Fantastic. Good news and right thinking. This needs to go nationwide. Just think of all of the productivity lost in this nation because of incentives to be idle.

"Work"?! You can't be serious? Why would anyone one work for a negative return? Anyone using that word is easing kidding himself or trying to kid others.

Most likely they simply switched to other programs that did not require anything. There are "competing" programs to keep people from working, but provide an easy lifetime employment to the parasites that run those programs. So the actual number of moochers probably did not decrease - they just switched camps.

will it stay as a law or will it become less and less and be fazed out after a while?

I'm an intelligent guy, and I've got one hell of an imagination. But the idea that people becoming prouctive members of society is a bad thing? I have no clue how anyone could see it that way.

Mamaemma -
I see it like one of those puzzles where you change the word, "MOOCHERS" into the word "BUSINESS" one letter at a time...but each letter you change has to make a word that makes sense. (No, puzzlelady, I do not know if these words can do this trick...just found a cute example.)

We can do this, but we have to retrain a population in order to make it work.

Jan

I agree with you XenokRoy. We can go further down this path, but this is a great 'baby step' to take as a beginning. I think the next step is, as CG said, the offer of child care for people with children whilst they undertook vocational training too. And someone mentioned recently the idea of shutting off the valve that paid for having more babies. That would be a nice 'third step'.

Jan

A good example for all the other states that just do handouts, to follow. Of course, Gulchers have known this forever. People will take whatever is free so long as there are no strings attached. Seem to be the case with marriage as well.

I honestly think it wasn't the money; it was the idea. The moochers were incensed that anyone would try to tell them that their care wasn't completely free. And that was 35 years ago! This attitude has now grown to include things like cell phones, for heavens sake.
Keep that shotgun handy

Seriously? For such a pittance? What a bunch of looters.

These will be the same idiots who riot and raid stores when a real emergency strikes. Glad I live out west. If they tried to get into my shop, they'd be talking to my shotgun.

Or they don't need to live (snark)

So true. I had to look at it again. It reads month, but that is hard to believe a person will not work for ruffly 6 hours a week to live. Just shows they do not really need it to live.

Actually, it's 24 hours a month! I had to look at it twice. Hard to believe they wouldn't even do that

The other factor is you will never be able to axe welfare until you do something to reduce those on it in the first place. This is an excellent first step

Community Service for the unemployed of 24 hours a week. Leaves time to hunt for work, what an excellent idea.

I do agree that a little evil is better than a lot. I'm a very simple person; I believe it wrong to take from one person to give to another, no matter what the motivation. I understand we live in the real world, but it is important that we know what is right.
Many years ago when I lived in Atlanta, the charity hospital instituted a rule that patients would have to pay 50cents for an ER visit and $1 for hospital admission. They had to rescind the rule; people rioted in the streets! Disgusting.

No worries. I could have been a little more descriptive.

The previous law (in the article) was welfare unlimited - the absolute worst - which allowed the recipients to police themselves. A very bad idea. Now it is at least to the point where it is the giver policing the recipient. A better situation, but not ideal because the giver isn't using their own moneys, but those taken from taxpayers. The best solution is where no taxpayer funds are being used at all - where all "welfare" funding is done by private charity. That allows for each to exercise conscience as they will without being coerced into supporting another's lifestyle or habits.

Thank you, blarman. Duh, I should pay closer attention. I get distracted by the commenter who thinks welfare is wonderful if it does the right things! Thank you for correcting me, and I'm glad to know you see it my way! :)

Notice the use of quotes and sarcasm.

I, too, am against government-sponsored welfare programs - either at the Federal or local level. I don't think it is appropriate to use tax funds to take from one and give to another. My comments were in describing how they are sold to the public at large.

Government should not provide welfare to anyone, for any reason. That is not the proper function of government.

What? And get back to what a "welfare" program is supposed to be - a temporary measure to prop someone up while they get back to being independent? Say it ain't so! [/sarcasm]

It sounds too good to be true. Many able-bodied people on Welfare would refuse the money if it required vocational training and provided some childcare arrangements. If true, they should do this immediately. The value is not in the money saved on the 80% who don't take the money, but on the 20% who take the training and maybe turn their lives around.