Can we pursue capitalism____

[Robert]

Quote:

Well, as you say, the system ain't perfect....You have no choice in the matter unless you wish to stop paying taxes.....

That isn't entirely accurate.

Your post didn't address taxes....Again, if you don't like the fact folks are getting help and shouldn't, stop paying taxes.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Your post didn't address taxes....Again, if you don't like the fact folks are getting help and shouldn't, stop paying taxes.

Really didn't think for most reasonable people taxes had to be addressed. As most cannot opt out of taxes it seemed like a rather silly baseless point.

[bonnie]

United States

Main article: American welfare state

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor.[8] By the 1960s, as whites moved to the suburbs, the city was having trouble making the payments and attempted to purge the rolls of those who were committing welfare fraud.[8] Twenty individuals who had been denied welfare sued in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court, Goldberg v. Kelly. The Court ruled that those suspected of committing welfare fraud must receive individual hearings before being denied welfare.[8] David Frum considers this ruling to be a milestone leading to the city's 1975 budget disaster.[8]

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.[9] This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers,and federal and state housing benefits.[9] In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%.[9] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.[10] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[11]

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs."[12] Prior to reform, states were given "limitless"[12] money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.[13] This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).[14] One child in seven nationwide received AFDC funds,[13] which mostly went to able-bodied single mothers.[11]

After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[11] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[14] The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).[13] It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance.[11][13][15] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[15] The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[13]

Millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[15] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[11] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[15] The reforms were "widely applauded"[16] after "bitter protest."[11] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[17] Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the reason for the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls in the United States in the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient.

Aspects of the program vary in different states; Michigan, for example, requires a month in a job search program before benefits can begin.[11]

The National Review editorialized that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s and again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[14] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.[17] The House bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states' welfare caseloads.[13] Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the block grant on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.[12]

[bonnie]

Millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[15] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[11] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[15] The reforms were "widely applauded"[16] after "bitter protest."[11] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[17] Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the reason for the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls in the United States in the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient.

[bonnie]

Goals of workfare

The purported main goal of workfare is to generate a "net contribution" to society from welfare recipients. Most commonly, this means getting unemployed people into paid work, reducing or eliminating welfare payments to them and creating an income that generates taxes. Furthermore, it is argued that once a person has recent employment experience, even at entry level, they are better able to obtain gainful, long term employment. Welfare to work programs aim to break the cycle of poverty where welfare dependence can become a way of life.[1][2] Workfare participants retain certain employee rights throughout the process. [3]

Some workfare systems also aim to derive contribution from welfare recipients by more direct means. These systems obligate unemployed people to undertake work that is beneficial to their community. The rationale behind these programs is twofold; Firstly, taxpayers may feel that they get "more value for their welfare dollar" when they observe welfare recipients working for benefits, making such programs more politically popular. Secondly, putting unemployed people into a workplace-like environment attempts to address the argument that one of the biggest barriers to employment for the long-term unemployed is their lack of recent workforce experience.

[bonnie]

Seems a lot of cold hearted people that expect some personal responsibility will be in that special place in hell.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine

Even you Shane would have a tough time claiming Time magazine is conservative or speaking for Rush or the Heritage Foundation.

How odd that there are even those cold hearted democrats that actually think people should be made to be part of the work force. My goodness ,they are not offering to support her if she marries. She even has to work 40 hours a week just like the common folks. When the states do not get more money the more they sign up a little financial reality has hit

For five years Maria Unzueta's sole source of income was a monthly welfare check. Separated from her husband, the San Diego mother of four made do on benefits totaling $7,920 a year. But now Unzueta, 39, is part of a local job- training program for welfare recipients in which she works 40 hours a week as a hospital file clerk and makes roughly the same amount of money she was getting on the dole. Under the workfare program, she still receives child- care benefits worth about $130 a month, but she hopes to be completely self- sufficient soon. "For me it's important to try and make it on my own," says Unzueta, "and provide an example for my children."

Requiring welfare recipients to work for their checks is not a new concept. Nor are the programs, which usually affect poor mothers with children to raise, as simple in practice as they are in theory. But workfare, which has slowly evolved from a somewhat cranky conservative notion to one with broad support, seems to be an idea whose time has come. Able-bodied welfare beneficiaries must accept occupational training and jobs in more than 20 states, and the number is growing.

In Washington, legislators are mired in trying to find ways to cut spending in accordance with the Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction bill (see Essay). Confronted with severe cutbacks in revenue sharing, states are searching for innovative ways to make their social programs more effective. Workfare could prove to be an important example for future experiments.

The idea has enjoyed an unusual bipartisan harmony: in statehouses around the country, Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to support legislation that combines the job programs traditionally favored by liberals with efforts to pare the welfare rolls advocated by conservatives. Jo Anne Ross, a Reagan appointee at the Social Security Administration, describes workfare as the "top priority of the Department of Health and Human Services." Says Joseph Califano, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare during the Carter Administration: "If the kids are in school, then the mother can be working. Nearly everyone accepts that concept now."

Welfare has been a political battleground since federally financed public assistance was made law under the Social Security Act of 1935. Traditionally, conservatives have viewed welfare programs as handouts to the poor and an | insult to the American work ethic. Liberals generally have considered it compassionate compensation for victims of economic and social circumstances beyond their control. But with the startling growth in the number of children being born to unwed mothers from the underclass, many of welfare's long- standing supporters have begun to question whether Aid to Families with Dependent Children programs may be exacerbating the problems they were designed to alleviate. Even some civil rights leaders and welfare recipients in the nation's inner cities are criticizing the system for helping perpetuate dependency from one disadvantaged generation to the next and for unintentionally encouraging the breakdown of the underclass's family structure.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960554,00.html#ixzz0YpjJtXu1

[Robert]

Quote:

Your post didn't address taxes....Again, if you don't like the fact folks are getting help and shouldn't, stop paying taxes.

Really didn't think for most reasonable people taxes had to be addressed. As most cannot opt out of taxes it seemed like a rather silly baseless point.

Then don't gripe about welfare....If you wish to really protest stop paying taxes!

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Quote:

Your post didn't address taxes....Again, if you don't like the fact folks are getting help and shouldn't, stop paying taxes.

Really didn't think for most reasonable people taxes had to be addressed. As most cannot opt out of taxes it seemed like a rather silly baseless point.

Then don't gripe about welfare....If you wish to really protest stop paying taxes!

Maybe this is difficult for you,I don't know. For the largest portion of taxpayers there is no way to opt out of taxes. If you quit work to avoid taxes you will find yourself in the position of being on welfare.

But all that aside show me where it is written that I must first ask your permission to not like welfare as it is. Or what position it is you hold that you believe gives you that right to direct what someone else may say.

One of the great things still about this country is you are not forced to read anything you don't want to. Especially in this forum where you have to specifically request the right to read and respond

[bonnie]

http://www.life123.com/career-money/insurance/welfare/welfare-vs-workfare.shtml.

What terrible people they actually think something should be required by the welfare recipient

Welfare vs Workfare

Contrasting social welfare models of welfare vs. workfare is one way to examine the different views on need-based care for individuals and families in the United States. Welfare is a system of assistance that requires nothing or very little back from the recipient. Workfare is tied more into work, whether through training or direct employment. The idea behind workfare is that the recipient of the social benefits directly contributes the same to the state in either time or taxes.

Benefits

Many taxpayers see that the idea of millions dependent on welfare alone is extremely draining on the economy and on particular areas of the federal government. Workfare would require able-bodied qualifying applicants to do work or attend training for a new career. Statistics back up the fact that many people who start on public assistance see an average of 11 years on welfare. With workfare, the applicant can return to school, get a degree or learn a trade, which may shorten the time the applicant spends on welfare.

Controversy

Among the controversies surrounding welfare vs. workfare is the idea that participants will be employed in only menial, low-paying jobs, creating a lower class of worker surrounded by stigma and stereotypes. Another reason that opponents do not like workfare programs is that it assumes that every applicant is an abuser of the welfare system until proven otherwise. Other complaints about a workfare program include mandatory training in career areas that may not meet what vacancies are in the area at that time.

Welfare Reform

Welfare reform is a high priority whether you support welfare vs. workfare. While there are numerous stories of people abusing the system and “welfare mothers” who have children so their benefits will increase, supporters of the traditional welfare system believe that the welfare system can be improved in other ways without resorting to a full workfare system.

Workfare Today

Several states require some kind of workfare already from eligible welfare recipients. These active models are being studied by other developers and leaders to determine whether or not these statewide models can be adapted into federal policy or at least provide templates for further analysis and improvement.

[size:14pt]

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Then don't gripe about welfare....If you wish to really protest stop paying taxes! [/quote']

Maybe this is difficult for you,I don't know. For the largest portion of taxpayers there is no way to opt out of taxes.

It's easy...stop paying taxes. Continue to work, just don't pay taxes....Work under the table....

[bonnie]

Quote:

It's easy...stop paying taxes. Continue to work, just don't pay taxes....Work under the table....

Maybe you speak from experience but I would rather not break the law. Seems to be that isn't to honest but maybe to some that doesn't matter.

Rather than me being dishonest I would simply like to see people doing the best with what they are given. Much prefer children grow up in a little more wholesome atmosphere than on continued welfare.

Have had to many foster children from welfare parents to want to see any child grow up like that.

Those that do there best are often not given the help that those that do the least are. I would like to see that change.

I will leave working under the table to others

[Robert]

Quote:

It's easy...stop paying taxes. Continue to work, just don't pay taxes....Work under the table....

Maybe you speak from experience but I would rather not break the law.

But...according to you...it's immoral for folks to get a free ride through welfare. You must stand up for principle and do the right thing! Stop paying taxes....Tell your government that God's laws (according to your view) are higher than man's laws...

[bonnie]

You and Shane continue to respond as if it has been said there shouldn't be any welfare assistance and children should go hungry.That isn't the case. The statements seem to indicate unless it is pen ended welfare without any restrictions it is somehow unchristian.

I don't believe that and I don't believe that is what God meant with the text of "harming children"

I think children are far more harmed by the conduct of their non-responsible parents.

Continued handouts without expectations and restrictions are not good for anyone.

I have seen many children that have all their wishes granted without effort and expectations of them.They often do not end up any better off than children forced to live on welfare their growing up years.

Many times we were told by others they thought we were to hard on our own children. They learned early that they had responsibilities within the family. There was never a question in their minds that life was not a free ride.

I am sure ours was not the only way but out of four sons they all obtained their college education and paid their own way.We did not deal with drugs,alcohol,unwed fathers or any delinquent behavior,while some of those telling us how wrong we were did and still are to this day.

I would not do it differently or want to be in the shoes of those that did not require anything from their children. I have seen a lot of heartbreak for them and do not envy them.

I do not see forced taking of money from others to give to another group as christian on my part.

I am responsible for doing what I can in the most responsible way possible,separate from forced giving.

I am not responsible for what you may not do,or if you believe taxes take care of your christian responsibility.

I don't care how well you live while others around you are going without. The children you could help and don't is not something I have any influence over

All of the personal judgments you and Shane take the privilege of leveling really means nothing.

I know what I should be willing to do,I know that the entitlement mentality is not good for any child or adult.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that God has not given either you or Shane the responsibility here on earth to condemn those not subscribing to your specific viewpoint of year after year on welfare.

Those that cannot help themselves need to be taken care of without resentment or refusal. A hand up for those that need the extra push and aid temporarily.

A continued hand out and not having to do anything to help themselves breeds contempt. Along with the knowledge it is their right to have what others work for with little appreciation or value placed on the opportunities available to them

[bonnie]

Quote:

But...according to you...it's immoral for folks to get a free ride through welfare. You must stand up for principle and do the right thing! Stop paying taxes....Tell your government that God's laws (according to your view) are higher than man's laws...

It will be interesting to see just how foolish this can get.Doesn't matter what I tell the government.When taxes are taken out of most salaries before the employee sees his check he cannot refuse to pay.He refuses to work he may not eat.

With your extremism explain something to me if you can.

I have not said anywhere that there should not be a safety net,or that all help should be denied for those in need,that children should go hungary what is your big gripe? I have not said what you are trying to make a case for.

Is it

The fact I believe those on welfare that have access to job training or education should be made to take that as part of their responsibility?

Maybe the fact that there should not be musical beds with a variety of men while the federal government provides the housing?

That young unwed mothers should have to enroll in nutrition and parenting classes?

Fathers support their children or go to jail where they will be charged room and board. Hopefully in the future it will go thru these men are forced into a work program where they are forced to turn over their pay.

It is a problem tho as many young girls claim not to know the father of the child,many times he comes and goes in the home.

That five years is time enough for a 4 year degree benefit of free grants and loans at almost zero interest.

Failures will always happen but birth control for all unwed mothers so as not to have another child to support

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know of anyone that has said welfare should be open-ended. No, not one. It should be based on a person's circumstances and not on an artificial time limit set by cold-hearted conservative think tanks awaiting their reserved spot in the lake of fire. My dear, college friend would have never finished college if there had been a five year time limit on welfare when she got pregnant at age 16.

I believe substance abuse needs to be addressed. Treatment should be offered but after they have went through treatment if they continue they should lose public assistance and their children should be put into foster care or a group home (of course that is still public assistance for the children).

Some cold-hearted conservatives actually believe that the artificial time limit of five years is enough to get a college degree. Not true. It take some people one or two years just to get their GED. Some need to learn English before they can study for their GED or go to college.

Putting dead-beat fathers in jail is one of the worst ideas in the long history of bad ideas coming out of the cold-hearted conservative think tanks. A father in jail is going to learn how to be a crook. He is going to make friends with criminals and come out of jail ready to cheat, steal, lie and kill. Not much of an assets to society. The dead-beat dads need to have their wages garnished. 33% of their wages should garnished up to the point where they earn over 1.5% of the poverty rate. Then it should incrementally increase up to 50% until he reaches 2 times the poverty rate.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I don't know of anyone that has said welfare should be open-ended. No, not one. It should be based on a person's circumstances and not on an artificial time limit set by cold-hearted conservative think tanks awaiting their reserved spot in the lake of fire. My dear, college friend would have never finished college if there had been a five year time limit on welfare when she got pregnant at age 16.

By that time had she wanted it bad enough she would have.

Again we have Shane the righteous condemning others to hell for disagreeing with his lofty ideas.Not you job nor your privilege.

Quote:

I believe substance abuse needs to be addressed. Treatment should be offered but after they have went through treatment if they continue they should lose public assistance and their children should be put into foster care or a group home (of course that is still public assistance for the children).

Treatment is available for many. It isn't working. We don't take children away for substance abuse very easily.

A good foster home is the best thing that could happen to these children.

Quote:

Some cold-hearted conservatives actually believe that the artificial time limit of five years is enough to get a college degree. Not true. It take some people one or two years just to get their GED. Some need to learn English before they can study for their GED or go to college.

Most get a college degree in four years.Those not required to work and pay their own way should have the time if motivated. If not they just may have to work,God Forbid and go part time

The majority that we have been talking about are not immigrants. They are career welfare. Sometimes you even have to work while going to college. Took my son well over five years of a grueling schedule,part time while working a physically taxing job that most could not have done.Wonder who gets to go to hell for his hard times. Or was it somehow expected of him to do so without help. Maybe he didn't get as tired as others.

If you cannot do something with your life in five years maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Quote:

Putting dead-beat fathers in jail is one of the worst ideas in the long history of bad ideas coming out of the cold-hearted conservative think tanks. A father in jail is going to learn how to be a crook. He is going to make friends with criminals and come out of jail ready to cheat, steal, lie and kill. Not much of an assets to society. The dead-beat dads need to have their wages garnished. 33% of their wages should garnished up to the point where they earn over 1.5% of the poverty rate. Then it should incrementally increase up to 50% until he reaches 2 times the poverty rate.

He is not an assest to society before he goes in or he wouldn't be in there for failure to take care of his children.

Pretty hard to garnish a check that is not there,most are not working or simply quit.

They are trying to push thru forced work programs. Can't make them work while on welfare but hopefully in jail they can. Once convicted now in hennepin county they get to pay board and room for the privilege.

33% of nothing really doesn't buy much food.

I will leave you to your pompous condemning others to hell. Good to see the false non-judgmental liberal ideology is alive and well.

The right hand of God may get a little crowded

[bonnie]

Sounds like pretty good advice from someone I believe knows a bit more than Shane.

Maybee this does not apply to all tho

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 (New International Version)

Warning Against Idleness

6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

[Dr. Shane]

Treatment is available for many. It isn't working.

[Dr. Shane]

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Notice the word "man". Paul is not talking about widows or single mothers. Paul says "man". That means a male. Indeed, a man needs to work. Women that are left behind by dead-beat dads need help.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Wrong. It does work. What it doesn't do is force the will. For those that want to quit, treatment provides a way out. For those that don't want to quit, there is nothing that will work.

Yes,the dirty little word there is if they want to. If the numbers in treatment wanted to quit there would be a lot less addicts

Quote:

It becomes a matter of economics. We take away their public assistance because of their substance abuse. If they cannot support their children without public assistance, then we put their children in foster care.

It is not economics that prevents the removal of children. Foster care is no more expensive than supporting a family on welfare. Less expensive for the children not forced to live like that.It takes quite a few incidences to remove children from their home in MN.

Quote:

When I went to college the average was five years - but that is from the time they start. The average person that starts collecting public assistance isn't ready to start college.

If it took you five years then hopefully you would have found a job and maybe took the last year part time.Like many that pay for the education of others do.

What is the difference between my son working a hard physical job 5-6 days a week,ten hours a day,going to class at night and taking online. He was one tired man. Yet his money helped put those thru that don't feel the same is required of them.

Tell me why this friend of yours that just could never have made it thru college in five years should be protected from working to take care of some of her own needs while her college was paid for.

Quote:

Putting non-violent criminals in jail is a bad idea.

The maybe you should support them to.After all many do not work and you would not want them going hungary or forced to work.How unchristian. Maybe they just need at least five years of welfare to get it together. Women are no better than men,they share 50% of the decision to have that child,let's do same with her. Let her get out and work and garnish her wages to repay what she takes

Pretty hard to garnish a check that is not there,most are not working or simply quit.

There is no perfect solution. Obviously we can't get blood out of a turnip.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Notice the word "man". Paul is not talking about widows or single mothers. Paul says "man". That means a male. Indeed, a man needs to work. Women that are left behind by dead-beat dads need help.

Okay,I have it. Women can help produce children but cannot help take care of them.

Having a child does not make a woman stupid or incapable. But again,no one said to leave them without help. That is what you like to imply and it has not been said.

There is really a novel idea.Birth control,it is freely given in the schools.Parents cannot prevent a child from getting it.

You can say what you want but girls in grade school know where babies come from and how they get here. High school girls have full access to prevention.

Maybe a little pre-pregnancy

A "no welfare unless you stay in school". You cannot take your child home without extensive nutrition and parenting classes.Financial education classes to make the wisest use of money and food stamps you are handed. Drug use and you will lose your children and any welfare subsidy.

Fair or not,like it or not the greater burden rests with the mother if she decides to keep her baby.She can''t walk away.

That still is no excuse for failure to work

[Dr. Shane]

That takes us back to substance abuse. Most girls that get pregnant out of wedlock are either drunk or high when they do.

Paul's mandate to work is for the father, not the mother. The man has an obligation to support his family. When we have a dead-beat dad, the rest of us men in society need to step up to the plate. It really does take a village.

[bonnie]

Quote:

That takes us back to substance abuse. Most girls that get pregnant out of wedlock are either drunk or high when they do.

Paul's mandate to work is for the father, not the mother. The man has an obligation to support his family. When we have a dead-beat dad, the rest of us men in society need to step up to the plate. It really does take a village.

Then why in the world do we pay for these women to go to college or job training? Let the fathers and the rest of the men pay for the children the women help bring into the world. Women should quit work and their husbands should follow Paul's mandate.That is of course as long as you believe Paul meant there was no responsibility for the women involved

Nor do I believe you that most girls are drunk or high when they get pregnant.

You can have all the villages you want raising your children.

I much preferred my husband and I raising the children we brought into the world. My children were not a group effort,nor brought into the world by a village effort

[bonnie]

I still would like you to clarify.

Why was it alright for my son to succeed without help from anyone. Work the killer hours he did and still go to school part time even tho it took him longer.

Why is it possible for the young woman in our neighborhood and be totally self supporting and put herself thru school.

Her parents turned their back on her.She refused welfare and is doing far better than anyone else I know of on welfare.

No special opportunities,no father in the picture,no special work skills,no higher intelligence.

At the very least those with assistance can work and gain a education,to bad if they get tired.Tired isn't a terminal illness

[Guest]

It really does take a village.

Sounds like Hillary is in the house.