1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Here’s What Happened When Maine Forced People to Actually Work for Welfare

Discussion in 'Government Offices and Programs' started by Caroljo, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    What program works? Welfare, which works throughout the U.S.? Or Maine's program, which achieves nothing that other states' programs don't achieve besides undercutting union wages and condemning the small minority of long-term unemployed (often people on blacklists, with serious illnesses, caring full-time for dependents in severe need, in areas with low employment, without permanent addresses, and/or with a teaspoon too much melanin in their skin), to lives of crime or destitution?
     
  2. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    The program that requires welfare bums to work for their money. Dude, is your short term memory that bad? That's what this thread is all about.

    It works because it keeps the shysters who were gaming the system from collecting welfare even though they didn't deserve it.
     
  3. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    And, as I've pointed out over and over and over again, the idea of "shysters ... gaming the system" is essentially a myth. There was not significant long-term dependence on welfare, anywhere in the country, before Maine introduced the program. All Maine did was cut off aid to those who are truly unable (not unwilling, but unable) to get jobs.
     
  4. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    If the idea of shysters gaming the system is a myth, why did welfare rolls drop so significantly when Maine required the bums taking welfare to actually do some work?

    I mean, there are some with no legs that can't even hop to a job, but that big a drop off, it's shysters having to go out and look for some other way to game the system.
     
  5. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    They didn't. Where's your evidence that they did? Don't say it's in the thread because it isn't ... what you posted is evidence that most of the people on welfare stopped using it after a few months ... just as was the case all over the country BEFORE Maine's law went into effect.
     
  6. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    The percentage of those on welfare who are unable to work is miniscule. Ergo, logic dictates that you put requirements on free money, the shysters gaming the system look for new grifting opportunities.

    Also, logic dictates that just as many new receipients go on welfare as the short term come off. If that weren't the case, welfare rolls would drop like they did in Maine, and indeed, eventually fall to nothing. That is not the case, ergo, again, logic dictates that what Maine did works.

    Again, that's what logic dictates.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    Again, you have provided no evidence that welfare rolls dropped in Maine. The point is that welfare has ALWAYS been a short-term safety net for the working class. It has never provided enough to live on (and it is this if anything that is wrong with it); it has provided just enough to keep people from dying in emergency situations. The majority of adults receiving cash welfare benefits for themselves or their kids are now, and always have been, women fleeing abusive partnerships. Once those women have gotten back on their feet, and gotten stable long-term employment without bureaucrats breathing down their neck and threatening to take away their children, other women have found themselves in the same situation and have taken their place as short-term welfare users. What Maine has done is force these women into minimum-wage or sub-minimum-wage jobs, undercutting organizing efforts such as the current McDonald's and Wal-Mart strikes, while preventing them from having time to develop a long-term plan to ensure their physical safety, find stable housing situations, and consider pursuing educational opportunities or saving money to make a better home for their kids.
     
  8. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    Apparently, you didn't read the top post.

    Maine didn't do anything of the sort. Maine said if you want suck off the state, you have to at least volunteer rather than sit on your ass eating bon-bons.

    Get back to me when you have.

    I forgive you for your angry, uniformed screed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. PhilFish

    PhilFish Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    6,399

    wait. so working somehow prevents the development of a long term plan? isnt that like saying that i want a new job, therefore i am going to quit my current one so that i can devote myself full time to the job search?

    further, is receiving social benefits better than receiving a minimum wage and working?
     
  10. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    No, apparently you didn't understand the top post, and apparently you don't understand what Maine's law actually means in terms of individuals' lives.
     
  11. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    Working under sweatshop conditions makes it harder for people to develop ways to escape those conditions.

    It depends on the conditions. I don't know of anyone who would voluntarily receive the dole (which is far less than minimum wage) rather than a job. But I can imagine circumstances (serious disability, caring for someone else who requires full-time care) where that might be the preferable option.
     
  12. PhilFish

    PhilFish Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    6,399

    sure, but that's not the case by any stretch.

    I can imagine circumstances too, but they too are not a large part of the whole, and some simply are on the dole...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    I understand the top post exactly. And I understand what it means for individual lives, or should I say the lives of the grifters who can no longer grift, i.e., they have to pull their scam on someone else.

    But obviously, you didn't understand the top post. Otherwise, you would not have brought up the red herrings of po' chilrens, womens folk, and folks who ain't right.
     
  14. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    The top post said that few people were long-term welfare recipients following welfare "reform" in Maine. I merely pointed out that few people were long-term welfare recipients in Maine or anywhere else in the country before welfare "reform." Most of those who are long-term recipients are children, and most of the adults receiving long-term benefits are disabled.
     
  15. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    Wow, neither the top poster, nor her link said anything like that. The only person who said that was you when you threw it out as a red herring.

    What the article did say was:

    "Out of the 12,000 non-disabled welfare recipients without children who were on the rolls last year, only 2,680 remain as of now..."

    I forgive you. I understand that liberals repeat their bromides so much they become truth to them, no matter how much they have been discredited.
     
  16. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    And, again, the only thing I've pointed out, over and over, is that the rest of the nation, without adopting Maine's draconian laws, has for decades experienced a similar rate of moving people off welfare rolls.
     
  17. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    Wow, you say the rest of the nation experienced a 78% drop in welfare rolls compared to last year?

    LOL, you are so cute when you struggle in debate.
     
  18. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    No, I'm saying that Maine didn't either.

    Look, in the rest of the nation the majority of people receive welfare for less than 4 months, and 70% leave the welfare rolls within a year. http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/406998.html

    But throughout the rest of the nation, as in Maine, new people make temporary use of the welfare system to replace the people who'd left the welfare rolls.
     
  19. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Rich,

    Last year at the time of the article, 12,000 people, non-disabled with no children were on the rolls. This year, 2,600 after Maine instituted a program of making people work for their free money. In Maine, 70% left the program as you say, but they weren't replace with new welfare bums because Maine was making them work for theys money.

    Facts, be facts, my friend, and I just dumped a boatload of them on you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,615
    Likes Received:
    3,026
    So Maine didn't cut off long-term welfare abusers ... they just cut off access to thousands of people who needed temporary relief!

    https://www.gsfb.org/hunger/ <--- Not surprisingly, food banks report skyrocketing hunger, with Maine now #1 in New England for hunger, child hunger, and senior hunger.

    http://bangordailynews.com/2014/10/...nger-will-degrade-their-academic-performance/ <--- 1 in 4 students in Maine don't get enough to eat, and this is reflected in their academic performance.
     

Share This Page