How do you weed out people that misuse government programs from the truly needy

How do you weed out people that misuse government programs from the truly needy. Many people talk about the different programs the government has welfare, TANF, Wic etc how do you weed out the people who are misusing these programs without taking away from the people who truly need and use them.

Do we just keep them the way they are or do we just say no one gets it and people who truly need are just f'ked





Accidentally posted in wrong section

[edit on 12-3-2009 by jatsc]

Ya, its rough out there when you have those who steal from the actual needy. I am all for self-sufficiency because that is what our country was based upon. I can only think of one possible solution, but its almost hypocritical for me. I hate big brother watching over the shoulders of the people, but my only solution would contain big brother watching. I think that when people apply for social welfare, etc., that they should have to submit where and how they spend their money. From there, the people who spend with no common sense or management should be left to suffer due to their own incompetence. Others, who truly struggle could helped to a certain extent due to their proofs of how much they spent. That leaves people to learn self-sufficiency or to drown in incompetence. Others could be supported by welfare and slowly be weened off. A solution, but maybe not the greatest.

The difficulty is coming up with an objective standard as to what "truly needy" means, that also is flexible enough to take into account unusual situations and multiple factors that can make somebody needy.

For example, somebody with a family of four who makes $25,000 a year in a rural southern town can afford a decent lifestyle. In other parts of teh country , $25,000 a year would be at the poverty line. Any standard you develop will have to take things like this into account.

reply to post by JPhobia


Between privacy issues, and deciding who is spending their money wisely vs. who isn't, that really wouldn't work. You'd be paying more money to provide cameras and a huge team of people watching said cameras than what would actually be given out.

People that get lets say 800 a month, whether they spend it on "crap" or something "useful" it is still costing the tax payer the same amount of money. So what's the point? And how do you determine fairly what can and can't be spent. You'd have to spend money on courts and tax payer funded lawyers ect., again pretty expensive.

Originally posted by jatsc
weed

Careful now...this type of talk will get you in trouble.


Just remember to "deny ignorance"...






To the OP:

A new paradigm is needed...

But so what...we need to re-think every ideology.

It is real simple. Have a disability? Then you qualify. You are perfectly healthy, and fully capable of working? Then you don't qualify.

You would have to do a few other things though, such as a tax transition to a fair tax. And you would have to get rid of SS.

Therefore everybody is taxed equally and everybody keeps 100% of their paycheck.

25000 thousand a year is 2000 a month. It isn't the best living but it is more than enough to get by until you can either find something better or get a pay raise.

I once read an article about how over in the UK there was a family of 10 or something crazy living off of 15000 pounds a year. If they can do it then anybody can do it.

Just have to make the environment more consumer friendly and a little less business friendly.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by ghaleon12


Just so you know, I think you are over analyzing my proposal. You do not need cameras to observe what people spend money on. All that is needed is for everyone who is applying to turn in receipts and bank account statements to a small agency run by the government. At that point, a team of people could review the applicants spending and then send them a plan on that will teach them how to spend their money more efficiently. The problems is needs vs. wants. We just need to teach people to focus on wants compared to needs. Just use that small agency to analyze spending, send personalized plans out, and teach on needs vs. wants. Just a for instance, some people buy a bottle of pop everyday. Let's say a bottle of pop costs a dollar and twenty five cents. For an entire year that would equal 450 dollars. If they cut that down to buying a pop 2 to 3 days a week, they would be saving a good amount of money that they could use for probably about two months of grocerys, or anything else you name that is a necessity. So I would just have people be monitored by their receipt turn ins, and from there they get supported by welfare or not.

Plus by creating a small agency like the one I talked about, jobs could be added to the economy. I know its little but it would mean more jobs, and more money flowing between consumers and the rest of the market

manditory drug testing and home searches for everyone on welfare.

not a one-liner.

O-315