Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 16, 2011

Kansas reforming some welfare rules

September 16, 2011, 4:49 p.m. Updated September 16, 2011, 6:06 p.m.

Advertisement

— Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Secretary Robert Siedlecki Jr. on Friday announced a host of policy changes for programs that provide assistance to low-income Kansans.

“These changes represent a significant change in policy, in that they treat all households equally, and create fairness across the system,” Siedlecki said in a news release.

Siedlecki said the changes would help eliminate fraud and abuse, and save from $10 million to $15 million, which would expand SRS’ programs to get folks back to work.

“Getting people jobs is our first priority,” Siedlecki said.

The new policies will affect programs that provide tens of thousands of Kansans with food stamps, child care assistance and temporary assistance. They are set to take effect starting Oct. 1 and should be fully in place by Jan. 1.

Many of the changes will affect the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. TANF is available to families earning less than 32 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $22,350, so 32 percent of that is $7,152 per year. The average monthly benefit under TANF is $290 per month; the maximum is $429 per month.

Here are the announced changes:

• All those receiving help under TANF will be required to participate in a job search at the time of application.

• Families may opt to receive a one-time payment of $1,000 for emergency hardships and forgo entry into the TANF program for one year.

• A “soft” 48-month lifetime limit will be imposed on TANF benefits.

• People who knowingly and deliberately commit fraud will lose eligibility permanently.

• The income of all members of a household will be included in calculating food stamp eligibility.

• The income of an unmarried boyfriend or girlfriend as part of a household will be counted to determine eligibility for temporary assistance and child care assistance.

• People receiving temporary assistance must provide proof that their children are enrolled in school.

• Child care assistance recipients will be required to work a minimum of 20 hours per week. Students already are required to work at least 20 hours per week.

In 2010, the TANF program served nearly 37,000 families per month, including 1,067 in Douglas County. Child care assistance had an average of 20,319 people per month, including 626 in Douglas County and nearly 260,000 Kansans received food assistance, including 7,208 in Douglas County.

Comments

Bob Forer 3 years, 1 month ago

Where are the jobs that folks are supposed to search for/. The same jobs you said that you would create, Governor?. A little news for you: The unemployment rate has increased since you took office. You haven't created jobs. On the contrary, you have lost us jobs.

0

chootspa 3 years, 1 month ago

It's also sleight of hand to blame recipients for fraud primarily committed by contractors. Cadillac welfare queens, dontchaknow.

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

It doesn't say they have to FIND a job ... it just says that have to at least look. Where's the harm in that? Self-esteem is involved at some level, don't you think? That may be more likely to be found in a paycheck envelope than a brick of free cheese.

0

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

I imagine that looking for a job and being continually rejected is pretty detrimental to one's self-esteem.

Given the lack of hiring these days, that would probably be the overwhelmingly likely experience of almost all of these job seekers.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

You don't have to imagine. This article has an account of what one man has gone through while being on unemployment.

http://tinyurl.com/3wclo8n

400 applications put in & only 3 interviews as a result. It seems to me that it would feel very sisyphean after a bit.

0

gphawk89 3 years, 1 month ago

So Brownback has been in office for eight months or so and he's already to blame for lost jobs. On the contrary, Obama has been in office for coming up on three years but we still blame our current problems on Bush? Can't have it both ways...

0

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Well since he has only been in office 1 yr why don't you give him a bit more time and perhaps consider that Obama might have something to do with the national economy.

0

Jan Rolls 3 years, 1 month ago

Always on friday afternoon with their new releases. I can see it now in the middle of the night sam and his goons raid a house to see if a man is asleep there. Everytime you think they can't get stupider there they go again. Just because someone gets welfare doesn't give anyone the right to bust into their house without a warrant let alone srs.

0

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 1 month ago

The great thing about the Republicans is they know how to market their message. Who would be opposed to greater efficiencies and reduced fraud? Nobody. That's why they dress the pig up in that silk purse. What they don't talk about is how the social safety net is truly needed by people who literally live next door to all of us and how their proposals will impact the delivery of those services. Another step in the Great Leap Backward! Let's also not forget the firm Accenture that the Brownback Administration hired to help reduce fraud and improve efficiencies just settled with the US Justice Department for $64 million for guess what....wait for it...fraud...but that was by no means an admission of guilt. Get real!

0

thebigspoon 3 years, 1 month ago

I see this as a positive step in that this requires those who have not tried to work will now have to attempt. However, the point made above by The Sychophant is still valid, and overwhelmingly germaine. The facts are that this administration has now experienced higher unemployment, cut education funds, is fighting reasonable health care reforms that will take away from the many the paying of uninsured medical exenses for the few, is spending state money in out-of-state areas and hiring out-of-state personnell to staff Brownback-created jobs which, at the least, could and should have been given to in-state people, and, at worst, unnecessary and politically dominated positions. Social welfare programs have been made to be labyrinthian by the closing of SRS offices, people who worked for the state have been let go, but no improvement has been seen in any area except that revenues are $100 million ahead of projections. Well, where is that money going?

The whole thing is that there are holes in our SRS system, but, again I say, throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the way to fix them.

0

Bob Forer 3 years, 1 month ago

"Well, where is that money going?"

Right now, its going nowhere. But if Brownie has its way its going to go towards tax cuts. Sure, the middle class will see their income tax bills go down a few dollars a year. But the real winners will the the wealthy, whose tax savings will be in the thousands.

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 1 month ago

And the wealthy will not create jobs with those thousands, at least not in Kansas and the US.

0

ljwhirled 3 years, 1 month ago

They will invest it in foreign growth funds and stocks which will create jobs over seas.

0

Commentor 3 years, 1 month ago

So where are these folks going to work?

Making food stamps harder to get reduces 100% federal funding coming into Kansas. Small community grocery stores lose bunches here.

Wow, let's see Siedlecki and Brownback live on welfare benefits.

0

ljwhirled 3 years, 1 month ago

They don't have to. They live on 6 figure salaries paid by the taxpayers of Kansas.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Here's some OLD news, but it appears it's NEW news to some:

SRS has been broiling internally for years upon years with respect to the state's view on how it "views" it's public assistance programs. Inside the belly of the beast, the anti public assistance mid level "managers" have been thumping their bibles and babbling about the "welfare Cadillac family" despite the fact such families simply don't really exist. With Brownback in place, they're coming out of their rat holes and thumping their chests at their perceived "victory". It is a crime to be poor in Kansas. Too, let us remember, In hard times, Kansans like to blame the poor. These R.O.A.D. (retired, on active duty) Warriors are now in the driver's seat given Brownback's housecleaing vis-a-vis the "leaders" of SRS. They've been waiting a good deal of time for the opportunity to drive the dirk into the "cheats" and "save the state money". Right. Uh huh... These fools don't understand Brownback is coming after their KPERS pension and find it easier to pitch and moan about "welfare"!

Yes, there IS the OCCASSIONAL cheat on Public Assistance. But the instances simply are so few and far between, it's obscene to discuss it. Corporate Welfare is too complex a topic for these SRS "manager" types, now in the light of day....due to the fact they've opened up their little rat hole doors. Too, walking about the halls and bowels of SRS Central Office with their niffty gold crosses in just the right place, Bibles now proudly displayed for all to see and shudder lest the wrath of Jesus comes....along with the Rapture.

The fact is that 1996 ENDED "welfare" as it was once known. A time limit is in placed on all recipients of Public Assistance (a RIGHT to Americans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal... will outline just exactly what the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is all about.

The state of Kansas is OBLIGATED under Federal Law to provide all manner of training opportunities to participants in the TANF program. The state of Kansast has failed miserably at this task. It's the good, ole WIN program all over again (Work Incentive Program see http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=54&articleid=298&sectionid=1968 ). TheSychophant is correct.....what jobs?

Read the facts: "State maintenance of effort: To receive their full allocation, states must demonstrate they are spending on activities related to TANF 80% of the amount of non-federal funds they spent in FY 1994 on AFDC and related programs. If they meet minimum work requirements, their mandatory state effort is reduced to 75%." http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/law-reg/finalrule/aspesum.htm

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Kansas SRS CHEATED on State maintenance of effort and was FINED by Uncle Sugar. That was the "good" SRS, too. WIth these rubes in place and the Bible thumping minon middle managers following dutifully, we're all in for some fun!

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 1 month ago

It's really a shame none of you really have a clue what you are talking about.

You don't know because all you do is google something. Try getting out of your ivory towers and do some work with the less fortunate. You will feel better and see the rampant fraud.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

PIFFLE. An emotive remark from "TopJayhawk" based on....well....emotions.

However, if the fraud TopJayhawk is referring to is Vendor Fraud.....heck yes....lots and lots of that. They're typically left off the hook with a hand slap and a finger wagging.

This is Kansas.

In Hard Time, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor.....

0

sunny 3 years, 1 month ago

Wake up Alceste! 'occasional' cheaters. Remove the blinders sista!

I wish I could be in charge of this department! People might have to actually take some personal responsibility for themselves and the family they created!

0

ljwhirled 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, starve those children. They should never have been born.

Wait, abortion is going to be unobtainable in Kansas? The moms are going to have no choice.

How do you reconcile "personal responsibility" with "pro-life"? If women don't have a choice, how can you hold them responsible.

And don't come back with "abstinence". That is a ridiculous, unrealistic, crazyland suggestion. Everyone (who can get laid) has had a condom slip on occasion.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

Condoms may slip once in a while, but there is a limit. A friend of mine who was on welfare had her tubes tied after delivering at the taxpayers expense - just saying...

As for what about those that want children? Well, I want lots of things I can't afford. If I want something bad enough, I work for it. For instance, I wanted a second car for my teenage daughter. I'm a single mom who has never taken a dime of public assistance. I took on an extra job and my daughter got a job. Now she has a car.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Birth control does fail even for the most responsible. And can do so through no fault of their own.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/health/birth-control-recall/

"The recall affects these products: Cyclafem 7/7/7, Cyclafem 1/35, Emoquette, Gildess FE 1.5/30, Gildess FE 1/20, Orsythia, Previfem and Tri-Previfem.

Customers can call 1-877-300-6153 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT to get their questions answered, arrange to return their pills or report problems. Information is also available at http://www.qualitestrx.com/pdf/OCRecall.pdf."

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh, good grief, sunny. You have no clue what you're talking about. http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

"...vendors committed 93% of welfare fraud. This aspect of the welfare system drastically needs reform: it is harming recipients as well as taxpayers. But all of the political attention is on limiting the amount of money going to recipients.

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion."

But, then again:

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor......

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

Alceste, I do enjoy and respect your opinions. Lately though, I've been hearing a drop in the bucket here (cadillac welfare system) a drop in the bucket there (theatre) a little money there (athletic fields) a little hidden tax increase there (increased fees) a mill here (property taxes) millions there (Westar)

Feel like I’m being drained drop by drop

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

Look how far we have fallen. There are people who believe for every dollar spent in the welfare system another one is spent on fraud.

There is nothing wrong with the changes. Required to look for a job. Wow, what a strange idea. So, most of you are saying it's just duck soup to take free money and not even look for a job?

Count all income? Daaaaa You bet. I as a taxpayer hate the fact I am giving freeloaders a dime.

Think about it, laws are made to make recipients keep children in school. I say make sure the kids attend well too.

You libs amaze me.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Wissmo....the "reforms" are misleading! They've already been in place for the most part. Did you read the Federal requirements for TANF? (How can people watch and enjoy a football or basketball game if they don't know the rules?)

SRS was already requiring, per Federal law, job search as an integral aspect to receive TANF! Applicants and recipients are REQUIRED to attend weekly job search training and are also required to turn in a monthly list of applications turned in! Each SRS office determines how many applications is enough. Too, only a certain % of the applications can be via "on line" jobs....the bulk HAVE to be face to face!! All that has been in place prior to now.

People just want to read dirt where there isn't any. Yes, there are some complexity to what the federal definition of a "household" is as well as what a "household member" is. Kansas CANNOT change these Federal regulations!! Just because one is living together does not necessarily mean they share food or combine their incomes to live phat. Ever heard of "roommates"? No doubt, there are differing ways to "interpret" the regulations and it is common in the business to have "gallows humour" such as "...they sleep together but eat seperatly....". We cannot legislate morality. Every time it's tried, it fails....utterly and unquestioningly.....

However, in many, many instances people DO live together and share expenses so that each can have a roof over their head. They're stacked on top of one another....living in what once were called GHETTOS. I guess now they're like Lew Perkinsland or something!! I do not know about you, but I like my privacy and I enjoy the luxury of my own place. Just because people live together don't mean that they share everything. What an absurd notion.

Brownback going after KHS for CHEATING (now that is CHEATING and FRAUD if it is in fact true http://www.khi.org/news/2011/sep/09/turmoil-besets-kansas-mental-health-community/?print and I will bet money it is true ) makes a lot of sense.

However, we're in Kanas.

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor......

0

Linda Endicott 3 years, 1 month ago

There was already a requirement to look for a job...although looking for a job doesn't guarantee one will be found...there was already a limit to how long benefits could be received...although I don't know what people are supposed to do if after 48 months they're still in dire straits...starve, I guess...

Both those changes were already in place...have been for years...

I see a couple of problems with the new rules...what if a woman with a young child has no money and no other alternative, and has to move back in with her parents? What if her parents are barely making ends meet as it is, and can't afford to have her there if she isn't able to pay her own way somewhat...yet if their income is included, then the woman will not get any benefits at all...because even a crappy job that doesn't pay enough is too much to make you eligible for welfare...so she won't get the benefits, and her parents won't be able to afford to have her there...

And heaven knows with no job and no income she wouldn't be able to find her own place to live...landlords like to be paid in advance anymore...so what should she do?

The childcare rule is also a catch-22...you can't find a job unless you have childcare, but you can't get childcare until you can prove you work at least 20 hours a week...

You amaze me...I get so sick of hearing all the comments on here about people on welfare, as if they're living high on the hog and getting everything their little hearts desire...did you read that little part about how the maximum monthly payment is $429 a month? Could you live on that? Could you find a place to live on that?

I get tired of people assuming that everyone that's on welfare is a bum and a freeloader...they aren't...and they certainly don't get rich off of it...so why the hell would anyone want to be on welfare unless that absolutely had to?

Yeah...$429 a month...big whoop...

Maybe you ought to worry more about that $600 to $1500 a month that foster parents get per child...I've always wondered why SRS thinks it takes a foster parent that much a month to take care of a child properly, but the real parents don't get anywhere near that much...

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

Sadly some people can and do live well on welfare. I couldn't stand the idea of not owning or working towards a new car. Welfare law tells them the limits on car ownership. Would bristle at people coming through my home for inspections. It would turn my stomach having to pay my food bill with government stamps.

Sad, some have no problem with this at all. Ironic but true, welfare recipients are the only and I mean only culture in this country not feeling the current economic downturn.

No Crazyks, some do just fine on the dole. Also, some do work for cash jobs on the side. A little folding money comes in handy from time to time. Smokes and booze are expensive you know.

Well, as most of us ready for heating bills and making plans for getting to work on icy days, some in our nation smile and turn up the unlimited heat knowing they get it for free. The heat helps for those trick shoulder and knee problems keeping some from working.

0

Linda Endicott 3 years, 1 month ago

You are just so full of it, you know?

I probably know more about those receiving welfare in Kansas because I used to "be on the dole" as you so eloquently (and with much bias) put it...

I hated it...your life wasn't your own...forms to fill out every time you turned around, inspections, interviews...you practically had to tell them how many times a day you took a dump...and they treated you like you were extremely stupid, wanting to give you classes in childcare, or nutrition, or yada yada, like you hadn't already lived part of your life and knew nothing...

Well, most folks on welfare already know that stuff...but it sure as hell makes them feel lower than dirt to be treated that way...and you know what? People who already feel lower than dirt have little incentive to try to improve their lot in life...

All the other people I knew who were on welfare hated it as much as I did...what they gave you wasn't enough to even feel human...no extras...pretty much substinence stuff like oatmeal and meatloaf all the time...to hell with nutrition...who can afford good nutrition on welfare? so you live a life of deprivation, and yet every time you wanted to splurge on strawberries or pork steak (which, by the way, there is no food stamp rule against), there was always some goody-two-shoes member of the morality police waiting to bash you over the head with it...how dare you crave strawberries when you can't afford it! Those are only for the people who pay their own way! You must live the way I tell you to!

Well, I do pay my own way now...somehow, I got out of the system, even though it is not in any way set up to encourage or help people to get out...

But I really wonder what kind of wealthy street you live on...new car??? Gee, I've been paying my own way and working and paying taxes for years now, and I do not nor have I ever been able to own a new car...and even if I did, I would have to sell it...those property taxes would be more than I could afford on my paycheck...so I'll never have anything but a used car...

Unlimited heat? You're nuts...blow it out your back door...LIEAP only pays the equivalent of three of your highest utility bills per year...and much later than they were due...you usually don't get LIEAP until April or later, and by then those high winter bills have already eaten you alive...the only reason they don't turn them off is because legally they can't...but by God, just as soon as Apr. 15 hits, off they go...

Oh, and as for your snotty comment about disabilities...I knew a woman who had severe back, shoulder and leg problems that DID keep her from working...guess how she got them...years ago an ex bf beat her half senseless with the phone...you know, one of those old types with the rotary dial, heavy and with metal parts...

You just seem to hate the poor so much...

There but for the grace of God go I...

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

....and L.I.E.A.P. is NOT set up to provide heat for the poor....

It's primary purpose is to send payments to the Utility fat cats! Give me a break....

It's just like foodstamps: That program is no longer and never was set up to feed the poor. To begin with.....it's always been a SUPPLEMENT....and, finally, it's set up to fuel Agribusiness. Were the program to stop today, poor people would find a way to eat.....it's Agribusiness that suffer....and mightyily so......

Idiots....

But....then again.....we're in Kansas:

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor

0

Mary Alexander 3 years, 1 month ago

Crazyks I am very proud of you. Everything you said was correct I just do not understand people who can be so judgemental when it comes to others. I hope they never have to go get help but sometimes I wish everyone should walk in another shoes just to see how hard it really can be maybe they will rethink their statements. It never hurts to wish anyway. Thanks for you post it was right on.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Here's a wunnerful loophole for all those interested:

All a woman (and, ostensibly, a man; yes, men are single parent's and sometimes require a helping hand....) has to do is holler "ABUSE!!!! I BEEN ABUSED BY MY MATE!!!!" and they are excused from the mandated work requirement; job training; get a G.E.D.; job search, etc.

It be called O.A.R.S. matey.....as in rowing a boat....exactly to where....I dunno....but what I DO know is that a whole phat industry has been built around it and with it.....I kid you not....

http://www.kcsdv.org/OARS.html

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Wow. What a horrible way to misrepresent a program to help domestic violence victims.

Way to go, Alceste. You've contributed to the dehumanization of the poor. So damn lazy they'll make false claims of domestic violence to get out of the work search requirements. And the ones that are abused? Well, we'll just act like they get tons of benefits 'cause everyone knows the life of a domestic abuse victim is phat.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah? You clearly don't know how it works inside SRS. Sit down.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah? I'm already familiar with your brand of misogyny. You've shown it often enough here.

Why don't you take a seat over there?

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh heck. You got to call first! But, I'm gonna holler louder: Misandry is what we have going on here. That, and heterophobia.

O.A.R.S. is a misused program which pimps out and preys on the disadvantaged in order to keep their own checks coming in. While the hens cluck about in their secret squirrel meetings, life and time goes on. It is obscene to dedicate monies to specific gender based agendas in these times of wicked little financing. That money is better spent elsewhere. The creation of the "domestic violence" industry is unctuous, at best. Battery is battery is battery. To seperate familial/partner battery from battery is stupid and is done only to pander to those who make money off the concept of "domestic violence" not to mention "child welfare". Striking people is serious business and should not be marginalized by calling it something else. That's what's happened with the creation and proliferation of the "domestic violence" "concepts". Bankrupt. Useless. Simple spawned by academics and mutated into program specific and turf laden battles over non-sense. The War On Poverty is real....tangental issues dillute the seriousness of the War and derail the effort(s) to change/alter class structure.

Too, I'd like to know the exact date when a "lover's quarrel" was turned into "verbal abuse"?

Put the Dunce hat on, Katara. It befits you nicely....

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 1 month ago

End result,

More Kansas children going to bed hungry.

God bless them, every one.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

The biggest loophole and always will be until we as a nation decide no more is of course phantom chronic pain.

Before it’s assumed my thinking is if doesn’t swell up, blood pouring out, or a broken bone there is no disability please consider this.

My life partner has suffered through a hard to diagnose severe illness for the better part of two decades. Have nothing but respect for folks with these types of illnesses. In our situation she loved her job and worked until retirement. Thankfully there are millions like her.

Now the fakers.

Welfare swindlers often go through long expensive job training sometimes taking years. We foot the bills, including transportation, housing, money for all bills. This often the entire family, sometimes a family growing during the welfare days. Most young couples plan children as they can afford them. Not folks on the dole. In some states, not sure here, but in some cases we even buy vehicles for the process.

All along the process bleating how they just want a chance, a job, a career.

Of course the problem is some simply only desire to stay home and eat food stamp chow. This desire is strong. The day comes when they are asked to now join we smucks who actually work and pay taxes.

Then something comes up. Headaches, back pain, shoulder or lifting problems, transportation, you get the drift. Employment is out of the question.

The truth is these fakers absolutely despise the concept of working an entire day, let alone weeks and years. They will and do find a way to end employment.

Welfare support has continued during the whole process. In most cases, the process begins again in another vocational training setting. Sometimes the slackers win, and SRS gives up paying them forever.

We need the collective guts General Motors or Firestone demonstrates. If they feel a employee on disability leave is faking, they have it professionally checked out. Companies as Equafax ? provide these detective services.

General Motors as all businesses understand money they play with is real. They can not afford to drag along slackers and thieves who drain the system resources for the honest workers.

Shouldn’t the government operate this way too?

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 1 month ago

Cut the aid back to zero, then the freeloaders move to another state. Our costs go down, and hopefully the taxes with it.

0

parco814 3 years, 1 month ago

Not a bad idea, but you don't go nearly far enough.

How about this--simply execute all those receiving public assistance, even those who dare to apply for it. They're all a bunch of deadbeats and whiners and the gene pool could use a good disinfecting.

In Nazi Germany, these folks were called "useless eaters" and rightly so. Stalin said once, and I paraphrase, "Get rid of the person, you get rid of the problem." Isn't that music to your ears? I thought so.

Firing squads would be a good way to get 'er done. Think of the jobs that would provide here in Kansas. And lots of good, honest, hard working Kansas who love freedom could use their own guns.

If the dead deadbeats have kids, apprentice them out to the lowest bidders. Put 'em to work early and often and when they need a break, send 'em to church. The more fundamentalist, the better.

If you don't get with my program, well then, there might be something unAmerican about you. Watch your step, you're sounding a little too liberal and there will be no nanny state here in Kansas!

0

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

Jonathon Swift would be proud...

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

I agree. It should be mandatory to receive funds.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

...and should also the people processing the applications also be required to demonstrate they are drug/reefer free? Makes sense to me......what do they have to hide?

State workers are NOT subject to pre-employment drug screening. Nor are they subject to "random screening" after hire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 3 years, 1 month ago

That is actually a very good idea. Those who receive income from tax dollars should be drug tested. That goes for welfare recipients and government workers alike. If a government worker loses his job due to illegal drug use, backfill that position with a clean-living welfare recipient who is in need of employment. I am going to email your suggestion to Brownback.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't forget to include Brownback's staff and Kansas Legislators, please.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

P.S.:

Also include the "social workers" who are entrusted by state law with respect to the decision making about childrens' lives. These very "social workers" can claim a parent is "unfit" due to illicit drug usage and be stoned while filing out the paper work to remove a child and place same in foster care? Incredible.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

Why not? The state spends a fortune on illegal drugs, from law enforcement to education. I think if you are on the taxpayers payroll, no matter your capacity - high or low - you should be subject to random screening; many of the private sector are.

0

chootspa 3 years, 1 month ago

Except that it's really expensive and finds very few violators. Welfare recipients are no more likely to be drug abusers than the population at large. Really the suggestion is just another attempt to humiliate the destitute, and humiliation like that actually makes them LESS likely to eventually raise themselves out of poverty.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, let's make sure we let the destitute know how special they are and what unique and wonderful snowflakes each and everyone of them is. So is it humiliating the men and women in the US Armed Forces to have to undergo random drug testing? What about the state police?

We drug test the inmates in the state prisons randomly. Does that make them LESS likely to eventually raise themselves out of criminal lifestyles?

What is wrong with offering help that comes with responsibility and expectations? Everyone can see that the system is broken. For everyone that it helps, there is another that abuses it. Life isn't fair, I wish that is was, but throwing money blindly at the problem because changing might hurt someones feelings is not the solution. Socialism is not the answer here.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

What a poor comparison. The military and the state police to an entire economic class? Seriously?

There are legitimate reasons for drug testing groups of people but being poor certainly does not fall under that.

Can you show that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than "hard-working taxpayers"?

Can you show evidence that drug testing welfare recipients actually saves taxpayer monies?

Florida had the same stereotypes of the poor that you do and enacted a law that requires mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants based on those stereotypes.

You know what they found out?

Welfare recipients are less likely to use drugs than the general population and the program ended up costing taxpayers more than projected savings.

You seem to have this strange belief that welfare recipients are out to screw you. Nevermind that numerous studies prove this mindset wrong. Nevermind that the majority of welfare fraud comes from vendors (the people that implement and administer the programs).

Yes, certainly the solution is get your co-workers thrown off any form of assistance because 1 got a new tattoo and the other doesn't want to take on extra hours (perhaps she has daycare issues?). And most definitely make them pee in a cup. That will show them!

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can just get so mean for no reason. This was a valid discussion until Katara made it an all out pathetic assault against another. Have some respect for yourself and others.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Actually, it wasn't a valid discussion and it started when auntiesocial decided to sign on to make a personal attack on her 2 co-workers.

We got nothing but 2 co-workers and a friend on welfare to back up anything she had to say. Meanwhile I and others back up what we say with facts. Valid discussions happen when people put out their opinion and back that opinion up with actual information such as facts.

Valid discussions do not happen when your proof is idle workplace gossip.

And then went on to opine that perhaps the poor should be humiliated because I guess, they're poor. There really wasn't any other reason given why someone should be subjected to such scrutiny including scrutiny that includes bodily fluids for no other reason than one gets some government assistance.

Some people can just get so mean for no reason. And you clearly support that those that do.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Your continued need to respond and attempt to put me into my place is comical as well. ;)

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Seems to be a common response from you. With the majority of your 12 posts being mainly personal attacks on others, you are hardly the one to complain about personal attacks.

Hey look! You even share the first initial with the word hypocrite!

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

Creeping around my profile for something to use against me? Is there no better use of your time or your mind? How about directing some of your energy into doing something good, maybe do some volunteer work.

You might find helping others can be much more personally rewarding than picking fights.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Again, the same tired attack. Can't you come up with something else? Are you not creative enough? How about telling me I smell and my mother dresses me funny?

Sure thing, I check out others' comments. It is a handy tool to find out where they are coming from and also a good way to check if there is any misinterpretation on my part for their comments. A sense of humor can be easily misinterpreted as someone being serious in their comments.

Again, can you provide any of evidence that welfare recipients are responsible for the majority of welfare fraud or that it is common for fraud to occur by individual welfare recipients.

You are so busy making comments trying to question my mental health that perhaps you forgot to answer those questions.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh, drat. You can't back up the argument and you can't come up with anything creative in the insult department.

You keep telling me to get a life but you continued to engage me. Strange that and feigning boredom too. That's never been tried before.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Yeah... about that drug testing welfare recipients...

Florida found out (under their mandatory testing law) that welfare recipients actually have a lower rate of drug use than the general population and that the program ended up costing rather saving as projected. http://tinyurl.com/3v3ugnp

It is all about humiliating and dehumanizing the poor. Makes it so much easier to treat 'em like crap and brush them aside. You can see that attitude in so many of the posts here.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

I think some of the welfare recipients in this state should be subject to humiliation. I work with a couple of women who have repeatedly turned down extra hours at work and one even full time work because it would interfere with her benefits and she makes more on welfare.

The other day I sat having my lunch outside while they were on a smoke break, one showing off her new tattoo and the other lamenting how sad it it Lawrence no longer has a decent 'head shop'. Give me a break - dehumanizing? Since when did it become my job to support someone else so they can have a better life than I? Isn't that in and of itself servitude? Why should any group of people be exempt of any responsibility just because of income level?

0

chootspa 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, two people are identical to every single person receiving benefits. Screw that family undergoing a temporary hardship. I know two slackers at my job!

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

By no means have I ever said that I want to cut the program, I want to help those in need, but there does need to be changes in the current system to ensure continued success. What is wrong with making sure the aid goes to those that need it and not those that abuse it?

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh sure, everyone knows those folks. Just like the guy on here a while back claiming to see an actual Welfare Queen get into her Cadillac after buying various expensive items with her food stamps.

That's interesting. You work with them, meaning that they are receiving a paycheck just like you. This means they are paying taxes just like you.

A better life than you? You really believe that because someone has a new tattoo and some cigarettes? You have a really strange view of what the good life is.

How about taking some personal responsibility for your own situation? If you are that unhappy that you are envious of people who receive some sort of government assistance, why not get off your butt and find a better job. You know, just like how you expect everyone else to do.

Funny how those who moan the most about personal responsibility can't seem to exercise any in their own lives.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

Please do not project your own disatisfaction on me. I never claimed to be unhappy. I am responsible for myself and my family. Why are you making this a personal attack on me? Is your argument and/or intellect that weak?

As for people having a better life than I, having to only pay rent based on your income and knowing that regardless of any bills that may come due you will have food in your kitchen, that your children will receive adequate medical care no matter your job status is better than what I have, is it wrong for me to expect some amount of responsibility in those that profit from my labor?

I did call the local SRS about my coworkers, and as that did nothing, I have written to my state reps to demand reform. It is sad, but there are more cases of abuse than many want to admit.

As for making the poor feel bad for being poor, why should I feel guilty for having money? Sorry, the world isn't fair and everyone doesn't get a gold star at the end of the day. Like you said, get off your butts and find a better way.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

You are unhappy with your situation. Just look at your post. Your choice of words. It reeks of dissatification with your situation and what do you do? Point the finger at a couple of co-workers that you feel are getting something you are not.

As for personal attacks, really? Questioning my intellect when I point out your hypocrisy? Funny how you try to deflect your choice of words on me.

Profit from your labor? You really have no understanding with how government assistance works. You see someone getting something that you are not. That was the jist of your post.

These co-workers are slackers while you are hard working. You perceive that they get things you don't. Not really sure what from your post other than they get a tattoo (Were you wanting one too?) and they smoke cigarettes.

Do you know their personal finances? Have you examined their bills, all their monthly expenditures, checked their tax returns? Do you know anything about their life other than the conversations they have that you eavesdrop on?

Have you forgotten that they are also employed with you? Unless you know exactly what they make, what gives you the right to judge that it is enough to take care of a family properly?

It is nice that you feel you need to police the lives of others. Would you like the same type of scrutiny to apply to you?

I've not said that you should feel guilty for having money (although it is obvious you are envious of what you perceive others to have that you don't) but you should feel like crap for stepping on others because you feel they don't do enough.

Your family has do nothing to install self-pride or personal responsibility into you. People with self-pride don't denigrate others and brag about it on a public forum. People with personal responsibility do something about their situations rather than try to make others' situations worse.

You are right. The world isn't fair. But that doesn't give you the right to make it worse for those who are not as fortunate as you.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

Here you are taking it once again to a personal level and inferring what you want from not only my reply above but other comments as well.

Well, I will do my best to answer your attack and then bid you goodnight. I only wished to give my opinion, not waste my time justifying myself to someone who is obviously a bitter and mean person. Your aggression towards me is unwarranted and does not further the discussion at hand.

As for tattoos, they are expensive. I have every right to feel cheated as a taxpayer when someone who refuses to work and remains in the welfare system is showing off a $400 tattoo.

As for knowing about their lives, unfortunately, I know more than I care to. Because I despise their taking advantage of the system for their own benefit, I limit my association with them to a professional level. I have no respect for anyone who does nothing to improve themselves.

As for feeling like crap because I feel someone isn't doing enough to better themselves? You are insane. Not only do I not feel bad, I am proud of myself and my accomplishments. I think people like that are beneath contempt because it is those people that are depriving those that really and truly need it the help they deserve.

As for someone applying scrutiny to my life, I am answerable to those that I receive a paycheck from and to the country of which I am a citizen. I answer to the IRS every spring.

As I said, negative, lazy and boring people do not interest me, so I will bid you a goodnight.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

That's pretty funny.

You launch a personal attack on 2 co-workers who aren't here to defend themselves and you accuse someone else of personal attacks. How typical of the busybody personality who is so concerned about what everyone else is doing. Gladys Kravitz is alive and well!

You have only snippets of their overheard conversations to base your allegations on and you use that to attempt to show how the poor people are taking advantage of the situation.

Interesting that you have nothing more than questionable personal anecdotes to back up anything you say. You have 2 co-workers and apparently a friend who are on welfare. Yup, that certainly negates the tons of evidence that shows that it isn't welfare recipients who are engaging in fraud or are wasting huge sums of taxpayer money.

You aren't subject to the amount of scrutiny that a person who receives any form of government assistance is. No one asks you to account for every penny each month and you don't have people like yourself attempting to erase any accomplishment you've achieved because they believe you don't deserve anything other just sackcloth and gruel.

You should be thankful for that freedom rather than complaining about your perception that people are getting things that you aren't or that your hard-earned money is being yanked out of your wallet by the people on assistance you perceive to be thieves.

Great! You are proud of your accomplishments. No one said you shouldn't be. But it is obvious that part of your pride in your accomplishments comes from tearing others, such as your co-workers, down. That's the part you should feel like crap about.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh deec, no one wants to hear facts.

Facts don't allow you that wonderfully almost smug feeling that you can have when you believe yourself to be morally superior and just generally better than those people.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

Nice to see Troll Binkelman has joined the party.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps you could provide the evidence that welfare fraud is significant among welfare recipients?

Perhaps you could provide the actual proof of auntiesocial's claim that welfare fraud among welfare recipients is more common than people want to admit?

Please provide legitimate studies or articles that reference them to support her opinion.

Your personal anecdote about your auntie's sister's 3rd cousin's granddaughter doesn't provide proof.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

Seriously, have you considered seeking emotional help? You have a problem.

Here you go - Prevalence rates for substance use problems among TANF recipients vary widely depending on study methodology and on how problem use is defined. Most recent studies cite survey data that relies exclusively on administrative data or self-reports of substance use (Jayakody et al. 2000), both of which are likely to underestimate the true prevalence of substance use disorders (Metsch and Pollack 2005). Data from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) indicate that in the previous year 7.5 percent of TANF recipients were alcohol dependent and 4.5 percent were dependent on illicit drugs (Pollack et al. 2002). According to other studies using self-report data, 6 to 10 percent of TANF recipients were dependent on either alcohol or other drugs (Jayakody et al. 2000; Schmidt et al. 1998; Chandler and Meisel 2000; Grant and Dawson 1996). It is more difficult to determine the prevalence of problem users who are not dependent. Overall prevalence data obtained from numerous waves of the NHSDA and the more recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) suggest that illicit substance use was about twice as common among female welfare recipients as among other women with dependent children who did not receive public assistance (Jayakody et al. 2000; Pollack et al. 2002). Data from the 2002 NSDUH show that about 22 percent of female welfare recipients used illicit drugs at least once in the year before the survey (Pollack et al. 2002).

What's more, in referring to your link regarding Florida's new regulation, you have to consider as well how many prospective recipients did not apply as they were aware of the drug test and knew they could not pass.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Wow! You did the same thing to another poster who disagreed with you.

Your study provides statistics that are 9+ years old. The results from Florida's law are from this year.

Perhaps you could actually find something a bit more current and that actually provides evidence to the questions posed?

2% do not complete the application process, which is the best figure that you will get in regards to those who were aware they would not pass and so did not complete the application and even then the cost of the program is more than projected savings.

As I'm sure you are aware, 4% (those who fail & those who do not complete the application process) is less than the 8.7% of the general population that uses drugs.

So you are testing a population that generally abuses drugs much less than the general population and subjecting them to much more stringent standards only because of their financial status.

The state is spending $29,400+/mo testing welfare applicants but only 2% are actually failing and another 2% do not complete the process.

FTFA, the average benefit received is $134.00/mo so 40 (4% of 1000) *134.00/mo = 5360.00

The state is spending 29,400/mo (remember that 2% don't complete the process so the drug test was not administered) to save $5360.00/mo.

Sounds like Brownback math to me.

Then, on top of those amounts, you have the amount of time spent by state workers administering the test, analyzing the results and then accepting or denying the application.

Oh and the legal costs, those should probably figure in too since the ACLU is working on a challenge to this law.

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

Did you actually comprehend the article you are citing? The article clearly states that money was saved just from the 2% that was rejected.

Again, I state it would be interesting to see the statistics of those who did not apply due to the new regulation, but then, you are so eager to dismiss that factor as that would negate your argument.

The ACLU is always working on a challenge to some law. That doesn't really mean it will go anywhere.

As for subjecting a population to drug testing based on their financial status, no, I am not suggesting that. Only those that receive benefits paid for by my tax dollars.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh, then you have no objection to auntiesocial being subjected to drug tests, then? She's a state worker and therefore her benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.

Yes, a whopping $5360. was saved when the state spent $29,400 just in the tests alone. The tests costs $30/ea. That does not include the amount spent in man hours to administer, analyze and complete all the other necessary items to accept or deny an application. Those are costs on top of the $29,400 which was spent to save $5360.

To make it easy for you: $5360<$29,400

Additionally, the article states 2% failed to complete the application process which does address your argument about those who do not apply. Generally, if one does not complete the application it is considered the same as not applying. Either way, they are not getting any benefits.

And honestly, if you really feel your are dealing with a lunatic (as you so imply that I am), what does that make you for continuing to engage me in discussion?

0

hwkgrl 3 years, 1 month ago

Oh and as for finding something more recent, that was just the first thing that popped up on the search engine. I don't have the time you have to spend finding the most recent research documentation to use in picking silly arguments on the internet with strangers. Goodnight, Gracie.

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

@hwkgrl

Per the Tos of this board, I am requesting that you do not contact me via private message. I will be forced to file a complaint with the moderator if you continue to send me unsolicited messages.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, actually, you're not being forced to do anything. That would be a choice that you're making I do believe.

Just like the way certain people who work for SRS choose to use illicit substances. Choice.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

One of the many government training programs for welfare to work is childcare. We taxpayers have paid millions to train childcare workers and nurses aides. More than you realize still sit in Section 8 housing and watch t.v. all day.

A great money saving idea of course would be having unemployed "childcare" experts form at least some type of system so others could work. At least we can have a daycare center run by welfare recipients. Get a little bang for our tax dollar. No, too logical.

No, we pay for childcare at government rates I may add, while our welfare culture trains for another career. Also if a recipient can do this, they can do a real job.

Catch 22. Can't work because they can't afford daycare, won't do daycare because it takes away the excuse of why they can't work.

Thanks LBJ, good intentions gone wrong.

0

geekin_topekan 3 years, 1 month ago

"A great money saving idea of course would be having unemployed "childcare" experts form at least some type of system so others could work. At least we can have a daycare center run by welfare recipients. Get a little bang for our tax dollar. No, too logical." ++ Wouldn't a gubment owned and operated daycare staffed by gubment employees who are required to report for duty in order to receive their dole be considered COmmunism?

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

My hometown a thousand miles from here had to close a beloved city park last spring. Call it fluff I guess, always loved driving by, or just stopping in for a few minutes though.

The little park built during the Great Depression always had some animals all which were injured at one time. Our racoon was just as good as big time zoo ape to us. Fluff I guess, but so many happy pictures taken by the residents over the decades. Make some sandwiches, and let the kids play, cheap Saturday fun.

Most of the male residents sucked a few brews and told lies during the coming of age times as well at the city park. Even heard the girls were doing the same lately.

The little town closed the park due to budget problems, mainly due to the number of new "assistance" cases being filed.

Sad in my mind built during hard times, closed due to ?

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 1 month ago

How many jobs does your hometown have for the people needing assistance? How many businesses in your hometown were moved out of the country? How many people in your hometown weren't willing to volunteer to take care of the park, or pay extra taxes to maintain it? You are blaming the wrong people here.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

wissmo:

Do you "hate" so hard against the WELFARE the Brownback family reaps via USDA price supports? How about the WELFARE capital gains tax affords....locked at 15%? What about the Federal income tax structure which is so out of whack it's surreal??

"Over time, the United States has expected less and less of its elite, even as society has oriented itself in a way that is most likely to maximize their income. The top income-tax rate was 91 percent in 1960, 70 percent in 1980, 50 percent in 1986, and 39.6 percent in 2000, and is now 35 percent. Income from investments is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. The estate tax has been gutted."

"High earners should pay considerably more in taxes than they do now. Top tax rates of even 50 percent for incomes in the seven-figure range would still be considerably lower than their level throughout the boom years of the post-war era, and should not be out of the question—nor should an estate-tax rate of similar size, for large estates."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/

35% at present for the wealthy. Now THAT's WELFARE!

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

Farm supports = cheap food

Don't like it at all, or any other government hands on programs. Yet, this one does work.

0

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

Let's have some personal responsibility here. Farmers and eaters should fend for themselves. Food should cost what the market will bear. If a farmer can't make a profit without a gubmint handout, tough udders. End sarcasm

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

No, it doesn't:

Introduced after the Great Depression as the savior of struggling small family farms, the subsidy programs have been co-opted to support plantation-scale production of corn, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat. The new data reaffirm that you still don’t have to be a farmer to collect federal farm subsidies despite “reforms” cited by subsidy backers that were supposed to prevent absentee land owners and investors from receiving payments intended for struggling family farmers. The so-called “actively engaged” rule adopted in the 2008 bill was designed to ensure that federal payments go only to those who are truly working the land.

Despite this rule, subsidies still line the pockets of absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city. In 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities – Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi – collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients.

The phenomenon of urban residents receiving federal farm payments remains widespread and coast-to-coast. In Spokane, Wash., 1,224 residents cashed $10,580,181 in farm subsidy checks. In New York City, 290 farm subsidy recipients pulled in a total of $800,887, while 203 residents of Miami got $2,472,071. In San Francisco, 179 residents split $1,094,172, while 1,235 residents of Memphis got $4,009,874 and 1,146 people in Denver received $3,394,550. In Arizona, 1,205 residents of Phoenix, Mesa and Scottsdale divvied up $8,173,269 in payments.

http://www.ewg.org/release/despite-claims-reform-subsidy-band-marches

But we're "discussing" Kansas and:

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor....

0

notorious_agenda 3 years, 1 month ago

This has nothing to do with the wealthy. This has everything to do with the welfare recipient.

0

ljwhirled 3 years, 1 month ago

Don't kid yourself. This is an attempt to free up tax dollars so that the tax code can be "reformed" and the wealthy can pay less into the system.

Step 1. Create a surplus. Step 2. Cut Taxes Step 3. Create a fiscal crisis. Step 4. Cut programs. Step 5. Repeat

Just keep doing it until government is gone and we are back in the gilded age.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

notorious_agenda (anonymous) says… This has nothing to do with the wealthy. This has everything to do with the welfare recipient.

The two are inter-related just as the moon is to the sun. The true welfare recipient is bleeding the country dry with USDA subsidies; 15% capital gains tax and an income structure that begs the obvious in corporate, personal, and effete, wealthy WELFARE.

However, we're "discussing" Kansas.

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor.....

0

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

And we sure don't expect to tell the farm subsidy welfare recipients to take drug tests, or expect them to account for every penny of their welfare payments. For example, I have kin who are retired urban teachers but own farmland 100 miles away. They don't "believe" in farm subsidies, but have received $49K in them over the last 15 years.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm not writing just about Kansas. Kansas is a drop in the bucket compared to NY-CA.

0

1983Hawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Time for some "reform" measures for the corporate welfare recipients like drug testing of all management, clawback provisions for failing to adhere to promised "job creation" for all the tax breaks, and personal liability of CEOs and corporate officers for all jobs outsourced.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

How about drug testing for all Kansas Legislators and members of the Executive Branch/Staff??

0

Keith 3 years, 1 month ago

Intelligence testing would prove more fruitful.

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

The American Dream..........Gimme

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Yup. It doesn't start at the bottom either, wissmo. It starts at the top: Corporate bailouts; funny bunny "tax relief" for the uber wealthy; tax abatements (locally); schlock "theater groups"; capital gains tax reductions; depreciation on "equipment" and "property"; mortgage interest deductions; Donald Trump style bankruptcies; campaign "contributions" for hack, Grade D politicians; KPERS 372 days in a year calculation for Kansas legislators; Free physical therapy to certain members of the KU sports "elite"; blah, blah, blah. Point the finger of "Gimme" where it really belongs, please, wissmo.

However, we're discussing Kansas and:

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor....

0

incensed2011 3 years, 1 month ago

LUV CRAZY KS-TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN THERE -RAISING 4 CHILDREN ALONE AND FIGHTING AGAINST THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SRS PRACTICES HERE IN LAWRENCE & KS.IMPORTANT NEWS FOR EVERY WELFARE RECIPIENT;

I TOOK SRS ON IN THE COURTS AND WON IN 2007, SHAWNEE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT THE ENTIRE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION POLICY HANDBOOK IS OF "NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW"- NONE OF THE SRS POLICIES HAVE BEEN "PROMULGATED MEANINGTHEY OPERATE UNLAWFULLY AND DISCRIMINATORILY-GO TO KSCOURTS.ORG TYPE I N "MARTYNOWICZ" IN THE APPELLATE CASE INQUIRY BOX-NOT ONLY DID I WIN THE CASE-THE SHAWNEE COUNTY JUDGE REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE CASE, I WON THAT HEARING ON APPEAL-IT MEANT THAT ALL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN THAT THEY HAD BEEN STEALING CHILD SUPPORT FROM WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID BACK-THIS WAS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION -WONDER WHY? CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS. TOOK THIS CASE ALL THE WAY TO THE US SUPREME COURT- BECAUSE THE KS APPELLATE COURT REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE SHAWNEE CO DISTRICT COURT THEY WERE LESS LIKELY TO HEAR THE APPEAL- THE US SUPREME COURT HELD A CONFERENCE ON THIS CASE BEFORE DENYING MY WRIT. GO TO WEBSITE AND TYPE "MARTYNOWICZ" IN UNDER DOCKET NAME AND CLICK ON THE CASE..WA LA..THE FUNNY- I HAVE NO LAW DEGREE BUT MANAGED TO EXPOSE THE LAWRENCE KS -KANSAS WELFARE SYSTEM FOR WHAT IT IS! YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH A CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES YOU "EQUAL PROTECTION!" WHEN SRS REQUIRES YOU WORK-YOU CAN THROW YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INTO THE RING AND LET THEM KNOW YOU DON'T WORK UNTIL DADDY WORKS..IF THEY REFUSE YOU BENEFITS APPEAL ..DON'T TAKE IT BRING CHARGES AGAINST SRS FOR CHILD ENDANGERMENT SUE -STAND UP FOR YOUR SELF! YOUR AMERICAN RIGHT IS NOT TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY . IN 1973 THE US SUPREME COURT RULED THAT WELFARE BENEFITS CAN'T BE TERMINATED FOR ANY ANY REASON PERIOD...WHILE YOU APPEAL YOUR CASE -THE GOLDBERG VS KELLY CASE READ IT-TREASURE IT-YOU DON;T NEED A LAWYER TO FIGHT BACK -YOU CAN APPEAL TILL DOOMSDAY -THIS IS YOUR DUE PROCESS RIGHT, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CASE LAW THAT WILL PROTECT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

IMPORTANT -IF THEY SEND YOU A LETTER OF DENIAL-CUT YOUR BENEFITS APPEAL TIME IS CRITICAL-DON'T LET THIS LAPSE-DON'T GIVE UP YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN CAN RETAIN YOUR FOODSTAMPS, CASH CHILDCARE AND MORE- IF YOU NEED HELP SEND ME A MESSAGE AT INCENSEDINCENSE@.COM

THE REAL WELFARE-CADILLAC QUEENS ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW IN OFFICE- KNOW HOW MUCH POOR TAXPAYERS SPEND ON ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THIS STATE-ARE THEY DRIVING THE CADILLAC OR ARE YOU...

THEY BLAME THE POOR, CUT THE POOR, PUNISH THE POOR BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE POOR DON'T HAVE A VOICE IN PUBLIC, CONGRESS, ELECTIONS-WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD A POLITICIAN WORRY ABOUT THE :LOWER CLASS" THE RICH ARE RICH BECAUSE THEY STEAL OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR-HEARD OF MINIMUM WAGE... WELFARE'S BROTHER. FIGHT BACK THE US SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THESE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS BUT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN'S RIGHT AS AMERICANS!

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

you don't work until daddy works. ???!!!???

What in the world does that mean? Why would you have four children your cannot provide for?
Did it seem likely that the father(s) would step in, or were you just counting on SRS to pay your way?

I mean this question earnestly. My wife and I have 4 children also. We both work, and have since we were teens. Even when we both had solid, steady jobs, we were scared to death of how we would be able to start a family. We were determined to work as hard as we had to, to make it happen, and it has been hard. It sometimes seems particularly hard when we see things like our neighbor ... unmarried, with a house full of kids whose fathers are absent, and perhaps undeterminable ... having satellite TV installed, while we took on extra jobs and cut our expenses so we could pay for our health insurance and give our kids what they needed. Then, as our kids hit the age when they could do it (and sometimes a little before the law would really allow) our kids also went to work, to buy the things they needed, and a few they just wanted. The pride they take in providing for themselves is an absolute gift. They are unlikely to ever hold out their hands and DEMAND that someone else pay their way.

Welfare is servitude. Aim low and you'll end up there.

.

0

auntiesocial 3 years, 1 month ago

I concur. I was raised by a family that taught me pride in my self and respect for others. Accepting the charity of others when you are able to do for yourself is shameful, but unfortunately the current generations have suffered from a loss of integrity and an acceptance of failure as the norm.

Hearing someone say that welfare is their right as an American makes me ill.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Public Assistance is a RIGHT. There is no shame whatsoever in receiving Public Assistance be it TANF, SNAP, L.I.E.A.P. (help with utility bills) et. all. These programs aren't even set up to help people in the final analysis: They're all built around making sure Mr. Charlie gets his: Agribusiness would fall to it's knees if foodstamps were halted; utilty company bottom lines would shrink if the energy assistance wasn't in place; poverty pimp outfits like Kaw Valley, Kansas Children's Service League, DCCCA, etc. would crumble if cash assistance wasn't in place, etc., etc., etc. That glass is half full alright.....half full of poison.....Re-design of Public Assistance of all sorts is required.

This is Kansas.

In Hard Times, Kansans Like to Blame The Poor....

0

gphawk89 3 years, 1 month ago

Good lord, incensed, I really hope that post was a joke. "they know the poor don't have a voice in public" Ever heard of elections? You know, voting? I think the poor are still allowed to do that.

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

Like it or not, the welfare state has brought about an ongoing cycle that encourages poor, young females to have babies that they cannot possibly afford to raise, sired by fathers who cannot possibly be counted on to participate in the child's upbringing, or even voluntarily provide any modicum of financial support to the child. Can you say, "Baby Daddy"?

Poor, young women --- particularly those of color --- are submitting to the servitude of bureaucrats and deadbeats. They see the programs which are designed to provide bare subsistence as the means to their independence, and they MUST have babies to get signed on. What they don't realize is that the funds provided by those programs are intended as a FLOOR, but when they decide to become single mothers, the program-provided standard of living also becomes their ceiling. Continuing that course is not compassionate, or intelligent, or progressive, or anything good.

Sam is a strange duck, and is cut from a cloth I don't care to don, but he is (perhaps inadvertently) onto something when he seeks to cut the cord of dependence that our welfare programs (perhaps inadvertently) have created and perpetuated.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

ralphralph states:

"...They see the programs which are designed to provide bare subsistence as the means to their independence.....".

How YOU KNOW what you've written there? Some people believe the U.S.A. never went to the moon; some people believe 2012 is a year to reckon with. ralphralph believes that the bulk of people on public assistance have gotten together and decided to make it a life style choice. shrug

Prove it. Post one single fact based report that documents what you've written and which is current in nature and post 1996 when A.F.D.C. was put to rest....

0

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 1 month ago

I suggest one set of rules. These rules would apply to everyone eating from the government trough. Not only would people on SRS assistance be caught in this net, but big business like the new MARS plant in Topeka. Do we really know that "but for" all those government incentives that MARS wouldn't have opened the plant in Topeka? Maybe farmers should demonstrate that their incomes are below a certain level before they get farm subsidies? Etc...

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

Olive Garden seems to be a good test of your theory in the Eco Devo arena. We'll see how that goes, but I tend to think that if you look at Bauer Farms, somebody would have built a taco drive-thru near 6th & Waka without a double-secret sales tax kickback, so ... yeah. that's a good point.

I think a lot of people are misinformed as to farm programs, though. My understanding is that they have always been geared more to the PRODUCT than to the PRODUCER. That is, the aim is to make sure that we have an adequate supply of safe, domestic food products, which also are relatively cheap (albeit subsidized). The focus was not on WHO was growing a crop, but on WHAT crop they were growing. I still think that is the case, but it becomes politicized if some of the people who look at the incentives to grow a certain crop happen to be "wealthy" too (although, that would seem to also make them more able to carry out the policy of food production that the subsidies were meant to bring about).

Anyways ... I don't think it is well-informed to equate "economic development" handouts with farm program incentives. If the Eco Devo payments are eliminated, the impact would be that some jerkwad company might build its plant or warehouse or whatever in a different place; whereas, if the farm subsidies are cut, the impact would almost certainly be higher prices in the marketplace for those commodities ... wouldn't it?

0

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

yup. free market at work. Without farm subsidies we might not be able to get our daily $1.50 half gallon of soda. Without subsidies we might not have monoculture corn and soybeans. Without the dole,farmers might not be able to get the latest model combine or tractor every year or two. And we wouldn't want Conagra or ADM to not have record profits every quarter. Of course the prices would also go up if agribusiness didn't use millions of illegal aliens to perform the harvest and process the food.

0

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Bull butter. Vegetable production receive NO SUBSIDIES. WELFARE is reserved for:

Corn Subsidies Wheat Subsidies Cotton Subsidies Soybean Subsidies Rice Subsidies Sorghum Subsidies Dairy Program Subsidies Livestock Subsidies Peanut Subsidies Barley Subsidies Tobacco Subsidies Sunflower Subsidies Canola Subsidies Oat Subsidies Apple Subsidies Sugar Beet Subsidies

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies discusses the damage subsidies to real farming.

Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of taxpayers to a small group of fairly well-off farm businesses and landowners. USDA figures show that the average income of farm households has been consistently higher than the average of all U.S. households. In 2007, the average income of farm households was $86,223, or 28 percent higher than the $67,609 average of all U.S. households. When large-scale federal farm subsidies began in the 1930s, farm incomes were only half the national average.

Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms. For example, the largest 10 percent of recipients have received 72 percent of all subsidy payments in recent years. Numerous large corporations and even some wealthy celebrities receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland. It is landowners, not tenant farmers or farm workers, who benefit from subsidies. And one does not even have to be the owner of farmland to receive subsidies: Since 2000 the USDA has paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming.

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

Does all that mean that if subsidies are cut, prices for those listed items won't go up? I beg to differ. They will go up, regardless of who is getting the subsidy, if the subsidy is withdrawn.

As to, * It is landowners, not tenant farmers or farm workers, who benefit from subsidies. *
... that sounds a little like nonsense. "Benefit" is your word. If the landowner is paying a "farm worker" with money received from a subsidy, did the worker not "benefit" from the subsidy? I guess there is not benefit if you really, really, really don't want to see one.

I agree that it ends up looking like welfare to the rich, but I really do believe that, at least in their inception, and at least to some extent to this day, the subsidies are directed at boosting the supply of the product being subsidized, regardless of who is growing it. The consequence you are pointing out is that the people who own the most land where it is being grown are the ones who get most of the subsidy ... well, duh! The purpose, though, is being served, by getting those landowners to grow what the Government wants them to grow.

Please note that my observation is NOT a "free market" argument ... far from it. My point is that the Government has decided that IT is going to decide what is grown, and it does that by throwing money at favored products. Whether the Government ought to be doing that at all is quite another debate. The point is accurate though, that the subsidy is directed at the product, not the producer, and you can get the subsidy by growing the desired product no matter who you are, and you "benefit" from the subsidy if you are growing the product, working for someone who is growing the product, supplying goods and services to the one growing the product, or ... pay attention, because this is the real objective ... if you BUY or use the product.

We want milk to be cheap, so we subsidize milk, no matter who produces it. Period. Do you not get that part? If we cut the milk subsidy, the supply will drop, the price will go up, the quality will suffer, and kids won't be able to drink milk. The Government has decided that would be bad, so they subsidize milk, even if Ted Turner has cows.. They're probably right.

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

Farm subsidies directly influence supply. Derrr ...

0

Jaminrawk 3 years, 1 month ago

The real victims of these changes are going to be kids that have no control over what their parents do. Foster care is usually a terrible experience too, especially when there are a lot of kids. This isn't a war on fraud, it's a class war. The Repubs of Kansas kiss the rears of the rich and increase the burden of the poverty class. I'm not even in the poverty class and I think it's disgusting.

0

Kat Christian 3 years, 1 month ago

WHAT????? SRS already treats everyone across the board. And what jobs are these recipients to find - there are not enough jobs to find and when they do they don't pay enough to support a family to be completely off assistance. Heard of the "Working Poor" there are alot of them in Kansas, because of the low (and pathetic) minimum wage of $2.56 per hour where the rest of the country is 7.96 per hr. (or thereof). Kansas should be embarrassed. Guess the Repulicans with money are trying to get back at Obama for raising their taxes by hurting the poor.

0

Kat Christian 3 years, 1 month ago

What is a "soft" lifetime limit mean?

0

Katara 3 years, 1 month ago

Not exactly sure what that is supposed mean but they are cutting down the lifetime limit from 60 months to 48 months.

Perhaps it means that it is not a case of black or white but that cases will be reviewed to see if extending the limit is warranted?

0

pusscanthropus 3 years, 1 month ago

What about the men who are "baby-daddy" to several women? How are they going to work that one out? Or the baby-mama who has several kids from different "baby-daddies." Oh...I forgot...Sam's going to give them an incentive to get married!!!

0

Scott Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

This is not a black or white race issue. Baby Daddies are a direct result of the welfare system, as noted by many here. These criminals in my mind come from all races.

Nowadays these creeps feel when the baby momma is rewarded by more welfare money, they have done the father thing. In other words that is all the responsibility they have to the child.

Welfare cheats, and not all are cheats of course, are not dumb. Repeat are not dumb. States have tried and failed by not rewarding pregnant welfare mommies. Child suffers. Prove the daddy, child suffers. Children born into some welfare households, child suffers.

Years, no decades ago, judges had the authority to enlist deadbeats into the services. The Marines hated this, but did so much good with hapless people. Is it time to start this program up again?

Judge: Do you have the child support money? Baby Daddy: No your honor, been looking for a job. Judge: You are now 3 years behind on payments, But you are in luck today, report to Fort Leonard Wood in 24 hours.

0

incensed2011 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

ralphralph 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.