Understandably, I am not able to consider every detail of how govt money is doled out but I think my idea would be a big improvement to how the system now works.  I think that anyone who gets money from the govt be it welfare, food stamps or unemployment should be required to submit a resume of their skills, education and experience.  Then any govt agency or non profit would be able to hire anyone in this pool of recipients for a rate that would determine how many ours that individual is required to work.  They receive 100 dollars and the job is rated at 10 dollars they would have to work up to 10 hours or lose their benefits.  Mothers with kids, well hire some from this group to staff day cares and you have a place for the mothers to place their kids when they work.  Storm or disaster efforts would be aided by all these people who would have to work for the money they get.  Cities could then do some of the things that makes their town nicer but are too expensive like picking up litter or cleaning the outside of their buildings or cutting the grass on abandoned properties.

My guess is that you would see a dramatic drop in the number of people who stay unemployed until their benefits are about to run out. And a big drop in those who view Welfare as the easiest job that a person can have.  Anyone who thinks that everyone who gets a govt check for sitting at home really is desperate to find a job is delusional.  For many unemployment is like a paid vacation and for some it is a logical decision.  If a job they can get only pays a little more than they are getting to sit at home well for some and perhaps many it is much easier to do nothing and get paid for it. 

I also had an idea for that bad idea of stimulus that they did.  They sent out money to everyone and found that many just used it to pay off some credit cards or put it away in savings in case things got worse.  I think that it would be a simple thing to just issue credit cards that had limits like flexible spending cards have.  The limit would be that it had to be used to buy goods or services that are made in the USA.  US companies would get their products certified and the card could only be used to buy certain certified goods.   The money gets spent and the products are all of US origin or it goes to US contractors. 

I realize that idea might not be as easy as I seem to imply but I think it very similar to how a flexible spending card works and it would at the very least insure that the money that they hand out is spent and that ti goes toward the maximum benefit inside of the US.   

I guess I think that the things the govt does is intentionally confusing so that they can lie to the people about how great it is and how it helps them while at the same time making sure that the money goes to those who will support their time in office.   

I looked at the way the money was spent in NE PA during the one round of stimulus and it was clearly a total waste and nothing more than a political pay off.   For example during the dead of winter they put some water lines in.  At that time of year it is difficult to dig and since these lines go down the middle of the street the roads were destroyed.  Soil compaction is difficult if not impossible so that when things start to thaw well any patching they did to the roads was just a mess.  But these contractors spent the money before the time expired and they of course were always those who supported the politicians in the area.


 

Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.

So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that.  All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working.   Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer. 

I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements.  I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund.  I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.   

Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out. 

Here is how I think government handouts should be handled. They should be stopped at the federal level. if a state wants to create a safety net of some sort that is their right.

So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that.  All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working.   Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer. 

I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements.  I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund.  I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.   

Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out.

Well, you still don't get my drift.  I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out.  The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that.  Why would we  be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient?  Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group?   Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people?  I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already. 

Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.


edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting

So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?

So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?

BINGO!

Well, you still don't get my drift.  I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out.  The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that.  Why would we  be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient?  Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group?   Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people?  I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already. 

Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.


edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting

I think the libs would be up in arms if you make any or all recipients do anything.  Last night on Hannity the one guest said it was outrageous to stop people from using their welfare cash cards to get money in a strip club or bar.  If you saw it, well it is clear that there are a lot of people that believe that they are some how owed this money because they do not have all the money they think they should have.  The guest said he once was a stripper and all of the strippers were on welfare because they did not make enough money.   They were kind to him because they never asked if he included all his tips as income which I am sure evades being counted to some extent.  But the Peoples need that money. 

In my world my idea only applies to those who are getting a check because they do not have a job or earn less than what ever the income level is.   So every able bodied person getting that money theoretically would not be in that spot if they had a job.  So treat the money as if it were payment for a job.  SS is paid when you hit an age which cannot be changed because you are working.  It would be nice if you could make me younger by giving me a job but at this point I do not think that is possible.

Back in 1976 I heard something similar to this in one of my sociology classes so it is not a new idea.  Looking back I am not surprised what we were told were the consequences of having them do work for the money they receive.  They implied that it would cause people to lose their jobs because you would use these people and that making them work was unfair and equated to slavery.  I have no doubts that the Libs would see this as an outrage.  I would even be OK if instead of work they were enrolled in training or college assuming they were performing at an acceptable level. 

I do believe that there are a substantial number of people getting welfare and unemployment that could be working if they wanted too.  I do not deny that there are a number of people collecting on either that are there through circumstances of life.  As one more benefit it would also reduce the number of cheats who collect a check while doing work under the table. 

I think I get your drift when you say that the Dem's and Libs of the world would be hysterical and I assume that the GOP would be afraid of being called heartless if they pushed something even a little like this.  So I have no belief that we as a nation will ever require them to earn this money in some way.  I think that is truly a shame.