Welfare

fbmandy55

I just saw a comment by a girl on facebook, friend of a childhood family- friend, comment that she only had one baby but wants more. This girl is a 21 year old stripper and lives in the scummiest, welfare apartments in town. I see this constantly on facebook, the news website, in person...

I have dialouged with many people who fully support welfare and I think they are in absolute denial about the abuse of the system. Your thoughts?

BuffyEat2Live

I think that the abusers are the exception, not the rule and that most people who use welfare (myself included) genuinely need it and would rather NOT need it.

But I do know that the abusers exist, there are many in my neck of the woods.

fbmandy55

I think that the abusers are the exception, not the rule and that most people who use welfare (myself included) genuinely need it and would rather NOT need it.

But I do know that the abusers exist, there are many in my neck of the woods.

I would not deny that there are people who use it who truely do need it but I think they are the rarity. I think the system provides more to the abusers than people who DO need it.

I had a child at the age of 20 with a real POS bum who isn't in the picture anymore. I wasn't working but 3 months into my pregnancy got a job as a receptionist making $9.00 an hour. I did live in an income based apartment for a few months- I paid the max $400 for a one bedroom. I have never had food stamps, government funded daycare, TANF or anything else. I paid for my own gas, daycare, food formula etc. The building I lived in was a nightmare. Every girl who lived there had no job, at least 2 kids, and a on/off boyfriend who was either abusive or in and out of jail for dealing drugs or theft. One girl had been living there, on food stamps, for 3 years and never worked! While I was gone at work 8-5, they would dump garbage bags on my porch, put dirty diapers in front of my door and one time a man pissed of the balcony above me onto my patio chairs. I was afraid to bring my son home at night and moved into another apartment in a nice area. For the past 4 years I have worked hard, been promoted and now have a nice little 3 bedroom house, a garage and decent car and a pretty awesome job. If I can do that, anyone can.

There is absolutely NO excuse for a healthy 25 year old woman to live off welfare for 3 years and never even apply for a job.

BuffyEat2Live

I hate when people brag about how tough things were for them and how awesome they are for never to have been on welfare. Those programs exist for a reason, and I'm not ashamed to use them when needed.

Bahet

Ther percentage of abusers is inversely proportional to th unemployment rate and current economic climate. When unemployment is high and people are struggling there are far more good people on welfare than not. When times are good and jobs are plentiful there are far more leeches on welfare than not.

My biggest problem with people's opinions about welfare come from the people who claim to be pro life but are adamantly against welfare. They want to make dang sure that 20yo stripper is having that baby but then once she does they call her a *kitten* and a welfare leech. You'd think they'd be happy to help her out. After all, if she had had an abortion she wouldn't need welfare to help support her baby.

Bahet

I hate when people brag about how tough things were for them and how awesome they are for never to have been on welfare. Those programs exist for a reason, and I'm not ashamed to use them when needed.

Exactly. IMO it's a bit stupid to not use a program if it's available and you legally qualify. It's a bit like getting a tax refund and saying "Oh, no thank you. I'll let the government keep it. I don't need it." There is nothing honorable about not using WIC or food stamps or daycare assistance if you qualify. If you are a good person who qualifies go ahead and get it and turn some of those numbers so they favor good people on government programs rather than the real leeches.

macpatti

My biggest problem with people's opinions about welfare come from the people who claim to be pro life but are adamantly against welfare. They want to make dang sure that 20yo stripper is having that baby but then once she does they call her a *kitten* and a welfare leech. You'd think they'd be happy to help her out. After all, if she had had an abortion she wouldn't need welfare to help support her baby.

You do realize that adoption is an option. Right?

Bahet

My biggest problem with people's opinions about welfare come from the people who claim to be pro life but are adamantly against welfare. They want to make dang sure that 20yo stripper is having that baby but then once she does they call her a *kitten* and a welfare leech. You'd think they'd be happy to help her out. After all, if she had had an abortion she wouldn't need welfare to help support her baby.

You do realize that adoption is an option. Right?

Oh OK, so she should be forced to have that baby that she didn't want then when she finally comes to terms with it and decides to raise it herself she should have to give it away to someone who didn't want to bother adopting a toddler or older child and figured they could continue to rot in the system while they waited for a newborn. All so that this woman who chose life doesn't have to be called a *kitten* by the very people who claim to be pro LIFE. Yea, sounds about right. :rolleyes:

macpatti

Oh OK, so she should be forced to have that baby that she didn't want then when she finally comes to terms with it and decides to raise it herself she should have to give it away to someone who didn't want to bother adopting a toddler or older child and figured they could continue to rot in the system while they waited for a newborn. All so that this woman who chose life doesn't have to be called a *kitten* by the very people who claim to be pro LIFE. Yea, sounds about right. :rolleyes:

Who, exactly, calls women who keep their baby over aborting it and go on welfare a *kitten*??? All pro lifers? Sooooo rolling my eyes.

Bahet

Oh OK, so she should be forced to have that baby that she didn't want then when she finally comes to terms with it and decides to raise it herself she should have to give it away to someone who didn't want to bother adopting a toddler or older child and figured they could continue to rot in the system while they waited for a newborn. All so that this woman who chose life doesn't have to be called a *kitten* by the very people who claim to be pro LIFE. Yea, sounds about right. :rolleyes:

Who, exactly, calls women who keep their baby over aborting it and go on welfare a *kitten*??? All pro lifers? Sooooo rolling my eyes.

Please show me one instance where I ever claimed that ALL pro lifers share the same stance. I never did. There are, however, 2 very different groups who both claim to be pro life. There are those who truly are pro life. They care about that life from conception through pregnancy, birth, into childhood, into adulthood, and until death. There are others who claim to be pro life but are really only pro fetus. They care about that fetus but the mother had better be able to afford prenatal care on her own. Once it's born no medical care, food, daycare, housing, etc on the public dime. Once it's born it becomes part of a self supporting family or a drag on society.

If you want to see people calling someone a *kitten* just pay attention to the people around the next teen mom you see. That poor girl gets shunned and scorned and judged every time she's out whether she's on welfare or not. Oh, I'm sure someone in here on the "pro life" side will chime in saying they are a teen mom and never got looked at twice by anyone ever. yea, right.

I wasn't a teen mom. I still got occasional looks and comments because I looked young. I distinctly remember being out with my 1st born when he was a baby. An older man walked past us, did a double take, glared at me, and muttered "babies having babies..." i was feeling a bit feisty so I called him on it. I said "Excuse me!" He turned and I said "I couldn't help but overhear you as I'm sure you intended. However, you should know that I am a 27yo college graduate who has been married for 4 years, and owns a home. I am not a baby who had a baby. I am a self supporting, financially independent married adult who decided to start a family with her husband."

poisongirl6485

Oh OK, so she should be forced to have that baby that she didn't want then when she finally comes to terms with it and decides to raise it herself she should have to give it away to someone who didn't want to bother adopting a toddler or older child and figured they could continue to rot in the system while they waited for a newborn. All so that this woman who chose life doesn't have to be called a *kitten* by the very people who claim to be pro LIFE. Yea, sounds about right. :rolleyes:

Who, exactly, calls women who keep their baby over aborting it and go on welfare a *kitten*??? All pro lifers? Sooooo rolling my eyes.

Many pro-lifers do this. This isn't a made up occurrence. I've heard several pro-lifers myself that want to outlaw abortion, but then turn around and say "I don't want my tax dollars going to support that *kitten*! She should have kept her legs shut!"

macpatti

Many pro-lifers do this. This isn't a made up occurrence. I've heard several pro-lifers myself that want to outlaw abortion, but then turn around and say "I don't want my tax dollars going to support that *kitten*! She should have kept her legs shut!"

Well, that's horrible. I've never heard any one of the pro-lifers I know say such a thing. I can be pro-life and still disagree with abuse of the welfare system, though.

Bahet

I don't think anyone, pro life or pro choice, thinks abuse of the welfare system is OK. It's not. Not even a little bit.

futiledevices

Most of the people who claim people are abusing welfare have probably never been on welfare. Most people don't abuse it.. and hate having to be on it, because you hardly get enough money to pay your rent. Actually, when I was on welfare some years ago, they didn't even give enough for rent, so I don't know how, exactly, you are supposed to "abuse" it.

summalovaable

There is absolutely NO excuse for a healthy 25 year old woman to live off welfare for 3 years and never even apply for a job.

I think your response is very ignorant. You have yet to consider a fraction of the possibilities out there. You may not have had a very good time in your life, but believe it or not your story is not the worst of it, not even close. And honestly? If the government is offering assistance, why didn't you take it? Pride? A likely reason why many people don't ADMIT to being on welfare. The one's who admit to it, aren't the majority. You know why, because you're not going to here about a man who worked 40+ years, was in a serious accident while laid off and has no means to support himself and no outlook for a better future. Do you think a man who never needed assistance from others will BRAG about needing help now? No, however the drug dealing prostitutes, with a likely psychological disorder will because they don't care. They have no pride, to them it doesn't matter.

With the welfare system, the people not on it fall victim to the availability heuristic. You believe what you have heard, but you haven't heard the full story and don't bother to take the time to hear all sides to it. As I mentioned, there are people who abuse the welfare system but they are not the majority. The majority, don't admit to it and thus you'll never hear their side.

Also, for those who do not believe in welfare.. what is your alternative? To these people who cannot support themselves, what is to be done with them? You can't take away welfare and not offer a better solution, so what is the better solution?

mvilla2426

Not on welfare but as someone who is on disability (and I hate that I have to be on it, BTW) and someone who collects food stamps (because 700 dollars for the month does not buy food) I certainly am not abusing the system. Like someone else in this thread said, I absolutely, positively HATE HATE HATE living off of the government.. And many people are on welfare because they NEED to be... and eventually work their way off it. The abusers are definitely the exception, not the rule.

As for the pro-life/pro-choice part of this debate.... that is SO a different thread.

macpatti

Most of the people who claim people are abusing welfare have probably never been on welfare. Most people don't abuse it.. and hate having to be on it, because you hardly get enough money to pay your rent. Actually, when I was on welfare some years ago, they didn't even give enough for rent, so I don't know how, exactly, you are supposed to "abuse" it.

I know plenty of people who abuse the system. I don't have to be on welfare to know it happens. I'm not suggesting everyone on welfare abuses it, but it's frustrating the number who do.

fbmandy55

There is absolutely NO excuse for a healthy 25 year old woman to live off welfare for 3 years and never even apply for a job.

I think your response is very ignorant. You have yet to consider a fraction of the possibilities out there. You may not have had a very good time in your life, but believe it or not your story is not the worst of it, not even close. And honestly? If the government is offering assistance, why didn't you take it? Pride? A likely reason why many people don't ADMIT to being on welfare. The one's who admit to it, aren't the majority. You know why, because you're not going to here about a man who worked 40+ years, was in a serious accident while laid off and has no means to support himself and no outlook for a better future. Do you think a man who never needed assistance from others will BRAG about needing help now? No, however the drug dealing prostitutes, with a likely psychological disorder will because they don't care. They have no pride, to them it doesn't matter.

With the welfare system, the people not on it fall victim to the availability heuristic. You believe what you have heard, but you haven't heard the full story and don't bother to take the time to hear all sides to it. As I mentioned, there are people who abuse the welfare system but they are not the majority. The majority, don't admit to it and thus you'll never hear their side.

Also, for those who do not believe in welfare.. what is your alternative? To these people who cannot support themselves, what is to be done with them? You can't take away welfare and not offer a better solution, so what is the better solution?

So you think it is ok for someone to use welfare and NOT try to better their situation? Welfare is paid for by tax money, why should some people work for a living then if others don't have to, just because it's there as an option?

I believe it can be handles privately. There are SO many non-profits and churchs that provide the same services but they do it our of the goodness of their hearts, not by force. I WORK for a non-profit . We do fundraisers with agencys that helped 500 homeless people in our region get into a home last year. I don't believe with the forceful taking of one to give to another.

fbmandy55

Not on welfare but as someone who is on disability (and I hate that I have to be on it, BTW) and someone who collects food stamps (because 700 dollars for the month does not buy food) I certainly am not abusing the system. Like someone else in this thread said, I absolutely, positively HATE HATE HATE living off of the government.. And many people are on welfare because they NEED to be... and eventually work their way off it. The abusers are definitely the exception, not the rule.

As for the pro-life/pro-choice part of this debate.... that is SO a different thread.

Disability is completely different. If you have a medical condition that limits, you will need assistance. No shame in that. I DO however have a problem with people on disability strictly for being overweight. I don't have a problem saying that as we are all here to lose weight and all of us can/will/have and it's not fair that someone doesn't work because of a position they put themselves in. I think most on disability truely deserve and need it though.

If you are a single mother with a baby, trying to improve your life, you should get temporary assistance. If you are on welfare because you had 3 kids you could not afford, made bad life decisions and are too lazy to get a job, I don't think you should get anything. Go to a food bank.

Bahet

It would be nice if non-profits and food banks could help everyone. But they can't. They also aren't accessible to everyone. If someone never needed assistance then suddenly had a job loss and needed something do you really think they should run around to every church in the area that they never attended to beg for help? If you won't make a phone call to a government office because you have too much pride how can you suggest that someone should run around to various places they don't contribute to and aren't a part of to beg for help?

If something happened (God forbid) to DH's job and we needed some assistance we could call a government agency and get help without anyone knowing. Or we could go to some of the churches in the area that we never attended and never will attend to beg for help from people who are our neighbors or know our neighbors. Look how judgemental people are. I don't want to be part of that gossip mill thankyouverymuch. If I put our address on a form someone is going to recognize the area. It is not a low income area. Then we are just setting ourselves up for the "OMG they have that huge house in that neighborhood and they want MY help?! I live in a house that could fit inside theirs 3 times and still have room left over! etc, etc, etc" People get up on their high horse (myself included) when they see people on food stamps buying soda. What the heck are they going to be doing when those people running from church to church begging for help are driving a Lexus, livng in a big house, or seen eating out?

LuckyLeprechaun

I work with at risk youth, and it's a commonly known practice to start badgering your daughter when she's 14-15 about having her first baby. The mindset is: when that young girl reaches 18, her family is not going to get AFDC for her anymore. But if she has a child, her child replaces her position as a "breadwinner" (recipient of AFDC). So there is a great deal of pressure being placed on these girls, by their families, on purpose, to produce one, two or more children by the time they reach 18. If she can have two children by the time she hits 18, then she has doubled the AFDC her family will get (for her 2 kids) even though they lose her the minute she hits 18.

This practice is so common among the hispanic girls I work with, there are girls who are here so they can escape the pressure to procreate. I know a young woman whose family kicked her out because they found out she was on the pill, had gotten it for free from Planned Parenthood. She told me her father told her she had no right to keep that money from her family by choosing NOT to have a kid before she was 18.

fbmandy55

It would be nice if non-profits and food banks could help everyone. But they can't. They also aren't accessible to everyone. If someone never needed assistance then suddenly had a job loss and needed something do you really think they should run around to every church in the area that they never attended to beg for help? If you won't make a phone call to a government office because you have too much pride how can you suggest that someone should run around to various places they don't contribute to and aren't a part of to beg for help?

If something happened (God forbid) to DH's job and we needed some assistance we could call a government agency and get help without anyone knowing. Or we could go to some of the churches in the area that we never attended and never will attend to beg for help from people who are our neighbors or know our neighbors. Look how judgemental people are. I don't want to be part of that gossip mill thankyouverymuch. If I put our address on a form someone is going to recognize the area. It is not a low income area. Then we are just setting ourselves up for the "OMG they have that huge house in that neighborhood and they want MY help?! I live in a house that could fit inside theirs 3 times and still have room left over! etc, etc, etc" People get up on their high horse (myself included) when they see people on food stamps buying soda. What the heck are they going to be doing when those people running from church to church begging for help are driving a Lexus, livng in a big house, or seen eating out?

Getting assistance from the government takes MUCH longer and much more work than a church or non-profit. Usually 30-60 days if you are approved. A church food bacnk, you walk up on a specific day of the week, they hand you a bag of food and you are done.

Also, they COULD take care of the people who really needed it if we cut out government/taxpayer funded welfare and forced those abusing to work for a living. From the research I've done, I've found that actual figures were hard to come by but one from San Diego's division said 24% of their new applicants apply fraudulantly. They report dependants they don't have, they report less incomes, etc...

macpatti

I work with at risk youth, and it's a commonly known practice to start badgering your daughter when she's 14-15 about having her first baby. The mindset is: when that young girl reaches 18, her family is not going to get AFDC for her anymore. But if she has a child, her child replaces her position as a "breadwinner" (recipient of AFDC). So there is a great deal of pressure being placed on these girls, by their families, on purpose, to produce one, two or more children by the time they reach 18. If she can have two children by the time she hits 18, then she has doubled the AFDC her family will get (for her 2 kids) even though they lose her the minute she hits 18.

This practice is so common among the hispanic girls I work with, there are girls who are here so they can escape the pressure to procreate. I know a young woman whose family kicked her out because they found out she was on the pill, had gotten it for free from Planned Parenthood. She told me her father told her she had no right to keep that money from her family by choosing NOT to have a kid before she was 18.

I know so many families with this mindset!

LuckyLeprechaun

It' sad. That same young woman told me that she was envious of her brothers, because they were boys, they didn't have to have a baby, they could get a "good job".


It's fricking 2012, and this young woman doesn't know SHE is capable of going after and getting a good job. YUCK

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.
Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. So if you don't want your tax dollars going to the abusers, why would you want to pay MORE to weed them out?

LuckyLeprechaun

The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.

No it wouldn't. They (abusers/those who have no intention or desire to 'get off' welfare) stay on for generations. Weeding out the corruption is not an ongoing cost, especially after the first surge of enforcement. We would save more than it would cost us, in the long run.

Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule.

Where do you get this piece of information? Simply asserting that someone else said it doesn't make it true. Citation needed, plz.

What if we enforced the requirement that recipients must pass drug screenings (just like I had to do in order to get my income aka job) in order to be eligible for benefits? And just like when you're on unemployment, you had to show that you were attempting to secure a job?

fbmandy55

The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.
Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. So if you don't want your tax dollars going to the abusers, why would you want to pay MORE to weed them out?

It would be an investment. Eventually it would save money, with the punishment people receive for fraud, more people would be afraid of the risk.

Lots of this has to do with my location and the crime increase we have seen. I live in the biggest city between Chicago and Indy, right on the interstate that goes directly to both. We have SO much drug trafficking up and down the interstate from Chicago to Indy that it's unbelievable. When Chicago was at it's worst and tried to clean up house, many criminals came to our city because a few large projects in Chicago were closed down, for example Cabrini-Green. We were a prime location with lots of nice, clean government housing available. Those places here have now been fenced in, enterances blocked of so there is only one way in and out and one comlpex even has a police holding cell in it. Arrests in those neighbors are almost always people "of Chicago or Indy" in the police blotter. Neighborhood housing additions have lost massive value because of the thefts and breaking and entering they are subject to. Now we are in the process of tearing these places down. One was so crime ridden that last year, our mayor gave residents 90 days to find other housing/jobs and demolished and entire comlpex to build homes for the elderly. That area is prospering. Not only is the fraud a factor but for us, the crime is as well.

Bahet

The amount of money that would be spent to find and weed out those who are on welfare but don't need to be would be a lot more than just supporting the people who don't need to be on it.

No it wouldn't. They (abusers/those who have no intention or desire to 'get off' welfare) stay on for generations. Weeding out the corruption is not an ongoing cost, especially after the first surge of enforcement. We would save more than it would cost us, in the long run.

Like somebody said before, people who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule.

Where do you get this piece of information? Simply asserting that someone else said it doesn't make it true. Citation needed, plz.

What if we enforced the requirement that recipients must pass drug screenings (just like I had to do in order to get my income aka job) in order to be eligible for benefits? And just like when you're on unemployment, you had to show that you were attempting to secure a job?

Florida did do drug screenings. 2% popped positive. http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/ Now, if you want to talk about abuse of taxpayer dollars, how about the fact that Gov Scott has a financial interest in the company that was awarded the sole contract for those drug screenings? So now your tax dollars go towards making a rich man even richer and you get to save a total of about $5000. So basically, instead of paying $1 towards the kids of a drug addict on welfare you are instead paying $95 cents to a rich man who gave his own company the contract to do the drug screenings. How is that really better?

And how exactly do people know what day to show up to get food? Do they give it out to anyone who shows up? Could someone making $70,000/yr decide they don't feel like spending money on groceries and just go get some food for free? You want to complain about the 2% of welfare recipients who are on drugs and say they need to be tested to abuse the system then why aren't there qualifications to get food from the churches? Wouldn't those people just abuse the system even worse if the people just handed out food to anyone who showed up? What would stop them from going to 7 different churches every week? Then they don't need to keep popping out babies or supposedly making their daughters have babies (the plural of anecdote is not data) because they could just sit home with no kids and get their needs met.

futiledevices

Seems like the situation is entirely different than in Canada. I think many of the problems people are mentioning here are more specific to the US. There are definitely people who abuse welfare here, too.. but you can't just sit on your *kitten* collecting welfare forever. At some point, you are required to go on job search. & I've never heard of anyone forcing their daughter to get pregnant.. how disgusting.

Bahet

Seems like the situation is entirely different than in Canada. I think many of the problems people are mentioning here are more specific to the US. There are definitely people who abuse welfare here, too.. but you can't just sit on your *kitten* collecting welfare forever. At some point, you are required to go on job search. & I've never heard of anyone forcing their daughter to get pregnant.. how disgusting.

I've never heard of that either. It's stupid actually. If she got a part time job she'd be able to give more to her family than if she had a baby and got welfare. Oh I'm sure there are a few people out there for whom math is a completely foreign concept but while abuse is not the norm, that is REALLY not the norm among those who do abuse the system.

I do agree that the system needs to be completely revampd. I don't have a problem with drug tests or time limits. I also think any able bodied, healthy adult on welfare should have some extenuating circumstance or else they should have to go back to school or get a job.

LuckyLeprechaun

Florida did do drug screenings. 2% popped positive.

You cannot be asserting that since only 2% actually submitted to the test and were discovered, then that means only 2% were actually ON drugs. How many simply didn't take the test, got someone else to do it for them, bought any of the multitude of piss cleansers, etc.? We cannot know.

And how exactly do people know what day to show up to get food?

Call the church and ask.

Do they give it out to anyone who shows up? Could someone making $70,000/yr decide they don't feel like spending money on groceries and just go get some food for free?

Yes, they give it to anyone who shows up. If a person who didn't need it showed up, they could benefit from this charity as well.

You want to complain about the 2% of welfare recipients who are on drugs and say they need to be tested to abuse the system then why aren't there qualifications to get food from the churches?

as a private entity giving away charity, the churches are free to use whatever screening methods they choose (or NOT) to decide who they give their charity to. As a taxpayer, I do not think the government has the right to be cavalier about the assistance they are handing out. That's MY money they're using, the church isn't giving away MY money without my consent. That's the difference.

Wouldn't those people just abuse the system even worse if the people just handed out food to anyone who showed up? What would stop them from going to 7 different churches every week? Then they don't need to keep popping out babies or supposedly making their daughters have babies (the plural of anecdote is not data) because they could just sit home with no kids and get their needs met.

Unless what you really want is DOLLARS not food. Have you ever been the benefactor of a charitable box of food? You get what you get and you don't throw a fit.

If someone is defrauding welfare, they're not doing it to be fed, or avoid paying for groceries. It's so they can buy that Fendi bag they "deserve". Food banks and churches give away FOOD. That's why they aren't taken advantage of (as much) as a source that passes out CASH. And when that cash came out of my paycheck, I want the government to be extra vigilant about trying to use it for those who do truly need temporary assistance, not lifelong support.