at least until you can come up with some documentation and/or offer your own personal suggestions)?

When you can prove that they don't, I'll change my opinion.

No no. That's not how debate works. You made the assertion. It is now incumbent upon you to prove it.

Or, y'know, acquiesce the point.

 

[Kali]

They need people to treat them with dignity and respect and instead of turning a nose up? How about be kind.

necessities/ luxuries? I am sure if they were not treated as 2nd class citizens? It may have a huge impact on their lives. Sometimes a friendly smile and a job offer is better than anything else.

Edit: This thread makes me sad and some folks do not understand

 

[rivrrat]

You've asserted quite vigorously that your "welfare employment department" idea (if you prefer a different term for your plan/idea/suggestion, I'll be happy to use it) has merit, and I'd like to believe that it does. I'm asking you to provide specific details for your idea – how it would actually be coordinated and implemented and funded in the real world - and/or the details for the programs that you assert already exist and function rather well.

In the realm of debate, if you make an assertion, it's incumbent upon you to back it up with documented, factual evidence. If you can't do this, just say so, and we can drop this attempt to deflect the discussion and move on.

It is not incumbent upon me to make **** up. Which is what I'd be doing if I came up with a logistical plan for anything. Since, well... that's not my ****ing job.

That's fine. When you can remember, please fill us in. Or, you could be a bit more creative and do a search of, say, "welfare benefits incumbent upon doing community service" or "community service required to receive welfare benefits" or something similar. Unfortunately for you, if you're unable to document your assertions, I'm afraid I just can't accept your vague recollections as fact. Nor should anyone else.

Really? Trying to educate me on how to use Google? Give me a ****ing break. I just needed to remember the gov's name or the name of the state. Other searches did not produce results since MANY states have "welfare to work" programs.

[The “Wisconsin Works” program, known as “W-2”] replaced AFDC. It is an employment program rather than a welfare program. It requires those “who can work to get a job and those who cannot to contribute according to their abilities.” The old system showered recipients with all the welfare benefits possible, thus encouraging dependency. Wisconsin Works uses resourceful financial and employment planners who will help program participants. Planners can provide emergency loans for employment-related needs. W-2 provides participants with child care, health care, transportation and training. February 2000 figures show the W-2 caseload is under 6,700 families. That’s a reduction of 80% since W-2 started.
Source: WI Governor’s website Jan 8, 2001

No one mentioned "massive" hurdles, merely that there were ongoing requirements that must be met to continue receiving unemployment benefits. Can you tell me who said this?

You said there were hurdles. I said there weren't. And there aren't. Filling out paperwork isn't a ****ing hurdle.

So, yeah. You've asserted that all one must do to receive unemployment benefits is qualify for the program. I've shown that there is a bit more to it, and you've finally conceded that this is correct, and that your initial assertion was faulty. That you believe the ongoing requirements to be beneath your recognition doesn't change the fact that they exist.

I conceded nothing. I said there were no hurdles or hoops. And there aren't.

No one said they should. The point was raised in response to your assertion that the majority of people who receive unemployment benefits are



I've provided documentation that this is simply untrue.

They haven't worked enough hours. What would call someone who hasn't worked enough hours to even qualify for ****ing unemployment? I'd call them chronically unemployed. Though, I guess they could be chronically low-employed. Regardless, not my problem.

No, you didn't say that. You said that some undefined number of welfare recipients are "gaming the system," in hopes of receiving benefits long after the law says they are no longer eligible. I pointed out that the current temporary continuation of benefits is not a result of those on welfare extending their own benefits, but the result of actions taken by our government on their behalf. Are you disputing this fact?

YEs, people DO game the system. BY LYING ON THEIR FORMS. Which I most certainly DID mention, more than once.

Well…. yeah. It is completely irrelevant. That's why I asked why my stating the number of unemployed resulted in your completely irrelevant response that:



I mean, even you agree it makes no logical sense.

You're right, it doesn't. Which is why I was confused when you brought it up to begin with. Obviously the full amount of people on welfare or unemployment wouldn't need training, so I'm not sure why you'd imply that they would. Hence my confusion and my pointing out to you, repeatedly, that not everyone would need training.

Ok. You don't have any answers/ideas as to how this "welfare employment department" would function or be funded or managed or coordinated,

Nope. Not my job. If it was my job, then... it would BE my job.

nor any real understanding of the vast dearth of work available in today's job market.

Really? No understanding? Not since I was unemployed for a few months and here in the last 2 months received multiple job offers, actually had companies competing for me, applied for dozens of jobs, saw THOUSANDS of job listings, and STILL have people calling me for work even after I've accepted a position.

You're right. I don't have any understanding of the 'dearth' of work. That's not been my experience. Quite the opposite. Do a search on Monster or Dice, or any other employment website and you'll see 10s - 100s of thousands of jobs listed on each one.

No no. That's not how debate works. You made the assertion. It is now incumbent upon you to prove it.

LMFAO All of the liberal notions and ideas prove it. Just as the conservative ideas and notions prove they like to use the government to legislate their brand of morality.

Self-evident.

 

[Pampalone]

Nothing should be provided to them by the government. That is not the government's job. It is to provide a military, police, and SOME large infrastructure (roads, bridges, canals). In my opinion that is what the government should provide.
These things do not discriminate based on wealth like many other social programs do.

 

[cpwill]

Then things have changed a lot since I attended Bandera Street Baptist church, or Market Street Baptist, or several others that my mother dragged us to. Occasionally a "missionary" would come by and show us some slides and we would pass the plate, but there were no soup kitchens, no helping the homeless, etc.
Of course, that was the late 50's and early 60's.....we must have had less unemployment back then....

i think you are confusing missionary work with charitable giving. every church i've been involved with gives time, money, and people to soup kitches, womens' shelters, and so forth. Every youth group I was ever in or have seen does mission trips; going everywhere from the Appalachia area to Honduras. my church back in Alabama in particular was noted for providing school supplies for local underpriviledged children, and had sent over 40 teams at one point or another to help with the effort post-Hurricane Katrina. My new church here in North Carolina does more soup kitchen work, but lately we've been focusing on gathering up non-perishable food items and shoes for Haiti victims. Just last Sunday I walked barefoot around all morning because we all left our shoes at the altar. :shrug:

 

[Glinda]

It is not incumbent upon me to make **** up. Which is what I'd be doing if I came up with a logistical plan for anything. Since, well... that's not my ****ing job.

It's clear you're quite upset, rat. I'm simply asking for more details about this "welfare employment department" idea – how it would actually be coordinated and implemented and funded in the real world - and/or the details for the programs that you claim already exist and function rather well.

Ask the states and counties that have already implemented such programs.

Once again, in debate, if you are called on your assertion that "states and counties have already implemented such programs," and cannot/will not provide anything to back it up, we have no choice but to believe you're making it up. :shrug:

Really? Trying to educate me on how to use Google? Give me a ****ing break. I just needed to remember the gov's name or the name of the state. Other searches did not produce results since MANY states have "welfare to work" programs.

Again, I'm just looking for more information about this "welfare employment department" program, which you claim exists in at least a few states and counties. If you can point me to them, I'd appreciate it.

You have offered documentation about a program in Wisconsin that had a caseload in 2001 of fewer than 6,700 families, a reduction of 80% since the program started. Unfortunately, according to a May 2003 report, this program costs FAR more than Wisconsin's previous, "traditional" welfare program did.

MILWAUKEE (AP) – Wisconsin's welfare-to-work program and its related services are expected to cost $276.9 million more this year than the program they replaced, even though the number of families receiving state cash assistance has been cut by more than half since the effort began nearly six years ago, a legislative report shows.

Part of the reason for the increase in the cost of Wisconsin Works is the fact that the state is spending significantly more on child care - nearly five times more than in the last year of the old welfare entitlement program. –- Welfare-to-work more expensive than old program

So, while this program does have a component requiring welfare recipients to work or attend school in order to receive benefits, it's not viable on a financial level. The question then becomes, what is your main stance regarding unemployment benefits for the needy? Is it wanting to make welfare recipients "earn" the help they get, or are you more interested in reducing federal and state welfare program costs so that more people can be helped? I strongly suspect it's the former.

You said there were hurdles. I said there weren't. And there aren't. Filling out paperwork isn't a ****ing hurdle.

I stated that one must clear hurdles to qualify for the program, and provided proof that such hurdles prevent fully two-thirds of the 15 million unemployed to be accepted into the program. TWO-THIRDS. So yes, one must clear hurdles just to qualify.

I conceded nothing. I said there were no hurdles or hoops. And there aren't.

I can only assume that you're confused. When 10 million unemployed people are not eligible for the program, it is obvious there are hurdles that most people cannot clear.

They haven't worked enough hours. What would call someone who hasn't worked enough hours to even qualify for ****ing unemployment? I'd call them chronically unemployed. Though, I guess they could be chronically low-employed. Regardless, not my problem.

I'm not sure why you think it would be your problem. Did you get the impression I was blaming you for the 15 million who are unable to find permanent, full-time employment? I assure you, I wasn't. I merely explained that the huge majority of part-time and temporary workers do not qualify because they haven't worked enough hours. I explained how some employers "game the system," too; they lay people off just short of the required number of hours so they don't end up paying for it. I also explained why those who are self-employed or contract workers generally do not qualify.

I would not define these people as "chronically unemployed," but rather temporarily un-/under-employed, which is a direct result of our failing economy and massive job layoffs over the course of the last 15 months or so.

You clearly blame the unemployed for being unemployed. I think you have a very simplistic view of things, and little understanding of what has brought our nation to this point. Your "solutions" are equally simplistic and vague, and you refuse to expound upon them, so all you are offering here is a miserable noise-to-content ratio.

YEs, people DO game the system. BY LYING ON THEIR FORMS. Which I most certainly DID mention, more than once.

You originally claimed they "gamed the system," but offered no information as to how that might be accomplished.

Yeah, in maybe two years. If they don't game the system to buy more time, and please don't sit there and try to claim they can't do that. Because they DO.

I gave my guesstimate as to how many might be "gaming the system to buy more time," and asked if you had any documentation to prove your assertion that some significant number of people are somehow cheating to obtain more benefits. Your response was to claim that people were "gaming the system" by applying for an extension of benefits, and that everyone currently receiving benefits is qualified for such an extension.

Documentation? It's called continuation of benefits. You can apply for said continuation at the end of your benefit period. It's an option available to everyone ON said benefits.

The problem is, the federal government approved an extension of benefits, and not everyone qualifies for said extension. Those who do qualify can apply legally, and without subterfuge. This isn't "gaming the system." Nor is it "lying on their forms" (a phrase you didn't bring up till well after your "gaming the system" assertion, which was soundly debunked).

You're right, it doesn't. Which is why I was confused when you brought it [training] up to begin with. Obviously the full amount of people on welfare or unemployment wouldn't need training, so I'm not sure why you'd imply that they would. Hence my confusion and my pointing out to you, repeatedly, that not everyone would need training.

Well, you really are confused, because I didn't bring it up. You did. As a bizarro response to my stating the number of unemployed in the country. Maybe you should reread this thread...

You're right. I don't have any understanding of the 'dearth' of work. That's not been my experience. Quite the opposite. Do a search on Monster or Dice, or any other employment website and you'll see 10s - 100s of thousands of jobs listed on each one.

A few hundred thousand jobs for 15 million unemployed. It's patently obvious there aren't enough jobs for all these people, hence "dearth." There's no other way to call it.

All of the liberal notions and ideas prove it [i.e. liberals believe "that the government should just hand everything to anyone who asks"].

Your odd anger and obvious disdain regarding our public assistance programs, coupled with the above foolishness about liberals, tells me all I need to know about you.

Good day.

 

[rivrrat]

Your odd anger and obvious disdain regarding our public assistance programs, coupled with the above foolishness about liberals, tells me all I need to know about you.

Good day.

LMFAO There's no anger here, sweetie. Frustration at times with people who keep their head in the sand, but anger? Waste of ****ing energy.

But you have a good day too!

 

[liblady]

uh-huh.....what if they needed an ambulance? seriously.

 

[Pampalone]

Do they deserve an ambulance?

 

[Goobieman]

I dont want to compare poor Americans to poor Africans, that would be silly, but what does a poor American need to be apart of american society?

Be they the socalled working poor with 2 or 3 jobs or people living on welfare, they all have needs. How much is society responsible for?

None.
You have the right to life, liberty, property, and self-determination.
YOU, and you alone, are responsible for providing the means necessary to exercise these rights.

 

[Goobieman]

If you want to turn America into South Africa, then please say so. Its called survival of the fittest!

Only since the end of Apartheid. Go figure.

 

[Goobieman]

They need as little help as possible. When you give people free stuff, they tend to get lazy. When you tell them "Oh you're poor, you cannot make it without our help" people tend to stagnant into helpless dependancy.

As evidenced by the abudnace of multi-generational welfare recipients.

Better to teach a man to fish as giving him a fish means he'll just be back tomrrow.