62 richest people has as much money as poorest 3.5 billion humans

[MTZehvor]

Aeolus451 said:

MTZehvor said:

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.

You damn well know that alot of info or statistics are not entirely factual or tellt the whole story. Those statistics didn't mention one thing about the hardship extension or any data on it or that people actually go past the 5 years. That's awfully convenient. How many people are actually recieving TANF benefits well past the 5 years?  

Federal government leaves it up to each state. There's no rule saying they have to work 30 hours. I read through a good bit of what you linked and the majority of did not say you had be working whatever amount of hours a week. They said they have to be looking for work. 

Those are additional requirements, for one. The Federal government leaves the majority of the requirements up to the states, but there are specific guidelines that each state has to meet. From the Center on Budge and Policy Priorities...

"States are required to meet a specified work rate each year for families receiving assistance funded with either federal TANF funds or state “maintenance-of-effort” (MOE) funds.  Generally, to count toward the work rate, a “work-eligible individual” in a family receiving benefits must participate in one or more of a set of federally listed activities for at least a specified number of hours every week.   There are two work rates:  one for all recipient families with a work-eligible individual and one for two-parent families.  A state that fails to meet one or both rates can be subject to a fiscal penalty."

"...an individual must participate in a federally listed work activity for an average of at least 30 hours a week to count as meeting the work rate (20 hours for a single-parent family with a child under age 6).  Higher hours are required for two-parent families:  35 hours a week for families not receiving federally funded child care and 55 hours a week for families receiving federally funded child care."

For two...I have no idea what the first half of your post is trying to say. The statistics clearly have a category for people who stay on for over 5 years; it's the 10% that aren't off in 5 years time. I'm not sure how many of them receive TANF benefits past five years, but regardless, I'm not sure how it's relevant to this discussion in the first place.

If you've got statistics of your own to back up this notion that the welfare system is being horribly abused by people simply staying on it, then by all means, present them. However, if your argument is entirely "well statistics aren't reliable," without presenting any sort of counter statistics to refute them, then it looks pretty weak.