Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

One question?

Why aren't the Father's of these children paying their "fair share" of their obligation to these children?

A cursory search has child support obligations at or around 40% in some cases.

Because many of them are lowlifes. The mother either doesn't know who the father is, or the father doesn't work and on some sort of welfare program himself.

A couple of years back, I heard there was a street game that went on in NYC. The objective was for the males to impregnate as many females as they could within a certain time frame; sort of like a bet. The report I heard didn't say what the prize was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't much. It didn't matter. The government will not hold lowlife men responsible for their actions. Instead, it becomes the burden of the taxpayers.

 

[francoHFW]

If you're on welfare and not disabled, you have to look for work and prove it.Even people on welfare have pride, you know. What we need is investment in America and Americans and a living wage. But thanks for the world depression and 7 years of mindless opposition to solutions, greedy a-hole Pub and silly hater dupes...

 

[francoHFW]

One question?

Why aren't the Father's of these children paying their "fair share" of their obligation to these children?

A cursory search has child support obligations at or around 40% in some cases.

Because many of them are lowlifes. The mother either doesn't know who the father is, or the father doesn't work and on some sort of welfare program himself.

A couple of years back, I heard there was a street game that went on in NYC. The objective was for the males to impregnate as many females as they could within a certain time frame; sort of like a bet. The report I heard didn't say what the prize was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't much. It didn't matter. The government will not hold lowlife men responsible for their actions. Instead, it becomes the burden of the taxpayers.

As if that was a real problem...Now, except in mindless red states, there is free birth control- actually better than free, dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Flopper]

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

 

[Flopper]

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

Most food stamp recipients do work. They mostly work in low paid jobs, often part time or temporary jobs. They just don't make enough money to support the family.

My niece is a single Mon with 3 kids, one in middle school, one in elementary, and a toddler at home. How the hell is she suppose hold down a job that would pay her enough to support the family and take care of the kids?

When she got out of high school, she married a guy with a good job and a promising future. They agreed that she would stay home and take care of the kids. Things went well for a number years until he was offered a job in Europe. To make a long story short, he left, leaving her the kids and promising to send money home. He stopped sending child support payments after 3 months. He claimed he lost his job and that was the last time she heard from him.

The family now survives off food stamps, monthly welfare payments, her part time job on the weekends and support from her parents.

I know there are people that are getting help from the government that could certainly get along without it but there are also a lot of people like my niece that couldn't keep the family together without help from the government. Until someone comes up with a way of determining who really needs help from the government, the only option is help both or help neither.

 

[Flopper]

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Kids are the future. The ultimate goal in most social programs is to provide an environment so parents can raise kids to become self sufficient productive adults. Even with financial help, parents often fail. Without it chances of success are even worse
So yes, it does always boil to the kids and hopefully it will continue to be about the kids.
.

 

[Flopper]

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

According to SNAP abut 60% are working. However since the caregiver is limited as to the hours she can work and must be avail for routine kid emergencies, job opportunities are pretty limited for low skilled workers. For most caregivers with several kids working full time is not an option because of the cost of childcare. So yes, families with kids in school can and do work, however for most,, job opportunities are limited and income is not that high.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

According to SNAP abut 60% are working. However since the caregiver is limited as to the hours she can work and must be avail for routine kid emergencies, job opportunities are pretty limited for low skilled workers. For most caregivers with several kids working full time is not an option because of the cost of childcare. So yes, families with kids in school can and do work, however for most,, job opportunities are limited and income is not that high.

That's strange. All of my friends had children and all of their wives worked full-time after the kids went into school.

And if you're a low-income earner, WTF are you having kids you can't afford in the first place?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Kids are the future. The ultimate goal in most social programs is to provide an environment so parents can raise kids to become self sufficient productive adults. Even with financial help, parents often fail. Without it chances of success are even worse
So yes, it does always boil to the kids and hopefully it will continue to be about the kids.
.

So taxpayers should be held hostage because the future is about somebody else's kids?

You see when I grew up, yes, many couples had kids. They took care of the kids and didn't rely on anybody else but themselves. Those who had lower paying jobs didn't have children because they couldn't afford them. Back then, it was shameful to accept any handouts. Today? They are in those grocery stores using their food stamps, and have the nerve to buy cigarettes, beer, wine, huge bags of pet food, greeting cards, perfumes and flowers with cash; no shame whatsoever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

Most food stamp recipients do work. They mostly work in low paid jobs, often part time or temporary jobs. They just don't make enough money to support the family.

My niece is a single Mon with 3 kids, one in middle school, one in elementary, and a toddler at home. How the hell is she suppose hold down a job that would pay her enough to support the family and take care of the kids?

When she got out of high school, she married a guy with a good job and a promising future. They agreed that she would stay home and take care of the kids. Things went well for a number years until he was offered a job in Europe. To make a long story short, he left, leaving her the kids and promising to send money home. He stopped sending child support payments after 3 months. He claimed he lost his job and that was the last time she heard from him.

The family now survives off food stamps, monthly welfare payments, her part time job on the weekends and support from her parents.

I know there are people that are getting help from the government that could certainly get along without it but there are also a lot of people like my niece that couldn't keep the family together without help from the government. Until someone comes up with a way of determining who really needs help from the government, the only option is help both or help neither.

No, they can start right now.

Your niece found herself in an unusual position. Nearly the exact same thing happened to my cousin; married a guy with a great job at a nuclear power plant. He made great money. That was fine until he found drugs.

He lost his job and couldn't get off the dope. She finally had to divorce him. And of course, she never got anything for child support because he couldn't even support himself.

Sure, nobody has a problem helping people like that. But these situations are anomalies and not the norm. And if we are going to have these programs, what's wrong with the government hiring a detective agency to check out these stories? It sure would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer to pay them instead of just giving our money away for years and years.

As for my cousin, she went on welfare, food stamps and just about anything she could get. When the kids got old enough to go to school, so did she. She graduated college and began to support herself and her family. The tax dollars that we spent for a person like that was an investment, because once she got back on her feet, she more than paid that money back in taxes from her paychecks.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

I work my ass off and don't draw any entitlement...and my standard of living is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than people like that scumbag.

 

[Flopper]

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

Most food stamp recipients do work. They mostly work in low paid jobs, often part time or temporary jobs. They just don't make enough money to support the family.

My niece is a single Mon with 3 kids, one in middle school, one in elementary, and a toddler at home. How the hell is she suppose hold down a job that would pay her enough to support the family and take care of the kids?

When she got out of high school, she married a guy with a good job and a promising future. They agreed that she would stay home and take care of the kids. Things went well for a number years until he was offered a job in Europe. To make a long story short, he left, leaving her the kids and promising to send money home. He stopped sending child support payments after 3 months. He claimed he lost his job and that was the last time she heard from him.

The family now survives off food stamps, monthly welfare payments, her part time job on the weekends and support from her parents.

I know there are people that are getting help from the government that could certainly get along without it but there are also a lot of people like my niece that couldn't keep the family together without help from the government. Until someone comes up with a way of determining who really needs help from the government, the only option is help both or help neither.

No, they can start right now.

Your niece found herself in an unusual position. Nearly the exact same thing happened to my cousin; married a guy with a great job at a nuclear power plant. He made great money. That was fine until he found drugs.

He lost his job and couldn't get off the dope. She finally had to divorce him. And of course, she never got anything for child support because he couldn't even support himself.

Sure, nobody has a problem helping people like that. But these situations are anomalies and not the norm. And if we are going to have these programs, what's wrong with the government hiring a detective agency to check out these stories? It sure would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer to pay them instead of just giving our money away for years and years.

As for my cousin, she went on welfare, food stamps and just about anything she could get. When the kids got old enough to go to school, so did she. She graduated college and began to support herself and her family. The tax dollars that we spent for a person like that was an investment, because once she got back on her feet, she more than paid that money back in taxes from her paychecks.

What you don't seem to realize is that government can't make subjection decisions about who should receive help and who shouldn't. Decision must be objective, based simple demographics such as age, income, number of children, etc. That means people who really don't deserve help will get it along with those that do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.

Yeah, I would think single mothers who can't work with no food to feed the kids would probably generate a lot of criticism.

Can't work? In your previous post, you stated that there are 215,000 food stamp recipients on Maine's program. I pointed out that about 12,000 are adults with no children. So let's just round it off to about 200 thousands that are people with children. You mean to tell me that all or most of those 200 thousand are women with kids not yet in school?

Because once children enter school, a woman can work--at least during the school months. They can do something for income besides be on food stamps. And........if your figure is correct, WTF are all these people doing with children they can't afford to feed?

Most food stamp recipients do work. They mostly work in low paid jobs, often part time or temporary jobs. They just don't make enough money to support the family.

My niece is a single Mon with 3 kids, one in middle school, one in elementary, and a toddler at home. How the hell is she suppose hold down a job that would pay her enough to support the family and take care of the kids?

When she got out of high school, she married a guy with a good job and a promising future. They agreed that she would stay home and take care of the kids. Things went well for a number years until he was offered a job in Europe. To make a long story short, he left, leaving her the kids and promising to send money home. He stopped sending child support payments after 3 months. He claimed he lost his job and that was the last time she heard from him.

The family now survives off food stamps, monthly welfare payments, her part time job on the weekends and support from her parents.

I know there are people that are getting help from the government that could certainly get along without it but there are also a lot of people like my niece that couldn't keep the family together without help from the government. Until someone comes up with a way of determining who really needs help from the government, the only option is help both or help neither.

No, they can start right now.

Your niece found herself in an unusual position. Nearly the exact same thing happened to my cousin; married a guy with a great job at a nuclear power plant. He made great money. That was fine until he found drugs.

He lost his job and couldn't get off the dope. She finally had to divorce him. And of course, she never got anything for child support because he couldn't even support himself.

Sure, nobody has a problem helping people like that. But these situations are anomalies and not the norm. And if we are going to have these programs, what's wrong with the government hiring a detective agency to check out these stories? It sure would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer to pay them instead of just giving our money away for years and years.

As for my cousin, she went on welfare, food stamps and just about anything she could get. When the kids got old enough to go to school, so did she. She graduated college and began to support herself and her family. The tax dollars that we spent for a person like that was an investment, because once she got back on her feet, she more than paid that money back in taxes from her paychecks.

What you don't seem to realize is that government can't make subjection decisions about who should receive help and who shouldn't. Decision must be objective, based simple demographics such as age, income, number of children, etc. That means people who really don't deserve help will get it along with those that do.

No, I don't buy it. I have to be under government standards and qualifications for my job. They do look at each and every case. Every year they have to do a background check on me from birth to present. Same thing with my CCW license. They don't just hand you one because you had one in the past.

The real reason they don't look into these cases is because it's vote buying at the taxpayer expense. If they were more selective, then you would have more people on your side about these issues. It's just like when Welfare Reform was passed. The politicians knew we working people had about enough. We wanted something done about it.

Democrats love government dependents because government dependents generally vote Democrat. They know that having Democrat leaderships is the key to more goodies. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to the SNAP's program when DumBama got elected with a Democrat house. Commie Care created over 14 million more government dependents, and Democrat politicians couldn't be happier.

That's why they don't do anything about it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

And if we are going to have these programs, what's wrong with the government hiring a detective agency to check out these stories?

You just can't get you enough government can you?

Yesterday it was government needs to make a law that you leave how much space for you truck drivers.

Now we need a government detective agency for welfare checks.

**** that. We ain't wasting MY money on your Bullshit ideas.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Democrats love government dependents because government dependents generally vote Democrat.

Why don't you prove that happy horseshit? Or stfu about it. I know it makes you feel superior to poor people to rag on them all the time.

But you are a truck driver dude. Wtf? You depend on government to make a living. Who you think put those roads in that you drive on? You a government dependent dude. LMAO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats love government dependents because government dependents generally vote Democrat.

Why don't you prove that happy horseshit? Or stfu about it. I know it makes you feel superior to poor people to rag on them all the time.

But you are a truck driver dude. Wtf? You depend on government to make a living. Who you think put those roads in that you drive on? You a government dependent dude. LMAO.

We truck drivers pay for the construction and maintenance of those roads. Think your little Honda pays for those?

We pay a separate road tax, we pay a per-axle tax, we pay huge taxes in diesel fuel.

Sorry.................You didn't build that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if we are going to have these programs, what's wrong with the government hiring a detective agency to check out these stories?

You just can't get you enough government can you?

Yesterday it was government needs to make a law that you leave how much space for you truck drivers.

Now we need a government detective agency for welfare checks.

**** that. We ain't wasting MY money on your Bullshit ideas.

Learn the difference between "waste" and "investment."

Waste is like funding PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood. That's a waste. An investment is where you spend some money and get more back in return--a foreign concept for you liberals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Listening to this ***** is enough to make you vomit:

Well, you should know, because the states getting more money from the government than they send in are almost all red. If you lazy ass ' Conservatives' would get off your asses, shovel the beer cans away from the door, and get a job, we would all be better off.