Out-of-state welfare money being used around Orlando attractions

I'm not. I'm just saying it could be anyone with those 3 letters in their name. :)

Work study, Gonch, is a form of student financial aid. It is partially Federally funded by need based grants to students.

Many work study jobs are make-work jobs.

In our department, though, highly trained and skilled student labor is indispensable to our operation. Accordingly, when our students exhaust their work study money (which happens a lot sooner than it used to thanks to the dramatic increase in minimum wage a couple of years ago) we switch them over to regular student employment, which is fully funded by the University.

Which is still kind of weird...ultimately, these students are paying their own wages. Go figure.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Brian Noble said:
So...where do you put college work study "jobs"? Those are almost universally make-work for the student.

I must've gotten into the wrong jobs...or maybe the right ones. Either way, I did actual work that they were paying non-students to do as well. I was just limited to 20 hours per week. And as a caveat, we're talking over 25 years ago...when dinosaurs roamed the planet.

And before they roamed Cedar Fair.

LostKause said:

Vater said:
If you give a homeless dude 100 bucks, you wouldn't care if they blew it on a ticket to Disney World?

And did you say 'earned'?

I would care. That's a concern with a lot of people when they are asked to give money to a homeless person. They don't know what they are going to spend it on. Drugs, beer, a hooker, more drugs?

I wouldn't care if they didn't attempt to deceive me. I consider it two totally different things when someone comes to the church asking for cash for bus fare (in which case I will take them to the bus station and buy their ticket) and when they come to the church asking for cash (in which case I usually tell them we don't give out cash but can give them a gift card or on rare occasions will just give them the cash).

Tek is not your friend.

Regardless of legalities this whole story stinks. It is piss poor taste to ask/take government money that is meant for necessity and spend that money at an amusement park. It makes those of us who pay taxes and try to do the right thing mad...rightfully so.

Regardless if somebody got into the park free,etc... Amusement park food/prices is the most inefficient means I can think of for spending money that is meant for subsistence. The very fact that those who are willing to accept the taxpayers handouts thumb their noses at the very people who fund their excess is morally and ethically wrong.

The very fact this EVER happens should be unacceptable to those who pay taxes. Hunger, heat, shelter...all reasonable ventures to provide assistance. Subsidizing a trip to Sea World, regardless of who paid for the ticket or how the person got in the park is CRAP.

It is not the taxpayer/government's job to assure ANYBODY get their souvenirs/hot pretzels while enjoying their vacation. If you are healthy enough to walk around the amusement park, your are healthy enough to find a job and pay for your own trip expenditures.

There is no justifying such behavior...

Aamilj said:

Hunger, heat, shelter...all reasonable ventures to provide assistance.

Not according to a lot of people on your side of the aisle!

^Bam! :)

Can't cite a source, but I heard this tidbit on NPR the other day - I know, NPR is freakishly left-wing... ;) "Fully 50% of children born today will be on some form of Federal Assistance before they reach the age of 18."

I can vaguely grasp some of the anger towards adults that abuse the system or don't give any effort to being a productive citizen. But what have the kids done wrong?

^ They were born to adults that abuse the system or don't give any effort toward becoming a productive citizen?

It seems like a flip answer. Most people are touched by the picture of a child who's hungry, poorly clothed, or doesn't have any toys, and are willing to help. The picture gets cloudy when you add one or two parents who seem unwilling or unable to provide even the basic needs for their own offspring. People can understand that others get bad breaks and may need help, but there are far too many in that situation because of their own bad choices and a lack of ambition to change their condition. Or an expectation they need not do anything and someone else can/should/will take care of them.

Yeah. That.

Plus one. Smiley and so forth.

I guess the picture doesn't get that cloudy for me....from the perspective of the child, at least. They had no choice in the matter.

I do agree that it (the "safety net") does tend to be self- perpetuating, inter-generationally. I wish I had an easy answer to that - but I would reform the system in such a way as to ensure those who want to work, even at a minimum-wage McJob, would be better off in total working than not. Right now, that's simply not how it works in practice...and it provides motivation to not work. On a micro level, people TEND to do what's best for them (information and education barriers notwithstanding). When that produces an effect counter to what's best for society as a whole - and the individuals therein, it needs fixing.

rollergator said:
I would reform the system in such a way as to ensure those who want to work, even at a minimum-wage McJob, would be better off in total working than not. Right now, that's simply not how it works in practice...and it provides motivation to not work.

YES!

From what I understand, it's better than it once was, but still counterproductive for the most part.

Rule #1 should be: "Help Those That Help Themseleves"

+1

I have stories that would make Gonch's head explode. Like the 20 year old telling my mon (her caseworker) that she can never work as she had the "bones of a 50 year old". Not a good thing to say to my mom, who is in her late 50s and workIng.

There was a story in the news around here a couple months ago where a machine shop near Wilkes-Barre was looking to hire 10-15 people. The company said they received many applications through PA Career Link, but when they called people in for interviews, more than half were no shows. So apparently that group was just saying they did their required job search for the week, now send me my UC check. I don't know if there's a way for the company to report back on this, but there should be.

I'm glad the could lI've off their unemployment. Heck it took me two checks just to pay a car note!

The simple economic fact is that any assistance you give to those who are unemployed becomes a disincentive to work. (I feel like we had this exact same conversation a few months ago). A job that used to be worth $10,000/year is now worth ($10,000-unemployment)/year

RatherGoodBear said:
There was a story in the news around here a couple months ago where a machine shop near Wilkes-Barre was looking to hire 10-15 people. The company said they received many applications through PA Career Link, but when they called people in for interviews, more than half were no shows. So apparently that group was just saying they did their required job search for the week, now send me my UC check. I don't know if there's a way for the company to report back on this, but there should be.

The machine shop sure sounds a lot like with happened a few months back at my aunt's pizza shop. She had several openings for drivers and cooks and she had received lots of applications. Still couldn't fill most of the positions because few bothered to show up at the interviews and the ones who did actually bitched and moaned as if they really didn't want the job in the first place such as the one guy who had said .."...Unless I can my own PC so I can be on Facebook during working hours..I am NOT interested.." your own PC at a pizza restaurant ???? Oh there was yet another guy who DEMANDED my aunt to allow him to dress up as a zombie with blood from dead rats smeared on his face while he delivered pizza if my aunt would hire him. Durng the interview he kept saying "...zombies are so f*cking cool !!!!"

Ah neither guy received an offer from my aunt for employment. Gee I wonder why ????

In his defense, zombies really are %#$ing cool.

"Fully 50% of children born today will be on some form of Federal Assistance before they reach the age of 18."

I think a fair question is whether "fully 50% of children" actually need Federal Assistance?" I simply do not believe that 50% of children in the United States of America actually NEED Federal Assistance. I would not be shocked to find out they GET Federal Assistance though.

Poor in the United States is not poor in Ethiopia. Our poor have X-boxes, nice clothes, televisions, a car or two, etc in MANY cases. I think a reasonable argument can be made that our generosity has been abused beyond what a reasonable taxpayer might be expected to quietly tolerate.

The "For the Children" argument is in the same chapter as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." It is sad, but true.

We can limit the abuse of our generosity IF we change our methods. In no way, shape, or form should Federal Aide be delivered in ANY form of cash/credit. Aid should ONLY be in the form of goods and services. I'm fine limiting it to 17 and under for able-bodied citizens.

Able-bodied adults should have to pass a drug test and work community service for their "aid." Aid would be defined as shelter, water, babysitting services, subsistence/staples...no cash, credit cards, vouchers, stamps, etc. And certainly NOTHING that leads to an amusement park trip, etc.

"Not according to a lot of people on your side of the aisle!"

This is a low blow. I've NEVER heard ANYBODY opposed to government assistance for those who need it through no fault of their own. I challenge anybody to find one case of ANY politician or spokesperson calling for a complete abolishment of welfare. It is understood that there are always members of society that need assistance. "My side of the isle" argues that the size of this group as currently constituted is grotesquely large in the United States.

How long have we had a "war on poverty?" What good has come from perpetual dependency on government? I find it sad and abusive for government pimps to perpetuate policy that has destroyed generations of families, and dampened the will of individuals since the 1960's. When is it fair to say that throwing money at the problem does not work? When might we consider trying a different approach? I consider status quo demeaning and evil.

One step further... Who benefits from the continued dependency class? What could make our elected officials continue pimping welfare spending policies when all reasonable and objective data shows that such policies do nothing but perpetuate more poverty?