American Charity!

[angellica]

What if McDonalds isn't hiring? What if tens of thousands of people who worked in your industry are all now looking for work among a few thousand jobs available? What if you've got five kids and minimum wage just ain't gonna cut it for taking care of them?

Even if there are some lazy people who take advantage of the system, how do you propose that be monitored? How do you tell the difference between someone actively but unsuccessfully looking for work, and someone taking the welfare check and running with it?

Good question! And sadly, I do not know. Probably people more familiar with the intricacies of the system would know more.

 

[cantata]

So are people on welfare, yet they don't work and they get a check. I want my check! What, you can only get a check if you have kids? Then I'll have one, please. Now I can sit around and do nothing and get paid. I can't wait for the kid to be in school so I don't have to watch it.

I give up. If you keep this up much longer, I'm going to start thinking you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[sidhe]

But instead of being lazy, you kept looking and found one . I'm referring to people who don't try.

Nah. I didn't look for a long time. I had a nervous breakdown instead. I understand the being mentally unable to work thing very well. I was unable to leave the house without a stuffed rabbit to talk to.

 

[angellica]

If they are actually looking for a job, if they are OUT trying to find one then of course help them. But when they lay around and do nothing and brag about living off the state, when they look forward to their next kid because it means a little more cash in their pocket, I disagree with paying them anything.

That is some examples of different welfare people I've met/seen/known. That does not say ANYWHERE that ALL people on welfare are like that. Good grief. I'd rather argue valid points than constantly point out how someone is twisting my words around. If you don't have a valid counter-argument, just don't say (write) anything. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Thank you.

 

[sidhe]

Read a page or so back for an excellent caricature of a welfare cheat courtesy of the resident libertarian.

Got it!

 

[angellica]

I give up. If you keep this up much longer, I'm going to start thinking you're being deliberately obtuse.

What's wrong with me doing that? Would you deny my child the right to your money? Would you have my child suffer?

 

[Nihilismus]

Troll detected.

 

[angellica]

Troll detected.

No valid argument detected.

 

[sidhe]

I have no problems paying taxes that go towards social services. So, if you want to quit your job and cheat the system, go right ahead. I won't complain. I would think you're a hypocrite, though.

 

[wanderingone]

Well I guess I'll just quit working because I have depression. I may even start sleeping around. If I get pregnant, it doesn't matter because you suckers will be paying for the kid!

Do you live in a state that provides benefits to single adults? Most states don't so you wouldn't be eligible for assistance unless you DID have child. Then of course you would only be eligible if you complied with work requirements and child support enforcement requirements. So if you claimed you can't work because of depression you would have to comply with medical evaluations, and agree to a plan to become employable. While you were allowing all of your personal information to be up for grabs for the often unprofessional personnel of your local social services offices you would get cash benefits that most likely would not be enough to actually pay your rent and utility bills unless you were able to get into subsidized housing.

Currently a single individual in NY state gets cash benefits of less then $400 a month while on temporary assistance. (And we're a generous state when it comes to welfare) That $400 a month includes the rent money, utility allowance and "personal" needs allowance. Oh and if you quit your job without a valid reason you wouldn't be eligible for ANYTHING. If you claimed it was due to depression you would have to provide proof that your depression rendered you suddenly not able to work. So if I was diagnosed (as I was) 10 years ago with clinical depression, and worked all those years, and suddenly couldn't there would have to be some proof that the meds stopped working, or the depression got worse etc.. or I would be referred to a "voluntary quit" and be ineligible for assistance for a specific number of days. when I was eligible to apply I would then have to comply with all those work requirements unless I could prove I was disabled, then I would have to comply with applying for disability benefits or SSI.

 

[Nihilismus]

No valid argument detected.

I agree.

 

[wanderingone]

Read a page or so back for an excellent caricature of a welfare cheat courtesy of the resident libertarian.

Anyone who is dumb enough to think the welfare benefits granted to a household when a new person is added to the household is enough to make creating a new person worthwhile has problems that probably render them unemployable.. such as an inability to do basic addition and subtraction.

 

[wanderingone]

So are people on welfare, yet they don't work and they get a check. I want my check! What, you can only get a check if you have kids? Then I'll have one, please. Now I can sit around and do nothing and get paid. I can't wait for the kid to be in school so I don't have to watch it.

Based on current TANF regulations you won't have to wait for your kid to be in school, 12 weeks after your child was born you would be required to comply with employment requirements. We'll pay for childcare.. get thee to McDonald's

 

[angellica]

Anyone who is dumb enough to think the welfare benefits granted to a household when a new person is added to the household is enough to make creating a new person worthwhile has problems that probably render them unemployable.. such as an inability to do basic addition and subtraction.

Keep in mind that some young, uneducated woman with I think 2 kids already said that and she was on welfare.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Angellica, sweetheart. I live in Detroit. Memphis ain't got nuthin' on Detroit.

 

[wanderingone]

So... this isn't aimed specifically at you, by the way, wanderingone, but um, is it better to probably spend more money taking children away from their parents and housing them elsewhere than it is to just give the parents some money to raise their own kids?

It's always bugged me when a family has problems that are primarily the result of poverty and end up having to put their children in foster care... foster care pays foster parents at least DOUBLE what a family on public assistance will get added to their case for each child in the household- I do believe preventive services should insure that when poverty and poor independent living skills are the cause of potential placement funding should be available to help a family stay together and get on their feet.

On the other hand.. the majority of kids in foster care are abandoned, and abused. Extra money wouldn't help their parents be better parents, and having been a foster parent (we're still licensed but not taking children until we have a larger place) the amount paid for the care of children with no special needs is usually barely enough particularly for the first couple months when most kids come with NOTHING. Once they have settled in though it's sufficient to more than meet their needs. We usually would go out and buy a ton of gift cards for the kids when they left us so that if they ended up with a new foster parent who only handed out the minimum allowances or if their stuff somehow got lost in transit they would have "spending money"

 

[wanderingone]

Keep in mind that some young, uneducated woman with I think 2 kids already said that and she was on welfare.

There's such a thing a false bravado, people in bad situations who don't want to be judged have to make it seem like they are getting over. Also.. if she's not being required to meet employment requirements then there's something "wrong" with her. States that fail to place a specific percentage of their clients in employment (and the percentage goes up every year) can lose significant amounts of money. Every state can allow a certain percentage of their participants to be "exempt" - most usually choose to allow a short period of time for child care (12 weeks after each child, no more than 12 months in a lifetime) or drug treatment, or medical disabilities.

 

[cantata]

What's wrong with me doing that? Would you deny my child the right to your money? Would you have my child suffer?

I'd think you a hypocrite, but no, I wouldn't deny your child the right to my money.

My problem with your post was not its content per se but your dodging of the issue I raised in the post to which it was ostensibly responding.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I'm sorry that church behaved that way. I'm sure most churches do not intend to come off that way. They are simply trying to help.

You didn't address the fact that part of your argument is that funds would go to charities that you didn't agree with. And I'm saying that federal money is already going to churches. So why is it OK for churches to get money but it's not OK for a secular organization to get money?

 

[angellica]

You didn't address the fact that part of your argument is that funds would go to charities that you didn't agree with. And I'm saying that federal money is already going to churches. So why is it OK for churches to get money but it's not OK for a secular organization to get money?

All I'm really arguing is that churches aren't trying to get money to give to charity just for recognition. They are truly trying to do good, but as far as their reasoning for wanting to give it out themselves is, in my opinion, so that they can decide what orgs. to give it to.