Require them to work 20 hours per week, take state job-training course, or volunteer 6 hours per week.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/pol...ef=us&_r=1

Applied to able bodied adults without dependents only, after an initial 3 month benefit period. Apparently 6 hours volunteer work is unfair.

Extended benefits are being rolled back as the economy 'improves' and this is part of it in Maine.

(04-14-2015 09:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Require them to work 20 hours per week, take state job-training course, or volunteer 6 hours per week.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/pol...ef=us&_r=1

Applied to able bodied adults without dependents only, after an initial 3 month benefit period. Apparently 6 hours volunteer work is unfair.

Extended benefits are being rolled back as the economy 'improves' and this is part of it in Maine.

I see nothing wrong with that.

(04-14-2015 09:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Require them to work 20 hours per week, take state job-training course, or volunteer 6 hours per week.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/pol...ef=us&_r=1

Applied to able bodied adults without dependents only, after an initial 3 month benefit period. Apparently 6 hours volunteer work is unfair.

Extended benefits are being rolled back as the economy 'improves' and this is part of it in Maine.

I totally agree. If you need a hand we lend it, but it should be help not a way of life. There is value, life skills and self-esteem found in work that people miss out on if they are government dependents who are able bodied.

The 1996 federal law is fair. Restaurants, fast food, gas stations always looking for part time employees.
I think food pantries would be wise to incentivize their patrons to "work" or volunteer at the pantry, cooking,
cleaning whatever. Most people feel good about themselves when they are doing something useful.

(04-14-2015 09:57 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The 1996 federal law is fair. Restaurants, fast food, gas stations always looking for part time employees.
I think food pantries would be wise to incentivize their patrons to "work" or volunteer at the pantry, cooking,
cleaning whatever. Most people feel good about themselves when they are doing something useful.

Exactly. Work has intangible benefits — self esteem, work skills and life skills. If someone just receives money from the government they never appreciate the value of a dollar earned not the intangible benefits of work.

Able-bodied adults with no children who continuously live off the taxpayer dime......you get no empathy.

Get off your lazy asses and start working.

(04-14-2015 10:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Able-bodied adults with no children who continuously live off the taxpayer dime......you get no empathy.

Get off your lazy asses and start working.

Actually you could make an argument that even those with children could work as childcare co-ops could be set up employing those who have children as caregivers for other benefit recipients who work elsewhere.

(04-14-2015 10:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Able-bodied adults with no children who continuously live off the taxpayer dime......you get no empathy.

Get off your lazy asses and start working.

There was a time when folks like that would've starved. We should go back to that.

(04-14-2015 10:08 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Able-bodied adults with no children who continuously live off the taxpayer dime......you get no empathy.

Get off your lazy asses and start working.

Actually you could make an argument that even those with children could work as childcare co-ops could be set up employing those who have children as caregivers for other benefit recipients who work elsewhere.

You could, but I like that this applies to those without dependents. It gives bleeding hearts less to ***** about.

(04-14-2015 10:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Able-bodied adults with no children who continuously live off the taxpayer dime......you get no empathy.

Get off your lazy asses and start working.

There was a time when folks like that would've starved. We should go back to that.

Private charity is remarkably strong and well-funded in this country. People don't starve in the United States.

I support the volunteer portion, especially with the 3 month catch.

Hell, it should increase over time, the hours that must be worked.

Isnt this similar to Clinton's "workfare"?....which King Zed dismantled?

(04-14-2015 09:57 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The 1996 federal law is fair. Restaurants, fast food, gas stations always looking for part time employees.
I think food pantries would be wise to incentivize their patrons to "work" or volunteer at the pantry, cooking,
cleaning whatever. Most people feel good about themselves when they are doing something useful.

....there is nothing worse than 'downtime'.....the idle that lack incentive are not worthy of mine....

We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Trust me on this. If it costs money, you can bet the republicans will be all over it.

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Trust me on this. If it costs money, you can bet the republicans will be all over it.

What? lol

(04-14-2015 12:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Trust me on this. If it costs money, you can bet the republicans will be all over it.

What? lol

Most republicans care only about money. If it's costing them money, they will attempt to stop it.

(04-14-2015 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I support the volunteer portion, especially with the 3 month catch.

Hell, it should increase over time, the hours that must be worked.

they (people on welfare assistance) are basically in prison minus the shackling.....

why not get them off their fat arses?

oops, then one realizes they will squirt more out.....

this plan doesn't come close to what it should be......but that thinking is unrealistic in today's narcissism...

you have to stop the 'lack of incentive' train.....and it most certainly be a painful transition for some.....oh wellzy......wow, nobody has ever suffered since the history of mankind.....wtfe

I don't understand why people don't get the relationship how this country has transitioned from industrial to service - and the relationship of cause/effect....TOO MANY SPOILED ****** PEOPLE, people....

and the hierarchy of the idocracy wonders why......

(04-14-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Trust me on this. If it costs money, you can bet the republicans will be all over it.

What? lol

Most republicans care only about money. If it's costing them money, they will attempt to stop it.

You do realize that Democrats also have billionaire donors that fund their campaigns, right?
You do realize that most Democrats in Congress are rich, right?
You do realize that money is finite, right? You can't just egregiously spend and spend without any strings attached. When you do, you end up 18 trillion dollars in debt.

As soon as you realize they are ALL about money, you'll stop being such a partisan, rhetorical talking head.

(04-14-2015 12:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We should also be concerned about the cost effectiveness of these programs, and remember that their purpose is to provide aid. Each government employee checking on the work/volunteer hours of each food stamp recipient is taking money from the intended purpose and spending it on oversight.

If it's cost effective and we can provide reasonable opportunities for people throughout the nation, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. It's just that those last two issues are usually ignored.

Maine reduced able bodied food stampers by 80%, nobody starved to death.