By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MTZehvor on 20 January 2016
Edit Thread
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:

It's not quite as simple as that; there are fairly strict guidelines for receiving a hardship extension past five years. You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the Family Violence Option Criteria, or have child welfare issues and be actively working to resolve them. Additionally, the statistics I mentioned earlier take this into account. Regardless of why they're off, 90% are still off within 5 years, and I'd imagine the number is higher for welfare as a whole.

 


The criteria a person has to meet to get the extension is determined by each state. There's no federal guidelines other than a person having to used up the 60 months federal time limit to be able to apply for it. The only reason why "90%" or even a 100% are off of it is because of the time limit but they can just easily get the extension. 

The requirements I mentioned are applicable in nearly every state. The extensions are by no means "easy" to get. If they were, then we would expect to see far more people staying on for more than five years at a time, assuming your assumptions about people simply being lazy and choosing to stay on welfare are correct.

As I said, it's up to state. "You must either be employed for at least 32 hours a week, meet the family violence opition criteria or have child welare issues and be actively working to resolve them." might be a requirement in a few states but not in most. I didn't say they were lazy but they are staying on welfare because they're getting alot of free money through benefits/stamps. 

Do you think any state would consider a single mom with 3 kids and the father(s) are not paying any child support, in a state of hardship? Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

It is a requirement in most. As of 2013, all but 5 states require the person to hold either work at least 30 hours a week work load or be involved in a welfare to work program. In addition to this, the requirements are quite stringent to even qualify for TANF, let alone keep it past 5 years. You can view them for each state here.

Even if she has roommates or a boyfriend? What incentive does she have to get a decent job or go to school if she's getting medical insurance, some free medical, free food and actual cash that supposed to go to a place to stay? The moment she makes enough to get taken off of it, she'll be in a worse situation because she'll have to pay for those things herself when she's not used to it. What I'm getting at, is that welware is supposed to be a temporary pick me up for when someone is on hard times til they are on their feet again but many people aren't bothering to get back up. 

If we didn't have statistics to argue the other way, I would agree. Theoretically, people would simply choose to stay on welfare. With that said, the vast majority don't stay on for 3 years, and over 90% are off in 5 years time. For one reason or another, be it social stigma, or simply the state actually doing a competent job at enforcing its requirements, people don't stick around on it for a long period of time. You keep citing the "many people" that are supposedly taking advantage of the system, but you don't have any sources or statistics to back that claim up. People simply choosing to stay on welfare for free money makes sense, but it just isn't happening en masse in the real world.