At what point has someone demonstrated need?

[ondreeuh]

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.

 

My point was just to say that being needy isn't as much about what you have, but about your needs being met. Clearly, if your community requires you to pay for things that you don't have money for, then your needs aren't being met and you have a need for more $$. However, if someone doesn't have running water, that doesn't automatically make them needy, kwim?

[Tabrett]

QUOTE=Mergath;2601221]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.

 

:hurray::hurray::hurray:[

[Sputterduck]

My point was just to say that being needy isn't as much about what you have, but about your needs being met. Clearly, if your community requires you to pay for things that you don't have money for, then your needs aren't being met and you have a need for more $$. However, if someone doesn't have running water, that doesn't automatically make them needy, kwim?

 

Where does the line of "need" get drawn?

 

The humans here are no different than the humans in America. That's where I get stuck. Why are the people here so happy when they are without so many things Americans in general feel they need?

 

Sometimes I think we use the word "need" to mean "things I am used to" or "things society expects me to have".

 

We need clean water. We need shelter. We need food. We need a certain amount of warmth. We need a place to put our waste. We need medical intervention at times. Beyond that, I'm not sure where to draw a line.

[Tabrett]

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.

 

Thank you!!!!!!! I do not put my youngest dc in this situation because of this reason! I think it is the parent's responsibility, not the governments!!!! Once we think we it is the governments responsibility to teach our children, we give up the right as parents!!!!

[OnTheBrink]

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:

 

You should have told him you'll gladly disconnect the phone so you wouldn't have to hear from them again! I hate bill collectors. :glare:

[Barb_]

Haven't we done this thread before?

 

What haven't we done, at this point?

[Heather in Neverland]

Where does the line of "need" get drawn?

 

The humans here are no different than the humans in America. That's where I get stuck. Why are the people here so happy when they are without so many things Americans in general feel they need?

 

Sometimes I think we use the word "need" to mean "things I am used to" or "things society expects me to have".

 

We need clean water. We need shelter. We need food. We need a certain amount of warmth. We need a place to put our waste. We need medical intervention at times. Beyond that, I'm not sure where to draw a line.

 

I know what you mean. I thought I knew what poverty was until I saw it here. We say "Well, yeah, but we are in America. It's different." But you are right, humans are humans. We have the same basic needs. They can be met differently (as a PP pointed out... like access to a fresh water supply looks different here than it might in the states). I'm not saying one has to do this, but people here DO sell personal items in order to eat... they DO leave their children in sub-par situations so they can work to feed them... they DO sometimes eat just white rice once a day for weeks at a time.

 

I often wonder if I could handle that. What if? What if things got so bad for us financially that our only choice was to leave our children in sub-par daycare so both of us can work...or starve/be homeless?

 

So in answer to the original question...how do I define needy? I really have no idea any more.

[weaver_67579]

Crap, another accidental political thread.

 

reference to politics-just an opinion......I must not have the secret code...;)

[OnTheBrink]

In my mind, "needy" means someone has a need. Their need may come from their own bad choices, or it may come from circumstances beyond their control. I define "need" as food, water, appropriate clothing (for the weather, for a job interview, for school), a means to find or get to work, utilities, medical care.

 

I'd rather just meet the need first and then examine the reasons for it later and help the person if they need some counseling, better money management skills, or if they need to make some permanent life-style changes.

 

Overall, I think there are too many variables to make an official rule regarding who is needy and who isn't.

[Barb_]

I know what you mean. I thought I knew what poverty was until I saw it here. We say "Well, yeah, but we are in America. It's different." But you are right, humans are humans. We have the same basic needs. They can be met differently (as a PP pointed out... like access to a fresh water supply looks different here than it might in the states). I'm not saying one has to do this, but people here DO sell personal items in order to eat... they DO leave their children in sub-par situations so they can work to feed them... they DO sometimes eat just white rice once a day for weeks at a time.

 

I often wonder if I could handle that. What if? What if things got so bad for us financially that our only choice was to leave our children in sub-par daycare so both of us can work...or starve/be homeless?

 

So in answer to the original question...how do I define needy? I really have no idea any more.

 

I do understand the point, but each country by necessity must stand on its own to offer assistance to its neediest percentiles, whatever they are. We have more to offer across the board, so the threshold for perceived need is higher, I think. And really, that's okay.

[weddell]

This issue is so complex, I don't really think there is an answer.

 

When this issue comes up I sometimes think back to the article in the Tightwad Gazette (a book about being thrifty) about different "gifts" that people are given. Whether you believe they are given by God or just different qualities and abilities that people are born with, etc., everyone has different innate strengths and weaknesses, and different opportunities in life. We can't judge their current circumstances (even if they seem to be entirely the fault of bad decision making) because we don't know that person's personal gifts, weakness, or opportunities.

 

The fact is that life isn't fair and people don't all have equal opportunities. Yes, there is a lot you can do to improve your own situation. There is a lot that you can sacrifice so that you have have a better life later. You can cancel your cable, live on beans and rice, live on practically nothing while you finish college, and put off having children until you are more stable.

 

But I think even the ability to make these kind of sacrifices and think ahead to the future is a not "gift" everyone has.

 

Maybe a person grew up with suboptimal nutrition; not only didn't they get all the vitamins they needed for proper brain growth (affecting their thinking skills), but they also never learned to cook and don't know that beans and rice as a meal even exists. Of course you feed your child a bag of chips for dinner, that's what you grew up on. It's not that they are even making a choice between a cheap, healthy dinner and junk; they truly don't know that there are options outside their own experience. I don't think you can judge people for "choices" (which is what they appear to be to the people watching them at the grocery store checkout) when people don't know there are other options or are unable for whatever reason to make good decisions.

 

Not everyone has been taught that some sacrifices may be necessary to have the kind of life they want. Not everyone has the ability (whether that ability be money, knowledge, personal intelligence, time, willpower, perseverance, whatever) to make the right life choices.

 

Maybe three different people come to the same place in life through different means. We'll pretend it's a giant mansion. One gets there because they have the gift of family money, their family wealth bought them the mansion. The second got there through the gift of intelligence--they were super smart and got scholarships all through school and landed a super high paying job because of their brilliant ideas. The third got there through the gift of parents who taught them the understanding and implementing of hard work and sacrifice. They did without anything but the bare necessities, worked two jobs while going to school and put in late hours at the office and never got cable. What happens to the fourth person who doesn't have any of those gifts?

 

I really think some things that many of us on this board take for granted, the ability to find information, compare options, ask people for help, and reason through problems, are not "gifts" that everyone has.

 

And sometimes things in life happen that you can't control: job losses, health problems, etc.

 

I have to admit that both dh and I grew up middle/upper middle class with lots of opportunities, food, education, and parents who taught us life skills. We have made a lots of sacrifices to get to where we are now. It's really easy for me to judge other people for not sacrificing the way we did. I have looked more than once at other people's shopping carts and wondered what in the world are they thinking. But I try to remember not everyone was given those same set of life circumstances and abilities that I have. We have lived in a poor, urban, mostly minority neighborhood in the U.S. We have lived in a prosperous, upper class suburb. We are now living in India for the next two years among unbelievable poverty.

 

Needy is really subjective. People can need money. People can need life skills. People can need better decision making skills. Money or food are things the government can help with through various programs. I just have no idea how you help people who need some of those other gifts. I also don't know how anyone makes the decision about who needs what.

[Heather in Neverland]

This issue is so complex, I don't really think there is an answer.

 

When this issue comes up I sometimes think back to the article in the Tightwad Gazette (a book about being thrifty) about different "gifts" that people are given. Whether you believe they are given by God or just different qualities and abilities that people are born with, etc., everyone has different innate strengths and weaknesses, and different opportunities in life. We can't judge their current circumstances (even if they seem to be entirely the fault of bad decision making) because we don't know that person's personal gifts, weakness, or opportunities.

 

The fact is that life isn't fair and people don't all have equal opportunities. Yes, there is a lot you can do to improve your own situation. There is a lot that you can sacrifice so that you have have a better life later. You can cancel your cable, live on beans and rice, live on practically nothing while you finish college, and put off having children until you are more stable.

 

But I think even the ability to make these kind of sacrifices and think ahead to the future is a not "gift" everyone has.

Maybe a person grew up with suboptimal nutrition; not only didn't they get all the vitamins they needed for proper brain growth (affecting their thinking skills), but they also never learned to cook and don't know that beans and rice as a meal even exists. Of course you feed your child a bag of chips for dinner, that's what you grew up on. It's not that they are even making a choice between a cheap, healthy dinner and junk; they truly don't know that there are options outside their own experience. I don't think you can judge people for "choices" (which is what they appear to be to the people watching them at the grocery store checkout) when people don't know there are other options or are unable for whatever reason to make good decisions.

 

Not everyone has been taught that some sacrifices may be necessary to have the kind of life they want. Not everyone has the ability (whether that ability be money, knowledge, personal intelligence, time, willpower, perseverance, whatever) to make the right life choices.

 

Maybe three different people come to the same place in life through different means. We'll pretend it's a giant mansion. One gets there because they have the gift of family money, their family wealth bought them the mansion. The second got there through the gift of intelligence--they were super smart and got scholarships all through school and landed a super high paying job because of their brilliant ideas. The third got there through the gift of parents who taught them the understanding and implementing of hard work and sacrifice. They did without anything but the bare necessities, worked two jobs while going to school and put in late hours at the office and never got cable. What happens to the fourth person who doesn't have any of those gifts?

 

I really think some things that many of us on this board take for granted, the ability to find information, compare options, ask people for help, and reason through problems, are not "gifts" that everyone has.

 

And sometimes things in life happen that you can't control: job losses, health problems, etc.

 

I have to admit that both dh and I grew up middle/upper middle class with lots of opportunities, food, education, and parents who taught us life skills. We have made a lots of sacrifices to get to where we are now. It's really easy for me to judge other people for not sacrificing the way we did. I have looked more than once at other people's shopping carts and wondered what in the world are they thinking. But I try to remember not everyone was given those same set of life circumstances and abilities that I have. We have lived in a poor, urban, mostly minority neighborhood in the U.S. We have lived in a prosperous, upper class suburb. We are now living in India for the next two years among unbelievable poverty.

 

Needy is really subjective. People can need money. People can need life skills. People can need better decision making skills. Money or food are things the government can help with through various programs. I just have no idea how you help people who need some of those other gifts. I also don't know how anyone makes the decision about who needs what.

 

great post!!! Especially the bolded part.

 

Some of you might remember that my dh was in a motorcycle accident here in Malaysia last July and broke his neck. We are suing the man's insurance company to cover the hospital bills. Here we are Americans in Malaysia...we don't speak the language and have no idea how the whole system works... but we were able to ask the right questions, find the right people, and figure it out.

 

My ahma's husband was in an accident at christmas. They were both born and raised in Malaysia and they had NO IDEA how to even go about finding a lawyer to file a claim. We had to help her do it.

 

I was really stunned at that. The ability to navigate a complex government system in a foreign country is a skill that even locals of that country often don't possess.

 

On the flip side...she went with me to "Little India" in downtown Georgetown and helped me get a sari custom made for me. I NEVER would have figured that out...didn't know where to go, what to ask for, or how much it should cost.

 

She has skills that are far different from mine.

 

Really great post. Thank you.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Heather in NC

[Peela]

It sounds like the welfare system in the U.S. might be a bit messy and complicated. I am not familiar with it. Who gets to decide whether one is in need or not?

Here in Australia, while I am not saying its an ideal system, there are very clear guidelines as to what validates you for welfare payments, and how much. Its not easy to live on welfare any more- and there are still thousands of teenagers sleeping on the streets every night in this country, let alone adults. It used to be very easy to cheat the system but nowadays its not. But at least you can live. I think its a generous system although of course many fall through the cracks. They are however often the drug addicted, the mentally impaired etc- those who might not easily find a way to live.

So its generally not left up to individuals to "judge" whether you deserve welfare payments or not. A doctor's certificate, a tax form, and oodles of paperwork and you can get it.

I think that is the point of a health care system and welfare system such as we have- while some few people milk the system, all people do have equal rights to basic needs being met, regardless of social status, background etc. I think it is a compassionate system.

[joannqn]

Thank you, Weddell, for your post. Very well said, and it rings true by my experience. Sometimes the ability that is missing is the ability to overcome psychological damage.

[Mama Bear]

People carting Starbucks with perfectly manicured nails are quite likely *not* the recipient of food assistance, but the authorized person on a qualified person's account. A kind neighbor, friend, relative, or caregiver may be authorized to pick up food and etc for those unable to get out on their own behalf.

 

Frustrations at how "we're all paying for someone else's great life" pave the way for larger discontent. We cannot know these things about other people, and (imo) it's silly to try. In the context of a checkout line at a grocery store, one cannot truly know anything about that stranger who appears to be inexplicably blessed. Allowing those thoughts to fester opens us up to envy and fear. And really, who needs *those* kinds of problems?

[Mergath]

People carting Starbucks with perfectly manicured nails are quite likely *not* the recipient of food assistance, but the authorized person on a qualified person's account. A kind neighbor, friend, relative, or caregiver may be authorized to pick up food and etc for those unable to get out on their own behalf.

 

Frustrations at how "we're all paying for someone else's great life" pave the way for larger discontent. We cannot know these things about other people, and (imo) it's silly to try. In the context of a checkout line at a grocery store, one cannot truly know anything about that stranger who appears to be inexplicably blessed. Allowing those thoughts to fester opens us up to envy and fear. And really, who needs *those* kinds of problems?

 

Exactly. And some people who have something nice like, I don't know, an ipad or something, might have saved for a long, long time to have them. I've been saving literally my pennies and nickels so I can buy a laser printer for homeschooling stuff. By the time I can actually afford it, I'll probably have been saving loose change in a freezer bag for a year.

 

If someone who knows me saw me, once I have the money, go into Office Max and drop a hundred dollars on that printer, they'd probably think, "Well, if she has that much for a printer, she shouldn't be getting any assistance." They'll have no idea how long and hard I've saved to do just that. Too many people rush to make judgements without any kind of facts.

 

And for all we know, the person with the nice fingernails works in a nail salon and gets them done for free, or has a friend that does them. That's another thing that gets to me- there are a lot of people out there who seem to think all of us receiving help ought to be slinking around in dirty rags.

[TravelingChris]

I am in a large co-op. We have families in it who have lost the primary income due to job cuts. The support group leader at the co-op says something like- We have a family who is in great need and we are making a collection today- I don't expect these families who suffer job loss to immediately start selling off this and that. I do think that as time goes on, it would behoove the family to look to selling non-necessities. Not to satisfy any conditions I have but to survive basically in this high cost area.

 

I do think that not getting pregnant while on aid is the only sensible and moral thing to do. I am not referring to one of the earlier posters who said that their church abandoned them and mentioned that she was in early pregnancy when her husband lost his job. However, when I go to the store, I am not staring at people's cards which they pay with. How would I normally know if they have aid?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

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.

 

:grouphug:

Yes but will accepting assistance help you stay in your house or take care of your family better? IMHO I would take assistance in these cases.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It is an individual choice that each family must make. The choice is live in an area with a lifestyle one can afford on one job or both work. If both work, that does not have to mean a daycare. Working opposite schedules is a choice many here elect to use in leiu of daycare or grandparent. Often the dad is delighted to have such an huge impact in the lil' ones lives, however some employ a high school aged child. Some single parents swap daycare with another single parent on another shift. Also, it's not always the case that both need to work full-time; sometimes one will work part-time or be a sole proprieter with part-time hours. Providing before school care for example is quite lucrative while part-time and really doesn't impact the family time. There are always choices and it is imperative that these choices be examined rather than rejected. Taxing your neighbors so you can have a luxury is morally wrong if you are not disabled.

 

One thing to remember is that those now in power making decisions grew up in the depression era. My parents were children then, but they clearly remember the gals wearing flour-sack clothes, adding rows to the gardens and so forth. Their parents did not have electric for many many years until the REA brought it out to the rural towns and never had running water in house even in the 80s. Some still had dirt floors. A painted house was a luxury. So, the standard of living that many view as an entitlement now in their 20s is still far higher than the grandparents of today not only survived but thrived on. If you're ever in NY, visit Eleanor Roosevelt's cottage, Val-Kill and get a sense of the times.

 

I agree with trying to make it work by working opposite shifts and using extended family but this is not always feasible. As for choosing to live in high cost of living areas there are many families who cannot afford to re-locate if they are down and out so it is not always a choice:(.

 

As for the depression, I'm 50 so yes my grandparents remembered it quite distinctly. I don't think we should require folks to wear flour sacks or do without running water in this country though in order to be eligible for assistance. I am also a strong proponent of birth control and sex ed coupled with abstinence ed but there are many proponents of not having these things readily and widely available in this country:(.

 

I forgot to add that I am a strong proponent of frugality:)

Edited April 7, 2011 by priscilla

[My3Boys]

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

 

See, here is where I have a problem with the "don't judge" argument. If someone is asking to take part of my family's income, we have a right to ask if our money is going to someone who really needs it, and to be assured that it will be used wisely.

 

It's just like when someone asks you for a loan or one of our kids asks for money for something. Do you just hand it over and not ask what they will use it for? If the person asking for the loan then uses it to buy beer and cigarettes instead of food or to pay the electric bill, I have a right to make a judgment about their behavior and whether or not to loan them any more because it's my money. Just because the government is taking it from me and redistributing it doesn't mean I still don't have the right to question where my money is going. Please don't say to me, "just hand it over and be quiet, what I do with your money is none of your business". I also think that assessing the situation will better weed out those who are taking advantage of the system.

 

Please have a little respect and gratitude for the taxpayers who are footing the bill, especially since we have no choice in the matter. It would be so nice to hear a "thank you".

 

As far as who should be classified as being in need, I think if someone needs help providing basic food and shelter needs for their family or they will go hungry or be homeless, then obviously that is real need and they should receive assistance. Beyond that, I think it depends. I do think there needs to be better oversight and the rules need to be refined so that the help only goes to those who truly need it and the system isn't abused, which works to everyone's advantage. There are so many variables involved here, I don't think there can be one flat answer to the question.

Edited April 7, 2011 by My3Boys

[Mergath]

See, here is where I have a problem with the "don't judge" argument. If someone is asking to take part of my family's income, we have a right to ask if our money is going to someone who really needs it, and to be assured that it will be used wisely.

 

It's just like when someone asks you for a loan or one of our kids asks for money for something. Do you just hand it over and not ask what they will use it for? If the person asking for the loan then uses it to buy beer and cigarettes instead of food or to pay the electric bill, I have a right to make a judgment about their behavior and whether or not to loan them any more because it's my money. Just because the government is taking it from me and redistributing it doesn't mean I still don't have the right to question where my money is going. Please don't say to me, "just hand it over and be quiet, what I do with your money is none of your business".

 

Please have a little respect and gratitude for the taxpayers who are footing the bill, especially since we have no choice in the matter. It would be so nice to hear a "thank you".

 

What you don't seem to realize here is that most of the people receiving the assistance you pat yourself on the back so heartily for funding also work just as hard and pay taxes just like you do. My husband is working full time right now, but can only get minimum wage because he's doing the job through a state work training program (even though he does the exact same work as the regular employees). I work part time at a group home for not much more. We both pay taxes out of each and every paycheck, but because we do jobs that don't pay a living wage, we receive assistance just to cover food and shelter. Somebody has to do these jobs, though, if you want to have parts for the machines you use, and if you think that autistic children should have decent care. Just because we do the jobs that others don't want and get paid next to nothing for doing them, we deserve your judgement and scorn when the government makes up the difference so that we don't end up on the street? I don't think so.

 

My tax dollars are paying for many of the services provided to you. I don't judge you for the way you take advantage of those things, so don't judge me for the food I buy.

[My3Boys]

What you don't seem to realize here is that most of the people receiving the assistance you pat yourself on the back so heartily for funding also work just as hard and pay taxes just like you do. My husband is working full time right now, but can only get minimum wage because he's doing the job through a state work training program (even though he does the exact same work as the regular employees). I work part time at a group home for not much more. We both pay taxes out of each and every paycheck, but because we do jobs that don't pay a living wage, we receive assistance just to cover food and shelter. Somebody has to do these jobs, though, if you want to have parts for the machines you use, and if you think that autistic children should have decent care. Just because we do the jobs that others don't want and get paid next to nothing for doing them, we deserve your judgement and scorn when the government makes up the difference so that we don't end up on the street? I don't think so.

 

My tax dollars are paying for many of the services provided to you. I don't judge you for the way you take advantage of those things, so don't judge me for the food I buy.

 

I'm not "patting myself on the back" here. I just think there are too many people receiving assistance who never think about where it comes from.

 

We also pay a great deal in taxes; way, way more than we get back in any "services". In fact, next year we will lose our last child tax credit and will probably, when all is said and done, be paying out almost 40% of our income to the government. My dh is a civil engineer with a degree and over 30 years experience in his field. He does not own his own company; he is an employee.

 

Nowhere in my post did I exhibit any hatefullness or "scorn". I simply stated that those whose money is being used have a right to ask for some accountability from the government and the recipients. That's not "scornful". It is being good stewards of our money.

 

I also believe I am done with this conversation.

Edited April 7, 2011 by My3Boys

[QueenCat]

What you don't seem to realize here is that most of the people receiving the assistance you pat yourself on the back so heartily for funding also work just as hard and pay taxes just like you do. My husband is working full time right now, but can only get minimum wage because he's doing the job through a state work training program (even though he does the exact same work as the regular employees). I work part time at a group home for not much more. We both pay taxes out of each and every paycheck, but because we do jobs that don't pay a living wage, we receive assistance just to cover food and shelter. Somebody has to do these jobs, though, if you want to have parts for the machines you use, and if you think that autistic children should have decent care. Just because we do the jobs that others don't want and get paid next to nothing for doing them, we deserve your judgement and scorn when the government makes up the difference so that we don't end up on the street? I don't think so.

 

My tax dollars are paying for many of the services provided to you. I don't judge you for the way you take advantage of those things, so don't judge me for the food I buy.

 

 

You shouldn't be judged or scorned for working hard, and accepting the help you need. I think what most people get frustrated with are people who "work the system" and take advantage of it without trying to meet some of their own needs.

[Mergath]

We also pay a great deal in taxes; way, way more than we get back in any "services".

 

I don't know about that. The military and the police defend you and everyone else. We all drive on roads maintained by the government and fly in skies managed by government air traffic controllers. Our food is kept safe by the government, and even paying for assistance for the poor benefits you, because a mother who gets food assistance is a mother who doesn't have to break into your house and steal in order to feed her children. We get books from government funded libraries, and visit government funded museums. Children with both parents working are provided with at least a basic education in government schools so they can become more productive members of society. The medication we use is regulated by the government so that we don't end up ingesting poison some counterfeiter tried to pass off as medicine.

 

Just as you say the people on assistance don't think about where the money comes from, I think there are a lot of people complaining about taxes who don't really think about everything the government does provide. It screws up quite a bit, yes, but it also does tremendous good.

[Mergath]

?? What services would those be, assuming the OP is not on disability? Enlighten me, please.

 

Seems to me everyone is paying fair share type of taxes: school tax, gas tax, property tax, sales tax while many are not paying enough federal to cover their share of services. The federal tax is paying for quite a bit of medical and food to people who have never paid in to federal due to their lifestyle choices.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592900454547226.html

 

I explained that in detail in my last post. :)

[Mergath]

You shouldn't be judged or scorned for working hard, and accepting the help you need. I think what most people get frustrated with are people who "work the system" and take advantage of it without trying to meet some of their own needs.

 

The problem is that, as a society, we've internalized some really hateful stereotypes about the working poor. So many people seem to think that we're all a bunch of lazy, scamming scumbags who sit around eating filet mignon and giving our kids Pepsi and doughnuts all the time, when really the people abusing the system are an extremely miniscule percentage of all the people receiving help, especially in the current economy. The vast majority of us are just regular families trying to get by, and coming up a little short. Many of us are extremely well-educated and hard working, too, not the ignorant welfare queens people still insist on referencing.

 

There are many people on this forum who assume the worst about the poor, and will grudgingly admit some of us aren't so bad if you push them. I wish our society could instead assume the best, and deal with the rare offenders when they do pop up.

[QueenCat]

The problem is that, as a society, we've internalized some really hateful stereotypes about the working poor. So many people seem to think that we're all a bunch of lazy, scamming scumbags who sit around eating filet mignon and giving our kids Pepsi and doughnuts all the time, when really the people abusing the system are an extremely miniscule percentage of all the people receiving help, especially in the current economy. The vast majority of us are just regular families trying to get by, and coming up a little short. Many of us are extremely well-educated and hard working, too, not the ignorant welfare queens people still insist on referencing.

 

There are many people on this forum who assume the worst about the poor, and will grudgingly admit some of us aren't so bad if you push them. I wish our society could instead assume the best, and deal with the rare offenders when they do pop up.

 

Unfortunately, those that take advantage are the ones we see on the news, in special reports, etc. Is that fair or right? No. I do know that the working poor are working hard, harder than I have had to work in many years. My frustration comes with those that are not working, and are not trying to work. I still wish we had a better way to deal with those who do take advantage in so many different ways, even if they are the minority.

[Mergath]

Only taxes that everyone pays were mentioned. They have covered their fair share; your taxes do not contribute to their share unless you are paying federal and state as well in an amount higher than they are contributing and that's only if they are drawing federally funded services.

 

Let me see if I'm following you here... First of all, are you implying that we somehow haven't covered our fair share, just because we make less overall? And that the only way we're "even," since we use food assistance, is if we pay as much as they do, and then some? That seems a little harsh.

 

Everyone uses federally funded services, either directly or indirectly. All the states receive federal funding, so even the things handled by the states are still funded by federal tax dollars.

[Mergath]

Unfortunately, those that take advantage are the ones we see on the news, in special reports, etc. Is that fair or right? No. I do know that the working poor are working hard, harder than I have had to work in many years. My frustration comes with those that are not working, and are not trying to work. I still wish we had a better way to deal with those who do take advantage in so many different ways, even if they are the minority.

 

But now you have to either work, look for work, or be seriously disabled to get financial assistance. Here in Minnesota, at least, if you're getting help you have to either have a full time job, or spend the same amount of time at a workforce center looking for a job. You can't just sit home and not work and live off the government now.

 

And they are definitely in the minority, those that abuse the system. In a different thread awhile back, someone looked it up in their state, and it was something like a fraction of one percent of all the people getting help.

[QueenCat]

But now you have to either work, look for work, or be seriously disabled to get financial assistance. Here in Minnesota, at least, if you're getting help you have to either have a full time job, or spend the same amount of time at a workforce center looking for a job. You can't just sit home and not work and live off the government now.

 

And they are definitely in the minority, those that abuse the system. In a different thread awhile back, someone looked it up in their state, and it was something like a fraction of one percent of all the people getting help.

 

I sent you a pm... on a previous post. I think it is supposed to be this way nationally. I've got to get off of here now, our school day is supposed to be happening!

[LidiyaDawn]

A few people have mentioned what "poor" looks like in other countries.. regardless of how we might FEEL about that, we can't use that standard here (Canada or US)… if a family is living in a homemade "shack" and doesn't have any power/water/etc, Child Services will come and remove the children. You won't get them back until you prove that you have "suitable" accommodations for your family. (if then)

[Sputterduck]

A few people have mentioned what "poor" looks like in other countries.. regardless of how we might FEEL about that, we can't use that standard here (Canada or US)… if a family is living in a homemade "shack" and doesn't have any power/water/etc, Child Services will come and remove the children. You won't get them back until you prove that you have "suitable" accommodations for your family. (if then)

 

And I have a problem with that. A handful of generations ago everyone lived like that. Was every parent from that time and before abusive? No. Are the parents of families who live like that in other countries abusive? No.

 

Americans/Canadians of today aren't a special breed of human. They might expect and want more that their ancestors had, but in reality people thrived and were happy without those things. It's not suddenly wrong to live without them now.

[LidiyaDawn]

A few people have mentioned what "poor" looks like in other countries.. regardless of how we might FEEL about that, we can't use that standard here (Canada or US)… if a family is living in a homemade "shack" and doesn't have any power/water/etc, Child Services will come and remove the children. You won't get them back until you prove that you have "suitable" accommodations for your family. (if then)

 

And I have a problem with that. A handful of generations ago everyone lived like that. Was every parent from that time and before abusive? No. Are the parents of families who live like that in other countries abusive? No.

 

Americans/Canadians of today aren't a special breed of human. They might expect and want more that their ancestors had, but in reality people thrived and were happy without those things. It's not suddenly wrong to live without them now.

 

Hey, I pretty much agree with you ;).. I was just pointing it out.

[Cheryl in NM]

I do understand the point, but each country by necessity must stand on its own to offer assistance to its neediest percentiles, whatever they are. We have more to offer across the board, so the threshold for perceived need is higher, I think. And really, that's okay.

But see, really, we don't have more to offer. We probably have less because America does not stand on her own. We have too much foreign dependence on goods as well as debt.

[4everHis]

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.

 

wow! soaked with redemption. . . what a way to live your life (kind of like that man Jesus =)

[abacus2]

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

 

You're probably right about that. WIC isn't the same kind of program at all. It's goal is too improve nutrition for mothers and babies, not help low income families get by. WIC does not provide money for food; it supplies certificates allowing families with young children to pick up specific supplemental nutritious food at a grocery store. My family of 5 could make nearly $48,000 a year and qualify for WIC.

[Sputterduck]

Hey, I pretty much agree with you ;).. I was just pointing it out.

 

I wasn't thinking that you agree with Child Services. :) I was just laying out my frustration with the idea that somehow living now as we did not so long ago is suddenly abusive.

[Ester Maria]

We can't judge their current circumstances (even if they seem to be entirely the fault of bad decision making) because we don't know that person's personal gifts, weakness, or opportunities.

[...]

Not everyone has been taught that some sacrifices may be necessary to have the kind of life they want. Not everyone has the ability (whether that ability be money, knowledge, personal intelligence, time, willpower, perseverance, whatever) to make the right life choices.

 

First of all, Weddell, that was a great, thought-provoking post which sheds a light different than the usual one on some of those issues - and it is an important light to keep in mind.

 

However...

 

Every time when I hear such rhetoric, I become increasinly uncomfortable. Why? Because the common denominator of all you write about is LUCK - or, if you wish, the role of CASE in the received arbitrary differences (such as intelligence, being born into a wealthier family, certain traits of character whether inborn or developed through particular life circumstances, etc.). And that is the point where such rhetoric becomes dangerous, because it flirts with determinism. With the idea that, no matter what, the current state of things is largely or fully the product of what was "naturally" meant to be (remember the idea that "everybody always makes the best decision they can possibly make in a given moment, all circumstances considered"?). With the idea that people are, somehow, less truly accountable for their acts and choices than we traditionally like to think they are. Like a classical tragedy - you are guilty, but you are not really fully accountable, it is all one cruel game of Fate / Case.

 

Now, call me dogmatic :001_smile:, but I much prefer to stay away from such way of thinking, because such forms of disguised determinism (whether biological or cultural or something in-between) are a rather depressing thought to pose as my main "lenses" through which I approach life. To entertain at times, yes, but not to approach life that way.

So I say yes, there is such a thing as luck. Lots of it. And yes, if you look at the world from a particular angle, it can all be perfectly about luck and not much more. But there are so many counter examples as well. People turn good and people turn bad from all kinds of initial backgrounds and situations, and from all kinds of "lives" they lived.

 

Generational wealth is not a guarantee of anything - if not properly taken care of, within a generation or two you lose it, if not sooner. Intelligence is not a guarantee of anything - it needs to be tamed, guided and properly applied to get something out of it. Even "character" is not a guarantee of anything, as many circumstances may challenge it, and perservance alone without a goal in mind will often not get you far either. None of those moments can be approached in complete isolation one from another (not that you are suggesting that - on the contrary). And yet, you will find people of all levels making it and breaking it (the rich and the poor, the intelligent and the less intelligent, the determined and the less determined, etc.). We are different. That is okay. Saying that our backgrounds, biology and culture play a certain role - even a big one! - in our life choices is okay too. But excusing us, on the long run? Not really. Accountability is in large part a "descriptive" statement - the person who made something is accountable. Now, whether A made a choice of B because of particular neuron acting in a particular way in that moment, out of their "free will", whatever that be (SUCH a problematic concept, on so many levels), because the weather was such and such or whatnot, ultimately, A made B. An observer from the outside finds A accountable. Questioning "true" reasonsing behind the action B already enters the realm of serious speculation, rather than anything else, in many many cases. And more often than not, I am not sure that entering that speculation in search for excuses, "possible worlds" and possible explanations is such a good idea. Relativizing things paralyzes. It will be a grim world for all of us if we start flirting with utter relativism and with borderline determinism.

 

I am not a social darwinist. I am just stating some simple facts of life: people are, in some form, responsible for most of their actions and choices (of course, there is life happening too - one cannot deny that - and that is what social services should BE for: life happening). Other people financing the consequences of some of their choices have the right to pose some of the questions they were posing, especially in societies with some form of progressive taxation (which is basically another name for "punishing the rich for being rich", as if a fixed tax did not already make them contribute more). I do not find anything rude in that - as long as we keep in mind that there is a time and a place for everything. Giving nasty looks or outright asking the person with the coupons about their choices is incredibly rude, no discussion about that. But, voicing some of those concerns on a forum intended to discuss things is not. Many questions in this thread are perfectly legitimate questions, from a legal perspective as well (knowing whether my money for the needy really goes to the needy in a temporary problematic situation out of their countrol, or to people who lead a lifestyle on social services).

 

As for what constitutes needy... That is one big can of worms. But generally, if you have a stable place to be (does not have to be a palace - but a modest place to be), food to eat (does not have to be organic fancy whatnot extra sizes - but a modest dose of a varied food, nobody starving), clothes to wear (does not have to be Armani coats - but clothes suitable for the climate and time of the year, and enough variety to never have to be dirty), means to meet other basic household needs (somewhere to wash clothes, somewhere to communicate with the world via phone or whatnot, etc.), medical care when needed and means to pay your bills and mortgage, you are generally not considered needy, but only leading a fairly modest lifestyle in a society so "spoiled" as our modern Western societies.

 

Having two cars (or, heck, even one car in many places - what is wrong with using public transport?), plazma TV, three laptops, private library, fancy curtains, a bunch of fashionable accessories, spending your time with kids and on these boards instead of working (assuming you and kids are healthy and capable of handling work / school situation) - those are not necessities, those are LUXURIES. Which thankfully, a lot of people can afford and it is great that as a civilization we got that far.

 

But if something's gotta give, those are luxuries.

And then again, it is also a personal choice whether to give up some of those or to ask for taxpayers' money to help you. Am I judging those that opt for the latter instead of the former? No, I have not BTDT and do not consider myself capable of doing so - may they have use of taxpayers' money and use it as they deem fit. But I am also not denying a factual statement that many of them (NOT all!) could have opted for the first option too. And that there are people with a different set of values - who would maybe give up that plazma, second car and designer curtains first, and/or move into a smaller and less expensive place, and then ask for help if they still cannot make it on their own. It is fine if they still cannot - that is what social services are for! But many people can be self-sufficient, given only more restraint from luxuries than what they exercise at the present point.

 

Life happens. A lot of nasty things happen to good people - from illnesses to poorly payed jobs to natural catastrophes, etc. Barb is completely right in saying that most people are a serious illness away from poverty.

Personally, I do prefer to assume good intentions rather than bad ones.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

>>My tax dollars are paying for many of the services provided to you. I don't judge you for the way you take advantage of those things, so don't judge me for the food I buy.

 

?? What services would those be, assuming the OP is not on disability? Enlighten me, please.

 

Seems to me everyone is paying fair share type of taxes: school tax, gas tax, property tax, sales tax while many are not paying enough federal to cover their share of services. The federal tax is paying for quite a bit of medical and food to people who have never paid in to federal due to their lifestyle choices.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592900454547226.html

 

It seems like you are saying that many choose to be poor and not make living wages or be able to find a job??? IMHO I think most would choose a good job than to be on welfare or poor.

 

As for services that better off people receive, I think of public roads, public transportation, police protection, military protection, environmental protection, food and drug protections, etc., etc.

[Sputterduck]

Ester Maria, that was a very interesting post. I do think that people tend to minimize the effect of personal choices people make. We do all start with more or less, and that is unfair, but our choices carry us from there. And sometimes unavoidable tragedy gets in the way and we don't have a choice about that. Still, people ought to be personally accountable for the effects of their own choices.

 

I sometimes wonder if some people ignore the huge sway that choices have over circumstances so that they don't have to own up themselves about what their own choices have caused or not caused.

 

In the end, you cannot ignore that both our starting point/innate abilities/luck and our choices affect where we end up.

[Ester Maria]

As for services that better off people receive, I think of public roads, public transportation, police protection, military protection, environmental protection, food and drug protections, etc., etc.

The catch is in reciprocity. Better off people receive those services, but so do the poor, and all pay for it. OTOH, the poor receive certain services which the better off do not, and still all pay for it, so there is no reciprocity involved.

 

But if we are going to follow that logic, we can just cancel any form of taxation: why should somebody else's illness be my problem, why should somebody else's lack of educational opportunities be my problem, why should somebody else's not making the ends meet be my problem, etc. I dislike that way of thinking - I believe giving up on something even for things you do not directly benefit from is one of the great inventions in our civilization, which makes the society more stable and more just, in light of all the "natural" unfairness. It is the abuse many people have a problem with - or what they perceive as abuse - rather than a lack of reciprocity.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The catch is in reciprocity. Better off people receive those services, but so do the poor, and all pay for it. OTOH, the poor receive certain services which the better off do not, and still all pay for it, so there is no reciprocity involved.

 

But if we are going to follow that logic, we can just cancel any form of taxation: why should somebody else's illness be my problem, why should somebody else's lack of educational opportunities be my problem, why should somebody else's not making the ends meet be my problem, etc. I dislike that way of thinking - I believe giving up on something even for things you do not directly benefit from is one of the great inventions in our civilization, which makes the society more stable and more just, in light of all the "natural" unfairness. It is the abuse many people have a problem with - or what they perceive as abuse - rather than a lack of reciprocity.

I am not sure what you are saying...

IMHO a civilized society does not let people fall through the cracks:)

 

Of course, I believe in personal responsibility and choices and hard word but sometimes people still need help. I also still believe that the circumstances we are born into or face at times does have an impact on our lives and can be difficult to overcome at times:(

[Ester Maria]

I am not sure what you are saying...

IMHO a civilized society does not let people fall through the cracks:)

 

Of course, I believe in personal responsibility and choices and hard word but sometimes people still need help. I also still believe that the circumstances we are born into or face at times does have an impact on our lives and can be difficult to overcome at times:(

No - I was not disagreeing with you! - I was just saying what are the ultimate consequences of the way of thinking which starts with "Why should I pay for something I have no direct profit from?". I agree on this point, too.

[Tabrett]

:grouphug:

Yes but will accepting assistance help you stay in your house or take care of your family better? IMHO I would take assistance in these cases.

It could help, but it would only be a band aide. There are no jobs here for dh, so we need to move.

 

Here is the predicament. If it were only job loss, dh could get a job in a new place and we could sell our house and buy a new one. But because of the housing bubble burst, we can't sell our house without still owing money we don't have to give. Which caused us to stay here as long as possible, using up our savings and selling our stuff to live. We ran out of savings and stuff to sell, so we need to move. The economy has put us in a loose, loose situation.

I don't want to foreclose on my house. It is going on the market today for a short-sale. I feel immoral for doing this, but I also didn't cause the value of my house to decrease by 1/3 either.

I don't want the stigma of -she has a big screen TV and an itouch and she can't pay her mortgage? How would selling my tv or itouch help dh find a local job or make my house value go back up so we could sell it the proper way? It wouldn't.

Thanks for the hugs.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It could help, but it would only be a band aide. There are no jobs here for dh, so we need to move.

 

Here is the predicament. If it were only job loss, dh could get a job in a new place and we could sell our house and buy a new one. But because of the housing bubble burst, we can't sell our house without still owing money we don't have to give. Which caused us to stay here as long as possible, using up our savings and selling our stuff to live. We ran out of savings and stuff to sell, so we need to move. The economy has put us in a loose, loose situation.

I don't want to foreclose on my house. It is going on the market today for a short-sale. I feel immoral for doing this, but I also didn't cause the value of my house to decrease by 1/3 either.

I don't want the stigma of -she has a big screen TV and an itouch and she can't pay her mortgage? How would selling my tv or itouch help dh find a local job or make my house value go back up so we could sell it the proper way? It wouldn't.

Thanks for the hugs.

I don't think you are immoral at all for selling a house for short sale or taking assistance. IMHO the big banks are to blame for the housing crisis. I believe that they knew in many instances that they were giving loans that people would be unable to pay so that they could take their cut and pass the "hot" potato to unwitting investors. They also were complicit in getting houses appraised for unrealistic higher values so that they could give bigger loans IMO. No one forced the banks to do this at all. As a result of their actions, many responsible home owners are now caught in this snafu of owing more than their houses are worth:(

 

Some like to blame the home owners saying they should of known better than take out big loans, etc., etc. I agree to a point but many home owners were responsible home owners. I blame the banks more since they were the experts and they should have not given these loans just to get their cut and pass on the bad loan:glare: IMHO many bankers need to be going to jail for this mess:glare:.

Edited April 7, 2011 by priscilla

[Meriwether]

Ester Maria, that was a very interesting post. I do think that people tend to minimize the effect of personal choices people make. We do all start with more or less, and that is unfair, but our choices carry us from there. And sometimes unavoidable tragedy gets in the way and we don't have a choice about that. Still, people ought to be personally accountable for the effects of their own choices.

 

I sometimes wonder if some people ignore the huge sway that choices have over circumstances so that they don't have to own up themselves about what their own choices have caused or not caused.

 

In the end, you cannot ignore that both our starting point/innate abilities/luck and our choices affect where we end up.[/quote]

 

I read Waddell and Ester Maria's posts with a lot of interest. I am really, really big on personal responsiblilty. Choices have a huge impact on where we end up. I hate, hate, hate that we had to transfer 2x with Dh's job, but it doubled his salary and improved his job security. I have given up a lot for that.

 

The interesting point for me is the starting point/innate abilities you mentioned. All of the school employees where my dad works attended a seminar about poverty. I was able to read the book when he was done, and it was fascinating. The presenter had grown up in poverty and explained a lot of the different thinking between those living in poverty and those in the middle class/upwardly mobile working poor. You could give and give and give to them, and, for most of them, nothing would change. The book was full of statistics (which I can't remember 10 years later), but the vast majority of those in poverty who make their way to a higher standard of living do so through mentorship. They have to relearn life skills to break the cycle of poverty. Many people living in poverty are making poor choices because they simply haven't been taught to make good ones.

 

As far as the OP, I guess I prefer to give to people I know personally and organizations that help get people on their feet. As far as needy enough to need help, I guess that depends. Mom tells a story about a big flood near where she grew up. The Mennonites in the area gathered up things to distribute including stacks of quilts they had. Word got around that they were giving away quilts and they had all kinds of people (who didn't seem to be in need) showing up giving sob stories about freezing kids. So they started offering them blankets first. If they were thankful for the blankets, they gave them quilts, too. If they turned their noses up at the blankets, they figured they weren't truly concerned about freezing kids (they still had the option to take a blanket). I'm not suggesting people do a litmus test to determine need. It was just an interesting (to me) glimpse of human nature.

[stripe]

I was wondering what particular taxes were being paid to make a person who is receiving assistance feel that they are contributing to those that not local, but are employed and paying hefty taxes.

Sales tax

Cigarette taxes

Taxes on gasoline

Property tax

Highway toll payments

Various taxes added on to phone bill (even for those on federal and state phone assistance, there are still taxes)

Contributions to medicare and social security from one's paycheck

 

Many people BOTH receive assistance AND have a job. They are contributing to society through their work, even if at minimum wage. Scrubbing someone's toilet for minimum wage IS contributing.

 

It's hard to fathom that living in a society where a big chunk of people are very poor, have limited access to healthcare, are uneducated, and so forth. At a minimum, the increased crime would be alarming, but it is a bit disconcerting to imagine being surrounded by a bunch of sick people (doing things like cleaning your house, driving you around, taking care of your children, and cooking your food at home or in a restaurant). I'm not sure how well the economic strength of a country will last when most people are poorly educated, and too few have a job that they can survive on.

 

The US is not, as is popularly believed, a country in which it is very easy to climb the economic ladder.

[katilac]

Providing before school care for example is quite lucrative while part-time and really doesn't impact the family time.

 

I think that this suggestion is a good example of how well-intentioned people often miss the point. Anyone who thinks that providing before school care if "quite lucrative" is viewing the world from an affluent mindset, because it's only a lucrative job if you live in or near an affluent neighborhood.

 

It's different in lower middle class or working class neighborhoods. Few people are tossing money at the neighbors for before or after care; quite young children are responsible for their own care both before and after school. And a person might be willingto travel back and forth each morning to a better neighborhood, but that has its own problems. You obviously have to have a car or reliable public transportation, your own kids have to be old enough to leave alone, and you are unlikely to hear about such jobs or be hired for them. A person might luck into a situation that works, but it's hardly this glowing opportunity there for the taking.

 

Another thought occurred to me. Some PPs have talked about what people pay into the system and what they "take out of it" in terms of services. Every group uses some of the services: roads and other infrastructure, public schools, and so on. Those with low income are of course more likely to use services such as food stamps, but are there services that those with HIGH income are more likely to use?

 

I think that there are many government funded services that the affluent are more likely (and more able) to use. National and state parks. The reknowned John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The Smithsonian Institution museums. Low-interest loans and expert assistance from small business development centers.

[In2why]

I get judgemental. I don't like it, but I own it, and I am working on it.

Most people in rough circumstances did not do anything to contribute to the situation, but I also know plenty of people who lived a dollar down and a dollar a week lives, in debt up to their eyebrows and still buying on credit to keep up. Bailing them out pi%%es me off. But nowhere near as much as corporate welfare.

It also bothers me that many people I know in need *were the first ones to scream that someone was abusing the system and just needed to get a job when things were going well for them, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, I wonder if they are going to remember that when it comes time to vote. They never wanted anyone else to get a hand up, but want even more for themselves.

[In2why]

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.

 

I will probably really step in it.....but I would add that the other problem is when they have even more children then they can afford.