Should people with no children, who are capable of working, be limited to nine months on the welfare program?

14 Comments

  • Becky - 9 years ago

    Answer is not that clear cut. If the person is age 50 or over, employers do not want you - period. I have years of experience, skills and a college degree and nobody will hire me because I am 62 years old...please don't tell me about how they can't age discriminate...it is very widespread; they know how to get around it. The government expects us to work to age 66 but just try to find someone to hire you!

  • Becky - 9 years ago

    Answer is not that clear cut. If the person is age 50 or over, employers do not want you - period. I have years of experience, skills and a college degree and nobody will hire me because I am 62 years old...please don't tell me about how they can't age discriminate...it is very widespread; they know how to get around it. The government expects us to work to age 66 but just try to find someone to hire you!

  • Jim - 9 years ago

    Does anyone else notice how these welfare rats sleep away most of the day, usually have money for tattoos, no money for child support, always have a smart phone and usually smoke. So get to work republicans and pay for these sponges as they depend on us. And yes I agree with the other comment about the so called native Americans, they go by the same rules I stated in the first sentence.

  • Donald Tomlinson - 9 years ago

    Able body should work. I started working the wage started at $1.00 an hour. Get a job. Put them in the military at least there would be a reason to pay them.

  • Jon - 9 years ago

    Compassion be damned! I know of at least 4 women who keep getting pregnant just so they can keep collecting benefits. All 4 had jobs until they realized they could receive assistance just by getting knocked up!
    Welfare in ALL IT'S FORMS should be limited to 9 months, and once kid ONLY. You have more kids while on welfare YOU PAY FOR THEM - EVERY DIME!

    If the Liberal Leftists want to exercise their faux compassion they can adopt a welfare slug and pay to support them and all their offspring! It's mot societies responsibility to support these slugs simply because they grace us with their presence.

  • Joe - 9 years ago

    I think it's time for just a little common sense in this more and more rediculas world we live, get a job and support your self. Unless your a Native American.

  • Brad - 9 years ago

    People who are able to work on welfare ? Are you Frigging kidding Me?

  • Jim - 9 years ago

    I saw a person a few days ago using their food stamp card to purchase lotto tickets! How is this possible? I would suggest altering these cards electronically to not allow any purchases outside of food. Period. Save some money there I think.

  • gearge - 9 years ago

    Get A Job!!

  • H. McDonald - 9 years ago

    Since the legislation reportedly affects only a small percentage of recipients, and since we all know that getting a job in Maine is easier said than done, why not err on the side of compassion? Steve Clowes has it right, "...there is more to it than meets the eye."
    As long as one person in Maine is unjusty injured by this legislation, all of us are.

  • Joan - 9 years ago

    I voted yes because I see( able to work) as meaning a person doesn,t have mental or physical issues.

  • Tammy - 9 years ago

    I agree with Mr. Clowes, it should be on a case by case basis. There are many able bodied people who are unable to work due to unseen disabilities.

  • Steve Clowes - 9 years ago

    Why I voted no is because those that are able to work shouldn't get any support. The money should go to the ones that need it.

  • Steve Clowes - 9 years ago

    This is an all or nothing bill. Most people are able to work, but the physical or mental abilities of some keep them from holding a job. In today's job market the employer looks at production and if a person can't keep up they end up walking down the road talking to there dinner bucket. I believe we all have the duty of helping out the less fortunate. The public is angry in this day and age. Our government has forced the public into looking at this issue as a group that can work, but there is more to it then meets the eye. What happens to the person that wants to work,but can only hold a job for a month or two, due to a physical or mental condition? Should we throw them under the bus just so we can have our satisfaction that something was done to put money back in our pocket when it's the 1% that is sucking the system dry? Think about it.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment