Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Mich. governor signs 48-month welfare limit

Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday signed into law a stricter, four-year lifetime limit on cash welfare benefits, prompting advocates for the poor to warn that tens of thousands of residents will find themselves without cash assistance on Oct. 1.

Michigan's first-year Republican chief executive said the state will offer exemptions to the limit for those with a disability who can't work, those who care for a disabled spouse or child and those who are 65 or older and don't qualify for Social Security benefits or receive very low benefits.

Some recipients who are the victims of domestic violence also may be temporarily exempted.

"We are returning cash assistance to its original intent as a transitional program to help families while they work toward self-sufficiency," Snyder said in a statement. He noted that the state still will help the poor by offering food stamps, health care coverage through Medicaid, child care and emergency services.

Then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signed a bill that created a four-year limit starting in 2007. But that law exempted many welfare recipients, including those whose caseworkers said they were making progress toward finding employment.

The 2010 election of Snyder and the simultaneous Republican takeover of the Michigan House gave the GOP a free hand to set its own course on public assistance.

The change gives Michigan the Midwest's toughest welfare time limit, according to a survey by The Detroit News. It said there are five-year limits in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Indiana has a two-year limit for adults %E2%80%94 but none for children.

Gilda Jacobs of the Michigan League for Human Services said she expects about 41,000 people to lose their cash assistance payments on Oct. 1 when the state's new budget year begins. That includes 29,700 children, according to the Michigan Department of Human Services.

"We're very, very concerned," Jacobs said. "As the days go by, new people will be meeting the 48-month limit. ... More will be falling off that cliff."

The new law will reduce the number of children and adults receiving cash assistance by nearly a fifth, from more than 221,000 to around 180,000. Enforcing a four-year limit will save the state more than $60 million annually, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis.

Jacobs said it's hard to see how 11,000 adults will find a job when Michigan's July unemployment rate was 10.9 percent, tied with South Carolina for third-highest in the nation.

"We still have to preserve a safety net for people who, through no fault of their own, can't find a job," she said, noting that most cash assistance goes to help poor residents pay their rent. "There's obviously a lot of anxiety out there. Folks aren't sure exactly what this means to them."

State officials say they're working with nonprofit organizations to direct welfare recipients to other services and provide a "soft landing" as they lose benefits. Recipients will be connected with other resources, given housing and job placement assistance for up to three months beyond October and mentored by trained job navigators.

"Michigan continues to face financial challenges, and the fiscal reality is that we cannot afford to provide lifetime cash assistance to recipients who are able to work," Health and Human Services director Maura Corrigan said in a statement. "Enforcing lifetime limits for cash assistance ensures that available funds are targeted toward those recipients who need a helping hand while they find employment."

Michigan ranked 38th in child poverty for 2009, defined as income below $21,756 for a family of two adults and two children. About 23 percent of Michigan's children lived in poverty in 2009, compared with 20 percent nationally. In 2000, only 14 percent of Michigan children lived in poverty. The average age of a child in a family receiving cash assistance is around 7 years old.

Snyder, a Republican, has said reducing the number of children living in poverty is a priority of his administration.

by Anonymousreply 10112/28/2012


The Michigan Catholic Conference has objected to the four-year limit. The conference said the effect will be felt for years by society and by children who lose services.

by Anonymousreply 109/06/2011

Poor people need to arm themselves.

by Anonymousreply 209/06/2011

4 years seems reasonable, and many people cheat the system, but I do feel really sorry for those people, who, for whatever reason, legitimately need more than the 4 years.

And, there are those people who are struggling, but are working full-time at shitty jobs, for whom welfare fills the gap.

by Anonymousreply 309/06/2011

It is a tough call. I was a case worker for many years. Some families kept shooting out babies, collecting, Section 8 rent subsidies and never felt the need to work. As long as the food pantry took up the slack and they were never inconvenienced, why bother to support their family.

Let the taxpayer do it. It is truly a tough call for those that are destitute and truly need support and assistance and those are simply lazy and play the system.

by Anonymousreply 409/06/2011

Every US lawmaker and politician should be made to read the book "Nickle and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. This should be mandatory reading for all political science and economy majors.

by Anonymousreply 509/06/2011

Why are they exempting people with children? They're the ones who are getting welfare the longest - baby mamas.

by Anonymousreply 609/06/2011

Get the hell off of Datalounge, r6. You're not welcome here.

by Anonymousreply 709/06/2011

OK, not this would have been a good idea at one time (or in the future - if this economy ever gets better), but why would they do this now during a depression when there's not even any fucking jobs out there?%0D %0D This country doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

by Anonymousreply 809/06/2011

Right wingers can't rest unless they are hurting the poor.

by Anonymousreply 909/06/2011

I don't have a problem with a 4 yr limit on cash assistance.

They're are still getting plenty of help in other areas.

If they want cash... hey, start hitting the pavement like the rest of us and take what one can find.

by Anonymousreply 1009/06/2011

Shock Doctrine

by Anonymousreply 1109/06/2011

r7 make me. I've been here for 13 years & I'm not going anywhere toots.

by Anonymousreply 1209/06/2011

The 48 month limit has the baby mamma clause on it, so these people will continue to churn out children. There will be no lessening of the welfare rolls (yes it's rolls) without kicking off the baby mamas.

by Anonymousreply 1309/06/2011

It used to be that worthless Canadian cunts spaced out their kids in order to keep collecting welfare: when the brat hits its 2nd birthday, the mother is expected to begin looking for work. So, get preggo again, and problem solved!

But now, the fucking Child Tax Benefit makes every welfare parent a fucking millionaire compared to the childless, and so these bitches don't space out their bastards at all anymore, they get knocked up every fucking chance they can!

by Anonymousreply 1409/06/2011

All welfare mamas should be forcibly sterilized after they have their first child.

by Anonymousreply 1509/06/2011

There needs to be a way to give benefits to the children without the parents profiting. Make it that the only thing that these parents can purchase with their stamps and cards - items for children and babies. Cut their supply line and these welfare parents will stop soon enough!

by Anonymousreply 1609/07/2011

[quote]Every US lawmaker and politician should be made to read the book "Nickle and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. This should be mandatory reading for all political science and economy majors.%0D %0D That book has been lampooned to death. Barbara wanted to write a dramatic story, so she created one. Only hopeless drama queens would fall for it.

by Anonymousreply 1709/07/2011

I work in the social services system, too, and I frequently see people who seem to look no further than the public benefits system. But they're not doing themselves any favors. Even in New York, those benefits are so fucking meager that they bring little more than misery. %0D %0D Welfare is hush money, just enough to keep the recipients quiet and out of the way of the rest of us. Removing this money will provoke some surprising results. By Christmas, I'd look for Michigan to be the robbery, burglary, shoplifting, and the car theft capital of the world. %0D %0D People must be able to get the necessities of life and our society is far too competitive and the job market far too tight for many to succeed. Landlords won't get their rent and they will feel this loss. Neighborhood business will suffer. The courts will be more overburdened with evictions and petty crime. %0D %0D Rick Snyder must be a real dumb ass, but that seems to be much in fashion in today's GOP.

by Anonymousreply 1809/07/2011

I'm not exactly a liberal, but stuff like this makes me so mad. Funds to pay for social services to help the poor, needy or just downright stupid pale in comparison to the billions of dollars spent each year on corporate welfare.

by Anonymousreply 1909/07/2011

Send the malingerers to pick fruits and vegetables, which will eliminate the illegals who sneak in from Mexico.

by Anonymousreply 2009/07/2011

With so many exceptions people will still collect to the grave. Does the state pay for burials, too?

by Anonymousreply 2109/07/2011

Wow, some people ate their bitchflakes this morning.

Targeting the poor and working class is working for the Republicans, and some of you are swallowing it hook, line, & sinker.

It's not the people on welfare that you hate with a white hot passion who got the country into the mess it's in today. It's pursuing 2 or 3 wars for 10 years while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

This would be a moot point if there weren't so few crumbs being fought over by the 98% of us who don't have most of the wealth.

by Anonymousreply 2209/07/2011

Well then, should we dump them in the river or leave them to rot in the street? That would complete our return to the Middle Ages.

by Anonymousreply 2309/07/2011

These are the children of Reagan welfare policy. First he demonized "welfare queens" and then Clinton threw them under the bus with the onxymoronic legislation of "Welfare Reform" that tuned Aid to Families with Dependent Children[AFDC] into Temporary Assistance to Needy Families [TANF].

The emphasis moved from AID to TEMPORARY.

A HUGE paradigm shift.

And now they come after Social Security.

Once they means test Social Security or Medicare, and turn them into WELFARE programs rather that the Social Contract Safety Net, the next step will be to make them TEMPORARY.

This is why the rich and the Republican must be stopped.

by Anonymousreply 2409/07/2011

OMFG have you ever been around welfare recipients? I wouldn't hire these people to work in my yard. Dumb, dumb, dumb with crazy superstitions and bizarre beliefs. They really are a danger to themselves and others. I don't have an answer to the problem but cutting off benefits isn't safe. The crime rate will go through the roof.

by Anonymousreply 2509/07/2011

Really, I had no idea you could still get welfare in Michigan. I thought John "The Mad Pig" Engler abolished it years ago. Anyway, there's plenty of work here now that we've transitioned to a dogfighting and meth lab-based economy.

by Anonymousreply 2609/07/2011

[quote]By Christmas, I'd look for Michigan to be the robbery, burglary, shoplifting, and the car theft capital of the world.

Hasn't it been for years?

by Anonymousreply 2709/07/2011

Start clipping the prolific breeders that have child after child (male and female) that won't work and support their children. One child on welfare and you get clipped.

by Anonymousreply 2809/07/2011

[quote]Send the malingerers to pick fruits and vegetables, which will eliminate the illegals who sneak in from Mexico.

Like they'll do that to survive.

Better bolt your doors--the poor will be coming after you like zombies soon.

by Anonymousreply 2909/07/2011

[quote] the state will offer exemptions to the limit for those . . . who care for a disabled spouse or child %0D %0D Just to clarify because the wording is not the best - does this mean:%0D %0D 1 - Exemptions for everyone with children%0D %0D 2 - Exemptions for just those who have children with disabilities?%0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 3009/07/2011

"All welfare mamas should be forcibly sterilized after they have their first child."%0D %0D And every irresponsible male who refuses to support the children he brings into the world, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, should be forced to have a vasectomy.

by Anonymousreply 3109/07/2011

I have no problem with this as long as they really do have waivers for those who, for whatever reason, are not capable of doing any better. But these young women who make treat having illegitimate child after illegitimate child as way to make an income should be cut off after 4 years if they are capable of working a job. And women who apply for welfare should not get any additional monies if they have more children they can't take care of on their own after they're approved to assistance. It's time these welfare brood sows learn that the government is not here to provide them with money just so they can keep breeding like wild animals.

by Anonymousreply 3209/07/2011

[quote]Dumb, dumb, dumb with crazy superstitions and bizarre beliefs.

Great description of today's Republican party.

by Anonymousreply 3309/07/2011

Some real charmers on this thread. I'll be laughing hard when they end up without jobs, welfare and Social Security. %0D %0D I'm surprised nobody has suggested turning welfare receipients into soap?

by Anonymousreply 3409/07/2011

I thought you had to have kids to get welfare. Am I wrong?

by Anonymousreply 3509/07/2011

Yes, you must have children to receive a welfare check. That's why it's officially called AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children).

by Anonymousreply 3609/07/2011

They need to change is so that you CAN'T have children.

by Anonymousreply 3709/07/2011

R7 is a stunned cunt, an evil twat, and clearly a fuckheaded breeder bitch, as well. FOAD, you worthless shitstain.

by Anonymousreply 3809/07/2011

[quote]I'm surprised nobody has suggested turning welfare receipients into soap? Who needs soap? The world needs more food! Soylent Green for/from everyone!

by Anonymousreply 3909/07/2011

You can be on public assistance and obtain work at a company who will hire you for the tax break they obtain in doing so. Then, when tax season comes around, you obtain the child tax credit(s) and quit the job. Then, before you know it, you work at a job which will hire you for being on public assistance for the tax break once again. %0D %0D This cycle is what needs to stop. It needs to be temporary or something. %0D %0D Where I live right now you cannot be hired at a 'humble' job period unless you receive public assistance because of the tax breaks the company gets. It is the truth. You are made to fill out a form where you have to list what public assistance you get and if you do not get any, they will not hire you at all. I personally work as a Hospice nurse but scads of my pals cannot even get hired at the local grocery store because of how they are out of work but their partner or spouse or whoever is not. %0D %0D But, the way our Nation's economy is as of right now, it just plainly is not the time to do anything about it all soo much. I am more one for having the system tweaked a bit to help out the impoverished in a proactive and tolerant minded way because they are more folks to come!

by Anonymousreply 4009/07/2011

Great post r31, you said it better than me.

by Anonymousreply 4109/07/2011

r36 go back to r24

by Anonymousreply 4209/08/2011

Only 48 months? Geez I won't be through half of the Sims by that time.

by Anonymousreply 4312/22/2012

I think this is too long 6 months should be the limit

by Anonymousreply 4412/22/2012

4 yrs is plenty enough.

However, lazy people will just rotate family members.... Okay, time for your 4!

by Anonymousreply 4512/22/2012

I'm a tried and true democrat but this sounds like a good plan to me. The country has far too many layabout lazyasses who think being on the public dole is their inalienable right. These women popping out bastard children right and left simply as a way to increase their monthly check is criminal.

Once someone goes on welfare she should be told that if she has any additional children she will not receive any increase in benefits.

by Anonymousreply 4612/22/2012

There are no jobs. These people will either resort to crime or starve and freeze to death. Great plan, Hitler.

by Anonymousreply 4712/22/2012

R47; trying to be righteous yet just ignorant. This is nothing like the Nazi death camps, you fucking fuck.

by Anonymousreply 4812/22/2012

TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) already has a 2 year limit, thanks to Clinton. It was needed, and it works.

by Anonymousreply 4912/22/2012

No welfare for any but the disabled.

by Anonymousreply 5012/22/2012

[quote]The Michigan Catholic Conference has objected to the four-year limit.

I'll bet they have. The Catholic church is part of the problem.

My partner and I just helped out a family for Christmas. According to the school, the parents are very good parents and the kids are polite and take their schooling seriously. But, there are seven kids in the family!!!!. The Dad works, but doesn't speak english, so I'm sure his job doesn't pay much.

by Anonymousreply 5112/22/2012

Rachel Maddow said MI Gov can basically do whatever he wants because the GOP controls everything. That's why they were able to ramrod through the anti-union bill.

The Court is the last refuge for the insanity.

by Anonymousreply 5212/22/2012

Poor people are so GREEDY!

by Anonymousreply 5312/22/2012

Welfare, medicare, medicaid, SS, unions don't make big business and corporations money - CUT THEM ALL TO HELL!

But PLEASE keep buying guns, think of MY children! (How will they buy their own million dollar homes?)

by Anonymousreply 5412/22/2012

[quote]Once someone goes on welfare she should be told that if she has any additional children she will not receive any increase in benefits.

So let the additional children go hungry.

by Anonymousreply 5512/22/2012

Why did r43 bump a dead thread?

Oh, to stir up anti-poor sentiment when the rich are rallying for their tax exemption.

The enemy of the 99% is the 1% not people on welfare.

by Anonymousreply 5612/22/2012

But there are NO jobs for these people. Years ago, manufacturing jobs were the way to go if you didn't have a college education and wanted to make a living wage. Obviously, manufacturing jobs no longer exist due to outsourcing so how can people on welfare be expected to get a living-wage job? Working as a cashier isn't going to feed a family or pay rent. The entire system is stacked against them.

by Anonymousreply 5712/22/2012

This was in 2011. I wondering how the program and recipients are a year later?

by Anonymousreply 5812/22/2012

r55 I think as a society, we should always help those in dire need of help, whether it be food, shelter, or mental evaluation. There should always be a safety net for those who need it.

However, I don't think welfare should not be generational and that has happened for decades, especially in the inner-city. It would be unfair for the newborn to be brought into this world that his/her mother is unable to care for without gov't assistance. The mother needs to sort out her life before bringing in another life.

We have to balance compassion without burdening society.

by Anonymousreply 5912/22/2012

R48 is just proving the stereotype that Jews are stingy money grubbing selfish bastards true.

These people will starve to death on the streets or have to resort to crime to survive. There are no jobs.

by Anonymousreply 6012/22/2012

This is just going to push the blacks into neighbouring states, like Katrina did when they moved into Utah.

by Anonymousreply 6112/22/2012

This is what happens to when you threaten welfare

by Anonymousreply 6212/23/2012

Agreeing with R50. Disabled people...genuinely disabled people, not drug addicts who don't want to go to 12 step meetings...should get welfare, and they should get enough to be well above the poverty level and live a decent life.

If you can work you can get temporary assistance only. And you only get assistance for one pregnancy and that's temporary. It's ridiculous that we subsidize those.

by Anonymousreply 6312/23/2012

The people who want to eliminate "welfare queens" also wantt to abolish abortion, and remove birth contriol from healthcare.

You can't have it both ways. If the state forces women to carry all pregnancies to birth, then the state should be prepared to support the babies.

by Anonymousreply 6412/23/2012

Funny how you jump to black people, R61. Need we remind you that most people on welfare are white?

by Anonymousreply 6512/23/2012

ff for r61 and r62

by Anonymousreply 6612/23/2012 can't have it both ways either. I support abortion rights, 100 percent. So I don't support lifetime welfare for unattached single women who have one pregnancy after another. I am happy to see my tax dollar go to family condoms for all. Free birth control, period. But NO, it makes no sense for any society to create a situation where a woman can be subsidized to have one child after another, because it's ultimately harmful to the children. I know someone like this. She uses her children to get subsidies and to not work. She's put her kids in peril over it. She started an online "relationship" with a kid who's barely legal (she's 40), and she wanted to move closer to him (she's WHITE, btw). He's a drug addict. She moved closer to him and brought one of her children, her youngest, so she could get put at the top of the list for housing and benefits. The shelter was mixed, so she had her 8 year old daughter in a shelter with men, some of whom were ex-cons. No locks, no private rooms. Meanwhile, she starts having sex with two of the men in the shelter. Of course, she got assistance within a month and a half because of her daughter. Free furniture too. Then, after living there for three months, she decides the guy doesn't love her, and she packs up her kid and moves home. She does this while lamenting how much better the school system is where she's living now, but wants to get away from 'him'. She moved back and immediately went back on welfare here. She has 4 kids, 3 of them from guys she barely knew. Sound nice? Her kids are doomed. She talks about sex in front of her kids, and her son, who is 11, is completely fucked up. The oldest daughter has several suicide attempts under her belt, and the other daughter is on meds.

by Anonymousreply 6712/23/2012

[quote]If the state forces women to carry all pregnancies to birth, then the state should be prepared to support the babies

No state forbids abortion.

by Anonymousreply 6812/23/2012


Blacks are about 13% of the population, but they sure has hell account for a HUGE chunk of the welfare roles.

by Anonymousreply 6912/23/2012

make that rolls

by Anonymousreply 7012/23/2012

R69= troll trying to get a reaction.

by Anonymousreply 7112/23/2012

This thread has the Kochs' cocks rock hard. You're saving them money on viagra!

by Anonymousreply 7212/23/2012

r71 as much as you can try to deny those facts, they are true. Africa-American also make up a huge percentage of the prison population. That is problematic and generational.

by Anonymousreply 7312/23/2012

R72= also troll.

by Anonymousreply 7412/23/2012

Without food stamps, you can't buy delicious birthday cakes.

by Anonymousreply 7512/23/2012

Uh, r71, the statement happens to be true.

If you can't deal with it, that's your problem!

by Anonymousreply 7612/24/2012

gtfo r76

by Anonymousreply 7712/24/2012

It should be less!

by Anonymousreply 7812/25/2012 You're wrong. Recipients are overwhelmingly white.

by Anonymousreply 7912/25/2012

Only because there are more whites than blacks. Blacks make up a HUGE percentage of their population.

Plus white average less than six months on food stamps, where as half of all blacks are on them more than ten years.

by Anonymousreply 8012/26/2012

Personally, I believe in welfare to work and workfare and taking any job even minimum wage, but provided you are willing to do those schemes would not end welfare. If not, for those cut off from unemployment benefits and food stamps you are left reliant on food banks and charity!

by Anonymousreply 8112/27/2012

Snyder is trying to make it so shitty here for poor people that they're forced to move out of state. Where to is a good question. With these welfare-limit laws while pursuing economic policies that encourage unemployment and reduce wages, we may simply be creating a new class of vagrants.

by Anonymousreply 8212/27/2012

You know, this is one of those freeper flypaper threads where at least half the posts are people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about and are either pulling their "facts" out of their asses or repeating what they heard from Rush or Fox News. It's really sad because bad public policy hurts everybody, and this "let's starve the underclass" mentality is killing this country.

by Anonymousreply 8312/27/2012

[quote]Poor people need to arm themselves.

With condoms!

by Anonymousreply 8412/27/2012

Link R80?

by Anonymousreply 8512/27/2012

There should be a 48-month limit on the amount of time a freeper should be allowed to remain ignorant and full of shit.

by Anonymousreply 8612/27/2012

Hey guess what, R84: YOU LOST!!

by Anonymousreply 8712/27/2012

Why is the state of Michigan's population voting for Republicans? Is the state overwhelmingly populated with wealthy famalies?

by Anonymousreply 8812/27/2012're the one who doesn't know what s/he's talking about, dear. Try working in any sort of social services for the poor.The system has been set up to benefit lazy grifters of every conceivable stripe. The people who could really use the help...people with legitimate disabilities that do actually prevent them from working...are often not eligible for most of the 'help' offered. I'm extremely liberal, but I also work in the field. The stuff I sometimes see is sometimes worse than any stereotype proffered by freepers. But it's the structure of the system. If you're a young woman with multiple children (and probably a lazy boyfriend secretly living with you) you get everything. If you;re a drug addict or alcoholic who just doesn't feel like going to meetings and getting sober, ditto.

The people who suffer are the ones who have real disabilities. They can't get a decent standard of living because freepers want all welfare recipients kept well below the poverty level AND liberals want everyone to be given benefits, even if they are mainly suffering from bad choices of their own.So feminists, for example, scream if you try to change the benefits for women who've had multiple children on welfare, and because these women (along with drunks and drug addicts) are the life's blood of social service agencies, the agencies fight it too. Meanwhile, people with real mental and physical disabilities often can't get a lot of services because there's no one to advocate for them, and the agencies don't want them as clients.

Go volunteer, dear, or go to work helping these folks. It's not as simple as you think.

by Anonymousreply 8912/27/2012

There weren't enough jobs in MI to begin with, now you're gonna make the welfare folk get off the fence and start competing for non-existant jobs too? I'm so sure.

Michigan's state motto: Last one out, turn off the lights!

by Anonymousreply 9012/27/2012

R89 that is such a lopsided view of the system that it's laughable--if it weren't so sad. If this is your true viewpoint, you're about as "extremely liberal" as Karl Rove.

There are always people who abuse the system--any system, and the system (DHHS) is not perfect, but there are far more people who need the benefits, receive them, and then move on.

Your pronouncements about "real disabilities" are outrageous, especially given co morbidity statistics between mental health illness and drug and alcohol abuse. Is this ignorance or a deliberate attempt to obscure the facts?

Beyond that, there is not a single sentence in your post that rings true. By "work in the system" do you mean deliver mail?

by Anonymousreply 9112/27/2012

R91, oh dear.

And there you have the problem, ladies and gentlemen. Another defender of "the system", and the nonsense observation about a few people abusing it.

The SYSTEM is what's broken, that's my argument. It enables people who have addictions, and rewards people for poor choices. Then it ignores folks who are incapacitated through no fault of their own. The system is completely backwards.

And yes, LEGITIMATELY disabled. Not people with addictions who are acting out, and therefore exhibit symptoms that can be confused for mental illness.

YOU are the problem, 91. Completely.

Most people in this society, I believe, want to help people who CAN'T work. But folks living paycheck to paycheck are tired of subsidizing other people who've made poor choices and want to be subsidized as they continue to make them over and over.

As for "co-morbidity", the incidence of that is far less then diagnosed. It's become a catch-all for social work agencies to help enable people with addictions.

The system has become one of enabling, and that helps no one.

by Anonymousreply 9212/27/2012

And what happens to these people when they can't find work? There is no unemployment for people who weren't previously employed so then what? They simply starve and end up on the street?


by Anonymousreply 9312/27/2012

Tourism is Michigan's #1 industry, but highly seasonal. Those people go on unemployment during the off-season. Now they will have to leave Michigan, so there won't be any minimum wage people to work at the Grand Hotel, Grand Traverse resort, and Boyne Highlands. And I say, Good. You did this to yourselves. You voted for these loser morons.

by Anonymousreply 9412/27/2012

R98...Since when are unemployment benefits "welfare". You guys are deliberately mixing things together that have nothing to do with each other to try to obfuscate the issue. We pay into unemployment benefits. They are not welfare benefits. Even if they were no one sane would object to helping people while they're seeking employment.

Most of the people on welfare who can work are not seeking employment. They're working a broken system that enables bad choices in some, while not helping others with legitimate need.

by Anonymousreply 9512/27/2012

[quote]As for "co-morbidity", the incidence of that is far less then diagnosed.

And how would you know this? A hunch? Keep talking out of your ass. Makes it very easy to identify where you're coming from.

You obviously have a personal problem/bias. You have no idea what you're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 9612/27/2012

Well that's not true R95 and in fact it hasn't been true for decades in Michigan or haven't you seen "Roger and Me."

by Anonymousreply 9712/27/2012, what an illuminating response. So detailed in its counter-point to the things I'm saying. YOU certainly don't sound like someone talking out of his ass AT ALL.

You're the one with a bias, dear. You can believe in a catch-all "co-morbidity" because that suits the current system. But the fact is that drug addicts are often taken off all their medication when they go into rehab precisely for the reason I've stated. Active drug addiction and alcoholism can look a lot like mental illness in term of their outward manifestations, particularly when people have gotten to a very low point in their disease. But people like you prefer that they stay hooked, because that's the bread and butter of most social work agencies. Don't help people get sober, just hook them up with lots of social services so the system can be perpetuated. Don't help young women move towards an education and employment, keep them barefoot and pregnant because lots of agencies get funding for 'helping' pregnant teens. Yup, we can all see who's 'helping' here.

by Anonymousreply 9812/28/2012

One more thing then I'm out.

It's not a coincidence that agencies that focus a lot on pregnant women who are alone are agencies like Catholic Charities, that have a decidedly anti-abortion agenda. There's the other problem.

by Anonymousreply 9912/28/2012

[quote] the state will offer exemptions to the limit for those . . . who care for a disabled spouse or child Just to clarify because the wording is not the best - does this mean: 1 - Exemptions for everyone with children 2 - Exemptions for just those who have children with disabilities?

I think it's a child/children with a disability. And that's easy to get. Attention deficit disorder and autism are considered disabilities. Octomom gets payments from social security for many of her kids because they have attention deficit disorder. Expect the rates of ADD and autism to skyrocket in Michigan

by Anonymousreply 10012/28/2012

R98/R99 You sound paranoid and delusional.

Care to substantiate a single claim you've made?

by Anonymousreply 10112/28/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!