Lefties Pretend To Be Religious

[rtwngAvngr]

Was the check in your name, spent buy you, how you saw fit? Or has that change under TANF?

Yeah. He wore the pants in the house and never let his parents eat from his welfare money. What a bastard.

 

[Said1]

Yeah. He wore the pants in the house and never let his parents eat from his welfare money. What a bastard.

He made them work for it, no free ride for them.


I think you missed some other stuff I posted with respect to your posts ICTP, but it's ok, ignore it if you want.

 

[IControlThePast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare

From the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Assistance

I asked you another question regarding your experience with low income families and people on welfare and about children getting checks.[/QUOTE]

I already dealt with General Assistance. I mentioned that it was the cash handout for adults, and only in NJ and UT. However, the programs there are effective.

 

[IControlThePast]

AFDC = Aids For Families with Dependent Children.

So, what's an AFDC dependent? A childs child?

Come on, that's not too hard of a connection. That would mean I was a Dependant Child in my family.

WTH are you talking about? There is no "cash handout to the children" - Welfare comes in the form of a check made out to the PARENT, to be cashed by the PARENT, and spent by the PARENT.

Spent on the children. Parents can't survive off the crumbs of the cash assistance. You try supporting yourself and a two children on less than $100 a week.

 

[Shattered]

Shattered, I commend you. You were there when kids needed you.

I don't consider that commendable - I considered it a necessity to ensure they didn't end up as part of the current welfare system, thus subjected to the whims of uncaring social workers. However, I do believe that gives me enough rights to have (and voice) my own opinion without getting jumped on by you just because said children didn't come from my womb, and are no longer in my full time care. You assume far too much about me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Come on, that's not too hard of a connection. That would mean I was a Dependant Child in my family.



Spent on the children. Parents can't survive off the crumbs of the cash assistance. You try supporting yourself and a two children on less than $100 a week.

The checks go to the FAMILY WITH children. This is easy to grasp. YOu look like an idiot continuing with your spurious assertions.

 

[IControlThePast]

Was AFDC portion of the check in your name, spent buy you, how you saw fit? Or has that change under TANF?

And back to the Canada qustion I asked, what does that prove?

It was spent on me. If I could buy what I wanted it would have been just lollypops. Instead I got Lentil Stew.

That things are easier on Welfare in Canada than in the US, and thus such an observation by you about Canadian Welfare would not be applicable to the US.

 

[Shattered]

Come on, that's not too hard of a connection. That would mean I was a Dependant Child in my family.



Spent on the children. Parents can't survive off the crumbs of the cash assistance. You try supporting yourself and a two children on less than $100 a week.

Been there - done that. $436 for one child (me), and my mother. Plus $200-something in food stamps. Rent was $200 at the time (I was about 10). She managed to spend every bit of it on her cigarettes and beer, and barely anything on silly things like food. Yet, no magical social worker came and whisked me away - gee - I wonder why...

...and that is why I left home at 13, put MYSELF through the system until I was 18, and busted my ass to put MYSELF in the position in life that I'm in now, thanks.

 

[Annie]

I don't consider that commendable - I considered it a necessity to ensure they didn't end up as part of the current welfare system, thus subjected to the whims of uncaring social workers. However, I do believe that gives me enough rights to have (and voice) my own opinion without getting jumped on by you just because said children didn't come from my womb, and are no longer in my full time care. You assume far too much about me.

You are correct. If you expressed this previously, I missed it. I'm sorry and really do apologize. You are right. I had rent of $600, shrink bills of about $200, food of about $300, and misc of about $250, while my ex was paying $50 per month for 3 years! My parents picked up the slack for 2, while I completed schooling to teach.

 

[IControlThePast]

Yeah. He wore the pants in the house and never let his parents eat from his welfare money. What a bastard.

You're the funniest thing I've ever seen

 

[IControlThePast]

Been there - done that. $436 for one child (me), and my mother. Plus $200-something in food stamps. Rent was $200 at the time (I was about 10). She managed to spend every bit of it on her cigarettes and beer, and barely anything on silly things like food. Yet, no magical social worker came and whisked me away - gee - I wonder why...

...and that is why I left home at 13, put MYSELF through the system until I was 18, and busted my ass to put MYSELF in the position in life that I'm in now, thanks.

Well, except that what you got for one child is what TANF gives for two, without inflation adjustment.

You left home like you had the power to do all along. Did you try to get teh social workers to take you away? You ran away in the end which was probably the right thing to do. Children don't have to stay with their parents. Had I wanted to put myself through, I could have done so, but my parents were nice. I just would have gone to one of the colleges that I would have actually made money attending.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, except that what you got for one child is what TANF gives for two, without inflation adjustment.

You left home like you had the power to do all along. Did you try to get teh social workers to take you away? You ran away in the end which was probably the right thing to do. Children don't have to stay with their parents. Had I wanted to put myself through, I could have done so, but my parents were nice. I just would have gone to one of the colleges that I would have actually made money attending.

Yes, a truly rugged child would have run away. You're a trip.

 

[Shattered]

You're the funniest thing I've ever seen

Ahh, something we agree on, finally.. I think he's rather funny myself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thanks all. Let's have a group hug. You too, kathianne!

 

[IControlThePast]

The checks go to the FAMILY WITH children. This is easy to grasp. YOu look like an idiot continuing with your spurious assertions.

They go to families with children. You shouldn't capitalize that O in YOu.

The checks get spent on children, which is what they are supposed to be spent on. If they don't provide for the children, the children are removed. If there are no children, then the family is off TANF. What is so hard about that?

 

[IControlThePast]

Yes, a truly rugged child would have run away. You're a trip.

A normal child would have run away.

 

[Said1]

It was spent on me. If I could buy what I wanted it would have been just lollypops. Instead I got Lentil Stew.

So you're parents had control of it, eh? Not you, right?

That things are easier on Welfare in Canada than in the US, and thus such an observation by you about Canadian Welfare would not be applicable to the US.

What? That's like saying "you're military is better than Canada's, and thus such and observation by you about American Military, would not be applicable to to Canada"

What obervation are you talking about specifically? I certainly hope you don't mean the break down of benefit allotments?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They go to families with children. You shouldn't capitalize that O in YOu.

The checks get spent on children, which is what they are supposed to be spent on. If they don't provide for the children, the children are removed. If there are no children, then the family is off TANF. What is so hard about that?

Right, families with children. And you know adults spend some money on themselves, and you know that neglected children are not always removed. You can't really be this naive.

 

[Shattered]

They go to families with children. You shouldn't capitalize that O in YOu.

The checks get spent on children, which is what they are supposed to be spent on. If they don't provide for the children, the children are removed. If there are no children, then the family is off TANF. What is so hard about that?

...the fact that you're dumb enough to believe that children are actually removed from their home if the parents don't spent all of the money on them... Social workers are in it for the money.. when they find out they really don't make much compared to their potential caseloads, they stop giving a shit, and start putting forth minimal efforts... Probably 1 in 10 caseworkers can actually tell you what's really going on with their families and how they're progressing, if at all.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Are the parents allowed to live in the apartment or house with the child whose housing is paid for by the government, or must they sleep in the yard?