As part of welfare reform, should citizens only be allowed benefits for a total of 6 months in their lifetime?

SSG Steven Mangus — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:26:06 -0400

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Oct 20 at 2016 5:27 PM

SSG Steven Mangus — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:27:39 -0400

I also think part of the application process should be proof of citizenship, not a citizen no benefits

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 20 at 2016 5:29 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:29:29 -0400

no! a hard and fast limit like that will bite us in the a$$! however, back during the Roosevelt era we had public works projects that put people to work. why not make them work for their check? there are PLENTY orf infrastructure and other "shovel ready projects" that could provide jobs for unskilled or other labor.

Response by SSG Jessica Bautista made Oct 20 at 2016 10:06 PM

SSG Jessica Bautista — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:06:05 -0400

Elderly and disabled?

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Oct 20 at 2016 11:23 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 23:23:25 -0400

No time limit, income means test is fine. If your trying to get folks off Welfare apply the techniques that Texas applies to those on unemployment compensation. Leave them alone for first 8 weeks, then assign a counselor to call and track progress, then have the counselor start setting benchmarks, etc. Some people need supervision when on government aid. It should be up to the counselor to decide if the person is riding the system or making an effort to progress off of it. If progressing off of it is not possible then fine, disconnect the counselor and only very periodic check-ins to see how the person is doing and that they have not been murdered and someone else is cashing their check.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Oct 21 at 2016 8:23 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:23:03 -0400

No. Not at all. Laws shouldn't arbitrarily set a time to benefits like welfare. That defeats the entire purpose of welfare. This program was created to help people through difficult times in their lives. Difficult times come and go, and no law gets to dictate how many difficult times you can have in life. I am not against reform, but it should based on individual cases, not an overarching time limit.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 21 at 2016 10:03 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:03:15 -0400

A resounding NO.... but it should also not be unlimited, unchecked, or without checks and balances, work on the part of the recipient.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2016 3:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:02:14 -0400

Welfare isn't a single system (although that would probably be an improvement) it's a whole lot of programs. There are several improvements that could be made though, it shouldn't just be a safety net that traps them in poverty, it should be a ladder that helps or even forces (if necessary) people to work and not rely on government aid.

That means the minimum wages needs to be raised high enough so that you can't qualify for government aid while working 40 hours a week. It means people with mental health issues and drug addictions need to receive care so that they can be as productive as possible. It means that instead of qualifying for a tax break because you moved jobs to China, you qualify for a tax break because you brought on new workers here in the US. It means that instead of taxing a shirt made in Bangladesh by a 12 year old making 15 cents an hour the same as a shirt made in Alabama by a worker making 15 dollars an hour, the tax is used to level the playing field.