View Full Version : Conservative dancers
malayataylor
06-29-2010, 03:32 PM
Malaya I am very happy to hear that your child's father is in her life! Some people just don't understand that if you aren't together, you still have a kid together, and it's a sad situation for the kids of people like that. I'm very glad that he's a good person though.
I think it's less the wedlock thing and more the running from responsibility thing that bothers me. You can have children out of wedlock and still be together. You can have children out of wedlock and still provide for them. What makes me mad is situations like mine where people use their kids as bait or blackmail. :(
I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm just suprised that single moms were being singled out when I know alot of people that are well of that abuse the system and alot of single moms that have way too much pride and do all they can for their kids and don't indulge in that nonsense. I can't knock the people that fuck with the system ..like I said, the system needs to be fucked. I just don't have that much time on my hands and I don't want the government on my ass PLUS I'm wayy to proud to go that route.
Yes I do see it as stealing from someone but I don't get involved in other people's business just like I don't wanting them getting involved in mine.
bambiblue
06-29-2010, 05:43 PM
I agree with alot of what you say, but one thing that bothers me ALOT more is that the system doesnt do much to enforce child support laws... and let's face it...as long as the government is giving it away... people are going to take it.
I once worked with a "lady" who had 6 kids... 4 of which were in daycare... she would tip the house mom 20 bux to fill out a tip slip for her so the state would think she was at work... so basically hard working tax payers paid 18$$ an hour for her to go do whatever she wanted..pretty disgusting IMO but between that... insurance for 6 kids, housing assistance, heating assistance, and food stamps...it would almost be stupid for her to go to work...
There is definately alot of abuse in our system, but there are some people who actually NEED the help. Unfortunately our government pushes enabling vs. education and life skills...
Harleigh HellKat
06-29-2010, 05:50 PM
Exactly. The system doesn't enforce men to be responsible for having children. I went to high school with a girl whose father had 19 kids by different women and didn't take care of any of them. What the hell???
Kellydancer
06-29-2010, 08:26 PM
I agree with alot of what you say, but one thing that bothers me ALOT more is that the system doesnt do much to enforce child support laws... and let's face it...as long as the government is giving it away... people are going to take it.
I once worked with a "lady" who had 6 kids... 4 of which were in daycare... she would tip the house mom 20 bux to fill out a tip slip for her so the state would think she was at work... so basically hard working tax payers paid 18$$ an hour for her to go do whatever she wanted..pretty disgusting IMO but between that... insurance for 6 kids, housing assistance, heating assistance, and food stamps...it would almost be stupid for her to go to work...
There is definately alot of abuse in our system, but there are some people who actually NEED the help. Unfortunately our government pushes enabling vs. education and life skills...
And the sad thing is the people who need help the most rarely get help because of the freeloaders. That's what makes me sick with the system.
Harleigh HellKat
06-29-2010, 08:31 PM
^Exactly. I had a friend whose grandmother couldn't get more than 40 bucks a month in food stamps, yet I'd see large families with 600 or more dollars a month in FS buying junk food and soda. Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Two carts full of this crap.
Kellydancer
06-29-2010, 08:37 PM
I used to live in an area where all you'd see were people on welfare. I'd go to the dentist (I later switched because most of his patients were welfare) and see these women come in with 6 kids, nails and hair done, but all on welfare. Then I'd go to the store and see these people with carts of junks, on food stamps. Last Christmas I saw this woman on Link Card (Illinois welfare system) trying to buy electronics. Now in Illinois people on welfare can get free cell phones and they are trying to allow them to get free internet. So much abuse. Meanwhile I know people unemployed who can't qualify for the Link Card because funds are limited.
I do agree with you about the whole dad thing and that pisses me off too. It is not fair that men get off scot free. Luckily they are starting to go after the dads more and they should. Let them pay and maybe these guys doing it will stop. I once met a guy who had several babies by various women (all on welfare) and it upset me.
SteveSmith
06-30-2010, 10:27 AM
Nothing has angered me more than the U.S. Treasury being ripped off for 7 trillion by the banksters. Our national debt went from 5 1/2 trillion to 12 1/2 trillion overnight, yet our Congressmen don't care that we've been ripped off.
As far as Americans getting welfare and other subsidies that they shouldn't, I'm not really mad about that. We're fighting trillion dollar wars for special interests and we've just been ripped off for 7 trillion. I don't care about some single mom on welfare.
Another rip off that pisses me off is that Federal employees, with benefits included, are getting paid almost twice as much as the private sector for the same job.
The whole system is about to collapse soon anyway, so a lot of these rip-offs are coming to an end. I can't wait. }:D
I consider myself a Pat Buchanan conservative. I do not support the phony conservatism of Rush, Hannity, Beck, RNC, who support trillion dollar bankster rip-offs, nation building, wars for empire, big government, big debt, etc. Fuckin' hypocrites.
Here's one candidate that I like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA&feature=player_embedded
She's hot! ;D
hot4ablackchick
06-30-2010, 02:59 PM
These threads always make my head ache. I don't think anyone (or at least very few) have kids just to 'stay on' welfare. Does anyone know how much benefits increase per child? Not very much. If you factor in the cost of diapers, baby goods, it is very apparent that you are not living it up by having another baby. They may just have problems and I find that these kind of women have a deeper set of problems. Many are depressed and having a baby they can't afford makes them feel better. Its more liking the attention/joy of a new baby, than "extra welfare benefits." Unfortunately doing it on the tax payers dime is the problem. There is no right way to do things. There are incentives for working. If a welfare recipient is working 40 hours a week then welfare will buy her a car, or if she has a car, they will keep it running so she can get to work. Yes benefits go down if you bring in income, but I got about $420 a month in cash and $480 a month in food stamps. You really think thats living it up??
If people are working under the table thats one thing, but you almost have to do something on the side in order to have anything or get anywhere. No matter how many incentives are given for "working poor" the kind of people who take advantage won't care, because they don't see anything wrong with it, or they feel too hopeless to do anything about it. You can't get a welfare check for more than 3 years in my state anyway. If the state gives out handouts, then it sucks, if it doesn't then it is letting children starve. Either way it can't win. It is also entirely possible to get benefits and be married. I know a married girl who cheats the system, and welfare is based mostly on income not marital status.
I have no issue with single parents and I don't think that is "the problem." OTOH, I don't support single parenthood because I don't think its best for children and I believe they will thrive better living with both parents. I don't care about finances. People have kids they can't afford even while they are married. Of course there are always exceptions, but a loving two parent home always beats a loving 1 parent home. Nothing against single parent homes, just being honest. Being married previous to having kids doesn't change things a bit. A deadbeat will become a deadbeat whether you married him/her or not. My hubbys ex-wife is a deadbeat and they were married for THREE YEARS BEFORE THEY HAD KIDS!! She doesn't pay a dime of child support and rarely visits with her kids. People marrying for the sake of kids is NOT going to help anything.
Of course it makes sense if married couples have a tougher time getting welfare, because there is not a child care aspect involved. One of you can be at home while the other works. Simple. With a single parent it is more murky. The state also has to weigh the issue of day care costs. Day care is expensive, so it may cost less for people to simply stay home, than to pay for mom's child care she can't afford, and cut her some sort of check and food stamps JUST so she can make ends meet. I think the state(s) are well aware of the problems, the solution just cost more than the problem.
Welfare issues are not so black and white. I don't think this is a very important thing. There are much BIGGER problems like our food, war, finacial crisis, and environmental problems, that inpact or future more than some asshole taking advantage of the system.
Another pet peeve is that people get angry when people on food stamps buy junk like cheetos and soda. Then they get angry if people on food stamps buy a steak or lean meats that the person not on welfare can't afford. Which do you want?? Do you want the welfare recipients to live off ramen noodles, cheetos, and soda? Or do you want them to buy good food and feed themselves nutritiously?? People get all up in arms about more people using food stamps at pricier "speciality" stores (like whole foods) but get pissed if they feed themselves junk. Nothing will make people with these sort of judgemental attitudes happy. If you see a cart loaded with fresh veggies, fruit, steak, organic bread and cereal, and "exotic" yogurt and cheese, and lean meat, you go,
"Oh hell no!!! Not on my dime!! I can't even eat that good!!" People using food stamps can't win. Deep down I don't think you really "care" about what they buy. The sheer fact that they are using food stamps is irratating.
I don't know what can fix it, but it will start with changing people's attitudes and better family support. Every single person I knew who lived off welfare and had no problems with it, had some serious issues.
kthnx
06-30-2010, 04:49 PM
wow ... I'm appauled! @ The O.P, so single mom's are the cause of all your problems.
My sister is a married and she abuses the hell out of the system, My neighbor (white woman/40s) flies for U.S airways and she's married, SHE abuses the system and even encouraged me go downtown and file. However, I've never made the trip to social services. I've always had my own health insurance, make frequent trips to harris teeter to buy my own food with MY own money not the government's and I'm not receiving little checks every month. It's funny how you put people in a category: single moms. You really need to open your eyes and take a closer look at the world around you.
Oh and I'm black.. as black as they come. I also live in a nice home and drive a nice car. SHOCKER!
My thing is .. I don't have enough time on my hands to start reporting people. I have a life and a busy one at that. The time I use to write the IRS or whatever you do to report them I can spend it making money / being productive!
malaya, i think what kelly meant was (or atleast how i feel) "single moms who abuse welfare/govt programs"...such as the two girls i wrote about in my post, #28...but this obviously does NOT apply to u, since u work hard, have money to show for it, and you use your own money to support you and your daughter. since you work hard and contribute to the meaning of capitalism, plz do not take offence as it does not apply to you.
kthnx
06-30-2010, 05:01 PM
Is there something wrong with acknowledging a disability?
no there isnt, provided u actually HAVE a valid disability. in my opinion a "valid" disability is something like: hearing impairment, visual impairment, copd, ongoing chronic cancer, bein confined to a wheelchair or crutches, autism, mental retardation, etc (the list goes on and on as there are many disabilities). what i see as "wrong" is being a disability-less person who: a) pretends/lies bout having a disability or b) freely admits having no disabilities AND is childless/dependent-less but is still too inferior to be able to make it on his/her own with only him/herself to support.
speaking bout myself here, i do NOT have any disabilities. i do not have any physical or mental disabilities; i am in good health. i am old enough that im well into adult yrs and have all the opportunities normal adults have, but young enough (20s) to still be energetic and in good health. furthermore, i come from a decent background and i have an education...a postbac college education in fact. ive had no major catastrophes or natural disasters (e.g., hurricane katrina or the haitian earthquake) wrecking my life. so there should be NO reason for someone bright and disability-less like me to NEED welfare or medicaid, unless im like, too socially retarded to either ace an interview for a strait job or be able to make $$ from guys at a stripclub.
so if little disability-less me here needed to go on welfare or medicaid, yep i would feel pretty darn stupid...hence vowing to avoid welfare or medicaid even if i ever qualified for it (assuming i stayed disability-less).
kthnx
06-30-2010, 05:29 PM
but I got about $420 a month in cash and $480 a month in food stamps. You really think thats living it up??
actually, a number of yrs ago i was living with a bf and for a while we were really poor (lived in a ghetto, lacked a car, and all that). we spent $25/wk on groceries for the two of us adults...rice-n-beans or ramen every day. 1-2 meals/day. so yea by that standard of living $480/mo to spend on food would have been "livin it up". then again i realize most people spend alot more on food than $12.50/wk at walmart or aldis like we did.
If people are working under the table thats one thing, but you almost have to do something on the side in order to have anything or get anywhere. No matter how many incentives are given for "working poor" the kind of people who take advantage won't care, because they don't see anything wrong with it, or they feel too hopeless to do anything about it.
You can't get a welfare check for more than 3 years in my state anyway.
that is a baby step in the right direction for the state.
Being married previous to having kids doesn't change things a bit. A deadbeat will become a deadbeat whether you married him/her or not. My hubbys ex-wife is a deadbeat and they were married for THREE YEARS BEFORE THEY HAD KIDS!! She doesn't pay a dime of child support and rarely visits with her kids. People marrying for the sake of kids is NOT going to help anything.
true that!! i know of atleast TWO people in that exact situation. one is my best guy friend's mom. she waited til marriage just to have sex, then waited 5yrs into the marriage before trying for a baby to make sure the marriage was stable enough, had a kid (aka my best guy friend), then BAM -- only a few short yrs later "dear hubby" was sluttin it up with his secretary, then one day outta the blue up and left my friend's mom for the secretary (who he's ironically still happily married to with 2 kids of their own today, 30 yrs later >:(). so yea here's a woman who not only waited til marriage for kids, but sex too(!) and STILL ended up a single mom with not a penny of child support.
my best girl friend's mom was in the exact same situation as my best guy friend's mom. she got married, waited a few yrs to have kids, had my friend and another daughter, then the asshole dad abandoned them one day. he was a much bigger jerk than my guy friend's dad...so bad, in fact, that one day i created a lowkey facebook site so i could send him an angry email bout how shitty a dad he was to my friend and her sister (yes, he's so immature at age 50something he actually has a facebook lol).
Welfare issues are not so black and white. I don't think this is a very important thing. There are much BIGGER problems like our food, war, finacial crisis, and environmental problems, that inpact or future more than some asshole taking advantage of the system.
i hate to sound like a republican dick, but deflecting from the welfare topic is a typical democrat/liberal response ive noticed. u mention financial crisis tho in the list of big problems...i agree...and i think welfare programs, including CORPORATE welfare given to companies like goldman sachs, add to it and perpetchuate it!!
Another pet peeve is that people get angry when people on food stamps buy junk like cheetos and soda. Then they get angry if people on food stamps buy a steak or lean meats that the person not on welfare can't afford. Which do you want?? Do you want the welfare recipients to live off ramen noodles, cheetos, and soda? Or do you want them to buy good food and feed themselves nutritiously??
thing is, there are alot of nutritious foods that alot of people seem to overlook that are lowkey and cost way less than steak or specialty meats. kale, spinach, asparagus, eggs, and whatever fruit is in season and therefore on sale (and fresh!). soups are good too, very filling, and even cheaper & more nutritous if u make them yourself from fresh veggies. i find these kinds of foods are cheapest at local farm markets or at ethnic grocery stores like indian or asian stores. they cost more than ramen would, but less than delicacy meats OR junk food...and pack alot more vitamins. (isnt most junk food overpriced these days anyhoo?)
I don't know what can fix it, but it will start with changing people's attitudes and better family support. Every single person I knew who lived off welfare and had no problems with it, had some serious issues.
i agree. in post #28 i describe two "welfare mooches" i had the "pleasure" of knowing at one point or another, and one of those girls was also a pathological liar and definitely had some seirous issues!!
overall, hot4ablackchick, i appreciated the thorough detailed response u gave on this thread. i agree with some of ur points but im glad to see people really thinking deep bout these kinds of issues. hope ive taken enough time to respond to all of your points. kudos!
kthnx
06-30-2010, 05:38 PM
Being against people who abuse the system is not strictly a conservative viewpoint. It's WHERE you look at those abuses that marks the difference. Conservatives are concerned about poor people stealing a few hundred bucks, liberals about large corporations who steal a few hundred billions.
well i hate both types of thieves. the bigwigs at goldman sachs AND my pathological liar welfare mooch "friend" can ALL go to hell.
MsChaos
06-30-2010, 05:44 PM
Exactly. The system doesn't enforce men to be responsible for having children. I went to high school with a girl whose father had 19 kids by different women and didn't take care of any of them. What the hell???
At most they require that you put in for child support.
Now I dont qualify for Medicaid or Daycare assistance because my child support is a measly $20 more than what TANF gives.
I get $230 a month in child support. Id that really supposed to help with rent + daycare ect ect?
daycare is $105 a week. ( and thats cheap) That adds up to a fucking car payment! For a nice ass damned car. I've been on a wait list for MONTHS to try to get help with it. (they go by your income)
Luckily my daughter gets medicaid, but I dont qualify. Even when I was working 40+ hours a week at a call center, I was paying $200 a month for health insurance. They only wanted to pay $2,000 out of the $38,000 for my surgery.
I hate that its so easy for others to abuse the system by simply saying " i dont know who the father is. "
btw. youd all hate this city.
Kellydancer
06-30-2010, 09:26 PM
malaya, i think what kelly meant was (or atleast how i feel) "single moms who abuse welfare/govt programs"...such as the two girls i wrote about in my post, #28...but this obviously does NOT apply to u, since u work hard, have money to show for it, and you use your own money to support you and your daughter. since you work hard and contribute to the meaning of capitalism, plz do not take offence as it does not apply to you.
Exactly. I am not bothered by single people who have kids without being married. I mean those who have kids and are on assistance. I know a few women who chose to be single moms but pay for their kids. I probably wouldn't choose it, but to each their own. Sadly, most of the single parents I've known were of the welfare type. The majority of the guys I knew who had out of wedlock babies left the mother and the baby ended up on welfare because he didn't want to pay.
Kellydancer
06-30-2010, 09:29 PM
no there isnt, provided u actually HAVE a valid disability. in my opinion a "valid" disability is something like: hearing impairment, visual impairment, copd, ongoing chronic cancer, bein confined to a wheelchair or crutches, autism, mental retardation, etc (the list goes on and on as there are many disabilities). what i see as "wrong" is being a disability-less person who: a) pretends/lies bout having a disability or b) freely admits having no disabilities AND is childless/dependent-less but is still too inferior to be able to make it on his/her own with only him/herself to support.
speaking bout myself here, i do NOT have any disabilities. i do not have any physical or mental disabilities; i am in good health. i am old enough that im well into adult yrs and have all the opportunities normal adults have, but young enough (20s) to still be energetic and in good health. furthermore, i come from a decent background and i have an education...a postbac college education in fact. ive had no major catastrophes or natural disasters (e.g., hurricane katrina or the haitian earthquake) wrecking my life. so there should be NO reason for someone bright and disability-less like me to NEED welfare or medicaid, unless im like, too socially retarded to either ace an interview for a strait job or be able to make $$ from guys at a stripclub.
so if little disability-less me here needed to go on welfare or medicaid, yep i would feel pretty darn stupid...hence vowing to avoid welfare or medicaid even if i ever qualified for it (assuming i stayed disability-less).
That worst date I mentioned in a previous thread was getting disability for panic attacks and OCD. I think this is bs because I slightly have both and I refuse to get diability for either. I've been told I should get disability for arthritis, but my opinion is I'm not bad enough not to work, why should I take from those who need it?
hot4ablackchick
06-30-2010, 11:48 PM
actually, a number of yrs ago i was living with a bf and for a while we were really poor (lived in a ghetto, lacked a car, and all that). we spent $25/wk on groceries for the two of us adults...rice-n-beans or ramen every day. 1-2 meals/day. so yea by that standard of living $480/mo to spend on food would have been "livin it up". then again i realize most people spend alot more on food than $12.50/wk at walmart or aldis like we did.
Yes, its better, but surviving on on very little money was not living it up. Sure compared to some people, I did have it better. It doesn't make someone's situation great. There is someone that would kill to have what little food you had, but it doesn't make your situation less unfortunate. And if I decided to live off ramen, then whatev, but I would NEVER force my kids to live off ramen and garbage food for the sake of the pride. The situation you describe is different because its you and a BF. I wouldn't advise anyone to forgo their health or the health of their child for pride.
i hate to sound like a republican dick, but deflecting from the welfare topic is a typical democrat/liberal response ive noticed. u mention financial crisis tho in the list of big problems...i agree...and i think welfare programs, including CORPORATE welfare given to companies like goldman sachs, add to it and perpetchuate it!!
I'm not trying to deflect, but there are much larger issues than people stealing a couple hundred dollars a month. I mean really. I have lived in the ghetto/subsidized housing. It sucks. I saw women who lived there with their hair/nails done, and wearing the latest fashions all the time. I also saw hard working people who were trying to get out of it. I saw people who didn't care and had no nice things, but they didn't seems to want to work and cared little about their life. The women in the first category are the ones most find irratating, but they usually had some ghetto drug dealer boyfriend giving them money. These people have nothing of real value. Most people abusing the system are not strippers making 50k a year. Of course it is wrong and its a problem, but some people have a lot of misconceptions. I was shocked to see how little I got, because of all the things I heard about "moochers." Of course if you are a stripper and you are making good money and not reporting, you may be "living it up." Most welfare recipients are not in this category however.
thing is, there are alot of nutritious foods that alot of people seem to overlook that are lowkey and cost way less than steak or specialty meats. kale, spinach, asparagus, eggs, and whatever fruit is in season and therefore on sale (and fresh!). soups are good too, very filling, and even cheaper & more nutritous if u make them yourself from fresh veggies. i find these kinds of foods are cheapest at local farm markets or at ethnic grocery stores like indian or asian stores. they cost more than ramen would, but less than delicacy meats OR junk food...and pack alot more vitamins. (isnt most junk food overpriced these days anyhoo?)
I just don't understand the irratation of what a welfare recipient is buying. If the food is too "expensive" and "good" people are mad. If the food is too cheap, people are mad. I LOVE seeing people buying their kids good food. Kudos to them. I'm not going to be pissy because I can't afford it. It doesn't make me angry to see them buy junk either. Most parents (I am guilty of it myself) buy too much junk food. I don't get all bent out of shape if the lady in front of me at the gas station buys her kids some cheetos and soda, and pays with food stamps. Hell, my son had some cheetos today, and he had a mountain dew last week. Why should I pass judgement on someone whom I don't know? Maybe she never lets them eat junk, but this a treat, a special day, or she is just cranky and is indulging them so that they will 'shut up and enjoy their junk food' or whatever. Maybe she uses her food stamps to buy junk all the time, but parents who don't recieve food stamps do so as well. Either way, I don't support people feeding their kids large amounts of junk. I'm not going to condem someone just because they used food stamps to buy the junk.
Its irratating to me that the same people who are shitty with the cheeto buying mom, would be shitty with the mom buying healthy organic food. Ridiculous to me and no matter what they do, they will be judged. The same amount of money goes on the food stamps every month regardless of what is bought. As long as the parent budgets accordingly, you can buy an array of food. I bought junk and lots of healthy food. I bought lean meat and a steak or two. Is indulging a child in junk food (in moderation) the worst thing in the world?? NO. I'd rather see a parent buying good food, because the junk is just going to cost taxpayers more in the long run!! The obesity related health problems can be avoided and is pretty big expense right now.
i agree. in post #28 i describe two "welfare mooches" i had the "pleasure" of knowing at one point or another, and one of those girls was also a pathological liar and definitely had some seirous issues!!
I don't think I've ever met a truly happy person who mooched off the system. I agree they always had some sort of issue! Most were depressed and miserable, even if it was not apparent to an outsider. Most came from terrible situations. Like they were raised in foster care, abused, not raised by their parents or in a particulary loving environment, raised on welfare themselves, or had zero family support, as was in my case. It was more mental issue, than a lazy issue, but lazy is a factor. The strippers earning 50k a year is a different story however, but as I said before they don't make up the vast majority.
overall, hot4ablackchick, i appreciated the thorough detailed response u gave on this thread. i agree with some of ur points but im glad to see people really thinking deep bout these kinds of issues. hope ive taken enough time to respond to all of your points. kudos!
Same here! I do understand your frustration, but it always seems like welfare moochers are more 'picked on,' than the bigger problems that affect us.
Kellydancer
07-01-2010, 12:16 AM
Same here! I do understand your frustration, but it always seems like welfare moochers are more 'picked on,' than the bigger problems that affect us.
You do make some great points, it's just that I have seen so many examples of fraud that when I see anyone using the Link Card I wonder. I think that the banks mooching off the system is a bigger problem, but a mooch is a mooch. I do not judge people when they are buying healthy food at the store and wish they would be allowed to buy better products. I know there was a bill (either here in Illinois or nationwide) that would allow foodstamps used for farmers markets and I agree with that. Btw, I know this wasn't mentioned but I do support lunch programs at school. I don't want children to starve. I do have a problem with any parent (on food stamps or not) buying their kids junk food all the time. If I have kids I'll buy junk food at times, but will not be the mother who buys junk food everyday. I don't want obese kids with health problems.
Harleigh HellKat
07-01-2010, 12:37 AM
I actually think they should be encouraged to buy healthier food to decrease obesity. However, lobster tails are a little overkill.
I'm sorry, people that weigh 600 lbs don't really need any extra help. :( I would love to see low income families making healthy decisions, because I know how hard it is to eat healthy when you can't afford it.... which is my current situation.
Mr Hyde
07-01-2010, 11:16 AM
These threads always make my head ache. I don't think anyone (or at least very few) have kids just to 'stay on' welfare. Does anyone know how much benefits increase per child? Not very much. If you factor in the cost of diapers, baby goods, it is very apparent that you are not living it up by having another baby. They may just have problems and I find that these kind of women have a deeper set of problems. Many are depressed and having a baby they can't afford makes them feel better. Its more liking the attention/joy of a new baby, than "extra welfare benefits." Unfortunately doing it on the tax payers dime is the problem. There is no right way to do things. There are incentives for working. If a welfare recipient is working 40 hours a week then welfare will buy her a car, or if she has a car, they will keep it running so she can get to work. Yes benefits go down if you bring in income, but I got about $420 a month in cash and $480 a month in food stamps. You really think thats living it up??
If people are working under the table thats one thing, but you almost have to do something on the side in order to have anything or get anywhere. No matter how many incentives are given for "working poor" the kind of people who take advantage won't care, because they don't see anything wrong with it, or they feel too hopeless to do anything about it. You can't get a welfare check for more than 3 years in my state anyway. If the state gives out handouts, then it sucks, if it doesn't then it is letting children starve. Either way it can't win. It is also entirely possible to get benefits and be married. I know a married girl who cheats the system, and welfare is based mostly on income not marital status.
I have no issue with single parents and I don't think that is "the problem." OTOH, I don't support single parenthood because I don't think its best for children and I believe they will thrive better living with both parents. I don't care about finances. People have kids they can't afford even while they are married. Of course there are always exceptions, but a loving two parent home always beats a loving 1 parent home. Nothing against single parent homes, just being honest. Being married previous to having kids doesn't change things a bit. A deadbeat will become a deadbeat whether you married him/her or not. My hubbys ex-wife is a deadbeat and they were married for THREE YEARS BEFORE THEY HAD KIDS!! She doesn't pay a dime of child support and rarely visits with her kids. People marrying for the sake of kids is NOT going to help anything.
Of course it makes sense if married couples have a tougher time getting welfare, because there is not a child care aspect involved. One of you can be at home while the other works. Simple. With a single parent it is more murky. The state also has to weigh the issue of day care costs. Day care is expensive, so it may cost less for people to simply stay home, than to pay for mom's child care she can't afford, and cut her some sort of check and food stamps JUST so she can make ends meet. I think the state(s) are well aware of the problems, the solution just cost more than the problem.
Welfare issues are not so black and white. I don't think this is a very important thing. There are much BIGGER problems like our food, war, finacial crisis, and environmental problems, that inpact or future more than some asshole taking advantage of the system.
Another pet peeve is that people get angry when people on food stamps buy junk like cheetos and soda. Then they get angry if people on food stamps buy a steak or lean meats that the person not on welfare can't afford. Which do you want?? Do you want the welfare recipients to live off ramen noodles, cheetos, and soda? Or do you want them to buy good food and feed themselves nutritiously?? People get all up in arms about more people using food stamps at pricier "speciality" stores (like whole foods) but get pissed if they feed themselves junk. Nothing will make people with these sort of judgemental attitudes happy. If you see a cart loaded with fresh veggies, fruit, steak, organic bread and cereal, and "exotic" yogurt and cheese, and lean meat, you go,
"Oh hell no!!! Not on my dime!! I can't even eat that good!!" People using food stamps can't win. Deep down I don't think you really "care" about what they buy. The sheer fact that they are using food stamps is irratating.
I don't know what can fix it, but it will start with changing people's attitudes and better family support. Every single person I knew who lived off welfare and had no problems with it, had some serious issues.
I didn't read your whole post but there are most certainly people that have kids (and more kids) just to get government aid.
Kellydancer
07-01-2010, 11:24 AM
I actually think they should be encouraged to buy healthier food to decrease obesity. However, lobster tails are a little overkill.
I'm sorry, people that weigh 600 lbs don't really need any extra help. :( I would love to see low income families making healthy decisions, because I know how hard it is to eat healthy when you can't afford it.... which is my current situation.
When I moved to this one area many years ago I was making little money (right before I started dancing) and would buy things cheap so I could afford on my salary. I would see people on welfare buying lobster tails and expensive food while I bought my tuna fish and hot dogs. I resented it because I was paying taxes yet I couldn't afford lobster tails.
ArmySGT.
07-02-2010, 04:59 PM
Exactly. The system doesn't enforce men to be responsible for having children. I went to high school with a girl whose father had 19 kids by different women and didn't take care of any of them. What the hell???
Was he in the opening for "Idiocracy"?
Harleigh HellKat
07-02-2010, 10:30 PM
Lolz! That movie was ridiculous. It does remind me of the way our society is going.
Kellydancer
07-02-2010, 10:37 PM
That is a great movie and yes I see this world being like that in a few hundred years (or sooner).
Harleigh HellKat
07-02-2010, 10:40 PM
Probably sooner than later!
flickad
07-03-2010, 08:31 AM
I don't see anything wrong with having kids out of wedlock so long as you're able to care for them. Having kids you can't care for is another story.
I'm pro-choice but also believe in being responsible for your choices. Prevention is always better than cure. Not that I'm against cure, but it seems stupid not to try and prevent.
I wouldn't call myself at all conservative in most respects (except that I do believe in actual punishment for violent crime, which it seems some left-leaning types don't), but I agree that abusing the social safety net system is a huge problem, mainly because it won't be there for those who really need it if too much abuse goes on. Like everything else, the system must be paid for, and it is paid for via taxation. It is not sustainable without the people who work and pay that tax. I believe in trying, in a humane way, to move people from welfare to work if they're able to work and jobs are available. It's always better to support yourself than to receive hand outs, though of course sometimes hand outs are necessary when times are bad or for other reasons.
I feel that these are common sense views rather than necessarily conservative ones. My own political views are probably a mish mash though, and they've evolved as I've gotten older. I support social democracy in some respects and libertarianism in others. I'm also a capitalist but like certain aspects of socialism with respect to things like medical care. So, I don't know what you'd call me. *Shrug*.
flickad
07-03-2010, 08:42 AM
What you are discussing is the society created by the Democratic party, where there is a system in places handing out freebies (essentiallly bribes) they hope will get them support. The programs they champion, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, are all going under. Meanwhile, it was the Republicans who ended slavery, Jim Crow laws, and passed the civil rights acts of the 60's over the objections of people like Al Gore's father and the now late Sen. Byrd (RIP), the former klansman, both prominent Dems. For minorities, particularly African-Americans, to attack Conservative stances on things is ridiculous. Black folks were quite conservative as a group till the handouts started. Unfortunately now, in the long term, they are ther biggest victims (as a group) of the cradle-to-grave nanny state.
While this is true, it's also disingenuous. The Republican and Southern Democratic parties of Lincoln's day were very different beasts to what they are now.
I feel that both conservatives and liberals each have something to offer in certain respects and that the best systems are often hybrid ones.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't see anything wrong with having kids out of wedlock so long as you're able to care for them. Having kids you can't care for is another story.
Several people have stated they had kids out of wedlock, and said they are supporting them. I have no problem with that, but then a few of the same people admitted they get some sort of assistance. See, now that's a contradiction. Either someone is supporting their kids entirely or they are getting assistance, but getting any form of assistance means they aren't entirely supporting their kids. That is a problem with single parenthood and why more and more people aren't getting married.
I'm pro-choice but also believe in being responsible for your choices. Prevention is always better than cure. Not that I'm against cure, but it seems stupid not to try and prevent.
I support abortion rights, what I don't support are those people who use abortion as a form of birth control. They make those who are pro choice look bad. Abortion is not intended for that.
I wouldn't call myself at all conservative in most respects (except that I do believe in actual punishment for violent crime, which it seems some left-leaning types don't), but I agree that abusing the social safety net system is a huge problem, mainly because it won't be there for those who really need it if too much abuse goes on. Like everything else, the system must be paid for, and it is paid for via taxation. It is not sustainable without the people who work and pay that tax. I believe in trying, in a humane way, to move people from welfare to work if they're able to work and jobs are available. It's always better to support yourself than to receive hand outs, though of course sometimes hand outs are necessary when times are bad or for other reasons.
I feel that these are common sense views rather than necessarily conservative ones. My own political views are probably a mish mash though, and they've evolved as I've gotten older. I support social democracy in some respects and libertarianism in others. I'm also a capitalist but like certain aspects of socialism with respect to things like medical care. So, I don't know what you'd call me. *Shrug*.
I believe in punishment and feel the justice system is too lenient. There have been child murderers who have been released and this is wrong. I get those who accidentally kill someone, but if you intentionally kill someone you should never be released, especially kids (I support the death penalty for kid killers). I know the justice system doesn't always work (here in Illinois many have been exonerated) especially if one is poor, so I'd like to make sure someone is without a doubt guilty. I do not feel those on drugs should be imprisoned either and think it's wrong that drug addicts usually get more prison time than murderers or rapists.
I also support requiring those on welfare to work, even if it's a volunteer job (while getting benefits).
flickad
07-03-2010, 12:00 PM
^^
Abortion essentially is birth control; it's just not the most efficient way to go about it. it's cure, not prevention. It's better than having kids you aren't in a position to care for, but using preventative methods like condoms or the pill is better still. It just makes sense to have safe sex or take the pill rather than have to undergo a medical procedure later.
I agree with you on the main re the justice system (it's very lenient in my state) but fence-sit a bit on the death penalty. I'm pretty libertarian re drugs and feel they should be treated as a health issue and not a justice one. Violent crime and sex offences - throw the book, in my view.
I think volunteer work would be good for people on unemployment who have no disability.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 12:06 PM
In the strictest sense abortion is birth control, but it shouldn't be used as such. I knew people who used it as that, and that makes me livid. People should be using the pill, condoms, etc and abortion should be an after thought. Of course there are the situations where people intended to get pregnant and found out the baby would be either a health risk either to the mother or to the baby. Then of course there are situations like rape where birth control wasn't an option. That's what I tell people who are anti abortion, that abortion isn't a cut and dried situation. Sure, people misuse it (those who keep getting abortions) but if it is outlawed the cases where it is needed (rape, health of mother, deformed fetus, etc) will be affected.
I am mixed on the death pentalty because too many innocent have been executed. If I know someone is definitely guilty of murder, I have no problem them being executed (unless it was an accident situation).
Volunteering is good for anyone, but my fear is that they would require it for those on unemployment and not those on welfare. I got unemployment awhile back and volunteered because that's how I am (plus it looks good on resumes). I think in general the system is harsher to those on unemployment, though people on unemployment still have to pay taxes, unlike those on welfare. People on unemployment have to fill out pages of places they applied, welfare doesn't as far as I know. Also, unemployment has a limit, unlike welfare.
flickad
07-03-2010, 12:11 PM
In the strictest sense abortion is birth control, but it shouldn't be used as such. I knew people who used it as that, and that makes me livid. People should be using the pill, condoms, etc and abortion should be an after thought. Of course there are the situations where people intended to get pregnant and found out the baby would be either a health risk either to the mother or to the baby. Then of course there are situations like rape where birth control wasn't an option. That's what I tell people who are anti abortion, that abortion isn't a cut and dried situation. Sure, people misuse it (those who keep getting abortions) but if it is outlawed the cases where it is needed (rape, health of mother, deformed fetus, etc) will be affected.
I'm personally not bothered by people who use it as birth control since foetuses don't experience pain for the first 24 weeks at least (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1076357). I just think it is stupid. But it doesn't make me angry.
flickad
07-03-2010, 12:16 PM
I am mixed on the death pentalty because too many innocent have been executed. If I know someone is definitely guilty of murder, I have no problem them being executed (unless it was an accident situation).
Volunteering is good for anyone, but my fear is that they would require it for those on unemployment and not those on welfare. I got unemployment awhile back and volunteered because that's how I am (plus it looks good on resumes). I think in general the system is harsher to those on unemployment, though people on unemployment still have to pay taxes, unlike those on welfare. People on unemployment have to fill out pages of places they applied, welfare doesn't as far as I know. Also, unemployment has a limit, unlike welfare.
Yeah, for me it is the innocence issue. Plus I'm not a big fan of killing per se. But some people have done such heinous things that it hurts to think they are allowed to live. So, I'm mixed.
Re - welfare - I'm not really sure what you're talking about because where I live we have a different social security system. I refer to it as 'welfare' when I'm talking to Americans, because it's easier, but social security here is mostly for the unemployed and is not time limited, though we do have job seeking and other requirements attached (namely mutual obligation, which can take the form of a work for the dole scheme for longer-term unemployed people). There's also a single parents' pension here and pensions for the disabled and aged too - is that the sort of spectrum that's covered by welfare as opposed to unemployment in the US?
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 12:30 PM
Yeah, for me it is the innocence issue. Plus I'm not a big fan of killing per se. But some people have done such heinous things that it hurts to think they are allowed to live. So, I'm mixed.
Re - welfare - I'm not really sure what you're talking about because where I live we have a different social security system. I refer to it as 'welfare' when I'm talking to Americans, because it's easier, but social security here is mostly for the unemployed and is not time limited, though we do have job seeking and other requirements attached (namely mutual obligation, which can take the form of a work for the dole scheme for longer-term unemployed people). There's also a single parents' pension here and pensions for the disabled and aged too - is that the sort of spectrum that's covered by welfare as opposed to unemployment in the US?
I don't believe in the death penalty across the board, because there are many variations. For instance people lose their temper and kill someone, should they be held to the same standard as a serial killer? It's not the same for everyone and for many murderers I'd be fine with them in prison for life.
Our system is considerably different. Social security is usually for those who paid in and are older. There is also SSI which is disability but sometimes this is abused by people claiming disabilities that really aren't. There might be another form of disability but not sure. Unemployment insurance are situations where people lost their job through no fault of their own and get money for a set time usually 6 months-1 year. In unemployment people have to fill out a list of everywhere they applied. Welfare is generally given (at least in Illinois) to those who don't work (or make little) if they have children.In Illinois this program is abused and that is why many (including me) would like to see limits like there is with unemployment. I believe those on social security and SSI have to pay taxes (which in the case of social security, and maybe SSI is double taxing) along with unemployment, but welfare doesn't.
flickad
07-03-2010, 12:34 PM
^^
Oh, welfare sounds a lot like our single parents' pension.
It's hard to abuse disability here. You get checked out by your own specialist (who has to write a report and provide a history) plus one nominated by the government.
Here unemployed people also have to fill out lists of places they applied for work and hand them in to Centrelink (which I guess is like the welfare bureau) fortnightly. If they don't find work within a certain period, they receive intensive job-seeking help. If that doesn't work, they have to do volunteer work or a training course. People who quit their job or lose it through misconduct aren't eligible for unemployment (officially called Newstart and unofficially called the dole) until some time has passed.
You can choose whether to have tax taken out of your benefit before receiving it or not, but if you don't work part-time or casually on top of it (within the limits of the program - they are means tested, so people earning more than a certain threshold aren't eligible), you'll probably be under the threshold for taxation anyway. If you do earn a taxable amount and don't get tax taken out before receipt, you will have to pay tax in a lump sum at the end of the financial year no matter which benefit you receive. People on a benefit get about half the minimum wage.
Dirty Ernie
07-03-2010, 12:52 PM
In the strictest sense abortion is birth control, but it shouldn't be used as such. I knew people who used it as that, and that makes me livid. People should be using the pill, condoms, etc and abortion should be an after thought.
Don't you find it a little difficult to be opposed to babies being born to single moms without the financial means to support them while wanting to end abortions as birth control? Wouldn't lack of the latter lead to more of the former?
And while i know you don't consider yourself a Republican, if, at the polls, you support their alleged small gov't position, you have to take their social conservatism with it. which includes preventing young people access to reproductive education and preg prevention methods (outside of that fabulously effective abstinence pledge).
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 01:07 PM
Don't you find it a little difficult to be opposed to babies being born to single moms without the financial means to support them while wanting to end abortions as birth control? Wouldn't lack of the latter lead to more of the former?
And while i know you don't consider yourself a Republican, if, at the polls, you support their alleged small gov't position, you have to take their social conservatism with it. which includes preventing young people access to reproductive education and preg prevention methods (outside of that fabulously effective abstinence pledge).
I didn't say I wanted to end abortions, I don't like when people use it solely as birth control. Big difference. People need to take more responsibility on abortions and use birth control. I am aware birth control doesn't always work but not talking that either. I know someone who had 6 abortions because she couldn't be "bothered" to use condoms. In theory I feel abstinence is the best, but I realize many people don't. If I had teens, I'd prefer they didn't have sex, but would tell them about their options if they did. Incidentally, I have tried to talk several friends into having abortions because in their situations it would have been best. As for the single parents on welfare, many (not all) do get pregnant just to get assistance. It's part of the culture where we accept the baby daddy, baby mama situations and this isn't good. It's not cool to have kids by various people just to have them.
As for Republicans, I never said I support smaller government. I just think that many things can be cut. I saw abuse of financial means at my last job. Incidentally, the people in power at my last job were Republicans and they waste just as bad as Democrats. I don't want to cut programs, just the waste (though I support welfare limits and illegals being ineligible for welfare). I do not support the religious right and think they are dangerous.
Laurisa
07-03-2010, 04:44 PM
Several people have stated they had kids out of wedlock, and said they are supporting them. I have no problem with that, but then a few of the same people admitted they get some sort of assistance. See, now that's a contradiction. Either someone is supporting their kids entirely or they are getting assistance, but getting any form of assistance means they aren't entirely supporting their kids. That is a problem with single parenthood and why more and more people aren't getting married.
The only reason my family, including my son, receives medicaid (which is the only type of 'assistance' we receive) is because his Dad couldn't find work anywhere that would pay him a reasonable wage except under the table. It's not pretty, he's denied insurance benefits, overworked and way underpaid, they slash his hours and pay without any warning, he's had dead animals put in his car by his co workers as a practical joke, and had fire crackers let off in the bathroom when he was peeing. He also had to work three full days over a weekend shortly after our son was born (WITHOUT pay) down in Detroit to cover a car show, and wound up spending over $100 in gas, food and parking structure fees. Mind you our son was still in the hospital.
IF he could find full time work that paid above minimum wage he'd take it. At least that way he wouldn't be abused and mistreated at work. Initially we could afford insurance, but after 8 hour/week hour cuts and a $1.50/hour wage cut it's no longer practical. I was on private insurance and my son's father was uninsured while I was pregnant. Initially, we planned on buying a private insurance policy...but our son was born almost 2 1/2 months prematurely and he was automatically added to our medicaid case before we had time to do so. After his Dad's pay was cut we were unable to afford insurance, even though he does still work OVER 40 hours per week and should be entitled to health insurance benefits at work.
So, circumstance dictates. I don't believe that because someone is receiving state assistance they aren't 'supporting' their children. Support is when you see your child struggling to breathe weighing a mere 4 lbs from their first breath on, and still have the strength to support them every step of the way even though you are scared to death. Cutting a check is monetary support, and there are far more important factors out there than that in life. My private insurance policy that I still have through my father (medicaid only covers my co-pays) is VERY good insurance, 80/20 BCBS. However, if my son had been on that policy... I would have had to dish out about $8,000 before it capped off on my annual limit. I don't have that money, and I can assure you $8,000 could be better spent on my son elsewhere.
You have children, yes? If you are offered free baby items or free childcare are you not fully supporting your child? Ever ask a relative for $20 to make the rent? Feed yourself? Everyone receives SOME degree of help when they have a child, and sometimes it is very little and sometimes it is way too much. I don't think you should be so judgmental though, because circumstance could put you in a bad position one day. You could break a leg and be unable to dance, then what? Do you have disability insurance? A completely stable savings? What if you get into a car accident and are paralyzed? Would you be less of a parent if you needed disability from the state? Life is full of surprises, don't take it for granted please.
Laurisa
07-03-2010, 04:47 PM
Oh, and by the way, I know PLENTY of married couples who don't have 'bastard' children that are unemployed, receiving unemployment, food stamps, welfare, you name it and their marital status at the time of conception played absolutely no role in preventing their current disposition.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 05:03 PM
I am judgemental because I don't want to support kids not my own? No that's called I'd rather support myself. Btw, I am so tired of these women (not saying this is your situation) who decide to be stay at home mothers and get welfare of any kind. As far as I am concerned, one shouldn't stay at home unless they can support their children, through no government aid. Yes, I am aware people lose jobs, but when people decide they want to stay at home and get any form of assistance then I have a problem. I would love to be a mother one day, but I can't afford to now so I am making sure I don't get pregnant. That is what others should do. Even when I get pregnant I will not be a stay at home mom because that's not for me. Yes, I will continue to judge women who would rather get welfare than work.
And btw, I am disabled to some extent because I have arthritis. I do not take from the government because I am capable of working. Besides, the state likely wouldn't give me money because in Illinois only parents matter. So basically if I had an out of wedlock child I'd have it made but that would not be a good choice for a child starting life that way.
sxcbbw
07-03-2010, 07:26 PM
"Well, I COULD provide for my children - who I planned to have solely for money, regardless of nine months of illness and some excruciating labour - I COULD do that, get a well paying job just by walking out the door, which would improve my situation AND pay for childcare, but I'm going to sit on my ass and live in abject poverty instead because it's hella fun."
That is legit their thought process. It's all a choice. None of these chicks need to be on welfare. They're all capable of juggling a baby and a job at once - and of course, they could get a job if they wanted. We all know how many jobs there are going at the minute. But unfortunately, people on welfare get like, I dunno, 80 grand a year and live in penthouses. Why would they change their way of life? It's so comfortable. Obv.
wanderlust08
07-03-2010, 07:35 PM
A lot of people are victims of circumstance. I'm a single mom of two kids, divorced. The ex-hubs just randomly decided to up and leave one day, sold the car, furniture, even my babies' clothing. Pretty much we were left with the clothes on our back and that was it (this is when my daughters were 10 months old and a little over 2 years old). In that case, I believe I would have had every right to get assistance. We ended up staying with my parents for a little while though, and we're doing okay now, not on any type of assistance whatsoever.
But in the cases of hubs dropping the ball like mine did, what else are women supposed to do? Not everyone is going to be like me and say "fuck it, I'll be an escort." and they shouldn't have to either. The kids shouldn't have to starve to death because their father is a douchebag.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 08:58 PM
"Well, I COULD provide for my children - who I planned to have solely for money, regardless of nine months of illness and some excruciating labour - I COULD do that, get a well paying job just by walking out the door, which would improve my situation AND pay for childcare, but I'm going to sit on my ass and live in abject poverty instead because it's hella fun."
That is legit their thought process. It's all a choice. None of these chicks need to be on welfare. They're all capable of juggling a baby and a job at once - and of course, they could get a job if they wanted. We all know how many jobs there are going at the minute. But unfortunately, people on welfare get like, I dunno, 80 grand a year and live in penthouses. Why would they change their way of life? It's so comfortable. Obv.
There really is no excuse to sit on their butt doing nothing and getting welfare. Sure there aren't many jobs now, so I get that, but if need be they can work at McDonalds and places like that. I have no problem with them still getting welfare if need be while working, I just have a problem with those who choose not to work. I've seen so much abuse that is has made me sick. For every decent person trying to better themselves on welfare there's one who is too lazy to work.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 09:02 PM
A lot of people are victims of circumstance. I'm a single mom of two kids, divorced. The ex-hubs just randomly decided to up and leave one day, sold the car, furniture, even my babies' clothing. Pretty much we were left with the clothes on our back and that was it (this is when my daughters were 10 months old and a little over 2 years old). In that case, I believe I would have had every right to get assistance. We ended up staying with my parents for a little while though, and we're doing okay now, not on any type of assistance whatsoever.
But in the cases of hubs dropping the ball like mine did, what else are women supposed to do? Not everyone is going to be like me and say "fuck it, I'll be an escort." and they shouldn't have to either. The kids shouldn't have to starve to death because their father is a douchebag.
This is why I always tell women never to depend on a man. I would never rely soley on a man's income and why I would never be a stay at home wife. Too many stories like that.
sxcbbw
07-03-2010, 09:09 PM
^And what if they can't get a job picking up trash, even? What if the jobs they can get - if they can - don't pay as much as childcare costs? What if, even in a good economy, sleepless nights, getting puked on, and looking after a baby, leaves that person unable to participate in work?
Every person that isn't you, is a person whose situation you will never be fully aware of. I'd like you know what government agency you get your statistics from, as opposed to anecdotal, personal experiences.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 09:33 PM
Then they can do what working mothers (single and married do) work around it. In most cases they can get childcare so that's not an excuse. There is no excuse for someone not to work unless they truly can't find a job (common in this economy) or they are disabled. Otherwise, they have to learn to deal. I certainly will if I have kids. As for welfare fraud, years ago I worked for one of the agencies and saw these women who chose not to work. I also know many women who chose not to work. Fine if someone wants to stay at home, I don't want to support their "choice" when most mothers don't have that luxury.
Laurisa
07-03-2010, 10:24 PM
There really is no excuse to sit on their butt doing nothing and getting welfare. Sure there aren't many jobs now, so I get that, but if need be they can work at McDonalds and places like that. I have no problem with them still getting welfare if need be while working, I just have a problem with those who choose not to work. I've seen so much abuse that is has made me sick. For every decent person trying to better themselves on welfare there's one who is too lazy to work.
LOL a job at McDonalds and a baby. First off, you'll be lucky to work even 30 hours at McDonalds, let alone full time. Second of all, the going rate at McDonalds and many of the available jobs out there are MINIMUM WAGE. Do you know how much a good day care costs? About $700-$800 a month. Now, note, I said GOOD. Sure, you can find some two bit home daycare with ten kids and one caregiver that costs $70 a week, but this is your precious child, ya know? If you work 40 hours a week making $7.50 an hour you'll receive about $1200 monthly. After taxes maybe about $850-$900. So, you might make an extra $100 dollars or so a month after child care costs. That doesn't seem worth it to me, I'd rather be with my son than have $100 in my pocket which will barely pay the electric and a week's worth of food. Many moms stay home on welfare because they are working with their caseworkers to go to school and get a degree to stay off welfare. In my state you can only use welfare for like four years of your entire life... that still leaves 14 years of parenting if you start receiving it the day your child is born. Welfare helps people because they require you to go to school or find work/maintain employment. The idea is to give you the skills to be independent of the state eventually.
So, for most moms, it's not about being "too lazy to work", it's about being practical and realizing that they can't afford to work for minimum wage without state aid...even if that's just childcare cost assistance!!
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 10:37 PM
Then if one can't afford a child, use birth control. Simple and logical. So what if they have to take a minimum wage job. I did, so can they. In fact I did it while I was going to school. And in most states those on welfare can get childcare so that's paid for. That's an excuse to be lazy.
Laurisa
07-03-2010, 10:41 PM
O_o I can't win.
You said you don't have a child... or do you? I'm confused now. If you don't then what you just said made NO sense because you working minimum wage is not the same as someone with another mouth/mouths to feed. Secondly, you said that accepting help from the state is not 'supporting' your children...but it's ok if you are working. So, it's okay to accept welfare and daycare assistance as long as you are employed, yes? Why isn't it okay to want to bond with your child while you go to school and get a meaningful degree with state aid? Not everyone wants to strip or escort to support their family, we are the exception.
I personally believe that welfare is a great program as long as you utilize the employment and academic resources provided. Oh wait...if you don't you won't receive it anyway, whaddya know? ::)
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 10:46 PM
It doesn't matter if I have kids or not, because I won't have them UNTIL I can support them. So what if someone wants to bond with their kids, NOT on my dime. They need to get their butts out there and work. They should receive welfare if they don't make a lot, if they CHOOSE not to work they shouldn't get a dime. Why should they? I'm going to be a working mother, and most women I know are, why are welfare mothers the exception? If anything they are the ones who should be working because they get assistance from MY tax dollars.
wanderlust08
07-03-2010, 11:02 PM
This is why I always tell women never to depend on a man. I would never rely soley on a man's income and why I would never be a stay at home wife. Too many stories like that.
Ohhh, I get it. It's my fault! Thanks for clearing that up.
Seriously, get off your high horse, not everyone is as lucky or "perfect" as you think yourself to be.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Ohhh, I get it. It's my fault! Thanks for clearing that up.
Seriously, get off your high horse, not everyone is as lucky or "perfect" as you think yourself to be.
I didn't say it was your fault. It's your husband's. However women should be able to protect themselves in the event of a divorce. That's common sense. I never said I was lucky or perfect, however I managed to not have kids I couldn't support and end up on welfare. Women who end up on welfare need to go after the guys as well.