[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.
To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]
I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :)[/quote]
But at least something good will come of it…and it will discourage those that just want a free ride.
If they learn a skill or trade in the process, so much the better.[/quote]
I like that. I mean, we’re already paying asinine amounts for new healthcare enrollees right? Didn’t I hear in Oregon we ended up paying something like a quarter million dollars for each Obamacare enrollee when the numbers were crunched in relation to the budget they received?
Better if we’re going to waste money then there at least be a small return on investment in the way of community service or trade-learning. That may eventually pay itself forward enough to break even in the big schemes if people can get work. Or decrease benefits but guarantee free schooling in trades IF they have a C average–that way you mitigate the cost of sending them to school, simultaneously lessen the incentive to stay on welfare indefinitely, and also get them educated and incentivized to work at a job that pays them more when they finish trade school.
Regarding drug testing. I think it has benefits and I think the effectiveness also depends on the target state. For instance in Kansas you might not have enough people on the dole to make the cost anywhere near effective for setting up an entire drug testing program statewide, but in New York or California the great population numbers and large welfare numbers might make it more effective.
Second, and something to think about, is it might be acceptable to deal with the short term financial loss of comprehensive drug testing if you put the “fear of God” into the people you are testing. In other words: go with it, test everyone, kick everyone off that doesn’t pass 3 tests in a row with 1 warning after the first fail, and then gradually ramp it down to “random” testing of a random sample of people after a couple years. I’m just thinking out loud really, but that might enable us to get the worst out, drastically decrease the rate of abuse, and also eventually reduce the costs of spending when you are not testing as many people in the future.
Sort of a “spend money to make money” thing. I dunno.[/quote]
Since when do you have to pay to learn a trade? ALL of the major UNION trades actually pay their apprentices to go to school. If anyone want’s to learn a trade, all they have to do is fill out an application at your local union hall. For electrical workers, they will give you a math test. If you fail the test, they will give you FREE remedial math classes UNTIL YOU PASS.
Then they pay FOR your school and pay the student an hourly wage TO GO TO school…
The rub is this: if you are in the program and fail three tests in one year, you are kicked out of the program. Other unions are very similar.
The only reason people do not take advantage of this is because they DON’T WANT TO WORK.
eye roll