Close some of the loopholes such as a boyfriend living at a home that is being paid for through Social Services, and that person is not being made to look for a job. I realize that he may not be the husband or a father to any of the kids in the home but he is getting the "benefits" of DSS.
If a person is living in a home that is being assistted by DSS then they should be counted as a member of the household and be subjected to all the work search rules.
One other thing that I feel needs to be addressed is that a person can purchase all the pop,chips and candy they want with the food stamp card but not the personal grooming items needed to go look for a job, With the technology that the cash registars in the local food stores, the "junk" items could be deleted and items such as soap, shampoo, deoderant and then maybe the stuff needed for laundry could be purchased with the card. The card could then be re-named the house needs card.
It has been my experience that many people who are entitled to benefits decline them because there are so many hoops to jump through. Workers have so much caseload the whole process runs at a snails pace. Only those who really need full benefits participate for the most part.
I know of alot of people abusing the programs provided to help those in need. It is temporary help yet alot of these people use it long term - do to being just plain old lazy. Sadly, i know people who NEED the help yet cannot recieve it.. Funny how if you pop out a bunch of kids you get it yet someone who has a college education and got laid off work and will be on the streets with in the next month cant get help but that mother with 5 kids collects welfare and does nothing all day when she could have been working while the kids are at school..
a lot of them on the dss would not take a job if handed to them on a silver plater.
i think thay should be drug tested to .
i have no prob with any one geting dss if thay realy need it but there is a lot of fraud out there.
I agree. For those families that have jobs yet still qualify for assistance, they should get whatever assistance they are entitled to.
However, I think that there are far to many people sitting at home watching TV and having babies, just to get more assistance.
One way to fix the system is to force people who are physically able to work to get out there and work. If they aren't working, assistance should reduced or at least have an expiration date, just like unemployment.
And yes, I know that there are children involved in most cases, and that is sad, because in most cases they are the pawns used to secure the benefits in the first place.
Maybe job refusal, or lack of trying to obtain gainful employment could be considered child neglect, set a limit,when time expires, you better have a damn good reason why you have failed to find work, and if your reasons are due to lack of effort, remove the children from the home. That would shut that excuse down in a hurry. And if you fail a drug test while applying for a job, DSS should be notified, and then rehab, or no more benefits. Make these people accountable at the very least.
I agree with most everything said here. It all comes down to accountability and personal responsibility - two things sorely lacking in the generational welfare world.
I have to get drug tested to get a job, and agree to random testing to keep it. DSS recipients? Nope. There are requirements such as effort and dependability I have to demonstrate in order for me to keep a job. DSS? Not really - just play the game. I don't get a raise for having another kid. I pay dearly for health care, and use it sparingly. DSS? Call the ambulance for a "taxi ride" to the ED for a sore throat. Average cost to the taxpayer? Hundreds if not thousands. To the recipient? Zip. I have to pay my $20 - $30 copay for my prescriptions. Medicaid? They legally (and routinely) can say they cannot pay the 50 cent or $1.00 copay. The drug store eats that - as required by law.
The list goes on and on. Am I angry and disgusted? Damn right. I'm in my mid 50s and an unemployed student. The anti-business economic environment (taxes) in this state drove me out of business. Who helps me? Nobody - and if I was so desperate that I HAD to turn to welfare, I would quit school and get a job. Too much pride I guess.
I wonder what the responses would be if this exact poll were run in Rochester or Buffalo........
OK how about this: any woman who receives "benefits" should be required to have Norplant birth control to assure that she will not become pregnant while receiving services. This would help to eliminate the "making babies to stay on welfare syndrome"
Also whoa if those who receive "benefits had to reimburse the county for any monies received once they become employed.
@Gary: So a woman is not allowed to have a child if she's on tough economic times? That seems a bit harsh. Also what about the people who are morally against birth control? Does this policy discriminate against catholics?
And as for reimbursing after employment... what would be the point of them trying to find a job?
Close some of the loopholes
Close some of the loopholes such as a boyfriend living at a home that is being paid for through Social Services, and that person is not being made to look for a job. I realize that he may not be the husband or a father to any of the kids in the home but he is getting the "benefits" of DSS.
If a person is living in a home that is being assistted by DSS then they should be counted as a member of the household and be subjected to all the work search rules.
One other thing that I feel needs to be addressed is that a person can purchase all the pop,chips and candy they want with the food stamp card but not the personal grooming items needed to go look for a job, With the technology that the cash registars in the local food stores, the "junk" items could be deleted and items such as soap, shampoo, deoderant and then maybe the stuff needed for laundry could be purchased with the card. The card could then be re-named the house needs card.
It has been my experience
It has been my experience that many people who are entitled to benefits decline them because there are so many hoops to jump through. Workers have so much caseload the whole process runs at a snails pace. Only those who really need full benefits participate for the most part.
I know of alot of people
I know of alot of people abusing the programs provided to help those in need. It is temporary help yet alot of these people use it long term - do to being just plain old lazy. Sadly, i know people who NEED the help yet cannot recieve it.. Funny how if you pop out a bunch of kids you get it yet someone who has a college education and got laid off work and will be on the streets with in the next month cant get help but that mother with 5 kids collects welfare and does nothing all day when she could have been working while the kids are at school..
a lot of them on the dss
a lot of them on the dss would not take a job if handed to them on a silver plater.
i think thay should be drug tested to .
i have no prob with any one geting dss if thay realy need it but there is a lot of fraud out there.
I agree. For those families
I agree. For those families that have jobs yet still qualify for assistance, they should get whatever assistance they are entitled to.
However, I think that there are far to many people sitting at home watching TV and having babies, just to get more assistance.
One way to fix the system is to force people who are physically able to work to get out there and work. If they aren't working, assistance should reduced or at least have an expiration date, just like unemployment.
And yes, I know that there are children involved in most cases, and that is sad, because in most cases they are the pawns used to secure the benefits in the first place.
Maybe job refusal, or lack of
Maybe job refusal, or lack of trying to obtain gainful employment could be considered child neglect, set a limit,when time expires, you better have a damn good reason why you have failed to find work, and if your reasons are due to lack of effort, remove the children from the home. That would shut that excuse down in a hurry. And if you fail a drug test while applying for a job, DSS should be notified, and then rehab, or no more benefits. Make these people accountable at the very least.
I agree with most everything
I agree with most everything said here. It all comes down to accountability and personal responsibility - two things sorely lacking in the generational welfare world.
I have to get drug tested to get a job, and agree to random testing to keep it. DSS recipients? Nope. There are requirements such as effort and dependability I have to demonstrate in order for me to keep a job. DSS? Not really - just play the game. I don't get a raise for having another kid. I pay dearly for health care, and use it sparingly. DSS? Call the ambulance for a "taxi ride" to the ED for a sore throat. Average cost to the taxpayer? Hundreds if not thousands. To the recipient? Zip. I have to pay my $20 - $30 copay for my prescriptions. Medicaid? They legally (and routinely) can say they cannot pay the 50 cent or $1.00 copay. The drug store eats that - as required by law.
The list goes on and on. Am I angry and disgusted? Damn right. I'm in my mid 50s and an unemployed student. The anti-business economic environment (taxes) in this state drove me out of business. Who helps me? Nobody - and if I was so desperate that I HAD to turn to welfare, I would quit school and get a job. Too much pride I guess.
I wonder what the responses would be if this exact poll were run in Rochester or Buffalo........
OK how about this: any woman
OK how about this: any woman who receives "benefits" should be required to have Norplant birth control to assure that she will not become pregnant while receiving services. This would help to eliminate the "making babies to stay on welfare syndrome"
Also whoa if those who receive "benefits had to reimburse the county for any monies received once they become employed.
It ain't rocket science folks....
@Gary: So a woman is not
@Gary: So a woman is not allowed to have a child if she's on tough economic times? That seems a bit harsh. Also what about the people who are morally against birth control? Does this policy discriminate against catholics?
And as for reimbursing after employment... what would be the point of them trying to find a job?