At what point has someone demonstrated need?

[joannqn]

I've seen it here, and our pastor mentioned it in his sermon this week: even poor people in the US are rich by world standards. But we don't live in a third world country, and our society has certain expectations that we must meet to be perceived as a fit parent.

 

I see discussions here where people judge whether someone deserves help based on what they have. A decent running car that they bought before they lost their job over a year ago and now owe too much on to sell despite a hefty down payment and low interest loan? How dare you ask for social services? You own a gaming system that you got for free and gave to your kids for Christmas? Why are you buying these luxuries instead of food? Own a smart phone worth almost nothing used, that is essential to your livelihood, with a monthly plan that is a tax write off for your business? Shame on you for wasting money on a cell phone!

 

I see people judging others for what they own without getting the story behind why they own it or how they came to own it.

 

So, what exactly is required before someone can truly be considered needy? Should they give up the car and cell phone that is required to earn the living that actually has proven future potential? Should they sell the nicer, but almost valueless, things they own until their house is bare before they get help? Do they, literally, need to be homeless and starving first (and then judged for allowing their families to be homeless and starving)? Does the mother have to put her kids in a poorly performing public school and/or daycare to get a job that would cost more than it would bring home?

 

Where, exactly, is the line drawn in this country concerning neediness?

Edited April 7, 2011 by joannqn

[Impish]

No idea.

[Murphy101]

I don't know.

 

But I agree with you.

 

But I wouldn't ask someone to do any of the things you mention before helping if I could.

 

In fact, I would think it would just put them further behind and hurt their family relationships more than they are likely already strained.

[Desert Rat]

No idea either. I think we wer judged by those standards when dh was laid off for 16 months. I received an ipod touch and a kindle in those months and was so, so grateful. But I did worry how it looked and often made a point to show everyone the sweet engraving my friend put on the back of my ipod.

At the food pantry I work for it's pretty cut and dry. If you make under a certain amount for the number of people in your family, you are poor enough to receive assistance.

We, however, have too many assets to qualify for state funded health insurance for our boys. I don't understand either.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I do not think one should have to give up all to be considered needy. Honestly I am much more concerned about corporate welfare and "welfare" for the rich in the form of historically very low tax rates.

 

That said unfortunately cars are necessary in many localities since public transportation is not valued and limited:( I read an article the other day about job postings that required a car since no public transportation was available. Plus many localities do not even have side walks:glare: so walking is even out as an option.

 

As for phones, many people just use wireless and try get a job without a phone. I agree that many are harsh in their judgments regarding the poor since many things like cars and phones are required for jobs.

Edited April 7, 2011 by priscilla

[Mergath]

I think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. There are so many variables that determine whether or not a family is "needy"... There isn't one thing that broadly defines it.

 

It really makes me angry, though, when people think that because you're poor and in need, you're not allowed to have anything at all and should be living in a soggy cardboard box. I once had a bill collector call back when my dh was completely unemployed and had been looking for a job pretty much forever. I explained our situation to said bill collector, and of course he said, "Oh, I see. You can pay for a phone, but you can't afford to pay my client. Uh-huh."

 

Uh, yeah, jacka**, because job-hunting is pretty darn hard when you don't have a phone. Somehow, if I have to choose between having a phone for potential employers to call my husband on, and paying my chiropractic bill, we're going to have to go with the phone. :glare:

[Barb_]

 

As for phones, many people just use wireless and try get a job without a phone. I agree that many are harsh in their judgments regarding the poor since many things like cars and phones are required for jobs.

 

:iagree: I would go so far as to say that a lack of a cell phone and car severely limits one's ability to improve one's situation. Forcing someone to give up those items will pretty much guarantee a downward spiral.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree: I would go so far as to say that a lack of a cell phone and car severely limits one's ability to improve one's situation. Forcing someone to give up those items will pretty much guarantee a downward spiral.

 

:iagree: I would like to see more public transportation though since our roads are getting more and more clogged and it is better for the environment and pocket books:)

[Tabrett]

Thank you for posting this!!!!

 

I think many times wealthy people think they have worked hard for what they have and "deserve" their wealth. They think that a person who is in need is in need because they have have not "worked hard enough". They don't see their wealth as a true blessing, but rather something they accomplished all by themselves.:glare: I'm not saying that wealthy people don't work hard, but many people who need help work very hard too!

 

I remember someone posting about a person on tv asking for help that had a big screen tv in the background. They were saying that they needed to sell the tv before they asked for help. Lets say the person did sell the tv. That may take care of a weeks worth of expenses, but then what? The person would be back in the same situation before.

 

People are very quick to judge!

 

This is why you can't use blanket judgment against the needy. I understand not wanting to help a person who has lots of "things" and is spending all their money on drugs. But there are many people who are living a just lifestyle who fall on hard times.

 

Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you!!!

 

That is how we need to live.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Tabrett

[brownie]

Of course you shouldn't give those things up because someone is judging you for it. You need to have the strength of conviction to do what is right for your family. However, there are many other people out there who spend money they don't have. That is why sometimes people who shouldn't be judged for the decisions they make get judged anyhow...they get lumped in with people who make poor decisions...not that we should judge anyhow. Brownie

[kchara]

I think that, once again, those who abuse the system make it 10 times harder for those who truly need it. When my DH got laid off, we HAD to go on food stamps and had to have community service help pay our rent and utilities for us. Otherwise, our kids would've starved and we would've been homeless. We got a job 5 months later, thank God, but during those 5 months, we had a MAJOR issue with our social worker, our church pretty much abandoned us (partially because I was pregnant with #6... I got pregnant before he got laid off, not that it was any of their business), and we were destitute. When we got a new job, the FIRST thing we did was get off food stamps, and get self sufficient again. Isn't the goal of social services to give you a break while you get back on your feet?

 

OTOH, a family we know at the same time as we were had been on Food stamps for something like 6 years. They're still on it. They bought a new (to them) truck. We have our crappy old van, but it's paid off, and it's ours. Their kids got a Christmas to beat all Christmases, paid for entirely by charity (which left them money to drive home to Michigan from Wyoming to spend Christmas with their parents. We didn't have a Christmas this year). They had a new flat screen, new computer, and their kids were spoiled rotten. We couldn't afford toilet paper. Literally. And the great part? My husband was contracting for this guy, who refused to pay us "because they didn't have money."

 

People see people struggling, on welfare, and the like, and automatically think of the second family, taking complete advantage of the system. They forget there are families like ours, truly doing our best to cut costs, trying to play by the rules, and we're getting slammed because of them, too. It's so not fair, all the way around.

 

Yeah, I'm slightly ticked off and bitter still.

[Barb_]

Most of us are one good car accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy. It doesn't take much to dump a family out of the ranks of the middle class. There but for the grace of God and all that...

[MeganW]

The problem isn't necessarily the car or the phone for one specific person. It's that people in America have gotten tired of the entitlement attitude displayed so publicly by some, and it has soured everyone's views toward giving.

 

I must admit to be annoyed when I see people in front in me in the grocery checkout line, separating their groceries into food stamp vs non -food stamp piles. Way fancier-cuts of meat than we can afford, fancy wines, etc. go in one pile, while the staples go in the other. Of course I would never say anything, but it does get irk me a little. Especially as it always seems that these people have perfect nail tips and are sipping Starbucks. Either you are poor and need food stamps, or you can afford fancy groceries and manicures and $5 coffee. Not both!

[MeganW]

I think that, once again, those who abuse the system make it 10 times harder for those who truly need it. When my DH got laid off, we HAD to go on food stamps and had to have community service help pay our rent and utilities for us. Otherwise, our kids would've starved and we would've been homeless. We got a job 5 months later, thank God, but during those 5 months, we had a MAJOR issue with our social worker, our church pretty much abandoned us (partially because I was pregnant with #6... I got pregnant before he got laid off, not that it was any of their business), and we were destitute. When we got a new job, the FIRST thing we did was get off food stamps, and get self sufficient again. Isn't the goal of social services to give you a break while you get back on your feet?

 

OTOH, a family we know at the same time as we were had been on Food stamps for something like 6 years. They're still on it. They bought a new (to them) truck. We have our crappy old van, but it's paid off, and it's ours. Their kids got a Christmas to beat all Christmases, paid for entirely by charity (which left them money to drive home to Michigan from Wyoming to spend Christmas with their parents. We didn't have a Christmas this year). They had a new flat screen, new computer, and their kids were spoiled rotten. We couldn't afford toilet paper. Literally. And the great part? My husband was contracting for this guy, who refused to pay us "because they didn't have money."

 

People see people struggling, on welfare, and the like, and automatically think of the second family, taking complete advantage of the system. They forget there are families like ours, truly doing our best to cut costs, trying to play by the rules, and we're getting slammed because of them, too. It's so not fair, all the way around.

 

Yeah, I'm slightly ticked off and bitter still.

 

You said what I was trying to, in a much nicer way. People are tired of the ones who are taking advantage, and are much less likely to be kind than they might be otherwise.

[Mergath]

The problem isn't necessarily the car or the phone for one specific person. It's that people in America have gotten tired of the entitlement attitude displayed so publicly by some, and it has soured everyone's views toward giving.

 

I must admit to be annoyed when I see people in front in me in the grocery checkout line, separating their groceries into food stamp vs non -food stamp piles. Way fancier-cuts of meat than we can afford, fancy wines, etc. go in one pile, while the staples go in the other. Of course I would never say anything, but it does get irk me a little. Especially as it always seems that these people have perfect nail tips and are sipping Starbucks. Either you are poor and need food stamps, or you can afford fancy groceries and manicures and $5 coffee. Not both!

 

Good grief. Can we please, please stop judging people who get food assistance for the kind of food they buy?

 

If someone on food assistance buys anything even remotely considered "junk food," they're criticized for using tax payer money to buy pop or whatever when they should be buying healthy food for their children.

 

If they buy healthy, even *gasp* organic, they get the stink eye from everyone not receiving assistance. "Well if I can't afford to buy that, they shouldn't be allowed to have it either."

 

Really, you just can't win. We receive food assistance, and I spend a long, long time budgeting every month so that I can buy my dd healthy food. I'm not going to apologize for buying organic milk just because the guy behind me can't afford it. I'm going to do the best that I can for my dd. Period.

 

Also, you can't buy wine with food assistance, so that's obviously not a factual account.

[amy g.]

I understood her to be saying that the wine was going into a different pile.

[Barb_]

The problem isn't necessarily the car or the phone for one specific person. It's that people in America have gotten tired of the entitlement attitude displayed so publicly by some, and it has soured everyone's views toward giving.

 

It hasn't soured my attitude, so please don't speak for me. A sour attitude is a problem in and of itself, regardless of the excuse.

[Teachaheart]

Good grief. Can we please, please stop judging people who get food assistance for the kind of food they buy?

 

If someone on food assistance buys anything even remotely considered "junk food," they're criticized for using tax payer money to buy pop or whatever when they should be buying healthy food for their children.

 

If they buy healthy, even *gasp* organic, they get the stink eye from everyone not receiving assistance. "Well if I can't afford to buy that, they shouldn't be allowed to have it either."

 

Really, you just can't win. We receive food assistance, and I spend a long, long time budgeting every month so that I can buy my dd healthy food. I'm not going to apologize for buying organic milk just because the guy behind me can't afford it. I'm going to do the best that I can for my dd. Period.

 

Also, you can't buy wine with food assistance, so that's obviously not a factual account.

 

:iagree: And I personally buy Starbucks with gift cards that I received for Christmas. You have no idea how any person is able to buy a $3-$5 coffee or even if that person bought it herself.

[Mergath]

I understood her to be saying that the wine was going into a different pile.

 

I wasn't completely sure what she was talking about- beyond criticism for their food choices- because food is food is food, and you can buy the fancy stuff with an EBT card just as easily as a box of Hamburger Helper. I've never divided my food into piles.

 

My point is that so many of these things turn into a session of "let's recount every piece of food I've ever seen a poor person buy with food assistance and then tear them apart over it." It'd be nice if this thread didn't go there.

[joannqn]

ETA: too personal

 

Perhaps the wine was being bought for a special occasion. Maybe she was entertaining her husband's boss and felt it necessary to provide a good meal in order to keep his job or, hopefully, earn a promotion that would get them out of their financial situation. Maybe she was repaying a kindness with a meal worth much less than the kindness shown to her. You really don't know the situation. So, I ask again, at which point do we stop judging appearances when we don't know the actual situation?

Edited April 7, 2011 by joannqn

[Teachaheart]

I understood her to be saying that the wine was going into a different pile.

 

I guess that would make sense, but even so, the post does come across as a bit judgmental.

[Cheryl in NM]

Good grief. Can we please, please stop judging people who get food assistance for the kind of food they buy?

 

If someone on food assistance buys anything even remotely considered "junk food," they're criticized for using tax payer money to buy pop or whatever when they should be buying healthy food for their children.

 

If they buy healthy, even *gasp* organic, they get the stink eye from everyone not receiving assistance. "Well if I can't afford to buy that, they shouldn't be allowed to have it either."

 

Really, you just can't win. We receive food assistance, and I spend a long, long time budgeting every month so that I can buy my dd healthy food. I'm not going to apologize for buying organic milk just because the guy behind me can't afford it. I'm going to do the best that I can for my dd. Period.

 

Also, you can't buy wine with food assistance, so that's obviously not a factual account.

 

Ummm, said in the most gentle way possible, please re-read the post you are replying to. The poster was complaining about those that separate food stamp food from expensive non-food stamp "food" & items at the check out line while having manicured nails and drinking Starbucks.

[Mergath]

Ummm, said in the most gentle way possible, please re-read the post you are replying to. The poster was complaining about those that separate food stamp food from expensive non-food stamp "food" & items at the check out line while having manicured nails and drinking Starbucks.

 

She said they put fancy cuts of meat in one pile and food staples in the other. There's really no way to take that other than people receiving food assistance shouldn't be buying the better cuts of meat.

[Mrs Mungo]

She said they put fancy cuts of meat in one pile and food staples in the other. There's really no way to take that other than people receiving food assistance shouldn't be buying the better cuts of meat.

 

Probably WIC instead of food stamps if you are buying staples with one.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It's an income line for the area...the income is low enough that the family can't pay for food and shelter.

 

Most folks here, high cost of living area, do have both spouses working..no sympathy for a family claiming poverty where one able-bodied parent refuses to work, especially given the numbers of single-parent families.

 

Do you think that such families should have to put their kids in daycare so that both can work? I tend to think that families with young children should not be forced to use daycare since often the daycare costs as much as they earn from what I understand. Plus I think it is better for a parent or extended family members to parent young children than daycare. Unfortunately not every family has extended family members that can help parent.

Edited April 7, 2011 by priscilla

[justamouse]

You know that HEROS thing that CNN does? Well, once there was a priest on there, he did some sort of social services work-helped parolees get work, drug addicts, I forget. Anywho, Anderson Cooper asked him if he ever felt he was being taken advantage of, and the priest replied, that he gives his advantage away.

 

Found it!

 

I love this. This is my bar.

 

Anyway, I don't ask, I have no requirements. If you ask, and I can give, then I give.

[justamouse]

Most of us are one good car accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy. It doesn't take much to dump a family out of the ranks of the middle class. There but for the grace of God and all that...

 

Amen.

[regentrude]

Do you think that such families should have to put their kids in daycare so that both can work? I tend to think that families with young children should not be forced to use daycare since often the daycare costs as much as they earn from what I understand. Plus I think it is better for a parent or extended family members to parent young children than daycare. Unfortunately not every family has extended family members that can help parent.

 

I don't think the tax payer should be responsible for my choices regarding family, number of children, parenting choices. I don't want the government dictating these things to me - on the flip side, I must take the consequences of my choices.

Staying home is nice, but it is a luxury. If people can afford it, great. But I don't think they are entitled to taxpayer support if they can't.

 

So I believe, yes, if one income is not sufficient, both parents need to work if it is economically feasible (i.e.salary more than daycare).

Accepting assistance in a crisis is one thing. Making lifestyle choices and expecting somebody else to pay for them another.

Edited April 7, 2011 by regentrude

[Gratia271]

Do you think that such families should have to put their kids in daycare so that both can work? I tend to think that families with young children should not be forced to use daycare since often the daycare costs as much as they earn from what I understand. Plus I think it is better for a parent or extended family members to parent young children than daycare. Unfortunately not every family has extended family members that can help parent.

:iagree:

 

You know that HEROS thing that CNN does? Well, once there was a priest on there, he did some sort of social services work-helped parolees get work, drug addicts, I forget. Anywho, Anderson Cooper asked him if he ever felt he was being taken advantage of, and the priest replied, that he gives his advantage away.

 

Found it!

 

I love this. This is my bar.

 

Anyway, I don't ask, I have no requirements. If you ask, and I can give, then I give.

:iagree: Thank you for sharing this.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think the tax payer should be responsible for my choices regarding family, number of children, parenting choices. I don't want the government dictating these things to me - on the flip side, I must take the consequences of my choices.

Staying home is nice, but it is a luxury. If people can afford it, great. But I don't think they are entitled to taxpayer support if they can't.

 

So I believe, yes, if one income is not sufficient, both parents need to work if it is economically feasible (i.e.salary more than daycare).

Accepting assistance in a crisis is one thing. Making lifestyle choices and expecting somebody else to pay for them another.

 

Crap, another accidental political thread.

[TXMomof4]

Haven't we done this thread before?

[Mergath]

I don't think the tax payer should be responsible for my choices regarding family, number of children, parenting choices. I don't want the government dictating these things to me - on the flip side, I must take the consequences of my choices.

Staying home is nice, but it is a luxury. If people can afford it, great. But I don't think they are entitled to taxpayer support if they can't.

 

So I believe, yes, if one income is not sufficient, both parents need to work if it is economically feasible (i.e.salary more than daycare).

Accepting assistance in a crisis is one thing. Making lifestyle choices and expecting somebody else to pay for them another.

 

I've lived in areas that have quality daycare shortages, and the ONLY even remotely affordable daycare for the working poor was, from what people told me, quite literally a crackhouse. No one should be required to endanger their child just to satsify some requirement that they try harder to be less poor. Even where I live now, I wouldn't put my dd in any of the daycares we could afford if I was able to find a full-time job I could do with my epilepsy. I looked into those in our price range when dd was a baby, and once you've seen a teenager screaming f-bombs at a group of toddlers, the idea of putting your child in a place like that is, shall we say, unpalatable.

[ondreeuh]

I can't answer all your hard questions about how much someone should be expected to give up before they are considered needy, but I do think that there's a difference between using money for beer instead of food and asking someone to sell something to buy food (which is only a short term solution anyhow).

 

We are applying for teaching jobs in the Alaskan bush. Many of these places rely on subsistence lifestyle. Some don't have running water or plumbing in the houses - you get water from the "washeteria" and empty your honeybuckets in a community receptacle. Food has to be ordered and shipped to your home. These people aren't "poor" - they have what they need. They have access to education, they have the skills to feed themselves, and they have a community to help them out of they need it. Honestly, one of the reasons we are even applying for the bush is that we don't want our kids to grow up over privileged and spoiled.

[regentrude]

No one should be required to endanger their child just to satsify some requirement that they try harder to be less poor.

 

Agreed.

The problem is - where do you draw the line? What if safe daycare is available, but does not agree with parents educational philosophies? Who gets to decide what is acceptable?

I don't want anybody to dictate that I must work or that I must stay home. It's great that in this country I have the choice. But somehow I'd have a problem with letting somebody else pay for the choices I make...

Again, I am not talking about unforseen hardships! I am talking about able bodied people who *choose* to stay home because they *want* to. Not people with medical problems, special needs children etc.

[joannqn]

We are applying for teaching jobs in the Alaskan bush. Many of these places rely on subsistence lifestyle. Some don't have running water or plumbing in the houses - you get water from the "washeteria" and empty your honeybuckets in a community receptacle. Food has to be ordered and shipped to your home. These people aren't "poor" - they have what they need. They have access to education, they have the skills to feed themselves, and they have a community to help them out of they need it. Honestly, one of the reasons we are even applying for the bush is that we don't want our kids to grow up over privileged and spoiled.

 

 

I can see living that way in that situation; it's normal and accepted there. I don't believe there is a free water source I can walk to from my home, nor do I believe our city would approve of my dumping our "honeybucket" in the nearby retention pond. Thus, we are required to pay for water and sewer services. We don't have the luxury of not paying for these things, which is why I asked specifically about our society.

[AmyP]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by AmyP

[joannqn]

Haven't we done this thread before?

 

I don't know. I haven't seen this specific question asked before. At what point does some appear poor enough for help in our society?

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know. I haven't seen this specific question asked before. At what point does some appear poor enough for help in our society?

 

Some would say never. That's the bottom line. It sucks, but some people would rather see your children starve that eat any food provided by tax dollars. The last thread where I referenced Dickens got deleted, so I will refrain from that.

[kalanamak]

Some would say never. That's the bottom line. It sucks, but some people would rather see your children starve that eat any food provided by tax dollars. The last thread where I referenced Dickens got deleted, so I will refrain from that.

 

Our own Godwin's Law?

[Trish]

Well, this is more of a "piling on" comment, but there are lots of people who live paycheck to paycheck (and even behind paycheck to paycheck) who own MUCH larger TV screens, newer furniture, newer vehicles and more elaborate sound systems than I do.

 

I'm okay with them utilizing social services, though.

 

Here in Florida it seems there's a significant segment of the population that owns vehicles more expensive than their homes.

[AmyP]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by AmyP

[Sputterduck]

I don't know. My perspective is different because I work with the poor in a different country. The poor here don't have electricity, gas, heat, clean water etc., live on dirt floors under tarp roofs, cook outside over scrapwood fires, and have never taken a bath or a shower in their whole lives. They also leave their newborns in the care of 5 or 6 year olds while they work all day in the fields.

 

It changes your perspective. I don't have a good answer for you.

[QueenCat]

I don't think the tax payer should be responsible for my choices regarding family, number of children, parenting choices. I don't want the government dictating these things to me - on the flip side, I must take the consequences of my choices.

Staying home is nice, but it is a luxury. If people can afford it, great. But I don't think they are entitled to taxpayer support if they can't.

 

So I believe, yes, if one income is not sufficient, both parents need to work if it is economically feasible (i.e.salary more than daycare).

Accepting assistance in a crisis is one thing. Making lifestyle choices and expecting somebody else to pay for them another.

 

:iagree: Well said but I would never want our govt. to make choices which would cause children to not get what they need if their parents can't afford food, shelter, basic health, etc.

Edited April 7, 2011 by CathieC

[QueenCat]

I've lived in areas that have quality daycare shortages, and the ONLY even remotely affordable daycare for the working poor was, from what people told me, quite literally a crackhouse. No one should be required to endanger their child just to satsify some requirement that they try harder to be less poor. Even where I live now, I wouldn't put my dd in any of the daycares we could afford if I was able to find a full-time job I could do with my epilepsy. I looked into those in our price range when dd was a baby, and once you've seen a teenager screaming f-bombs at a group of toddlers, the idea of putting your child in a place like that is, shall we say, unpalatable.

 

Generally speaking, I agree with Regentrude (hope I got the spelling right) but I do think there are exceptions. I do think it needs to be decent daycare, not anything goes when weighing the costs. I'm generally for mom staying home but not for getting pregnant on purpose, knowing you will have to take assistance to make it work. Hope that makes sense at this late hour. May re-think it in the am :001_smile:.

[Murphy101]

Some would say never. That's the bottom line. It sucks, but some people would rather see your children starve that eat any food provided by tax dollars. The last thread where I referenced Dickens got deleted, so I will refrain from that.

 

Oh come on A Modest Proposal is all we need to solve the problem of them poor people and their too many mouths. :)

[QueenCat]

Some would say never. That's the bottom line. It sucks, but some people would rather see your children starve that eat any food provided by tax dollars. The last thread where I referenced Dickens got deleted, so I will refrain from that.

 

I don't believe in an intentional lifestyle of welfare (yes, many do this intentionally) but I never blame the children, and am always willing to help them, even if I shouldn't have to.

[TXMomof4]

I don't know. My perspective is different because I work with the poor in a different country. The poor here don't have electricity, gas, heat, clean water etc., live on dirt floors under tarp roofs, cook outside over scrapwood fires, and have never taken a bath or a shower in their whole lives. They also leave their newborns in the care of 5 or 6 year olds while they work all day in the fields.

 

It changes your perspective. I don't have a good answer for you.

 

That's where it gets hard. Obviously, we don't want anyone living in those conditions. Not a single person in America should have to live that way (or anywhere, but I"m in America). The standard of living is so high here though, that for someone to have the essentials isn't enough.

 

I'm not talking about others here - I'm a spoiled American.

 

I can't imagine living without my computer.

Give up my cable - are you nuts?

Of course we have to have two cars - I'm not getting up early to drive dh to work.

Oh - I'm not sure that food is still good, just throw it away.

 

Maybe another way of looking at it is when is enough really enough? How much do we need really? We all talk about the goodies/treats/whatever that we *deserve* and the reality is we could do with far, far less.

 

We expect people in need to live with less but don't see how it would be possible for ourselves. It would be. It would be good for us in all probability. I just wouldn't like it as much.

[leeannpal]

Most of us are one good car accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy. It doesn't take much to dump a family out of the ranks of the middle class. There but for the grace of God and all that...

 

:iagree:

 

I remember when the idea of "there but by the grace of God.." really hit home to me. I was in West Africa watching a middle aged woman who looked to be about 70 shuffle slowly home, humped back and all, with her small supply of vegetables from the market. The hardships she faced on a daily basis definitely paled to mine even while I was Living in Mali.

[Tabrett]

Thank you for posting this!!!!

 

I think many times wealthy people think they have worked hard for what they have and "deserve" their wealth. They think that a person who is in need is in need because they have have not "worked hard enough". They don't see their wealth as a true blessing, but rather something they accomplished all by themselves.:glare: I'm not saying that wealthy people don't work hard, but many people who need help work very hard too!

 

I remember someone posting about a person on tv asking for help that had a big screen tv in the background. They were saying that they needed to sell the tv before they asked for help. Lets say the person did sell the tv. That may take care of a weeks worth of expenses, but then what? The person would be back in the same situation before.

 

People are very quick to judge!

 

This is why you can't use blanket judgment against the needy. I understand not wanting to help a person who has lots of "things" and is spending all their money on drugs. But there are many people who are living a just lifestyle who fall on hard times.

 

Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you!!!

 

That is how we need to live.

 

Just to let you know, we will not be accepting government assistance, but we may be facing bankruptcy because the state in which we live lets the bank demand a defiance after a foreclosure. We have not chosen to do a foreclosure, but have been forced into the situation because of lack of jobs that pay a salary equal to the cost of living in our area and the devaluation of our property. We did a 20% down payment with a fixed 6% loan and still can not afford our house because of job loss. We sold our car that had a payment and bought a car with cash. We have NO credit bills except our mortgage, which we still can't afford!!!!!! . There are plenty of $10-15 jobs in our area, but that will only pay our bills minus our mortgage.

 

I could go get a full time teaching job, but the cost of gas, uniforms, clothes for me and daycare would out way the salary I would earn as a teacher! Also, the price of sacrificing my dc to the public school system would me astronomical!!!!!!

 

Please be gentle on on us who are facing very hard times financially. We are not here by bad decisions or SIN, but by unseen financial circumstances.

[Mrs Mungo]

Tabrett, most people wind up in dire straits through hardship-job loss, loss of their spouse, pay cuts, medical bills and so forth. :(:grouphug: