that would explain a lot of things in USA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wont go any further into this its too political.

This was political from the get-go, and that didn't seem to stop you before now.

Is there another reason you want to stop?


Just what is it you want? LOL
 
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wont go any further into this its too political.

This was political from the get-go, and that didn't seem to stop you before now.

Is there another reason you want to stop?


Paranoia of government indoctrination in public schools is tinfoil hat territory. Nobody actually likes being on welfare and the payouts are nowhere near what the Cato institute claims.
I work and go to school full time. Without government assistance in the form of food stamps, Pell grants, and medicaid I wouldn't be able to go to school.
The idea of cutting off all public assistance and then [censored] about lazy uneducated knuckledraggers is flawed logic. How can you reasonably expect anyone to get ahead in life when they can't afford to meet their basic human needs?
I'll gladly suck on the government teet while I complete school so I can better my own economic prospects.



Sorry, but the welfare payments ARE, in fact, that big. It's almost a sport competition in itself up here in Canada.
 
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wont go any further into this its too political.

This was political from the get-go, and that didn't seem to stop you before now.

Is there another reason you want to stop?


Paranoia of government indoctrination in public schools is tinfoil hat territory. Nobody actually likes being on welfare and the payouts are nowhere near what the Cato institute claims.
I work and go to school full time. Without government assistance in the form of food stamps, Pell grants, and medicaid I wouldn't be able to go to school.
The idea of cutting off all public assistance and then [censored] about lazy uneducated knuckledraggers is flawed logic. How can you reasonably expect anyone to get ahead in life when they can't afford to meet their basic human needs?
I'll gladly suck on the government teet while I complete school so I can better my own economic prospects.



Sorry, but the welfare payments ARE, in fact, that big. It's almost a sport competition in itself up here in Canada.


Ha.
Yep

There are women breeding for bigger welfare cheques then sending their kids to the Rez all the while collecting baby bonus for them even though they aren't in their care.
I have no issues with people collecting assistance if they need it. That's what it's for. However I know countless people who collect a cheque that could easily work for their money.
Not that I agree with conservative policy however ontario had a great idea with one program they called "workfare".
Basically if you wanted your welfare cheque you had to show up at a center and they would farm out light duty tasks,thereby getting some return on the dollar spent.
It got canned by bleeding heart whiners who thought they were too good to clean garbage or sweep sidewalks,but they aren't too good to sit around playing xbox smoking dope on tax funded income.
We have got people who feel entitled to getting social assistance. Girls who's mothers collected and now they are second and third generation assistance collectors.
It makes me sick.
 
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Sorry, but the welfare payments ARE, in fact, that big. It's almost a sport competition in itself up here in Canada.


They may be in Canada. The maximum food stamp benefits for a family of 3 is $511/mo: USDA benefits page
In my home state of Oregon, the maximum temporary assistance for needy families is $485 per month for that same family of 3; and it isn't free. Here's the requirements that must be met to keep assistance: Work requirements: Adults in families receiving cash assistance must work or participate in work related activities for a specified number of hours per week depending on the number of work-eligible adults in the family and the age of children.

Type of Family
Work participation Hours Required
Single parents with a child under age 6
20 hours weekly in core work activities.
Other single parent families or two-parent families where one parent is disabled 30 hours weekly with at least 20 hours in core activities.
Married teen or teen head of household under age 20.
Maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school or the equivalent or participates in education related to employment for at least 20 hours weekly.
Two-parent families who do not receive subsidized child care 35 hours per week (total among both parents) with at least 30 hours in core activities.
Two-parent families who receive subsidized child care 55 hours per week with at least 50 hours in core activities
Work Activities: Federal law includes 12 work activities. 9 of the activities are 'core' activities in that they may be used to satisfy any of the average weekly participation requirements. The other 3 activities are 'supplemental' in that they may only be used to satisfy the work activity requirement after the 'core' requirement is met.

Core Activities

1. Unsubsidized employment
2. Subsidized private sector employment
3. Subsidized public sector employment
4. Job search and job readiness (limited to not more than 6 weeks in a federal fiscal year with not more than 4 weeks consecutive).
5. Community service
6. Work experience
7. On-the-job training
8. Vocational educational training (limited to 12 months for an individual), and
9. Caring for a child of a recipient in community service
Supplemental Activities

10. Job skills training directly related to employment
11. Education directly related to employment (for those without a high school or equivalent degree)
12. Completion of a secondary school program
http://www.tanf.us/oregon.html
TANF
Section 8 housing vouchers are based off of income and the median rent in an area. Households making up to 80% of the area median income are eligible. Maximum benefits are of course dependent on the area you live. Using my home state and the Portland metro area as an example; the area median rent for a 2br apartment is $944/mo. If you fall in the very bottom income bracket(which you would with TANF) you would pay no more than 28.5% of your monthly income on rent. 28.5% of $485 is $138; meaning the maximum housing benefit is $806. 'how your rent is set'




The grand total if you're following along is $1802/month or $21,624/year. For a family of 3 that's hardly going to be a life of luxury. Especially since I'm assuming this family of 3 is made up of a single mother and 2 kids. Child tax credit is a paltry $1000/per child per year. So an extra $1000 per kid is real incentive to keep popping them out!
There's always abusers out there. It would be unreasonable to say that the majority--or even a sizable fraction--of welfare recipients are abusing the system and 'living the high life' on the taxpayer's dime. But once families receive benefits... it isn't the taxpayers dime anymore! They've received benefits by a federally funded program that has been created to help them. Most of the arguments made against welfare seem to either implicitly, or sometimes even explicitly target women and minorities as being 'lazy baby makers' that don't want to work. The vilification of the poor is astonishing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top