Welfare reform in Maine

Unclebob

Expert Expediter
Owner/Operator
We should get rid of all forms of food stamps. Instead the government should distribute rice, beans, powdered milk and similar items that they would buy at WHOLESALE prices. These items could be distributed through food banks, churches and other already established means for helping the poor.

This would allow the poor to get healthy food instead of junk.

A lot of the food stamp money is wasted because people are buying over priced food at corner convenience stores. Or selling them to buy booze.

The food might be boring but that would just be an incentive to find a job.

Save money, healthier food and an incentive, what more can you want.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
There aren't many places begging for volunteers that are picky. I'm sure there might be a couple but it is rare.

And you know this how? I've done volunteer work, several times, and I was prescreened before they accepted me, because they have liability insurance to worry about just like a private concern.



Yes or they can find local help from a charity. If they can't meet life's requirements because they decide to drink then they can live with the consequences.

Most 'local charities' have long been reporting increased demand for their services, and too few resources to begin to cover the need.



There are plenty of complaints about corporate welfare.

Nowhere near as many as complaints about the benefits for the poor. Also no new laws created to reduce those benefits, while federal and state laws have been reducing aid [or just saying no] for more than a decade.



He didn't try if he's getting fired for a drinking issue. How can he "usually"get fired for his record? Was he committing fraud and lying on his application? The idea that a company would knowingly hire a person with a record and waste money training them just to be able to fire them really makes no sense at all. There are plenty of people with criminal records that make a legal living.

What info I have on the reasons for his job losses are third hand, and neither his supervisors nor he himself always tell the truth. What I do know is that he tried for many years to be gainfully employed, [always with smaller companies, where someone might give a guy with stubs for fingers a chance to prove himself - large corporations aren't so willing to gamble on people. Except the C suite ones.] before the drinking got to be a problem. Maybe someone just didn't like his face, and that's reason enough.



It's his fault so now he can deal with his poor choices.

The loss of his fingers wan't a "choice", it was a substandard restraint on the punch press he was operating, the manufacturer of which had gone bankrupt, so nobody was legally liable for his loss. Before that, he worked, after, he couldn't get work. Many, many years of being repeatedly rejected is more than anyone can handle without some form of self destructive behavior creeping in. Even I wouldn't let him starve, and truth be told, I don't like him one little bit. But I understand what caused his transition from productive person to worthless semi drunk, and that [the injury] was absolutely not his fault.



Where do you see people excusing the well off that repeatedly cheat and break laws? There is definitely some ignorance in the general public about certain things that go on but no one was crying for these guys that ended up with massive sentences after getting caught running Ponzi schemes.

I see it every day in the news, especially the financial section, where major companies are fined for breaking the law, by the SEC, and other federal agencies. Most have a history of such violations and fines, but they continue to do business as usual. The recent Pilot/Flying J disgrace is a good example: did Haslam go to jail? Did anyone? I read the transcripts of [secretly] recorded convos where the 'suits' thought it hilarious that the poor suckers [small fleets & O/Os] were being robbed blind, and didn't have a clue. Those people belong in jail, same as the bankers who nearly brought the whole country down, but were "too big to fail". Why are they not only not in prison, but are still being paid megabucks for their 'performance'?




Is he homeless? Does he have a phone? Who's paying for the alcohol, clothing, etc? Someone must be subsidizing his life and if they are that interested in letting him continue down the wrong path and not forcing him to grow up then they should handle all his food and medical care too. Why should that burden be forced onto other people?


More garbage assumptions:he is being 'subsidized' by our 80 year old mother, who can't bring herself to throw him out on the streets to starve - but the 'Christians' would, huh? And the answer is no, he has no phone. He has nothing but what he can beg from Mom, who doesn't like his drinking - but when he's sober, he does try to do those tasks she can't, like shoveling snow, fixing leaks, whatever. I don't think she should be burdened with supporting him, just because she gave birth to him, [and 5 other adults who are completely self sufficient, BTW], but she won't let him go hungry, and neither would I.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
For every one of your brothers who are potentially an exception how many multi-generational welfare families are there? To make it simpler, how many that were specifically patients of my father? Next question, is it right to have multi-generational welfare families? Is it wrong to require anyone on public assistance capable of contributing to do so? The answers are two 3-generation families and seventeen 2-generation families. The other answers I won't bother including.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
We're not even talking about 'welfare', we're talking about food stamps. Welfare is a complex problem, with no easy answers. It's been reformed long since the days when it was a way of life for generations, something that just kind of crept up on society while we were all busy doing our own thing, not paying attention - like inequality.
Just as the poor will always be with us, so too will the stupid, and nobody wants to hire them. Ditto for volunteer coordinators who have legal liability issues to worry about, and the idea of any kind of 'school' is as dumb as the people who simply cannot do it. And let's not forget those with psyche issues, who can't get treatment [budget cuts!] even if their addled minds would stick to the medication regime.
As I mentioned, the amount of food stamps one single man gets is around $24 per week, hardly what anyone would envy.
If we can afford to pay companies for doing what they were going to do anyhow, [expand, relocate, hire more people], we can afford to provide a bare subsistence for the unfortunates among us.
And if the government were as good at penalizing companies that eliminate jobs simply to increase profits [latest example: Walgreens.] as they are at rewarding them for doing nothing much, we wouldn't need to begrudge the little that goes to the least fortunate among us.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So the same deflect to big business bashing and minimizing any wrong in the public assistance programs because it's fine to have however much wrong there is as long as we can just fuss about other things.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Seems pretty simple. Provide assistance for a prescribed period of time if they aren't disabled, and then cut it off. If a family member decides to volunteer their money or resources, nothing wrong with that. They are volunteering. That is different than mandating someone else pay for it. That is why there are many forms of charity. It is this person times 48 million that are on some kind of assistance.
I don't know how you ask others to support a drunk? Cut the booze off and I bet he finds a way to make money.
Whether a business gets money or not isn't even relevant to that situation.
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
So the same deflect to big business bashing and minimizing any wrong in the public assistance programs because it's fine to have however much wrong there is as long as we can just fuss about other things.

Deflecting? I listed the reasons there are people who can't work, volunteer, or get educated, and that just blew right through without a response. Should they be left to go hungry? The public assistance programs have been cut and pared and reformed and trimmed many times over the past decade already. They're an easy target for legislators [not upsetting any voters]and those who buy into the myth of the Welfare Queen - which, BTW, Reagan made up entirely.
Every time they suggest even more cuts [because $24 a week is enough to buy two steaks!], they only cite the demand, and never do any research on who the needy are, and/or why they are needy. I believe we need more info than they want to provide.
Big business deserves bashing: Walgreen's just announced the closure of a bunch of stores, to boost profits. How many more people will be looking for work, thanks to corporate decisions that prove the highly paid management decision makers make bad decisions [including many that inflate their own compensation] ? Any idiot could have told them that even a nation of commercial watching medication & product junkies can't support drugstores on every corner, but there they are: Walgreen's, CVS, RiteAid, DrugMart, plus the big box & grocery & independents, too. But they kept adding more! Now, guess who is out of work, and who will be getting a nice bonus for the work?
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Seems pretty simple. Provide assistance for a prescribed period of time if they aren't disabled, and then cut it off. If a family member decides to volunteer their money or resources, nothing wrong with that. They are volunteering. That is different than mandating someone else pay for it. That is why there are many forms of charity. It is this person times 48 million that are on some kind of assistance.
I don't know how you ask others to support a drunk? Cut the booze off and I bet he finds a way to make money.
Whether a business gets money or not isn't even relevant to that situation.

IOW, treat the symptoms [spending "too much"] and ignore the causes. I don't think that's a very good way to handle any problem. Addressing the cause would help prevent it from becoming a problem again, which is what unsolved problems usually do.
Whether a business gets money is relevant in that it highlights our priorities: we are becoming an oligarchy.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Whether a business received money or not has nothing to do with personal responsibility as I see it.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The need of certain individuals isn't the topic. The incessant abuse is the problem. You can't step back far enough to discuss anything but your brother. I'm sorry for your brother's challenges. Speaking of unanswered questions though, you flew right by the questions of how many multi-generation "entitlement" (call it any of the whichever names you want) families are enough/excessive. You keep justifying all assistance based on Walgreens when that has nothing to do with it. That in no way says businesses don't need change, just that it has nothing to do with entitlement issues.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I do volunteer work and the only screening is usually if you are working with kids. If someone is a pedo then they can volunteer in a situation where they won't be dealing with children, really easy. Things like cleaning the floors at a local food bank or church will be easy to do.

I never claimed that losing the ends of his fingers was a choice. There are plenty of other choices of employment out there if it really was a problem. Many big corporations hire people with problems and they are actually a better place to try. A small business that is running a tight crew can't afford someone that can't keep up where a bigger facility can spread the work load out.


More garbage assumptions:he is being 'subsidized' by our 80 year old mother, who can't bring herself to throw him out on the streets to starve - but the 'Christians' would, huh? And the answer is no, he has no phone. He has nothing but what he can beg from Mom, who doesn't like his drinking - but when he's sober, he does try to do those tasks she can't, like shoveling snow, fixing leaks, whatever. I don't think she should be burdened with supporting him, just because she gave birth to him, [and 5 other adults who are completely self sufficient, BTW], but she won't let him go hungry, and neither would I.

How are they garbage assumptions? The answer is that your mother is subsidizing his drinking and lifestyle. The Christians would let him starve? No, the church and food banks would help feed him. You guys have a connection with him and if you are willing to support him then never expect it to change but that burden should be on you and your family not a bunch of strangers.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Whether a business received money or not has nothing to do with personal responsibility as I see it.

I don't like corporate welfare but with our current system we have pretty much made it a necessity to keep companies from leaving. There are benefits to corporate welfare that benefit the entire country through hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs.
 

SWTexas1

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Big business deserves bashing: Walgreen's just announced the closure of a bunch of stores, to boost profits. How many more people will be looking for work, thanks to corporate decisions that prove the highly paid management decision makers make bad decisions [including many that inflate their own compensation] ? Any idiot could have told them that even a nation of commercial watching medication & product junkies can't support drugstores on every corner, but there they are: Walgreen's, CVS, RiteAid, DrugMart, plus the big box & grocery & independents, too. But they kept adding more! Now, guess who is out of work, and who will be getting a nice bonus for the work?

While I agree that some companies take advantage of tax laws, and other subsidies. Before you throw Walgreens under the bus you may want to check your facts.

Yes, over the next two years they are closing 200 stores, but so far this year they have already open 71New stores. Also most current stores have openings and a lot of those employees Will be transferring to existing stores

Second most pay cuts at Walgreens over the last two years have been in upper management and board positions. All of this is had to be done due to changes in Medicare and Medicaid that over the next few years will cost Walgreens and other large retailers huge amounts of money.

And lastly, as to bonuses CEOs just like store managers have a legal responsibility to the shareholders to return a profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xiggi

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
They are wrong for opening to many stores and in the same post wrong for closing some putting people out of work. News flash if they hadn't opened those stores those people would not have had work. smh
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
You can be sure with Walgreen closing 200 stores, they did due diligence in deciding which stores to close. Carefully eliminating underperforming stores will strengthen the corporate bottom line, allowing many thousands of Walgreen jobs to be saved. Profit is to business as wages are to an employee. The corporation has a duty to eliminate stores which fail to meet minimum expectations. Profit is good. If Walgreen, or any similar retailer, didn't trim the chronic underperformers, the whole enterprise would eventually be lost. Anyone who likes jobs should cheer corporate profits.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The problem is if you are a business basher it's only the 200 closings that matter or even exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I think it is just liberal spin that people eat up on business. It is true they are closing 200 under performing stores.
What they leave out is they are opening 200 stores in better areas. Good grief.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industri...ats-street-drug-chain-to-close-200-us-stores/

Good grief is exactly right: according to ExecVP Alex Gourlay "This is really a matter of getting the stores in the right places".
Excuse me, but is that not part of the due diligence they supposedly did before opening the stores they're now closing?

"Underperforming stores"? That's hilarious! They're not actors, or football players - they're buildings! Bricks and mortar don't perform, people do - and the ones who are 'underperforming' at Walgreen's aren't the ones who are losing their jobs.
Got to love those euphemisms that work so well to disguise what they'd rather you don't focus on. :rolleyes:
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
They are wrong for opening to many stores and in the same post wrong for closing some putting people out of work. News flash if they hadn't opened those stores those people would not have had work. smh

News flash: if they'd opened stores in the right places, which is what they claim they're going to do now, [smh], those people who had work would still have it. Stability is a better metric than whatever they used to open stores in the 'wrong' places, IMO.
Stuff like this is why it baffles me that business is so revered - they do so many incredibly boneheaded things, but get a pass on nearly all of it. How much better would we all be doing if they took the time to do it right?
I'd do my job better if they took the time to consider the ramifications of ordering deliveries by truck, and provided a shipping address, instead of just the mailing address, and also clear and easily read signage, so I can watch the traffic instead of looking for signage that may or may not exist, and if it does, may be almost anywhere. And invisible in the dark.
 
Top