Anybody not bothered by people who receive public assistance?

[cathmom]

I am not bothered by public assistance but I believe there should be very strict regulations as to who gets it and for how long.

 

 

 

1. I do not support giving any illegal alien public assistance - ever.

2. I do not support more than 2 consecutive years of public assistance for any one family unless they jump through a lot of hoops to convince state officials that it is required. The hoops should be HUGE.

3. I do not support rewarding single mothers for having more children to up their payments.

4. I would find very creative ways to punish fathers who walk out on children. Very creative, embarrassing, humiliating, and difficult ways.

5. I would make continuing education a requirement for any public assistance - basic skills, vocational, or college. Take your pick.

With that said - I DO believe in helping people when they are down. They need it. But there is a difference between being down for a period of time and never having been productive EVER.

 

Public assistance should always be viewed as a temporary solution to an insurmountable problem. Not a way of life and NOT a way to socially distribute other people's wealth.

 

It should be entered into with a tangible way out in mind and every TAKER should end up being a GIVER at the end of their public assistance period whether that be through community service or a small extra tax on their paycheck for the same number of months they were on public assistance.

 

What are you considering public assistance?

[Haiku]

There were citizens of our great country who' date=' after Obama was elected, stated that they could now quit their jobs because Obama and the gov't would take care of them. :001_huh:

[/quote']

 

There are people on all sides of the political spectrum and across all income and education levels who have some odd ideas, misunderstand things, or are, unfortunately, just plain ignorant. ;)

 

Tara

[Haiku]

Have you ever met someone that has uttered in frustration, "THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW AGAINST <fill in>..."?

 

 

 

Sure, but how many of those people actually try to get the law passed? Could it be that they just uttered that phrase in frustration without really meaning it? :)

[Aggie]

If people need assistance, they should have it. That said, the system is broken imo, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

 

 

This is true.

 

The people who make the rules for the system don't have accountability, either.

 

How many of our elected and appointed officials have "forgotten" to pay their taxes? Where was the outrage when that came to light?

 

The abuse and fraud start in Congress. Until that is remedied, none of our broken systems (SSI, SS) will be fixed.

[TXMomof4]

The faith based system is a cool idea but its completely impractical and untenable. First of all- it would require GENEROSITY which, obviously is SORELY lacking in people in general, and secondly, could pretty much everyone afford to contribute an extra 20% or whatever, while still paying their whatever percent in taxes? not a chance! i think that the faith based system comes from people who have no qualms with throwing the poor their scraps.

 

 

That is really out of line. Throwing the poor our scraps? I don't know what your experience has been with church, but I'm sorry. The amount that people give that I know personally, first of all far exceeds 20% and secondly comes straight off the top. It is their first priority. I'm not talking about giving to an institution. I'm talking about serving people, one on one with their money and time. If you want to choose a segment of the population to criticize for a lack of generosity you're going to have to look elsewhere.

[Bev in B'ville]

Everytime someone does something utterly stupid, someone, somewhere utters "There should be a law against that..."

 

The reality is that stupidity cannot be legislated. New laws simply mean people find new ways to get around them, sometimes to their own (or others) detriment. Darwin at work.....

[TXMomof4]

Just one more little thing and then I'm going to get going.

 

I have watched several people begin to accept public assistance just this last year. It has been fascinating to watch. Every single one of them resisted starting with WIC. They can do it on their own, they can manage, they don't want to be a burden to society, etc. Every single one of them needed assistance and qualified for assistance.

 

A few months after they begin recieving WIC, they were asking for help exploring what other help they might be eligible for. Most of them recieve food stamps now, and several of them receive help with utilities. There was no argument, no questioning of their 'right' to receive it or their 'need'.

 

Do they need the assistance? Well, it definately makes their life easier. One of the girls now takes an extra day off work so she can have some 'me time'. It's very hard to watch it. None of them are abusing the system, taking more than their fair share, cheating to get something they shouldn't.

 

The attitude has changed though from, I am going to use this to get by to, of course I deserve to luxury of taking a day to rest and relax for just me.

 

It is irritating to me because even though we aren't in need, dh can't come and give me a day off for just me time. He has a job. He has to be there five days a week, sometimes more. That is real life. Public assistance, from what I've seen, allows a complacency to slip in because it provides a break from having to earn your check to provide for your needs. If your needs can be met without the effort, of course that's the easier way to go. None of these people started with the idea of taking the easy way, but it once someone is giving you grocery money every month there is less of an urgency to get out of the position of needing grocery money every month. KWIM?

[Vida Winter]

Business people and entrepreneurs drive the economy because their businesses provide the jobs (duh!). If they don't have the income resources to support their businesses and/or expand (in order to hire more people)' date=' then they go out of business or move their businesses to a country that's more tax friendly to them. So, without those businesses there would be no jobs for low-wage workers. [b']Watch Illinois this next year. Because of the tax hike implemented you will see businesses leaving that state to go to states that are more tax friendly and those jobs will also leave Illinois. It's going to be a perfect case-study of what happens when taxes are raised too high.[/b]

 

This just happened in Oregon. An upper-bracket income tax hike was going to solve all the budget shortfalls in the state and the citizens were quick to vote it in. The only problems is that they are bringing in 1/3 less tax than expected -- businesses simply left the state (or closed shop).

 

The bigger problem with assistance programs on the scale of what they have become -- and will grow to be -- is that they stop jobs from being created in the first place. If the government would ease up and lower tax rates (or implement the fair tax) you'd see prosperity again in this country, and that would be an even bigger blessing to the poor because it would make it easier to work their way up.

 

Bev, I love your story because of the similarities in my life. People say it's so hard now - and I know that it is. But it was hard then, too.

[FaithManor]

Mejane, is right and I think that the whole point of this thread, the "what budget cuts would you make if you were in charge", and "The minimum wage" thread all essentially point the fact that the system is broken. Even if it worked before, it doesn't work now. There needs to be more accountability, we know it, but our politicians are afraid of it and those that realize more accountability in the system would mean they can't take advantage of it anymore (like the cocaine addict down the road that draws disability for a "bad back" diagnosed by a chiropractor who is now in jail for defrauding insurance companies, and who also provides alcohol to minors for a "small fee", and has been in jail five times in the last 18 months) are afraid of it too.

 

Most decent working Americans are not bothered by the concept of helping their fellow man. I am happy to do so. I have a vested interest in America continuing to be a stable nation and if I want to continue to have the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then I better be willing to help someone else have that too and that means children that don't go hungry, cold in the winter, etc. The problem is not the helping. It's that the helping needs to be just that, help to get through the bad time with a plan for the future, not a way of NOT contributing to the system year, after year, after year. And again, we all know that if the system weren't broken, then fraud would be low and people would be on assistance for a period of time while they cared for a sick or injured child, finished an education, received job re-training, got over an illness or iinjury, etc. and then would be off into the working world so that they could pay their share to help someone else which is the moral thing to do. We would then accomodate out of compassion and mercy, those that have been irrepairably harmed and will never be able to take care of themselves. But, this would be a thing we would be honored to be a part of and we wouldn't be angry because the system would not be supporting large numbers of individuals that should be contributing to the cause, it would not take an inordinate portion of our hard earned money to help others.

 

The problem we have is that the system is soooooooooooo broken that it probably can't be reclaimed, re-tooled, etc. We've known this since the early 1980's and in two decades, nothing has been done. Something new, a fresh approach is going to have to happen. That takes time to research, design, and implement and we are running out of time. With a debt clock which adds 75 million dollars to our national debt every hour and costs us $126,000.00 in interest alone per taxpayer in this nation, we can no longer borrow from other nations for the operating expenses of a broken goverment; all we can do is continue to print worthless paper money that continues to be devalued on the international market as our debt now stands at 94% of our Gross Domestic Product. 45 million people are on food assistance and here's the rub, we can't make our interest payments for the month of March on the National Debt unless congress does two things....raises our debt ceiling so we can get the reserve bank to buy up more US. debt notes and then the treasury issues more unbacked paper money to the government to make the interest payments....you can bet, the government will raise the debt ceiling so that they don't have to NOT make social security, food assistance, disability, and medicare/medicaid payments much less payroll...they don't want rioting in the streets! But, they are also so corrupt that they won't cut spending. Eventually, just like Greece whose debt to GDP ratio stood at 115% (we aren't far off here folks) when it went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by foreign countries, we will have to take austerity measures and raise taxes significantly. But, those raised taxes won't be going to help our neighbor remain safe, warm, and fed. Those on assistance are likely to be HOMELESS...My anger at our current system as been growing exponentially since I turned 18 and became a voter! We are going to have trouble that most of us hoped we would never live to see.

 

That's the scoop. That's just how broken the system is. I am bothered by the fraud. I am not bothered by helping my fellow man and most people I know feel the same way ie. they want to help, but not support for the long haul...just help them get up and going and on their feet. But, whatever ludicrous amount of money I pay in taxes will not actually go to helping anyone. It will go to keep this corrupt government or some version of it limping alone while we pay the piper for 65 years of fiscal indiscretions by our ruling elite.

 

By the way, in the last three years, the US government as placed our National Forests, gold and silver mines, copper mines, the Alaskan reserve and our Gulf Oil Federal Reserves (to name just a few things) as collateral to China for money borrowed. The WMF, UN, and World Bank have all ruled that China is well within it's rights to seize these resources for payment of the debt. Where will we be then?

 

That is what is so painful about these discussions. It just doesn't matter anymore how much assistance we should give and who we think ought to get it. The brutal, rotten truth of the matter is that in our life times the high probability is that this nation will be on austerity measures and the money won't be there to help at all. People will be cold, people will be hungry, people will be sick and injured and not receive appropriate medical assistance, and all we will be able to do is be good samaritans...to hand our neighbor an apple from our tree or a bandage for their wound, or an egg or a loaf of bread and sigh because there is so little we can do.

 

Faith

[pqr]

Our way of life seems to be discussed and debated in sound-bites instead of in depth.

Absolutely correct, our way of life is also condemned by many who know absolutely nothing about what they speak of. Living in "poverty" in this nation IS NOT POVERTY. Despite the guilt complex shows etc on TV nobody starves in this nation, food is available for all. As Americans we have no concept of poverty.

Poverty is having to sell your child to "employers" in order to get food for the other.

Poverty is owning one shirt and one pair of pants with no hope of getting any replacements for the next few years.

Poverty is never having known what it is to have a full stomach.

In this nation we have poor but none of the above applies to them.

In this nation there are jobs available, or certainly would be, if we were not stuck with minimum wage requirements.

In this nation the debate is not over survival, it is over the question of how many TVs a person has or if they have cable. It is not about food but about what food. It is not about clothing but about how much. To make my case, we even had a thread that discussed the issue of GIVING free internet access.

I absolutely support helping people in need, I support giving opportunity but not making the producers (workers and employed) pay for someone else's comfort.

The debate needs to be far more than sound bites, it needs to start with an explanation of why you should take the sweat of one person's brow and GIVE it to someone else.

It needs to explain why we do not view all as being equal in this nation, and why the property of one is subject to seizure in order to GIVE it to someone else.

It needs to explain what happened to work ethic and why this has been replaced with a sense of entitlement.

It needs to explain how a nation that allows, nay encourages, redistribution of wealth from the producer to the user can long endure.

Most importantly, it needs to explain how frequently misattributed quote

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing"

is wrong.

[Debbie in OR]

this whole thing just makes me so sad. WHERE is the concern for PEOPLE! and if we as a society are so "home of the free and the brave" and yet we have no compassion for others, are we really that fortunate?!?

 

The faith based system is a cool idea but its completely impractical and untenable. First of all- it would require GENEROSITY which, obviously is SORELY lacking in people in general, and secondly, could pretty much everyone afford to contribute an extra 20% or whatever, while still paying their whatever percent in taxes? not a chance! i think that the faith based system comes from people who have no qualms with throwing the poor their scraps.

 

:confused: Where are you getting your information? Read the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks to get an accurate assessment of this.

[golfcartmama]

I'm not at all bothered, and am glad my taxes can help those in need. Sure it's annoying that some people abuse the system, but more often people receiving aid are just trying to make it. The abusers get publicity but that doesn't mean they're in the majority.

:iagree:

 

My brother is on SSI Diability and now food stamps too. He cannot work and is recovering from a double transplant. He may never be able to work again, it's unclear at this point. He had begun a new job and was in the 60 days not covered for insureance period when he was diagnosed. My family is depleted and we're trying to cover what we can, but we can't do it all for him. I am very grateful the system is there for those that need it.

[Guest]

Just one more little thing and then I'm going to get going.

 

I have watched several people begin to accept public assistance just this last year. It has been fascinating to watch. Every single one of them resisted starting with WIC. They can do it on their own, they can manage, they don't want to be a burden to society, etc. Every single one of them needed assistance and qualified for assistance.

 

A few months after they begin recieving WIC, they were asking for help exploring what other help they might be eligible for. Most of them recieve food stamps now, and several of them receive help with utilities. There was no argument, no questioning of their 'right' to receive it or their 'need'.

 

Do they need the assistance? Well, it definately makes their life easier. One of the girls now takes an extra day off work so she can have some 'me time'. It's very hard to watch it. None of them are abusing the system, taking more than their fair share, cheating to get something they shouldn't.

 

The attitude has changed though from, I am going to use this to get by to, of course I deserve to luxury of taking a day to rest and relax for just me.

 

It is irritating to me because even though we aren't in need, dh can't come and give me a day off for just me time. He has a job. He has to be there five days a week, sometimes more. That is real life. Public assistance, from what I've seen, allows a complacency to slip in because it provides a break from having to earn your check to provide for your needs. If your needs can be met without the effort, of course that's the easier way to go. None of these people started with the idea of taking the easy way, but it once someone is giving you grocery money every month there is less of an urgency to get out of the position of needing grocery money every month. KWIM?

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have noticed this, too. We have some family members who get WIC and they are always telling us about how they are going out to eat and doing extra stuff. Must be nice.

 

I was behind a gal in WalMart a few weeks ago. She had two sets of stuff she was paying for. The first was all WIC items. The second was every possible junk food you can imagine. And there I was standing behind her with my $20 in staple groceries, praying it would get us through.

 

That is all. I am not against government assistance, I have been there. It's just a sensitive spot right now.

[Debbie in OR]

I get so tired of hearing people use their socio-economic status to perpetuate their state of living. The whole 'woe is me' date=' I was born poor...never had the opportunities that others had to go to college because no one would pay for it' just doesn't fly with me.

 

I call BS on that attitude. Both my dh and I were poor growing up. My dh was the oldest of three and was babysitting his siblings overnight when he was just six years old while his mother went to one of her three jobs. She was on welfare at some points in their lives. His mother made sure education was a priority in their lives, though. My dh worked hard in school, ended up the valedictorian and won a scholarship to college because he worked hard. He didn't sit back and wait for gov't or anyone else to hand him something.

 

I was in the same boat with my family. I chose the military option. I was in the reserve for eight years and they paid for my college while I was in the reserve. I worked full-time to pay my living expenses while going to college. At Christmas time I worked more than one job so I could have a bit more money (for things like textbooks). It took me longer than the standard four years to graduate because I couldn't always take a full load of classes, but I did it. Was it easy? Absolutely not.

 

Too many people in gov't programs expect someone else to get them out of it. They need to put on their big girl panties and do it themselves. Problem is, too often it involves hard work beyond what a person is willing to do.

 

And, as far as income equalization. I worked very, very hard to be where I am today as has my husband. I absolutely abhore the idea that someone would take my paycheck and give it to someone sitting on their a$$ at home because it's only "fair." When income equalization occurs what you'll see is that those who previously worked hard to earn their incomes and enjoy the benefits will simply stop working hard. Why should a person work hard when their neighbor gets the same amount of money for flipping burgers? Productivity and ingenuity will disintegrate.

 

Those who are willing to work hard and make sacrifices to get ahead shouldn't be punished for their effort. If a person is unhappy with their standard of living, then they should get off their a$$ and do something about it rather than waiting for someone to hand it to them on a silver platter.

 

Yes, I know...getting on my own flame retardant suit.[/quote']

 

I so agree with you, Bev. My dad, one of 6 who grew up dirt poor in Appalachia, is now a highly successful adult with 5 highly successful siblings...because they worked hard. My grandfather (their dad) would drive the welfare man off their land when he came around trying to convince him that they needed assistance (which, by the way, I am not opposed to when necessary). Instead, he taught all 6 of them to work hard. Period. My dad now has 3 degrees (one, a PhD) and gives away cheerfully -- and not his scraps -- much of what he makes.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Debbie in OR

[PineFarmMom]

 

"By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread". "If a man will not work, he shall not eat".

 

 

 

 

Yes, I do have a problem with it. If I give my money freely to a person in need (which I do, with joy), it is called charity. If it is taken from me and given to someone else, it is theft...it might as well be at gunpoint!! This whole "social justice" manipulation has gotten way out of control. We've been lied to by those trying to convince us that we are unkind, unloving, ungiving because we're not willing for the govt. to redistribute OUR money to those who are often just flat unwilling to work!! It is NOT the government's money to redistribute. They aren't smarter than myself and my dh...they do not have a better plan for MY money! How foolish we are to believe such nonsense!!

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see an end to the lie to the masses that says people are uncaring and ungiving just because we're not willing to be robbed by the govt. so they can play Robin Hood. Manipulation is what that is!!

 

 

[Elaine]

The bottom line in this whole discussion is accountability.

 

We raise our children (at least' date=' most of us do) holding them accountable for their choices and actions.

 

Good choices/actions (e.g. an 'A' on a test) ---> Good consequences (e.g. more playtime or a special dessert, etc.)

 

Bad choices/actions (e.g. an 'F' on a test) ---> Bad consequences (e.g. less play time, no dessert, no video grames, etc.)

 

However, adults seem to get a pass on this and the logic fails. Adults make bad decisions, but they're not held accountable.

 

For example, people who bought homes they couldn't afford and then the gov't bailed them out. People who refuse to better themselves so they can get a decent job and be contributing members of society; gov't gives them money to live on. Where's the logic? Since when do we not hold adults accountable for their actions? Since when did we say "It's okay that you made bad choices in your life, here's some money."

 

I don't lament having public assistance. However, it should be temporary, it should have more oversight so that the people receiving it spend it wisely (not on flat screen TV's or iPhones, etc.) and continued assistance should be contingent on receiving job training of some sorts (college, tech school or OJT) not necessarily provided by the gov't.[/quote']

 

I love you, Bev. Seriously.:D

 

But this line especially, "However, adults seem to get a pass on this and the logic fails. Adults make bad decisions, but they're not held accountable."

[PineFarmMom]

I get so tired of hearing people use their socio-economic status to perpetuate their state of living. The whole 'woe is me' date=' I was born poor...never had the opportunities that others had to go to college because no one would pay for it' just doesn't fly with me.

 

I call BS on that attitude. Both my dh and I were poor growing up. My dh was the oldest of three and was babysitting his siblings overnight when he was just six years old while his mother went to one of her three jobs. She was on welfare at some points in their lives. His mother made sure education was a priority in their lives, though. My dh worked hard in school, ended up the valedictorian and won a scholarship to college because he worked hard. He didn't sit back and wait for gov't or anyone else to hand him something.

 

I was in the same boat with my family. I chose the military option. I was in the reserve for eight years and they paid for my college while I was in the reserve. I worked full-time to pay my living expenses while going to college. At Christmas time I worked more than one job so I could have a bit more money (for things like textbooks). It took me longer than the standard four years to graduate because I couldn't always take a full load of classes, but I did it. Was it easy? Absolutely not.

 

Too many people in gov't programs expect someone else to get them out of it. They need to put on their big girl panties and do it themselves. Problem is, too often it involves hard work beyond what a person is willing to do.

 

And, as far as income equalization. I worked very, very hard to be where I am today as has my husband. I absolutely abhore the idea that someone would take my paycheck and give it to someone sitting on their a$$ at home because it's only "fair." When income equalization occurs what you'll see is that those who previously worked hard to earn their incomes and enjoy the benefits will simply stop working hard. Why should a person work hard when their neighbor gets the same amount of money for flipping burgers? Productivity and ingenuity will disintegrate.

 

Those who are willing to work hard and make sacrifices to get ahead shouldn't be punished for their effort. If a person is unhappy with their standard of living, then they should get off their a$$ and do something about it rather than waiting for someone to hand it to them on a silver platter.

 

Yes, I know...getting on my own flame retardant suit.[/quote']

 

No flames here!! You are speaking truth!!!:hurray::hurray::hurray:

[Elaine]

I have NEVER encountered someone who believes this. Perhaps you are using some hyperbole, though, and just making the point that some people have different ideas than you do about the legitimate functions of government.

 

 

Tara

 

I think that Barry is correct. Look at Hurricane Katrina. An entire city of people, the majority being on public assistance, sat around waiting for someone to come and help them rather than evacuate themselves. They did not know what to do in the face of a crisis, they waited for the government to come to their rescue. That is what public assistance does, it cripples you and makes you dependent on someone else to take care of you, and it goes from generation to generation to generation. Where does it end?

 

The welfare state is a disaster.

[Elaine]

Absolutely correct, our way of life is also condemned by many who know absolutely nothing about what they speak of. Living in "poverty" in this nation IS NOT POVERTY. Despite the guilt complex shows etc on TV nobody starves in this nation, food is available for all. As Americans we have no concept of poverty.

Poverty is having to sell your child to "employers" in order to get food for the other.

Poverty is owning one shirt and one pair of pants with no hope of getting any replacements for the next few years.

Poverty is never having known what it is to have a full stomach.

In this nation we have poor but none of the above applies to them.

In this nation there are jobs available, or certainly would be, if we were not stuck with minimum wage requirements.

In this nation the debate is not over survival, it is over the question of how many TVs a person has or if they have cable. It is not about food but about what food. It is not about clothing but about how much. To make my case, we even had a thread that discussed the issue of GIVING free internet access.

I absolutely support helping people in need, I support giving opportunity but not making the producers (workers and employed) pay for someone else's comfort.

 

The debate needs to be far more than sound bites, it needs to start with an explanation of why you should take the sweat of one person's brow and GIVE it to someone else.

It needs to explain why we do not view all as being equal in this nation, and why the property of one is subject to seizure in order to GIVE it to someone else.

It needs to explain what happened to work ethic and why this has been replaced with a sense of entitlement.

It needs to explain how a nation that allows, nay encourages, redistribution of wealth from the producer to the user can long endure.

Most importantly, it needs to explain how frequently misattributed quote

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing"

is wrong.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I lived in Europe for 6 months and in that time I visited Bulgaria. People have no idea what poor is until they meet a family that lives in a barn, with their animals, and eats one meal a day. I am sickened by the overuse of the word poverty in America.

[Negin]

Better bread than guns.

Absolutely brilliant and I couldn't agree more. :iagree:

[Daisy]

The bottom line in this whole discussion is accountability.

 

We raise our children (at least' date=' most of us do) holding them accountable for their choices and actions.

 

Good choices/actions (e.g. an 'A' on a test) ---> Good consequences (e.g. more playtime or a special dessert, etc.)

 

Bad choices/actions (e.g. an 'F' on a test) ---> Bad consequences (e.g. less play time, no dessert, no video grames, etc.)

 

However, adults seem to get a pass on this and the logic fails. Adults make bad decisions, but they're not held accountable.

 

For example, people who bought homes they couldn't afford and then the gov't bailed them out. People who refuse to better themselves so they can get a decent job and be contributing members of society; gov't gives them money to live on. Where's the logic? Since when do we not hold adults accountable for their actions? Since when did we say "It's okay that you made bad choices in your life, here's some money."

 

I don't lament having public assistance. However, it should be temporary, it should have more oversight so that the people receiving it spend it wisely (not on flat screen TV's or iPhones, etc.) and continued assistance should be contingent on receiving job training of some sorts (college, tech school or OJT) not necessarily provided by the gov't.[/quote']

 

I suggest you leave some room for exceptions in your thinking.

 

My BIL had been married to my sister for 3 months when he applied to enter the Air Force pilot program like his brothers and his father before him. He passed everything but the physical. At that time he discovered he had been born with only one kidney and it was failing. Once that was discovered there was NO getting medical insurance or life insurance. He worked at a dead end job until physically he couldn't do it any longer. He was put on dialysis. He's had 2 kidney transplants. The debts mounted until they had to declare bankruptcy. He'll never be able to work again & is on permanent disability. He's 38. He has a wife and two children who have never known anything but public and charitable assistance. My sister cannot work because he requires full-time care.

 

I don't think you have a clue what real life is like for some people.

[PineFarmMom]

I think that Barry is correct. Look at Hurricane Katrina. An entire city of people, the majority being on public assistance, sat around waiting for someone to come and help them rather than evacuate themselves. They did not know what to do in the face of a crisis, they waited for the government to come to their rescue. That is what public assistance does, it cripples you and makes you dependent on someone else to take care of you, and it goes from generation to generation to generation. Where does it end?

 

The welfare state is a disaster.

 

Honestly? It is a new and more sneaky way of holding people down, only it holds more appeal than the old ways because it has the appearance of assistance.

[Negin]

In Australia our welfare system is very good. I am glad for it- having been a recipient myself in the past. It is humane to have decent welfare, and the "bludgers" are the minority. Over the years the system has been tightened up- its much harder to play the system than it used to be. But we don't have severe poverty- even those on welfare, or partial welfare can have a reasonable standard of living which is actually good for all of society. Single mothers in particular can live well and be good parents without having to go out and work full time.

Even as a middle income family we receive a fortnightly family payment.

I would be much more concerned about those wealthy bankers and CEOs, and military spending, than feeding amd clothing the unfortunate. It is to everyone's benefit that no one starve or be homeless.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

I love that about Australia and, I think New Zealand, and many European countries. I am so European in many ways (most ways). Every time I see a homeless person (and it's usually in the U.S, since that's where we travel the most, I'm close to tears. I've lived in cities with lots and lots of homelessness - NY, OR, CA - I will never, ever get used to it. It affects me horribly. You don't see much homelessness here in the Caribbean. There's no social welfares system really. But families just stick out for one another.

[KidsHappen]

I don't buy this for a second. We are right on the cusp of entering a higher tax bracket. You can bet your knickers I will NOT tell my husband to decline overtime hours JUST so we won't pay extra taxes. Perhaps that is just me and my sucker mentality talking.

 

Three times in my marriage, my hubby or I received an increase in pay that resulted in a less real actual dollars in our paychecks. As in one month we were bring home say $500 a week in pay and the next month after the pay raise we were bringing home $450 a month in pay. Twice was due to military pay raises, COLA increases or promotitions which could not be turned down. Once was due to a promotion I received that not only raised my taxes but cut my actual pay. My only option was to accept or find a new job. Yes, it was discouraging.

 

My hubby and I have also been paying the AMT for at least 15 years now. Yes, it is frustrating. We already pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (the total amount of all taxes and other deductions not including insurance hovers arouns 40-44%). You bet I get mad that I have to pay this much in taxes not because of helping with public assisstance but because I have no say in the spending of this money. I have no problem believing that this is a real problem and that people would have a problem with it. It is my opinion that people who don't have a problem with it have never actually had less money show up in their paycheck after working more.

[Scarlett]

I was behind a gal in WalMart a few weeks ago. She had two sets of stuff she was paying for. The first was all WIC items. The second was every possible junk food you can imagine. And there I was standing behind her with my $20 in staple groceries, praying it would get us through.

 

The trouble here is that you were irritated by a situation of which you don't have all the facts. Maybe she was buying junk for someone. Maybe she was buying WIC for her neighbor. Maybe, as you suspect, she is collecting WIC while at the same time having enough money to buy junk food which you can't afford. And that irritates you. But the fact is, there are so many varibles that it is nearly impossible to judge others in these situations.

 

And as far as the original question of the thread (and I haven't read it all), I am not generally bothered by people receiving aid. I have a brother on disability and I am glad he has $900 a month to eek out an existance since he can't work full time.

 

Even when I suspect or know that someone is cheating I just see it as part of a broken system that cannot be fixed.

 

Oh, and I agree with whomever said no one is 'starving' in this country. If they are it is their own stupidity or pride.

[Renee in NC]

:iagree::iagree:

 

I lived in Europe for 6 months and in that time I visited Bulgaria. People have no idea what poor is until they meet a family that lives in a barn, with their animals, and eats one meal a day. I am sickened by the overuse of the word poverty in America.

 

There is absolute poverty (which you describe in Bulgaria) and relative poverty (which is how most of us are using the word.)

 

If an American family were to live in a barn with their animals and eat one meal a day, their children would be taken away from them. Just because things are worse in another country does not lessen the impact of living in *this* country with what is termed "poverty-level income." There exists a certain basic standard of living here that parents are expected to provide - shelter, electricity, running water, etc.

 

If I chose to live in a tent at a campground in order to be able to avoid taking public assistance, my children would be in foster care.

 

If we chose to live in that tent instead of allowing the state to put us in public housing, my children would be in foster care.

 

If I decided to live in this place where I am without electricity or running water, my children would be in foster care.

 

If my children went to school everyday with the same clothes on or only fed one meal a day because that was all we could afford, we would be brought up on neglect charges.

 

And we haven't even gotten to the farm animals in the house issue!:tongue_smilie:

[GWOB]

Three times in my marriage, my hubby or I received an increase in pay that resulted in a less real actual dollars in our paychecks. As in one month we were bring home say $500 a week in pay and the next month after the pay raise we were bringing home $450 a month in pay. Twice was due to military pay raises, COLA increases or promotitions which could not be turned down. Once was due to a promotion I received that not only raised my taxes but cut my actual pay. My only option was to accept or find a new job. Yes, it was discouraging.

 

My hubby and I have also been paying the AMT for at least 15 years now. Yes, it is frustrating. We already pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (the total amount of all taxes and other deductions not including insurance hovers arouns 40-44%). You bet I get mad that I have to pay this much in taxes not because of helping with public assisstance but because I have no say in the spending of this money. I have no problem believing that this is a real problem and that people would have a problem with it. It is my opinion that people who don't have a problem with it have never actually had less money show up in their paycheck after working more.[/QUOTE]

 

Well, considering we were a military family for 8 years, working tons of hours, deployments, underways, etc. and not getting a penny more, I believe I do not fall into this category. We had those "mandatory" promotions and pay raises. I gladly welcomed them. I never, ever recall getting less money after a promotion. When my dh got out, he got a really good job, one that actually pays overtime. Yes, we pay more in taxes, but we still get more take-home money.

[Daisy]

No one would dispute that this is tragic. No one would wish this misfortune on anyone.

 

But...

 

Why do some here argue that this automatically becomes government's responsibility to fix or mitigate?

 

Why are tax payers FORCED to become involved in this situation?

 

Who else can pay for it? Everyone in our family helps them out. Their church helps them out. The medical costs are TOO MUCH for anyone to afford.

 

Yeah, the system may be a mess, but my BIL would be dead without it.