Interesting article...

 

This Is What Happened When Maine Forced Welfare Recipients To Work For Their Benefits

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by rockmom

Interesting article...

 

This Is What Happened When Maine Forced Welfare Recipients To Work For Their Benefits

 

Not sure what the word violation is, but the link still works.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by rockmom

I like it.

Great plan.

 

Now find a way to attach children's grades and school attendance to their parent's governmental assistance, and we will kill the culture of dependency with education.

I think this would be much more effective than drug screening. And I like that volunteering is an option. Requiring one to work a wage-paying job isn't always an option, and not always due to an individual's lack of desire to work.

I like what I read. Those able bodied being required to volunteer and help others in need is a great system. There are so many great non profit agencies who could vastly expand their missions and help many more people if they only had more people to help them. If a person doesn't want to volunteer at a non profit there is always trash to pick up, city parks to spruce up, help in schools, etc.

Don't know completely how I feel about this one for one reason: I can see people who entirely need to be on welfare (read: those who the system is actually designed for) completely unable to handle the work/volunteer aspect.

 

What I mean by that, is that someone who truly needs the help, they aren't organized enough to even make it to a volunteer site/make it through a work day, much less keep track of their hours though a month.

 

This isn't talking about people who completely abuse the system. This is meant toward indigenous and/or homeless people like those I've worked with in the past who can't sit through filling out an intake sheet with their basic information for you when you are trying to help them, and they don't really know the difference.

 

I think that overall, it's a great idea, but do hope that there's at least some type of protection for those who really need the help.

 

Basically, if you are sane enough to work/volunteer, and there isn't an issue of something where there's just a temporary job shortage, then you are probably able to work in some capacity (at least assuming that there are available jobs).

I like it in theory. I'm curious about the program in practice. That's a precipitous drop in enrollment.

Don't know completely how I feel about this one for one reason: I can see people who entirely need to be on welfare (read: those who the system is actually designed for) completely unable to handle the work/volunteer aspect.

 

What I mean by that, is that someone who truly needs the help, they aren't organized enough to even make it to a volunteer site/make it through a work day, much less keep track of their hours though a month.

 

This isn't talking about people who completely abuse the system. This is meant toward indigenous and/or homeless people like those I've worked with in the past who can't sit through filling out an intake sheet with their basic information for you when you are trying to help them, and they don't really know the difference.

 

I think that overall, it's a great idea, but do hope that there's at least some type of protection for those who really need the help.

 

Basically, if you are sane enough to work/volunteer, and there isn't an issue of something where there's just a temporary job shortage, then you are probably able to work in some capacity (at least assuming that there are available jobs).

 

Article mentioned that it was people who were not disabled and did not have children at home so it sounds like they have it covered. At least as long as their definition of disabled includes those unable to function.

At least as long as their definition of disabled includes those unable to function.

 

Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. I've met some pretty pathetic people who can barely take care of themselves yet wouldn't be considered disabled under any federal standard for sure.

 

There will always be people who slip through the cracks when you set baselines or requirements of eligibility for anything.

Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. I've met some pretty pathetic people who can barely take care of themselves yet wouldn't be considered disabled under any federal standard for sure.

 

There will always be people who slip through the cracks when you set baselines or requirements of eligibility for anything.

 

 

Me as well.

 

While I was in law school, I had my first client die on me while I had their case pending. Kind something that sticks with you.

 

She was turned down for Social Security/Disability initially.

 

She died in her 50's waiting on her check to come.

 

I'm not saying people don't get it who don't deserve it, I'm just saying that people who do have some real functional limitations aren't capable of gaming the system, but they still really deserve it.

 

No good answer for it.

I think this would be much more effective than drug screening. And I like that volunteering is an option. Requiring one to work a wage-paying job isn't always an option, and not always due to an individual's lack of desire to work.

 

I continue to be against mandatory drug screening. But this is a more than reasonable approach and it seems to have impact.

 

Next step should be to work with in-state employers for proactive placement when schooling/training is complete.

Me as well.

 

While I was in law school, I had my first client die on me while I had their case pending. Kind something that sticks with you.

 

She was turned down for Social Security/Disability initially.

 

She died in her 50's waiting on her check to come.

 

I'm not saying people don't get it who don't deserve it, I'm just saying that people who do have some real functional limitations aren't capable of gaming the system, but they still really deserve it.

 

No good answer for it.

 

Unfortunately to keep these people from falling through the cracks would require a more personal attention that the government does not and probably cannot provide. Advocacy organizations can help but the need is just too overwhelming.

Unfortunately to keep these people from falling through the cracks would require a more personal attention that the government does not and probably cannot provide. Advocacy organizations can help but the need is just too overwhelming.

 

As someone who worked in one... tell me about it.

Why is this in controversial issues? I love this!

 

But JokersWild and some others are right; what do we do about the actually disabled and unable-to-work people. I know of one Presidential candidate who says all people who receive welfare should do something to get a check, even if its something as simple as bringing water to construction workers. Again, good in theory but how do we effectively determine who can and cannot work. Anyways, I think this is a step in the right direction.