Who here said the preferred alternative is to do nothing? The question was one of publishing info on people who take the help. I better re-read this...

My point is that publishing the people's info isn't a solution and could lead to real problems for innocent kids. The real solution is to make people less dependent on the gubment. Good luck with that...huh?

That's why I think the nation is doomed. We will never choose to fix things. We don't have the will, we don't have the spine.

Shame works, but the chronic abusers aren't going to care as long as their benefits aren't interrupted. It'll be the people that really need the support that will feel this one the most. Put limits and a cooling off period on the benefits just like with unemployment. You could also pull one from the insurance playbook and put a lifetime limit on welfare.

Those of you advocating for a shades of grey "monitor what they spend your tax dollars on" are missing the point. The point is that they're spending your tax dollars.

If doing nothing about the situation is the preferred alternative, then why are we even discussing it?

In Montana they eliminated any stigma by renaming one welfare program Healthy Montana Kids. A rose by any other name and all that.

I won't disagree with your analysis. A friend compared the welfare situation to you buying your own drink vs. your uncle paying for an open bar at a wedding. If you are paying yourself, you actually consider the cost. If Uncle Sam pays for the bill, the moocher will ask for Top Shelf because he has no shame. Reintroducing shame into the equation might change this for some moochers.

I think this is treating the symptom and not the sickness cause. Simply end the system and allow those who believe in charity, like churches. collect either the funds or actual food and distribute it.

Quite reasonable, CG.

I disagree with calculated manipulative shaming, but I'm for openness in gov't. It would be reasonable to make records of gov't funding searchable by business entity and individuals. Then as soon as you get a grant or gov't money , vendors start calling the next day about how you will spend it. If you don't like that, you don't have to get gov't grants/prgorams.

I don't think this would actually cause people not to apply for grants, gov't contracts, and Welfare benefits though. Most people getting them either think they're a good thing or believe in taking any gov't benefit their legally entitled to. I'm a proponent of drastically reducing gov't spending, but if there's a program I'm eligible for that's worthwhile to pursue, I do it without compunction.

Simple enough for me.

Indeed AJ, indeed... I believe that perceived reality is why so many rest their hopes on border control... This too seems unlikely and does not get at the root of the problem. Going Galt or sucking it up? What to do?

I suggest that if people want no national IDs (and rightly so) and open border crossings then why can't we use some of that new technology for facial recognition at the crossings to weed out the criminals? If nations would keep and only share their "criminal database' then we could let all others pass and only pull out of line those that the system recognized as criminal. This would seem to me to reduce the concern of the innocent wishing free travel who then would not be put through any undue questioning or excessive ID requirements. Innocent until proven guilty would prevail. I would still wish to limit citizenship to children born to at least one natural born citizen until legal application and citizenship tests were followed and approved. Voting must be restricted to citizens. Also any vestiges of welfare or taxpayer subsidies should be, if not eliminated for all, at least be restricted to citizens.

My two cents after reading a lot of discussion on the matter around here of late...
Regards,
O.A.

Different circumstances, back then there was no Internet so even public information was much less public. The risk lies in the opportunity for heightened scrutiny of a welfare recipient's transactions and more stringent enforcement of the laws regulating such transactions.

OA, we don't even care to stop illegal aliens, cartoon characters and the dead from voting..I doubt any effort will ever be made to stop welfare recipients.

AJ suggested something similar, and I agree.

Now, if that loan is defaulted on for any reason...

Hello jbrenner,
Along the same line; Whatever happened to having to stand in the unemployment office line to pick up your check? The statists want serfs to be reliant on the state and in order to maintain numbers they must remove all stigma and inconvenience.
I am for removing the welfare benefits altogether, but it seems unlikely. As far as voting goes, if it is too risky to publish names publicly, then the least that could be done is to forward the list to the polling district so voting more money from the public coffers could be inhibited. This too will be unlikely as it has been previously argued to be unjust. But, what is just about voting yourself other peoples' money?

Benjamin Franklin — 'When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.'
Regards,
O.A.

I agree, but you know that the comparison would be made.

Student loans, to me, are a different matter. A student loan is giving a person a fishing pole and not a fish.

Definitely welfare recipients should get their voting privileges suspended while on welfare. Should they have voting privileges before such benefits are paid back? What about student loans?

Shame is a good teacher and motivator. Still setting a one-time limit on the term people can be on public assistance is a more preferable option to me.

I would also advocate welfare recipients having their voting privilege suspended while on welfare.

Yeah. And, that all looks pretty suspicious. Haha....

I remember when I walked into my bank with a big check from the sale of a house. They, literally, didn't know how to process it.

...by nutjobs.

I have known families on assistance. Many of us have. Anymore, I just chalk this all up on an environment that we've fostered for 70 years or so. Many of these families - the father (if he's stuck around) is a rock head. The wife is too busy trying to raise the kids to acquire the skills for the job market. Etc... I'll admit, I almost sound liberal - LOL.

I can't help but believe that we, as a society, really had a responsibility to push our population towards intelligence, education, clarity of thought. But, we did the opposite. This is the result, this welfare state - and one reason why I love the movie Idiocracy. And frankly, it breaks my heart to see kids born into it.