• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What conditions would place on receiving government assistance?

What conditions for government assistance/welfare?


  • Total voters
    19

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,510
Reaction score
13,737
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was thinking about some of the changes I would like to see to welfare programs that I think would cut down on abuse and hopefully encourage more people to find work and/or better themselves and their lives to get off of welfare altogether eventually.

I would love to see everyone applying for welfare to either have a full-time job or be looking for full-time work. I do understand that there aren't necessarily enough jobs out there, especially now, to actually employ everyone, so I would suggest so many hours of school and/or approved community service be sufficient to make up for not finding a job.

I like the idea of making foodstamps a program more like WIC that greatly restricts what can and cannot be bought. I believe that this would work best to cut down on waste and possibly help poorer people eat better. I don't know if it would actually cut costs however. This would definitely take some research before it could be completely implemented, but the idea is still worth trying.

And I am for random drug testing and highly encouraged, if not mandatory, birth control. I don't think people should get more actual public money for having more children. If all the other things are implemented, it wouldn't actually be needed. Although it might be a good idea to figure out some way to help with getting baby needs so that the money can't be spent on other things.

I believe that anyone who doesn't put forth the effort to improve their lives and situation, should not ride on the shirttails of others. I do approve of welfare, in general, just not the way that it is currently done. There are way too many areas for abuse from what I've seen.

Maybe some people have some other suggestions and I'm sure there will be people who don't approve of at least one, if not several of my suggestions. That's what the discussion's for.
 

Kal'Stang

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,568
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was thinking about some of the changes I would like to see to welfare programs that I think would cut down on abuse and hopefully encourage more people to find work and/or better themselves and their lives to get off of welfare altogether eventually.
If they don't have a job then require them to go to a job placement agency. Community service required for 1 week for every 1 month without a job. I say 1 week because they should be looking for a job and if all they do is community service then they won't have time to look for a job.

I like the idea of making foodstamps a program more like WIC that greatly restricts what can and cannot be bought. I believe that this would work best to cut down on waste and possibly help poorer people eat better. I don't know if it would actually cut costs however. This would definitely take some research before it could be completely implemented, but the idea is still worth trying.
No thanks. Just because people are poor gives us no right to tell them what they can and cannot eat. Make em work doing community service fine. But don't tell people what they can/cannot do.

And I am for random drug testing and highly encouraged, if not mandatory, birth control. I don't think people should get more actual public money for having more children. If all the other things are implemented, it wouldn't actually be needed. Although it might be a good idea to figure out some way to help with getting baby needs so that the money can't be spent on other things.
Drug testing, sure. Mandatory birth control? HELL NO. First, accidents happen no matter how careful a person is having sex. Second, I don't care what kind of assistance they are getting from the government or anyone else for that matter NO ONE has the right to force someone into trying not to have a baby. I don't care what the circumstances are. And to be honest even suggesting it is highly offensive...and I'm being nice.

I believe that anyone who doesn't put forth the effort to improve their lives and situation, should not ride on the shirttails of others. I do approve of welfare, in general, just not the way that it is currently done. There are way too many areas for abuse from what I've seen.
Abuse is able to be done because of incorrect or lax policies or case workers just not giving a ****. Fix those and you'll find that abuse will be curtailed alot.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,621
Reaction score
27,853
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm thinking that government assistance should be in the form of material rather than money. Or maybe it should be accomplished through a job, such as in a restaurant where the recipient is trained in the preparation of meals. They can take these skills home to benefit their families. Another job could be related to home maintenance where they work for a company and are trained on the job these basic skills which they can use to maintain their own residence.

Something along those lines.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Welfare should be limited to 3 years, during which time, a recipient who is in decent health ought to be required to attend school to learn a trade and do some form of work, even if it's picking up trash along the freeway. When welfare runs out, it runs out and cannot be re-applied for for at least 5 years. At the time you apply, whatever children you have at the time (plus any you discover in the following 2 months, to account for unknown pregnancies) are all that will be figured into your award. If you have any more thereafter, you will not get a penny more. Government sponsored birth control will be available for those who wish to make use of it, but under all circumstances, what you've got is all you're getting credit for. Random drug testing is also important, as well as knowing exactly where the money is being spent and on what. No vacations, no trips, no nothing. If you can afford a vacation, you don't need welfare. Get a damn job.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm thinking that government assistance should be in the form of material rather than money. Or maybe it should be accomplished through a job, such as in a restaurant where the recipient is trained in the preparation of meals. They can take these skills home to benefit their families. Another job could be related to home maintenance where they work for a company and are trained on the job these basic skills which they can use to maintain their own residence.

Something along those lines.
I think the general principal of any sort of welfare is that the people should leave the system better than they came into it. Job training is one way to do that.
 

VaiT

Banned
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
None, as in no government assistance. Life's tough. Suck it up. Gov't isn't supposed to be mommy and daddy.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Time limits

yes

Must look for work/better work

Yes. Government assistance like wellfare and foodstamps is a helping hand not a hand out.

School/community service substitute

maybe a week once a month.

Random drug testing

Of course. If you can't support a family on your own then you have no business engaging in recreational drugs and this includes smoking and alcohol.

Mandatory/highly encouraged birth control

Makes complete sense. If you can not support the kids you already have on your own then you have no business having any more.


No extra monetary amounts for more children

I agree. This is to ensure that no one can exploit the system.

Food stamp limits (what bought, how much given)

Certain foods should be off limit especially luxury items like soda, koolaid, energy drinks, doughnuts, candy, cakes and etc. If someone on foodstamps wants those things then they can make them from scratch. I also think expensive cuts of meat, seafood and other high dollar food items should be banned as well. Food stamps are a helping hand not a hand out, that is my money they are spending.


WIC-like food stamps

That would probably be a much better idea than just foodstamps of foodstamp cards.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
25,484
Reaction score
6,304
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have always thought that the spirit of the unemployment/welfare idea(s) was to help someone stay alive until they could get back on their feet and support themselves.

As opposed to what I think is far too often (as in, at all) just supporting people who don't even bother to try getting back on their feet.

It doesn't help that the cheapest foods are often the most unhealthy.
As for the poll options, I went with:
Time limits.
Yes.
Must look for work/better work
Yes.
School/community service substitute
Yes.
Random drug testing
Yes.
Mandatory/highly encouraged birth control.
Didn't vote for it, but that's because I managed to miss the "highly encouraged" bit.
No extra monetary amounts for more children.
Yes. Especially if they opt not to use the highly encouraged birth control.
Food stamp limits (what bought, how much given).
Yes, see below.
WIC-like food stamps
Not sure what that is, exactly. If it's an attempt to regulate what people eat, I would rather it incentivizes better food choices, perhaps by assigning a slightly higher food stamp cost to foods that are blatantly unhealthy, but not restricting people.
System is fine the way it is.
Hell no.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,510
Reaction score
13,737
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If they don't have a job then require them to go to a job placement agency. Community service required for 1 week for every 1 month without a job. I say 1 week because they should be looking for a job and if all they do is community service then they won't have time to look for a job.



No thanks. Just because people are poor gives us no right to tell them what they can and cannot eat. Make em work doing community service fine. But don't tell people what they can/cannot do.



Drug testing, sure. Mandatory birth control? HELL NO. First, accidents happen no matter how careful a person is having sex. Second, I don't care what kind of assistance they are getting from the government or anyone else for that matter NO ONE has the right to force someone into trying not to have a baby. I don't care what the circumstances are. And to be honest even suggesting it is highly offensive...and I'm being nice.



Abuse is able to be done because of incorrect or lax policies or case workers just not giving a ****. Fix those and you'll find that abuse will be curtailed alot.
I don't think it wrong to encourage people to go on birth control. I understand that it would be pretty impossible to actually get a mandatory BC deal passed, just for the very fact that not everyone can be on birth control. Highly encouraged bc though, along with not providing any extra money for extra children encourages those on assistance to actually care about what is best for their financial future, and would help to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, either of which would be an unnecessary extra expense for someone/a family who is already having financial troubles. Most states offer free birth control to women on any form of assistance. And many health departments will give you free condoms at visits.

I don't see a problem whatsoever with restricting what someone can buy using other people's money. If those on assistance want snacks and sodas and other luxuries, they can get them with money they earn, otherwise they can deal with what the government gives them. Beggars can't be choosers.
 

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you're not looking for work and you're able to work then why do you deserve money? And to make sure that you are really wanting to work, then you should have to have a job or doing community service to be eligible.
 

Gipper

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I voted for every last one of them.

There should definitely be a time limit - I'd say six months is plenty of time.

As far as work/school/community service I voted yes as a conglomerate. You must be doing at least one of those full time, all the time. I consider community service akin to work because you're still trading a service for goods. That's the staple definition of any job, really.

Absolute mandatory drug testing. If you're on the dole, you shouldn't be on drugs and, frankly, you shouldn't be able to afford drugs. One strike and you're out on this - all random, and the first fail means the checks stop immediately and permanently.

Birth control should also be mandatory. Today, poverty just breeds more poverty, and it's irresponsible for taxpayers to subsidize bad decisions like a woman bringing a child into the world she can't afford, specifically when she cannot afford even herself.

Children should not increase the threshold, because women would be encouraged to go get knocked up for a larger check. They don't see their children as children, just another dollar sign on the welfare check.

Finally, a WIC-like system very well regulated. A woman doesn't need to be feeding herself or kids on junk food, soda, or anything but staples. Your financial footprint should be as light as possible.

I think of welfare like jail. You take away the frills, you take away the desire to milk it. I think if more people viewed prison as a Shawshank-like platform instead of a place you get hot meals, a roof and cable TV, you'd get fewer people trying to stay behind bars instead of tackling the real world like the rest of us.

If you make welfare a struggle to make ends, then you'd find more people encouraged to get off it. These days you have far, far too many people whose ultimate goal is to get on assistance and drain it for every dime they can get. When that cycle ends, only then can you fix the problem.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think of welfare like jail. You take away the frills, you take away the desire to milk it. I think if more people viewed prison as a Shawshank-like platform instead of a place you get hot meals, a roof and cable TV, you'd get fewer people trying to stay behind bars instead of tackling the real world like the rest of us.

If you make welfare a struggle to make ends, then you'd find more people encouraged to get off it. These days you have far, far too many people whose ultimate goal is to get on assistance and drain it for every dime they can get. When that cycle ends, only then can you fix the problem.

agreed, the current welfare system does nothing to encourage people to leave the system. I remember back to the days when I was struggling to support my family and finish my degree, I knew people on welfare that had a much higher standard of living than I did.
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
agreed, the current welfare system does nothing to encourage people to leave the system. I remember back to the days when I was struggling to support my family and finish my degree, I knew people on welfare that had a much higher standard of living than I did.
really? just where did you live?
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I would replace 'random drug testing' with 'mandatory drug testing'.
I would also add a national criminal background check for outstanding warrants.
Failure of either means denial of benefits.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
really? just where did you live?
north alabama. I was working construction for $6/hr and taking 21 hours a semester, living in a ****ty 2 bedroom apartment and eating beans and rice 3-4 days a week. I knew people on welfare that were living in section 8 housing with 3 bedrooms, getting $250-300/month in food stamps and sitting on their ass all day doing nothing.

I went in and applied for foodstamps and was told I would have to sell my car (a '64 volkswagon) to qualify since the car was an "asset". When I asked them how I would get to work if I sold my car, they looked at me like I was crazy.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would replace 'random drug testing' with 'mandatory drug testing'.
I would also add a national criminal background check for outstanding warrants.
Failure of either means denial of benefits.

good idea, when they come in to pick up the check, they pee in a cup.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I voted foodstamp limits and must be looking for work. The other stuff is none of the government's business and people should not become slaves to privacy invasions in order to get assistance. If you are an ailing drug addict, for example, then that is going to make it hard to find work, and so that will be demonstrated anyway. If you are on drugs but can still find work then I say who cares. Job performance is not relevant to that.

Controlling people's reproduction is not an option. The government is openly offering positive incentives and baby bonuses right now; that is different than calculating someone's entitlement based on how many children they have. One is reproductive policy (and it's wrong), and the other is simply accounting.

Community service... well, on paper it's nice, but volunteering would make finding paying work the opportunity cost, and would increase reliance on government even more.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
north alabama. I was working construction for $6/hr and taking 21 hours a semester, living in a ****ty 2 bedroom apartment and eating beans and rice 3-4 days a week. I knew people on welfare that were living in section 8 housing with 3 bedrooms, getting $250-300/month in food stamps and sitting on their ass all day doing nothing.

I went in and applied for foodstamps and was told I would have to sell my car (a '64 volkswagon) to qualify since the car was an "asset". When I asked them how I would get to work if I sold my car, they looked at me like I was crazy.
alabama used to have one of the stingiest welfare programs in the country, although i've never heard of having to sell your car to get foodstamps. i don't see how anybody had any kind of standard of living way back then....the benefits were incredibly low.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
alabama used to have one of the stingiest welfare programs in the country, although i've never heard of having to sell your car to get foodstamps. i don't see how anybody had any kind of standard of living way back then....the benefits were incredibly low.
I was suprised as well. but the way they explained it to me was that in order to qualify for food stamps you could not have any real property assets and since I owned my car outright it was considered an asset that I could sell for cash to buy food. even though it was over 20 years old and worth about $500. but yet some POS making payments on a cadilac could get food stamps because they didn't "own" the car.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was suprised as well. but the way they explained it to me was that in order to qualify for food stamps you could not have any real property assets and since I owned my car outright it was considered an asset that I could sell for cash to buy food. even though it was over 20 years old and worth about $500. but yet some POS making payments on a cadilac could get food stamps because they didn't "own" the car.
Doe that mean you'd also have to sell your house if you were paying a mortgage on one?

With cars... that doesn't really make sense. Just because you own a car doesn't mean you have the money to insure it, or buy gas for it. It could be rotting in your garage (if you even have a garage) for all they know. And having a car can increase employment opportunities. I just don't understand that.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
50,956
Reaction score
33,165
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No one should get government assistance free for nothing, nor should welfare recipients be encouraged to have more children by paying them more for reproduction. If a person is healthy and of at least normal intelligence, then they need to be improving job skills and/or looking for work. If they are not employable in a regular job, then they need to be doing community service work of some kind.

So, how would we enforce all of those shoulds? Would we simply allow people who refuse to comply to starve?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Doe that mean you'd also have to sell your house if you were paying a mortgage on one?
no because you don't "own" it...the bank does.

With cars... that doesn't really make sense. Just because you own a car doesn't mean you have the money to insure it, or buy gas for it. It could be rotting in your garage (if you even have a garage) for all they know. And having a car can increase employment opportunities. I just don't understand that.

neither did I, maybe they were just giving me a hard time because I was a white guy. probably should've sent my wife down to apply and had her carry the kids with her.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, how would we enforce all of those shoulds? Would we simply allow people who refuse to comply to starve?
if they are too stupid or lazy to comply then yes. darwinism in action.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
if they are too stupid or lazy to comply then yes. darwinism in action.
um....able minded and bodied people without children don't get welfare........or are you forgetting that?
 
Top Bottom