As mentioned in another thread, I am Republican but do agree with the Democrats on a couple issues, like gay marriage, stem cell research & abortion.  I looked to see if any other welfare threads existed, and after 10 pages, I didn't see any... so sorry if this is a repeat.

Who is responsible for the "if you work and try to make a living but just can't make ends meet, we won't help you" but "if you stay at home and watch TV all day, you can collect a monthly check."  ??

Honestly I have seen this nonsense through both republican and democratic presidencies, and I think it's ridiculous.  I, for one, would rather see the government help someone who works at McDonalds but doesn't get enough salary to live on.  But if you're caught working while on assistance, you get in trouble??

Curious to hear from republicans and democrats if you guys agree with this logic.

Each state carries its own system with its own peculiarities, but what your getting at (e.g. the archetype of the welfare queen) is sort of an image perpetuated by the conservatives to sicken regular people into scapegoating both poor (which obviously, by their logic, equals lazy) people and the wasteful liberals who continue to force hardworking people to support them. The easiest way to get a true grip on this is to put yourself in a public assistance recipient's shoes.

First, you must understand how the system really works. Generally, public assistance benefits are "rationed" (for lack of a better word) according to how much the recipient earns in income. The more the person makes, the less they receive from the government. On the surface, this seems to make sense. What is really backward here is that a single mother of, say, two children will receive more net income without a job than she would working part time or full time at minimum wage even WITH the designated welfare supplement for her income added to the pot. So on one hand she could work full time at minimum wage and recieve much less benefits from public assistance and still not make enough to support her kids (whom she would be unable to properly supervise to make sure they stay off the streets and in the books because she'd be working all the time), or on the other hand, she could not take a job and recieve the full welfare benefit, which is more comprehensive and sometimes includes some healthcare, and then she would be able to watch her kids from the moment they came home from school until the moment they left for school. It's not her fault that the smarter of the two options is the one that is more socially unacceptable.

This is why it angers me to see this archetype scapegoated. WHat angers me even more is the fact that "reform" is almost impossible because both sides of the issue operate on completely opposite premises. The Republicans' "reform" goal is to see it done away with completely. The Democrats' notion of reform is to restructure it and possibly make it more comprehensive to include skilled job training, day care, health care, education, etc... in the hopes that it will teach them how to fish instead of just handing them fish.

Both parties are to blame for where the system is now. Republican president Richard Nixon made it a policy to go door to door to assess who was making what, and to make sure that everyone who qualified for food stamps got them.

In any case, it just make me so sick to hear people banter on about people who are on welfare. People talk about them like they are of the Epsilon caste or something, like they should be humiliated and shamed at every possible turn. People are so cruel to eachother.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post or to people in general... but incase I wasn't clear, I want to clarify that I am not capping on people who are poor.  In fact, it is the working poor that I am defending. Those who are trying to help themselves.

Here in California, if you are "working poor", you get to be put on a 2 year waiting list for low-income rent, which means the government will help you with the rent, assuming that the applicant can find a landlord that is willing to accept the housing plan.  But there is no "supplemental income" unless you're not working.  I see a problem there.

You say that conservatives want to do away with the whole welfare system.  I disagree.  I think it should be in the form of free services (housing, child care, food/toiletry, medical vouchers) instead of a check, but I don't think anyone should be left to starve.

Here in MN, they have vouchers for people to help them with rent.  Some also get checks.  Food stamps are now on electronic cards.
I agree though.  They need to overhaul the system, and make sure the people who need the help get it, and the ones that don't need it, don't sap the system.
I know there are people in the Twin Cities here who don't get married because it will screw up their benefits to have a working spouse.

1. I think it just makes sense to help people who really can't help themselves, but I also think people need to learn to take better responsibility for their lives.  I can sympathize if poor people have babies when they are immature or use bad judgement or whatever.  The child shouldn't suffer, and there should be a way to help the parents give the child a decent life.  But on the other hand, many people are just irresponsible and have kids they can't afford, and then accept that it's society's responsibility to help them take care of however many kids they decide they are entitled to have. I think this should change.  It's not just poor uneducated people either.

2. Sometimes its hard to know who can help themselves and who's being lazy.  But its very easy to say people are being lazy when we cant relate to there experience.  Really, to me I don't like to think of people being lazy, because that word doesn't describe the real problem.  Sometimes people give up or just don't have hope for some reason.  And if you don't have a reason to think working on something will make a difference, its not lazy to not work, it's stupid.  Sort of the way some unemployed people work hard looking for a job for over a year sometimes get discouraged and quit looking.  Of course some people really do like getting something for nothing, but that has nothing to do with how rich or poor or educated they are.  But with most people who we think act lazy, it is really that they don't expect their effort to make a difference.  You have to change their expectation.

Even if we don't believe in being kind, I think we should find ways to help people help themselves for selfish reasons.  Poor people who get help without contributing what they can are a drain on everybody.  Poor people who don't get help will do crime.  So I don't think there is much choice.

When I volunteered at the local food shelf, I saw both types of people. I saw some people who worked two or three jobs and still had trouble making ends meet. They made too much money for government assistance but yet they didn't have enough for food.  I also saw people who tried to get everything they can.


I think the simplest solution for those people who are trying is to have a livible wage. I believe that the federal minimum wage is $5.15. If someone is working 40 hours a week (full-time), that only comes out to $824 a month, whichs come to $9888 a year. What gets me is that the poverty rate for a family of one is $ 9,310 (except for Alaska and Hawaii which is higher). You factor in rent, utilities, food, etc. What is left? And if there happens to be a medical emergency, that person is totally screwed. And that is without kids. If you have a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids on that salary, there isn't anyway she can get by.

Here are the 2004 povery rates:

Size of
Family Unit 48 Contiguous
                    States and D.C. Alaska  Hawaii
1                 $ 9,310 $11,630 $10,700
2                 12,490  15,610         14,360
3                 15,670 19,590         18,020
4                 18,850 23,570         21,680
5                 22,030 27,550         25,340
6                 25,210 31,530          29,000
7                 28,390 35,510         32,660
8                 31,570 39,490  36,320
For each additional
person, add     3,180     3,980       3,660



To me those numbers are not realistic. But like I said, we really should have a liviable wage and I think that would cut down on people who NEED assistance.





Cat

I personally know a few people who are on welfare who are just lazy. I used to work with them and they would talk about how they get a job for a few months every couple of years (usually in the fall/winter), then deliberately get fired (usually around springtime) so they don't lose their benefits. THESE are the people I'm talking about when I say "lazy". And, it's not like our jobs were super-difficult or anything, they just didn't like having to be at work when it was nice outside and they could be lying by the pool or whatever.


Well like I said, of course there are people who want to get something for nothing.  Some are welfare and some are millionaires.  But those people don't represent the welfare system in general.  I have known a lot of people on welfare, and most of them aren't lazy cheats.  The percentage of lazy cheats on welfare is probably about the same as the percentage of lazy cheats in the top 10% of richest people.

Also, aren't there things that need to be done in this country, regardless of what state you live in?  Would it be unreasonable to require welfare recipients to pick up garbage from the highways or prepare meals for the homeless in exchange for their payments?  I think it would make more sense if the state government "employed" these individuals instead of just supporting them.

I think the simplest solution for those people who are trying is to have a livible wage. I believe that the federal minimum wage is $5.15. If someone is working 40 hours a week (full-time), that only comes out to $824 a month, whichs come to $9888 a year. What gets me is that the poverty rate for a family of one is $ 9,310 (except for Alaska and Hawaii which is higher). You factor in rent, utilities, food, etc. What is left? And if there happens to be a medical emergency, that person is totally screwed. And that is without kids. If you have a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids on that salary, there isn't anyway she can get by.





Cat


I agree with you, Cat, although the raising of minimum wage would drive up prices on nearly everything.  If the gas prices are high now, imagine if they had to pay the attendants more money on top of that.  However, if it meant a substantial decrease in state taxes due to less people to support, I'd be happy to pay more for things.  At least that way I'd have a choice if I want to pay a higher price for gas or just walk/take the bus.

Let me commend all those who already posted on this thread for what seems to be a genuine compassion.  I agree with Cat that every full time  wage should be a living wage, but that is just the beginning.  As a nation we need to find ways to keep good paying jobs here instead of shipping them to low-wage countries (Wal-Mart, for example has told suppliers that they must set up in China to keep their Wal-Mart orders).  We also need to find ways to expand all kinds of educational opportunities - all public education should be free, even graduate school.  Health care and day care should be free or subsidized for all citizens.  In short, I think we need to creaste a more humane society all around. 

Clearly, there are people who abuse the current systems, but my guess is that there aren't that many.  Most people want to be productive members of society, and I suspect that even some of the lazys would prefer to work if they could do so and feel productive.  There is, however, something called "the culture of poverty" (also the name of a book by Oscar Lewis if memory serves) that some people find hard to overcome.  It includes feelings of uselessness, of desperation etc. that often lead to bad choices, or maybe "impulsive" choices might be a better term.  Example:  I once knew a guy with a wife and 3 kids who worked in construction until he hurt his back and could no longer work.  They lived in the country and had a bit of land, which they "farmed" in the summer and put up their produce to tide them over the winter.  He fished and hunted, as did his wife and kids, and they had two large freezers to store their catch (I don't hunt, but love venison, so I swapped them beef and pork for it).  So, with all that and public assistance they got by.  But sometimes, even with their limited cash flow, they would splurge, which is to say they would spend $$$ on frivolities.  It ain't easy being poor.

Poverty will persist until the people demand an economy that values labor before capital.  Kleptocratic crony-capitalism as championed by the Bush administration does not make our country as a whole wealthy or secure.

The economically deprived and exploited must stop blaming themselves and gather together for strength in common class interest.  Individual initiative is vital, but so is class consciousness.

As it is, the the bosses who control the government and control the allocation of resources, and the distribution of the commonweal get to point the goad at the poor and the middle class. We need to reverse this situation.

We also must stop deifying "the market."  We don't fail capital, capital fails us.

The reason why so many poor people, people on public assistance, don't seem to want to work is they are precluded from meaningful and rewarding labor.  The psychology of despair is extremely powerful.  I will not stand for this stupid bashing of the poor.  That is nothing more than divisiveness among class and distraction from the REAL problem of exploitation of labor by capital.  The robber barons couldn't be happier for the machinist who is two mortgage payments behind and about to get laid off when he screams, "THOSE PEOPLE ON WELFARE ARE LAZY, THEY SHOULD WORK!  I WORK MY BUTT OFF! and blah blah blah..."
::)

Poverty will persist until the people demand an economy that values labor before capital.  Kleptocratic crony-capitalism as championed by the Bush administration does not make our country as a whole wealthy or secure.

The economically deprived and exploited must stop blaming themselves and gather together for strength in common class interest.  Individual initiative is vital, but so is class consciousness.

As it is, the the bosses who control the government and control the allocation of resources, and the distribution of the commonweal get to point the goad at the poor and the middle class. We need to reverse this situation.

We also must stop deifying "the market."  We don't fail capital, capital fails us.

The reason why so many poor people, people on public assistance, don't seem to want to work is they are precluded from meaningful and rewarding labor.  The psychology of despair is extremely powerful.  I will not stand for this stupid bashing of the poor.  That is nothing more than divisiveness among class and distraction from the REAL problem of exploitation of labor by capital.  The robber barons couldn't be happier for the machinist who is two mortgage payments behind and about to get laid off when he screams, "THOSE PEOPLE ON WELFARE ARE LAZY, THEY SHOULD WORK!  I WORK MY BUTT OFF! and blah blah blah..."
::)


I agree with the positives in most of this, but what I haven't seen, and I read the entire thread, is the "poor bashing" refered to in the last few sentances.  Of course another issue, related, is to get corporations off welfare.  They absord hugh sums of government largess.  Ween them from the federal tytty and there will be more than enough to support all the initiatives I proposed AND make Social Security solvant into the indefinate future.

I agree with the positives in most of this, but what I haven't seen, and I read the entire thread, is the "poor bashing" refered to in the last few sentances.  Of course another issue, related, is to get corporations off welfare.  They absord hugh sums of government largess.  Ween them from the federal tytty and there will be more than enough to support all the initiatives I proposed AND make Social Security solvant into the indefinate future.


If you're implying that corporations shouldn't receive government aid, I agree with you 100%.  I really don't see why businesses get any special help from the government.  Business is a risk, whether you are a sole proprietorship or a corporation.  The United Airlines thing is ridiculous.  The business owner or officers should be prepared to take the consequences if the business fails, yet they should also reap the benefits if the business is successful.  I don't think businesses should have to pay outrageous taxes, but I don't think the government should be "bailing them out" either.

If you're implying that corporations shouldn't receive government aid, I agree with you 100%.  I really don't see why businesses get any special help from the government.  Business is a risk, whether you are a sole proprietorship or a corporation.  The United Airlines thing is ridiculous.   The business owner or officers should be prepared to take the consequences if the business fails, yet they should also reap the benefits if the business is successful.   I don't think businesses should have to pay outrageous taxes, but I don't think the government should be "bailing them out" either.

I wouldn't say never to corporate subsidies.  What I would ask is what good are the subsidies going to do?  If the subsidies are used to shut down plants and lay off American workers, I'd say NO!  Corporation actually get the government to pay for them to re-open operations in poor countries so they capitalists can reap windfall profits.  Corporations, such as UA, get subsidized even as they lay-off workers and vote the executives obscene raises in salary and "compensation" packages.  Corporations, such as Wal-Mart, receive government subsidies even though they are anti-competitive and wherever they go, local business suffers.
If a corporation agrees to be responsible corporate citizen, stay in America, and treat the workers well, then government investment in the survival of the corporation is well-founded.

As for bashing of the poor, it's always right around the corner when the subject of "welfare" is brought up.  Anyway, might I refer to Crazymom's post?  I guess it's OK to be a crazy mom if you've got a rich "hubby," but if you're a poor woman, you'd better snap out of it!
::)

Well, I'd like us to have a more mature way of looking at social issues too.  All the class warfare and the greedy corporation vs. poor working man talk is just divisive and isn't productive.  It seems like the problems are just not that simple.  It's easy to say don't help the corporations, let them succeed or fail, but when a big corporation fails, it's not the senior guys who get hurt -- they do fine, even if they have to retire and figure out how to live on a 6 figure income.  But what about the moderately paid middle management and other staff, not to mention adminstrators and other people who may not even have a great education or networking contacts and who can have a hard time trying to find another job. 

I'm not arguing for or against corporate welfare, but we (society) should discuss these things more fully and rationally.  We have such a Crossfire mentality.

I was bashing people who abuse the welfare system and I don't apologize for it. When I see people wearing nicer clothes than myself who are driving brand new Escalades & such paying for their groceries with food stamps, yes, it makes me po'd.



Escalades?  I don't think even our welfare system is that generous.  I think these people are benefiting from easy American credit more than my tax dollars.  I knew someone who was way behind on all their credit cards and thinking he might have to go bankrupt, and he was still getting credit offers every day.  Only in America.  :-)

If you're implying that corporations shouldn't receive government aid, I agree with you 100%.  I really don't see why businesses get any special help from the government.  Business is a risk, whether you are a sole proprietorship or a corporation.  The United Airlines thing is ridiculous.  The business owner or officers should be prepared to take the consequences if the business fails, yet they should also reap the benefits if the business is successful.  I don't think businesses should have to pay outrageous taxes, but I don't think the government should be "bailing them out" either.


The question, I would say, is what level of taxation is "outrageous". 
I wouldn't say never to corporate subsidies.  What I would ask is what good are the subsidies going to do?  If the subsidies are used to shut down plants and lay off American workers, I'd say NO!  Corporation actually get the government to pay for them to re-open operations in poor countries so they capitalists can reap windfall profits.  Corporations, such as UA, get subsidized even as they lay-off workers and vote the executives obscene raises in salary and "compensation" packages.  Corporations, such as Wal-Mart, receive government subsidies even though they are anti-competitive and wherever they go, local business suffers.
If a corporation agrees to be responsible corporate citizen, stay in America, and treat the workers well, then government investment in the survival of the corporation is well-founded.




But Max, this is suppose to be a free market economy, so why should tax dollars be spent to assist the private sector?  Now, if that assistance came with some control over corporate policy I might think differently about it.  Often, when banks loan corporations large sums they insist on some say in the formation of those policies to protect their assets.  Why should government largess not come with the same stipulations?  Wal-Mart does recieve government support in numerous forms, especially from the public assistance its employees recieve.  So in exchange for the low prices Wal-Marters pay at the check-out, the rest of us subsidize its profits.


Escalades? I don't think even our welfare system is that generous. I think these people are benefiting from easy American credit more than my tax dollars. I knew someone who was way behind on all their credit cards and thinking he might have to go bankrupt, and he was still getting credit offers every day. Only in America. :-)


Yes, credit is evil.  Cat and I pay off our cards every month.  I get credit card adverts in the mail almost daily, and recycle them without opening them.  They are especially incidious in offering credit to young people, like college students.

The question, I would say, is what level of taxation is "outrageous". 


Well, in the current "corporate state" where the government does bail out corporations and provide subsidies, as well as the fact that hiding behind a "corporation" protects the personal assets of the officers, I can understand corporations paying taxes higher than ordinary businesses, because they are entitled to benefits that ordinary proprietorships, partnerships, etc. are not.  (I don't really consider that "higher taxes".. I would more consider it "insurance".)

So, it's hard to say what level of taxation is outrageous, because it would depend on what benefits corporations were getting over other businesses.  Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the structure of a corporation, other than that the personal assets cannot be used for the purpose of collecting corporate debt.  But I would say the proper taxation would be relative to the benefits exclusive to a corporation, similar to an insurance policy incase the corporation gets into trouble.

As for bashing of the poor, it's always right around the corner when the subject of "welfare" is brought up.  Anyway, might I refer to Crazymom's post?  I guess it's OK to be a crazy mom if you've got a rich "hubby," but if you're a poor woman, you'd better snap out of it!
::)


Hmmm....I read her post and it didn't seem like she was implying that. It sounds like she has the same sentiment I do....some very able bodied people will work the system for their own gain. It sucks, but it happens all the d@mned time. I've seen MEN in the welfare office getting money, food stamps, etc. and being perfectly capable in every way. Whereas I'm sitting there, broke and pregnant (with a threatened miscarriage on my hands) begging for any form of assistance and being denied welfare because the husband had money in his name that he had no control over (his parents did). How fair is that?

I am glad to say though that I don't need the government's help anymore. I had medi-Cal, but gave it up last month. I'm only keeping it for my son. I am also employed now, and the husband is working THREE jobs. Yeah. Three. Friday-Monday on the overnight shift, Monday-Friday on a full day shift, and part-time on his days off from the overnight job. How's that for hard work?

The welfare system sucks in this country. Like Crazymom said, they really do drive nice cars and dress well, all the while using food stamps and cash aid. I've seen it many times. I can give you as an example a story I saw on MTV about the rapper ODB: He had a cash aid card, along with his wife and kids. They drove up to the welfare office in a LIMOSUINE and collected money. Then they merrily got into their limo and started sipping on Kristal champagne. Now tell me the system isn't f*cked. :P

Well, I'd like us to have a more mature way of looking at social issues too.  All the class warfare and the greedy corporation vs. poor working man talk is just divisive and isn't productive.  It seems like the problems are just not that simple.  It's easy to say don't help the corporations, let them succeed or fail, but when a big corporation fails, it's not the senior guys who get hurt -- they do fine, even if they have to retire and figure out how to live on a 6 figure income.  But what about the moderately paid middle management and other staff, not to mention adminstrators and other people who may not even have a great education or networking contacts and who can have a hard time trying to find another job. 

I'm not arguing for or against corporate welfare, but we (society) should discuss these things more fully and rationally.  We have such a Crossfire mentality.

I'm for full-fleged reform of the relationship between the corporation and the state.  The politicos and the pundits speak only of "class warfare" when one of the serfs gets uppity enough to question the Divinve Rights of CEOs.  Class warfare is upon us from the corporate power structure.  You can deny it's capital vs. workers until you're blue in the face.  Conciliations only leave us mauled.

Crazymom:
Now, please tell me where I was "bashing" the poor?  I was bashing people who abuse the welfare system and I don't apologize for it.  When I see people wearing nicer clothes than myself who are driving brand new Escalades & such paying for their groceries with food stamps, yes, it makes me po'd.  When I hear people saying they can't work because of their "anxiety disorder disability" who are having no problem sticking their hand out for freebies from the government (which I also qualify for, but wouldn't even think of taking), yeah, I get po'd.  THESE are the people I'm bashing.  Maybe if there were less of them, the poverty levels wouldn't be so high and there would be more resources available to help the people who are trying to better themselves.
One reason people with "anxiety disorders" and such are out of work is the marketplace is exclusive and fascistic.  You immediately assume it is they who fail the marketplace, and not the marketplace failing them.  The businessman is always right, the unemployed person is always wrong.  That's Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid mix.  Frankly, I find your attitude most contemptuous and hateful.  You are not interested in finding out what really makes people who they are.  You use them as stepping stones to a haughty self-righteousness.  That's as gently as I can put it and still get the message across!

Don Carlos:
But Max, this is suppose to be a free market economy, so why should tax dollars be spent to assist the private sector?  Now, if that assistance came with some control over corporate policy I might think differently about it.  Often, when banks loan corporations large sums they insist on some say in the formation of those policies to protect their assets.  Why should government largess not come with the same stipulations?  Wal-Mart does recieve government support in numerous forms, especially from the public assistance its employees recieve.  So in exchange for the low prices Wal-Marters pay at the check-out, the rest of us subsidize its profits.
I see what you mean, but I'm not ready to swear off all government subsidies to business.  The main stipulation is not to help the rich get richer, but to help corporations develop better conditions for labor.  It's a complex issue, you could write a dozen different books on the subject!

Jessica:
Hmmm....I read her post and it didn't seem like she was implying that. It sounds like she has the same sentiment I do....some very able bodied people will work the system for their own gain. It sucks, but it happens all the d@mned time. I've seen MEN in the welfare office getting money, food stamps, etc. and being perfectly capable in every way. Whereas I'm sitting there, broke and pregnant (with a threatened miscarriage on my hands) begging for any form of assistance and being denied welfare because the husband had money in his name that he had no control over (his parents did). How fair is that?

I am glad to say though that I don't need the government's help anymore. I had medi-Cal, but gave it up last month. I'm only keeping it for my son. I am also employed now, and the husband is working THREE jobs. Yeah. Three. Friday-Monday on the overnight shift, Monday-Friday on a full day shift, and part-time on his days off from the overnight job. How's that for hard work?

The welfare system sucks in this country. Like Crazymom said, they really do drive nice cars and dress well, all the while using food stamps and cash aid. I've seen it many times. I can give you as an example a story I saw on MTV about the rapper ODB: He had a cash aid card, along with his wife and kids. They drove up to the welfare office in a LIMOSUINE and collected money. Then they merrily got into their limo and started sipping on Kristal champagne. Now tell me the system isn't f*cked.
ODB was a thug and a creep, he's dead now, and I didn't mourn his passing.  There is fraud and abuse in the welfare system.  There is fraud and abuse in corporations and banks too, yet we never hear anyone in the mainstream media say private business and money should be abolished (I'm not saying that, either).  Nope, just public assistance, labor unions, public broadcasting, and tenure for teachers has to go!
I don't believe there's a prevalance of people on the public dole who drive "nice" cars.  As far as I know, states require applicants to sell such assets before the even qualify.  Of course, that is a stupid and punitive measure.  If you don't have a car, it's much harder to get a job.  And just what would you have welfare recipients dress in?  Rags, garbage bags?  Did you root for the bad guys in Dickens novels by any chance?
Perhaps you should allow for the possibility you didn't see what you think you saw, and have just been conditioned to certain prejudices by the poor-people-hating media.  Anyway, it is not your business to snoop into the affairs of others at the shopping mall. 
And for chrissakes, you're a grown woman, knock-off the MTV.  It's mindrot, and I hope you don't expose your child to it!

And then things go from bad to worse.



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20050625/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=5&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_co/axed_programs





Cat

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post or to people in general... but incase I wasn't clear, I want to clarify that I am not capping on people who are poor

My post wasn't aimed directly at you. I'm talking about the leaders of the Republican party, and a majority of their indoctrinates.

///Quite everything Max has posted thus far.\\\

Good work, my friend.  ;)

I knew there was a reason I shouldn't lurk during the day when I'm bored. This is just what I wanted to read before I have to go deal with a$$holes at work. ::) Well, since I read it, I might as well reply. Let's dissect your little rant against me, Maxwell.


Jessica:ODB was a thug and a creep, he's dead now, and I didn't mourn his passing.
Nobody asked you to. I doubt many people mourn his passing.

 There is fraud and abuse in the welfare system.
No denying that.

There is fraud and abuse in corporations and banks too, yet we never hear anyone in the mainstream media say private business and money should be abolished (I'm not saying that, either).
Not denying that, either.

Nope, just public assistance, labor unions, public broadcasting, and tenure for teachers has to go!
Or that. Believing in a worthy cause doesn't fly in this country. Yeah, I still think welfare is a worthy cause despite it being completely screwed. They just need to work the kinks out of the program.

I don't believe there's a prevalance of people on the public dole who drive "nice" cars.
You don't live in California.

As far as I know, states require applicants to sell such assets before the even qualify.
Yeah, they wanted Rice Cube to get rid of his assets even though he had no control over them. Hell, he didn't even know they existed until I applied for welfare.

Of course, that is a stupid and punitive measure.  If you don't have a car, it's much harder to get a job.
Yes. But an Escalade? Come on!

And just what would you have welfare recipients dress in?  Rags, garbage bags?
There is a difference between dressing nice and having name brand clothing, more jewelery than Macy's, and Prada shoes. I can dress nice for under $10 by shopping at (gasp!) The Goodwill. I wonder if that ever crossed their mind. 

Did you root for the bad guys in Dickens novels by any chance?
Dickens bored the hell out of me, so no, I didn't.

Perhaps you should allow for the possibility you didn't see what you think you saw, and have just been conditioned to certain prejudices by the poor-people-hating media.
I don't have to watch cr@ptacular television to see the abuses of a system. I can just look around my county.

Anyway, it is not your business to snoop into the affairs of others at the shopping mall.
Yeah, I'm at the mall all the time. I can really afford the things there. ::)

And for chrissakes, you're a grown woman, knock-off the MTV.
I haven't watched MTV in years. I brought up ODB because I saw it a long time ago and it stuck in my head about how wrong it was.

It's mindrot, and I hope you don't expose your child to it!
Thank you for your lesson in child rearing. And how many children do you have now, Dr. Spock? Besides, Jason is only four months old. The only thing he cares about is eating, sleeping, and pooping. Oh, and his toys.

I don't know what your problem is, but you just need to chill. I never said that welfare was bad, I never said I hated poor people, I never said that I was blinded by television. I said what I did because I've seen this sh*t too much to be happy about how the welfare program is run. I can give you a real life example of abuse if the ODB one doesn't suit you. My aunt. She's lived off of welfare for years because she didn't feel like working (heroin was too much fun for her). She has collected for years and years...well except for now because she's in prison. But once she gets out, she gets social security for being an "ex" addict. Plus welfare, plus food stamps, plus medi-Cal. Now is that supposed to make me jump for joy?

I don't think anyone here was "bashing the poor".  It sounds to me like Crazymom, as well as myself, and probably Jessica too, have experienced being poor, and we remember what would have helped us at the time, as an alternative to a monthly check so we don't have to work.

When I was 17, I was living on my own (not exactly by choice) and had my own apartment.  I worked at the movie theater, and I even lied about my age because there is a STUPID law that if you're under 18 you can only work a certain number of hours per day, and it wasn't enough.  (back then they didn't really check ID that much)

I made BARELY enough to pay rent & electricity.  My dinner most nights was top ramen.  I didn't have a car.  Whatever little money I had left over I spent on the bus fare.  I had to walk through a bad neighborhood to get to the bus stop, which wasn't fun at midnight when I got off of work.  I didn't even have a phone.  Have you ever tried to find a job when you don't have a phone??

Sure it would have been nice to have a check coming every month.  But I didn't *NEED* free money.  I needed a higher paying job.  In order to get a higher paying job, I needed reliable transportation and I needed at least a phone number where employers could leave a message.

Back then, you could get a decent used car for about $600.  Nothing fancy, but something to get you from point a to point b.  And a voice mail.. probably $15 a month.  People donate used cars to charity all the time, but the charities sell them.  Why not turn around and donate these cars to people who have no transportation to get to work?? 

A car and a voice mail would have been all I needed to climb out of my hole.  But when you work, nobody wants to help you.

Sadly, my father passed away three months after my 18th birthday.  The $12000 or so I inherited from him was what got me out.  I bought a car, got a phone, and within two weeks I had a much better job at a real estate office.  And I have been doing fine ever since. 

My point is, welfare doesn't need to be in the form of money.  Many people do not know how to manage their money, so it doesn't help them.  Free day care, rent assistance, food, medical care and soap, shampoo, etc are necessities and should be provided.  That is all one NEEDS to get by.  If they want money, then they need to work, in my opinion.

I too was on welfare for a short time.  I was making like $1,500 a years as a part time teaching assistant, had a pregnant wife, and a dissertation to write.  We got food stamps and lived in married student "housing" - with terpintine spaces heaters and rotting floors.  Then our oldest was born, on the public dime since we had no money to pay for the birth -  and we qualified for as cash grant and more food stamps.  Well, Becky was nurtsed, so we always had a surpuse and at very well - on one occasion paying for lobster with food stamps (happy anniversery).  But, to my mind, I paid back my debt by working for low wages at public colleges, for over 40 years.

Regardless of whether a welfare recipient rides the bus or drives an "Escalade," the welfare recipient is not in political influence.  He is just working the system the best way he knows how.  It is a an exercise in distraction to compare yourself with the welfare recipient.  The corporate executives have political influence.  They have sold us on the dogma that private business owes us nothing.  The corporatist mentality dictates that greed is the highest virtue.  The rules shall be set by the executives for the workers for the maximum profits of shareholder dividends and executive "compensation" at all times.  Any worker who cannot compete under these rules shall be cast out. 
As far as the managerial class was concerned, it was bad enough when the government mandated a minimum wage and made it illegal for the boss not to hire blacks because he doesn't like them.  If the corporations got to set ALL the rules, American cities would resemble Mexico City and Sao Paolo.
It is not the government's fault the welfare state became necessary, it is the exploitation of human labor for the sake of corporate convenience.  Men and women are no more valuable under this scheme than widgets and just as disposable.
I don't care how much a teenage mother's shoes cost, or if a man on disability drives a luxury car.  The enrichment of corporate bigshots via the government teat costs taxpayers umpteen times more than relief checks doled out to individuals, and contrary to corporate dogma, these bigshots so often give back nothing to society.

So, the solution is to just let them sit there and do nothing while collecting the taxpayer's money?  I'd be willing to bet the "bigshots" give back a hell of a lot more than the welfare mom wearing the $100+ Nikes.  Shouldn't we at least be trying to help these people become productive members of society?  As I said before, I'd much rather help a single mother who is working a full time job, trying to better herself and her children's lives than someone who thinks they are "owed" welfare.  Guess not, let's just keep blaming "corporate America", that'll solve the problem ::)


Not just corporate America, but all those conservative politicians wjo talk about responsibility and send single mothers on 2 hour bus trips to minimum wages jobs to get them off welfare (there is a segment on this in  Bowling for Columbine which might be of interest).  Letws face it, this country treats poor people, and especially black and latino poor, like sh*t, and treats corporate big shots like gods.  Ben & Jerry's, when it was Ben and Jerry's, had the right idea in limiting the pay at the top to a proportion of the pay at the bottom.  How is the CEO of a corporation claiming to be loosing $$$ worth millions/year?  And in those cases just what do the "bigshots" give back?  What did Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling give back?  What did the Rigas family give back?  What did Koswalsky (World Com?) give back?  Workers of the World unite, you have nothing to loose but greedy CEOs who milk and bilk your companies dry and then retire with golden parachutes (if they avoid jail time), you have your future to gain (to paraphrase).  Or, to put it in more parochial terms "The bum on the stiff gets an occasional bit, the bum on the plushy is blood sucking day and night... So get rid of the weights that crush.  Get rid of the bum on the plush." - an old Wobbly song, still true today.

One thing people like Crazymom do is use examples of how they overcame adversity to further fingerwag people who have not done so well.  She also presumes I don't think poor folks can get themselves in trouble by way of their own irresponsible behavior.  That's nonsense, of course. 
A hardcore Marxist-Leninist would say we should abolish the chartered corporation and capitalism as an economic system.  I didn't even say that.
What I am advocating is we as a society do more than goad the poor for their shortcomings and call into question the rectitude of the corporate power structure.
I'm not interested in whether Crazymom has anxiety or crummy eyesight.  And it is specious to point to Home Depot starting folks at ten bucks an hour and say, "see, you can get a good job if you want to."  BTW, unless you live in Mississippi, ten bucks an hour doesn't garner you any kind of security these days.  Furthermore, I doubt retail places pay ten bucks an hour where the "cost of living" is lowest in the Southern poverty belt.
We need to reform the business power structure that governs employment and resource allocation and stop taking the pronouncements of Wall Street pundits as gospel.

The prejudices I've seen in some of the posts on this thread are exactly what the Wrong-wing depends on to keep our population engaged in contempt for lower classes, and worship of the richer classes.

What better example to use than my own?    Why is telling how I or someone else overcame adversity "fingerwagging"?  Rather than blame someone else for my "problems", why not try to inspire someone else to overcome a similar problem?I guess "people like me" don't count in the grand scheme of things....  And, speaking of assuming things, you seem to assume that I think that EVERYONE who is poor is there of their own accord.  The ONLY thing I said was that the abuse of the welfare system disgusts me.  I'm sorry if you see no problem with it, but I do...almost every time I'm at the grocery store, using my coupons to try to save $$, buying stuff that's on sale.  I've also attempted to make it perfectly clear that I don't have a problem helping those who cannot help themselves but I'm sick of those who CAN living off of MY tax $$. Maybe in Mass, you can't live on $10/hour, but it's not too hard to do so where I live in IL....which is where they're paying these wages.  You're the one who keeps pointing out the "shortcomings" of the "poor".....I simply pointed out a problem with abuse of the welfare system.  I would be willing to bet that for every 1 of me (someone who qualifies for SSI but doesn't take it), there are 5-10 who would jump at the chance to get free $$ without having to work for it.  But, I guess that doesn't matter.  Instead of trying to help them get OFF welfare (which i HAVE seen people successfully do) and trying to get the government to revise the welfare system, let's just blame the corporations.  Solve the problems you have with "corporate America" and you're STILL going to have people abusing the welfare system.....who are you going to blame then?

I reiterate, many people who could work productively are not welcome in the job market with its vicious competition and rigid standards.  A lot of businesses don't want to hire the handicapped, obese, or funny-looking.  People with mental health issues may need more leeway and flexibility than businesses can give or will give.  This is nothing new.  Conformity became the way of business in the industrial revolution.  When you're a name working in a family-run shop your behavioral peculiarities can be accommodated, when you're a number working on a factory floor, a person with on-the-job difficulties is exactly like a machine--either fix it fast, or get junked. 
I hear plenty of accusations that people on disability don't deserve it because the seem to be able to move about and get things done.  However, the accusers don't really know what may prevent a disabled person from interfacing with the world of employment as is. 
Not that meets the eye is what it seems.
The reason your situation is not a good example is because you insist on being haughty and contemptuous about it.  It's just like all the d*mned Boston Irish who go on about their grandparents and the "No Irish Need Apply" signs to say "we overcame discrimination against us, so what the h*ll us the problem with these blacks and hispanics?"  "I did it, and you could do it if you tried" is just an excuse to feel righteous indignation.  People who sport this attitude ramain suspicious and resentful of their peers and never call into question the roots of the problems.  I have said several times I'm not interested in the habits of dole recipients, I am interested in changing the system.
As a society, we could reform the job market to be more inclusive and tolerant in ways that would allow more people to make their own way in life.  You must understand those who control the job market are not interested in such solutions!!!
Their attitude is "business isn't about helping people contribute to society, it's about making money."  They hold this dogma as indisputable as the law of gravity.  What businesses wanted when Clinton signed the welfare reform act was not to help welfare recipients learn a trade and earn a living wage.  What industry leaders wanted was a new class of serfs who could be paid less than the minimum wage and have no rights.  The government, in essence, would subisidize business to pay people even less than they received from welfare.  This way they could drive down wages and worker rights for all.  Similar to off-shoring labor, the bosses could say, "how dare you ask for better wages, how dare you attempt to collectively bargain, if you don't shut up and get back to work,  we'll get the welfare people in here at $3.50 an hour!"
Neither the government nor business was actually interested in improving the lot of welfare recipients.  That was a lie.  The Republicans pushing welfare reform lied, and President Clinton who signed the act also lied.

I don't know why you guys seem to think that raising the salaries will solve the problem.  Trust me, it won't.  But then again, you don't live in Silicon Valley.

Here in San Jose, people make a lot of money in comparison to other parts of the country.  Which means companies are paying out more money to employees... which means companies raise their prices to compensate for this.  Which means consumers need more money to buy their products.  This domino effect has continued here since the late 1980's.  As a result, an average 3 bedroom home here costs over $600,000.00 with a typical mortgage of $2500+ a month.  This means one needs $31,000 a year JUST FOR THE MORTGAGE.  Then add about $8000 in property taxes = $39,000.  Another $2000 for gas & electricity = $41,000.  Got a car payment? Add another $3600. = $44,600.  Need gas for the car?  Add another $1500.  Need homeowners insurance and car insurance?  Phone?  Food?  Auto repairs?  Clothing?  In order to NET a "living wage" here, you'd need to gross about $65,000.

Sure, paying the guy behind the counter at McDonalds $18.00 an hour sounds great... until we have to pay $15.00 for a Big Mac.  Then when we can't afford the Big Mac anymore, our salaries are no longer "livable wages", so the salaries go up again, and then so does the cost of living.  It really doesn't solve a thing.

There is a difference between inspiring somebody with your example and looking down on them because they seem like they are just not willing to do what you did.  I'm sorry, but that's the way crazymom's comments come off to me, but maybe she didn't mean to.  I admit I get frustrated sometimes when I see people who don't seem to be doing everything they can to help themself, but if I am honest, I have to admit, I really just don't know what they are going through.  Not everybody has the same emotional strength, or talents or sense of self-wroth or whatever.  Sometimes they need help to develop it.  

On the other hand, not everybody is going to care about helping people.  They sometimes think it's not fair to use public resources to help other people, just let everybody succeed if they can or fail if they can't.  And its easy to see that as wrong, but everybody just has their own philosophy of what's best.  I don't agree with this way to go, because I think it actually hurts everybody if everybody is not given some help to succeed.  I think we just need to figure out the best way to help people.  But some people don't think we should help other people at all, and that if they fail, it's because they deserve to.  I think that would make a very depressing world, though.

And we should please, please, please, please stop talking about welfare cheats and drug dealers like they represent poor people.  That's not fair to all the honest, struggling poor people in this country.  Too many times, we use bad examples to dismiss a whole population of people.  It happens with races and religions and all kinds of groups and it's really, really nasty.

I don't know why you guys seem to think that raising the salaries will solve the problem.  Trust me, it won't.  But then again, you don't live in Silicon Valley.

Here in San Jose, people make a lot of money in comparison to other parts of the country.  Which means companies are paying out more money to employees... which means companies raise their prices to compensate for this.  Which means consumers need more money to buy their products.  This domino effect has continued here since the late 1980's.  As a result, an average 3 bedroom home here costs over $600,000.00 with a typical mortgage of $2500+ a month.  This means one needs $31,000 a year JUST FOR THE MORTGAGE.  Then add about $8000 in property taxes = $39,000.  Another $2000 for gas & electricity = $41,000.  Got a car payment? Add another $3600. = $44,600.  Need gas for the car?  Add another $1500.  Need homeowners insurance and car insurance?  Phone?  Food?  Auto repairs?  Clothing?  In order to NET a "living wage" here, you'd need to gross about $65,000.
Sure, paying the guy behind the counter at McDonalds $18.00 an hour sounds great... until we have to pay $15.00 for a Big Mac.  Then when we can't afford the Big Mac anymore, our salaries are no longer "livable wages", so the salaries go up again, and then so does the cost of living.  It really doesn't solve a thing.
Hi!I live in san Jose,too.I think an "average' home avtually has 4 bedrooms,but,anyway,you would probably need $1,000,000 or more to get a confortable family home with a yard nad in a nice area.My friend bought a million dollar home in Willow Glen and rents out their old house in my neighborhood.

But I don't think a "comfortable" 3 or 4 bedroom house has anything to do with a "living wage", does it?  It's all subjective, but I don't think it's inhuman for a poor family with two kids to have to make do with a slightly cramped house in a working class part of town, is it?

All right.  Yes, it bothers me that some people "milk" system for all they can get.  They are the mice "trying to get a little something for nothing"  and cummulatively they are probably quite a drain.  I also belive that welfare recipients should be required to work or to train for jobs that could support them, but not, as with the mother of the 6 year old kid documented in Bowling for Columbine who had to ride a bus 4 hours a day and work for minimum wages in order to keep her welfare.  In her absance, her 6 year old son stole his uincle's gun and shot a 6 year old girl.  So where is the outrage at this violation of "family values"?  Or is it only middle class family values that are important?

Corpoate welfare, which costs much more than all the fed, state, and local welfare combined, is a problem, and it is related.  Did you know that corporations recieve governmet (taxpayer) funds to ship jobs off shore?  So even the corporationd that aren't run by crooks make out like bandits while pushing more unemployed workers onto the welfare rolls.  Wal-Mart is amoung the worst, since not only does it force its suppiers off shore, but its wages and bennies are so bad that those it employes directly (its "associates") often add to the welfare burdon.  Further, those obscene CEO salaries, "loans" (which they often don't have to repay), stock options, apartments, jets... really eat into the bottom line of their companies, lowering both the wages of their employees and the dividends of their stockholders.  So to answer Max, I do believe that the system of corporate/crony capitalism that we endure is corrupt, obscene, inefficient, and much  less productive than it could be, and needs a major overhaul.  By the same token, I'm not impressed with the attempt to create a "command" economy either.  But there are possibilities, ways to both "bell the cat" and avoid the errors associated with a command economy.  For those interested, try to get ahold of an obscure little book by Jerome Schucter called Revolutionizing Reform .  Hard to find, no doubt, but provacative.

Last, that some unions are still powerfull enough to bargain tough work rules is to their credit.  Their job is, after all, to protect the well-being of their members.

Hi!I live in san Jose,too.I think an "average' home avtually has 4 bedrooms,but,anyway,you would probably need $1,000,000 or more to get a confortable family home with a yard nad in a nice area.My friend bought a million dollar home in Willow Glen and rents out their old house in my neighborhood.


Yes, an average home is 4 bedroom (I am a realtor, so I can confirm this) but I specified an average three bedroom because that is the minimum a typical family with more than one child would need.  (Unless they have two girls or two boys, in which case they could share a bedroom and get by with a two bedroom)  And you can get a decent 3 bedroom in the 600-700 range in Evergreen, Cambrian, Santa Clara, etc.  But yes, for a house in a great neighborhood with a big yard, it is easily over $1,000,000.

Yes, an average home is 4 bedroom (I am a realtor, so I can confirm this) but I specified an average three bedroom because that is the minimum a typical family with more than one child would need.  (Unless they have two girls or two boys, in which case they could share a bedroom and get by with a two bedroom)  And you can get a decent 3 bedroom in the 600-700 range in Evergreen, Cambrian, Santa Clara, etc.  But yes, for a house in a great neighborhood with a big yard, it is easily over $1,000,000.


I have a 2 story house that could be a 6 & 1/2 bedroom 2 family house (four bedrooms first  floor apt and 2 1/2 bedrooms 2nd) with hugh kitchens (2) and living room s that I would love to sell for $1,000,000, and near (35-45 min) Killington ski resort.  Any takers?

I have a 2 story house that could be a 6 & 1/2 bedroom 2 family house (four bedrooms first  floor apt and 2 1/2 bedrooms 2nd) with hugh kitchens (2) and living room s that I would love to sell for $1,000,000, and near (35-45 min) Killington ski resort.  Any takers?


Wow, I'd love to sell it for you... but I'm only licensed in California :-\\

IMO, that is an outrage.  I believe, as you do, that they should be required to work (if they can) or attend school.  However, I also think that childcare should be provided at no (or very low) cost so their children are safe while they are at work/school.  I have to admit, I've never seen Bowling for Columbine (because I think Moore is a boorish oaf), but I can't help but wonder why the gun was accessible to the child.  Who was watching him?  Why did he even know it was there?  (but, guns are an ENTIRELY separate issue for me)
But to the detriment of whom?  Take the example I gave previously about the oil change/tire rotation.  The last time I had one done, it took 45 minutes, but I still paid for 2 hours of labor.  Using my best friend's ex as an example, he makes approx $20/hour (his salary did not change when they joined the union and he was on the low end of the pay ladder) and the filter/oil was approx $10.  I had a coupon (that was printed prior to them joining the union) for both for $49 so the dealership LOST $$ on it.  Their post-union price for both?  $79. (pre-union it was $59) 

Now, I agree that unions are necessary in quite a few fields (factories, construction and the like) but there are some that are wholly unnecessary and simply end up driving the price for the consumers.


I can't remember all the details of the case, but obviously, the mother, on her long trip to work, was not. 

You know, you could change your own oil and rotate your own tires.  If you want others to provide services to you, you are going to pay.  But, keeping in line with the tread, that guy is not on welfare, so you can chose to use his services or not, but not support him with your tax $$$.  At least the choice is yours.  And if the CEO of the company he works for make 100X his takehome pay, who is really overcharging you?


Wow, I'd love to sell it for you... but I'm only licensed in California :-\\


Oh well, from what I hear, homes like mine a
are going for $60-70,000 range.  I have always though that a shrew RE person could make a fortune in this area, especially if they could find buyers how WEREN't skiers.  PM me and I'll explain.

I agree with Don Carlos about work and job training.  Once you introduce "workfare," you are obliged to guarantee people in workfare programs can raise themselves out of poverty.  I support that kind of workfare.  I support job training, but if job training is part of getting people off the dole, the jobs need to be there at the end of the program.  Said jobs must be secure and pay wages commensurate with a decent living standard in the region.  I would love to see bona-fide workfare and job training programs nationwide that would provide real opportunities for real economic advancement for the economically disadvantaged. 
If we implemented such a system in this country, you know what it would be called, a "socialist revolution."

"Workfare" for sub-minimum wages that only deepens poverty and puts even more strain on poor families is what we wound up with in the '90s.  See, welfare had been a political whipping boy for so long, and welfare recipients had been scapegoated for all manner of social ills for so long that it was easy to sell "reform" to the public.  Anything is better than these terrible entitlement prorams, right?  Not quite.  Welfare was much better for the corporate world than being asked to step up to the plate and use their largess to actually help people in need.  Have the government build shabby housing projects and mail 'em a crummy check every month, that way business need not concern itself.
So when the political pressure was going to turn the tide on sixty years of welfare, business lobbyists wanted to make sure it didn't hurt the business community.  Buth why stop there?  Why not profit from it?  And that's what they did.  "Workfare" under the welfare reform act of 1996 had no chance of helping people gain autonomy and was just another government hand out to big business via wage subsidies.

Crazymom mentioned she has a problem with "drug dealers."  So do I.  So does anybody with a modicum of social conscience.  But Corporate America doesn't mind drug dealers at all.  Corporations don't want to have to provide jobs to poor Americans because that comes with wage requirements, OSHA standards, and all kinds of investment costs.  Much easier to just exploit the Third World.  Your free market fantasizers will say, "but if a poor kid from the inner city doesn't have a job, he can't buy products and services, so it's not in the interests of business to have a lot of poor people."  Well, one way that kid can buy designer clothes and a new car without corporate America investing dime one in him is for him to sell cocaine on the street!

The "personal responsibility" ethos is a righteous one, but not the way conservatives apply it.  Conservatives only like "responsibility" when it has the word "personal" in front of it and they're talking about poor people.  Personal responsibility as a social good on the part of the economically disadvantaged means nothing when the private sector is not required to change its own behavior.

I agree with Don Carlos about work and job training.  Once you introduce "workfare," you are obliged to guarantee people in workfare programs can raise themselves out of poverty.  I support that kind of workfare.  I support job training, but if job training is part of getting people off the dole, the jobs need to be there at the end of the program.  Said jobs must be secure and pay wages commensurate with a decent living standard in the region.  I would love to see bona-fide workfare and job training programs nationwide that would provide real opportunities for real economic advancement for the economically disadvantaged. 
If we implemented such a system in this country, you know what it would be called, a "socialist revolution."


I could get with that. Again drawing from my own experience, the CalWorks program over here SUCKS. They offer you "training" and "classes" in jobs that you know would never support you, let alone a family. That was also one of the reasons I was trying to get cash aid. I knew that if I could even get that for a few months, I could've saved it up to enroll in Pharmacy Technician courses.

I agree that the welfare program really does suck and needs to be reformed in the worst kinda way.  Here is my personal example of why I think the way that I do.  My ex was and probably always will be the type that doesn't like to work. He would rather stay at home and watch soaps and porn.  He is a very able bodied person, has no physical handicaps, and nothing that would hinder him from getting out there in the workplace.....yet, he chooses to mooch off of the system. The last I knew of...he was living rent free, in a "based on your income" apartment, receiving foodstamps AND the medicaid card....all this, for someone who SHOULD and COULD be out there working for a living.  The thing I don't understand is this...there was a point in my life where I was going through a lot of stuff and I went and applied for some assistance, yet, I was turned down for it because they said that I made too much money to qualify for any aid.....oh yes, I was making SOO much money as a waitress....yet, he goes to the welfare office, applies for all of that...and gets it handed right to him. When he went to those apartments....he wasn't even put on the usual "waiting list" that most people have to be placed on...he got to move right into a rent free apartment.  I never could understand the logic of that....let me tell you....he ALWAYS had his refridgerator WELL STOCKED....always with many name brand items....while I did and continue to shop at places like Save-A-Lot, and Big Lots.  Normal working people don't even have some of those luxuries as "some" people who are on welfare.  Like others have stated, yes, there are people who really do need to take advantage of the system due to handicaps or other "real" reasons why they cannot go out and get a job....but I am sick of these kinds of "bums", as my ex, who continue to rip off the system...and keep getting away with it. 
As for crazymom supposedly "bragging" and being "uppity" or whatever the phrasing was....I don't believe that she was being that way at all. She was merely stating that she and her family have worked really hard for what they have now, and that it wasn't always easy.  I admire people who work for what they have, instead of relying on others or the system to do it for them.  Thankfully I am no longer with that person.....I am now with a guy that doesn't mind going out and working for a living...and my family is not receiving any help....I am not saying that it is always easy....and that having the help wouldn't be tempting at times....but you know what? It is really nice whenever you work for something and achieve your goal. We just recently purchased a house, no not a mansion or anything, but a nice house.  We live simple, but it's still a nice life...and even though I shop at places like Goodwill, Salvation Army, and Big Lots...I'd much rather do that with my own money, then to use someone elses.

Erin :)

I don't want to beat the housing thing to death but, this just shows how spoiled we are in this country.  Of course if you have a choice it's ideal to have separate bedrooms for each children of each sex.  But come on, if someone is unable to support themselves and their kids, it's not unreasonable even to have everybody have to sleep in the same room if necessary, as long as they have someplace to wash and dress in privacy.  We're talking about helping people to get by decently, not subsidizing a middle class lifestyle for everybody.  When I was a kid, we were poor and we shopped at discount clothing stores, and I had to wear cheap knockoffs of the fancy stuff the rich kids wore.  It kinda sucked, but it didn't damage me emotionally.  Too many kids today think they have to wear Polo, Tommy, Timberland, and have the iPod and the latest cellphone.

I don't want to beat the housing thing to death but, this just shows how spoiled we are in this country.  Of course if you have a choice it's ideal to have separate bedrooms for each children of each sex.  But come on, if someone is unable to support themselves and their kids, it's not unreasonable even to have everybody have to sleep in the same room if necessary, as long as they have someplace to wash and dress in privacy. 


HAH!  Tell that to the department of social services!!  A boy and girl over the age of 5 sharing a bedroom is a BIG NO-NO.  True, if everyone minds their own business, chances are it would not become an issue.  But if a nosy neighbor or other person decides to report it... can lead to alot of trouble.

But I don't think a "comfortable" 3 or 4 bedroom house has anything to do with a "living wage", does it?  It's all subjective, but I don't think it's inhuman for a poor family with two kids to have to make do with a slightly cramped house in a working class part of town, is it?


My brother and his girlfriend have 3 boys, and live in a 2 bedroom apartment.  They do not get any kind of assistance.  Before we bought our house, we lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 boys, and I was going crazy.  No, it's not inhuman, but it sucks.  You make do with what you have.
My sister used to tell everyone how rich my husband and I were after we bought our house, because she didn't have one.  We were not, and still aren't rich, but we worked our *sses off to get where we are.
It is hard to get a job when employers discriminate against looks, etc, and that's wrong.  But there are people out there who DON'T EVEN TRY!  And it's not because they have kids or anything.  They just don't want to.  My aunt knows someone who has public assistance, and lives in a 3 bedroom, subsidized townhome, which she got when her kids were younger.  Now her kids are grown, and she still is able to get assistance, and get her subsidized housing.
When we moved into our apartment (none of the units were subsidized) in 1993, it still had the 1970's ugly green wallpaper.  And we did not have attached covered parking, not everyone had a garage, and those that did were connected to 3 others.  Around 1996-1997, on the same property, a subsidized housing project was built.  Every unit there had private garages, and almost all of the vehicles in the parking lot were newer and better than most of the ones owned by the people in our apartment complex.  I'm all for having reliable transportation, but why should the government be paying them to get brand new cars?

I agree that the welfare program really does suck and needs to be reformed in the worst kinda way.  Here is my personal example of why I think the way that I do.  My ex was and probably always will be the type that doesn't like to work. He would rather stay at home and watch soaps and porn.  He is a very able bodied person, has no physical handicaps, and nothing that would hinder him from getting out there in the workplace.....yet, he chooses to mooch off of the system. The last I knew of...he was living rent free, in a "based on your income" apartment, receiving foodstamps AND the medicaid card....all this, for someone who SHOULD and COULD be out there working for a living.  The thing I don't understand is this...there was a point in my life where I was going through a lot of stuff and I went and applied for some assistance, yet, I was turned down for it because they said that I made too much money to qualify for any aid.....oh yes, I was making SOO much money as a waitress....yet, he goes to the welfare office, applies for all of that...and gets it handed right to him. When he went to those apartments....he wasn't even put on the usual "waiting list" that most people have to be placed on...he got to move right into a rent free apartment.  I never could understand the logic of that....let me tell you....he ALWAYS had his refridgerator WELL STOCKED....always with many name brand items....while I did and continue to shop at places like Save-A-Lot, and Big Lots.  Normal working people don't even have some of those luxuries as "some" people who are on welfare.  Like others have stated, yes, there are people who really do need to take advantage of the system due to handicaps or other "real" reasons why they cannot go out and get a job....but I am sick of these kinds of "bums", as my ex, who continue to rip off the system...and keep getting away with it. 
As for crazymom supposedly "bragging" and being "uppity" or whatever the phrasing was....I don't believe that she was being that way at all. She was merely stating that she and her family have worked really hard for what they have now, and that it wasn't always easy.  I admire people who work for what they have, instead of relying on others or the system to do it for them.  Thankfully I am no longer with that person.....I am now with a guy that doesn't mind going out and working for a living...and my family is not receiving any help....I am not saying that it is always easy....and that having the help wouldn't be tempting at times....but you know what? It is really nice whenever you work for something and achieve your goal. We just recently purchased a house, no not a mansion or anything, but a nice house.  We live simple, but it's still a nice life...and even though I shop at places like Goodwill, Salvation Army, and Big Lots...I'd much rather do that with my own money, then to use someone elses.

Erin :)


What's more effed up than your boyfriend getting all that and not working is that, as a probably unskilled labourer, if he did go to work, he would lose all the things he gleans from the system... he would have little or no insurance, a crappy place, and very little food (and the cheap food he would have would have little nutritional value). So if the benefits of not working are better than the benefits of working a sh*tty job, he would be an idiot not to accept the welfare. The way the system is set up, you just have to throw your hands in the air and concede not to hate the player, just the game.

On the other hand, if EVERYBODY was entitled to at most what your ex receives now, unskilled labourers would have nothing to be ashamed about in being a chimneysweep or whatever. My mom and my aunts grew up in West Germany, and they tell us all the time that even people there who held meagre jobs took pride in doing whatever it is they did and doing it well. And why shouldn't they. They faced no fear of starvation, they were covered medically, and they were guarunteed vacation time each year.

One problem I do have with big corporations and even government agencies, is their hiring process.  I have admittedly never applied for a job with a large corporation, but I have applied for a job with the city.  (At the time, I had a job so I wasn't "desperate" but I wanted a better paying job)  The application was about 10 pages long.  A full two pages were dedicated to questions about your past, for example: Have you ever used marijuana?  Have you ever shoplifted?  At the bottom of the page was a warning that applicants who made it to the "next step" would be subject to a lie detector test. 

You submit your application, and then you wait for the filing deadline to arrive.  Then you hope to get a response.  If you're lucky enough to get a response, you are invited to an "orientation" along with about 500 other people, also applying for the same job.  They explain the benefits and the scope of the work.  Then they schedule you to take an exam.  And a psychological examination.  Then if you get through that, you get (gasp) an interview! (So do at least 100 other people).  It just goes on and on.

Whatever happened to "Hey I've got this application here, this person is qualified...let's have them start on Monday!"  It would be nice if employment was on a first come, first serve basis.

There's an old socialist idea that says "if you don't work, you don't eat".  I do believe that most people would want to pull their weight and contribute to society given half a chance.  Obviously there are slackards who could care less.  The question is, how do we balance the scales so that the work people do provides them with the necessities of life, and the dignity that comes from making your own way, with the reality of the culture of poverty?

There's an old socialist idea that says "if you don't work, you don't eat".  I do believe that most people would want to pull their weight and contribute to society given half a chance.  Obviously there are slackards who could care less.  The question is, how do we balance the scales so that the work people do provides them with the necessities of life, and the dignity that comes from making your own way, with the reality of the culture of poverty?


My answer:  Those who don't work receive free services, free food, etc but no money.  Those who work but can't get by on their salaries receive monetary assistance.  So, if you're a slacker, you get only the absolute necessities.  If you're trying, you get a little more.

My answer:  Those who don't work receive free services, free food, etc but no money.  Those who work but can't get by on their salaries receive monetary assistance.  So, if you're a slacker, you get only the absolute necessities.  If you're trying, you get a little more.

I'm all for that...Now how do we convince the d*mn government?

Yes, an average home is 4 bedroom (I am a realtor, so I can confirm this) but I specified an average three bedroom because that is the minimum a typical family with more than one child would need.  (Unless they have two girls or two boys, in which case they could share a bedroom and get by with a two bedroom)  And you can get a decent 3 bedroom in the 600-700 range in Evergreen, Cambrian, Santa Clara, etc.  But yes, for a house in a great neighborhood with a big yard, it is easily over $1,000,000.
It does seem a little sexist to assume that just because 2 kids are the same sex,they can share a bedroom--doncha think?

My answer:  Those who don't work receive free services, free food, etc but no money.  Those who work but can't get by on their salaries receive monetary assistance.  So, if you're a slacker, you get only the absolute necessities.  If you're trying, you get a little more.

Ah, yes, back to the old tuberculosis-ridden poor farms of the 19th century!  Let's re-instate debtors prison and mandatory sterilization for the genetically unfit.  It's time we taught your lazy class some responsibility, and for goodness sakes, three generations of imeciles are enough! 

That's what I love about right-wingers, they don't need no sociology, psychology, back-east fancy booklearnin' stuff.  Just gimme my Bible and a few self-righteous cliches and I'll solve the poverty problem.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan's homespun wisdom, every simple-minded Republican qualifies as a social policy expert!
::)

Just gimme my Bible and a few self-righteous cliches and I'll solve the poverty problem. 

No bible, here.  I'm not even religious.  Only ever been to church for weddings & other occasions where I was somewhat "obligated" to go.  I've never read the bible.

It does seem a little sexist to assume that just because 2 kids are the same sex,they can share a bedroom--doncha think?


Yeah... but their concern is boys and girls "curiosity" regarding the opposite sex.

It does seem a little sexist to assume that just because 2 kids are the same sex,they can share a bedroom--doncha think?


That is not sexist.  It's not specific to one sex over the other.

There's an old socialist idea that says "if you don't work, you don't eat". I do believe that most people would want to pull their weight and contribute to society given half a chance. Obviously there are slackards who could care less. The question is, how do we balance the scales so that the work people do provides them with the necessities of life, and the dignity that comes from making your own way, with the reality of the culture of poverty?


I don't think it's unfair to have jobs that can't support somebody full time.  I don't think every job should have to pay enough that a person working full-time can support themself in their own home and live well.  I don't think it's wrong that if you have certain jobs, you might have to share an apartment with 3 or 4 other people and not have cable TV and have to get clothes at Goodwill.  Someone should only be working these jobs if for example, they are a student or something living at home and trying to earn EXTRA income.  But a lot of people do end up having to depend on these jobs to try to raise a family or something, but I think that is the problem.  I think it would better to figure out ways for people to develop more job skills so they only need to do these jobs temporarily.  Access to good public education is unequal in this country, and poor social enviornment can affect people's ability to take full advantage of resources, but I think it's better to spend time trying to figure out how to turn more McDonalds counter people into teachers and scientists and business owners.

Ah, yes, back to the old tuberculosis-ridden poor farms of the 19th century!  Let's re-instate debtors prison and mandatory sterilization for the genetically unfit.  It's time we taught your lazy class some responsibility, and for goodness sakes, three generations of imeciles are enough! 

That's what I love about right-wingers, they don't need no sociology, psychology, back-east fancy booklearnin' stuff.  Just gimme my Bible and a few self-righteous cliches and I'll solve the poverty problem.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan's homespun wisdom, every simple-minded Republican qualifies as a social policy expert!
::)


Again, Max, I think this is a bit harsh.  I am certainly no right winger, and am probably a lot farther to the left than you, but I can appreciate the legitimate gripes people are expressing.  I have tried to focus their ateention on the bigger problem of corporate welfare, but that ios not to say that I disagree with them on the need for wefare reform. 


I don't think it's unfair to have jobs that can't support somebody full time. I don't think every job should have to pay enough that a person working full-time can support themself in their own home and live well. I don't think it's wrong that if you have certain jobs, you might have to share an apartment with 3 or 4 other people and not have cable TV and have to get clothes at Goodwill. Someone should only be working these jobs if for example, they are a student or something living at home and trying to earn EXTRA income. But a lot of people do end up having to depend on these jobs to try to raise a family or something, but I think that is the problem. I think it would better to figure out ways for people to develop more job skills so they only need to do these jobs temporarily. Access to good public education is unequal in this country, and poor social enviornment can affect people's ability to take full advantage of resources, but I think it's better to spend time trying to figure out how to turn more McDonalds counter people into teachers and scientists and business owners.


All I'm trying to say is that if you wotk, you should be able to survive.  People should also be supported in trying to better themselves.  All public education should be free, and it should all be first rate.  Vermont, for example, has a law that generates equal $$$ for equal tax rates across the state for public education (which is why Killington wants to become part of New Hampsheeshe - fat chance).  So I think we are in basic agreement.  Everybody should pull their own weight, and everbody should have a shot a developing their skills and talents to the greater good of use all.