Mother of 9 sues doctors for making her sterile

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:37:53 PM
Author: somethingshiny
After reading the newest link, I have another off-topic question:

Should Public Aid recipients (or anyone else for that matter) be better off taking cooking, canning, preserving classes?

You can definitely have a smaller food budget if you don''t buy prepared and processed foods. You can take advantage of fresh fruits and veggies and keep them for a long time.

Yes, I love your cooking class idea! In addition to helping people out, it''d remind them that $4.00 worth of apples fills one up longer and is healthier than a bag of $3.50 doritos! Seems like our culture (aside from my apple addicted 7 year old) have forgotten all about this. I''ve read complaints in the newspaper (from low-income individuals) about how produce is too expensive and that is why they buy junk food, but teaching about shopping inseason (say when corn is $5 for a $1.00) can easily make eating fruits/veggies cheaper than a box of Kraft Mac and Cheese.

 

[somethingshiny]

neat~ I hadn''t considered the lack of space! I''m so used to wide open country!!


And, you''re right. Rural poverty is much different. We don''t have convenience stores, delis, bakeries, etc. If you can''t get to a grocery store, you have to count on what you can grow/butcher. This is also why we stock up for the winter. We get snowed in for days at a time.

 

[somethingshiny]

WIC actually has fresh/frozen fruit and veggies now. I think that''s a step in the right direction.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:45:14 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 3:37:53 PM
Author: somethingshiny
After reading the newest link, I have another off-topic question:


Should Public Aid recipients (or anyone else for that matter) be better off taking cooking, canning, preserving classes?


You can definitely have a smaller food budget if you don''t buy prepared and processed foods. You can take advantage of fresh fruits and veggies and keep them for a long time.


Where I live, it''s common to take your home growns and share them with neighbors and freeze the rest. That way everyone has a nice selection of produce through the long winters.

Rural poverty is a LOT different than city poverty. In the city, in order to do that people would first have to pay an arm and a leg for the produce. Makes no sense in the city.

Also that is assuming that they have clean working kitchens, time to spend doing this, etc.

People who are on welfare are subject to work/education/job search requirements while they are on it. They aren''t just sitting around all day for the most part.

In a lot of poverty stricken areas there are NO grocery stores. Just convenience stores, etc. Think about it. If you drive through a really rough neighborhood how many grocery stores do you see? Not many. And if you don''t have a car you can''t get there easily. So you get what is available-which is often high priced items at the local bodega or convenience store.

She didn''t say it''d be required. I still think it''s a great idea. There are PLENTY of regular grocery stores nearby a number of low-income housing. There is one high school in another district about 20 min. from me where there is 75% on the free lunch AND it was flat out stated in the Seattle Times, a 30% drop-out rate. That school and the housing is a five minute walk to Albertsons. I don''t see homeless people there, just LOTS of subsidized housing.

 

[somethingshiny]

Upon further consideration of the cooking idea:

The people have to get somewhere to qualify, requalify, pick up, etc their assistance right? Maybe the center could have people sign up and buy the food by removing it from their debit card. Then the food would be readily available to everyone.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 4:03:56 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Upon further consideration of the cooking idea:

The people have to get somewhere to qualify, requalify, pick up, etc their assistance right? Maybe the center could have people sign up and buy the food by removing it from their debit card. Then the food would be readily available to everyone.

Based on my knowledge of food stamps, you don''t get "stamps" anymore. They stopped that years ago. You get an EBT card that stays with you and each month you get your amount added to that EBT card. I can''t remember if you have to call-in or not but I don''t think you have to go anywhere to pick it up.

I don''t know how WIC works.

 

[somethingshiny]

I know with WIC you have to pick up the vouchers but I think it may be every 2-3 months.

Still, if you only had to manage 1 place every 1-2 weeks and you knew there would be hundreds of dollars worth of food, wouldn''t you make the effort?? I know there''d be problems with some getting that much food home at one time, and possibly refrigeration, but I still think it could be beneficial to those who could manage and could sign up for it. It would also supply appropriate nutrition instead of buying whatever crap at the store.

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 4:07:04 PM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 4:03:56 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Upon further consideration of the cooking idea:

The people have to get somewhere to qualify, requalify, pick up, etc their assistance right? Maybe the center could have people sign up and buy the food by removing it from their debit card. Then the food would be readily available to everyone.

Based on my knowledge of food stamps, you don''t get ''stamps'' anymore. They stopped that years ago. You get an EBT card that stays with you and each month you get your amount added to that EBT card. I can''t remember if you have to call-in or not but I don''t think you have to go anywhere to pick it up.

I don''t know how WIC works.

If it works like unemployment, then they mail you your card, and then the money is direct dopsited on specific days... much like a regular pay check.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/7/2010 4:07:04 PM
Author: fiery

Based on my knowledge of food stamps, you don't get 'stamps' anymore. They stopped that years ago. You get an EBT card that stays with you and each month you get your amount added to that EBT card. I can't remember if you have to call-in or not but I don't think you have to go anywhere to pick it up.

I don't know how WIC works.

WIC : Says online that the day an individual applies they get their WIC checks. When using them, you must provide ID. I'm not sure if the food stamp debit requires that since a PIN number is given. A month or so back, a woman in front of me in the grocery line used WIC checks. The reason I knew for sure was A) they're much bigger than regular checks, and B) she tried buying organic milk and the cashier told her that it wouldn't ring up so the stock boy had to get her another carton, still that wouldn't work, and again he had to get a different brand (of a specific size). No joke: It took 10 minutes for her to buy her small amount of items.

 

[packrat]

I see credit card things they can swipe now, here. On the grocery store shelves, there are signs that say "WIC approved item"..like on say, a specific size box of Cheerios.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Date: 1/7/2010 4:07:04 PM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 4:03:56 PM

Author: somethingshiny

Upon further consideration of the cooking idea:


The people have to get somewhere to qualify, requalify, pick up, etc their assistance right? Maybe the center could have people sign up and buy the food by removing it from their debit card. Then the food would be readily available to everyone.

Based on my knowledge of food stamps, you don''t get ''stamps'' anymore. They stopped that years ago. You get an EBT card that stays with you and each month you get your amount added to that EBT card. I can''t remember if you have to call-in or not but I don''t think you have to go anywhere to pick it up.


I don''t know how WIC works.

Many WIC offices (at least in CA) do have food that can be bought on site.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM

Author: neatfreak

Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don''t get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an ''at a time'' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.


Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to ''spout off'' about how poorly they are implemented.


Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:


All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.


I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother''s irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can''t find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.

Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn''t a free for all like you are making it out to be.

If you want some more facts from MDRC:
In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.

That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn''t a lot now is it?

The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.

It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don''t know anything about.

I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can''t have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!

I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I''m pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.

AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It''s called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

Neatfreak, I am highly educated and am informed about welfare policy. I also vote in every election, so I do participate in shaping policy decisions. However, just because I am a Libertarian and disagree with some of your positions on welfare, it doesn''t make me ignorant or uninformed. All that it means is that I haven''t been brainwashed into agreeing with your agenda. In fact, I find that people like yourself who attack others for differing opinions are frequently coming from a position of insecurity in their own arguments. Why make it a personal attack if you can just make a solid argument and leave it at that?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 6:53:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM


Author: neatfreak


Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don't get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an 'at a time' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.



Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to 'spout off' about how poorly they are implemented.



Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:



All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.



I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother's irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can't find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.


Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn't a free for all like you are making it out to be.


If you want some more facts from MDRC:

In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.


That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn't a lot now is it?


The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.


It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don't know anything about.


I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can't have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!


I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I'm pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.


AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It's called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

Neatfreak, I am highly educated and am informed about welfare policy. I also vote in every election, so I do participate in shaping policy decisions. However, just because I am a Libertarian and disagree with some of your positions on welfare, it doesn't make me ignorant or uninformed. All that it means is that I haven't been brainwashed into agreeing with your agenda. In fact, I find that people like yourself who attack others for differing opinions are frequently coming from a position of insecurity in their own arguments. Why make it a personal attack if you can just make a solid argument and leave it at that?

Hey am I even stating my positions on welfare? No. I am simply informing you that your information is incorrect when you have commented about policies that have not been in effect for 13 years now.

And I think you might want to look up the definition of a Libertarian. Because usually they aren't for government involvement-so I am a little unsure how forced sterilization would comply with that? In fact I believe that Libertarians generally advocate INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and NO government. So how is the government regulating one's childbearing a libertarian response?

And I am not attacking ANYONE for their political positions. I think if you'll read my posts I simply am countering your *misinformation* about welfare policy. That's it. You were talking about policies that haven't been in effect for years and years.

You have no idea what my political affiliation is based on my posts-all I was doing was simply stating that your assumptions about welfare policy were incorrect. I'm not sure why YOU are choosing to attack my supposed political affiliations here when all I was doing was correcting your misconceptions about welfare policy.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:02:13 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 6:53:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM


Author: neatfreak


Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don''t get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an ''at a time'' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.



Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to ''spout off'' about how poorly they are implemented.



Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:



All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.



I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother''s irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can''t find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.


Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn''t a free for all like you are making it out to be.


If you want some more facts from MDRC:

In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.


That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn''t a lot now is it?


The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.


It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don''t know anything about.


I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can''t have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!


I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I''m pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.


AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It''s called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

Neatfreak, I am highly educated and am informed about welfare policy. I also vote in every election, so I do participate in shaping policy decisions. However, just because I am a Libertarian and disagree with some of your positions on welfare, it doesn''t make me ignorant or uninformed. All that it means is that I haven''t been brainwashed into agreeing with your agenda. In fact, I find that people like yourself who attack others for differing opinions are frequently coming from a position of insecurity in their own arguments. Why make it a personal attack if you can just make a solid argument and leave it at that?

Hey am I even stating my positions on welfare? No. I am simply informing you that your information is incorrect when you have commented about policies that have not been in effect for 13 years now.

And I think you might want to look up the definition of a Libertarian. Because usually they aren''t for government involvement-so I am a little unsure how forced sterilization would comply with that? In fact I believe that Libertarians generally advocate INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and NO government. So how is the government regulating one''s childbearing a libertarian response?

And I am not attacking ANYONE for their political positions. I think if you''ll read my posts I simply am countering your *misinformation* about welfare policy. That''s it. You were talking about policies that haven''t been in effect for years and years.

You have no idea what my political affiliation is based on my posts-all I was doing was simply stating that your assumptions about welfare policy were incorrect. I''m not sure why YOU are choosing to attack my supposed political affiliations here when all I was doing was correcting your misconceptions about welfare policy.

You keep stating that I my opinions are based on misinformation, but you have yet to disprove any of the statistics that I have presented. In fact, the information that I posted came from a July 2002 MRDC study. Here is some information from a more recent April 2008 study on welfare time limits, and to whom they apply, and how effectively they are implemented - and, these findings are based on current policies that are still in effect:

Nationally, a large proportion of TANF households are not subject to time limits, but time limits play a key role in some states. About 44 percent of TANF households are not subject to federal or state time limits because they are “child-only cases” — typically, children living with a relative or families in which the parent is not eligible for benefits. In addition, about half of TANF families live in states that rarely or never close families’ cases because of time limits.
Nationally, at least a quarter million TANF cases have been closed due to reaching a time limit since 1996, although about one-third of these closures have occurred in New York, which routinely transfers cases to a state and locally funded program that provides the same amount of benefits as TANF.
Many of the families whose TANF cases were closed due to time limits are struggling financially and report being worse off than they were while on welfare. Several state surveys have found that many families whose cases were closed due to time limits are experiencing material hardships and are still relying heavily on other forms of public assistance, such as food stamps.
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/481/overview.html

You are correct about the fact that my Libertarian ideals are impossible to achieve in this country, and I stated in an earlier post that even though I would rather not pay for social entitlement programs, since the US will never abolish them, I would far prefer to pay for sex education, birth control, elective sterilization, (or physician implanted birth control like IUDs and Implanon for people who want public assistance) and abortion. As I stated earlier, I would prefer for people who cannot afford to raise their own children to not have them, rather than to pay for endless cycles of generational poverty, and all of the social ills that come with it, like teenage motherhood and increased prison population. Or, if people want to have kids that they can''t afford, then they can turn to the churches and private philanthropic organizations for help instead of taxpayers.

By the way, I never made any assumptions about your political affiliations - I don''t know and honestly don''t care. I just find that people who are quick to discredit other people''s information, instead of engaging in intellectual debate, are frequently trying to convert people to their own way of thinking, instead of weighing facts from either side of the issue.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Wow there are a lot of strong opinions voiced in this thread. I don''t agree with this woman being sterilized against her will or consent. Do you trust your doctor? What if he/she believes you should be sterilized. Or that your chronic diabetic foot infection is taken too much resources to treat over the years. So you go in the have it cleaned out and he takes off your foot. Who decides the allocation of resources? Do we leave it to each individual doctor? And let''s take it further. Hospice nurses can give lethal doses of morhpineif morphine is ordered. The nurse uses their discrection and their professional knowlege to administer the medication as needed. Some hospice patients enter hospice with their lives expected to last perhaps 6 months or more. When they get hospitalized for an infection or intractable nausea should the nurse decide that it will cost a lot to keep treating these symptoms and just give a lethal dose of Morphine? I don''t think we want that. So why should some Doctor or Nurse who thinks they are God inflict their will to help us all. I don''t want this. As for the woman in discussion, I do believe she is a moron and her welfare benefits should be cut. Or better yet- make her work for her benefits. It is snowing in the North Coast right now. We never have enough plows. Why can''t we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:23:13 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/7/2010 9:02:13 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 6:53:22 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM


Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM


Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM



Author: neatfreak



Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don''t get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an ''at a time'' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.




Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to ''spout off'' about how poorly they are implemented.




Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:




All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.




I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother''s irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can''t find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

You are selectively choosing things you like. Just because you know *1* person who goes out of their way to game the system does NOT mean that everyone is spending their life on welfare. Of course there will always be people who game any system you make. But that does not mean that everyone is gaming it as you seem to think.



Federal funds cannot be used to grant more than 20% of people extensions. States can do what they like with their own money, but even in most states they are choosing to enact shorter/tighter time limits rather than using their own money to extend them. There are only a few states that routinely allow extentions and these are usually very tightly regulated. It isn''t a free for all like you are making it out to be.



If you want some more facts from MDRC:


In a given month in FY 2005, approximately 4.5 percent of TANF assistance cases (and 8.0 percent of all adult-headed families) had received at least 60 months of assistance. No state had reached the 20 percent cap for granting extensions beyond 60 months due to hardships by FY 2005, although a small number of states were approaching the cap.



That means that overall only 4.5% of cases were at or over their 60 months of assistance. That isn''t a lot now is it?



The rolls have dropped dramatically since the PRWORA in 1996. MANY fewer people are on welfare and for much shorter amounts of time.



It seems like many people (not just you) are debating policies that they don''t know anything about.



I highly suggest that if everyone is so passionate about welfare policy, get involved. These decisions can be shaped by YOU. Knowledge is power-learn about the policies and bring ideas to your local representatives. You can''t have opinions on policies you know nothing about-so learn about them!



I will get off my soapbox now but if anyone has questions about welfare policy I am happy to answer them. I think I''m pretty qualified to answer-I will be finishing my Ph.D. in public policy this year and I work in social welfare and health policy.



AGBF Although they have done away with a lot of it, there is still cash assistance available, to limited families, for limited time periods. It''s called TANF and stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

Neatfreak, I am highly educated and am informed about welfare policy. I also vote in every election, so I do participate in shaping policy decisions. However, just because I am a Libertarian and disagree with some of your positions on welfare, it doesn''t make me ignorant or uninformed. All that it means is that I haven''t been brainwashed into agreeing with your agenda. In fact, I find that people like yourself who attack others for differing opinions are frequently coming from a position of insecurity in their own arguments. Why make it a personal attack if you can just make a solid argument and leave it at that?

Hey am I even stating my positions on welfare? No. I am simply informing you that your information is incorrect when you have commented about policies that have not been in effect for 13 years now.


And I think you might want to look up the definition of a Libertarian. Because usually they aren''t for government involvement-so I am a little unsure how forced sterilization would comply with that? In fact I believe that Libertarians generally advocate INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and NO government. So how is the government regulating one''s childbearing a libertarian response?


And I am not attacking ANYONE for their political positions. I think if you''ll read my posts I simply am countering your *misinformation* about welfare policy. That''s it. You were talking about policies that haven''t been in effect for years and years.


You have no idea what my political affiliation is based on my posts-all I was doing was simply stating that your assumptions about welfare policy were incorrect. I''m not sure why YOU are choosing to attack my supposed political affiliations here when all I was doing was correcting your misconceptions about welfare policy.

You keep stating that I my opinions are based on misinformation, but you have yet to disprove any of the statistics that I have presented. In fact, the information that I posted came from a July 2002 MRDC study. Here is some information from a more recent April 2008 study on welfare time limits, and to whom they apply, and how effectively they are implemented - and, these findings are based on current policies that are still in effect:


Nationally, a large proportion of TANF households are not subject to time limits, but time limits play a key role in some states. About 44 percent of TANF households are not subject to federal or state time limits because they are “child-only cases” — typically, children living with a relative or families in which the parent is not eligible for benefits. In addition, about half of TANF families live in states that rarely or never close families’ cases because of time limits.

Nationally, at least a quarter million TANF cases have been closed due to reaching a time limit since 1996, although about one-third of these closures have occurred in New York, which routinely transfers cases to a state and locally funded program that provides the same amount of benefits as TANF.

Many of the families whose TANF cases were closed due to time limits are struggling financially and report being worse off than they were while on welfare. Several state surveys have found that many families whose cases were closed due to time limits are experiencing material hardships and are still relying heavily on other forms of public assistance, such as food stamps.

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/481/overview.html


You are correct about the fact that my Libertarian ideals are impossible to achieve in this country, and I stated in an earlier post that even though I would rather not pay for social entitlement programs, since the US will never abolish them, I would far prefer to pay for sex education, birth control, elective sterilization, (or physician implanted birth control like IUDs and Implanon for people who want public assistance) and abortion. As I stated earlier, I would prefer for people who cannot afford to raise their own children to not have them, rather than to pay for endless cycles of generational poverty, and all of the social ills that come with it, like teenage motherhood and increased prison population. Or, if people want to have kids that they can''t afford, then they can turn to the churches and private philanthropic organizations for help instead of taxpayers.


By the way, I never made any assumptions about your political affiliations - I don''t know and honestly don''t care. I just find that people who are quick to discredit other people''s information, instead of engaging in intellectual debate, are frequently trying to convert people to their own way of thinking, instead of weighing facts from either side of the issue.

I don''t think you looked at the facts that I presented before from the very same MDRC study. I am not discrediting their research at all, just simply putting it into perspective with numbers. Only 4.5% of families hit that 60 month mark in any given month-meaning most never hit it. 4.5 percent out of 100- that isn''t a lot. So all I am saying is that in reality there are not a lot of families hitting that mark and thus not a lot of families who are on welfare for their whole lives like in previous incarnations of welfare policy.

And quarter million cases closed due to reaching time limits is pretty significant don''t you think? All I am trying to point out is that just because you know ONE person who lives off welfare for years does not mean that EVERYONE is abusing the system like your post implied. That''s all. You seem to think that the "exception" is someone like Shiny''s sister. But the exception is really the welfare queen mom.

It''s like saying that because I know one rich person who evades taxes that everyone who is rich evades taxes. Is that true? No. Because I know one person does that mean there is more? Sure, but it still doesn''t mean everyone is doing it.

The fix for the system is not to sterilize women who need welfare. It''s to prevent them from needing it in the first place.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:58:14 PM
Author: LisaRN
Why can't we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

This is exactly what they DO require. If an able bodied welfare recipient can't get work they have public service jobs available that they require them to participate in.

It's not just a blank check handout anymore. There are time limits, work requirements, and job search requirements.

Quite honestly for the amount of money you get (which is TINY in a lot of states) it's probably less work to get a job and work it than it is to apply for and continue to receive welfare.

I think many of us take it for granted that we can go out and get hired at a Mickey D's if we need work. But many people just can't do that. For intelligence reasons, disability, or lack of schooling or work history.

It's a LOT of paperwork and meetings believe it or not!

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:04:26 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 9:58:14 PM
Author: LisaRN
Why can''t we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

This is exactly what they DO require. If an able bodied welfare recipient can''t get work they have public service jobs available that they require them to participate in.

It''s not just a blank check handout anymore. There are time limits, work requirements, and job search requirements.

Quite honestly for the amount of money you get (which is TINY in a lot of states) it''s probably less work to get a job and work it than it is to apply for and continue to receive welfare.

I think many of us take it for granted that we can go out and get hired at a Mickey D''s if we need work. But many people just can''t do that. For intelligence reasons, disability, or lack of schooling or work history.

It''s a LOT of paperwork and meetings believe it or not!

Are you sure? I know that in principle that is what is supposed to happen. I had a family member (5 kids, three live in boyfriends, ect...) who "Worked" for her benefits. What a joke. She cleaned the Human Services building. She "Worked" 4 hours three times a week and emptied the trash and vacuumed for her benefits. She complained a lot about it. I was working two jobs and did not feel the sympathy at the time.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:04:26 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 9:58:14 PM
Author: LisaRN

Why can't we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

This is exactly what they DO require. If an able bodied welfare recipient can't get work they have public service jobs available that they require them to participate in.

It's not just a blank check handout anymore. There are time limits, work requirements, and job search requirements.

Quite honestly for the amount of money you get (which is TINY in a lot of states) it's probably less work to get a job and work it than it is to apply for and continue to receive welfare.

I think many of us take it for granted that we can go out and get hired at a Mickey D's if we need work. But many people just can't do that. For intelligence reasons, disability, or lack of schooling or work history.

It's a LOT of paperwork and meetings believe it or not!

There is such high unemployment that people would welcome a government that created jobs for them to do as FDR did during the New Deal. He set people to work doing things like building roads for the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) one of his many alphabet agencies. The roads may not have led anywhere, but people worked and got paid. The unemployed would welcome that today. By all means let them cut grass, shovel snow, and clean the streets! But pay them for it! I see many men standing outside the 7/11 stores in Virginia from early in the morning hoping to be picked up to do manual labor for any wage that that is offered, because they need the work. I don't know why a myth still prsists that there is a subculture of people living "on welfare". Such a subculture does not exist.

AGBF

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:15:31 PM
Author: LisaRN

Date: 1/7/2010 10:04:26 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 9:58:14 PM

Author: LisaRN

Why can''t we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

This is exactly what they DO require. If an able bodied welfare recipient can''t get work they have public service jobs available that they require them to participate in.


It''s not just a blank check handout anymore. There are time limits, work requirements, and job search requirements.


Quite honestly for the amount of money you get (which is TINY in a lot of states) it''s probably less work to get a job and work it than it is to apply for and continue to receive welfare.


I think many of us take it for granted that we can go out and get hired at a Mickey D''s if we need work. But many people just can''t do that. For intelligence reasons, disability, or lack of schooling or work history.


It''s a LOT of paperwork and meetings believe it or not!

Are you sure? I know that in principle that is what is supposed to happen. I had a family member (5 kids, three live in boyfriends, ect...) who ''Worked'' for her benefits. What a joke. She cleaned the Human Services building. She ''Worked'' 4 hours three times a week and emptied the trash and vacuumed for her benefits. She complained a lot about it. I was working two jobs and did not feel the sympathy at the time.

Am I sure about what? That they have to work? Yes I am sure that there are work requirements for most people. It''s not full time because it''s expected that they are supposed to be job hunting too. The benefit amount is also really small-it''s not like they''re making thousands of dollars a month. Last time I checked it topped out at like $900 in alaska (food costs are insane in AK) and the lowest benefit per month was like $170 in mississippi (this is for a family of three but it does not drastically increase for a bigger family). Most states are somewhere in the 4-600 range.

So although it might not be a lot of hours it''s something. It''s better than before when NOTHING was required of them. And it''s not like they''re earning the big bucks here.

 

[Gypsy]

Granted I'm not an authority on welfare policy. But this thread has made me interested enough to at least look at the links provided for the studies and... um, Vesper it looks like Neatfreak actually did disprove the bulk of what you are stating.

Maybe you just thought she was trying to convert you with her obvious agenda to educate people on what is apparently a VERY misunderstood topic, and you overlooked it. But she corrected you several times over. With proof. And links. And reasoned explanations of the same. So I'm not really sure what you are still arguing for... or against. Because you do seem to be contradicting, well... the facts. Repeatedly. In fact, the study you keep citing as your proof contradicts you. So maybe you should go read it again???

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:26:02 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 10:15:31 PM
Author: LisaRN

Date: 1/7/2010 10:04:26 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 9:58:14 PM

Author: LisaRN

Why can''t we get some of the welfare recipients who are not working do some public service like shovel snow, cut grass and clean the streets?

This is exactly what they DO require. If an able bodied welfare recipient can''t get work they have public service jobs available that they require them to participate in.


It''s not just a blank check handout anymore. There are time limits, work requirements, and job search requirements.


Quite honestly for the amount of money you get (which is TINY in a lot of states) it''s probably less work to get a job and work it than it is to apply for and continue to receive welfare.


I think many of us take it for granted that we can go out and get hired at a Mickey D''s if we need work. But many people just can''t do that. For intelligence reasons, disability, or lack of schooling or work history.


It''s a LOT of paperwork and meetings believe it or not!

Are you sure? I know that in principle that is what is supposed to happen. I had a family member (5 kids, three live in boyfriends, ect...) who ''Worked'' for her benefits. What a joke. She cleaned the Human Services building. She ''Worked'' 4 hours three times a week and emptied the trash and vacuumed for her benefits. She complained a lot about it. I was working two jobs and did not feel the sympathy at the time.

Am I sure about what? That they have to work? Yes I am sure that there are work requirements for most people. It''s not full time because it''s expected that they are supposed to be job hunting too. The benefit amount is also really small-it''s not like they''re making thousands of dollars a month. Last time I checked it topped out at like $900 in alaska (food costs are insane in AK) and the lowest benefit per month was like $170 in mississippi (this is for a family of three but it does not drastically increase for a bigger family). Most states are somewhere in the 4-600 range.

So although it might not be a lot of hours it''s something. It''s better than before when NOTHING was required of them. And it''s not like they''re earning the big bucks here.

I see your point. I am sorry it is a misunderstaning on my part. I did not think working 12 hours a week was really working. And she never spent 28 hours a week attending meetings and actively looking for a job. But I am not an expert. I will bow out of this thread now as it seems a little too hot in here for me.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I understand that the issue is not as cut and dry as what I posted but I think there does need to be a much greater deal of personal responsibility encouraged inherently in the US system. Perhaps voluntary sterilization for benefits isn't the answer (as someone who can't tolerate any kind of hormonal-based treatment I get that, but there is something wrong with having more children when you can't support the ones you have. what bothers me though is that in many ways that is just the tip of the iceberg...

I completely agree with NF about the huge difference between the urban poor and the rural poor. I grew up in a very rural area that was hard hit by the demise of the steel industry. My BF lived in a trailer park and was on welfare of most of our childhood, well over half of my class was on the free state-run health care for kids, and over 50% qualified for free lunch. My family qualified for food stamps and free lunch, but made do with canning, gardening, buying bulk at food coops, and in general living very frugally when I was young b/c they didn't want to take government assistance unless absolutely necessary.

Now I live in NYC. I had a "little sister" in a very rough part of Harlem for over two years and was amazed at the difference between rural poverty and urban poverty. Though the family had many more social programs available to them than were available where I grew up, and my "little sister" was HIV positive which required an even greater amount of medical care, they faced challenges of space (there were two elderly guardians and 9-13 kids living in the less than 1000 sq foot three bedroom section-8 apartment), nutrition, and safety that were very different than the rural poor.

The poor where I grew up were usually skinny, literally not getting enough to eat (most food was vegetables or beans or other things that could be grown). Most people where I grew up had enough space but houses were often cold, heating oil was watched strictly (my parents kept our thermostat at 55 degrees), and having a car was a necessity for life--gas often superseded food in the budget hierarchy.

Most of the member's of my little sister's family were overweight/obese. They had access to food, but it was high in fat, sodium, and carbohydrates. My "little sister's" 21 year old actual older sister lived in a shelter, was completely supported by government assistance (which she had been on for at least 3 solid years), had a baby, and 11 months later had another baby! These babies both quickly became obese toddlers whose weight was so great their legs couldn't support them. My little sister fractured her leg and was kept home from school for 12 weeks! with no tutoring!!! A teacher was supposed to be coming and homeschooling her, but didn't, and the one time they did come it was someone who was so uneducated themselves, they didn't understand the basic 7th grade science they were supposed to be teaching her. She did not leave her apartment for 12 weeks!

Despite the daily visits from counselors, social workers, teachers, medical professionals, and child/family services workers (ACS), there was not an understanding of nutrition, baby care, or education. The guardian was completely overwhelmed, raising her 13 grandchildren and great grandchildren. She was well into her 70s, had medical issues, and was very tired.

Food stamps, medicaid, section 8 housing, wic, those programs benefit many people who really need them, but they are broken, are abused by a large number of people, do not promote independence, and often don't reach the people who need them the most.

This was really illustrated to me when I was in grad school in Baton Rouge. I ended up housing evacuees from New Orleans in my house for many months after the storm. There were all kinds of benefits available including emergency FEMA money and food stamps. These were people I didn't know so they came form many different backgrounds/situations, of the 5 people who stayed with me, their access to benefits was striking...

1. The two professionals got the minimum mount of emergency benefits they needed very quickly and we able to move back to NO about 2 1/2 months after the storm as soon as the city began to re-open in earnest

2. The two students got their maximum benefits (which neither desperately needed b/c their families lived in unaffected areas and had previously been helping them pay their tuition) and used their extra money to pay spring tuition and go back to school

3. The people who were already living off of government benefits were pretty comfortable with the system, falsified some of their information and got extra food stamps--several families I knew managed to get full food stamp amounts for every adult living in the house by using different addresses for each one and claiming they were the head of household...(they got 4 times the allotment they should have)

4. The one person who really, really needed it got nothing. She had no idea how to navigate the system...someone, most likely her ex-husband, used her SS# to get her FEMA benefits. She had no idea how to refute that, where to go to find out about benefits, how to use a computer or look for benefit information there, or even how to navigate the complicated benefits phone hotlines. She had nowhere to go, her apartment was not damaged but her job (working at a small corner deli making minimum wage) was gone. She had no clothes, no way to get back to New Orleans, no job, no support system, no medical care, and no money. In all, she got $99 in food stamps in the 6 months after Katrina, nothing else. She lived in a church-run shelter for 4 months before she came to stay with me for several months.

If the government is going to offer these kind of benefits (which I understand are much less than the government previously offered), the government is supposed to act as an equalizer so that the people who need the most assistance get the most, and then help them to work towards living independent lives. It does not seem to work like that.

Sorry for the giant tirade, I wish I knew a solution but I don't right now. I'm glad that people like NF who are much more stats/public policy oriented are chiming in. I hope that a solution can be articulated and policies can change so that government programs can help people in more real and meaningful ways. In the meantime, I'll just keep engaging with the issues on more grassroots levels and volunteering where I can, and getting the patience to slog through the stats

...(NeatFreak, I don't know how you do it!

)

and P.S. Yes, if the Dr sterilized the woman without her consent he was wrong and should no longer practice medicine, end of story.

 

[neatfreak]

Lisa No need to apologize. I was just presenting the other side of the story which is that people aren''t really receiving that much money. I agree that 12 hours isn''t a lot but it''s better than nothing and it''s not like they are "earning" $100 an hour for their work.

There''s a big misconception that people on welfare are living the high life from the $ when in reality it isn''t even enough to pay rent and put the food on the table.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I was on WIC when my daughter was a baby - my husband was military and we were living in a really crappy part of San Leandro while he was stationed in Alameda (for 6 mos of that year he was in the persian gulf) and if you qualify on a military salary - why wouldn''t I take it? It was a very hard year financially because rent was so high and we didn''t get enough to compensate for that. I''ve had people give me a hard time about that before, but who cares what they think. My husband was serving his country and getting a pittance for it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with supplementing your income in that way - that''s what IT''S FOR.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 1/7/2010 6:53:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/7/2010 3:02:53 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/7/2010 7:21:10 AM

Author: vespergirl

Neatfreak, I am highly educated and am informed about welfare policy. I also vote in every election, so I do participate in shaping policy decisions. However, just because I am a Libertarian and disagree with some of your positions on welfare, it doesn''t make me ignorant or uninformed. All that it means is that I haven''t been brainwashed into agreeing with your agenda. In fact, I find that people like yourself who attack others for differing opinions are frequently coming from a position of insecurity in their own arguments. Why make it a personal attack if you can just make a solid argument and leave it at that?

hold on - irony meter alert! saying that you haven''t been brainwashed isn''t a personal attack? ha! Just sayin''.

 

[4ever]

While I don''t agree with her choices, I agree with the lawsuit. It''s beyond arogant for those doctors to assume they know what''s best and have the right to take away someones ability to have children. They may perform miricales at times, but they are not gods.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/8/2010 2:36:26 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
I was on WIC when my daughter was a baby - my husband was military and we were living in a really crappy part of San Leandro while he was stationed in Alameda (for 6 mos of that year he was in the persian gulf) and if you qualify on a military salary - why wouldn''t I take it? It was a very hard year financially because rent was so high and we didn''t get enough to compensate for that. I''ve had people give me a hard time about that before, but who cares what they think. My husband was serving his country and getting a pittance for it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with supplementing your income in that way - that''s what IT''S FOR.

I had to calm myself down before I could even reply to this. How can we do this to our soldiers and their families? Ask people to kiss and hug their loved ones goodbye, possibly forever,and treat them this way? THIS is where our tax money should go. To help these families who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Instead our elected officials vote to bail out banks and insure millions of dollars in bonuses that we will continue to pay for years. It''s unconscionable.

As for the woman in question, obviously no one has the right to make that decision for her. Do I wish she had come to that conclusion herself? Yes. But it is up to her. If she needs assistance she should get it. The real losers here are her children who grow up in this cycle, which is tragic. As Neatfreak has so clearly illustrated, Welfare, which doesn''t provide much,is at the very least a misnomer.

Our country and our government should be ashamed of how we treat our military and their families

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/8/2010 9:10:09 AM
Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/8/2010 2:36:26 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
I was on WIC when my daughter was a baby - my husband was military and we were living in a really crappy part of San Leandro while he was stationed in Alameda (for 6 mos of that year he was in the persian gulf) and if you qualify on a military salary - why wouldn't I take it? It was a very hard year financially because rent was so high and we didn't get enough to compensate for that. I've had people give me a hard time about that before, but who cares what they think. My husband was serving his country and getting a pittance for it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with supplementing your income in that way - that's what IT'S FOR.

I had to calm myself down before I could even reply to this. How can we do this to our soldiers and their families? Ask people to kiss and hug their loved ones goodbye, possibly forever,and treat them this way? THIS is where our tax money should go. To help these families who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Instead our elected officials vote to bail out banks and insure millions of dollars in bonuses that we will continue to pay for years. It's unconscionable.

As for the woman in question, obviously no one has the right to make that decision for her. Do I wish she had come to that conclusion herself? Yes. But it is up to her. If she needs assistance she should get it. The real losers here are her children who grow up in this cycle, which is tragic. As Neatfreak has so clearly illustrated, Welfare, which doesn't provide much,is at the very least a misnomer.

Our country and our government should be ashamed of how we treat our military and their families

There are also many many thousands of people that work very hard everyday at these banks that had absolutely NOTHING to do with why things went wrong. How do you determine which "family" gets help and which gets thrown out onto the street. I started a thread regarding my company yesterday, and we have had 5 waves of layoffs dating back to March of 2008, which was about 6 months before the market fell. If it were not for the government bailout, which my company has paid all of back, there would be thousands and thousands more people needing government assistance... at least this way, the gov't actually gets back, what they put into the problem.

Chera WAS given help. What more are you asking the government to do? She said it was a hard time, but they made it thru, which is what the gov't assistance is supposed to do. Help you "make it".

ETA:
But this thread isn't about the the government's spending choices... My apologies for getting "side tracked"

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/8/2010 9:32:57 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 1/8/2010 9:10:09 AM

Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/8/2010 2:36:26 AM

Author: Cehrabehra

I was on WIC when my daughter was a baby - my husband was military and we were living in a really crappy part of San Leandro while he was stationed in Alameda (for 6 mos of that year he was in the persian gulf) and if you qualify on a military salary - why wouldn't I take it? It was a very hard year financially because rent was so high and we didn't get enough to compensate for that. I've had people give me a hard time about that before, but who cares what they think. My husband was serving his country and getting a pittance for it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with supplementing your income in that way - that's what IT'S FOR.

I had to calm myself down before I could even reply to this. How can we do this to our soldiers and their families? Ask people to kiss and hug their loved ones goodbye, possibly forever,and treat them this way? THIS is where our tax money should go. To help these families who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Instead our elected officials vote to bail out banks and insure millions of dollars in bonuses that we will continue to pay for years. It's unconscionable.



As for the woman in question, obviously no one has the right to make that decision for her. Do I wish she had come to that conclusion herself? Yes. But it is up to her. If she needs assistance she should get it. The real losers here are her children who grow up in this cycle, which is tragic. As Neatfreak has so clearly illustrated, Welfare, which doesn't provide much,is at the very least a misnomer.


Our country and our government should be ashamed of how we treat our military and their families

There are also many many thousands of people that work very hard everyday at these banks that had absolutely NOTHING to do with why things went wrong. How do you determine which 'family' gets help and which gets thrown out onto the street. I started a thread regarding my company yesterday, and we have had 5 waves of layoffs dating back to March of 2008, which was about 6 months before the market fell. If it were not for the government bailout, which my company has paid all of back, there would be thousands and thousands more people needing government assistance... at least this way, the gov't actually gets back, what they put into the problem.


Chera WAS given help. What more are you asking the government to do? She said it was a hard time, but they made it thru, which is what the gov't assistance is supposed to do. Help you 'make it'.


ETA:

But this thread isn't about the the government's spending choices... My apologies for getting 'side tracked'

My problem is not with the people who work at banks, so I apologize if that is the way it came across. I resent millions of dollars of tax money going to pay for large bonuses while military families have a hard time making ends meet. I guess because you work at a bank, you are interpreting this as a personal attack, but it is not. And I think that any family who needs help should get it. But I think that we should hold military service in higher regard than we do. Not higher than everybody else, but higher than we currently do. If people are willing to make such sacrifices to protect our freedom, they shouldn't need to ask for government assistance. I am "asking the government" to treat our soldiers better than they do, and to use our tax money more wisely so that it actually helps people who need it. And incidentally, how can you have a discussion about welfare and not talk about the government's spending choices?