Juana!

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

if you were the president, what would you do with this system? changed it? keep it like now? or just what do you think about it?

I would change it where only people in real need and with kids would get it. I would change it where only basic product would be brought this way (I seen many people buying gatorade, candies, etc.)

sending people back to work is another idea, helping companies with some incentives to hire them, train them, etc. Another new deal maybe?

Juana!

BackdoorJesus

I would restrict it to only benefit legal citizens of this nation, first & foremost, with absolutely no exceptions. This would apply to all Gov't. assistance programs including food stamps & especially health care, and no one else could "grandfather" in, i.e. foreign nationals who have children who are citizens because they are born here. The kids can have benefits if they are born here, but the parents, if not citizens, would not.

I would mandate that in cases of non-disabled individuals they would have to avail themselves of job training/re-training or other educational programs; otherwise demand they show verifiable proof that they have participated in a set number of job interviews, say, two per week, before receiving their welfare check.

I would also consider putting a set time limit on the duration of benefits for non-disabled individuals at the end of which they would have to either appeal their case as beyond their own control or lose their benefits, period.

___________________________________________

Juan.©amaney

I'd get rid of it. It keeps the weak alive. If you couldn't make it on your own, you shouldn't be allowed to breed and be healthy. Law of the land.

___________________________________________

Sheepe

Social Security: You pay in 5%, you get out some average living standard.

Establish a foreign legion: Join the military for 8 years and get your green card.

Just to name two... also, I really have no clue about the state of gov't

joerockhead

Being a Former Member of the Military, this is not a good solution.
Teach these people how to kill?
Abuse these people to our own satisfaction?
take anyone, criminals/Rapists/Scum?

BDJ - You maybe call out for being insensitive to the Illegal aliens that are just looking for work!!! How dare you!

I agree, that it does need to be changed. I am not educated enough on this subject to say.

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

Sheepe

Well clearly no, but offer them as a legit alternative, the option to join the military. Clearly some standards would need to be set and process put in, but thats just a simplification of what I was thinking.

hirollcenter

Put a limit on the amount that people can draw off of the government. If you have a kid that the state is supporting and you have another child the government check gets smaller. All people in the USA should have emergency medical care, local health depts. are cheaper to use then hospitals.

Welfare in Kentucky is being replaced by the Hillbilly loto. (Disability) this program never runs out.IMO the aid that we give to other countries should be stopped always.

ddoubleez

We have the lowest welfare expenditures of almost all developed countries...

They have drawn correlations of crime to the withdraw from welfare....

Some people will not work and others can't.....

No one deserves a free ride, but to keep the majority is safer with the impoverished are pacified....

Welfare should be viewed as a benefit for those that are not on it, because they benefit from it the most, via safety........

I would supercharge it.........

fmb

Deez: I must part agreement with you on this subject. You say some will not work; why should I work to support the lazy bastard? Those that can't work deserve some help.

My safety shouldn't be based on pacification of a law breaking individual. Pacifying persons such as these only leads he/she to demand more. This same thinking didn't work to well for Chaimberlain.

For me, your statements are the equivalent to allowing the prisoners to run not only the prison, but society.

Krasch

Agreed, and those who legitimately can't work should have other options than welfare for support. For example in Canada, we have Disability benefits built into our "Social Security" (Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits specifically) that kick in until one can actually claim their government pensions.

Welfare should be exclusively a safety net, not a safety hammock.

Krasch

Well yes and no...

If you look at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state):

Looking at welfare expenditures as a % of GDP, then yes the US looks like it spends very little compared to other countries. Obviously, that's what you're referring to.

BUT...

If you look at welfare spending based not on GDP but PER CAPITA, The US spends $5079.36 per person (14.8% of $34,320 in PPP US$).

Denmark may spend 29.2% of their GDP on welfare, but it amounts to only $8468 per person. From the percentage alone one might have expected a number closer to $10200.

Germany is only $6945.90. The UK is only $5266.88. Spain is only $3949.40, less than the US by a good margin. Australia is only $4566.60. Japan only $4246.97. Canada only $4829.14.

And let's not forget that the US is the world's 3rd most populous country.

So raw expenditures are roughly per annum:

• US $1.544 TRILLION
• Denmark $46 Billion
• Germany $569 Billion
• UK $319 Billion
• Spain $178 Billion
• Australia $95 Billion
• Japan $544 Billion
• Canada $159 Billion

Hell, all the remaining countries on this list spend only $1.910 Trillion combined. So saying the US is near the bottom is somewhat misleading.

ddoubleez

First, you have to come to an understanding that denying welfare will not induce job growth.... Therefore you should understand that denying a small percentage of people that will be taking advantage of a system by taking it away from everyone is flawed logic......

Next, if you would give those that will not work, the basics of what they need, they will not take it by force.... Unless you are going to argue that the same type of people that will not work will just sit on their hands and starve or not want a tv or what ever drug fix they get by on, correct? Denying this small percentage of people this is dangerous, and this is reflected in violent crime trends..... And yes I am perposing a state funded drug supply.......

Next, Spain, UK, australia and canada do not have the drug war we have, infact they have a reverse trend of legalizing or turning a blind eye to soft drug use....... This is their pasification, and they do not have the violent crime backlash that we have and can do w/o out as much in their welfare system to keep the working middle class from being....

Lastly (for now), there are adjustments that you have not thought about, or did not care to disclose that I am considering....

If a country, for example the united states, has a population of over 15 to 20% living under the poverty line and compair it to a country like canada who has fewer than 5% living under the poverty line you would have to adjust the way you look at their spending...... A very crude way to look at it is they would need 66% to 75% less than we would(per capita), because they have 75% fewer in need in their country.... Right? So now canadas 4829 is adjusted to just under 20k compaired to the US's 5k.......


And FYI, no ones taxes go towards welfare..... That is as silly as saying my taxes to towards military spending or the national dept..... You would not pay anymore taxes if we increased welfare 1000 times, we would just borrow it..... And if you do not want to borrow another 35 billion you had better tell me why you will borrow that amount to give a tax break to oil companies but not those that may need it......

And I do not understand where you are getting you trillion dollar figure on welfare.... We all may be looking at this from different angles.... My figures on welfare AND unemployment is under 370 billion, which is 1000 bucks a person putting us at the bottom unadjusted...

fmb

Deez: thanks for clarifying some things. Good points! I think everyone was able to show you can't discuss a topic without defining the issue.

I agree with the drug war item. Something hit me, though. To me, our war on pot is completely assinine. Violence over pot?? PLEEZE! Maybe some bottle throwing when the potsmoker couldn't get a burger during a hellacious munchie period!

Krasch

Canada doesn't have the drug war the US has? You obviously don't spend a lot of time in Canada, do you? Come to Toronto and spend a while and you'll find illicit drugs in great numbers, and it's not limited to the big cities either.

As for where my numbers came from, going from the numbers on Wikipedia for Welfare Spending as a % of GDP, GDP per capita in PPP US$, and approximate population of each country.

For example, 14.8% of $34,320 (per person) multiplied by a population of 304 million equals 1,544,125,440,000.

And denying welfare to those who will not work can be a viable option. We actually did something quite similar in Ontario when the provincial government cut welfare funding and instigated workfare a while back. I know several people, including some in my own extended family, who were milking the system and got the hint to get off their lazy asses when that happened.