Mich. governor signs 48-month welfare limit

[MugenOne]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — 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.

news.yahoo.com/mich-governor-signs-48-month-welfare-limit-231915012.html

The Man upstairs says, “If a man can work but doesn’t,then neither should he eat.”

 

[Rascalking]

Woo-hoo! Go Michigan!

I think welfare is essential in society today, but that doesn’t mean we should give a check to everyone for an infinite amount of time.

 

[buffalo]

This needs to be done in more states. If so America will get back to what made it work, that is, hard work.

 

[Rascalking]

This needs to be done in more states. If so America will get back to what made it work, that is, hard work.

I agree.

I’m not sure about this-have the Bishops spoken in one way or another about this bill? On 90 percent of economic issues, they seem to lean towards the left. I don’t think they’ll like this one.

 

[mtbender]

:clapping:

 

[Hiskid1973]

We’ll in the past the church/community took care of the disabled and widows. Once it became a govt. program it opened the door for abuse /fraud.

 

[buffalo]

I agree.

I’m not sure about this-have the Bishops spoken in one way or another about this bill? On 90 percent of economic issues, they seem to lean towards the left. I don’t think they’ll like this one.

I have no problem with the Bishops protecting the poor. I have a problem when they protect the lazy at taxpayer expense.

 

[Rence]

I agree.

I think setting some kind of limit will inspire some of these folks to work harder to get jobs sooner, rather than later (or not at all). They have to know that their welfare won’t last forever. And I’m hoping that they will get frequent reminders about their limit date.

It’s unfortunate: My ex-sister-in-law was laid off over two years ago. She has always worked, and worked hard. She worked full time and raised two boys practically alone, which is no small feat. When she went on unemployment, she decided to wait to search for a job because she wanted to stay home with her kids, especially her third who was 2 years old at the time. But here we are, two years later, and she can’t find one. I tried to encourage her not to wait, that you never know what opportunities will come and go, but she didn’t worry about it. She was confident she would land a job right now. Now she’s visiting food pantries to feed the kids and barely making it. I know people who wait to skim as much benefits as they can before going to work. I know people who never intend to work again. And I know people who work for family businesses and don’t claim it, while still getting unemployment for as long as they can. Some are outright wrong, and some just lack better judgement. Either way, they need to be inspired to get off their bum and get jobs as soon as possible.

I’m not sure about this-have the Bishops spoken in one way or another about this bill? On 90 percent of economic issues, they seem to lean towards the left. I don’t think they’ll like this one.

Of course not

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.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but considering how much the State puts out for welfare, the Bishops are going to have to be part of the solution, rather than just complaining about the solutions being offered by the State.

 

[Theophilus777]

Woo-hoo! Go Michigan!

I think welfare is essential in society today, but that doesn’t mean we should give a check to everyone for an infinite amount of time.

The Church should be feeding the poor, not the government. I should be feeding the poor. You should be feeding the poor too. That was what Jesus said to do. And the only reason the government is doing it at all is because you and I are not doing it.

Hats off to everyone who is doing it. And to everyone who’s not, there’s a soup kitchen somewhere that needs a dishwasher. Go volunteer and save tax dollars.

 

[Rascalking]

I have no problem with the Bishops protecting the poor. I have a problem when they protect the lazy at taxpayer expense.

Um…I don’t have a problem with them protecting the poor either. I don’t think anyone of sound and stable mind does.

I have a problem when they protect the lazy at taxpayer expense as well.

 

[Rascalking]

The Church should be feeding the poor, not the government. I should be feeding the poor. You should be feeding the poor too. That was what Jesus said to do. And the only reason the government is doing it at all is because you and I are not doing it.

Hats off to everyone who is doing it. And to everyone who’s not, there’s a soup kitchen somewhere that needs a dishwasher. Go volunteer and save tax dollars.

I do my best to help and volunteer at various places, thank you very much.

 

[buffalo]

The Church should be feeding the poor, not the government. I should be feeding the poor. You should be feeding the poor too. That was what Jesus said to do. And the only reason the government is doing it at all is because you and I are not doing it.

Hats off to everyone who is doing it. And to everyone who’s not, there’s a soup kitchen somewhere that needs a dishwasher. Go volunteer and save tax dollars.

This gets a big .

This goes back to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

 

[buffalo]

In addition, the state should not be rewarding out of wedlock children. In the short term one may think it will hurt children, but tough medicine to treat the sick patient is necessary. In the long run, it will help children.

 

[NiceMimi]

This needs to be done in more states. If so America will get back to what made it work, that is, hard work.

New York State has a 5 year limit. It seems to be working. Maybe now they will cut it down to 4 years like Wisconsin.

 

[Rence]

In addition, the state should not be rewarding out of wedlock children. In the short term one may think it will hurt children, but tough medicine to treat the sick patient is necessary. In the long run, it will help children.

I totally understand what you’re saying, and in some ways agree with you. But you can’t throw children under the bus because of the indescretions of their parents. But I do believe there should be stricter limits, and stricter check-ins. There should be stricter criteria for job searching. In other words, they should be required to apply at places such as McD’s and Walmart depsite their qualifications, and if they are offered a job at McD’s or Walmart then they have to take it. They should have to show proof of their job search endeavors. They should be held accountable with real ramifications for not following through.

 

[Rascalking]

I totally understand what you’re saying, and in some ways agree with you. But you can’t throw children under the bus because of the indescretions of their parents. But I do believe there should be stricter limits, and stricter check-ins. There should be stricter criteria for job searching. In other words, they should be required to apply at places such as McD’s and Walmart depsite their qualifications, and if they are offered a job at McD’s or Walmart then they have to take it. They should have to show proof of their job search endeavors. They should be held accountable with real ramifications for not following through.

You are word for word correct about this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I totally understand what you’re saying, and in some ways agree with you. But you can’t throw children under the bus because of the indescretions of their parents. But I do believe there should be stricter limits, and stricter check-ins. There should be stricter criteria for job searching. In other words, they should be required to apply at places such as McD’s and Walmart depsite their qualifications, and if they are offered a job at McD’s or Walmart then they have to take it. They should have to show proof of their job search endeavors. They should be held accountable with real ramifications for not following through.

We sometimes get applicants who are doing their obligatgory “job search” for the employment office that are in no way qualified to do our work, but who could do other kinds of work. We require extremely good written English, and some at least basic familiarity with word processing. They apply here in order to get turned down. Some turn up looking as nasty as possible, or initiate the conversation by telling me how they can’t do this or that or the other thing, or won’t. I have even had two tell me they came in to be turned down.

 

[Brendan]

FYI, Michigan has a 48 month limit since 2007 (signed into law by Democratic Gov. Granholm)

Under the previous law, caseworkers could extend benefits without limits or much governance.

It is now much harder (but still not impossible) to get an extention. A extention can only be offered in certain circumstances and requires a few levels of approval)

 

[buffalo]

FYI, Michigan has a 48 month limit since 2007 (signed into law by Democratic Gov. Granholm)

Under the previous law, caseworkers could extend benefits without limits or much governance.

It is now much harder (but still not impossible) to get an extention. A extention can only be offered in certain circumstances and requires a few levels of approval)

So that means those who began benefits in 2007 are no longer eligible. Are there any statistics on what has become of them?

 

[Brendan]

So that means those who began benefits in 2007 are no longer eligible. Are there any statistics on what has become of them?

I suppose it would depend.

It would imply that someone has been on welfare continously since then, which, IIRC, is actually unusual.

For those who have been, they would also have to have had their request for benefit extention denied for them to be off welfare. That was generally easy to obtain (and hence the justification for the change in the law)

So for such people, their benefits will run out in Oct, unless they qualify for an extention under the new law.