The last time I checked CA too has a limit. A tough call for Michiganians, but there's no money left. They need to tighten up on child supports payments.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - A four-year limit for families receiving welfare benefits was passed Wednesday by the Michigan Senate.

The measure passed 24-12 with Democrats voting as a bloc to oppose it, according to The Detroit News.

The state House already had approved welfare limits legislation and will have to agree to changes made in the Senate. The measure then goes to Republican Gov. Rick Snyder for his signature before becoming law.

FOX 2's Andrea Isom asked metro Detroiters for their reactions and also talked with Democratic State Representative Shanelle Jackson from Detroit and conservative commentator Jim Johnson. Click on the video player to watch >>

Critics say the limits would boot some needy families off public assistance.

It "will result in families losing much needed assistance in the worst economic downturn in years," said Sen. Vincent Gregory, a Democrat from Southfield. "We should be lifting up our families and encouraging them to self-sufficiency. Ninety percent of these families are working poor . often trying to support children and just barely getting by. We are pushing these families to homelessness."

About 12,600 families would be removed from welfare rolls by Oct. 1, saving the state more than $77 million. The legislation reflects welfare limits approved earlier this year as part of the state budget plan.

Michigan's current law has a similar time limit but it has more exceptions than the revised plan. The current law is due to expire in late September.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com...mit-welfare-benefits

------------------



"Friends don't let their friends drive stock."

is that 4 years starting now? or if someone is getting their 3 year, 10 month check now, are they gonna be chopped in 2 months?

4 years is PLENTY of time to eat some glue, and get your $hit together

When I was 8 or 9 after my mom and dad split my mom had to apply for food stamps. She hated it, it was the worse thing you could do to her.
She went to work at McDonald's and moved back home, after 6 months she went to work with a bakery and we got off assistance.

I don't remember much about my mom growing up, mostly because she was working or sleeping. She did the best she could as a single parent with limited education and opportunity.
4 years would have been more than enough. Given the chance she would probably be ok with paying the money back as well.

If you go off assistance how soon can you apply and get more time? Does going to work for a year reset the clock?

This will end up hurting people who honestly need it.

A better solution to me is not to do this, but reduce the fraud and waste so that only the needy gets help instead. I have no trouble helping them.

Four years of continued assistance should be enough to get your act together. What has been happening is that some on welfare are on it for generation after generation. There is no incentive to get off the public dole and it becomes an acceptable life style., and as those continue to reproduce, get more and more welfare $$ and an never ending senerio.

Michigan has the 4-year limit but with so many exceptions, this was a much needed belt tightening measure, closing up many loop holes. We have lots of charities in place to help the truely needy, I do believe that those folks who really need help will be assisted.

I have no problem in helping the needy (and open my wallet with my heart) but with so many people gaming the system, this was a much needed reform and to be honest, it's only scratching the surface but it's a start, a shot across the bow.

I could easily fly into a raging rant, I'll take a deep breath, relax a second and say calmly that I applaud the State of Michigan for attempting to cut some of the lazy leaches out of my taxes.

Didn't Bill Clinton sign legislation to limit welfare to something like 5 years? Whatever happened to that?

quote Originally posted by User00013170: This will end up hurting people who honestly need it. A better solution to me is not to do this, but reduce the fraud and waste so that only the needy gets help instead. I have no trouble helping them.

I would whole heartedly agree but, I'd bet we won't agree on who honestly needs the help. Fraud and waste always need to be scrutinized.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Didn't Bill Clinton sign legislation to limit welfare to something like 5 years? Whatever happened to that?

Yes, he did sign it after he vetoed it a couple of times first. It was part of the Contract with America. It required work after 2 years with a 5 year lifetime limit.

The 5 year limit only applies to adults and it is only for federal money. The states can continue to pay welfare benefits out of their own pockets after the feds stop.

Children can receive welfare until they are 18.


.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 07-14-2011).]

Wow, a left wing state finding a realistic way to fix their problems. What's next?

quote Originally posted by Xyster: Wow, a left wing state finding a realistic way to fix their problems. What's next?

LOL.

Our Governor Rick Snyder is changing the way we do business in Michigan, looking at value return on tax dollars spent, everyone shares tax burden and a fiscally sound budget for 2 years out. (can't remember the last time that has happened)

Another issue that the welfare limits legislation attempts to address is purchasing alcohol, lottery or gambling with the welfare cards.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: This will end up hurting people who honestly need it. A better solution to me is not to do this, but reduce the fraud and waste so that only the needy gets help instead. I have no trouble helping them.

yes, I would much preffer fraud & waste management - but - the issue with that is: it costs more. some abuse is cheaper than another agency to investigate the abuse. especially once it cleans up the first major layer. then the agency, in a quest to maintain its own existance will start to screw people who legitimately need thier assistance, just to show that the agency still needs to exist. (much like CPS?) while I am sure everyone has stories of welfare abuse - there are WAY more poeple who need it that DONT get it, than people who get it and dont need it. and - then there is the other aspect, other than need/dont need which is: deserve or dont deserve. is that even a variable?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: then the agency, in a quest to maintain its own existance will start to screw people who legitimately need thier assistance, just to show that the agency still needs to exist. (much like CPS?)

The CPSC is killing the model rocketry, science clubs and fireworks enthusiasts in the same fashion with tyranical assult on the hobby suppliers with heavy handed federal backed lawsuits and overbearing regulations. While the ban on M-80's is a good thing, it falls under Federal Regulations, not the CPSC which attemps to justify itself by pounding on legitimate suppliers and hobbyists. The CPSC is a hellbent agency with it's own fascist agenda which doesn't answer to the voters.

[Rant over]

quote Originally posted by jetman: The CPSC is killing the model rocketry, science clubs and fireworks enthusiasts in the same fashion with tyranical assult on the hobby suppliers with heavy handed federal backed lawsuits and overbearing regulations. While the ban on M-80's is a good thing, it falls under Federal Regulations, not the CPSC which attemps to justify itself by pounding on legitimate suppliers and hobbyists. The CPSC is a hellbent agency with it's own fascist agenda which doesn't answer to the voters. [Rant over]

I was reffering to CPS - Child Protective Services - but - yes - I expect CPSC is very much in the same category. Unless you mean the Center for Positive Sex Culture?

Actually, unless they changed it in the last 20 years or so, Michigan had what I thought might be one of the best design welfare systems in the country. I knew a girl who was on it, just a few of the things they did:

However many kids you had when you enrolled was all you got money for. No extra cash for extra kids.

Housing was provided in 3 levels. Level 1 was a total sh!thole. But if you took care of it and kept it clean (monthly surprise visits) you could advance to the next level of housing, until you reached the third level, which the one I saw was a pretty nice little town house.

If you were on the system, you had to be doing *something* to be getting off of it. Actively seeking jobs, or preferably, getting an education. The girl I knew took advantage of various loans and grants and put herself through college. The idea was, support you now while you improve your earning potential, and then become a productive tax payer after.


I don't know if they changed that or if it still exists and the limit just applies to certain circumstance. It would be shame if they ruined the program they had, it looked good as far as welfare programs go.

I'll cheer when it is limited to 1 year