Another cheat bites the dust.
PAUL
convicted twice in the last 15 years. This time she was on TANF and food
stamps. But she remarried, got another SSN (that is still legal for women)
and worked under her NEW SSN, but got TANF under the old one. And she
claimed she didn't know where the father of the kids were (it is the guy she
married). This all came to light when he was arrested for TANF arrears after
a traffic stop revealed the bench warrant. He is a long-haul trucker and
gone 6 days a week.
The total household income was over $100K, yet this woman went on welfare
with her two kids and got $546/mo for 33 months; and another $300/mo in food
stamps. (a total of almost $28,000) If it weren't for her hubby who ran a
light she might still be doing it. BTW, it took authorities 14 days to
decide to let HIM go free.
This is the MOST common abuse of TANF: women receiving assistance while
married to, and/or living with, the father of the children. But why are we
surprised? Our laws almost encourage this kind of cheating. Paul Laird
--
The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
by those against whom it is practiced.
jennifer
have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
Here's some things I found out about being on welfare:
I cannot date, because if my caseworker sees me in town with the same guy more
then 3 times a week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud. They
don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't staying over at my
house, just being seen with him can do it. We call them Pecker Detectors.
Because they believe if you are seen with the same guy for a couple of times
then you are obviously sleeping with him, therefore receiving money. You know
how I know this, hey threaten to kick me off because i was hanging around a male
friend of mine when my caseworker came up to me and told me.
Another thing I found out is that if you receive welfare you have no rights.
They can do pretty much what they want because you need that money. They make
you sign away all your secrets. Like your bank account number. They have all
access to anything in some sort of file about you.
I have sympathy for this lady. She probably has good reason. She probably
doesn't get enough from welfare to feed her children so she had to fraud the
system.
They do send you notices saying how much you are allowed to spend and on what.
20 dollars on clothes for your child, 34 for your clothing. only 17 dollars for
miscellaneous. 85 for food and 200 for rent.
Live on that and see what desperate measures you come to.
If she was doing it just to get rich then she was wrong and should get the book
thrown at her. If she was doing it to feed her children then the system should
be the one getting the book in the face.
please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
stereotype that is not always true.
Jenn
fried
wrote:
Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
Julian
PaulOK
Washington State DCS requires personal service on a parent before a
collection action will be undertaken. A contempt motion is a last
resort that is only taken after everything else, except perhaps a license
suspension, is tried. A contempt order would have to be issued before
a bench warrant is issued.
The father had to know that a support obligation had been established and
must have been taking actions to avoid payment.
I suspect that he was a participant in the fraud. Why shouldn't he be
prosecuted?
Some father's advocates have proposed that the laws be changed to
allow a person to receive both TANF and child support as a reform to
encourage father's to be involved with their kids. Another proposal is
to allow married parents to receive TANF.
PaulOK
Char
it. And you said she was convicted twice...is that "before" this
incident? I don't see why they let her back on welfare the second
time after being convicted the first time. The third, with a new
name and SSN though, would be hard to realize she'd been there
before. They need to start handing out some serious jail time for
these kind of offenses.
PAUL wrote:
>
> Washington arrested another welfare cheat today. She has already been
> convicted twice in the last 15 years. This time she was on TANF and food
> stamps. But she remarried, got another SSN (that is still legal for women)
> and worked under her NEW SSN, but got TANF under the old one. And she
> claimed she didn't know where the father of the kids were (it is the guy she
> married). This all came to light when he was arrested for TANF arrears after
> a traffic stop revealed the bench warrant. He is a long-haul trucker and
> gone 6 days a week.
>
> The total household income was over $100K, yet this woman went on welfare
> with her two kids and got $546/mo for 33 months; and another $300/mo in food
> stamps. (a total of almost $28,000) If it weren't for her hubby who ran a
> light she might still be doing it. BTW, it took authorities 14 days to
> decide to let HIM go free.
>
> This is the MOST common abuse of TANF: women receiving assistance while
> married to, and/or living with, the father of the children. But why are we
> surprised? Our laws almost encourage this kind of cheating. Paul Laird
>
> --
> The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
> by those against whom it is practiced.
--
Char (remove WV from address to reply)
***********************************************************
Get paid to surf the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
My pages:
http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
http://www.techtrek.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5946/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9362/index.html
***********************************************************
Char
her kids. She did it because she's an immoral, self-righteous,
ignorant....well, you know the rest.
> Jenn
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
>
> Julian
I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo. The
only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor. Apparently if you
have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
being poor.
I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own. They provide
you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
didn't "earn" in the first place. Where I grew up, I was taught
to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
Sunny
<kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
Abolish welfare! Poor people should be given jobs, not handouts!
jennifer
Char wrote:
> fried wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> > >have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
That depends. They shouldn't say what you can spend it on but what you shouldn't. Eg.
Liquor, ciggerates, stuff you don't need.
> They provide
> you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> didn't "earn" in the first place.
Nothing is free. i don't know what it's like where you live but i have to be either
going to school full time (i am) or activly looking for a job. If i am not in school i
only have a couple of months to find a job.
> Where I grew up, I was taught
> to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>
>
> --
> Char (remove WV from address to reply)
> ***********************************************************
> Get paid to surf the web:
> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
>
> http://www.travelzoo.com/
>
> My pages:
> http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
> http://www.techtrek.com
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5946/index.html
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9362/index.html
> ***********************************************************
Why embarrased if it allows me to get an education so i can get a job that pays more
then minumum wage, in the future? It allows me to raise my daughter and spend what
little time I have with her. Don't think i am not trying to get off welfare. I am.
When i finish my education.
jennifer
be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford to?
What about Corprate welfare?
It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
Sunny wrote:
> In article <37678731...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> > have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>
jennifer
reasons they should throw the book at her. She is taking from others that need it.
Char wrote:
> Jennifer! The family income was 100K! She didn't do this to feed
> her kids. She did it because she's an immoral, self-righteous,
> ignorant....well, you know the rest.
>
> jennifer wrote:
> >
> > This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> > have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> > Jenn
> > PAUL wrote:
> >
> > > Washington arrested another welfare cheat today. She has already been
> > > convicted twice in the last 15 years. This time she was on TANF and food
> > > stamps. But she remarried, got another SSN (that is still legal for women)
> > > and worked under her NEW SSN, but got TANF under the old one. And she
> > > claimed she didn't know where the father of the kids were (it is the guy she
> > > married). This all came to light when he was arrested for TANF arrears after
> > > a traffic stop revealed the bench warrant. He is a long-haul trucker and
> > > gone 6 days a week.
> > >
> > > The total household income was over $100K, yet this woman went on welfare
> > > with her two kids and got $546/mo for 33 months; and another $300/mo in food
> > > stamps. (a total of almost $28,000) If it weren't for her hubby who ran a
> > > light she might still be doing it. BTW, it took authorities 14 days to
> > > decide to let HIM go free.
> > >
> > > This is the MOST common abuse of TANF: women receiving assistance while
> > > married to, and/or living with, the father of the children. But why are we
> > > surprised? Our laws almost encourage this kind of cheating. Paul Laird
> > >
> > > --
> > > The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
> > > by those against whom it is practiced.
>
Lawrence Lucier
bites the dust.*
a> fried wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer
>> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My
>> sympathies, as a UK resident. And I hope, on a purely human level,
>> that you take such an awful system for all you can get - the people
>> who run it deserve it. Julian
a> I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
May I suggest you reread the bit on "Pecker Detectors"?
a> The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor. Apparently if
a> you have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
a> being poor.
a> I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
a> after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own. They provide
a> you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
a> free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each and
a> no one really has any rights to complain about what they didn't
a> "earn" in the first place.
a> Where I grew up, I was taught to say "thank you" when I received
a> help from people who were not in the least bit obligated to me.
Yeppers, no ifs, buts or ands about this fact.
a> I was taught to be embarrassed by charity. Nothing wrong with
a> charity when you need it, but if it doesn't embarrass you,
a> something's definately out of kilter.
Have to take extreme exception with this statement though, Char. Receiving
needy charity is nothing to be ashamed or embarassed about; it's a fact of life
that some people will need to receive some form of charity along the way.
Repayment of that charity, does not necessarily take the form of returning
monies; it can be passed along to society at large purely by the charitable
actions that a person shows to others. IE, donating time and/or resources for
others in needy circumstances.
As an aside, I have seen this kind of topic discussed before, to which the point
was raised, that even none needy people are subsidized in various ways and
therefore could be classified as receiving "charity". Guess it all depends on
personal perspective.......<shrug>
--- Sqed/32 1.14/r15155
--- Squish->SOUP by TAM
Lawrence Lucier
bites the dust.*
k> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare
k> because I have to be. Not everyone abuses it. Here's some things I
k> found out about being on welfare: I cannot date, because if my
k> caseworker sees me in town with the same guy more then 3 times a
k> week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud. They
k> don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't
k> staying over at my house, just being seen with him can do it. We
k> call them Pecker Detectors. Because they believe if you are seen
k> with the same guy for a couple of times then you are obviously
k> sleeping with him, therefore receiving money. You know how I know
k> this, hey threaten to kick me off because i was hanging around a
k> male friend of mine when my caseworker came up to me and told me.
I would suggest you avail yourself of legal-aid and talk to a lawyer regarding
this issue. Sounds like a case of your worker abusing their authority IMHO.
k> Another thing I found out is that if you receive welfare you have
k> no rights. They can do pretty much what they want because you need
k> that money. They make you sign away all your secrets. Like your
k> bank account number. They have all access to anything in some sort
k> of file about you.
Just like being a NCP, eh? <grin>
k> I have sympathy for this lady. She probably has good reason. She
k> probably doesn't get enough from welfare to feed her children so
k> she had to fraud the system. They do send you notices saying how
k> much you are allowed to spend and on what. 20 dollars on clothes
k> for your child, 34 for your clothing. only 17 dollars for
k> miscellaneous. 85 for food and 200 for rent. Live on that and see
k> what desperate measures you come to. If she was doing it just to
k> get rich then she was wrong and should get the book thrown at her.
k> If she was doing it to feed her children then the system should be
k> the one getting the book in the face.
k> please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like
k> this add to the stereotype that is not always true. Jenn PAUL
k> wrote:
>> Washington arrested another welfare cheat today. She has already
>> been convicted twice in the last 15 years. This time she was on
>> TANF and food stamps. But she remarried, got another SSN (that is
>> still legal for women) and worked under her NEW SSN, but got TANF
>> under the old one. And she claimed she didn't know where the father
>> of the kids were (it is the guy she married). This all came to
>> light when he was arrested for TANF arrears after a traffic stop
>> revealed the bench warrant. He is a long-haul trucker and gone 6
>> days a week. The total household income was over $100K, yet this
>> woman went on welfare with her two kids and got $546/mo for 33
>> months; and another $300/mo in food stamps. (a total of almost
>> $28,000) If it weren't for her hubby who ran a light she might
>> still be doing it. BTW, it took authorities 14 days to decide to
>> let HIM go free. This is the MOST common abuse of TANF: women
>> receiving assistance while married to, and/or living with, the
>> father of the children. But why are we surprised? Our laws almost
>> encourage this kind of cheating. Paul Laird -- The evil of tyranny
>> is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt by those
>> against whom it is practiced.
Brytani
jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3767CD37...@ns.sympatico.ca...
>
> > They provide
> > you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > didn't "earn" in the first place.
>
> Nothing is free. i don't know what it's like where you live but i have to
be either
> going to school full time (i am) or activly looking for a job. If i am not
in school i
> only have a couple of months to find a job.
>
education, the vast majority of us that are paying for your welfare had to
do the same thing. Plus we WORK to pay for it. I'm so sorry for your
inconvenience.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > fried wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> > > >have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> > > >Here's some things I found out about being on welfare:
> > > >I cannot date, because if my caseworker sees me in town with the same guy more
> > > >then 3 times a week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud. They
> > > >don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't staying over at my
> > > >house, just being seen with him can do it. We call them Pecker Detectors.
> > > >Because they believe if you are seen with the same guy for a couple of times
> > > >then you are obviously sleeping with him, therefore receiving money. You know
> > > >how I know this, hey threaten to kick me off because i was hanging around a male
> > > >friend of mine when my caseworker came up to me and told me.
> > > >Another thing I found out is that if you receive welfare you have no rights.
> > > >They can do pretty much what they want because you need that money. They make
> > > >you sign away all your secrets. Like your bank account number. They have all
> > > >access to anything in some sort of file about you.
> > > >
> > > >I have sympathy for this lady. She probably has good reason. She probably
> > > >doesn't get enough from welfare to feed her children so she had to fraud the
> > > >system.
> > > >They do send you notices saying how much you are allowed to spend and on what.
> > > >20 dollars on clothes for your child, 34 for your clothing. only 17 dollars for
> > > >miscellaneous. 85 for food and 200 for rent.
> > > >Live on that and see what desperate measures you come to.
> > > >If she was doing it just to get rich then she was wrong and should get the book
> > > >thrown at her. If she was doing it to feed her children then the system should
> > > >be the one getting the book in the face.
> > > >
> > > >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > > >stereotype that is not always true.
> > >
> > > Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > > resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > > system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > >
> > > Julian
> >
> > I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo. The
> > only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor. Apparently if you
> > have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > being poor.
> >
> > I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> > after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>
> That depends. They shouldn't say what you can spend it on but what you shouldn't. Eg.
> Liquor, ciggerates, stuff you don't need.
Why? Is it "your" money? Did you "earn" it?
>
> > They provide
> > you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > didn't "earn" in the first place.
>
> Nothing is free. i don't know what it's like where you live but i have to be either
> going to school full time (i am) or activly looking for a job. If i am not in school i
> only have a couple of months to find a job.
And you find something wrong with that? Why shouldn't you be
going to school or actively seeking work? Why shouldn't they
expect this for free money? They helped me the first time I got a
quick education. Collecting free money for 4 years going to
college wasn't for me. And I was VERY thankful they were there. I
was MORE than happy to spend it exactly how I was supposed to.
And I worked my tail off at a job and night classes on my own
afterwards. You see, they didn't owe me a dime, they didn't owe
me an education, and it frankly embarrassed the living hell outta
me to even ask for it. But I was elated that it was there when I
needed it for my child.
>
> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> >
>
> >
> > --
> > Char (remove WV from address to reply)
> > ***********************************************************
> > Get paid to surf the web:
> > http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
> >
> > http://www.travelzoo.com/
> >
> > My pages:
> > http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
> > http://www.techtrek.com
> > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5946/index.html
> > http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9362/index.html
> > ***********************************************************
>
> Why embarrased if it allows me to get an education so i can get a job that pays more
> then minumum wage, in the future? It allows me to raise my daughter and spend what
> little time I have with her. Don't think i am not trying to get off welfare. I am.
> When i finish my education.
--
Char
Now when my ex walked out on a me and a new baby, I could have
easily taken the job at McD's or Wendy's or Burger King, or gee,
just about anywhere. I didn't want to be stuck in that situation,
and I admit I freely chose welfare long enough to get a quick
education so that I could do better than minimum wage. Enough to
pay the bills and move out of my parent's home. But there ARE
jobs out there. There is welfare because some people don't want
to work, or some feel the government owes them an education,
rather than get one themselves. I didn't even ask the government
to foot my education, that I did through GSLs. I didn't feel they
owed me money while I was getting that education, but saw no
other way to get it. I then furthered that education at my own
expense again, while working full-time, after I was able to earn
above min. wage. I could take a 15 min. walk down the street and
guarantee I'd have no less than 5 jobs by day end.
No there are jobs plenty out there. Many people just don't want
them cause they feel they pay too little or not the type of work
they feel they are "worthy" of. I once took a part-time pizza
delivery job while working full-time in an office because my ex
was bankrupting us. Since "he" wouldn't work and felt the world
owed him a living. With the skills I had, I felt pizza delivery
was certainly a bit low for my tastes, but hey...it paid the
bills.
You're getting an education, I'm not knocking you for that. It's
the attitude you seem to express that people must have welfare to
do it or that they are somehow entitled to welfare. I see nothing
wrong with welfare when someone actually "needs" it. Not everyone
on welfare needs it, and many that feel they do, don't. They just
haven't explored all their options. Can you not see how those of
us that have worked our tails off over the years might resent
paying out for those that won't?
I'd have gotten on my knees and kissed the feet of every taxpayer
if I could for what they did for me. I'm EXTREMELY thankful.
Without their help, I might have gone to McD's and still be
there, or still be living with my parents. I thank my parents for
what they did for me and the taxpayers for helping me get on my
feet. But ya know, even should I have ended up at McD's, I'd
still be thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my
own. It's called pride.
jennifer wrote:
>
> really how do you propose this? If there were jobs out there then there wouldn't
> be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford to?
> What about Corprate welfare?
> It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
>
> Sunny wrote:
>
> > In article <37678731...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> > <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> > > have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> >
> > Abolish welfare! Poor people should be given jobs, not handouts!
--
Char
Lawrence Lucier wrote:
>
> almosth...@geocities.com @ wrote on 06-16-99 10:56 about *Another cheat
> bites the dust.*
>
> a> fried wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer
> >> <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare
> >> > because I have to be. Not everyone abuses it. Here's some things
> a> I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>
> May I suggest you reread the bit on "Pecker Detectors"?
Yeah, and I would suggest she check with her local welfare
office, rather than taking the word of one individual who may or
may not have just had a personal grudge against her. I've never
heard of any welfare rule where you couldn't date...just that
they couldn't be living with you or contributing to the income.
>
> a> The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor. Apparently if
> a> you have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> a> being poor.
>
> a> I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> a> after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own. They provide
> a> you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> a> free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each and
> a> no one really has any rights to complain about what they didn't
> a> "earn" in the first place.
>
> a> Where I grew up, I was taught to say "thank you" when I received
> a> help from people who were not in the least bit obligated to me.
>
> Yeppers, no ifs, buts or ands about this fact.
>
> a> I was taught to be embarrassed by charity. Nothing wrong with
> a> charity when you need it, but if it doesn't embarrass you,
> a> something's definately out of kilter.
>
> Have to take extreme exception with this statement though, Char. Receiving
> needy charity is nothing to be ashamed or embarassed about; it's a fact of life
> that some people will need to receive some form of charity along the way.
> Repayment of that charity, does not necessarily take the form of returning
> monies; it can be passed along to society at large purely by the charitable
> actions that a person shows to others. IE, donating time and/or resources for
> others in needy circumstances.
Nothing wrong with a little healthy embarrassment. By not having
the slightest bit of embarrassment about a situation, you may
start to feel entitled. Embarrassment keeps us in check.
>
> As an aside, I have seen this kind of topic discussed before, to which the point
> was raised, that even none needy people are subsidized in various ways and
> therefore could be classified as receiving "charity". Guess it all depends on
> personal perspective.......<shrug>
Oh I get a subsidy on the IRS child credit. But then I pay my
taxes into it. It's nice having the extra deduction, but
certainly not a necessity and it really wouldn't upset me in the
least if they didn't give it. People made it without the credit
before, I'm sure they'd still make it. I really don't know of any
other subsidy in my own circumstances though.
>
> --- Sqed/32 1.14/r15155
>
> --- Squish->SOUP by TAM
--
fried
wrote:
>> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
>> >stereotype that is not always true.
>>
>> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
>> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
>> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
>>
>> Julian
>
>I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
deny them money? You nuts?
>The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
Seems fine to me.
> Apparently if you
>have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
>being poor.
Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
>I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
>after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>They provide
>you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>didn't "earn" in the first place.
This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
and end all of self respect.
> Where I grew up, I was taught
>to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
Welfare isn't charity. It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
Julian
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> >>
> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >
> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>
> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> deny them money? You nuts?
Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
statement?
>
> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
> > Apparently if you
> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> >being poor.
>
> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
your secrets. Like your bank account number."
>
> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>
> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
dollars are going for.
>
> >They provide
> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>
> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> and end all of self respect.
Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
>
> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>
> Welfare isn't charity.
char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
helpless.
2. a charitable act or work.
3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
something out of charity.
5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
You were saying?
It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
>
> Julian
Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
fried
wrote:
It's called misplaced pride. I'm glad you've got self respect, that's good.
It's just a pity you seem to have got it for the wrong reasons and have been
misled into despising people because they aren't as gifted or dynamic or
positive or fortunate as yourself. I have no doubt that given a suitable
environment it wouldn't take long to transform you into one of these people
- it might give you a little more insight into life than you seem to have.
When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the things
which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet for".
Some people don't have them. If you hadn't had them, you wouldn't be where
you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for you,
you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still be
thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
Julian
Lori
fried <fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3767f3a4...@usenet.force9.net...
I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's saying
that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
*is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
Lori
fried
wrote:
>> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
>> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
>> >>
>> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
>> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
>> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
>> >>
>> >> Julian
>> >
>> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>>
>> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
>> deny them money? You nuts?
>
>Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
>"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
>check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
>for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
>statement?
Um, I'm just going on what I've read, here and elsewhere. It may be wrong.
However people don't normally use that particular get-out-clause in this
type od debating situation. Assuming it's right, whaddaya say?
>
>>
>> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
>>
>> Seems fine to me.
>>
>> > Apparently if you
>> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
>> >being poor.
>>
>> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
>
>Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
>your secrets. Like your bank account number."
??
>
>>
>> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
>> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>>
>> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
>> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
>> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>
>You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
>every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
>it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
>dollars are going for.
Put simply, if you are being given enough to live on but not much more, then
you either spend it on what you need to live or you don't live. The fact
that you are not self-sufficient doesn't entail being treated with lack of
dignity in this respect. It is deliberate and degrading harrassment and
humiliation. You have already made it clear you go along with this concept,
a pretty shitty attitude in my view. It's even worse when one considers
that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
when YOU needed it.
>> >They provide
>> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>>
>> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
>> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
>> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
>> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
>> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
>> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
>> and end all of self respect.
>
>Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
>stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
>whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
>that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
>and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
I do think that the basic requirements of life should be available to all in
a decent society. I also agree with you that people should be expected to
work for it IF there is the possibility to do so in a reasonable way.
Trouble is there often isn't. I have said some quite vehement things in
other posts - I am reacting to a certain viewpoint you have about things you
seem to have little knowledge about, not you personally.
>> > Where I grew up, I was taught
>> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>>
>> Welfare isn't charity.
>
>
>char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
>
> 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
>helpless.
>
> 2. a charitable act or work.
>
> 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
>
> 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
>something out of charity.
>
> 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
>
>
>You were saying?
Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
just pragmatism.
Julian
Sunny
<kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> really how do you propose this? If there were jobs out there then there
> wouldn't
> be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford
> to?
> What about Corprate welfare?
> It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
There ARE jobs out there. Wisconsin, for example, with its 1.5%
unemployment rate, is begging for workers. Wisconsin has pretty much
ended welfare as we know it, and gives out jobs instead. The welfare
rate has declined 67% as a result.
If there were no welfare available, you can bet your lucky student
stars you would be working in no time.
The theory is, welfare begets more welfare. Stop living off the
taxpayers and find some work. If you are unfortunate enough to not
qualify for a scholarship, or a grant, or a student loan, then you
shouldn't be still in school. I am sorry for your situation, but I
really don't want to feed you any more.
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:11:35 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> >> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> >> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> >> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Julian
> >> >
> >> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> >>
> >> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> >> deny them money? You nuts?
> >
> >Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
> >"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
> >check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
> >for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
> >statement?
>
> Um, I'm just going on what I've read, here and elsewhere. It may be wrong.
> However people don't normally use that particular get-out-clause in this
> type od debating situation. Assuming it's right, whaddaya say?
What get-out-clause? I too go on what I read here...and with
knowing a bit about the welfare system. For one, she specifically
stated that this "one" individual told her this. She did not
state whether or not she actually checked with the welfare office
on this. And knowing a bit about welfare, I've never heard of
this being the case with any of them, and this caseworker may
need some straightening out.
> >
> >>
> >> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> >>
> >> Seems fine to me.
> >>
> >> > Apparently if you
> >> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> >> >being poor.
> >>
> >> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> >
> >Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> >your secrets. Like your bank account number."
>
> ??
This was Jennifer's statement. This reason and the fact that one
caseworker saw her out and told her that they could take benefits
if she was seen with the same person too often, were some of her
complaints. It was her post on these matters that was being
likened unto a Gestapo.
> >
> >>
> >> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> >> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
> >>
> >> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> >> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> >> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
> >
> >You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
> >every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
> >it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
> >dollars are going for.
>
> Put simply, if you are being given enough to live on but not much more, then
> you either spend it on what you need to live or you don't live. The fact
> that you are not self-sufficient doesn't entail being treated with lack of
> dignity in this respect. It is deliberate and degrading harrassment and
> humiliation. You have already made it clear you go along with this concept,
> a pretty shitty attitude in my view. It's even worse when one considers
> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
> when YOU needed it.
Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare? If not, how can you
possibly know how much one is given to live on?
Let's see now, your rent is free through HUD or government
housing...no bill there. Your daycare is free so that you can
work or attend school...no bill there. All medical expenses
(including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
bill there. You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
groceries and other items are free. You pay no taxes on your
groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you. You
can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
welfare for. You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
other charitable organizations. You can get food from other
charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
"just" enough?
>
>
> >> >They provide
> >> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> >> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> >> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> >> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> >>
> >> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> >> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> >> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> >> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> >> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> >> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> >> and end all of self respect.
> >
> >Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
> >stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
> >whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
> >that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
> >and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
>
> I do think that the basic requirements of life should be available to all in
> a decent society. I also agree with you that people should be expected to
> work for it IF there is the possibility to do so in a reasonable way.
> Trouble is there often isn't. I have said some quite vehement things in
> other posts - I am reacting to a certain viewpoint you have about things you
> seem to have little knowledge about, not you personally.
I have quite a bit of knowledge about welfare...I lived it, and
I've fought against it...at least the way it's set up for abuses
and numerous loopholes. Again I ask, have you? So what above
would you suggest I have little knowledge about? Perhaps it is
Jennifer with little knowledge. Maybe she doesn't have a clue
what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
can be found on the web if I knew the state. If I have so little
knowledge about how welfare works, then place me in a class with
those others here who are stating the same things. But we all
have so little knowledge. Many of the NCPs here have ex-wives
milking the system. Many of the CPs here have had to accept
charity to make it at one time or another. So many her DO have an
inkling of an idea of what's available in welfare and exactly
what kind of help one can get.
>
>
> >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> >>
> >> Welfare isn't charity.
> >
> >
> >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> >
> > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> >helpless.
> >
> > 2. a charitable act or work.
> >
> > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> >
> > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> >something out of charity.
> >
> > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> >
> >
> >You were saying?
>
> Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
> welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
> overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
> from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
> just pragmatism.
Well there's the problem...I don't agree that we have inbuilt
unemployment. I see help wanted signs everyday, and I can easily
get a job. It may not pay as much as I like and it may not be
glamorous, but there are jobs available. Welfare IS a charity. As
covered in the above, it is a donation to aid the poor, ill or
helpless, it is a charitable fund, and it is given to those in
need. I have no problems with people who NEED welfare, but I have
no problems with accepting fact that it IS a charity either. As
I've stated before, there's nothing at all wrong with accepting
charity, there is something wrong in expecting it as an
entitlement.
Char
Lori wrote:
>
> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's saying
> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
> you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
> Lori
--
Char
Nothing at all misplaced about pride in one's accomplishments.
That you feel that it is tells a lot.
I'm glad you've got self respect, that's good.
> It's just a pity you seem to have got it for the wrong reasons and have been
> misled into despising people because they aren't as gifted or dynamic or
> positive or fortunate as yourself.
Despise? Who? I really think you should not try to read so much
into something that simply isn't there. That too is quite
telling.
I have no doubt that given a suitable
> environment it wouldn't take long to transform you into one of these people
> - it might give you a little more insight into life than you seem to have.
Suitable environment? You mean such as being left medically
incapable of currently working and taken 2 states from my job and
dropped on my parent's doorstep with a newborn child? That type
of suitable? Well I may have been suitable, but it didn't mean I
had to succumb to an entitlement belief. If you find fault in
that, so be it. But many people are taught differently and people
did without welfare for years and they didn't feel entitled to a
thing.
>
> When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the things
> which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet for".
> Some people don't have them.
Who doesn't have them? Other countries perhaps. If we're talking
US, welfare, HUD, government housing, etc. is available in every
state. Charitable organizations such as food pantries, WIC,
Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way, etc. abound. They are
HIGHLY available here. In many countries they are available. In
those countries they are not, have you ever heard those peoples
complaining that they didn't get their entitlements? Nope. Most
of them are thankful for their lives, their children, even a roof
over their head when they can get it. Just being alive is enough
for many to be thankful for.
If you hadn't had them, you wouldn't be where
> you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for you,
> you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still be
> thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
> would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
Aren't...but was. Just as the working two jobs, night classes and
full-time work, walking to work when my car wouldn't start,
selling clothing etc. just to keep food on the table, robbing
Peter to pay Paul on numerous ocassions, shutting off heat in the
winter and wearing sweaters to cut back on costs, making mac &
cheese last a whole week for a meal, getting sick of Ramen
noodles and beans. And you know what? I was STILL thankful. I had
my daughter, I had my life, I had friends, family. We can always
find something to be thankful for, until the day we die. And then
we won't worry too much about it.
>
> Julian
fried
>> When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the things
>> which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet for".
>> Some people don't have them. If you hadn't had them, you wouldn't be where
>> you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for you,
>> you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still be
>> thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
>> would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
>
>
>I think you're misjudging Char.
Sorry, Char, if I am. I am using your posts to vent a slight grievance
against a range of attitudes, I make no bones about this - that's one reason
for ngs.
> I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
>that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
>forced to either work for that check or go to school.
Depends on circs.
> I think she's saying
>that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
>*is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
>you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
I may agree if they exceed a fairly basic amount, but if they don't, no,
they have no business, it's degrading, adding insult to a person in an
already fairly parlous position, and that is wrong.
Julian
>Lori
>
>
frazil
welfare isn't exactly a free ride, and that there are some non-monitary costs
associated with receiving it. Exactly what CPs argue when it comes to CS. Me
thinkest the pot is trying to call the kettle black. JMO.
In article <3767EDB2...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
wrote:
frazil
>This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
>have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>Here's some things I found out about being on welfare:
>I cannot date, because if my caseworker sees me in town with the same guy more
>then 3 times a week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud.
> They
>don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't staying over at my
>house, just being seen with him can do it. We call them Pecker Detectors.
>Because they believe if you are seen with the same guy for a couple of times
>then you are obviously sleeping with him, therefore receiving money.
Huh? why would you be receiving money, if you were "obviously" sleeping with a
guy? Unless your trying to tell me that female welfare recipients are
"obviously" whores, and the guy merely provides the evidence.
You know
>how I know this, hey threaten to kick me off because i was hanging around a
> male
>friend of mine when my caseworker came up to me and told me.
>Another thing I found out is that if you receive welfare you have no rights.
>They can do pretty much what they want because you need that money. They make
>you sign away all your secrets. Like your bank account number. They have all
>access to anything in some sort of file about you.
>
>I have sympathy for this lady. She probably has good reason. She probably
>doesn't get enough from welfare to feed her children so she had to fraud the
>system.
>They do send you notices saying how much you are allowed to spend and on what.
>20 dollars on clothes for your child, 34 for your clothing. only 17 dollars for
>miscellaneous. 85 for food and 200 for rent.
>Live on that and see what desperate measures you come to.
>If she was doing it just to get rich then she was wrong and should get the book
>thrown at her. If she was doing it to feed her children then the system should
>be the one getting the book in the face.
>
>please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
>stereotype that is not always true.
>Jenn
frazil
> to the
>> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
>> >>
> UK
>> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
>> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
>> >>
>> >> Julian
>> >
>> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>>
>> deny them money? You nuts?
>
>Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
>"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
>check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
>for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
>statement?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Apparently if you
>> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
>> >being poor.
>>
>
>your secrets. Like your bank account number."
>
>>
>> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>>
>> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
>> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>
>You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
>every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
>it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
>dollars are going for.
>
Money perhaps, who you are seen with and who you are dating, I'm afraid not.
>>
>> >They provide
>> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>>
>> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
>> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
>> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
>> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
>> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
>> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
>> and end all of self respect.
>
>Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
>stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
>whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
>that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
>and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
Hmmmm. So that means that I should or the State should have a right to see
that CS is used for its intended purpose (e.g. spent on the child). Ok I'm
game every CP should audited at the end of the year to ensure that the CS is
spent on the child. So that means that every CP should provide the state or
me with their banks account numbers, detail where every dollar is spent, not
be seen with the same guy on repeated occassions, etc. I don't think so.
>
>>
>> > Where I grew up, I was taught
>> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>>
>> Welfare isn't charity.
>
>
>char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
>
> 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
>helpless.
>
> 2. a charitable act or work.
>
> 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
>
> 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
>something out of charity.
>
> 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
>
>
>You were saying?
Ok, and once you place restrictions on the recipient it no longer becomes a
generous, benevolent act. IOW the tax payer provides you money to survive and
expects X in return. It is not charity when one places expectations in
return. Ergo, welfare is not charity.
>
>
>It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
>> should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
>> humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
>>
>> Julian
>
>Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
>charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
>
The real purpose for welfare is to protect the rich from the desparate acts
that the poor would resort to in order to survive (thieft, robbery, murder,
etc). IOW we'll give you enough to survive so that your survival isn't
dependent on taking things from other individuals. Welfare isn't an act of
kindness. It is an act of protection. It is not charity.
Char
you to receive these benefits. Generally CPs that expect the
other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
having to raise their children...they're generally more than
happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
responsibility with abiding by the program/rules. You're trying
to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
similar.
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:21:17 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> It's even worse when one considers
> >> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
> >> when YOU needed it.
> >
> >Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
> >handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
> >been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
> >needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
> >to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare?
>
> Yes - it's called IS - Income Support in the UK.
Probably a bit of difference from the US welfare system.
>
> >If not, how can you
> >possibly know how much one is given to live on?
>
> Govt. figures perhaps?
Would this include ALL government figures for ALL welfare
programs? Please remember that there isn't just one welfare
program in the US. Here we have HUD, government housing, WIC,
food pantries, United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, government
surplus food, and the normal welfare which includes foodstamps,
cash, medical card, daycare, etc. etc. etc. And each state is
different. So do you have figures on all states as well?
>
> >Let's see now, your rent is free through HUD or government
> >housing...no bill there. Your daycare is free so that you can
> >work or attend school...no bill there. All medical expenses
> >(including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
> >bill there. You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
> >groceries and other items are free. You pay no taxes on your
> >groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you. You
> >can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
> >already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
> >welfare for. You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
> >other charitable organizations. You can get food from other
> >charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
> >child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
> >
> >Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
> >There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
> >"just" enough?
>
> In low living cost parts of England, about £45 ( $70 ) per week plus rent.
We weren't speaking of England welfare. But see my comments on
that scenario in another post.
>
> You can live on less - say £25 per week, but it's pretty tricky. £60 per
> week is already fairly tolerable. None of them really compare to the sort of
> poverty wages regarded as "barely enough" in the Third World. And yes, I
> have experienced that as well.
I've lived on barely enough. Don't have a clue what those amounts
equate to in English dollars. But I remember my mother taking
care of a family of 4 with high medical bills on $500/mo. And I
went months unable to work and earn anything after an accident. I
kept bill collectors at bay until I could get back on my feet and
refused to accept welfare because I knew it would be over soon.
> Yes, I've lived on it, and no, I would not defend people who fought against
> its various loopholes under the current system, indeed I would encourage
> them to exploit the loopholes - but I don't know the system in the US and
> may think differently there.
That's the point. We were discussing the US system, and there are
MANY loopholes and people already do exploit them, at the expense
of the taxpayers. If you find nothing inherently wrong in that,
after seeing all the benefits they receive listed above, I would
question your motives.
>
> >So what above
> >would you suggest I have little knowledge about?
>
> None of the stuff you have centred on here. You have little knowledge of not
> having a helping hand when needed. That is in fact what I said.
Really? I have quite a bit of knowledge about not "accepting" a
helping hand. When it came right down to absolutely necessary, I
did for my daughter's sake. But tell ya what, before my daughter,
I'm no stranger to sleeping in my car or crashing where ever I
could. I chose to grab a bus to OH when I was 18 to find my dad.
I had nowhere to stay, a small bag of clothes and little money.
But then it was just me, I didn't have a dependant. Being that
help is available, it's foolish not to accept it at the expense
of an innocent child. If it isn't available, you do the best you
can. So your problem with this would be.....
>
> >Perhaps it is
> >Jennifer with little knowledge. Maybe she doesn't have a clue
> >what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
> >can be found on the web if I knew the state.
>
> Precisely the point - you are despising people for not having your get up
> and go or your intellectual abilities - I find that sort of attitude pretty
> deplorable I am sorry to say.
Nothing above suggests anything with regards to get up and go or
intellecutal abilities. But you can keep reading in anything you
want. It doesn't change the actual conversation and really is
quite telling on an individual.
>
> >If I have so little
> >knowledge about how welfare works, then place me in a class with
> >those others here who are stating the same things. But we all
> >have so little knowledge. Many of the NCPs here have ex-wives
> >milking the system. Many of the CPs here have had to accept
> >charity to make it at one time or another. So many her DO have an
> >inkling of an idea of what's available in welfare and exactly
> >what kind of help one can get.
>
> Sure.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> >> >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> >> >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> >> >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> >> >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Welfare isn't charity.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> >> >
> >> > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> >> >helpless.
> >> >
> >> > 2. a charitable act or work.
> >> >
> >> > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> >> >
> >> > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> >> >something out of charity.
> >> >
> >> > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >You were saying?
> >>
> >> Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
> >> welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
> >> overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
> >> from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
> >> just pragmatism.
> >
> >Well there's the problem...I don't agree that we have inbuilt
> >unemployment. I see help wanted signs everyday, and I can easily
> >get a job. It may not pay as much as I like and it may not be
> >glamorous, but there are jobs available.
>
> The poverty trap is pretty tricky to get out of - it's not as simple as
> "just get that low-paying job". But if I grant that in some areas there is
> work, in others there most definitely isn't - for instance in South Africa
> today they have mentioned a 40% unemployment rate. Stop kidding yourself ,
> you are talking about your own experience, and you will speak and vote as if
> it is valid for everybody. It is not.
I am talking about US...and what I have stated holds pretty much
true accross the US. That you do not know the US, speaks for
itself. People have lived in poverty for years and have gotten by
without any help whatsoever. Before reading into this what's not
there again, I didn't suggest that if the help can be made
available that they go without it if they truly need it. But then
you've already seen me state that many times. I'm starting to get
the impression that you just want to argue for lack of anything
better. Would you please state exactly what you have a problem
with? Just so I can be clear on this:
a) Do you think people should feel "entitled" to receive free
stuff before trying everything else?
b) Do you think people should be allowed to abuse a system that
does help them when they need help?
c) Do you think that taxpayers should be held responsible for the
irresponsible behavior of others or should checks and balances be
kept to prevent abusers and irresponsible people receiving
benefits?
d) Do you think charity should be handed out freely without
regard to truly needy cases?
e) Do you think the needy should have a f*** you, now gimme gimme
gimme, when receiving charitable assistance?
My answers to all of these are a resounding NO! If you have
different answers, please elaborate, otherwise, what exactly are
we debating?
>
> >Welfare IS a charity. As
> >covered in the above, it is a donation to aid the poor, ill or
> >helpless, it is a charitable fund, and it is given to those in
> >need. I have no problems with people who NEED welfare, but I have
> >no problems with accepting fact that it IS a charity either. As
> >I've stated before, there's nothing at all wrong with accepting
> >charity, there is something wrong in expecting it as an
> >entitlement.
>
> Well, we've done that one to death I think ;-)).
>
> Julian
Char
Whom you are dating WAS covered, if you had read it.
As far as CS accountability, I've never stated anything against
it except for accounting for food bites, even welfare does not
require that in depth accounting. As for sending the accounting
to you...why? You are not my ex.
Lastly, please do read the definition on benevolent and get back
to me. This in no way disputes charity and you are only fooling
yourself if you believe otherwise. To make it more clear, charity
is for "needy". You give where you see a need to give. Without
checks and balances, it no longer is spent on the needy and is
instead abused. It ceases being charity at that point and becomes
entitlement. Which covers your last rantings about "just enough
to survive". I've already covered that portion in another post.
Perhaps you feel it's just enough, but I would ask you to explain
how you get that impression.
But then, you have previously pointed out that you are simply
looking for debate. However, I don't feel the tug that you
obviously do to debate an issue to death repeatedly until it
comes full circle. You have my views, like them, hate them,
discard them...I frankly don't care. I'm a taxpayer, it's partly
my money, I have a right to the views I have without regards to
your feelings in this matter.
--
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
What has she "paid" for it? Or has she just had to "account" for
what they paid her?
However, I
> do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
> to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> and further assumed to be recieving money from them.
Who assumes that? One individual? Did she contact the welfare
office about this "obvious" breach of ethics?
That would make them a
> whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're seen
> with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> them?
I've repeatedly asked...WHAT SYSTEM? This was ONE individual. I
didn't realize that one individual was the whole system.
Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not.
I
> certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
<sigh> WHAT system? Please tell me. I truly do want to know what
system we are referring to here.
>
>
> In article <37682618...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
> wrote:
> >As the Fonz is fond of saying....Exactamundo!
> >
> >Lori wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
> >> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
> >> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's saying
> >> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
> >> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
> >> you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
> >> Lori
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:31:37 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >I'd have gotten on my knees and kissed the feet of every taxpayer
> >> >if I could for what they did for me. I'm EXTREMELY thankful.
> >> >Without their help, I might have gone to McD's and still be
> >> >there, or still be living with my parents. I thank my parents for
> >> >what they did for me and the taxpayers for helping me get on my
> >> >feet. But ya know, even should I have ended up at McD's, I'd
> >> >still be thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my
> >> >own. It's called pride.
> >>
> >> It's called misplaced pride.
> >
> >Nothing at all misplaced about pride in one's accomplishments.
>
> "Gee I can put a hamburger in a bun, that makes me feel real good. Heh
> folks, look at this hamburger I put in this bun, whaddaya say?"
> Otis Redding "I feel good" fadeout...
Certainly. You did it. Aren't you proud of that? Aren't you glad
you had both arms available (some do not) in order to do that?
But then, if that's the greatest accomplishment you can think
of...well...I ain't a gonna say it. I'm a lady. ;-)
>
> >That you feel that it is tells a lot.
>
> Indeedy.
>
> >I'm glad you've got self respect, that's good.
> >> It's just a pity you seem to have got it for the wrong reasons and have been
> >> misled into despising people because they aren't as gifted or dynamic or
> >> positive or fortunate as yourself.
> >
> >Despise? Who? I really think you should not try to read so much
> >into something that simply isn't there. That too is quite telling.
>
> You've said these people should feel ashamed, that a dose of humility in
> these circs. is good for them. Veeeeerytelling <lifts horn-rimmed specs. and
> looks piercing>
No, ashamed is your term. Embarrassed is however the term I used.
Embarrassed that you even need seek help, embarrassed that you
got to that point, and embarrassed to the point that you won't
feel greedy and abuse that help. Yes a dose of humility helps. It
helps one from becoming overly confident in that they have some
kind of entitlement to what others have worked for.
>
> >I have no doubt that given a suitable
> >> environment it wouldn't take long to transform you into one of these people
> >> - it might give you a little more insight into life than you seem to have.
> >
> >Suitable environment? You mean such as being left medically
> >incapable of currently working and taken 2 states from my job and
> >dropped on my parent's doorstep with a newborn child? That type
> >of suitable?
>
> NO. All that, but with no parents, no bail-out at the end of it. Got it?
See other post. Already covered that as well.
>
> >Well I may have been suitable, but it didn't mean I
> >had to succumb to an entitlement belief. If you find fault in
> >that, so be it. But many people are taught differently and people
> >did without welfare for years and they didn't feel entitled to a
> >thing.
>
> Well, so much for history. Check "almshouses". But I do agree with you
> partly, that sort of system would be one I would and have enjoyed. It exists
> in most of the world. It doesn't exist in rich western countries.
>
> >> When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the things
> >> which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet for".
> >> Some people don't have them.
> >
> >Who doesn't have them? Other countries perhaps. If we're talking
> >US, welfare, HUD, government housing, etc. is available in every
> >state.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >Charitable organizations such as food pantries, WIC,
> >Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way, etc. abound. They are
> >HIGHLY available here.
>
> These are things for which your type of servile gratitude are perhaps more
> fitting. But then I have seldom stooped to accepting this sort of charity.
Therein lies the problem. Many here see no problem with going in
for everything they can get and then STILL cheating the system
for more. So why do you have problems with that? As I said, they
are provided with PLENTY here.
>
> > In many countries they are available. In
> >those countries they are not, have you ever heard those peoples
> >complaining that they didn't get their entitlements?
>
> What entitlements?
Exactly! So why are some complaining when they DO get them?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
>
> > Nope. Most
> >of them are thankful for their lives, their children, even a roof
> >over their head when they can get it. Just being alive is enough
> >for many to be thankful for.
>
> Or not as the case may be.
That all depends on individual outlook.
>
> >If you hadn't had them, you wouldn't be where
> >> you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for you,
> >> you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still be
> >> thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
> >> would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
> >
> >Aren't...but was.
>
> From what you say, you want other people to have your approach to life,
> whether or not they face your circs. You spent probably short periods
> working your guts out - you want others to do the same. You had too much
> pride to ask your relatives for money to feed yourself - but you had a baby
> to feed as well. You live in the most affluent nation on earth where people
> bring out the argument that "if people did what we do they'd be affluent
> too" - and people do, and they are not, and simultaneously the economies
> they live in are being destroyed by mnations like yours and ours.
Simultaneously they are being destroyed by those entitlement
types as well. Those who keep asking and never give. If you see a
problem with that approach, then we'll just disagree. And I've
worked my "guts out" for much longer than short stints.
>
> > Just as the working two jobs, night classes and
> >full-time work, walking to work when my car wouldn't start,
> >selling clothing etc. just to keep food on the table, robbing
> >Peter to pay Paul on numerous ocassions, shutting off heat in the
> >winter and wearing sweaters to cut back on costs, making mac &
> >cheese last a whole week for a meal, getting sick of Ramen
> >noodles and beans. And you know what? I was STILL thankful. I had
> >my daughter, I had my life, I had friends, family. We can always
> >find something to be thankful for, until the day we die. And then
> >we won't worry too much about it.
>
> I can understand you being thankful. You have had it good. You are lucky.
> Now stop laying into people who aren't as lucky as you have been, and start
> attacking the real lazy bastards - people who are rich and don't need to
> work. There are few things less edifying than watching people scratching
> around looking for reasons to attack the weak and poverty stricken.
Why should I attack the rich? Unless they unethically made their
riches, what problem do you have with them, other than they
happened to have had a better life or made better decisions?
That's pure jealousy. I haven't had it quite as good as many, but
I certainly don't moan about how good they've got it. I keep
hoping Bill Gates will realize I'm his long lost daughter, but
don't see that happening any time soon. So I work with what I
got. ;-)
The "real lazy bastards" as you put it, exist in droves in the
US. They lie on welfare and "refuse" to work...not that they
can't, not that they are kept in the gutter...they "choose" that
lifestyle. Those that want to work, DO...or they work toward that
goal. Jennifer is working toward that goal. My only point was the
complaining about what they required for these benefits. If you
can do nothing but complain, don't accept charity and you'll have
no reason to complain about it.
Char
fried wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:29:46 -0600, Sunny <mas...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <3767CDA8...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> ><kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> really how do you propose this? If there were jobs out there then there
> >> wouldn't
> >> be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford
> >> to?
> >> What about Corprate welfare?
> >> It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
> >
> >There ARE jobs out there. Wisconsin, for example, with its 1.5%
> >unemployment rate, is begging for workers. Wisconsin has pretty much
> >ended welfare as we know it, and gives out jobs instead. The welfare
> >rate has declined 67% as a result.
> >
> >If there were no welfare available, you can bet your lucky student
> >stars you would be working in no time.
>
> Explain that to people in places with no work. Look at unemployment rates in
> places with no welfare.
>
> >The theory is, welfare begets more welfare. Stop living off the
> >taxpayers and find some work. If you are unfortunate enough to not
> >qualify for a scholarship, or a grant, or a student loan, then you
> >shouldn't be still in school. I am sorry for your situation, but I
> >really don't want to feed you any more.
>
> You may be feeding this person, but rest assured, there are many millions of
> people who you are not feeding who are already dead. And in your particular
> case, you are obviously culpably responsible.
>
> Julian
Why on Earth is she responsible for feeding all the hungry of the
world?! Sheesh! You really do take the cake...or not if welfare
doesn't foot the bill. But you are entitled to feeling the world
owes you and that every individual owes the world. Not logical
thinking, but you're entitled to your opinions, whatever they be.
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <160619991025034037%mas...@students.wisc.edu>, Sunny <mas...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >In article <37678731...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> ><kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> >> have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> >
> >Abolish welfare! Poor people should be given jobs, not handouts!
>
> Ok let's give them your job. It the same thing. Giving someone a job that
> they couldn't get on their own is a handout, and giving someone a job for
> which there is no need is also a handout.
What's wrong with training for a job so they CAN get it on their
own, or for a job for which there is a need? Or should we just
feed everyone that doesn't want to train or has no inclination to
ever work? Do you feel the same about CS? Not from your past
posts you don't.
But ok, let's run with it. All CPs should be given every penny
they need to raise a child and if the NCP doesn't pony up, the
state/taxpayers should foot the bill, and no one should ever
expect them to get a job and pay their fair share, nor to ever be
held accountable for what they do with that money. Fair? Didn't
think so.
jennifer
where I live you can spend years on welfare. It is a short term thing.
Never an inconvience.
Jenn
Brytani wrote:
> jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3767CD37...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > > They provide
> > > you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > > free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > > and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > > didn't "earn" in the first place.
> >
> > Nothing is free. i don't know what it's like where you live but i have to
> be either
> > going to school full time (i am) or activly looking for a job. If i am not
> in school i
> > only have a couple of months to find a job.
> >
jennifer
jennifer
Char wrote:
> No,
Yes.
> Jennifer seems to be complaining about all they require of
> you to receive these benefits.
Not complaining, explaining. Huuge difference.
> Generally CPs that expect the
> other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
> having to raise their children...they're generally more than
> happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
> for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
> responsibility with abiding by the program/rules.
No the rules in this case are too much. But there is absoulty nothing i can do about
them. Some even border illegal. Agin I have to except it. i have. it's not like it
will go on forever.
> You're trying
> to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
> similar.
>
I don't know, they are both round, they hang off trees, you can peel them, and they
both have seeds. I've compared apples w/ oranges ;)
Jenn
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <3767B918...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >How does someone get a new SSN? I thought you get one and that's
> >it. And you said she was convicted twice...is that "before" this
> >incident? I don't see why they let her back on welfare the second
> >time after being convicted the first time. The third, with a new
> >name and SSN though, would be hard to realize she'd been there
> >before. They need to start handing out some serious jail time for
> >these kind of offenses.
> >
>
> Easy, get birth certificate with a different name one it. Or use your birth
> certificate and claim that someone else has stolen and is using your old SSN.
>
> Government computers are so old that processing is slow at best. Government
> has been cut in so many areas that they can't keep up with the amount of
> work. And they are required to do so much more. The whole VP Gore
> reinventing government thing is a crock of horse crap. You can not expact
> people to do more with less until you give them the tools to do it. And that
> is exactly what is happening. For example at work I'm required to use data
> imaging to retreive documents, but I still have an old 486-33 MH machine. It
> is faster to do the work the old fashion way than use the data image, but it
> isn't any fast than it used to be. Further my work load has gone up due to
> the fact that less people are doing it. IOW do more with less people but with
> the same old tools. Sorry It can't be done.
Why not? I did it. But then I had to work 12 hours salary to get
it done. :-(
jennifer
fried wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> >>
> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >
> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>
> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> deny them money? You nuts?
>
Not even just a boyfriend but just a male companion.
>
> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
And be a woman.
>
> > Apparently if you
> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> >being poor.
>
> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
>
> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>
> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>
Thank you.
>
> >They provide
> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>
> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> and end all of self respect.
>
Not just people get free money but huge corprate companys, but its okay for them to
take taxpayers $. Where i live they pull out as soon as the check cashes, and leave
us without the promised jobs:)
>
> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>
> Welfare isn't charity. It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
>
> Julian
Thank you, you've said what I was trying to. Thank you so much.
Jenn
jennifer
Char wrote:
> fried wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> > >>
> > >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > >>
> > >> Julian
> > >
> > >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> >
> > What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> > deny them money? You nuts?
>
> Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
> "when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
> check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
> for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
> statement?
>
Yes these are actual Welfare regualtions. And the person who told me was my case worker.
I checked them out after he told me and have a copy of them now. I've also known people
to get kicked off for meeting a friend a couple times a week.
>
> >
> > >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> >
> > Seems fine to me.
> >
> > > Apparently if you
> > >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > >being poor.
> >
> > Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
>
> Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> your secrets. Like your bank account number."
>
Do you know how much info is in your bank account number? They also have access to your
medical info too. Like I said Anything with your name on it. Would you like that to be
known about you? How would you like over a dozen people knowing everything about you? I
don't. It scares me knowing whose out there nowadays
>
> >
> > >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> > >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
> >
> > I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> > than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> > self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>
> You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
> every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
> it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
> dollars are going for.
>
I could tell you. But it's a short list.
>
> >
> > >They provide
> > >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> >
> > This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > and end all of self respect.
>
> Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
> stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
> whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
> that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
> and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
>
Again compalining/ explaining two different things. I disagree with the rules. That is
my right.
>
> >
> > > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> >
> > Welfare isn't charity.
>
> char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
>
> 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> helpless.
>
> 2. a charitable act or work.
>
> 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
>
> 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> something out of charity.
>
> 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
>
> You were saying?
>
Are you counting the non monitary payments?
>
> It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> >
> > Julian
>
> Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
> charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
>
I get a family benifits check (differnet from welfare because everyone rich/poor gets
it) Does that mean I should bend down and thank the government.
>
Everyone expects it.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > No,
>
> Yes.
Errr, a simple yes doesn't answer the question. If you feel this
discussion is equated to CS, you'll need to explain that
assertion to have any validity.
>
> > Jennifer seems to be complaining about all they require of
> > you to receive these benefits.
>
> Not complaining, explaining. Huuge difference.
Seemed complaining to me...and I addressed that issue. Others
however got off on a tangent on your "rights" to complain. "They"
obviously feel you have every right to put your hand out and then
bitch when something doesn't get dumped in it.
>
> > Generally CPs that expect the
> > other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
> > having to raise their children...they're generally more than
> > happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
> > for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
> > responsibility with abiding by the program/rules.
>
> No the rules in this case are too much. But there is absoulty nothing i can do about
> them. Some even border illegal. Agin I have to except it. i have. it's not like it
> will go on forever.
Anytime you want someone to "give" you something, you have to
abide by their wishes to get it or go without it. That's just the
nature of the game. If it's illegal, you report it. I'd first
look to see if it IS illegal. If you're referring to the one
caseworker worker...see my other comments in other posts.
>
> > You're trying
> > to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
> > similar.
> >
>
> I don't know, they are both round, they hang off trees, you can peel them, and they
> both have seeds. I've compared apples w/ oranges ;)
> Jenn
Neither taste, feel, nor look the same...just as comparing CS
with welfare.
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37684814...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >No, Jennifer seems to be complaining about all they require of
> >you to receive these benefits. Generally CPs that expect the
> >other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
> >having to raise their children...they're generally more than
> >happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
> >for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
> >responsibility with abiding by the program/rules. You're trying
> >to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
> >similar.
> >
>
> Perhaps, but I recall a number of CPs arguing that their time spent raising
> the child counts to reduce the amount of monetay support that they should be
> providing. Just as the time that an NCP doesn't spend counts towards
> increasing the amount of monetary support they should provide. Only you never
> get to 50/50. IOW, an NCP, earning more money than a CP still pays even if
> the NCP spents 50 percent of the time raising the child.
Perhaps you do recall that, but not from me. And I am the one you
are having this discussion with, no?
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37684C90...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >fried wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:21:17 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It's even worse when one considers
> >> >> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
> >> >> when YOU needed it.
> >> >
> >> >Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
> >> >handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
> >> >been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
> >> >needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
> >> >to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare?
> >>
> >> Yes - it's called IS - Income Support in the UK.
> >
> >Probably a bit of difference from the US welfare system.
> >
> >>
> >> >If not, how can you
> >> >possibly know how much one is given to live on?
> >>
> >> Govt. figures perhaps?
> >
> >Would this include ALL government figures for ALL welfare
> >programs? Please remember that there isn't just one welfare
> >program in the US. Here we have HUD, government housing, WIC,
> >food pantries, United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, government
> >surplus food, and the normal welfare which includes foodstamps,
> >cash, medical card, daycare, etc. etc. etc. And each state is
> >different. So do you have figures on all states as well?
> >
>
> Char, United Wat, Salvation Army, and Goodwill, are private charities. HUD,
> government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the rest
> are government programs (i.e. not charity) Not sure what WIC is so I can't
> tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
> government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything in
> return.
WIC is government funded. United "Wat", I have no clue, but the
rest of them are STILL charities. No one was distinguishing
between government charities and private charities, but
"available" charities. And if you think they don't expect
anything, you're fooling yourself. I signed up with United Way
once for help with an electric bill. I had to bring in the bill,
check stubs, fill out numerous forms to disclose my income,
savings, etc. etc. No different at all than what welfare
requests.
jennifer
Char wrote:
You are assuming I live in the states. I don't. Being the World Wide web it is and having
the CA attached to my address, means that I don't necessarily live in your country. the CA
stands for Canada. It's what you down there call "Up north" "the artic" "The country you
didn't take over" Etc. Santa lives here, too.
>
So you might know a bit about welfare but do you know each and every provinces regs. or
federal regs. in Canada. I don't and i live here. I do know the ones for my province
(Canada's version of the State :) and the federal governments.
> > >>
> > >> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> > >>
> > >> Seems fine to me.
> > >>
> > >> > Apparently if you
> > >> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > >> >being poor.
> > >>
> > >> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> > >
> > >Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> > >your secrets. Like your bank account number."
> >
> > ??
>
> This was Jennifer's statement. This reason and the fact that one
> caseworker saw her out and told her that they could take benefits
> if she was seen with the same person too often, were some of her
> complaints. It was her post on these matters that was being
> likened unto a Gestapo.
>
Not the Gestapo. I would never do that. I was refering to the Pecker detectors or the penis
police. But now that you mentioned it Social Services has two S's
Nope. They give you a check, you have to pay for it out of your check. You are only allowed
so much for rent and if you say get an apartment for 350 and where allowed 400 you don't
get to keep the extra 50 for grocerys. (explaining)
> Your daycare is free so that you can
> work or attend school...no bill there.
Not in my provience. have to pay seperatly or apply for a special program that you might
get. It isn't guarenteed.
> All medical expenses
> (including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
> bill there.
No. You get medical, some prescription (you have to pay half), no dental and no eyecare
(those come out of your monthly check)
> You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
> groceries and other items are free.
No food stamps. Food bank but it is exhausted. $40 for groceries for a month.
> You pay no taxes on your
> groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you.
Don't pay taxes on groceries anyways
> You
> can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
> already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
> welfare for.
Not where I live.
> You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
> other charitable organizations.
You can go to the salvation army to get free clothes but that's it. Everything else comes
off your check.
> You can get food from other
> charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
> child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
No food stamps, nor extra food for children under five.
>
>
> Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
> There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
> "just" enough?
>
Can i move down there?
Little knowledge about other welfare systems.
> Perhaps it is
> Jennifer with little knowledge.
Insulting someones inteligence isn't fair. And should be considered a long time before
being said.
> Maybe she doesn't have a clue
> what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
> can be found on the web if I knew the state.
assuming I live in your country. well we were almost one of your states in the 1800's but I
don't think that counts. Maybe if quebec seperates then we wll have no choice but to join
Quebec or you guys. Then you can look up the state.
> If I have so little
> knowledge about how welfare works, then place me in a class with
> those others here who are stating the same things.
How bout in the same class as those who assume things? Eh?
> But we all
> have so little knowledge. Many of the NCPs here have ex-wives
> milking the system. Many of the CPs here have had to accept
> charity to make it at one time or another. So many her DO have an
> inkling of an idea of what's available in welfare and exactly
> what kind of help one can get.
>
If any are Canadian can they write.
>
> >
> >
> > >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> > >>
> > >> Welfare isn't charity.
> > >
> > >
> > >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> > >
> > > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> > >helpless.
> > >
> > > 2. a charitable act or work.
> > >
> > > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> > >
> > > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> > >something out of charity.
> > >
> > > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> > >
> > >
> > >You were saying?
> >
> > Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
> > welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
> > overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
> > from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
> > just pragmatism.
>
> Well there's the problem...I don't agree that we have inbuilt
> unemployment. I see help wanted signs everyday, and I can easily
> get a job.
Come to my province. If a job comes up it's gone before you know it. I have no idea what a
help wanted sign looks like, never saw one.
>
Jenn
jennifer
Char wrote:
I once wrote a letter to my government asking them to come live on my income for a week,
stay in my house and they can even sleep in my bed while I sleep on the floor. They gave
me the automatic response. Don't you think that i haven't tryed to do something about it?
>
> >
> > > You're trying
> > > to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
> > > similar.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know, they are both round, they hang off trees, you can peel them, and they
> > both have seeds. I've compared apples w/ oranges ;)
> > Jenn
>
> Neither taste, feel, nor look the same...just as comparing CS
> with welfare.
>
Depending on the apple you get.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > fried wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > > >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > > >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > > >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Julian
> > > >
> > > >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> > >
> > > What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> > > deny them money? You nuts?
> >
> > Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
> > "when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
> > check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
> > for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
> > statement?
> >
>
> Yes these are actual Welfare regualtions. And the person who told me was my case worker.
> I checked them out after he told me and have a copy of them now. I've also known people
> to get kicked off for meeting a friend a couple times a week.
Ok, so these are regs, and you presumably knew them before
signing up? Or know them now and can at anytime say you no longer
want the benefits? Or you can bite your tongue and accept it to
keep the benefits. Or you can work with the system to try and get
this regulation changed. Those are the choices as I see them.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> > >
> > > Seems fine to me.
> > >
> > > > Apparently if you
> > > >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > > >being poor.
> > >
> > > Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> >
> > Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> > your secrets. Like your bank account number."
> >
>
> Do you know how much info is in your bank account number? They also have access to your
> medical info too. Like I said Anything with your name on it. Would you like that to be
> known about you? How would you like over a dozen people knowing everything about you? I
> don't. It scares me knowing whose out there nowadays
I don't like it either, but if it bothered me that much, I would
have told them to take their benefits and shove em where the sun
don't shine, and taken that job at McDs flipping burgers. Again,
you presumably knew these were the regs before accepting the
benefits, no?
And if you weren't complaining, no problem. However Fried and
Frazles seem to think you have that right. I, OTOH, don't. And it
is that attitude being addressed.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > > >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > > >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > > >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > > >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> > >
> > > Welfare isn't charity.
> >
> > char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> >
> > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> > helpless.
> >
> > 2. a charitable act or work.
> >
> > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> >
> > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> > something out of charity.
> >
> > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> >
> > You were saying?
> >
>
> Are you counting the non monitary payments?
I count anything "given" to a person in need that didn't earn it,
as charity. I counted the numerous gifts my daughter's Secret
Santa bought her the year I needed them as charity and left
profound thanks with the Secret Santa workers to be sure that
this lady received them. They can't give out any info, except to
tell me that she was an old lady living alone. I really wanted to
give her a big fat hug, but that was impossible.
>
> >
> > It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> > >
> > > Julian
> >
> > Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
> > charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
> >
>
> I get a family benifits check (differnet from welfare because everyone rich/poor gets
> it) Does that mean I should bend down and thank the government.
>
> Everyone expects it.
No, that's only assuming you know what "everyone" thinks.
I pay into taxes and taxes give me a childcare credit.
However...they don't HAVE to. I'm very appreciative that they do.
It's great to get that extra boost. So yes, I'm thankful that
it's there when it doesn't have to be. Do you think childless
couples are thankful though?
jennifer
frazil wrote:
> And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free. However, I
> do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
> to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> and further assumed to be recieving money from them. That would make them a
> whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're seen
> with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> them? Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not. I
> certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
>
What was that the fonz said, char?
It is being called a prostitute. and how would you feel if someone accused you of
being one.
jennifer
Char wrote:
> frazil wrote:
> >
> > And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
>
> What has she "paid" for it? Or has she just had to "account" for
> what they paid her?
I think that we don't need to place a dollar on payment. You don't have to recieve a
monetary payment.
>
> However, I
> > do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
> > to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> > and further assumed to be recieving money from them.
>
> Who assumes that? One individual? Did she contact the welfare
> office about this "obvious" breach of ethics?
>
Answered this.
>
> That would make them a
> > whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're seen
> > with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> > them?
>
> I've repeatedly asked...WHAT SYSTEM? This was ONE individual. I
> didn't realize that one individual was the whole system.
>
The WELFARE System.
>
Agian already answerd this
>
> Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not.
> I
> > certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> > because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> > because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
>
> <sigh> WHAT system? Please tell me. I truly do want to know what
> system we are referring to here.
>
Look up in my latests posts.
>
Jenn
>
> >
> >
> > In article <37682618...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
> > wrote:
> > >As the Fonz is fond of saying....Exactamundo!
> > >
> > >Lori wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
> > >> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
> > >> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's saying
> > >> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
> > >> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
> > >> you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
> > >> Lori
> > >
>
Lori
frazil <fra...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:7k9lif$9cq$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:21:17 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It's even worse when one considers
> >> >> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping
handout
> >> >> when YOU needed it.
> >> >
> >> >Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
> >> >handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
> >> >been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
> >> >needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
> >> >to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare?
> >>
> >> Yes - it's called IS - Income Support in the UK.
> >
> >Probably a bit of difference from the US welfare system.
> >
> >>
> >> >If not, how can you
> >> >possibly know how much one is given to live on?
> >>
> >> Govt. figures perhaps?
> >
> >Would this include ALL government figures for ALL welfare
> >programs? Please remember that there isn't just one welfare
> >program in the US. Here we have HUD, government housing, WIC,
> >food pantries, United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, government
> >surplus food, and the normal welfare which includes foodstamps,
> >cash, medical card, daycare, etc. etc. etc. And each state is
> >different. So do you have figures on all states as well?
> >
>
Yes, they are.
HUD,
> government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the
rest
> are government programs (i.e. not charity)
That does not mean they aren't charity. What they are is taxpayer funded
charity, the worst kind, IMO. The more money the government forceably takes
from the people for government chosen charities, the less money people will
give to private charities.
Not sure what WIC is so I can't
> tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
> government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything
in
> return.
Charity is charity is charity. The difference between the two is that when
giving to private charities, people are choosing for themselves can choose
in what ways they will help, and who they will help, and people are not so
much treating them as entitlements. When it comes to forced funding of
charity by taxpayers, the person giving has no choice as to whom or what
they will help. When you give to help others you have a moral right to
decide for yourself what you consider to be a worthy cause. Doing it the
government's way takes that away from you. Beyond that, people who are on
charity which is funded by force from taxpayers tend to consider it an
entitlement, and to believe it's degrading to be made to work for it.
Lori
Lori
fried <fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:376825f7...@usenet.force9.net...
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:00:22 -0400, "Lori" <justa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the
things
> >> which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet
for".
where
> >> you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for
you,
> >> you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still
be
> >> thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
> >> would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
> >
> >
>
> against a range of attitudes, I make no bones about this - that's one
reason
> for ngs.
>
>
> > I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
> >that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
> >forced to either work for that check or go to school.
>
>
>
> > I think she's saying
> >that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
> >*is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you
what
> >you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
>
> they have no business, it's degrading, adding insult to a person in an
> already fairly parlous position, and that is wrong.
I disagree, Julian. I believe that if you are able bodied, yet *refuse* to
hold a job, especially because you feel that, for example, flipping burgers
is *beneath* you, then you have no moral right to resent it if the
government tells you what you may do with the funds the are giving you for
laying about. On the other hand, if you are *not* able bodied, then this
does not apply at all.
Lori
Char
eiramusa wrote:
>
> X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
>
> frazil <fra...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:7k9f7t$m6d$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> > And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
> However, I
> > do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are
> assumed
> > to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few
> times,
> > and further assumed to be recieving money from them. That would make them
> a
> > whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're
> seen
> > with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> > them? Let alone that you must be receiving money for it?
>
> I asked my aunt about this. She is on welfare temporarily because her
> husband died with no insurance and she had surgery and can't work right now.
> She said that they told her that you have to report any income or gifts that
> you receive because this could be counted as income and affect your benefit
> amount. If a man is always hanging around then a caseworker may wrongly
> assume that he is paying for dinners out, helping you with your utility
> bills, buying you gifts, ect... Any money spent on you is considered income
> and must be reported. It doesn't mean that you are selling sex, it means
> that you are receiving help from another source.
> Too many people abuse the system by getting some one else to move in and pay
> the bills while the receipent is collecting welfare benefits and not
> reporting the change of household income. ALL income in the household has
> to be accounted for even if it's your childs, friends, roommates, ect. if
> they are in thehousehold or are contributing in any way. Even if your grown
> son moves in, his income has to be counted and will affect your benefits. It
> doesn't mean that you are sleeping with him.
> eiramusa
Yup. Precisely! And if it wasn't for those that WON'T report all
their income, because they feel cheating taxpayers is their God
given right, the truly needy wouldn't have so many stipulations.
But as there are always those that go to great lengths to take
advantage at other's expense, there's always a need for checks
and balances in any system such as this.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> fried wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> > >>
> > >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > >>
> > >> Julian
> > >
> > >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> >
> > What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> > deny them money? You nuts?
> >
>
> Not even just a boyfriend but just a male companion.
>
> >
> > >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> >
> > Seems fine to me.
> >
>
> And be a woman.
>
> >
> > > Apparently if you
> > >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > >being poor.
> >
> > Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> >
> > >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> > >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
> >
> > I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> > than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> > self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
> >
>
> Thank you.
Jennifer, how do they know if you use the money badly UNLESS they
stick their nose in...which, BTW, they are paid to do. You and
Fried may feel they have no right, but those that pay into these
benefits feel they DO have every right. So who's right and who's
wrong. Those accepting it when they haven't had their arm twisted
to do so and know the regs up front, or those paying into wanting
to know where their money's going, but either must pay into it or
not work to feed their own family? How long do you think such
benefits would last if everyone stopped working to get out of
paying taxes and they all went on welfare?
>
> >
> > >They provide
> > >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> >
> > This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > and end all of self respect.
> >
>
> Not just people get free money but huge corprate companys, but its okay for them to
> take taxpayers $. Where i live they pull out as soon as the check cashes, and leave
> us without the promised jobs:)
No, it's not ok. They're cheating just as some welfare recipients
do. Nothing is ever ok when done at the expense/harm of others.
>
> >
> > > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> >
> > Welfare isn't charity. It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> >
> > Julian
>
> Thank you, you've said what I was trying to. Thank you so much.
> Jenn
--
Char
Ok, so keep doing something. It beats complaining about a
situation you accepted right?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > You're trying
> > > > to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
> > > > similar.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know, they are both round, they hang off trees, you can peel them, and they
> > > both have seeds. I've compared apples w/ oranges ;)
> > > Jenn
> >
> > Neither taste, feel, nor look the same...just as comparing CS
> > with welfare.
> >
>
> Depending on the apple you get.
Well I've yet to see an orange apple, or one that even fainly
tasted like an orange, or even really felt like one. But if you
can find one, ship it to me (I'll pay postage). I know some
people that'd be interested in it.
frazil
><kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
>> have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>
frazil
do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
and further assumed to be recieving money from them. That would make them a
because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
In article <37682618...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
wrote:
>As the Fonz is fond of saying....Exactamundo!
>
>Lori wrote:
>>
>> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
>> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
>> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's saying
>> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
>> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
>> you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
>> Lori
>
fried
wrote:
>> It's even worse when one considers
>> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
>> when YOU needed it.
>
>Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
>handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
>been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
>needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
>to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare?
Yes - it's called IS - Income Support in the UK.
>If not, how can you
>possibly know how much one is given to live on?
Govt. figures perhaps?
>Let's see now, your rent is free through HUD or government
>housing...no bill there. Your daycare is free so that you can
>work or attend school...no bill there. All medical expenses
>(including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
>bill there. You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
>groceries and other items are free. You pay no taxes on your
>groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you. You
>can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
>already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
>welfare for. You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
>other charitable organizations. You can get food from other
>charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
>child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
>
>Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
>There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
>"just" enough?
In low living cost parts of England, about £45 ( $70 ) per week plus rent.
You can live on less - say £25 per week, but it's pretty tricky. £60 per
week is already fairly tolerable. None of them really compare to the sort of
poverty wages regarded as "barely enough" in the Third World. And yes, I
have experienced that as well.
>> >> >They provide
>> >> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>> >> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>> >> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>> >> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
>> >> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
>> >> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
>> >> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
>> >> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
>> >> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
>> >> and end all of self respect.
>> >
>> >Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
>> >stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
>> >whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
>> >that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
>> >and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
>>
>> I do think that the basic requirements of life should be available to all in
>> a decent society. I also agree with you that people should be expected to
>> work for it IF there is the possibility to do so in a reasonable way.
>> Trouble is there often isn't. I have said some quite vehement things in
>> other posts - I am reacting to a certain viewpoint you have about things you
>> seem to have little knowledge about, not you personally.
>
>I have quite a bit of knowledge about welfare...I lived it, and
>I've fought against it...at least the way it's set up for abuses
>and numerous loopholes. Again I ask, have you?
Yes, I've lived on it, and no, I would not defend people who fought against
its various loopholes under the current system, indeed I would encourage
them to exploit the loopholes - but I don't know the system in the US and
may think differently there.
>So what above
>would you suggest I have little knowledge about?
None of the stuff you have centred on here. You have little knowledge of not
having a helping hand when needed. That is in fact what I said.
>Perhaps it is
>Jennifer with little knowledge. Maybe she doesn't have a clue
>what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
>can be found on the web if I knew the state.
Precisely the point - you are despising people for not having your get up
and go or your intellectual abilities - I find that sort of attitude pretty
deplorable I am sorry to say.
>If I have so little
>knowledge about how welfare works, then place me in a class with
>those others here who are stating the same things. But we all
>have so little knowledge. Many of the NCPs here have ex-wives
>milking the system. Many of the CPs here have had to accept
>charity to make it at one time or another. So many her DO have an
>inkling of an idea of what's available in welfare and exactly
>what kind of help one can get.
Sure.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
>> >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>> >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>> >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>> >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>> >>
>> >> Welfare isn't charity.
>> >
>> >
>> >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
>> >
>> > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
>> >helpless.
>> >
>> > 2. a charitable act or work.
>> >
>> > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
>> >
>> > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
>> >something out of charity.
>> >
>> > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
>> >
>> >
>> >You were saying?
>>
>> Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
>> welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
>> overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
>> from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
>> just pragmatism.
>
>Well there's the problem...I don't agree that we have inbuilt
>unemployment. I see help wanted signs everyday, and I can easily
>get a job. It may not pay as much as I like and it may not be
>glamorous, but there are jobs available.
The poverty trap is pretty tricky to get out of - it's not as simple as
"just get that low-paying job". But if I grant that in some areas there is
work, in others there most definitely isn't - for instance in South Africa
today they have mentioned a 40% unemployment rate. Stop kidding yourself ,
you are talking about your own experience, and you will speak and vote as if
it is valid for everybody. It is not.
>Welfare IS a charity. As
>covered in the above, it is a donation to aid the poor, ill or
>helpless, it is a charitable fund, and it is given to those in
>need. I have no problems with people who NEED welfare, but I have
>no problems with accepting fact that it IS a charity either. As
>I've stated before, there's nothing at all wrong with accepting
>charity, there is something wrong in expecting it as an
>entitlement.
Well, we've done that one to death I think ;-)).
Julian
fried
wrote:
>> >I'd have gotten on my knees and kissed the feet of every taxpayer
>> >if I could for what they did for me. I'm EXTREMELY thankful.
>> >Without their help, I might have gone to McD's and still be
>> >there, or still be living with my parents. I thank my parents for
>> >what they did for me and the taxpayers for helping me get on my
>> >feet. But ya know, even should I have ended up at McD's, I'd
>> >still be thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my
>> >own. It's called pride.
>>
>> It's called misplaced pride.
>
>Nothing at all misplaced about pride in one's accomplishments.
"Gee I can put a hamburger in a bun, that makes me feel real good. Heh
folks, look at this hamburger I put in this bun, whaddaya say?"
Otis Redding "I feel good" fadeout...
>That you feel that it is tells a lot.
Indeedy.
>I'm glad you've got self respect, that's good.
>> It's just a pity you seem to have got it for the wrong reasons and have been
>> misled into despising people because they aren't as gifted or dynamic or
>> positive or fortunate as yourself.
>
>Despise? Who? I really think you should not try to read so much
>into something that simply isn't there. That too is quite telling.
You've said these people should feel ashamed, that a dose of humility in
these circs. is good for them. Veeeeerytelling <lifts horn-rimmed specs. and
looks piercing>
>I have no doubt that given a suitable
>> environment it wouldn't take long to transform you into one of these people
>> - it might give you a little more insight into life than you seem to have.
>
>Suitable environment? You mean such as being left medically
>incapable of currently working and taken 2 states from my job and
>dropped on my parent's doorstep with a newborn child? That type
>of suitable?
NO. All that, but with no parents, no bail-out at the end of it. Got it?
>Well I may have been suitable, but it didn't mean I
>had to succumb to an entitlement belief. If you find fault in
>that, so be it. But many people are taught differently and people
>did without welfare for years and they didn't feel entitled to a
>thing.
Well, so much for history. Check "almshouses". But I do agree with you
partly, that sort of system would be one I would and have enjoyed. It exists
in most of the world. It doesn't exist in rich western countries.
>> When I say "as fortunate as yourself" I draw your attention to the things
>> which just happened to be around which you would "kiss people"s feet for".
>> Some people don't have them.
>
>Who doesn't have them? Other countries perhaps. If we're talking
>US, welfare, HUD, government housing, etc. is available in every
>state.
Exactly.
>Charitable organizations such as food pantries, WIC,
>Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way, etc. abound. They are
>HIGHLY available here.
These are things for which your type of servile gratitude are perhaps more
fitting. But then I have seldom stooped to accepting this sort of charity.
> In many countries they are available. In
>those countries they are not, have you ever heard those peoples
>complaining that they didn't get their entitlements?
What entitlements?
> Nope. Most
>of them are thankful for their lives, their children, even a roof
>over their head when they can get it. Just being alive is enough
>for many to be thankful for.
Or not as the case may be.
>If you hadn't had them, you wouldn't be where
>> you are now. Instead of facing up to how important that has been for you,
>> you just say "ya know, even should i have ended up at McD's, I'd still be
>> thankful that I had a job and that I was making it on my own." Sure you
>> would. Strange that the only people saying this are people who AREN'T.
>
>Aren't...but was.
From what you say, you want other people to have your approach to life,
whether or not they face your circs. You spent probably short periods
working your guts out - you want others to do the same. You had too much
pride to ask your relatives for money to feed yourself - but you had a baby
to feed as well. You live in the most affluent nation on earth where people
bring out the argument that "if people did what we do they'd be affluent
too" - and people do, and they are not, and simultaneously the economies
they live in are being destroyed by mnations like yours and ours.
> Just as the working two jobs, night classes and
>full-time work, walking to work when my car wouldn't start,
>selling clothing etc. just to keep food on the table, robbing
>Peter to pay Paul on numerous ocassions, shutting off heat in the
>winter and wearing sweaters to cut back on costs, making mac &
>cheese last a whole week for a meal, getting sick of Ramen
>noodles and beans. And you know what? I was STILL thankful. I had
>my daughter, I had my life, I had friends, family. We can always
>find something to be thankful for, until the day we die. And then
>we won't worry too much about it.
I can understand you being thankful. You have had it good. You are lucky.
Now stop laying into people who aren't as lucky as you have been, and start
attacking the real lazy bastards - people who are rich and don't need to
work. There are few things less edifying than watching people scratching
around looking for reasons to attack the weak and poverty stricken.
Julian
fried
frazil
>How does someone get a new SSN? I thought you get one and that's
>it. And you said she was convicted twice...is that "before" this
>incident? I don't see why they let her back on welfare the second
>time after being convicted the first time. The third, with a new
>name and SSN though, would be hard to realize she'd been there
>before. They need to start handing out some serious jail time for
>these kind of offenses.
>
Easy, get birth certificate with a different name one it. Or use your birth
certificate and claim that someone else has stolen and is using your old SSN.
Government computers are so old that processing is slow at best. Government
has been cut in so many areas that they can't keep up with the amount of
work. And they are required to do so much more. The whole VP Gore
reinventing government thing is a crock of horse crap. You can not expact
people to do more with less until you give them the tools to do it. And that
is exactly what is happening. For example at work I'm required to use data
imaging to retreive documents, but I still have an old 486-33 MH machine. It
is faster to do the work the old fashion way than use the data image, but it
isn't any fast than it used to be. Further my work load has gone up due to
the fact that less people are doing it. IOW do more with less people but with
the same old tools. Sorry It can't be done.
>
>PAUL wrote:
>>
>> Washington arrested another welfare cheat today. She has already been
>> convicted twice in the last 15 years. This time she was on TANF and food
>> stamps. But she remarried, got another SSN (that is still legal for women)
>> and worked under her NEW SSN, but got TANF under the old one. And she
>> claimed she didn't know where the father of the kids were (it is the guy she
>> married). This all came to light when he was arrested for TANF arrears after
>> a traffic stop revealed the bench warrant. He is a long-haul trucker and
>> gone 6 days a week.
>>
>> The total household income was over $100K, yet this woman went on welfare
>> with her two kids and got $546/mo for 33 months; and another $300/mo in food
>> stamps. (a total of almost $28,000) If it weren't for her hubby who ran a
>> light she might still be doing it. BTW, it took authorities 14 days to
>> decide to let HIM go free.
>>
>> This is the MOST common abuse of TANF: women receiving assistance while
>> married to, and/or living with, the father of the children. But why are we
>> surprised? Our laws almost encourage this kind of cheating. Paul Laird
>>
>> --
>> The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
>> by those against whom it is practiced.
>
frazil
>you to receive these benefits. Generally CPs that expect the
>other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
>having to raise their children...they're generally more than
>happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
>for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
>to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
>similar.
>
Perhaps, but I recall a number of CPs arguing that their time spent raising
the child counts to reduce the amount of monetay support that they should be
providing. Just as the time that an NCP doesn't spend counts towards
increasing the amount of monetary support they should provide. Only you never
get to 50/50. IOW, an NCP, earning more money than a CP still pays even if
the NCP spents 50 percent of the time raising the child.
>
>frazil wrote:
>>
>> Before, you jump all over Jennifer, all I think she was pointing out is that
>> welfare isn't exactly a free ride, and that there are some non-monitary costs
>> associated with receiving it. Exactly what CPs argue when it comes to CS.
> Me
>> thinkest the pot is trying to call the kettle black. JMO.
>>
>> In article <3767EDB2...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >jennifer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Char wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > fried wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:14:57 -0300, jennifer
>> > <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare
>> > because I
>> >> > > >have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>> >> > They provide
>> >> > you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>> >> > free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>> >> > and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>> >> > didn't "earn" in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing is free. i don't know what it's like where you live but i have to
> be
>> > either
>> >> going to school full time (i am) or activly looking for a job. If i am not
> in
>> > school i
>> >> only have a couple of months to find a job.
>> >
>> >And you find something wrong with that? Why shouldn't you be
>> >going to school or actively seeking work? Why shouldn't they
>> >expect this for free money? They helped me the first time I got a
>> >quick education. Collecting free money for 4 years going to
>> >college wasn't for me. And I was VERY thankful they were there. I
>> >was MORE than happy to spend it exactly how I was supposed to.
>> >And I worked my tail off at a job and night classes on my own
>> >afterwards. You see, they didn't owe me a dime, they didn't owe
>> >me an education, and it frankly embarrassed the living hell outta
>> >me to even ask for it. But I was elated that it was there when I
>> >needed it for my child.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
>> >> > to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>> >> > in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>> >> > by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>> >> > it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >
frazil
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's even worse when one considers
>> >> that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
>> >> when YOU needed it.
>> >
>> >Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
>> >handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
>> >been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
>> >needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
>> >to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare?
>>
>> Yes - it's called IS - Income Support in the UK.
>
>
>>
>> >possibly know how much one is given to live on?
>>
>> Govt. figures perhaps?
>
>programs? Please remember that there isn't just one welfare
>program in the US. Here we have HUD, government housing, WIC,
>food pantries, United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, government
>surplus food, and the normal welfare which includes foodstamps,
>cash, medical card, daycare, etc. etc. etc. And each state is
>different. So do you have figures on all states as well?
>
Char, United Wat, Salvation Army, and Goodwill, are private charities. HUD,
government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the rest
are government programs (i.e. not charity) Not sure what WIC is so I can't
tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything in
return.
>>
>> >Let's see now, your rent is free through HUD or government
>> >housing...no bill there. Your daycare is free so that you can
>> >work or attend school...no bill there. All medical expenses
>> >(including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
>> >bill there. You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
>> >groceries and other items are free. You pay no taxes on your
>> >groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you. You
>> >can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
>> >already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
>> >welfare for. You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
>> >other charitable organizations. You can get food from other
>> >charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
>> >child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
>> >
>> >Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
>> >There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
>> >"just" enough?
>>
>> In low living cost parts of England, about £45 ( $70 ) per week plus rent.
>
>We weren't speaking of England welfare. But see my comments on
>that scenario in another post.
>
>>
>> You can live on less - say £25 per week, but it's pretty tricky. £60 per
>> week is already fairly tolerable. None of them really compare to the sort of
>> poverty wages regarded as "barely enough" in the Third World. And yes, I
>> have experienced that as well.
>
>I've lived on barely enough. Don't have a clue what those amounts
>equate to in English dollars. But I remember my mother taking
>care of a family of 4 with high medical bills on $500/mo. And I
>went months unable to work and earn anything after an accident. I
>kept bill collectors at bay until I could get back on my feet and
>refused to accept welfare because I knew it would be over soon.
>That's the point. We were discussing the US system, and there are
>MANY loopholes and people already do exploit them, at the expense
>of the taxpayers. If you find nothing inherently wrong in that,
>after seeing all the benefits they receive listed above, I would
>question your motives.
>
>>
>> >So what above
>> >would you suggest I have little knowledge about?
>>
>> None of the stuff you have centred on here. You have little knowledge of not
>> having a helping hand when needed. That is in fact what I said.
>
>Really? I have quite a bit of knowledge about not "accepting" a
>helping hand. When it came right down to absolutely necessary, I
>did for my daughter's sake. But tell ya what, before my daughter,
>I'm no stranger to sleeping in my car or crashing where ever I
>could. I chose to grab a bus to OH when I was 18 to find my dad.
>I had nowhere to stay, a small bag of clothes and little money.
>But then it was just me, I didn't have a dependant. Being that
>help is available, it's foolish not to accept it at the expense
>of an innocent child. If it isn't available, you do the best you
>can. So your problem with this would be.....
>
>>
>> >Perhaps it is
>> >Jennifer with little knowledge. Maybe she doesn't have a clue
>> >what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
>> >can be found on the web if I knew the state.
>>
>> Precisely the point - you are despising people for not having your get up
>> and go or your intellectual abilities - I find that sort of attitude pretty
>> deplorable I am sorry to say.
>
>Nothing above suggests anything with regards to get up and go or
>intellecutal abilities. But you can keep reading in anything you
>want. It doesn't change the actual conversation and really is
>quite telling on an individual.
>I am talking about US...and what I have stated holds pretty much
>true accross the US. That you do not know the US, speaks for
>itself. People have lived in poverty for years and have gotten by
>without any help whatsoever. Before reading into this what's not
>there again, I didn't suggest that if the help can be made
>available that they go without it if they truly need it. But then
>you've already seen me state that many times. I'm starting to get
>the impression that you just want to argue for lack of anything
>better. Would you please state exactly what you have a problem
>with? Just so I can be clear on this:
>
>a) Do you think people should feel "entitled" to receive free
>stuff before trying everything else?
>
>b) Do you think people should be allowed to abuse a system that
>does help them when they need help?
>
>c) Do you think that taxpayers should be held responsible for the
>irresponsible behavior of others or should checks and balances be
>kept to prevent abusers and irresponsible people receiving
>benefits?
>
>d) Do you think charity should be handed out freely without
>regard to truly needy cases?
>
>e) Do you think the needy should have a f*** you, now gimme gimme
>gimme, when receiving charitable assistance?
>
>My answers to all of these are a resounding NO! If you have
>different answers, please elaborate, otherwise, what exactly are
>we debating?
Sunny
says...
>>If there were no welfare available, you can bet your lucky student
>>stars you would be working in no time.
>
>Explain that to people in places with no work. Look at unemployment rates in
>places with no welfare.
Are you talking about countries other than the United States?
>You may be feeding this person, but rest assured, there are many millions of
>people who you are not feeding who are already dead.
I don't particularly want to feed them, either, if they are able to work and
choose not to. Oh, wait, they're DEAD. Did *I* kill them?
>And in your particular
>case, you are obviously culpably responsible.
I just can't see your logic there.
frazil
>Frazil, please read the whole post, rather than pick and choose.
>Whom you are dating WAS covered, if you had read it.
>
Ooooo. getting testy are we? Perhaps I missed it perhaps it wasn't covered to
my satisfaction, perhaps it summarily dismissed. I you care to tell me how it
was covered by you then please do. I'm listening.
>As far as CS accountability, I've never stated anything against
>it except for accounting for food bites, even welfare does not
>require that in depth accounting. As for sending the accounting
>to you...why? You are not my ex.
Not me personally, Char, to each CPs respective ex, of course, assuming the
ex is paying.
>
>Lastly, please do read the definition on benevolent and get back
>to me. This in no way disputes charity and you are only fooling
>yourself if you believe otherwise. To make it more clear, charity
>is for "needy". You give where you see a need to give. Without
>checks and balances, it no longer is spent on the needy and is
>instead abused. It ceases being charity at that point and becomes
>entitlement. Which covers your last rantings about "just enough
>to survive". I've already covered that portion in another post.
>Perhaps you feel it's just enough, but I would ask you to explain
>how you get that impression.
I did read the definition of benevolent. Here you go just in case you didn't
Benevolent - adj. 1. characterized by benevolence, kindly. 2. of or concerned
with charity.
and for good measure
Benevolence - n. 1. an inclination or tendency to perform charitable acts:
good will. 2. a kindly act.
Your confusing charity with welfare. Welfare is supposed to be for the needy.
Charity can be for any one neediness is not a requirement too be considered
charity. The only thing that is required is that it is given freely with out
any expectation on the part of the giver to recieve something in return for
the gift from the recipient. What distinguishes charity from welfare is that
welfare expects something in return from the recipient. Thus welfare is not
charity.
>
>But then, you have previously pointed out that you are simply
>looking for debate. However, I don't feel the tug that you
>obviously do to debate an issue to death repeatedly until it
>comes full circle. You have my views, like them, hate them,
>discard them...I frankly don't care. I'm a taxpayer, it's partly
>my money, I have a right to the views I have without regards to
>your feelings in this matter.
>
>
>
>frazil wrote:
>>
>> In article <3767F6E7...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >fried wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this
> add
>> > to the
>> >> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as
> a
>> > UK
>> >> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an
> awful
>> >> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Julian
>> >> >
>> >> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
>> >>
>> >> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
>> >> deny them money? You nuts?
>> >
>> >Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
>> >"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
>> >check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
>> >for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
>> >statement?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
>> >>
>> >> Seems fine to me.
>> >>
>> >> > Apparently if you
>> >> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
>> >> >being poor.
>> >>
>> >> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different
> argument.
>> >
>> >Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
>> >your secrets. Like your bank account number."
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
>> >> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
>> >>
>> >> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
>> >> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no
> longer
>> >> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
>> >
>> >You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
>> >every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
>> >it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
>> >dollars are going for.
>> >
>>
>> Money perhaps, who you are seen with and who you are dating, I'm afraid not.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >They provide
>> >> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
>> >> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
>> >> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
>> >> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
>> >> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of
> these
>> >> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
>> >> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
>> >> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a
> society
>> >> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be
> all
>> >> and end all of self respect.
>> >
>> >Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
>> >stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
>> >whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
>> >that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
>> >and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
>>
>> Hmmmm. So that means that I should or the State should have a right to see
>> that CS is used for its intended purpose (e.g. spent on the child). Ok I'm
>> game every CP should audited at the end of the year to ensure that the CS is
>> spent on the child. So that means that every CP should provide the state or
>> me with their banks account numbers, detail where every dollar is spent, not
>> be seen with the same guy on repeated occassions, etc. I don't think so.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
>> >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
>> >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
>> >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
>> >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
>> >>
>> >> Welfare isn't charity.
>> >
>> >
>> >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
>> >
>> > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
>> >helpless.
>> >
>> > 2. a charitable act or work.
>> >
>> > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
>> >
>> > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
>> >something out of charity.
>> >
>> > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
>> >
>> >
>> >You were saying?
>>
>> Ok, and once you place restrictions on the recipient it no longer becomes a
>> generous, benevolent act. IOW the tax payer provides you money to survive
> and
>> expects X in return. It is not charity when one places expectations in
>> return. Ergo, welfare is not charity.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
>> >> should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
>> >> humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
>> >>
>> >> Julian
>> >
>> >Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
>> >charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
>> >
>>
>> The real purpose for welfare is to protect the rich from the desparate acts
>> that the poor would resort to in order to survive (thieft, robbery, murder,
>> etc). IOW we'll give you enough to survive so that your survival isn't
>> dependent on taking things from other individuals. Welfare isn't an act of
>> kindness. It is an act of protection. It is not charity.
>
Sunny
Why should they have my job? Why don't they find an available postion that
needs to be filled? There are plenty to go around... if one applies themself.
I know it takes a little more effort than running out to the mailbox and
taking that check to the bank to cash, but it's the way things are. I moved to
a new location and found work quickly and easily simply by trying.
There are almost more jobs where I live than there are people.
And why can't 'they' (welfare recipients) find a job on their own? Why can't
they look in the papers, or walk into companies and ask for applications? I
found MY job by myself, without any help. I had many different jobs available
to choose from. It wasn't a handout; I applied for it, I demonstrated I could
do the job, and I was hired. I work all day, and I work hard. I buy my own
groceries, I pay my own mortgage, and I feel like a funtioning self-reliant
person.
I don't understand what you mean by "a job with no need is also a handout".
There is a need for my job, just as there is for any job, and I provide a
service in return for a paycheck.... a third of which goes to taxes, which go
to the Welfare Departments, who pay out money to Jennifer so she can buy
groceries and pay rent while she goes to school. I resent that. I am not
working hard to support Jennifer or her kids while she goes to school.
Jennifer didn't put me through school. She should be working to support her
own way through college. She, and the father of her children, shouuld support
their own offspring. To think that the world owes you money for you to make
something of yourself is a false sense of entitlement. No one gave me any
money to help me be who I am. I did it by myself. Nobody owes me anything.
Nor do I owe Jennifer anything.
If Jennifer were disabled or otherwise incapacitated, and unable to fend for
herself, and in obvious need out outside governmental support, I might think
differently. I don't think that is the case, though.
frazil
>X-NO-ARCHIVE:YES
>
>frazil <fra...@geocities.com> wrote in message
>news:7k9f7t$m6d$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
>However, I
>> do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are
>assumed
>> to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few
>times,
>> and further assumed to be recieving money from them. That would make them
>a
>> whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're
>> with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
>> them? Let alone that you must be receiving money for it?
>
>husband died with no insurance and she had surgery and can't work right now.
>She said that they told her that you have to report any income or gifts that
>you receive because this could be counted as income and affect your benefit
>amount. If a man is always hanging around then a caseworker may wrongly
>assume that he is paying for dinners out, helping you with your utility
>bills, buying you gifts, ect... Any money spent on you is considered income
>and must be reported. It doesn't mean that you are selling sex, it means
>that you are receiving help from another source.
>Too many people abuse the system by getting some one else to move in and pay
>the bills while the receipent is collecting welfare benefits and not
>reporting the change of household income. ALL income in the household has
>to be accounted for even if it's your childs, friends, roommates, ect. if
>they are in thehousehold or are contributing in any way. Even if your grown
>son moves in, his income has to be counted and will affect your benefits. It
>doesn't mean that you are sleeping with him.
>eiramusa
>
Well the original statement said that "your obviously sleeping with them".
But in any event I still think is is wrong that a caseworker could assume that
the guy is taking her out to dinner, a movie, etc. and that it equates to
income. That is as unfair as the system assuming that all NCPs don't pay
their CS. Without the hard evidence to support such a position the assumption
is just that an assumption with no basis in fact. Let's get the facts before
we convict someone on merely an unsupported pipe dream.
>> I think not. I
>> certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a
>woman
>> because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
>> because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
>>
>>
>> In article <37682618...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
>> wrote:
>> >As the Fonz is fond of saying....Exactamundo!
>> >
>> >Lori wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree,
>BTW)
>> >> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they
>are
>> >> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's
>saying
>> >> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then
>whoever
>> >> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you
>what
frazil
>
>
>frazil wrote:
>>
>> And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
>
>what they paid her?
She payed in time spent in school, looking for a job, etc. Payment doesn't
necessarily need to be in terms of dollars. It is that in return for the
welfare there is an expectation placed on the recipient. That means its not
its not free, and its not charity..
>However, I
>> do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are
> assumed
>> to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
>> and further assumed to be recieving money from them.
>
>Who assumes that? One individual? Did she contact the welfare
>office about this "obvious" breach of ethics?
read eiramusa's post regarding their aunt or was it their grandmother.
>
>That would make them a
>> whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're
> seen
>> with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
>> them?
>
>I've repeatedly asked...WHAT SYSTEM? This was ONE individual. I
>didn't realize that one individual was the whole system.
>
>
>Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not.
>I
>> certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
>> because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
>> because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
>
><sigh> WHAT system? Please tell me. I truly do want to know what
>system we are referring to here.
>
>>
>>
frazil
>
>The "real lazy bastards" as you put it, exist in droves in the
>US. They lie on welfare and "refuse" to work...not that they
>can't, not that they are kept in the gutter...they "choose" that
>lifestyle. Those that want to work, DO...or they work toward that
>goal. Jennifer is working toward that goal. My only point was the
>complaining about what they required for these benefits. If you
>can do nothing but complain, don't accept charity and you'll have
>no reason to complain about it.
>
Fine but let's not confuse an explanation with complaint. And let's not hear
any gripe from a CP about how the system makes them allow visitation with the
scumbag of a NCP. It's not quite the same but it has the same flavor.
jennifer
Sunny wrote:
> In article <3767CDA8...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > really how do you propose this? If there were jobs out there then there
> > wouldn't
> > be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford
> > to?
> > What about Corprate welfare?
> > It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
>
> There ARE jobs out there. Wisconsin, for example, with its 1.5%
> unemployment rate, is begging for workers. Wisconsin has pretty much
> ended welfare as we know it, and gives out jobs instead. The welfare
> rate has declined 67% as a result.
>
> If there were no welfare available, you can bet your lucky student
> stars you would be working in no time.
>
If there were jobs. Go to the Maritimes in Canada, especially Nova Scotia, and
Newfoundland. Places where quotas have been placed on fishing and only a few win
there fishing licenses any ways. (We don't all fish BTW), or the coal mines that
dominate our lives so much. Recently shut down. Big companies don't want to
settle here, partly because of the huge union pull, and partly because of
incentives to go to mexico (Free Trade). We don't have that many jobs. Can't
start a business because you have to have income to get a loan. If we had jobs
here I would have one. But we don't have any. I know it is hard to believe, but
it is true. Ever wonder why so many of your doctors are canadian, or your workers
for that matter. We have to relocate to get a job. And relocating isn't an option
for a family without money.
>
> The theory is, welfare begets more welfare. Stop living off the
> taxpayers and find some work.
Want to give me a job, and find someone to marry me so I can work in your Fab
country?
> If you are unfortunate enough to not
> qualify for a scholarship, or a grant, or a student loan, then you
> shouldn't be still in school.
So i can't graduate high school. And Student loans, what a joke! Not an option i
want to take. I have a friend who just finished University. She has to pay $300
dollars every month + interest even if she doesn't earn it. She wanted to get a
mortgage to buy a mini home so that her and her fiancé could get married (truck
driver) The bank said that she couldn't because of her student loan, and if she
gets married he has to pay her debt. She can't get a job to use her degree. With
student loan you graduate university with not only a degree but a life long debt.
Not something you need when you have a family to feed.
> I am sorry for your situation, but I
> really don't want to feed you any more.
So don't buy Canadian.
jennifer
Sunny wrote:
>
>
> Are you talking about countries other than the United States?
>
>
Yes there are other countrys:)
frazil
> <mas...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> ><kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because
> I
>> >> have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>> >
>>
>> Ok let's give them your job. It the same thing. Giving someone a job that
>> they couldn't get on their own is a handout, and giving someone a job for
>> which there is no need is also a handout.
>
>own, or for a job for which there is a need? Or should we just
>feed everyone that doesn't want to train or has no inclination to
>ever work? Do you feel the same about CS? Not from your past
>posts you don't.
>But ok, let's run with it. All CPs should be given every penny
>they need to raise a child and if the NCP doesn't pony up, the
>state/taxpayers should foot the bill, and no one should ever
>expect them to get a job and pay their fair share, nor to ever be
>held accountable for what they do with that money. Fair? Didn't
>think so.
Char, I have no problem with providing training for someone on welfare and all
the things that maybe required to provide such training. And I have no
problem with reasonable CS requirements. What I do have a problem with is
letting a few bad apples spoil it for rest. I do have a problem when the
government invades peoples privacy because some people cheat. I have a
problem that the government CS system treats all NCPs as deadbeats because
some NCP are deadbeats. The presumption that is made against all just because
some people are cheaters, aren't responsible, etc, that is my problem.
The presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding carries with it the fact
that some guilty people are going to get away with their crime. But I prefer
that consequence over the consequence of the alternative. That alternative is
that one is guilty is until proven innocent, which results in innocent people
being punished for a crime which they didn't commit. I willing to let a few
guilty people go free in order to prevent an innocent person from being
punished.
jennifer
frazil wrote:
> In article <37678731...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
> >have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> >Here's some things I found out about being on welfare:
> >I cannot date, because if my caseworker sees me in town with the same guy more
> >then 3 times a week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud.
> > They
> >don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't staying over at my
> >house, just being seen with him can do it. We call them Pecker Detectors.
> >Because they believe if you are seen with the same guy for a couple of times
> >then you are obviously sleeping with him, therefore receiving money.
>
> Huh? why would you be receiving money, if you were "obviously" sleeping with a
> guy? Unless your trying to tell me that female welfare recipients are
> "obviously" whores, and the guy merely provides the evidence.
>
No, LOL. According to the government women can't just have sex for pleasure. We all know that
women only have male companions to sleep with:) And if we aren't doing "it" for fun then we must
be doing it for payment. You didn't know that? I thought it was a general assumption;> If that's
what the government says then it Must be true.
Have you seen our prime Minister Jean cretian (or Creature)? You'll understand his reasoning if
you do. Not just his. Welfare was brought in by our former bachelor PM. Now do you understand
the sex part.
Jenn
>
> You know
> >how I know this, hey threaten to kick me off because i was hanging around a
> > male
> >friend of mine when my caseworker came up to me and told me.
> >Another thing I found out is that if you receive welfare you have no rights.
> >They can do pretty much what they want because you need that money. They make
> >you sign away all your secrets. Like your bank account number. They have all
> >access to anything in some sort of file about you.
> >
> >I have sympathy for this lady. She probably has good reason. She probably
> >doesn't get enough from welfare to feed her children so she had to fraud the
> >system.
> >They do send you notices saying how much you are allowed to spend and on what.
> >20 dollars on clothes for your child, 34 for your clothing. only 17 dollars for
> >miscellaneous. 85 for food and 200 for rent.
> >Live on that and see what desperate measures you come to.
> >If she was doing it just to get rich then she was wrong and should get the book
> >thrown at her. If she was doing it to feed her children then the system should
> >be the one getting the book in the face.
> >
> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> >stereotype that is not always true.
> >Jenn
frazil
> wrote:
>> >How does someone get a new SSN? I thought you get one and that's
>> >it. And you said she was convicted twice...is that "before" this
>> >incident? I don't see why they let her back on welfare the second
>> >time after being convicted the first time. The third, with a new
>> >name and SSN though, would be hard to realize she'd been there
>> >before. They need to start handing out some serious jail time for
>> >these kind of offenses.
>> >
>>
>> Easy, get birth certificate with a different name one it. Or use your birth
>> certificate and claim that someone else has stolen and is using your old SSN.
>>
>> Government computers are so old that processing is slow at best. Government
>> has been cut in so many areas that they can't keep up with the amount of
>> work. And they are required to do so much more. The whole VP Gore
>> reinventing government thing is a crock of horse crap. You can not expact
>> people to do more with less until you give them the tools to do it. And that
>> is exactly what is happening. For example at work I'm required to use data
>> imaging to retreive documents, but I still have an old 486-33 MH machine. It
>> is faster to do the work the old fashion way than use the data image, but it
>> isn't any fast than it used to be. Further my work load has gone up due to
>> the fact that less people are doing it. IOW do more with less people but with
>> the same old tools. Sorry It can't be done.
>
>it done. :-(
>
Yeah but did you get paid for the whole 12 hours of work. If you didn't and
you worked for more than 44 per week then your company was in violation of the
fair labor laws. An employer is required by law to pay overtime for any hours
worked over 44 per week, even for salaried employees. There is one thing
about the government they won't knowingly violate the law, thus the government
will not make their employess work more than 44 hours per week without paying
overtime. Since over time costs big bucks (and the idea is to create a
government that cost less), employees are restricted to a 40 hour work week.
So unless you provide the appropriate tools, it is a false expectation to get
more for less. And since the appropriate tools costs bucks the government is
very slow to provide such tools. That is why Gore's reinvention is a bunch of
bunk. There are other reasons but we don't need to get into those things.
>
>
jennifer
Char wrote:
> jennifer wrote:
> >
> > Char wrote:
> >
> > > fried wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:56:46 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > > > >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > > > >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > > > >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Julian
> > > > >
> > > > >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> > > >
> > > > What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> > > > deny them money? You nuts?
> > >
> > > Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
> > > "when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
> > > check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
> > > for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
> > > statement?
> > >
> >
> > Yes these are actual Welfare regualtions. And the person who told me was my case worker.
> > I checked them out after he told me and have a copy of them now. I've also known people
> > to get kicked off for meeting a friend a couple times a week.
>
> Ok, so these are regs, and you presumably knew them before
> signing up?
No I didn't know them before.
> Or know them now and can at anytime say you no longer
> want the benefits?
And quit school, never graduate high school and live in poverty the rest of my life.
> Or you can bite your tongue and accept it to
> keep the benefits.
Because if i don't my money will be cut off.
>
> Or you can work with the system to try and get
> this regulation changed.
After they aren't holding life over my head then I will. I have done what little i have
already.
> Those are the choices as I see them.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> > > >
> > > > Seems fine to me.
> > > >
> > > > > Apparently if you
> > > > >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > > > >being poor.
> > > >
> > > > Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> > >
> > > Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> > > your secrets. Like your bank account number."
> > >
> >
> > Do you know how much info is in your bank account number? They also have access to your
> > medical info too. Like I said Anything with your name on it. Would you like that to be
> > known about you? How would you like over a dozen people knowing everything about you? I
> > don't. It scares me knowing whose out there nowadays
>
> I don't like it either, but if it bothered me that much, I would
> have told them to take their benefits and shove em where the sun
> don't shine, and taken that job at McDs flipping burgers.
We don't actually have a McD's. Relgious beliefs permit me from touching dead animal.
> Again,
> you presumably knew these were the regs before accepting the
> benefits, no?
>
Nope, they will only tell you if you ask or if you make a mistake and go against them. I did
know about the bank account but was desperate for food, clothing, shelter, etc, at the time.
They didn't BTW tell me about the other stuff on me that they can access. It isn't written on
the contract either.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> > > > >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
> > > >
> > > > I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> > > > than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> > > > self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
> > >
> > > You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
> > > every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
> > > it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
> > > dollars are going for.
> > >
> >
> > I could tell you. But it's a short list.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >They provide
> > > > >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > > > >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > > > >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > > > >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > > > economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > > > people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > > > Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > > > friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > > > where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > > > and end all of self respect.
> > >
> > > Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
> > > stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
> > > whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
> > > that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
> > > and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
> > >
> >
> > Again compalining/ explaining two different things. I disagree with the rules. That is
> > my right.
>
> And if you weren't complaining, no problem. However Fried and
> Frazles seem to think you have that right. I, OTOH, don't. And it
> is that attitude being addressed.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > > > >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > > > >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > > > >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > > > >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> > > >
> > > > Welfare isn't charity.
> > >
> > > char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> > >
> > > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> > > helpless.
> > >
> > > 2. a charitable act or work.
> > >
> > > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> > >
> > > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> > > something out of charity.
> > >
> > > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> > >
> > > You were saying?
> > >
> >
> > Are you counting the non monitary payments?
>
> I count anything "given" to a person in need that didn't earn it,
> as charity. I counted the numerous gifts my daughter's Secret
> Santa bought her the year I needed them as charity and left
> profound thanks with the Secret Santa workers to be sure that
> this lady received them.
We have something called Christmas Angels. $20 for christmas and that was it. They give you a
check (I wish it was a gift instead)
> They can't give out any info, except to
> tell me that she was an old lady living alone. I really wanted to
> give her a big fat hug, but that was impossible.
>
Couldn't you put a ad somewhere where she would see it saying thank you? I get to see who
donates to Christmas angels because I volenteer with the telethone. Some of the recipents
(mostly children) get to say thank you at the end.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > > > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > > > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > >
> > > Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
> > > charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
> > >
> >
> > I get a family benifits check (differnet from welfare because everyone rich/poor gets
> > it) Does that mean I should bend down and thank the government.
> >
> > Everyone expects it.
>
> No, that's only assuming you know what "everyone" thinks.
>
Okay, got me. Most expect it to come in the mail every month. Most expect it.
>
> I pay into taxes and taxes give me a childcare credit.
> However...they don't HAVE to. I'm very appreciative that they do.
> It's great to get that extra boost. So yes, I'm thankful that
> it's there when it doesn't have to be.
GST credit where i live.
> Do you think childless
> couples are thankful though?
Don't want to touch that. Already did in another group.
>
Jenn
jennifer
Char wrote:
> jennifer wrote: Thank you.
>
> Jennifer, how do they know if you use the money badly UNLESS they
> stick their nose in...which, BTW, they are paid to do.
Bank statement you personally give them, receipts that you give them. Not looking into
your direct account. If a bank statement is signed by the teller and the receipts add up
to match then everything is okay. Let the caseworkers get paid to do actual work.
> You and
> Fried may feel they have no right, but those that pay into these
> benefits feel they DO have every right.
But why do they have to look at every aspect of your life. Medical and other ones. I can
understand bank accounts but I cannot understand why they need to see my medical history,
my school history, my dental history, etc. Do you?
> So who's right and who's
> wrong. Those accepting it when they haven't had their arm twisted
> to do so and know the regs up front,
I wish that was true. They don't tell all.
> or those paying into wanting
> to know where their money's going, but either must pay into it or
> not work to feed their own family? How long do you think such
> benefits would last if everyone stopped working to get out of
> paying taxes and they all went on welfare?
Even though I am on welfare I have to pay taxes. Every time I buy something. I don't get
that back directly. 15% tax too.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >They provide
> > > >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > > >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > > >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > > >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> > >
> > > This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > > economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > > people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > > Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > > friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > > where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > > and end all of self respect.
> > >
> >
> > Not just people get free money but huge corprate companys, but its okay for them to
> > take taxpayers $. Where i live they pull out as soon as the check cashes, and leave
> > us without the promised jobs:)
>
> No, it's not ok. They're cheating just as some welfare recipients
> do. Nothing is ever ok when done at the expense/harm of others.
>
Right but most taxpayers don't see them as bad. Not the way they view welfarerecipients
>
Jenn
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > > >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > > >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > > >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > > >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> > >
> > > Welfare isn't charity. It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> > >
> > > Julian
> >
> > Thank you, you've said what I was trying to. Thank you so much.
jennifer
Char wrote:
>
>
> Well I've yet to see an orange apple, or one that even fainly
> tasted like an orange, or even really felt like one. But if you
> can find one, ship it to me (I'll pay postage). I know some
> people that'd be interested in it.
>
I found some that felt like oranges, and others that if you brush your teeth first and then
take a bite they taste like oranges and unripened apples have a yellow orange tint to them.
frazil
>In article <7k9e7s$f2m$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, fra...@geocities.com says...
>>
><mas...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Abolish welfare! Poor people should be given jobs, not handouts!
>>
>>
>>Ok let's give them your job. It the same thing. Giving someone a job that
>>they couldn't get on their own is a handout, and giving someone a job for
>>which there is no need is also a handout.
>
>needs to be filled? There are plenty to go around... if one applies themself.
>I know it takes a little more effort than running out to the mailbox and
>taking that check to the bank to cash, but it's the way things are. I moved to
>a new location and found work quickly and easily simply by trying.
>
You can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. IOW you can't make an unskilled
laborer into a computer programmer, without providing them with training at
someone expense.
>There are almost more jobs where I live than there are people.
first almost isn't good enough. Second, what about people don't live where
you live. Third, what kind of jobs are you talking about (see above)
>And why can't 'they' (welfare recipients) find a job on their own? Why can't
>they look in the papers, or walk into companies and ask for applications? I
>found MY job by myself, without any help. I had many different jobs available
>to choose from. It wasn't a handout; I applied for it, I demonstrated I could
>do the job, and I was hired. I work all day, and I work hard. I buy my own
>groceries, I pay my own mortgage, and I feel like a funtioning self-reliant
>person.
The key being that you demonstrated you could do the job. Sure there are many
jobs available for computer types. But there aren't many that can do the job
without the training. What about those that don't have the training. giving
them the job doesn't mean they can do it.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "a job with no need is also a handout".
>There is a need for my job, just as there is for any job, and I provide a
>service in return for a paycheck.... a third of which goes to taxes, which go
>to the Welfare Departments, who pay out money to Jennifer so she can buy
>groceries and pay rent while she goes to school. I resent that. I am not
>working hard to support Jennifer or her kids while she goes to school.
here is what I mean. We could give someone a job making buggy whips. But hey
no one uses buggies anymore. That is a handout.
>Jennifer didn't put me through school. She should be working to support her
>own way through college. She, and the father of her children, shouuld support
>their own offspring. To think that the world owes you money for you to make
>something of yourself is a false sense of entitlement. No one gave me any
>money to help me be who I am. I did it by myself. Nobody owes me anything.
Well, not exactly, What you had is the opportunity. Jennifer should have the
same or similar opportunity. Perhaps her outcome will be different, but that
doesn't mean the we should deny her the opportunity. I don't know your
circumstances or Jennifer's circumstance, but it is the idea that is
important. Because each circumstance is unique, we need a system that allows
for that fact. Simply get a job, isn't an answer for complex situations.
>Nor do I owe Jennifer anything.
Yes you owe Jennifer an equal opportunity. Note that that doesn't mean an
equal outcome.
>If Jennifer were disabled or otherwise incapacitated, and unable to fend for
>herself, and in obvious need out outside governmental support, I might think
>differently. I don't think that is the case, though.
Well, we don't know this do we? Her situation is probably very different from
yours, since you are both unique individuals.
frazil
>
>
>frazil wrote:
>
> <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because I
>> >have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
>> >Here's some things I found out about being on welfare:
>> >I cannot date, because if my caseworker sees me in town with the same guy
> more
>> >then 3 times a week i can get kicked off welfare and be arrested for fraud.
>> > They
>> >don't have to have proof that we are dating. Note this isn't staying over at
> my
>> >house, just being seen with him can do it. We call them Pecker Detectors.
>> >Because they believe if you are seen with the same guy for a couple of times
>> >then you are obviously sleeping with him, therefore receiving money.
>>
> a
>> guy? Unless your trying to tell me that female welfare recipients are
>> "obviously" whores, and the guy merely provides the evidence.
>>
>
>No, LOL. According to the government women can't just have sex for pleasure. We
> all know that
>women only have male companions to sleep with:) And if we aren't doing "it" for
> fun then we must
>be doing it for payment. You didn't know that? I thought it was a general
> assumption;> If that's
>what the government says then it Must be true.
>Have you seen our prime Minister Jean cretian (or Creature)? You'll understand
> his reasoning if
>you do. Not just his. Welfare was brought in by our former bachelor PM. Now do
> you understand
>the sex part.
>Jenn
>
Holy Mackeral, I don't know if I should be moving to where you live as fast as
I can or run as far from it as fast as I can. (Prime Minister Jean Creature,
hehehe. That's a good one).
jennifer
has 22 minutes" -my favorite and "Royal Canadian Air Farce".
You'll pee your pants. trust me.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > fried wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:11:35 -0400, Char <almosth...@geocities.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >> >please don't think all welfare recipients are bad. Things like this add to the
> > > >> >> >stereotype that is not always true.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Jesus, this sounds like a decription of GESTAPO land. My sympathies, as a UK
> > > >> >> resident. And I hope, on a purely human level, that you take such an awful
> > > >> >> system for all you can get - the people who run it deserve it.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Julian
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I certainly don't see it as being anywhere near a Gestapo.
> > > >>
> > > >> What, spying on people to see if they've got a boyfriend, etc. in order to
> > > >> deny them money? You nuts?
> > > >
> > > >Who's spying on whom? You talking about the "one" individual who
> > > >"when she sees her out" mentions that she can't be seen? Did she
> > > >check welfare regs on this or does she just take someone's word
> > > >for it? Have you ever seen any welfare reg that made this
> > > >statement?
> > >
> > > Um, I'm just going on what I've read, here and elsewhere. It may be wrong.
> > > However people don't normally use that particular get-out-clause in this
> > > type od debating situation. Assuming it's right, whaddaya say?
> >
> > What get-out-clause? I too go on what I read here...and with
> > knowing a bit about the welfare system. For one, she specifically
> > stated that this "one" individual told her this. She did not
> > state whether or not she actually checked with the welfare office
> > on this. And knowing a bit about welfare, I've never heard of
> > this being the case with any of them, and this caseworker may
> > need some straightening out.
> >
>
> You are assuming I live in the states. I don't. Being the World Wide web it is and having
> the CA attached to my address, means that I don't necessarily live in your country. the CA
> stands for Canada. It's what you down there call "Up north" "the artic" "The country you
> didn't take over" Etc. Santa lives here, too.
I'm north enough that I could throw a rock and hit you. We border
Canada. But I hadn't paid attention to the email addy before. And
what I stated still stands. Canada, US, bumfucked
Egypt....doesn't matter. You've stated already, in another post,
that you did check, but up until this point, I didn't know that
you had. And regardless of location, that is what you should do.
>
> >
>
> So you might know a bit about welfare but do you know each and every provinces regs. or
> federal regs. in Canada. I don't and i live here. I do know the ones for my province
> (Canada's version of the State :) and the federal governments.
I know the one thing that matters in this current discussion,
regardless of where you live. When you freely accept a charity,
you accept the regs that go with it...or you don't accept the
charity.
>
> > > >>
> > > >> >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> > > >>
> > > >> Seems fine to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Apparently if you
> > > >> >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > > >> >being poor.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> > > >
> > > >Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> > > >your secrets. Like your bank account number."
> > >
> > > ??
> >
> > This was Jennifer's statement. This reason and the fact that one
> > caseworker saw her out and told her that they could take benefits
> > if she was seen with the same person too often, were some of her
> > complaints. It was her post on these matters that was being
> > likened unto a Gestapo.
> >
>
> Not the Gestapo. I would never do that. I was refering to the Pecker detectors or the penis
> police. But now that you mentioned it Social Services has two S's
So does Split Pea Soup, but I don't...errr. I take that back.
I've tasted the stuff and might very well liken it to the
Gestapo. ;-)
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> >I think they're entitled to tell you what you can spend, you are
> > > >> >after all, spending taxpayer money and not your own.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't. They have no business sticking their nose into your life any more
> > > >> than anyone else's. Only if you use the money badly and again are no longer
> > > >> self-sufficient would they have reason to have a look-in.
> > > >
> > > >You're on welfare, HINT: You're NOT "self"-sufficient. They have
> > > >every reason in the world to keep tabs on where the money goes as
> > > >it is taxpayer money and many taxpayers like to know what their
> > > >dollars are going for.
> > >
> > > Put simply, if you are being given enough to live on but not much more, then
> > > you either spend it on what you need to live or you don't live. The fact
> > > that you are not self-sufficient doesn't entail being treated with lack of
> > > dignity in this respect. It is deliberate and degrading harrassment and
> > > humiliation. You have already made it clear you go along with this concept,
> > > a pretty shitty attitude in my view. It's even worse when one considers
> > > that, on your own evidence, you have almost always had a helping handout
> > > when YOU needed it.
> >
> > Never said that, so don't know where you're getting it. The only
> > handout I got was a less than 2 yr. stint on welfare...which has
> > been paid back for many many years. I've never been on it, or
> > needed it, since...or any other type of charity. But my question
> > to you would be...Have YOU been on welfare? If not, how can you
> > possibly know how much one is given to live on?
> >
> > Let's see now, your rent is free through HUD or government
> > housing...no bill there.
>
> Nope. They give you a check, you have to pay for it out of your check. You are only allowed
> so much for rent and if you say get an apartment for 350 and where allowed 400 you don't
> get to keep the extra 50 for grocerys. (explaining)
Was discussing US regs, but you still get housing then. You just
have to take the housing they specify. IOW, the housing under
$400. Just as those in the US must take the housing they specify.
IOW those approved for HUD or those government housing
complexes...complete with roach brigades, nosey neighbors, loud
parties, nightly shootouts, thieves, drug dealers, and various
other acts of immorality.
>
> > Your daycare is free so that you can
> > work or attend school...no bill there.
>
> Not in my provience. have to pay seperatly or apply for a special program that you might
> get. It isn't guarenteed.
But they do have a program, based upon need and
qualification...just as they do here.
>
> > All medical expenses
> > (including dental, eyeglasses, prescriptions, etc.) are free...no
> > bill there.
>
> No. You get medical, some prescription (you have to pay half), no dental and no eyecare
> (those come out of your monthly check)
And the monthly check is? Yup...free.
>
> > You are given cash and/or foodstamps/card...ergo,
> > groceries and other items are free.
>
> No food stamps. Food bank but it is exhausted. $40 for groceries for a month.
And there are no church food pantries or other charitable
organizations? I find that hard to believe. But even if you say
there is not, the $40 is still FREE. That's my whole point. More
below...
>
> > You pay no taxes on your
> > groceries...all the hardworking folks are doing that for you.
>
> Don't pay taxes on groceries anyways
NH doesn't either. ;-)
>
> > You
> > can get help with paying your utilities, which are many times
> > already provided in some states, or at least given a credit/extra
> > welfare for.
>
> Not where I live.
And you still get that free monthly check.
>
> > You can get clothing vouchers from either welfare or
> > other charitable organizations.
>
> You can go to the salvation army to get free clothes but that's it. Everything else comes
> off your check.
I've used the Salvation Army many times. What's the problem?
>
> > You can get food from other
> > charitable organizations, in "addition" to foodstamps. If the
> > child is under 5, you are eligible for WIC...more free food.
>
> No food stamps, nor extra food for children under five.
You do not get money to buy food? We know that you do. And as I
asked above, no food pantries or other charitable organizations,
not government funded?
>
> >
> >
> > Now would you consider the above to be "just" enough to live on?
> > There are no bills to pay, unless you create some. So what's
> > "just" enough?
> >
>
> Can i move down there?
Is something stopping you?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> >They provide
> > > >> >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > > >> >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > > >> >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > > >> >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > > >> economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > > >> people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > > >> Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > > >> friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > > >> where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > > >> and end all of self respect.
> > > >
> > > >Well if that's "your" argument...go for it. "I" however basically
> > > >stated that if you don't "earn" it (that includes rich, poor
> > > >whatever), you have no rights to complain. You appear to feel
> > > >that people can take whatever they wish, be they rich or poor,
> > > >and complain when there are stipulations that go with the taking?
> > >
> > > I do think that the basic requirements of life should be available to all in
> > > a decent society. I also agree with you that people should be expected to
> > > work for it IF there is the possibility to do so in a reasonable way.
> > > Trouble is there often isn't. I have said some quite vehement things in
> > > other posts - I am reacting to a certain viewpoint you have about things you
> > > seem to have little knowledge about, not you personally.
> >
> > I have quite a bit of knowledge about welfare...I lived it, and
> > I've fought against it...at least the way it's set up for abuses
> > and numerous loopholes. Again I ask, have you? So what above
> > would you suggest I have little knowledge about?
>
> Little knowledge about other welfare systems.
ANY welfare system has the same basic principle. They give you
FREE stuff and you accept their regs for taking it. Right?
>
> > Perhaps it is
> > Jennifer with little knowledge.
>
> Insulting someones inteligence isn't fair. And should be considered a long time before
> being said.
Read the remainder before jumping in.
>
> > Maybe she doesn't have a clue
> > what all she is eligible for in her state. I'm certain the info
> > can be found on the web if I knew the state.
>
> assuming I live in your country. well we were almost one of your states in the 1800's but I
> don't think that counts. Maybe if quebec seperates then we wll have no choice but to join
> Quebec or you guys. Then you can look up the state.
I can look it up now:
United Way of Canada: http://www.uwc-cc.ca/
Cause Canada: http://www.cause.ca/
Canadian Food For the Hungry: http://cfh.ca/
Anywhere near Maitoba? Child and Family Services of Central
Manitoba: http://megamach.portage.net/~cfscm/
And this might be a place to complain about the little dating
delima. Not sure if this applies in that instance.
Workfare Watch:
http://worldchat.com/public/tab/wrkfrw/wrkwtch.htm
"The project's purpose is to monitor and report on the
development and implementation of the Ontario Provincial
Government's workfare policy. Workfare Watch provides a
research-based analysis of provincial workfare policy proposals,
program plans and implementation. It is intended to inform
discussion on workfare in the community. The purpose of the
project is to assure that any welfare-to-work measures undertaken
by the Provincial Government respect the
rights and dignity of workers and social assistance recipients."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also interesting...
Canadian National Council of Welfare 1996 Welfare Rates/Incomes:
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportwelincome/repwelincome.htm
This was a 5 minute search. Try Yahoo.
>
> > If I have so little
> > knowledge about how welfare works, then place me in a class with
> > those others here who are stating the same things.
>
> How bout in the same class as those who assume things? Eh?
As in the fact that you freely accepted welfare AND all it's
ensuing regs? Is that an incorrect assumption?
>
> > But we all
> > have so little knowledge. Many of the NCPs here have ex-wives
> > milking the system. Many of the CPs here have had to accept
> > charity to make it at one time or another. So many her DO have an
> > inkling of an idea of what's available in welfare and exactly
> > what kind of help one can get.
> >
>
> If any are Canadian can they write.
Well you can go to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated and read the
rantings of J. Kirby Inwood...also interestingly with Sympatico
of Canada. He swears by women collecting welfare and refusing to
work. But then he's partly insane, and I really wouldn't wish him
on anyone.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> > Where I grew up, I was taught
> > > >> >to say "thank you" when I received help from people who were not
> > > >> >in the least bit obligated to me. I was taught to be embarrassed
> > > >> >by charity. Nothing wrong with charity when you need it, but if
> > > >> >it doesn't embarrass you, something's definately out of kilter.
> > > >>
> > > >> Welfare isn't charity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >char•i•ty (chari t), n., pl. -ties.
> > > >
> > > > 1. donations or generous actions to aid the poor, ill, or
> > > >helpless.
> > > >
> > > > 2. a charitable act or work.
> > > >
> > > > 3. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution.
> > > >
> > > > 4. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need: to do
> > > >something out of charity.
> > > >
> > > > 5. leniency in judging others; forbearance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >You were saying?
> > >
> > > Welfare isn't charity. I stick by that. You could argue that without
> > > welfare, in a society with endemic and inbuilt unemployment as part of the
> > > overall economic strategy (it is) then charity is a way of preventing people
> > > from becoming bandits - no benevolence, no charitable motive, no generosity,
> > > just pragmatism.
> >
> > Well there's the problem...I don't agree that we have inbuilt
> > unemployment. I see help wanted signs everyday, and I can easily
> > get a job.
>
> Come to my province. If a job comes up it's gone before you know it. I have no idea what a
> help wanted sign looks like, never saw one.
Never? And you wouldn't claim that as exaggeration? Highly
doubtful.
frazil
> wrote:
>> >No, Jennifer seems to be complaining about all they require of
>> >you to receive these benefits. Generally CPs that expect the
>> >other parent to help support their children, don't complain about
>> >having to raise their children...they're generally more than
>> >happy to raise their children. But with that comes responsibility
>> >for both parents. Just as with excepting benefits comes
>> >responsibility with abiding by the program/rules. You're trying
>> >to compare apples to oranges and nowhere are the two even
>> >similar.
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps, but I recall a number of CPs arguing that their time spent raising
>> the child counts to reduce the amount of monetay support that they should be
>> providing. Just as the time that an NCP doesn't spend counts towards
>> increasing the amount of monetary support they should provide. Only you
> never
>> get to 50/50. IOW, an NCP, earning more money than a CP still pays even if
>> the NCP spents 50 percent of the time raising the child.
>
>are having this discussion with, no?
>
Actually, Char you and I agree on much more than on which we disagree. My
observation isn't nessasarily directed at you personally. Its just an over
all observation.
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37684E6D...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >Frazil, please read the whole post, rather than pick and choose.
> >Whom you are dating WAS covered, if you had read it.
> >
>
> Ooooo. getting testy are we? Perhaps I missed it perhaps it wasn't covered to
> my satisfaction, perhaps it summarily dismissed. I you care to tell me how it
> was covered by you then please do. I'm listening.
Not the least, but I've already covered your "discussion for the
sake of discussion" attitude. When something's covered, either
acknowledge it or move on. Pretending it isn't there does you
absolutely no good. Review my first paragraph in the post below
that you first responded to. That's as clear as I'm making it.
>
> >As far as CS accountability, I've never stated anything against
> >it except for accounting for food bites, even welfare does not
> >require that in depth accounting. As for sending the accounting
> >to you...why? You are not my ex.
>
> Not me personally, Char, to each CPs respective ex, of course, assuming the
> ex is paying.
See above, never stated any problem other than the obvious minute
accounting of bites of food.
>
> >
> >Lastly, please do read the definition on benevolent and get back
> >to me. This in no way disputes charity and you are only fooling
> >yourself if you believe otherwise. To make it more clear, charity
> >is for "needy". You give where you see a need to give. Without
> >checks and balances, it no longer is spent on the needy and is
> >instead abused. It ceases being charity at that point and becomes
> >entitlement. Which covers your last rantings about "just enough
> >to survive". I've already covered that portion in another post.
> >Perhaps you feel it's just enough, but I would ask you to explain
> >how you get that impression.
>
> I did read the definition of benevolent. Here you go just in case you didn't
>
> Benevolent - adj. 1. characterized by benevolence, kindly. 2. of or concerned
> with charity.
>
> and for good measure
>
> Benevolence - n. 1. an inclination or tendency to perform charitable acts:
> good will. 2. a kindly act.
Still does not dispute the definition of welfare as being a
charity. I kindly pay my taxes in order for others to have
charity...err welfare. Welfare kindly provides this service but
that is only because people kindly thought there was a need. That
there is abuse was a factor we had no control over other than by
putting in place checks and balances. That does not negate the
charity, you have yet to show how it does. It only strengthens
the charity against possible abuse.
>
> Your confusing charity with welfare. Welfare is supposed to be for the needy.
> Charity can be for any one neediness is not a requirement too be considered
> charity.
Please do read the definition I provide. Needy was included. That
comes from Funk & Wagnall BTW.
The only thing that is required is that it is given freely with
out
> any expectation on the part of the giver to recieve something in return for
> the gift from the recipient.
What expectations have been placed EXCEPT that it not be abused?
If we wanted charity to be abused, we would freely give it to
dope addicts, drug pushers, etc. without a backward glance.
Since, as taxpayers, we cannot pick and choose WHO we give the
charity to, many of us do want checks and balances to be sure
that it only goes to those types of people we DO want to give the
charity to.
What distinguishes charity from welfare is that
> welfare expects something in return from the recipient. Thus welfare is not
> charity.
What do they expect? You haven't shown any expection other than
it not be abused. Is that an expectation of the person to do
something or to NOT do something? Is that an unreasonable
expection of any charity? But then since it's given without my
say-so, I cannot pick and choose if I want abusers to have it or
not.
--
frazil
>rest of them are STILL charities. No one was distinguishing
>between government charities and private charities, but
>"available" charities. And if you think they don't expect
>anything, you're fooling yourself. I signed up with United Way
>once for help with an electric bill. I had to bring in the bill,
>check stubs, fill out numerous forms to disclose my income,
>savings, etc. etc. No different at all than what welfare
>requests.
Ok 2 difference here. The government along with a proof of need assumes a
presumption of guilt (you're a cheater), the private charity require a proof
of need. A subtle yet important difference. It is the presumption that I
have a problem with.
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37684F2C...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >frazil wrote:
> >>
> >> And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
> >
> >What has she "paid" for it? Or has she just had to "account" for
> >what they paid her?
>
> She payed in time spent in school, looking for a job, etc. Payment doesn't
> necessarily need to be in terms of dollars. It is that in return for the
> welfare there is an expectation placed on the recipient. That means its not
> its not free, and its not charity..
Hmmm, I've looked for many jobs and spent time in school. I
THOUGHT I was paying myself. Perhaps you have some skewed view on
whom bettering oneself actually benefits if not oneself?
>
> >However, I
> >> do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are
> > assumed
> >> to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> >> and further assumed to be recieving money from them.
> >
> >Who assumes that? One individual? Did she contact the welfare
> >office about this "obvious" breach of ethics?
>
> read eiramusa's post regarding their aunt or was it their grandmother.
Not nearly the same statement as what Jennifer made. She said
they may wrongly "assume", but not that they automatically cut
you off. This worker told Jennifer that she could be cut off. And
my original statements stand regardless of eiramusa's aunt or
Jennifer's circumstances...they each freely accepted the welfare
and all the ensuing regs that went with it. What exact problem do
you have with that?
>
> >
> >That would make them a
> >> whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're
> > seen
> >> with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> >> them?
> >
> >I've repeatedly asked...WHAT SYSTEM? This was ONE individual. I
> >didn't realize that one individual was the whole system.
> >
> >
> >Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not.
> >I
> >> certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> >> because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> >> because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
> >
> ><sigh> WHAT system? Please tell me. I truly do want to know what
> >system we are referring to here.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> In article <37682618...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com
> >> wrote:
> >> >As the Fonz is fond of saying....Exactamundo!
> >> >
> >> >Lori wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you're misjudging Char. I think she's saying ( and I agree, BTW)
> >> >> that a person on welfare has no business resenting the fact that they are
> >> >> forced to either work for that check or go to school. I think she's
> > saying
> >> >> that when you do not earn your way, and you are able bodied, then whoever
> >> >> *is* paying your way (i.e. welfare) has every moral right to tell you what
> >> >> you may do with the funds you are being *given*.
> >> >> Lori
> >> >
> >
--
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > frazil wrote:
> > >
> > > And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free.
> >
> > What has she "paid" for it? Or has she just had to "account" for
> > what they paid her?
>
> I think that we don't need to place a dollar on payment. You don't have to recieve a
> monetary payment.
Ahhhhh. So you can now apply this to welfare...you don't HAVE to
receive a monetary payment. Now that we've cleared that little
item up....the fact that you freely chose to accept such a
payment means you willingly accepted all the ensuing regs, right?
>
> >
> > However, I
> > > do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
> > > to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> > > and further assumed to be recieving money from them.
> >
> > Who assumes that? One individual? Did she contact the welfare
> > office about this "obvious" breach of ethics?
> >
>
> Answered this.
Yes and this is about 50 posts before the answer. You gotta get
in here more often. ;-)
This post and many others were posted well before your latest
post. And that's been responded to already as well.
>
> >
> > That would make them a
> > > whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're seen
> > > with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> > > them?
> >
> > I've repeatedly asked...WHAT SYSTEM? This was ONE individual. I
> > didn't realize that one individual was the whole system.
> >
>
> The WELFARE System.
>
> >
>
> Agian already answerd this
>
> >
> > Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not.
> > I
> > > certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> > > because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> > > because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
> >
> > <sigh> WHAT system? Please tell me. I truly do want to know what
> > system we are referring to here.
> >
>
> Look up in my latests posts.
>
> >
>
> Jenn
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> frazil wrote:
>
> > And I think all Jennifer was saying is that it isn't exactly free. However, I
> > do think that a person on welfare is justified to resent that they are assumed
> > to be sleeping with someone because they are seen with that person few times,
> > and further assumed to be recieving money from them. That would make them a
> > whore. Do you ladies want the system to assume that just because you're seen
> > with the same guy on a number of occassions that you must be sleeping with
> > them? Let alone that you must be receiving money for it? I think not. I
> > certainly don't want to the system to assume that I'm sleeping with a woman
> > because I'm seen with them a few times, let alone be an assumed john just
> > because I'm seen with them a few times. No thanks.
> >
>
> What was that the fonz said, char?
> It is being called a prostitute. and how would you feel if someone accused you of
> being one.
Who accused you of being a prostitute? I thought the caseworker
said that you could be dropped if seen with the same guy too
often, or something to that effect? I didn't realize she had
called you a prostitute. Isn't that considered slander? ;-)
The Fonz says Exactamundo. And sometimes he says Ehhhhhhhhhh.
As far as how I'd feel, well...sticks and stones may break my
bones...ahhh you know the rest.
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <376851C6...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> >
> >The "real lazy bastards" as you put it, exist in droves in the
> >US. They lie on welfare and "refuse" to work...not that they
> >can't, not that they are kept in the gutter...they "choose" that
> >lifestyle. Those that want to work, DO...or they work toward that
> >goal. Jennifer is working toward that goal. My only point was the
> >complaining about what they required for these benefits. If you
> >can do nothing but complain, don't accept charity and you'll have
> >no reason to complain about it.
> >
>
> Fine but let's not confuse an explanation with complaint.
It sounded like complaint and I pointed out such, but you seemed
to feel that it was her right to complain. I did not.
And let's not hear
> any gripe from a CP about how the system makes them allow visitation with the
> scumbag of a NCP.
You'll have to take that up with CPs that complain about such.
> It's not quite the same but it has the same flavor.
--
frazil
>
>frazil <fra...@geocities.com> wrote in message
>
>
> HUD,
>> government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the
>rest
>> are government programs (i.e. not charity)
>
>
>charity, the worst kind, IMO. The more money the government forceably takes
>from the people for government chosen charities, the less money people will
>give to private charities.
The reason they aren't charities is because the expect something in return.
Which is different from requiring proof of need.
>
>
> Not sure what WIC is so I can't
>> tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
>> government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything
>in
>> return.
>
>
>Charity is charity is charity. The difference between the two is that when
>giving to private charities, people are choosing for themselves can choose
>in what ways they will help, and who they will help, and people are not so
>much treating them as entitlements. When it comes to forced funding of
>charity by taxpayers, the person giving has no choice as to whom or what
>they will help. When you give to help others you have a moral right to
>decide for yourself what you consider to be a worthy cause. Doing it the
>government's way takes that away from you. Beyond that, people who are on
>charity which is funded by force from taxpayers tend to consider it an
>entitlement, and to believe it's degrading to be made to work for it.
>Lori
No a charity doesn't require something in return from the recipient. Forcing
taxpayers to fund such programs is another difference with which you may take
issue, but it doesn't necessarily distinguish it from charity. As far as
entitlements are concerned even retired people feel entitled to receive SS
merely because the payed SS taxes, regardless of whether they actually need it
or not. That entitlement is due do the all around confussion as to whether SS
is a government sponsed pension or a safety net for the old. But that is a
whole other can of worms.
>
>
>
Char
No way! The US is the ONLY country. Those others do NOT exist.
They are figments of our imaginations.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Sunny wrote:
>
> > In article <3767CDA8...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> > <kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > really how do you propose this? If there were jobs out there then there
> > > wouldn't
> > > be welfare. What about people who want to better themselfs but can't afford
> > > to?
> > > What about Corprate welfare?
> > > It's a nice theory but it won't work well.
> >
> > There ARE jobs out there. Wisconsin, for example, with its 1.5%
> > unemployment rate, is begging for workers. Wisconsin has pretty much
> > ended welfare as we know it, and gives out jobs instead. The welfare
> > rate has declined 67% as a result.
> >
> > If there were no welfare available, you can bet your lucky student
> > stars you would be working in no time.
> >
>
> If there were jobs. Go to the Maritimes in Canada, especially Nova Scotia, and
> Newfoundland. Places where quotas have been placed on fishing and only a few win
> there fishing licenses any ways. (We don't all fish BTW), or the coal mines that
> dominate our lives so much. Recently shut down. Big companies don't want to
> settle here, partly because of the huge union pull, and partly because of
> incentives to go to mexico (Free Trade). We don't have that many jobs. Can't
> start a business because you have to have income to get a loan.
Errr, no. Who says you have to have a loan to start a business?
Poppycock! The SBA refused a small business loan when my b/f
started this company. He said screw you and decided to show them
what they could do with their loan. He started it anyway, using
credit cards and hocking himself so far in debt, it took a couple
of years to break even. People are banging down our door to give
us loans now. You obviously have a computer or access to one,
otherwise I'm talking to myself, but I've been known to do that
on occassion. Well that's all he started with, and he bought
other needed items along the way by presenting Visa and Mr.
MasterCard. Or saved up to buy what he needed, or ate beans that
month so he could afford the new computer, etc. etc. He had no
income and was living in an 8 x 8 room in a cabin cellar, taking
odd jobs to pay the $70/wk. rent until he got his first big
contract. He went on 3 and 4 hours sleep a night or no sleep for
2 and 3 days in a row. Even if you don't have the credit cards,
he didn't have them to start with either. He worked up to it
little at a time. But it takes VERY hard work, determination and
a willingness to do the impossible...or what can seem to be
nearly impossible.
If we had jobs
> here I would have one. But we don't have any. I know it is hard to believe, but
> it is true. Ever wonder why so many of your doctors are canadian, or your workers
> for that matter. We have to relocate to get a job. And relocating isn't an option
> for a family without money.
>
> >
> > The theory is, welfare begets more welfare. Stop living off the
> > taxpayers and find some work.
>
> Want to give me a job, and find someone to marry me so I can work in your Fab
> country?
Why? That's the whole point. Does she owe you something? Those
that freely give something are kindhearted, wonderful people. But
they certainly don't owe it.
>
> > If you are unfortunate enough to not
> > qualify for a scholarship, or a grant, or a student loan, then you
> > shouldn't be still in school.
>
> So i can't graduate high school. And Student loans, what a joke! Not an option i
> want to take. I have a friend who just finished University. She has to pay $300
> dollars every month + interest even if she doesn't earn it. She wanted to get a
> mortgage to buy a mini home so that her and her fiancé could get married (truck
> driver) The bank said that she couldn't because of her student loan, and if she
> gets married he has to pay her debt. She can't get a job to use her degree. With
> student loan you graduate university with not only a degree but a life long debt.
> Not something you need when you have a family to feed.
So why'd she pick a field that wasn't highly in demand? Seems
self-defeating.
>
> > I am sorry for your situation, but I
> > really don't want to feed you any more.
>
> So don't buy Canadian.
Sometimes can't help it. Gotta get rid of all those Canadians
quarters somewhere. Washer and dryer won't take them here. ;-)
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37685339...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >frazil wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <160619991025034037%mas...@students.wisc.edu>, Sunny
> > <mas...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >> >In article <37678731...@ns.sympatico.ca>, jennifer
> >> ><kerri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This is the reason people hate welfare recipients. I am on welfare because
> > I
> >> >> have to be. Not everyone abuses it.
> >> >
> >> >Abolish welfare! Poor people should be given jobs, not handouts!
> >>
> >> Ok let's give them your job. It the same thing. Giving someone a job that
> >> they couldn't get on their own is a handout, and giving someone a job for
> >> which there is no need is also a handout.
> >
> >What's wrong with training for a job so they CAN get it on their
> >own, or for a job for which there is a need? Or should we just
> >feed everyone that doesn't want to train or has no inclination to
> >ever work? Do you feel the same about CS? Not from your past
> >posts you don't.
> >But ok, let's run with it. All CPs should be given every penny
> >they need to raise a child and if the NCP doesn't pony up, the
> >state/taxpayers should foot the bill, and no one should ever
> >expect them to get a job and pay their fair share, nor to ever be
> >held accountable for what they do with that money. Fair? Didn't
> >think so.
>
> Char, I have no problem with providing training for someone on welfare and all
> the things that maybe required to provide such training. And I have no
> problem with reasonable CS requirements. What I do have a problem with is
> letting a few bad apples spoil it for rest. I do have a problem when the
> government invades peoples privacy because some people cheat.
Not me. I have a problem when some people cheat and CAUSE the
government to have to invade people's privacy to see that it
doesn't happen whenever they can.
I have a
> problem that the government CS system treats all NCPs as deadbeats because
> some NCP are deadbeats.
Same problem as above. I have a problem when some NCPs cheat and
CAUSE....you know the rest. But in both cases, they have regs in
place, they just don't enforce them as need be. So we still have
the cheaters.
The presumption that is made against all just because
> some people are cheaters, aren't responsible, etc, that is my problem.
My problem is WITH the actual cheaters and the fact that the laws
aren't enforced when it comes right down to it.
>
> The presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding carries with it the fact
> that some guilty people are going to get away with their crime. But I prefer
> that consequence over the consequence of the alternative. That alternative is
> that one is guilty is until proven innocent, which results in innocent people
> being punished for a crime which they didn't commit. I willing to let a few
> guilty people go free in order to prevent an innocent person from being
> punished.
In the discussion underway, they have not accused Jennifer of
being guilty, but that they will keep tabs so they can catch her
if she DOES cross the line into guilty. So what's the problem?
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <376854F6...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >frazil wrote:
> >>
Two things...one I "agreed" to the salaried position, and two I
could either fall behind on the work or work over to make it
up...that too was a choice. If they had "required" me to remain
to catch up, so that I wouldn't be pulling my hair out the next
day, they would have been obligated to pay overtime.
There is one thing
> about the government they won't knowingly violate the law, thus the government
> will not make their employess work more than 44 hours per week without paying
> overtime. Since over time costs big bucks (and the idea is to create a
> government that cost less), employees are restricted to a 40 hour work week.
> So unless you provide the appropriate tools, it is a false expectation to get
> more for less. And since the appropriate tools costs bucks the government is
> very slow to provide such tools. That is why Gore's reinvention is a bunch of
> bunk. There are other reasons but we don't need to get into those things.
I worked for a non-profit...pretty much the same as government
with regards to buying appropriate equipment.
Eric
"No beer and no tv make Homer somthing somthing."
Char
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <37685E7E...@geocities.com>, almosth...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >frazil wrote:
> >>
> >> Char, United Wat, Salvation Army, and Goodwill, are private charities. HUD,
> >> government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the rest
> >> are government programs (i.e. not charity) Not sure what WIC is so I can't
> >> tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
> >> government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything in
> >> return.
> >
> >WIC is government funded. United "Wat", I have no clue, but the
> >rest of them are STILL charities. No one was distinguishing
> >between government charities and private charities, but
> >"available" charities. And if you think they don't expect
> >anything, you're fooling yourself. I signed up with United Way
> >once for help with an electric bill. I had to bring in the bill,
> >check stubs, fill out numerous forms to disclose my income,
> >savings, etc. etc. No different at all than what welfare
> >requests.
>
> Ok 2 difference here. The government along with a proof of need assumes a
> presumption of guilt (you're a cheater), the private charity require a proof
> of need. A subtle yet important difference. It is the presumption that I
> have a problem with.
No the government charity requests the same information. They
have no presumption of guilt that I've seen. It was stated that
it "could" be "assumed", yada yada. United "Wat" (sorry I'm
getting a kick outta that) can also assume that I will not use
the help as intended and deny me. They have every right to do
that. They don't have to provide me with anything. They freely
choose to and can just as freely turn me away.
Char
missing that part.
frazil wrote:
>
> In article <ftZ93.2743$A24.1...@typ42b.nn.bcandid.com>, "Lori" <justa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >frazil <fra...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> >news:7k9lif$9cq$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> >Yes, they are.
> >
> >
> > HUD,
> >> government housing (i.e. section 8 housing, etc.), food stamps and the
> >rest
> >> are government programs (i.e. not charity)
> >
> >
> >That does not mean they aren't charity. What they are is taxpayer funded
> >charity, the worst kind, IMO. The more money the government forceably takes
> >from the people for government chosen charities, the less money people will
> >give to private charities.
>
> The reason they aren't charities is because the expect something in return.
> Which is different from requiring proof of need.
>
> >
> >
> > Not sure what WIC is so I can't
> >> tell. But there is a hugh difference between the private charity and
> >> government welfare programs. The private charities don't expect anything
> >in
> >> return.
> >
> >
> >Charity is charity is charity. The difference between the two is that when
> >giving to private charities, people are choosing for themselves can choose
> >in what ways they will help, and who they will help, and people are not so
> >much treating them as entitlements. When it comes to forced funding of
> >charity by taxpayers, the person giving has no choice as to whom or what
> >they will help. When you give to help others you have a moral right to
> >decide for yourself what you consider to be a worthy cause. Doing it the
> >government's way takes that away from you. Beyond that, people who are on
> >charity which is funded by force from taxpayers tend to consider it an
> >entitlement, and to believe it's degrading to be made to work for it.
> >Lori
>
> No a charity doesn't require something in return from the recipient. Forcing
> taxpayers to fund such programs is another difference with which you may take
> issue, but it doesn't necessarily distinguish it from charity. As far as
> entitlements are concerned even retired people feel entitled to receive SS
> merely because the payed SS taxes, regardless of whether they actually need it
> or not. That entitlement is due do the all around confussion as to whether SS
> is a government sponsed pension or a safety net for the old. But that is a
> whole other can of worms.
>
> >
> >
> >
--
Char
Char
Did you ask to see them? Did they ever deny you access to them?
If they did not deny access, then it was up to you to request
this information.
>
> > Or know them now and can at anytime say you no longer
> > want the benefits?
>
> And quit school, never graduate high school and live in poverty the rest of my life.
That is a choice. Just as choosing to go on welfare while you
attend school is a choice.
>
> > Or you can bite your tongue and accept it to
> > keep the benefits.
>
> Because if i don't my money will be cut off.
Possibly. But those are the regs you accept by accepting the
money.
>
> >
>
> > Or you can work with the system to try and get
> > this regulation changed.
>
> After they aren't holding life over my head then I will. I have done what little i have
> already.
>
> > Those are the choices as I see them.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >The only thing you gotta do to qualify is be poor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems fine to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently if you
> > > > > >have a car, home and money in the bank, they don't see that as
> > > > > >being poor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here we go, adding new stuff into the equation. That's a different argument.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, same one, as referenced by: "They make you sign away all
> > > > your secrets. Like your bank account number."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you know how much info is in your bank account number? They also have access to your
> > > medical info too. Like I said Anything with your name on it. Would you like that to be
> > > known about you? How would you like over a dozen people knowing everything about you? I
> > > don't. It scares me knowing whose out there nowadays
> >
> > I don't like it either, but if it bothered me that much, I would
> > have told them to take their benefits and shove em where the sun
> > don't shine, and taken that job at McDs flipping burgers.
>
> We don't actually have a McD's. Relgious beliefs permit me from touching dead animal.
So work the Wendy's salad bar. ;-)
>
> > Again,
> > you presumably knew these were the regs before accepting the
> > benefits, no?
> >
>
> Nope, they will only tell you if you ask or if you make a mistake and go against them. I did
> know about the bank account but was desperate for food, clothing, shelter, etc, at the time.
> They didn't BTW tell me about the other stuff on me that they can access. It isn't written on
> the contract either.
Then it was up to you to ask. And it's up to you now to request a
copy of their regs in full so you don't get hit with something
else later you weren't aware of.
They don't allow recipients access to that info, so I'm sure if
they have a recipient contributing time to the program, they also
keep that info from them even then. But I didn't need to put out
an add. I wrote what needed said and they saw to it that she
received it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's what happens when a society is fucked up. You
> > > > > should never be expected to say thank you for it - it would indeed be
> > > > > humiliating and wrong to be expected to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > Of course it would, and by never feeling humbled by those
> > > > charities we receive, we come to expect our entitlements.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I get a family benifits check (differnet from welfare because everyone rich/poor gets
> > > it) Does that mean I should bend down and thank the government.
> > >
> > > Everyone expects it.
> >
> > No, that's only assuming you know what "everyone" thinks.
> >
>
> Okay, got me. Most expect it to come in the mail every month. Most expect it.
>
> >
> > I pay into taxes and taxes give me a childcare credit.
> > However...they don't HAVE to. I'm very appreciative that they do.
> > It's great to get that extra boost. So yes, I'm thankful that
> > it's there when it doesn't have to be.
>
> GST credit where i live.
>
> > Do you think childless
> > couples are thankful though?
>
> Don't want to touch that. Already did in another group.
I've seen that one. ;-)
Ole Jacqueline's still at it.
Char
jennifer wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > jennifer wrote: Thank you.
> >
> > Jennifer, how do they know if you use the money badly UNLESS they
> > stick their nose in...which, BTW, they are paid to do.
>
> Bank statement you personally give them,
And they KNOW this is your only bank account? Are Canadians only
allowed one bank account per household?
> receipts that you give them.
And they KNOW that you've given them everything?
Not looking into
> your direct account. If a bank statement is signed by the teller and the receipts add up
> to match then everything is okay. Let the caseworkers get paid to do actual work.
>
> > You and
> > Fried may feel they have no right, but those that pay into these
> > benefits feel they DO have every right.
>
> But why do they have to look at every aspect of your life. Medical and other ones. I can
> understand bank accounts but I cannot understand why they need to see my medical history,
> my school history, my dental history, etc. Do you?
Yes I can. Bank accounts are explained above. Medical, first
comes to mind that they are going to be providing medical
coverage on you. Just as insurance companies want your medical
history to see what low/high risk you fall under, they too will
want this information. Your school history tells them where you
are on the educational level and how much more education you may
need before being able to obtain a decent living wage.
Dental...you said they don't pay dental, but again, I don't know
their entire structure. Do they "ever" pay dental? Perhaps they
go by how bad the case/need is? If so, this may be why they need
this information. A caseworker could explain why they need this
info, though you may need to bug them to tell you.
>
> > So who's right and who's
> > wrong. Those accepting it when they haven't had their arm twisted
> > to do so and know the regs up front,
>
> I wish that was true. They don't tell all.
>
> > or those paying into wanting
> > to know where their money's going, but either must pay into it or
> > not work to feed their own family? How long do you think such
> > benefits would last if everyone stopped working to get out of
> > paying taxes and they all went on welfare?
>
> Even though I am on welfare I have to pay taxes. Every time I buy something. I don't get
> that back directly. 15% tax too.
I too pay tax when I buy things...except groceries thank God. But
I also pay tax on my income earned...and being self-employed, I
pay an even hire tax. So I'm hit three times. :-(
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >They provide
> > > > >you with free food, free housing, free utilities, free daycare,
> > > > >free clothing, free medical...note the use of free before each
> > > > >and no one really has any rights to complain about what they
> > > > >didn't "earn" in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > This is a crap argument. Probably upwards of 50% of the population is
> > > > economically inactive, paid for by somebody else's work, and a lot of these
> > > > people will be RICH. They didn't earn the money. They got it "free".
> > > > Effectively you are saying that people without access to resources or rich
> > > > friends / relatives get treated like scum. I suppose this fits in a society
> > > > where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that money is the be all
> > > > and end all of self respect.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not just people get free money but huge corprate companys, but its okay for them to
> > > take taxpayers $. Where i live they pull out as soon as the check cashes, and leave
> > > us without the promised jobs:)
> >
> > No, it's not ok. They're cheating just as some welfare recipients
> > do. Nothing is ever ok when done at the expense/harm of others.
> >
>
> Right but most taxpayers don't see them as bad. Not the way they view welfarerecipients
I think many people see it as bad. We had a similar incident to
the one you described happened in WV. Kroger's got all the
bennies of opening a warehouse there and then shut down and moved
out of state, laying off a lot of workers. Big stink and lawsuits
ensued, especially over the benies to get them to open up there
in the first place.