_________________
Prayer should be your first response.
Not your last resort.

I think it's a *little* more involved than just being "too lazy" for welfare. I know some of these people. The system is not helping them in the ways they need to be helped. First, schools are worried more about the testing programs rather than equipping people to become workers. (Families are not helping EITHER! Kids rarely do real chores any more much less go out and mow lawns or babysit.) When they "can't find a job" - either because of the job market or because they lack the skills to snag one, they become discouraged and fall back on welfare to help them get thru. (I'm only talking about people that are not generational welfare recipients.) Job providers have their hands tied with regulations and costs. ($3 an hour per employee may have to go to L&I alone.)

Once on welfare they might look for a job for a little longer but their skills have not improved and they finally get in the habit of being cared for. The lull of watching tv or playing video games all day is hard to overcome. (Many also have the handicap of feeling socially inept which keeps them at home.)

This proposition is a step in the right direction. It should be emphasized that volunteering can be "job training" and a place to get references for jobs. I noticed that nay-sayer didn't mention the other part about taking job training. We don't know how to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps any more.

I was talking with a girl at church that was saying how the food pantries are mostly used by people with plenty of money. And they are ENCOURAGED by the food pantries because if the food is not taken they will be shut down. There aren't enough of the truly needy that use the food pantries. (Or they are too proud to use them.)

I may try out the job market again next fall or spring and see how I do.

And to answer your question - YES! I would volunteer 6 hours a week!

It's too easy to vilify "those lazy people" without knowing them. There are VERY few able bodied adults without dependents who get any sort of welfare benefits. (2k+/- in a whole state!)

Those people I have known in such circumstances were usually awaiting a diagnosis for a psychosis or a severe physical condition, but were so ill that they couldn't make their appointments to be diagnosed. Then the "system" labels them "able-bodied" Or, I knew one lady who was 90+ and her husband (who was her senior) was in the hospital. That makes her an "able bodied adult without dependents" in the mind of the state.

Welfare is also great at giving you a "volunteer" assignment that is 20 miles away when you have no car. Or an assignment that conflicts with the job training that would enable a person to get OFF welfare.

Things are never as simple as the sensationalist news reporters like us to think.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

I'd like to know the reality of it. Nobody has accurate numbers. The state only has what is reported. We have our local vignettes.

I don't know ANYbody like you describe, Anna. But, I know several of the "others". They are able-bodied, with some restrictions. Some are able to work occasionally until their problems flare up. Why not let them work when they are able? Some can work but have social anxieties or confidence issues. They need specialized types of jobs. Those with no cars can be driven by those with physical limitations to their volunteer positions. Someone with no car may have bigger problems getting a job but might consider housing in an area with a bus system, or work within biking distance. A lot of this is just getting plugged into the proper slot which SHOULD be easy with our computer technology.

If the state wanted to HELP these people, there's a lot they could do. But, they want to make a political statement by throwing them off the rolls instead.

Moving isn't possible for everyone - my Mom (who was disabled, but not on food stamps) was often encouraged to "just move into an apartment" - without consideration for the fact that her house had a $150/month payment, and the cheapest apartments started around 450 and had steps and dangerous neighbors. If a person is on government subsidy for rent, they can only live where that subsidy pays - which may not be near ANY job!

Realistically speaking, if the state endured the logistical nightmare of making work *possible* for these recipients - it would cost way more than the work they did was worth. And it would cost way more than the food stamps.

Food stamps for a single person without dependents max out at around 150/month - but then depending on circumstances, the amount goes down - sometimes to as little as 10 or 20 a month - and then the person is asked to work 6 hours a week to get 20/month? of course they say no.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

>>>If the state wanted to HELP these people, there's a lot they could do. But, they want to make a political statement by throwing them off the rolls instead.
<<< I totally disagree with this! The money that's being put out to "help" these people that used to feel "pressured" to find a job is hurting us as a nation. This is only one area that desperately needs reform if we're going to get back on steady legs.

>>> Moving isn't possible for everyone - my Mom (who was disabled, but not on food stamps) was often encouraged to "just move into an apartment" - without consideration for the fact that her house had a $150/month payment, and the cheapest apartments started around 450 and had steps and dangerous neighbors. If a person is on government subsidy for rent, they can only live where that subsidy pays - which may not be near ANY job!
<<< That's just it. We should be able to accommodate situations like this easily. People with COMMON SENSE and analytical skills could set up programs that could take into consideration real-life situations. I'm not talking about "ideal" here but practical choices. Maybe I *am* being idealistic.

>>> Realistically speaking, if the state endured the logistical nightmare of making work *possible* for these recipients - it would cost way more than the work they did was worth. And it would cost way more than the food stamps.
<<< The *state* should not have to endure the logistics. There are people on welfare and food stamps without jobs that have the skills to help put this together. Where's the "machinery" to allow this to happen?

Like this. Last summer we had a HUGE fire problem. There were a TON of volunteers to help put out fires but were turned away because of red tape. Rather than having in place a way to funnel these people to positions that wouldn't require training or special "licensing" or paperwork for "liability", they were flat sent home!

Right now we have a landslide blocking a road but it is in a rather remote area near a very small town. It is not a "priority". Rather than allowing "volunteers" clear the road, it remains blocked because only the "road workers" are allowed to do the work. What is that? Who decides these things?

When we had our flood it happened so fast that nobody had time to ask if volunteers were "allowed" to do the work. Yes, there were dangers but people did what needed to be done and the rest was taken care of afterwards. People felt GOOD about being able to help. We've taken that away from our citizens.

You aren't "allowed" to hand out food to the homeless, in many places! That's the kind of stuff I'm talkin' about. Setting up a safe system of transportation like Uber but not. Making sure the buses are available and safe and if there aren't enuf people in the area to warrant buses, vans or town citizens! There are people willing to do these things and if welfare recipients are given the opportunity to fill these needs it would be helpful for all.

It wouldn't happen overnight but steps could be taken, tweaked, revamped, and something good would come out of it.

>>> Food stamps for a single person without dependents max out at around 150/month - but then depending on circumstances, the amount goes down - sometimes to as little as 10 or 20 a month - and then the person is asked to work 6 hours a week to get 20/month? of course they say no.
<<< Ahhhh. The crux of the matter. This is where that "habit" of not working comes in. Rather than thinking of it as "getting paid" in $20 food stamps, it's a way of keeping a skill set or learning new ones. It's staying in touch with society. It's saying "thank you". Aren't food stamps supposed to be a survival means to get you by while you're looking for work? If there's too much comfort there it takes away incentive to do the hard work of going thru the process.
I don't know how food stamps are figured. It's a strange process. Some people get so much they don't use them up and others can't even buy enough beans and rice for the month. I don't personally know of any single able-bodied people on food stamps but I do know at least one that gets full benefits and "makes" more than we do.

I have to step back and remember the story Jesus told about the workers in the vineyard. It didn't matter how many hours they worked, they all got the same pay! That's not FAIR! It goes against my thinking. I suppose His tho'ts on the matter may be higher than mine.

I'm not hard-hearted, Anna. I don't want to yank welfare out from under people that truly need it. I have just seen TOO MUCH, not just the occasional, enabling. I have also seen TOO MUCH working the system. It's easy to fall into. Our society is set up to teach us to do it! (Remember my story of whether or not to plead "guilty" in court? The judge told me you are ALWAYS supposed to plead innocent and let them prove otherwise.)

I checked out the food stamp calculus a while back. It IS complex. But the (exceedingly simplified with lots of details omitted) summary goes something like this:

The government assumes that the recipient needs $5. a day to eat. A little more for a single person, a little less for each member of a large family (because of economies of scale) but generally $5. a day.

The second consideration is that you should spend 1/3 of your income on food. SO - your income (and savings, retirement, gifts, etc) are calculated to see what you have each month.

You are compensated for the DIFFERENCE between $5./day/mouth and 1/3 of your income. Practically speaking, if you're SINGLE without dependents, that means that you "need" 150/month for food. If you get $450/month, then you aren't entitled to food stamps. If you, however, get 430 a month, you might get $20 in food stamps. For that - you have to jump thru a million bureaucratic hoops, and spend massive time and energy - which - lets face it - if you had that you wouldn't NEED food stamps.

But, lets imagine you have 5 kids at home, and no husband. THEN - you "need" $900/month to feed the kids (tho there is a maximum family total - I don't know what that is?), and you can get up to 2700/month and still have full benefits.

I'm guessing that MOST of the people you know who "take advantage" and have lots left at the end of the month are families - not single folks without dependents. But the single folks without dependents get less sympathy (they're often not cute) - and it's already VERY hard to qualify if you're single without dependents - and therefore politicians regularly make a big show of "kicking them all off the rolls" Nobody likes to parade around the toddlers they kicked off food stamps right before election time - they always pick on the single adults.

I have two people I know pretty well who have been on food stamps for the last several years. One is a severely mentally ill adult (able bodied, without dependents in the mind of the state) who finally got over his psychotic break and has returned to productive employment at minimum wage for now - and is pretty delighted with himself for being able to work again. The other is a never married mother of 5 kids by 3 men, who just left man number 3 to run off with man number 4 - rumor has it that she regularly sells her kids' stamps for drugs. But, which one will the politician refuse to help? The single man, of course.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/