86 million private sector workers support 148 million benefit takers!!!

[mat]

Mat, the only way to change this is a total turnover in congress and the president with those that desire to build up humans and improve them instead of make them slaves of the state through welfare subsistence.  I assume that you grasp the probabilities of that happening!!!

I absolutely understand but you can't just totaly blame the pawns

[mat]

I consider the problem to be how easy it is to get in line and how much encouragement our system gives to people to get in line.  "getting in line" ought to be more difficult and, once in that line, there ought to be time limits and benefit limits.

I can agree with this

[NorthoftheBorder]

I absolutely understand but you can't just totaly blame the pawns

We all know that there truly are people who really need assistance.  I do not believe, and many on here are stating the same, that it is really anywhere near the number of people currently on federal/state assistance.  But we have a whole political party that makes it there goal to put as many on that assistance as possible ie.....buying votes and self perpetuating the problem.  When Bush was in office we had bad debt that totaled somewhere around $8trillion.  Now we have "good" debt that totals around $17trillion.  This is not a Bush/Obama debate.  It is a IDEOLOGICAL debate on what is the right way for this country.  There is not a person on here that would be against helping the truly needy.  I believe they are now the minority of the number of people on these programs.

 

I am pretty sure the 148 million includes those on federal payroll.  The point is we should have a significant majority that are "earners" and paying in to the system compared to those who take from the system.  There is not enough space to write all that is needed to fix the problem. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Good points, my main point is that there will always be lines but they should never be federally subsidized lines...too large to manage.

States, counties, cities, churches,local food banks are all better and more easily managed options.

[77]

People have no shame anymore and that is proven daily in DC when elected officials stand up and lie over and over to the folks and those same folks re-elect them anyway. There is no accountability. Just like the dems railing on the Koch bros. for pumping money out but I am thinking the ones on both sides being bought out are the ones to blame not the folks paying! JMO votem all out regularly!

[stevenash]

How much "help" is enough help?

[westend1]

Some are just lazy, and some need a little help. Sorting through them is the problem. You want less government, but the people deciding who needs help verses who is just lazy don't have time to sort through them all. I had a renter who was just worthless. Hope she never receives aid again. Then again, I had a couple who worked very hard. They got off assistance after a year. Glad we as a nation, could help those people get a start on life.

[stevenash]

I am all for helping those who need help for  a year.  But am very much against those who use it for most of a lifetime and teach their offspring(by example) that it is a viable alternative to working for a living.

[77]

Some are just lazy, and some need a little help. Sorting through them is the problem. You want less government, but the people deciding who needs help verses who is just lazy don't have time to sort through them all. I had a renter who was just worthless. Hope she never receives aid again. Then again, I had a couple who worked very hard. They got off assistance after a year. Glad we as a nation, could help those people get a start on life.

Cut them off after a year that should be enough!

[bullets13]

It's always tough sorting through the needy and the lazy.  My line of work brings me in contact with both on a regular basis.  I see poor families who receive a little help and then  pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and i see poor families who choose to stay poor in order to continue getting benefits.  We need A system, but THIS system is broken.  The benefits received should not be so lucrative that staying on them seems to be a good career move when stacked up next to getting a minimum wage job.  Why go work full time flipping burgers when you can get several hundred dollars a month, free housing, food stamps, WIC, free healthcare, free healthcare for your kids, a free cellphone with a few hundred minutes, and many more "perks" without the inconvenience of working?  And the system actually rewards single mothers with more money for having extra kids, and punishes mothers by providing less money if the dad sticks around.

[BLUEDOVE3]

Some camped out overnight. I don't know exactly what a housing voucher is, but if it brings that large of a crowd, maybe I should have had my butt in line.

Unfortunately I had to WORK today, so i missed out.

:rolleyes: Single moms work and get housing vouchers...sheez!!!

[BLUEDOVE3]

I am all for helping those who need help for  a year.  But am very much against those who use it for most of a lifetime and teach their offspring(by example) that it is a viable alternative to working for a living.

I think we all agree with this 

[thetragichippy]

It's always tough sorting through the needy and the lazy.  My line of work brings me in contact with both on a regular basis.  I see poor families who receive a little help and then  pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and i see poor families who choose to stay poor in order to continue getting benefits.  We need A system, but THIS system is broken.  The benefits received should not be so lucrative that staying on them seems to be a good career move when stacked up next to getting a minimum wage job.  Why go work full time flipping burgers when you can get several hundred dollars a month, free housing, food stamps, WIC, free healthcare, free healthcare for your kids, a free cellphone with a few hundred minutes, and many more "perks" without the inconvenience of working?  And the system actually rewards single mothers with more money for having extra kids, and punishes mothers by providing less money if the dad sticks around.

 

 

^^THIS^^

[mat]

 I think most of us agree on the basics. We just can't agree on how to get there or where to draw the lines.

[stevenash]

There is going to HAVE to be pain for someone somewhere.  My thoughts are we should give someone one year max of unemployment.  If it gets extended beyond that, reduce the benefit by 25%.  After another year, another 25% reduction. You effectively tell someone in advance that you are going to help them but not in a permanent manner.  It just might encourage the freeloaders to try to find work.

[BLUEDOVE3]

 

Switch from project-based to tenant-based subsidy program

In 1983 Congress finally agreed with the Reagan administration that the Section 8 program was too costly. The Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 repealed the authorization for Section 8--for example, new construction and substantial rehabilitation--but left other moderate rehabilitation and elderly projects (Section 202). Most importantly, conservatives switched from project-based assistance under Section 8 to housing vouchers and certificates, or a tenant-based subsidy program. The tenants could choose their own apartment with a voucher or certificate--they finally had a choice!