Make it like unemployment where you have to go in every two weeks and show that you are either working on your GED, working on college or other post highschool training or actively looking for a job. If you have a baby while on welfare, no extra money except an increase in WIC. I would also lower benefits. Make welfare uncomfortable-not painful but uncomfortable. There’s no motivation for too many people to get off welfare if they can afford cable, brand named sneakers for their kids, cell phones, etc.
My last suggestion would be to require people who are looking for work but don’t yet have a job to do community service to the taxpayers. Work 15 or 20 hours a week at a government building in a low skilled job so govt. needs to hire fewer people. Then they have something to put on a resume as well as paying the taxpayers back.

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

We’ve been fighting the “war on poverty” your ways for 50 years. How’s it working out? I can tell you if we fought any other type of war and went backwards as we have in terms of the measures of success, the left would be castrating people for wasting the money.

We spend, Federal, State and Local, 1 TRILLION dollars on welfare last year. That’s $60,000 for every household in America.

How do we get out of it? We leave more money in the hands of Americans, who are very generous. We let charities and other groups who can hold people accountable help those in need. Those charities and groups have traditionally held people accountable for fixing their situations, or at least working on it.

Instead of giving a family 600+ dollars a month for a “disabled” child, how about giving every child $7500 vouchers for the school of their choice. Eliminate the public school monopoly and let quality soar in schools as they compete for students and have to actually be successful at producing educated kids.

We no better cure poverty than we can cure stupid. Some people just aren’t. There will always be poor and no matter how much money you pour at them, they will be that way. What you need to create is opportunity. A competitive school system, low unemployment, money in the hands of investors and innovators instead of bureaucrats.

I’ve overheard the conversations. “Wow I’m coming up a little short now Trish, I think I need to get a job.” “No, have another kid, that will bump up your AFDC checks.”

Give people the option of life long hunger or pulling themselves up, even with temporary, private, charitable help, and they will pull themselves up. The government model encourages finding more and more ways to live off the dole, not to get out of it.

There was a story on HA a while back about a woman that did go to work, but there was a point where a certain amount of income gave her less take home because of how much “support” she lost, so there was a disincentive to work at all.

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Any government ‘safety net’ is run by bureaucrats. There are some bureaucrats dedicated to doing the job that is set to them and then there are the bureaucrats who oversee them.

Those that oversee them for a government safety net must justify their position by expanding the safety net. Doing so requires a larger organization. Those in the oversight role see a need for more overseers and higher pay. This is true of any organization.

If you want to end the expansion of the ‘safety net’ then it is very simple: pay those doing the work NOTHING. Any of those involved in the dispensation of such funds allocated for such work that misuse or abuse it are then stripped of all worldly possessions and not allowed to apply to any government ‘safety net’. Ever.

If it is so damn worthy you will get people willing to do this work FOR FREE.

Every single liberal pushing for a ‘safety net’ should be willing to do this in their spare time to help the poor, the needy, the dispossessed and those down on their luck.

If they complain that they must work for a living… well that is the point, isn’t it? Yet the most dedicated people to a job and managing funds are those that take up such duties and have no vested interest in expanding power or influence and know that they can get tossed out on their ear for misuse or abuse of such systems. Those organizations that take willing volunteers to dispense the goods and funds given to it for a purpose are called: charities.

Government is not a charity. It is not as efficient as a charity… hell most for profit businesses have problems meeting efficiency of charities and the most efficient charities can lower their overhead to a percent or two of overall cost. That is why charity has been the source of the greatest help to the greatest numbers and the lowest cost possible over time.

The ‘safety net’ is not a charity until it is RUN LIKE ONE and as EFFICIENTLY AS ONE so that those that seek to cheat, chisel or deprive the truly needy are kept out by dedicated individuals who have volunteered to do the job and are not seeking to EXPAND the ‘safety net’ for career advancement.

Heck, I would want this for all of the non-constitutionally mentioned organizations that Congress has deemed worthy of encrusting this Nation with. Get volunteers for the EPA, DoJ, Labor, Energy, Agriculture… places like DoD, the US Mint, USPTO, and a few other cats and dogs can all be paid at military pay scales up to the rank of Captain at the SES level. Do THAT and you will soon find shrunken departments with a very few, very committed individuals running them. For free. If it is such a good thing for the Nation to have these organizations, then we should be able to find willing volunteers for them to work gratis for the benefit of the Nation.

Some conservatives believe the only way to reform safety-net programs is to end them altogether, but these programs remain so politically popular as to be unassailable.

It’s called welfare reform. You don’t have to completely end the program. If you limit how long it applies, you can accomplish the same thing.

Honestly, the fact that it’s called a “safety net” should tell you that it’s not meant to be permanent. Who lives their lvies in a net?

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Hey, idiot, I was poor, very poor, once…I went to work, fool.

The responsible and compassionate path is reform that learns from the failures of the last five decades and puts the US on path to provide prosperity to everyone who desires it.

The failure of the last five decades is that government cannot be a charity provider. It either callously lets people fall through the cracks (and enables some very perverse incentives) or it doesn’t treat everyone equally under the law.

And, it’s not the “US”s place to “provide prosperity”. It is the federal government’s job solely to protect its citizens rights and to treat everyone equally under the law. It is *not* their place to provide in any way whatsoever for people’s prosperity. People provide for their own prosperity, and people can provide for each other’s prosperity if they desire it. But the government cannot.

Repeal is impossible, even if it was the most desirable outcome (which I don’t believe is true).

Sorry, Ed, but it *is* the most desirable outcome in the long run. Virtue will never be a government trait. And, government-enforced private virtue is no virtue at all. It’s theft.

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Once upon a time before the “Great Society” of welfare queens getting knocked up in their mid-teens to get their own “free” Section 8 apartment with a transient baby daddy who might show up occasionally to share the AFDC check and walkin’ ’round money or sire yet another welfare dependent…. the poor typically comprised a complete family with both parents sharing a parental responsibility thus enhancing the possibility their offspring wouldn’t grow up someday to be a union thug, crack dealer or Chicago gangsta. Before all that “help” the poor child of two parents in the home, going to a school with someone better than a typical NEA, English-challenged quota-hire… stood a chance of bettering their prospects.

I’ve never seen anyone so interested in other people’s money as liberals. It’s remarkable. Other people who have money, people who want other people’s money, people who don’t think people deserve the money they have. Lots of envy and coveting.

Paul-Cincy on December 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

It’s fascinating how they paint Republicans as greedy when in reality liberals are all consumed with money … everyone elses. .

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Being born poor has nothing to do with it. People born poor in the US have become billionaires simply because they worked hard and when they failed they tried again. Liberals think that’s bad.

You cannot control how people will be. There will always be poor people, there will always be hard workers, there will always be lazy people, there will always be the criminal, there will always be the generous. You cannot create a society where everyone is equal because no two people are.

The liberal model simply seeks to avoid a society where those without material wealth are left to languish without a decent education or access to proper medical care. Given our capitalist system, the way to do that is through the redistribution of wealth. Should you have some other way of achieving this, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM

First, let’s define capitalism. Capitalism is simply a term used to describe what people do in free societies … that is, engage in commerce and go about their lives relatively free of government intrusion and coercion. We are quickly moving from that to a government controlled society.

Secondly, instead of creating giant bureaucracies to take money from people and give it to others, why don’t liberals simply try to create more opportunity for people and help those in need themselves? You ever think of that? Do you realize how much money is spent by the left trying to get laws enacted that take money away from other people? Billions. Plus, liberals never stop. Never. Once they have one thing they want more.

It’s typical in government controlled societies for opportunity to decrease as control increases. Your programs are their own worse enemies.

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

You sound like the British in the 1770′s.

I agree with him on most points but this is where I differ. Children who attend preschool benefit greatly. Ask most kindergarten teachers. Just because the gains can not be measured at the age of 18 does not make it a wash.

Instead of cutting out a program that actually educates children from a young age, we should try to duplicate that success in all of the successive elementary years.

Paul-Cincy on December 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Again, if you have some way to make it so that people born poor aren’t at a preventable social disadvantage, I’d love to hear it.

Under your assumptions, material wealth is the ultimate determinant of everything, even life and death. The vast majority of humanity disagrees, and you should get over it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Apparently liberals think so. Everyone of their policies and desires calls for taking money from people.

darwin on December 13, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I’ve never seen anyone so interested in other people’s money as liberals. It’s remarkable. Other people who have money, people who want other people’s money, people who don’t think people deserve the money they have. Lots of envy and coveting.

The law has no power over a moral person. It only has power over the immoral.

astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Where do you come up with this stuff?? I mean, I get that you live in a world of thought exercises and waxing eloquent about big social issues, but where on earth do you come up with this sh*t??

darwin on December 13, 2012 at 2:03 PM

The liberal model simply seeks to avoid a society where those without material wealth are left to languish without a decent education or access to proper medical care. Given our capitalist system, the way to do that is through the redistribution of wealth. Should you have some other way of achieving this, I’d love to hear it.

The vast majority of humanity disagrees, and you should get over it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Once upon a time the National Socialists figured that if they sided with Zero’s role model Mussolini and NY Times’ Duranty’s role model Uncle Joe Stalin then all would be swell if they invaded Poland and France for their just desserts and “destiny”… for a short while until reality hit.

Maybe you should get over it.

Under your assumptions, material wealth is the ultimate determinant of everything, even life and death. The vast majority of humanity disagrees, and you should get over it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Apparently liberals think so. Everyone of their policies and desires calls for taking money from people.

But there IS a federal safety net which, if anyone, those like my friend’s brother would deserve. While your radical rejection of the status quo is just peachy in principle, I prefer to deal with reality. Liberals understand each small victory they win brings them closer to the kind of country they want. Dreaming about radical changes isn’t going to effect the change we want.

Paul-Cincy on December 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM

No, they do not deserve, whether it is there or not. They just get, along with the scammers, because it is run under the government.

You will never win ANY victory for conservatism with your argument. Reason? Because you refuse to educate anyone on things. All you do is bolster the argument that we need a federal safety net. We do not.

The only dreaming I am doing on this aspect is that at some point we run out of other people’s money and it all fails.

After all, it isn’t really concern for the needy of whatever class that drives all this largesse. It is pure, raw power. Power is the name of the game, and the results don’t matter at all.

There is only one way any of this gets fixed, and that is in the long run. The entity controlling all of it, in this case, the Federal government, will have to overreach itself to the point that it literally can’t fulfill its promises. When that happens, and the programs can’t be funded, when other people’s money has run out, when people are left high and dry because the government has failed to deliver on its commitments, then the changes will come. They won’t come easily, and they won’t be nice and neat and orderly. Far from it. These things will only be fixed when enough people have had their fill of this nonsense. That is going to take time, and things are going to have to get worse — a lot worse — before Americans have reached their limit of abuse from their leadership.

I make no predictions of what happens after that, but I sincerely hope it goes no farther than a lot of entrenched lawmakers getting booted out of office on their fat behinds, to be replaced with new ones that actually have the welfare of the country and the people at heart. Then, perhaps, we will see some of the changes that need to be made actually become reality.

I also suspect that I will not live to see it.

The fact of the matter is most Americans, and in fact most people, disagree. Under your assumptions, material wealth is the ultimate determinant of everything, even life and death. The vast majority of humanity disagrees, and you should get over it.

ernesto on December 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Funny little joke ernesto pipes in.

So ernesto, what % of your income do you donate without force to charity, the kind that directly helps pay for people to have better lives, as opposed to donating to political agendas?

What % of YOUR specific income are you willing to hand over to government under duress of force to care for these people?

The difference here is that in one case you are voluntarily helping your fellow man. In the other case you are enslaving your fellow man while at the same time creating dependents.

When government hands out the money, there are no checks or balances on who gets it. Whether they are gaming the system or are truly needy.
When it comes from charity, then there are checks and balances that are there to verify the need and check for abuse.

When government hands out the money, those paying cannot judge and correct an immoral recipient.
When it comes from charity, those paying can chose to support charities that support people as well as certain moral codes.

When government hands out money, it underwrites immorality and punishes morality.
When charity hands out money, it underwrites morality and those who are moral benefit from giving to charity.

This is why the progressives demand that government hands out the money. It destroys our culture for good morals and causes it to speedily reach immorality, which is where they have ultimate power.

The law has no power over a moral person. It only has power over the immoral.