Ken Hanly wrote:
>>Isn't the ability to keep "extra" money an invitation to cut back welfare and
use the block grants as a means to fund programs quite unrelated to helping
those needing welfare? This is perverse.>>
very perverse. In fact, this is already happening in some states. However,
some states are using 'extra' monies to good purpose. Local conditions vary
tremendously.
> Ken Hanly:<< COMMENT: So what happens to those in need who are ineligible. Do
> they turn
> to crime? Might as well.>> Crime, live off friends and families, and take
> shitty jobs no one wants.
> Ken Hanly:<<< COMMENT: Well I see nothing wrong with the state providing
> jobs rather
> than welfare, it is the rates of pay that would be significant. I gather too
> that in some cases welfare workers are doing work for minimal pay that used
> to be done by unionised workers. What of persons who are not fit to work for
> whatever reason? Or persons who require child care?>> I see nothing wrong
> with providing jobs either, the problem is many of the jobs are not real jobs
> which would continue, nor do these jobs pay a living wage and benefits. No
> one (I know of) would disagree with jobs paying a living wage. However, since
> most of the people going to work are women with children, the question of who
> cares for the kids arises, and is not answered in most locations. As to
> people unfit to work, apparently there has been an increase in the SSI
> caseload. Also, the diminishment of case load overall is slowing, so those
> left on welfare may in fact be more unemployable than those already gone,
> though that has yet to be determined.
>
> maggie coleman
