Reply
Turd Ferguson Bangkok, Thailand 4583 posts
Oct 19th '12
Quoting Layla-and-Faith:" What bothers me most is that these people (some not all) feel they "deserve" treats and are putting the ... [snip!] ... luxeries.. they have done nothing to earn it. Luxeries come when YOU can afford them, they shouldn't be one someone elses dime."


While there's no way to confirm/deny how many people are welfare opportunists, there are people with 'simple' luxuries, and I don't believe they should be forced to get rid of them. Not everyone was born into poverty. Some people have lost jobs, gotten ill, injured, etc and I don't believe they should feel guilty nor have to pawn off their belongings because they need temporary help.

Back to Noob Status Ohio 14048 posts
Oct 20th '12
Quoting .Colleen.:" I'm wondering how anyone can be surprised that welfare spending is up. We are all aware of the unemployment rates in recent past. Seems pretty logical to me."


:!:



When the economy sucks, welfare spending goes up. And the economy hasn't sucked this bad since the depression. Don't know why that is so difficult for some to understand.

TheNuge 1 child; Pennsylvania 23152 posts
Oct 20th '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Back to Noob Status:</b>" :!: When the economy sucks, welfare spending goes up. And the economy hasn't sucked this bad since the depression. Don't know why that is so difficult for some to understand."</blockquote>




Unemployment is the same rate today as it was when Obama started. So, spending should quickly go back to around the 2008 level ;)

* Sara * 2 kids; Texas 18864 posts
Oct 20th '12

It's sad because the way the system is set up actually encourages people to stay on it and not work. When you have 16 week waiting lists for childcare and someone is a single parent, how can they work? When you make minimum wage and your benefits are cut back dramatically, how can you survive if you were depending on food stamps to feed yourself and your children? It's a c*********k.

* Sara * 2 kids; Texas 18864 posts
Oct 20th '12
Quoting Turd Ferguson:" While there's no way to confirm/deny how many people are welfare opportunists, there are people with ... [snip!] ... etc and I don't believe they should feel guilty nor have to pawn off their belongings because they need temporary help."



:!::!::!:

* Sara * 2 kids; Texas 18864 posts
Oct 20th '12
Quoting The Doctor:" This.... And while I agree about some people abusing the system and just using it as a hammock (yes, ... [snip!] ... lazy, or you work and you're still not able to support your family. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, in many cases."



VWS.

SpaceCowgirl Due December 21; 3 kids; Oregon 20240 posts
Oct 20th '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Back to Noob Status:</b>" :!: When the economy sucks, welfare ... [snip!] ... is the same rate today as it was when Obama started. So, spending should quickly go back to around the 2008 level ;)"</blockquote>



Lol, it must be hard for them to try to convince people that the economy is getting better when it obviously isn't.



Honestly, it boggles my mind that Obama has any supporters at all.

Back to Noob Status Ohio 14048 posts
Oct 20th '12
Quoting TheNuge:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Back to Noob Status:</b>" :!: When the economy sucks, welfare ... [snip!] ... is the same rate today as it was when Obama started. So, spending should quickly go back to around the 2008 level ;)"


Supposedly.

Mama♥Breezy Due December 2 (girl); 2 kids; Los Angeles, California 35008 posts
Oct 23rd '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting ~Ice Princess~:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Mary.:</b>" someone just said to me that when bush was in office, ... [snip!] ... a certain amount or if your family size changes. And it's a pretty decent limit they give you IMO.. Ours is like 3663 a month."</blockquote>




In Cali we have to report every 3 months. We have to report everything. From income changes, to if anyone started or stopped school and if we have new schedules or are expecting changes in te following quarter. I think a lot of the requirements depend on your state. Here in Cali they've gotten more strict with it.

The Master Due September 8; 2 kids; Perth, Australia 20023 posts
Oct 23rd '12

IMO and i know a lot of Americans dont agree with me is to increase minimum wage and take money from some welfare programsnd put them into programs which encourage people to return to work (daycare subsidies, back to work programs and government grants for traineeships). I don't know about the US but here if you're on unemployment you have to sign up to a job agency and have a certain amount of interviews a month, and do 32 hours voluntary work a week. Also mothers (single or otherwise) are cut off from family allowance if they aren't working at least 20 hours a week once their youngest child reaches 6. We don't have FS or WIC rather we get 18 weeks paid maternity OR a baby bonus, highly subsidised daycare for everyone working/studying more than 15 hours a week, and a small family allowance which is means tested. This way its harder to live off the system.

The Doctor 2 kids; Boulder, CO, United States 60775 posts
Oct 23rd '12
Quoting The (super kinky) Master:" IMO and i know a lot of Americans dont agree with me is to increase minimum wage and take money from ... [snip!] ... more than 15 hours a week, and a small family allowance which is means tested. This way its harder to live off the system."


That sounds like a pretty good system.



Are people, in general, pretty happy with it? Or are there lots of issues with it?

The Master Due September 8; 2 kids; Perth, Australia 20023 posts
Oct 23rd '12
Quoting The Doctor:" That sounds like a pretty good system. Are people, in general, pretty happy with it? Or are there lots of issues with it?"


Every now and then something will change (like the women haven't to work/study when all their kids are school age) and people will b***h for a little bit but then just accept it and life moves on. Our government is more interested in getting people to work and upskilled rather than just giving out food and money. Businesses are given large subsidies for providing nationally accredited training (I have certificates in retail, hospitality, nursing, and now telecommunications ... all that have been paid for by workplaces without costing me a single cent), and my SO has a trade certificate in butchery and smallgoods that was paid for by his workplace as well.
We don't have a safety net per se ... sure our Social Security (Centrelink) provide crisis welfare but that's usually a one off cash payment just to get people out of dire circumstances. We also have the ability to take out our superannuation (money that's compulsarily put away by our workplaces to private companies for retirement) if you can pass a hardship test. More than likely if you were in a desperate situation Centrelink would just have you on NewStart (the dole) and going to interviews and doing voluntary work asap.

The Doctor 2 kids; Boulder, CO, United States 60775 posts
Oct 23rd '12
Quoting The (super kinky) Master:" Every now and then something will change (like the women haven't to work/study when all their kids are ... [snip!] ... situation Centrelink would just have you on NewStart (the dole) and going to interviews and doing voluntary work asap. "


Seems like a smart system.

The Master Due September 8; 2 kids; Perth, Australia 20023 posts
Oct 23rd '12
Quoting The Doctor:" Seems like a smart system."


It doesn't seem to be very popular outside of Australia, I think people are too interested in solving the end result (such as food stamps and WIC which are clearly there for those so far below the poverty line that providing basic necessities isn't possible) rather than dealing with the underlying issues and giving people the means to provide for themselves.

TheNuge 1 child; Pennsylvania 23152 posts
Oct 23rd '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" It doesn't seem to be very popular outside of Australia, I think people are too interested in solving ... [snip!] ... isn't possible) rather than dealing with the underlying issues and giving people the means to provide for themselves."</blockquote>




I believe in helping those who are truly in need. And, I believe that many of our safety net programs had that in mind. If they were shifted back to the states each state could decide where to put the "help" and how to get people back on their feet the fastest.
I don't know your system well, but one thing that is very different between Australia and the US is size and population. I think your population is similar to our population in our state of Texas. Texas could probably solve its problem better than the federal government.
Right now our system is incredibly broken and many have no incentive to do more than bump off of the bottom of society.