Maine Adds Work Requirement to Welfare Benefits

a reply to: lordcomac

post the listing....please?
what's the link I have a son who has been working with computers since he was 10 years old. he built his own computer by 11 and well he's what keeps mine up and running. he probably knows enough but just doesn't have the degree needed and won't go for it if it means he has to go in debt for it he might consider traveling to maine for a job.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's wrong with working for the food you eat? The economy isn't in the toilet anymore. Get a job, even if it is low paying.

What's wrong with working for money? You and everyone else gets paid for your work in cash money, so why shouldn't they?

Get a job? They ARE doing a job but not getting paid for it.

With all this 'equality' being called for in our affluent Western nations, how about we make everyone equal and pay all workers with just food stamps instead of money? After all, what's wrong with working for the food you eat?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I think the option to work 6 hours a week volunteering to get food stamps is too little. If working 20 hours per week is required, why only volunteer for 6 hours?

If a person can't find work, then "working" for food stamps by volunteering is quite a fair trade for the community who is paying for the food. That is not unreasonable at all, nor unfair, nor mean, in fact 6 hours is way too generous for someone who is unemployed and is able bodied.

Because if they can convince people to enslave themselves by working for nothing, those people don't compete for already paying jobs, putting others out of work.

This is not enslavement, it is not working for nothing, it is working for the money the government gives them to eat. That is a "paycheck". Able bodied people should have to work for their government "paycheck" in the form of food stamps. Why should they get to sit on the couch and play video games and watch TV and collect money from the government for food when they are capable of working for it?

“You’ve got to incentivize employment, create goals and create time limits on these welfare programs,”

Haha, true blood republicanism right there. Rather than address issue, let's cut benefits because 'Murica! Unemployed single people make up a tiny slice of the people getting public assistance, it's mostly single mothers and working parents that apply for benefits.

The public assistance programs are a drop in bucket compared to the corporate welfare republicans and democrats get. Republicans have their heads up their you know what, always attacking people and no policy.

But then again I lost respect for the Republican party once they started practicing tyranny during the last election.

i work, you pay me. that's called a job. so pay me job rates. oh but it's not a job?

it's welfare. what's the end-game here? redefining work? welfare? both? always for the good of the people of course.
perish the thought any nefarious government department(s) might be turning the screws a little bit more every day, so's we almost don't notice. until it's too late.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I think the option to work 6 hours a week volunteering to get food stamps is too little. If working 20 hours per week is required, why only volunteer for 6 hours?

If a person can't find work, then "working" for food stamps by volunteering is quite a fair trade for the community who is paying for the food. That is not unreasonable at all, nor unfair, nor mean, in fact 6 hours is way too generous for someone who is unemployed and is able bodied.

Unless of course that those six hours are at YOUR place of work and the net result being YOU have six hours less in YOUR wage packet....It's funny how Big Business aint hiring anyone, but when it comes to free labour they have jobs for everyone.

Volunteer hours are normally NOT at places where there is much paid employment.

I ran a center for a county for a few years in which we had two employees.
me (30 hours a week) and a secretary who was paid through a learn to work grant.
We ran classes for children and their families who were in trouble with the court,
it turned out to be a great program with a huge reduction in recidivism.
The school district donated an old school building.
The families, most of whom were really poor did not have to pay
for the classes. The county was poor and could barely pay me and
the part time instructors. This was a "business" that made ZERO
money, one that made no money to pay anyone, but was
really needed to help people.

As director I relied on people who had to "volunteer", do community service,
as part of their sentence or as their sentence.
This is how we got the center painted,
furniture that was donated transported and placed in the center,
some landscaping done, cleaning the center.
There are lots and lots of places who desperately need community service
volunteers who otherwise could not run their programs that benefit the community.

Volunteer hours means for charities,

or organizations like the one I ran,

that can not afford to hire people

but desperately need help to run programs that greatly benefit the community.

Food banks rely on volunteers

We have a job training center in our community
that is run with one paid staff and the rest volunteers
and it is expanding so that they can help more people.

We have a consolidated financial aid type center in our community
that the churches give their benevolence money
to who then check out stories of need and give the money
for rent/utility etc assistance, they run with only one paid staff
and are open full time with computers for job searching and job search assistance.

Volunteering is not unpaid labor for big business,
volunteering is for places that need help to help others.

Our county court kept a list of places that were approved for
community service hours, and people could go in and request
hours at other places. But no one was ever allowed to
"volunteer "at a place of business that was profit making.
That is not volunteering.

Have you never volunteered in your community to know what volunteering really is?

Do you really think an able bodied adult should get money from the government, a "paycheck" if you will, for doing nothing in return? That is treating people like infants and is condescending to able bodied adults.

a reply to: dawnstar

Afraid I'm not too keen to go linking myself directly to the company I work for on a public forum- but I assure you, the listing isn't hard to find- it's listed on every major job listing website I've heard of.

Just to bring things back on track, here....

Last year, the administration of Gov. Paul R. LePage, a Republican, decided to reimpose a three-month limit (out of every three-year period) on food stamps for a group often known as Abawds — able-bodied adults without minor dependents — unless they work 20 hours per week, take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week.

this doesn't appear to have anything to do with redefining work, redefining slavery, or giving people free food in exchange for free work-
It appears to be "get a job you bum!"- oh and we'll throw in some free food if that's what it will take for you to at least half-ass it.

“You’ve got to incentivize employment, create goals and create time limits on these welfare programs,”

Can't say I agree with dangling a cookie to get someone to work- but there definitely can't be limitless free living as an option- especially when it pays more than a low end job.

a reply to: doobydoll

As it stands, they are getting something for just being alive. Putting in work for your food is a small request to ask for. This stuff costs a LOT of taxpayer money.

With all this 'equality' being called for in our affluent Western nations, how about we make everyone equal and pay all workers with just food stamps instead of money? After all, what's wrong with working for the food you eat?

What 'equality'? This policy is taking benefits away from people not giving it to more people.

a reply to: cenpuppie

I'm curious what solutions to the problem you have?

Since you say the Republicans only attack people, yet have no policy, what do you suggest?

At some point, we have to address welfare and find a solution. That is my concern, since we cannot maintain the current system. Turning this into Republicans vs Democrats is not a solution.

For those unfamiliar with the State of Maine it's a mostly rural state made up of small towns and villages. Except of the larger cities, Augusta, Portland, Bangor and the elite playground around Kenybunk there is a serious dearth of public transportation. It ranks 32nd for median income. Now we all know there ARE people out there gaming the system. And that includes both public assistance and corporate welfare. Some people are of the opinion that everyone is gaming the system. For all these people that need to do 20hrs of work or pro bono work or training they have to transport themselves to those locations. So if the person/family is already circling the drain and needs food stamps (again, not everyone is gaming the system) how exactly do they pay for that transportation? Especially in a state with relatively long distances between population centers?

a reply to: xuenchen

There are a lot of retired people who receive social security and need food stamps to survive.
My mother in law who sadly passed away only a,few weeks ago was receiving food stamps. She was 95 . I guess you think they should have made her drag her arthritic frail self off to Mickey d's every day instead.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

There are a lot of retired people who receive social security and need food stamps to survive.
My mother in law who sadly passed away only a,few weeks ago was receiving food stamps. She was 95 . I guess you think they should have made her drag her arthritic frail self off to Mickey d's every day instead.

From the second link in original OP.

The Mid Coast Hunger Prevention Program is intended to be a supplemental food pantry, but a growing number of clients here and at pantries around the state have little else to rely on because of a change in state policy this year. That change is part of an adjustment being made by states that will strip food stamp benefits from a million childless, able-bodied adults ages 18 to 49, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on low-income Americans.

Emphasis mine. No 95 year old grannies working at McDonald's.

a reply to: retiredTxn

The poor are not the problem. Politicians and super pacs are the problem. It is chicken to always blame the poor for the problems of this big country. Every presidential cycle the wind up robots come out.

a reply to: MOMof3

The poor are indeed an easy target. Still mind boggling to me that so many jump on the "poor are the worst thing to happen to this country lets euthanize them all" bandwagon.

originally posted by: MOMof3


The poor are not the problem. Politicians and super pacs are the problem. It is chicken to always blame the poor for the problems of this big country. Every presidential cycle the wind up robots come out.

I don't recall saying the poor are the problem.

I am not for politicians or super-pacs.

I do, however, feel we do have a problem in our country with the welfare and food stamp programs. Anything that keeps able bodied adults from seeking employment, is a problem. Why is it wrong to help these people get up and actively seek employment?

We are not talking about those with mental illnesses, or with physical disabilities here. Just the ones who should be seeking employment, or finding other ways to make themselves attractive to employers.

We have many things to address in our society, this is just one item that has been brought up that really could and should be addressed.

a reply to: retiredTxn

I had friends living in TX when your state economy went upside down back in the 80's/90's. The rest of the country was doing OK at the time. They were leaving their keys in the door and walking away from their homes. There wasn't nearly enough work to go around. They would have had a very different opinion from yours back then. Again, the majority of the state of Maine is not Kenybunk or Portland. We have family up there. We know how hard it is to find work.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: cenpuppie

I'm curious what solutions to the problem you have?

Since you say the Republicans only attack people, yet have no policy, what do you suggest?

At some point, we have to address welfare and find a solution. That is my concern, since we cannot maintain the current system. Turning this into Republicans vs Democrats is not a solution.

I am a Libertarian at heart who votes Republican, until it seems a libertarian actually has a chance of winning - or a libertarian or conservative third party has a chance of winning.

My solution is:

Free childcare for ALL women with infants over 8 weeks old
who make less than 2/3 or 3/4 the national average at their jobs.
Why should women who are able to work get to say home with their children,
while the middle class women have to go to work
when their babies are 8 weeks old?
That is inequality.

The women on welfare should have several choices,
get a job, any job of at least 20-30 hours per week,
and be subsidized up to the amount they would have
received in the old welfare system.
If they don't get a job then they must volunteer at a non-profit
for 20-30 hours per week.
An able bodied adult should not be able to stay home
and get a "paycheck" from the government for doing nothing.
That is inequality.
OR
Go to school full time with a grade point average of 2.0
or higher (C or higher) with free tuition.
I saw this program work wonders in New Mexico where I taught at a University.
If the grade point average falls below 2.0 they must
return to work or volunteerism if they can not get a job.
I saw a number of women get off welfare and into decent paying jobs
in this program and their self esteem went through the roof.
OR
Go to a full time life skills course.
New Mexico also had one of those.
It was amazing how many women did not even know how to
make a meal or manage their money, or clean their house.

No additional welfare money beyond 2 children.
Having children should not be an occupation.
If the woman chooses to have 5 children,
she will still get welfare as if she had 2 children.
All the children over the first 2
can be eligible for free school breakfast/lunch
and eligible for "clothing cards" similar to food stamps where only clothing
and shoes the child's size can be purchased,
and an annual school supply bag,
but the mother will not get more money.

Married fathers would be allowed to live in the home
with their children and the family subsidized
up to 2/3 the national average
if the family income is 2/3 below the national family income.
Fathers would be subject to the same rules as the mothers.
This would encourage intact families rather than the current system
that encourages single parenting with multiple biological sperm donors.

Subsidized housing like the current system for all families
who are 2/3 below the national family income.
Married fathers would be allowed to live with their children.
To encourage a reintroduction of family structure
to generational welfare recipients.
(Unmarried "fathers" in the home greatly increase the risk of sexual
and physical abuse, so that should not be allowed because it is
a risk to the children.)

No able bodied adult (with children over 8 weeks old)
will be allowed to receive welfare or food stamps
unless they are either employed or volunteering at a non-profit
or going to school full time or in a full time life skills program.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: MOMof3


The poor are not the problem. Politicians and super pacs are the problem. It is chicken to always blame the poor for the problems of this big country. Every presidential cycle the wind up robots come out.

I don't recall saying the poor are the problem.

I am not for politicians or super-pacs.

I do, however, feel we do have a problem in our country with the welfare and food stamp programs. Anything that keeps able bodied adults from seeking employment, is a problem. Why is it wrong to help these people get up and actively seek employment?

We are not talking about those with mental illnesses, or with physical disabilities here. Just the ones who should be seeking employment, or finding other ways to make themselves attractive to employers.

We have many things to address in our society, this is just one item that has been brought up that really could and should be addressed.

The quality of employment has decreased exponentially. These jobs that are available to those who don't already have employment are as expendable as the people working them. Why go to lengths to be 'attractive' to an employer who will cut you loose at his earliest convenience? Who would replace you with a machine in an instant?

a reply to: retiredTxn

I don't know who these people are. I am 64 with a large family and friends network. Only one single mom who works get food stamps. Who are these people that every one knows about but never turned in for fraud. With such a large number of abusers, somebody knows who they are. Let's go get 'em. Things will get much better the more we kill and make people suffer.