Opinion of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

[Earth]

Not stringent enough. Citizens who receive such programs should be giving up more liberties. People on such programs should have regular home inspections to make sure they aren't using govt money to buy luxuries.

You should be ashamed.

[??????????]

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

[specific_name]

Nowadays we have to go to such trouble with the code words and all. It takes so much time to explain, when we all know what people are really thinking on this issue.  Political correctness has worked for everyone really, as intolerant bigots and other detestable creatures claim they're standing up for the common man with talk of "personal responsibility." You're fighting the wrong class war. Perhaps real personal responsibility would become a factor when the bottom 80% or greater isn't being milked by the top 1%.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

OK so you want to hire and train more government employees to do these stringent inspections, which would no doubt be far more costly than the actual welfare fraud it would prevent. Absolutely brilliant. Would you ever pay $1000 to insure a $500 item?

[Frink]

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

So the constitution shouldn't apply to people who are on government assistance?

[Earth]

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

It has little to do with fairness. You'd rather have people jump through hoops because you're butthurt that taxes go to support them in a small way? You want people to give up their liberties out of a sense of your own greed? It's unbelievable. Let me know when liberties start to matter to you. More specifically, when they're not about you.

[Ebowed]

Nowadays we have to go to such trouble with the code words and all. It takes so much time to explain, when we all know what people are really thinking on this issue.  Political correctness has worked for everyone really, as intolerant bigots and other detestable creatures claim they're standing up for the common man with talk of "personal responsibility." You're fighting the wrong class war. Perhaps real personal responsibility would become a factor when the bottom 80% or greater isn't being milked by the top 1%.

Agree very strongly with this; I have really grown to detest the 'personal responsibility' meme (it seems to also come up quite a lot in some circles when debating abortion also, as a euphemism for perceived lack of bodily self-control).

Obviously the welfare program this reform replaced was not ideal, but TANF is far too strict and based on some kind of pseudo-darwinist classist garbage theories which still seem all too common in today's political discourse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think StatesRights comment proves that most people concerned with "reforming" welfare are more concerned with just hating poors than preventing actual fraud or abuse, since his idea would cost a lot more money to implement than it would save.

[??????????]

I think StatesRights comment proves that most people concerned with "reforming" welfare are more concerned with just hating poors than preventing actual fraud or abuse, since his idea would cost a lot more money to implement than it would save.

Not at all. I believe that if you are going to take government resources that the government asking for some responsibility is perfectly fine. I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients and allowing them to only have the very basics in life.  Having things like cable, internet access, etc is a luxury and should not be purchased with welfare dollars. Also, I believe once employed that welfare recipients should have to pay back a portion of the money they took in from the government. I would change the food stamp laws as well and only allow the very basics to be purchased, certain canned foods, fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and bread. Right now if you are on SNAP you can purchase most anything outside of cleaning supplies and hot prepared foods. I think if a person is going to get benefits from the government they should be expected to do so in a responsible and adult manner. They should be required to search for a job and give back to their community, etc. I fail to see how wanting people to move up and past their rough patch is 'poor hating'. Democrats just want to create a permanent underclass of poor who vote solely for more government benefits.

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

It has little to do with fairness. You'd rather have people jump through hoops because you're butthurt that taxes go to support them in a small way? You want people to give up their liberties out of a sense of your own greed? It's unbelievable. Let me know when liberties start to matter to you. More specifically, when they're not about you.

Personal and fiscal responsibility matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm referring to your ridiculous idea of "stringently searching" the homes of welfare recipients, which would involve hiring and training a ton more government employees to do so and greatly increasing the costs of welfare agencies far beyond the costs of any fraud they may stop.

[memphis]

Making food stamps more restrictive makes sense. We shouldn't be subsidizing junk food. It would also be a huge step toward making non-processed foods available in low-income neighborhoods.

[Earth]

Welfare recipients should only be asked of as much as any other person. States, you have some seriously despicable ideas.

Personal and fiscal responsibility matter.

How does that translate to the authoritarian bullsh**t you support?

[Vepres]

I fail to see how any restrictions in this legislation are unreasonable. Lifetime limit? Require you to actually look for a job or do community service? Really, you bleeding hearts are disgusting.

[Frink]

I would like it better if there had been some form of make-work component to it or continued expansion of some already existing program like the Job Corps or Americorps.

[??????????]

Welfare recipients should only be asked of as much as any other person. States, you have some seriously despicable ideas.

Personal and fiscal responsibility matter.

How does that translate to the authoritarian bullsh**t you support?

Guess you didn't even bother to read the ideas, just straight to some hyperbolic nonsense. Again, if you ask of the government the government should have the right to ask of you. Like I said, that's why I don't support a welfare state!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Personal and fiscal responsibility matter.

Poverty is not caused by personal irresponsibility, but is the result of structural flaws in the economic system. Ultimately punishing people for being poor (which is what punishing - whether overtly or through stigma - people seeking assistance does) is punishing them for being unfortunate enough to fall into the poverty trap. No one really benefits from doing that.

[??????????]

Thanks for a blanket generalization. Plenty of people are poor due to their own fiscal irresponsibility. Poverty doesn't really fit into one broad spectrum. I know of people who go back two or three generations completely dependent on a state paycheck. And it simply isn't because some mysterious bogeyman keeping them poor. If you see what they do with what little money they have it would make you shake your head. Giving people a better education on personal fiscal matters should be a priority in the school system.

[??????????]

Poverty in Africa and in the US are worlds different. I'm talking about American poverty.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Poverty in Africa and in the US are worlds different. I'm talking about American poverty.

Yes, I'm talking (well, writing) about first world poverty as well.

Thanks for a blanket generalization.

There's no point even discussing this subject - or any other social issue - unless generalisation is acceptable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure that some people are. I'm also sure that there are plenty of people who are equally irresponsible with money who are not - and will never be - poor. There are in all first world countries well-established geographies of poverty, and these tend to follow patterns linked to the economy; depressed regional or local economies especially, but also areas with lots of casual labour and low order service jobs. Do people unable to manage their own finances mysteriously congregate in areas were other people unable to manage their own finances live? Of course they don't. And this is ignoring the fact that people are not born equal and do not have equal circumstances during their lives.

[opebo]

I fail to see how any restrictions in this legislation are unreasonable. Lifetime limit? Require you to actually look for a job or do community service? Really, you bleeding hearts are disgusting.

Friend, poverty is lifelong, and looking for a job won't change the fact that there aren't any jobs.

Personal and fiscal responsibility matter.

Poverty is not caused by personal irresponsibility, but is the result of structural flaws in the economic system. Ultimately punishing people for being poor (which is what punishing - whether overtly or through stigma - people seeking assistance does) is punishing them for being unfortunate enough to fall into the poverty trap. No one really benefits from doing that.

In point of fact is it not a 'structural flaw' but the designed, integral, and necessary brutality of a heirarchical exploitative system, Al.  And in fact, the rich benefit immensely from punishing peple for being poor, both overtly and through stigma (the latter is even more salubrious for the rich than the former). 'The poverty trap' is precisely the nature of capitalism, and precisely what makes the rich rich.

[opebo]

I'm not because I'm right. That's why I oppose such govt programs. Fair is fair if you want to leech off of govt resources.

Worker, why don't you bring such anger to bear on the real 'freeloaders' - the owning class?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In point of fact is it not a 'structural flaw' but the designed, integral, and necessary brutality of a heirarchical exploitative system, Al.

Designed implies that there was a designer, and we know that there wasn't one. As for 'necessary'... well, poverty didn't really exist in western Europe in the three decades that followed the second world war, except as a legacy from previous decades and centuries and you'd have difficulty arguing that the economic system then was different to now, even if its features and operations obviously were. Interestingly, poverty was often thought of as an economic problem during that period, rather than just as a social one; poverty as a bad thing because it holds back the economy in certain areas. Which, in the West, you basically don't hear any more.

[opebo]

Designed implies that there was a designer, and we know that there wasn't one.

Yes, 'designed' was the wrong word.  Evolution is a more apt analogy.

As for 'necessary'... well, poverty didn't really exist in western Europe in the three decades that followed the second world war, except as a legacy from previous decades and centuries and you'd have difficulty arguing that the economic system then was different to now, even if its features and operations obviously were.

I don't see any reason to accept your claim that poverty was non-existent, but I'll admit the economic system on the Continent isn't all that much different.  However it has changed quite a bit in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Interestingly, poverty was often thought of as an economic problem during that period, rather than just as a social one; poverty as a bad thing because it holds back the economy in certain areas. Which, in the West, you basically don't hear any more.

YES!  This is the stupidest thing about the modern Right-wing economics - in their passion for power and dominance they forget that it does make them absolutely worse off.  I suppose relative power is the only thign which matters though - better to be absolute tyrant of a poorhouse than merely influential in comfortable society.