# California ENDS welfare in Oct....here it comes!



## Loquisimo (Nov 14, 2009)

Hang onto your preps:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/14/2751461/schwarzenegger-budget-would-eliminate.html

Women with children would have their welfare, called CalWorks (the TANF benefit), 100% eliminated, along with child care being eliminated too, starting in October. These women's income would suddenly drop to zero, at the same time that there are no jobs and tons of unskilled workers (like single mothers) looking for work. What will they do? Who knows? They won't even have money to buy bus tickets to another state, as some of the comments on that article suggest.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Good Grief...I dont think that will ever pass. But if it does..omg...I can imagine the dying in the streets that will happen. Along with the hordes of killers coming to take everthing they can to survive.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

California is like the federal government. They have benefit program on top of benefit program. It gets too expensive in total and can not be sustained. The rest of the country will have to cut back too.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Well, the results of that proposal and article will be VERY interesting to watch.

I am imagining all sorts of scenes being acted out.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Well, I live in CA, and considering most of my students have parents who collect welfare it will be drastic. Why not wean them off slowly? I am not a fan of entitlement programs, but many of these families have relied on it for survival for generations and will have NO clue how to support themselves without it. It will be interesting to see if this really happens. If it does, a massive increase in crime will be inevitable, and recently many police officers have been layed off.

CA is broke, and many people like myself have wondered why the state workers-the ones who do go to work everyday- are the ones losing pay and not the ones on welfare. Free money ends at some point...guess we might have reached the end.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oh super.
They will flee California in droves to the states that still give handouts.
I vote we forget Mexico and build a fence around California.
We don't need liberals here, we don't need the mooches, the dopers, or the gang bangers.
Keep 'em there.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

They'll flock to Wisconsin. Lots of welfare people come here because of Wisconsin's overly generous benefits. But Wisconsin is in serious financial trouble also. Oh well, I guess they'll just raise our taxes more so as not inconvenience the welfare crowd.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Oh super.
> They will flee California in droves to the states that still give handouts.
> I vote we forget Mexico and build a fence around California.
> We don't need liberals here, we don't need the mooches, the dopers, or the gang bangers.
> Keep 'em there.


NO!! Don't trap me here with them!!! Let me out!!!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Well, the results of that proposal and article will be VERY interesting to watch.
> 
> I am imagining all sorts of scenes being acted out.


It will happen sooner or later because these massive state and federal deficits can't be sustained. It has grown to the point of collapse over the decades and we have about reached the limit. The liberals who started and expanded these programs thought they were helping people and they were hurting them in the long run. As another poster said, they are hooked on the freebies and can't function without them. It may be put off a while because the dems in congress don't want to lose those votes in November and will likely push for a federal bailout for California. That will only kick the can down the road.


----------



## RiverPines (Dec 12, 2006)

DAVID In Wisconsin said:


> They'll flock to Wisconsin. Lots of welfare people come here because of Wisconsin's overly generous benefits. But Wisconsin is in serious financial trouble also. Oh well, I guess they'll just raise our taxes more so as not inconvenience the welfare crowd.


Wi has a 6 month wait before you can get help here if your from out of state. We dont have AFDC anymore.
Both my SIL's were from Cal and tried to come here for assistance. They both got zero for that first 6 months and had to move back in with mom. Mom had to much money so after that 6 months they still were screwed because the 'household' income was to high.
And homeless families with children in Wi are on waiting list for shelters!
Wi isnt any help.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

PA is the same way. My taxes are paying to raise my co-workers deadbeat sons' kids. 

I believe the only welfare should be for those who are physically unable to work and/or over the age of 65. The rest can fend for themselves.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, I guess the illegals will have to find someplace else to go now too.....


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

NickieL said:


> Well, I guess the illegals will have to find someplace else to go now too.....


Illegals do not receive welfare, but once their "anchor babies" are old enough to reproduce then those children qualify. From my experience working in the city, it is the blacks and whites who are most dependent on the system. Many Hmong families receive government money as a "payback" for helping in Vietnam. There is a large population of Russians as well.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

not gonna happen.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ah the great State of Entitlement...............
But it won't happen. 
Cornhusker- I wanted to build a fence to keep out the citzens from other states that flocked here for the entitlements, sun and drugs- now you can have them back if they can only be persuaded to leave.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I helped during Vietnam, where's my payback?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MELOC said:


> not gonna happen.


It will happen or our economy will totally collapse and force it to happen. Not only welfare, but most other programs will have to be cut way back or done away with. It will likely get ugly too, and by that I don't mean Pelosi will be going hungry. Look at Greece and what happened when they wanted government employees to take a 5% pay cut. They will try to do gradual cuts but it will not be enough to make a difference. Entitlements will have to be cut at the federal level too. Social Security will at least have to be means tested but that is simply wealth redistribution, something Obama wants anyway.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

there is no way any state will end welfare at the drop of a hat. this is a bargaining chip, a ploy, by governor terminator (easier to spell, lol). i can see reductions and restrictions, but no way and no how will any state stop welfare cold turkey, even if the notion is appreciated by belly robbers everywhere. sure, there is major abuse, but there are folks who honestly need the help and there is no way the public will allow death on the streets. no one is prepared for millions of homeless starving people and no one is prepared for concentration camps filled with the starving just to get them out of the public eye. it is cheaper to pay them to stay at home and spend the money they receive in the local economy than to incarcerate untold masses of people. the ultimate "final solution"...death by gaseous shower, will never happen in this country. so like it or not, we are all stuck with the welfare state as it is now. reform may happen, as i said, by reduction and restriction, but there is absolutely no way welfare will be cut cold turkey.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MELOC said:


> there is no way any state will end welfare at the drop of a hat. this is a bargaining chip, a ploy, by governor terminator (easier to spell, lol). i can see reductions and restrictions, but no way and no how will any state stop welfare cold turkey, even if the notion is appreciated by belly robbers everywhere. sure, there is major abuse, but there are folks who honestly need the help and there is no way the public will allow death on the streets. no one is prepared for millions of homeless starving people and no one is prepared for concentration camps filled with the starving just to get them out of the public eye. it is cheaper to pay them to stay at home and spend the money they receive in the local economy than to incarcerate untold masses of people. the ultimate "final solution"...death by gaseous shower, will never happen in this country. so like it or not, we are all stuck with the welfare state as it is now. reform may happen, as i said, by reduction and restriction, but there is absolutely no way welfare will be cut cold turkey.


But reductions and restrictions will ignite a firestorm and still not stop California's budget problems. What do they do next? The federal government is deeply in debt and can only help with more borrowed money. There is an old saying in business that when your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep is your downfall. It applies to government too, believe it or not.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Ah the great State of Entitlement...............
> But it won't happen.
> Cornhusker- I wanted to build a fence to keep out the citzens from other states that flocked here for the entitlements, sun and drugs- now you can have them back if they can only be persuaded to leave.


No thanks.
Liberals created them, leave them on the left coast.
We don't need to inherit any more problems.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

MELOC said:


> not gonna happen.


Exactly right.

When I lived in Ohio they used to have a new school levy come up EVERY election (2 times a year). The threats were about cutting off all but mandatory busing. 

Then the parents have to miss work to see their kids get to school. (rural district) etc.

Same thing here. They will shut down buses, parks, state highways, police and fire departments before they take away the welfare.

Just my opinion.


----------



## brreitsma (Jan 14, 2003)

If welfare gets cut cold turkey in Cali there will end up being far more polygymy in Cali then Utah. When hunger sets in for mommy and kiddies, mommy is going to end up being thankful and grateful for the arrangement.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Sooner or later, the teat goes dry, and the babies either get weaned or their plate is broke.

California's experiment in socialism is coming unglued.

I see welfare entitlementistas fleeing the state for more welfare friendly states... 

I see lots of gnashing of teeth... If I lived in CA, I'd be buying cases of ammunition to ward off the zombies that'll be let loose, if this bill passes.

Now, if CA does away with welfare, and reneges on their unfunded bloated public pension programs, and stops coddling it's illegals, it could possibly pull through... otherwise, it's a dying corpse.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

It must be getting bad out there. My 70 year old aunt who moved to Californuts back in 1970 and always tells me how backwards, bigoted and socially unacceptable Alabama is and she would never consider moving back to the state is now saying she wants to come visit to look for a place she can afford.

If that Frisco flake comes back to this area, I'm emmigrating to north Georgia or east Texas and changing my name to Don Key. :teehee:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> It will happen sooner or later because these massive state and federal deficits can't be sustained. It has grown to the point of collapse over the decades and we have about reached the limit. The liberals who started and expanded these programs thought they were helping people and they were hurting them in the long run. As another poster said, they are hooked on the freebies and can't function without them. It may be put off a while because the dems in congress don't want to lose those votes in November and will likely push for a federal bailout for California. That will only kick the can down the road.


The happenings in Greece come to mind...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MELOC said:


> there is no way any state will end welfare at the drop of a hat. this is a bargaining chip, a ploy, by governor terminator (easier to spell, lol). i can see reductions and restrictions, but no way and no how will any state stop welfare cold turkey, even if the notion is appreciated by belly robbers everywhere. sure, there is major abuse, but there are folks who honestly need the help and there is no way the public will allow death on the streets. no one is prepared for millions of homeless starving people and no one is prepared for concentration camps filled with the starving just to get them out of the public eye. it is cheaper to pay them to stay at home and spend the money they receive in the local economy than to incarcerate untold masses of people. the ultimate "final solution"...death by gaseous shower, will never happen in this country. so like it or not, we are all stuck with the welfare state as it is now. reform may happen, as i said, by reduction and restriction, but there is absolutely no way welfare will be cut cold turkey.


Seems, then, that the proposal is just a ruse? Just to alarm folks? And nothing will pass so nada happens.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that. 

Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


----------



## sewserious (Apr 2, 2010)

While I abhor the welfare state, cutting it cold turkey isn't the way to go. I would imagine that, if someone would set down and go through the California budget and true expenditures, there are many, many things that are still being funded that are absolutely ridiculous that could be eliminated allowing the welfare to be withdrawn in stages. Eliminating all aid to illegals would be a good place to start!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

MELOC said:


> there is no way any state will end welfare at the drop of a hat. this is a bargaining chip, a ploy, by governor terminator (easier to spell, lol). i can see reductions and restrictions, but no way and no how will any state stop welfare cold turkey, even if the notion is appreciated by belly robbers everywhere. sure, there is major abuse, but there are folks who honestly need the help and there is no way the public will allow death on the streets. no one is prepared for millions of homeless starving people and no one is prepared for concentration camps filled with the starving just to get them out of the public eye. it is cheaper to pay them to stay at home and spend the money they receive in the local economy than to incarcerate untold masses of people. the ultimate "final solution"...death by gaseous shower, will never happen in this country. so like it or not, we are all stuck with the welfare state as it is now. reform may happen, as i said, by reduction and restriction, but there is absolutely no way welfare will be cut cold turkey.


Yea, this is probably just a ploy to scare people but it's not cutting off ALL welfare. The CalWORKS program is only about $3.5 BILLION. California gives out $29.8 BILLION in welfare. $24.2 BILLION of that is given out by those poor broke counties the article refers to. The CalWORKS program is the program thats supposed to get people off welfare by trying to force them to get a job. The funny thing is the *5 year time limit* for assistance while you get a job in CalWORKS.(If you can't get a job in 5 years you need to go back to Mexico)


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

The October suprise, just in time for all the lib moochers to run to the polls.(and vote dem. of course)


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

They can come to New York!!!! Beautiful New York! Mountains, trees, lakes and a welfare system second to none! Where a small businessman like myself is a slave to the State! New YorK! We're busting our hump so you won't have to! Come on, see the falls! Down at social services I'TS ALWAYS CHRISTMAS!!!!!! (brought to you by the democratic party, vote democrat and vote often)


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that.
> 
> Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


Yes. I hope they can be smart about it and not lump "investments" like training in with the people who use welfare as a way of life. I have little sympathy for the latter. I believe that we are obligated to help people that stumble but if someone capable of working is going to sit home watching Oprah than they should be cut off.

I thought there was some kind of a 5 year lifetime limit? Was that just federal?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that.
> 
> Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


Here's the thing...seems our congresscritters don't look ahead. 
What SG is describing is a help up, not a hand out. 
Granted education would seem to be the way to go, in that if girls could get it thru their heads that a baby out of wedlock is NOT good sense...& if that doesn't work, then help them find a way to be productive.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Its a standard political ploy. When money gets tight and the thugs in power know people will not stand for another tax increase they start talking about how they are going to have to cut police, fire and ambulance services. This is the same thing. This will get millions of welfare receivers and bleeding hearts out to demand more taxes to prevent this.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

If they made illegals illegal (what a novel thought) That would help the budget by cutting welfare and school budgets.

All federal money comes with strings or has some state participation attached. California knows how to write IOU's - they've done it before - why not extend that to the federal government?? Bet that'd get someone's attention! 

Between the two, budget should be balanced....


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that.
> 
> Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


Look at that, we agree 
I have nothing against helping someone who is trying.
Give them a hand up, not a handout.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> If they made illegals illegal (what a novel thought) That would help the budget by cutting welfare and school budgets.
> 
> All federal money comes with strings or has some state participation attached. California knows how to write IOU's - they've done it before - why not extend that to the federal government?? Bet that'd get someone's attention!
> 
> Between the two, budget should be balanced....


Nah, Obama won't let them get rid of the illegals.
He owes them since they got him "elected" 
He's going to need those votes.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's the thing...seems our congresscritters don't look ahead.
> What SG is describing is a help up, not a hand out.
> Granted education would seem to be the way to go, in that if girls could get it thru their heads that a baby out of wedlock is NOT good sense...& if that doesn't work, then help them find a way to be productive.


They also need to hammer that idea through the thick skulls of the boys (they aren't men regardless of how old they are) who are running around impregnating women. Make them pay child support even if they have to slap a locator on their ankle. There are plenty who spend the weekend in the bar looking for their next lay and then claim they can't afford child support.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Aw, Cornhusker - I really wanted to live in my lil' dream world....


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

fishhead said:


> They also need to hammer that idea through the thick skulls of the boys (they aren't men regardless of how old they are) who are running around impregnating women. Make them pay child support even if they have to slap a locator on their ankle. There are plenty who spend the weekend in the bar looking for their next lay and then claim they can't afford child support.


I vote for Castration


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

This is so typical. Punish EVERYONE to get at the abusers. Instead of investigating each case, eliminating the fraud and helping out those who NEED it, let's cut everyone off so there is rioting in the streets. Geesh.


----------



## Loquisimo (Nov 14, 2009)

http://www.kcra.com/politics/23553612/detail.html

The local TV station's version of the story. Pay attention to the "Related" tab in the right margin, and watch the videos on CalWorks and In Home Supportive Services, which provides assistance to the severely physically disabled with everyday tasks. Note that there is a woman who was on welfare herself, and now her DAUGHTER is applying, new baby in tow! This is what we need to solve, generational welfare. Maybe cutting them off is the only way to do it. Sink or swim.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

fishhead said:


> They also need to hammer that idea through the thick skulls of the boys (they aren't men regardless of how old they are) who are running around impregnating women. Make them pay child support even if they have to slap a locator on their ankle. There are plenty who spend the weekend in the bar looking for their next lay and then claim they can't afford child support.


How do you propose to change how males have thought since the beginning of time? Would those guys sit in bars all weekend if willing women were not so plentiful and do you not think those women know what men are after? It is like dealing with drugs. If the supply wasn't there, the drug dealers would be gone. Sure men are at fault in the matter, but monen are just as much at fault.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

lilmizlayla said:


> I vote for Castration


I'm sure you do. I always had that opinion of you.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Why would anyone ever believe there is a nice solution for people living off other's people's money?
A person who works in a free medical clinic just told me that in order to get mothers to bring their children into the office for free dental screenings, they give away coupons for free fast food. If the mother's don't have an "incentive" to do this, they won't bother to bring their kids in.
This lack of judgement is not something money can fix- and probably has a strong inherited component. There is a large percentage of the population (my guess is about 20%,) that could have all the education or work opportunities in the world and will find a way to screw it up- deliberately. They will not bother to go to classes- they can never find a way to get to a class although have no trouble getting to a party. If they are forced into a job, they will "miss work because they didn't have transportation" or " their boss was unfair" or the "babysitter didn't show up." It is not apparent to them that every other person working has dealt successfully with these inconveniences. They simply do not want success unless it demands no effort of their own. 
I suppose if welfare was just short of starvation, a few might make more of an effort to support themselves but most I think would rather do what easy theft comes along and continue to blame everyone else for not getting a fair chance in life.
So the 80% of people who do work and contribute will have to deal with this fact. It would be nice if working hard got more respect and being a failure got less but as long as we educate social workers, reporters and politicians and provide grants for those parties to earn a livelihood , the attempt to guilt people into parting with their hard earned money based on the idea that success is possible with just a little bit more money for this program or the other, will grow.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

I think Ahnold wants to use his tea set and have a tea paahty, Yah?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Why would anyone ever believe there is a nice solution for people living off other's people's money?
> A person who works in a free medical clinic just told me that in order to get mothers to bring their children into the office for free dental screenings, they give away coupons for free fast food. If the mother's don't have an "incentive" to do this, they won't bother to bring their kids in.
> This lack of judgement is not something money can fix- and probably has a strong inherited component. There is a large percentage of the population (my guess is about 20%,) that could have all the education or work opportunities in the world and will find a way to screw it up- deliberately. They will not bother to go to classes- they can never find a way to get to a class although have no trouble getting to a party. If they are forced into a job, they will "miss work because they didn't have transportation" or " their boss was unfair" or the "babysitter didn't show up." It is not apparent to them that every other person working has dealt successfully with these inconveniences. They simply do not want success unless it demands no effort of their own.
> I suppose if welfare was just short of starvation, a few might make more of an effort to support themselves but most I think would rather do what easy theft comes along and continue to blame everyone else for not getting a fair chance in life.
> So the 80% of people who do work and contribute will have to deal with this fact. It would be nice if working hard got more respect and being a failure got less but as long as we educate social workers, reporters and politicians and provide grants for those parties to earn a livelihood , the attempt to guilt people into parting with their hard earned money based on the idea that success is possible with just a little bit more money for this program or the other, will grow.


You nailed it. People come and go from the welfare rolls all the time because of unexpected events in their lives. That is what such programs should be for. It is the long term welfare people who have no intention of bettering themselves who ruin the system. Despite the massive amounts of money thrown at the poverty problem over the decades, the rate of poverty has not improved. There is no easy solution to poverty. You simply cannot change how someone chooses to live.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

I couldn't agree more. We have three children (grown). One's in the Army, one's in med school, and the other one? You just described him to a "T". He can't be bothered to do anything at all to help himself. I sure hope he didn't inherit that trait though!



where I want to said:


> Why would anyone ever believe there is a nice solution for people living off other's people's money?
> A person who works in a free medical clinic just told me that in order to get mothers to bring their children into the office for free dental screenings, they give away coupons for free fast food. If the mother's don't have an "incentive" to do this, they won't bother to bring their kids in.
> This lack of judgement is not something money can fix- and probably has a strong inherited component. There is a large percentage of the population (my guess is about 20%,) that could have all the education or work opportunities in the world and will find a way to screw it up- deliberately. They will not bother to go to classes- they can never find a way to get to a class although have no trouble getting to a party. If they are forced into a job, they will "miss work because they didn't have transportation" or " their boss was unfair" or the "babysitter didn't show up." It is not apparent to them that every other person working has dealt successfully with these inconveniences. They simply do not want success unless it demands no effort of their own.
> I suppose if welfare was just short of starvation, a few might make more of an effort to support themselves but most I think would rather do what easy theft comes along and continue to blame everyone else for not getting a fair chance in life.
> So the 80% of people who do work and contribute will have to deal with this fact. It would be nice if working hard got more respect and being a failure got less but as long as we educate social workers, reporters and politicians and provide grants for those parties to earn a livelihood , the attempt to guilt people into parting with their hard earned money based on the idea that success is possible with just a little bit more money for this program or the other, will grow.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Did you ever think that in time, maybe cutting welfare would be the best thing for America? Was watching a history channel about the Appilachian mountain people. During the 1800's they did fine supporting theirselves by making their own living, which was mostly off the land they lived on. During the 1900's, they became more dependant on welfare and less on the land they lived on. They was showing how a family would raise gardens, wheat fields, fruit orchards, harvest wild edibles and had very little need for money. But during the 1900's most families started depending on jobs to buy all their needs and then with the loss of jobs and the introduction of welfare, they no longer know how to take care of theirselves like they once did.


----------



## RiverPines (Dec 12, 2006)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that.
> 
> Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


Yes they should!
There are plenty of singles without kids that just can not afford school too. They apply for financial aide and get students loans for the rest and many hold jobs while they do it all. Moms can do that too!!!
Help with daycare, sure but the rest moms can do just like singles without kids do.

You should get a totally free ride because you strapped yourself with a kid. And where are the male baby makers in this? Single moms didnt get to be moms without help.

I personally dont care for the have a baby get a free ride reward system.

You make your life harder, you have to bust butt harder.

It used to be called, 'you make your own bed, now lie in it'.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Why would anyone ever believe there is a nice solution for people living off other's people's money?
> A person who works in a free medical clinic just told me that in order to get mothers to bring their children into the office for free dental screenings, they give away coupons for free fast food. If the mother's don't have an "incentive" to do this, they won't bother to bring their kids in.
> This lack of judgement is not something money can fix- and probably has a strong inherited component. There is a large percentage of the population (my guess is about 20%,) that could have all the education or work opportunities in the world and will find a way to screw it up- deliberately. They will not bother to go to classes- they can never find a way to get to a class although have no trouble getting to a party. If they are forced into a job, they will "miss work because they didn't have transportation" or " their boss was unfair" or the "babysitter didn't show up." It is not apparent to them that every other person working has dealt successfully with these inconveniences. They simply do not want success unless it demands no effort of their own.
> I suppose if welfare was just short of starvation, a few might make more of an effort to support themselves but most I think would rather do what easy theft comes along and continue to blame everyone else for not getting a fair chance in life.
> So the 80% of people who do work and contribute will have to deal with this fact. It would be nice if working hard got more respect and being a failure got less but as long as we educate social workers, reporters and politicians and provide grants for those parties to earn a livelihood , the attempt to guilt people into parting with their hard earned money based on the idea that success is possible with just a little bit more money for this program or the other, will grow.


Wow-POTDA.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

California is a leading indicator of the rest of the country in many ways.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

How about we get the government out of the charity business and encourage actual charities to help the needy. More accountability, and much, much less waste, fraud and abuse.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

More and more of the charities are becoming money laundering systems. i don't think they are going to help.
I don't see where they are cutting it off cold turkey either, they are giving them 5-6 monthes. Some make it sound like it's going to happen next week.
If it's child care they are cutting off, maybe the mothers need to start co-ops.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Barrack Hussein Obama has promised to "fundamentally change" America - he's well on his way - this cut and paste shows the blueprint.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... 

Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse. 

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> lilmizlayla
> 
> Quote:
> I vote for Castrationl


By that you must be for tubal ligation or hysterectomy as well.


----------



## Slugmar (May 26, 2008)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career.


Before I met my wife she worked a fulltime job as a cna and went to school to get her LVN lic while raising two kids without any aid what so ever from there dad.

The only thing she need was some one to watch the kids some days and nights which her parents did.

Granted it would be easier but its not needed, no one person is better then anthor.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Charity doesn't come from from organizations. It comes from you and me. And when we are the ones giving the money, we tend to require very good visibility on where our money goes. Bad or inefficient organizations dry up for lack of funds. 

That's how it should be. I agree that it isn't that way now. Many large charities are incredibly inefficient, but part of that is because of the insane rules and regulations the Government places upon them.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

lilmizlayla said:


> I vote for Castration


Two votes!


----------



## Loquisimo (Nov 14, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Barrack Hussein Obama has promised to "fundamentally change" America - he's well on his way - this cut and paste shows the blueprint.
> 
> Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
> 
> ...


Cloward and Piven were right on one thing: the Great Society version of welfare as a free lifetime ride was unsustainable, was so from day one, and was destined to collapse. Even FDR himself said that Social Security wasn't a retirement program, just a backstop to keep old people alive if they had all their savings stolen by the banksters, like in the 30s. In fact, most if not all forms of "relief" were intended to be temporary, just until the economy recovered. 

It was LBJ who created the Great Society, intending to make millions into permanent welfare recipients. Cloward and Piven rightly said that such a system would be like a cancer that would consume the nation, then take the world with it when it collapsed. So even though they were commies, Cloward and Piven don't deserve a 100% bum rap. 

The problem is that Cloward and Piven called for PASSIVELY undermining the welfare system. Enter Cloward-Piven Strategy into wiki-they wanted to send community organizers out to crash the system by encouraging the poor to sign up for the works, thus overloading it. What Obama is trying to do is to make it impossible for average Americans to survive AT ALL! First, he is making it impossible for them to collect welfare. Then, he is sabotaging the job market so there are no jobs. Then he is making it illegal to work for yourself. And then he is making it illegal to feed yourself by raising your own food. 

The goal is that once people run out of options, they will be forced to beg the communists to save them. By cutting off all means of survival, people will be forced to join the commies in droves and fight for communism, just so they can survive. The workers will revolt once they have nothing to lose but their chains. That has been the idea from Marx down to Alinsky. And Obama is trying to make it so people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by throwing off capitalism and joining the radicals. He's trying to rig the market, IOW. 

The thing is, revolutions are messy business, and people don't like being made hopeless and helpless and then be forced into the only option of communism. It's likely to produce a rebellion, yes, but Obama may not like the outcome. People can still think for themselves, and Obama does not yet have the power to send independent thinkers and entrepreneurs to their deaths in the gulags. If he did do that, as Stalin did, and crushed the American spirit once and for all, the world would backslide into decay and collapse. There may not be another civilization.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

fishhead said:


> I thought there was some kind of a 5 year lifetime limit? Was that just federal?





Loquisimo said:


> Note that there is a woman who was on welfare herself, and now her DAUGHTER is applying, new baby in tow! This is what we need to solve, generational welfare.


I've been around welfare people all my adult life, including plenty of multi-generational welfare families.

Unless they've changed things in Texas in recent years, the multi-generation scam goes something like this:

A single mother can get welfare if she has children 5 years of age or younger (I think 6 is the normal cut-off age. It's close to that, anyhow- or used to be). 

Many of these mothers have live-in boyfriends, but if that were known, they'd lose their welfare, so they claim to be single. They sure as heck avoid getting married.

They have enough children to make sure they always have at least one kid under 6. Some of them actually time out their pregnancies to have a child every so many years (and of course they tell the social workers they don't know who the father is. Even if they're living with the guy!).

Now, this next part will be hard to believe, but I'm not making it up! I've seen this happen multiple times. Not EVERY welfare mom does this, but plenty of them do!

When the welfare mother's oldest daughter reaches puberty, she starts encouraging the girl to get pregnant. As the girl's legal guardian, she can continue getting welfare because you can get welfare for a pregnant child, and then after the baby is born, you get welfare for your grandbaby, and, as long as you are the legal guardian of the daughter, you also can get welfare for the baby's mother until that grandbaby is 6 years old.

As the younger daughters reach puberty, they also are encouraged to get pregnant.

The welfare mother has a good thing going. Even after she has passed child-bearing age, she can keep things going with the grandkids.

As the daughters grow up and move out (sometimes having 2 or 3 kids by then), younger daughters are producing grandkids.

As the daughters move out, they have learned well. They continue what they have learned from their own mother.

Call me a liar if you wish, but I've seen this type of thing happen over and over.



Chuck said:


> How about we get the government out of the charity business and encourage actual charities to help the needy. More accountability, and much, much less waste, fraud and abuse.


Bush wanted to do that and got slammed.

It's ok to give millions of federal dollars to scams like Red Cross and United Way, but it's not ok to give them to efficient organizations that are using money the way it was intended to be by the donors.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Did you ever think that in time, maybe cutting welfare would be the best thing for America? Was watching a history channel about the Appilachian mountain people. During the 1800's they did fine supporting theirselves by making their own living, which was mostly off the land they lived on. During the 1900's, they became more dependant on welfare and less on the land they lived on. They was showing how a family would raise gardens, wheat fields, fruit orchards, harvest wild edibles and had very little need for money. But during the 1900's most families started depending on jobs to buy all their needs and then with the loss of jobs and the introduction of welfare, they no longer know how to take care of theirselves like they once did.


 You left out the part where the retirees came and raised the land values out of reach of the local working people. Also the fact that the factories that came only came seeking labor they could exploit and land,air and water they could pollute. Usually encouraged by local GOB that profitted from the land sale and promised to keep the workers uneducated.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> Barrack Hussein Obama has promised to "fundamentally change" America - he's well on his way - this cut and paste shows the blueprint. blah blah etc etc


Too bad this thread is about Arnold and California, eh?


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shygal said:


> Too bad this thread is about Arnold and California, eh?


Correct. I do not think this cut is part of a greater plan. CA is broke and the governor needs to create a budget that reduces the huge deficit. Personally, I think this is just a threat that will push the 2 parties to agree on a budget. He has done this before to put a fire under them.


----------



## cindy71 (Jul 7, 2008)

ladycat said:


> I've been around welfare people all my adult life, including plenty of multi-generational welfare families.
> 
> Unless they've changed things in Texas in recent years, the multi-generation scam goes something like this:
> 
> ...


I don't know Texas law on welfare but here in Alabama women can get welfare as long as the children are under 18. Now as for being to age 5 that would be the case with WIC. As long as the children are 18 and younger they can get (all based on income and size of family) child care, food stamps, free lunch, free or discounted housing, Medicaid, help with utilities, Pell Grants for school and in some cases free transpartion. I am sure there is more but I can not think of all of them. Then you have the charities that provide things. If you took 2 families the same size 1 family qualifies for all the above and add it together with their income and then take the other families income that is just above the qualifing amount and subtracted all what they had to pay for their incomes would look almost the same. I wonder which family will be complain the most that they don't have.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Shygal said:


> They should not cut the aid to single moms that are going back to school to get a career. For the relatively small amount I got to help me, Ive already paid that back in taxes from my job, a job I wouldnt have had if it wasnt for a program like that.
> 
> Career welfare, yeah, they need a cutoff after so many years otherwise it just perpetuates.


Hey, I've paid my share in taxes where's my small amount of aid? Why is it that the government should be able to take my money and give to you to better yourself but I get no aid because I'm not a single mom?

You don't see what's wrong with this picture?

I've applied for pell grants and all the other stuff and still would have had to dole out cash for college which I couldn't afford due to all the taxes I've paid. What makes you so much better than me?

This is why the government needs to get his hand out of my pocket and CUT OFF *ALL* WELFARE!!!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

poppy said:


> You nailed it. People come and go from the welfare rolls all the time because of unexpected events in their lives. *That is what such programs should be for.* It is the long term welfare people who have no intention of bettering themselves who ruin the system. Despite the massive amounts of money thrown at the poverty problem over the decades, the rate of poverty has not improved. There is no easy solution to poverty. You simply cannot change how someone chooses to live.


The left has brainwashed you! :bash:

No that is what these programs were *made* to be for but it allows for the government to socially engineer its population.They *shouldn't* even be in existence. Don't you see what they do? They CAUSE poverty by rewarding the poor to have kids. The end result CAREER WELFARE! It takes ALOT of money to have kids. Unless you have ALOT of money you shouldn't have kids (I'm not,it's not hard) If you have the money to pay for a kid you shouldn't need handouts(tax credits included)

We need to stop ALL WELFARE and child tax credits. If anything we should apply a child tax and start charging for kids so I am not stuck paying for YOUR kids. Then maybe someday then I could afford my own!!!!!!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Gercarson and Loquisimo, you are 100 % right.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's the thing...seems our congresscritters don't look ahead.
> What SG is describing is a help up, not a hand out.
> Granted education would seem to be the way to go, in that if girls could get it thru their heads that a baby out of wedlock is NOT good sense...& if that doesn't work, then help them find a way to be productive.


By the government paying for college for these poor "wedlock single mothers" It makes the cost of such education skyrocket and out of reach of the ones that normally would be able to afford to go. Why do you think education costs are skyrocketing (even in the middle of a recession/depression)? 

If the government would step out of the education game the colleges would be able to charge more reasonable tuition and more people would be able to afford it! If the government was so worried about educating EVERYONE they would have a one time education tax credit applied evenly at the end of graduating. The current system is just another form of social engineering that is causing education inflation to skyrocket.

Look at the 2 largest inflation markets. Both have had government paying for the majority of the market for years. Healthcare and education. Think the inflation and the government payments are linked?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Did you ever think that in time, maybe cutting welfare would be the best thing for America? Was watching a history channel about the Appilachian mountain people. During the 1800's they did fine supporting theirselves by making their own living, which was mostly off the land they lived on. During the 1900's, they became more dependant on welfare and less on the land they lived on. They was showing how a family would raise gardens, wheat fields, fruit orchards, harvest wild edibles and had very little need for money. But during the 1900's most families started depending on jobs to buy all their needs and then with the loss of jobs and the introduction of welfare, they no longer know how to take care of theirselves like they once did.


Well if welfare is not around people will still learn to live within their means. I have had rough times, I lived through them and LEARNED how to help myself without welfare.

Heck one time in my life I lived in a dorm room style apartment,community kitchen, just 1 bedroom with a closet. Since I was unemployed and didn't have any kids so didn't qualify for welfare, this is how I lived for about 6 months. Rent was $89/month I got *5* roomates(in similar situations) and we were able to do odd jobs or even beg for quarters which paid the rent. It put a roof over our heads and the church had meals if thats all that was available. We all lived, had fun and learned and bettered ourselves.

After a few nights of sleeping in elevators made me go out and get such an arrangement. **** Sapien's have made it this far by learning to adapt. It's done good for us thus far, why change?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Hey, I've paid my share in taxes where's my small amount of aid? Why is it that the government should be able to *take my money *and give to you to better yourself but I get no aid because I'm not a single mom?


Not a 'wedlock' mom.
1. Married, and stayed married. Took my wedding vows seriously.
2. Consider my children as gifts from God, not dollar signs from an ex or the government. They are not tools to be used to get what I want.
3. Have taught my children right from wrong so that they will make good choices.

What is my reward for all of my loyalty, dedication and commitment???

NOT ONLY do *I* not qualify for ANY kind of handout for college to educate myself (non-high school grad, waitress of 27 years)......BUT my children only qualify for a pitiful tiny amount of 'student LOAN money". No hand out for these working white folks. Heck no. They are white kids with married parents that work.......sorry about them, they get NOTHING.

Oh well, my dh and I get the pleasure of paying out the ____ in taxes so that the welfare mama down the street can go to school for free. 
Yeah, that's what we get.

Geeeeee Thanks Mr. Moral Government Man!!

I understand, women are widowed. And they should be taken care of by the Church.
I understand that sometimes men just walk away. And they should be taken care of by the Church.
True widows and orphans, should be looked after by the Church.

Our culture sucks. Men look at women as 'items of pleasure' and women allow it. Children are created and the cycle of lack of respect continues.

And I have to pay for it???
That's a load of fresh fertilizer.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

shanzone2001 said:


> Correct. I do not think this cut is part of a greater plan. CA is broke and the governor needs to create a budget that reduces the huge deficit. Personally, I think this is just a threat that will push the 2 parties to agree on a budget. He has done this before to put a fire under them.


It is a ploy to get the conservative right saying, oh those poor wedlock single moms need some sort of assistance, lets pass some more welfare! And this time instead of having the states run welfare(like it should be) the Federal Government will. I choose not to live in CA for this reason. They give way too much welfare and way too much of it goes to illegals. If the federal government steps in and pays for it(which they do too much of already) I will have no choice in the matter.

I prefer to vote with my feet and if the federal government keeps expanding and taking away the states rights I will vote with my feet and move overseas (along with alot of others)Then all these bleeding heart liberals will be stuck here collecting their welfare with the illegals until the bank account runs dry. Then the U.S.A. will become Zimbabweized, Is that what you want? Because it's working with ALOT of "conservatives" on this board!!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Beeman said:


> You left out the part where the *retirees* came and raised the land values out of reach of the local working people. Also the fact that the factories that came only came seeking labor they could exploit and land,air and water they could pollute. Usually encouraged by local GOB that profitted from the land sale and promised to keep the workers uneducated.


No, it wasn't the retirees, its GOVERNMENT. If government would step out of land use laws the prices would be alot more reasonable. Zoning,building codes,and taxes all attribute to higher prices. Let alone all the land the government owns. Did you know the Federal Government alone owns over 30% of all land in the U.S.? And that's not even counting Washington D.C.(which is "under the tutelage of the federal government.")*84.5%* of Nevada is owned by the Feds! 65% of the land west of Denver is owned by the the Federal Government.

And this isn't even counting the State and Local lands!!!!! Which probably account for the same or more!!!! 17% of all of Minnesota is State owned, not even counting the local governments!

The government owns way more land than those "retirees" so I don't think the "retirees" are to blame.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

cindy71 said:


> I don't know Texas law on welfare but here in Alabama women can get welfare as long as the children are under 18. Now as for being to age 5 that would be the case with WIC. As long as the children are 18 and younger they can get (all based on income and size of family) child care, food stamps, free lunch, free or discounted housing, Medicaid, help with utilities, Pell Grants for school and in some cases free transpartion. I am sure there is more but I can not think of all of them. Then you have the charities that provide things. If you took 2 families the same size 1 family qualifies for all the above and add it together with their income and then take the other families income that is just above the qualifing amount and subtracted all what they had to pay for their incomes would look almost the same. I wonder which family will be complain the most that they don't have.


Nah, there couldn't be more welfare than just WIC, could there? Most Americans all have a one track mind and can't grasp the concept of thinking of the entire picture. Income tax is our only tax, right?

By the way, you forgot Child Tax Credits.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

blooba said:


> No, it wasn't the retirees, its GOVERNMENT. If government would step out of land use laws the prices would be alot more reasonable. Zoning,building codes,and taxes all attribute to higher prices. Let alone all the land the government owns. Did you know the Federal Government alone owns over 30% of all land in the U.S.? And that's not even counting Washington D.C.(which is "under the tutelage of the federal government.")*84.5%* of Nevada is owned by the Feds! 65% of the land west of Denver is owned by the the Federal Government.
> 
> And this isn't even counting the State and Local lands!!!!! Which probably account for the same or more!!!! 17% of all of Minnesota is State owned, not even counting the local governments!
> 
> The government owns way more land than those "retirees" so I don't think the "retirees" are to blame.



I would normally agree with you about land use, however there must be arbitrator to ensure one doesn't destroy what is only theirs for the time they own it.

Love Canal...Winyah Bay and the enormous watershed...new jersey dumping.

those are just the ones I can think of before enjoying coffee on a particularly tired morning.

The only role of government is to act as our collective voice with other governments and ensure our country remains conducive to the protection of the rights of the individual.

Yet property and the safety of that property is a huge part of it.

When you have paper mills destroying thousands of miles of watershed and poisoning every backyard garden all those rivers go through and making an entire series of bodies of water unswimmable, unusable and literally poisonous, then the governments role is to step in and say, No. They must also ensure that all those little folks who can't go against a big corp get heard by that big corp. (In my college projects we were still required to sign up for the PCB monitoring volunteer work even 20 years after. Still measurable poisons)

When toxic barrels of industrial waste are being dumped illegally, that IS the governments role, whether state or fed. 

corps and big business are inherently greedy. That is fine. they're americans and profit is how we measure success. Fine. But when that comes at the price of destroying other's property, future and very lives, then we require protections.

If you consider the air quality in big parts of the US in 1970 compared to now, you see for yourself that some intervention is not only good, but absolutely necessary. Corps won't spend more unless they have to. Period.

Heck, the developer that intended to put up a few houses behind me raised the land level without drainage...thereby send acres of water into 2 yards every rainfall. Even that was hard to get heard because he's a big contributor. But there are laws and there are rules and that helps. Imagine if there were none? someone could ruin your land too.

Just look at BP and some of the stuff that's come out about their shoddy and risky work with that well.

We do have the right to be secure in our persons and our property and when the bad guy is also an American, you need the law.

Not all land law is bad law.


----------



## jill.costello (Aug 18, 2004)

I was just reminded today in a friendly PM that some people actually read and enjoy my posts. So, I'll give a GC post a shot. <grin>

From a PURELY business/economic standpoint, NOT working makes more sense for un-educated, un-motivated people than working does. That's what I said: NOT working makes more sense than working for un-educated, un-motivated people.

A person can make a BETTER LIVING doing NOTHING than they can working a 40 hour week at minimum wage.

Until that changes, why should they?

Not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it IS......


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not a 'wedlock' mom.
> 1. Married, and stayed married. Took my wedding vows seriously.
> 2. Consider my children as gifts from God, not dollar signs from an ex or the government. They are not tools to be used to get what I want.
> 3. Have taught my children right from wrong so that they will make good choices.
> ...


so women who are divorced did not take their wedding vows seriously? 
divorce is something no woman with children wants. sometimes that is how life is..it happens. 
It takes TWO people to make a marriage...only one to break it up
the fact that women use their kids as dollar signs from an ex is the biggest load there is. It takes money to raise children. The child support laws SUCK. If a father doesnt pay willingly...you get nothing. It is up to the woman to chase him down. the state will NOT do it for you. Like all government programs..it is ineffective and slow. a woman may as well take that child support order and blow her nose with it..thats about how much its worth. 

Divorced and unmarried mothers love their children as much as you love yours. 

If you dont have a HS education...guess where you will be if your husband walks out?


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

blooba said:


> Nah, there couldn't be more welfare than just WIC, could there? Most Americans all have a one track mind and can't grasp the concept of thinking of the entire picture. Income tax is our only tax, right?
> 
> By the way, you forgot Child Tax Credits.


so? what about it? thats not welfare..that just offsets what it costs to raise a child. 

There is one tax EIC or the child tax that does NOT give you money in your pocket..it just offsets what you owe. I dont recall which it is...


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

cindy71 said:


> I don't know Texas law on welfare but here in Alabama women can get welfare as long as the children are under 18. Now as for being to age 5 that would be the case with WIC. As long as the children are 18 and younger they can get (all based on income and size of family) child care, food stamps, free lunch, free or discounted housing, Medicaid, help with utilities, Pell Grants for school and in some cases free transpartion. I am sure there is more but I can not think of all of them. Then you have the charities that provide things. If you took 2 families the same size 1 family qualifies for all the above and add it together with their income and then take the other families income that is just above the qualifing amount and subtracted all what they had to pay for their incomes would look almost the same. I wonder which family will be complain the most that they don't have.


Texas used to give full welfare benefits to families with children under 18. Unemployed adults with no children could get food stamps indefinitely. Those with children got food stamps, Medicaid, and a check.

But after the oil boom bust in the early 80's, the state was going broke, and they restructured their welfare program.

Childless, unemployed adults who are not disabled can get food stamps for 3 months once every 5 years.

Families with children under 6, and/or with pregnant family members can get food stamps, a cash card, HUD housing, Medicaid, and of course, they can get WIC for children 5 and under and for pregnant women.

Welfare families are much better off than working poor. They get housing, money, food stamps, medical, and they can go to churches and other charitable outlets for additional food, clothing, etc.

Their utilities are subsidized, too, but I'm not sure to what extent. They even get a deep discount on their phone bill.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

ladycat said:


> Texas used to give full welfare benefits to families with children under 18. Unemployed adults with no children could get food stamps indefinitely. Those with children got food stamps, Medicaid, and a check.
> 
> But after the oil boom bust in the early 80's, the state was going broke, and they restructured their welfare program.
> 
> ...


the working poor DO qualify for some benefits..foodstamps....wic..medicaid subsidised utilities, but it depends on how much they make. 

I dont know how much welfare pays there but a family of four gets cash benefits of 350 a month here. and that will pay for what? ....AND you either have to be in an 8 hour work program (5 days a week) to get the cash or in college

subsidised housing? yeah..but who wants to live in a drug infested apartment building? shootings all the time..murders....its the lowest of the low. May as well live under the bridge.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> I'm sure you do. I always had that opinion of you.


<evil grin>..yes..I know you do!

LOLOLOL......Look, i love men..but lets face it....some of these males are unworthy of having the ability to procreate. They can still keep their parts....in a little box!!


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

This is already happening in AZ. Even if you qualify for Child Care assistance, you can't get it, Meals on Wheels is gone, the state health department is gone. And pretty much a lot more will be gone come july if what my Brother in law tells me will happen.


----------



## John Carter (Oct 6, 2004)

as a cop, (now retired) I got to see a lot of the welfare class in action, (inner city burb) and believe me for as ignorant as they are, and they are, they really know how to game the system and usually, as numerous of them have stated, its the welfare employees who give them the "tips" Job security dont ya know...................well all that being said, I used to try to reason with "my" clientÃ¨le,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now I just buy more ammo..............were gonna need it


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

jill.costello said:


> I was just reminded today in a friendly PM that some people actually read and enjoy my posts. So, I'll give a GC post a shot. <grin>
> 
> From a PURELY business/economic standpoint, NOT working makes more sense for un-educated, un-motivated people than working does. That's what I said: NOT working makes more sense than working for un-educated, un-motivated people.
> 
> ...


Sad but true, and as long as the government keeps feeding the beast, it will continue to grow.
Unfortunately, I believe most social programs are designed to keep those people poor and ignorant and voting.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> the working poor DO qualify for some benefits..foodstamps....wic..medicaid subsidised utilities, but it depends on how much they make.


They do here too, but restrictions are so tight, it's just about impossible to get help beyond WIC if you are working.



53convert said:


> as a cop, (now retired) I got to see a lot of the welfare class in action, (inner city burb) and believe me for as ignorant as they are, and they are, *they really know how to game the system* and usually, as numerous of them have stated, its the welfare employees who give them the "tips" Job security dont ya know...................well all that being said, I used to try to reason with "my" clientÃ¨le,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now I just buy more ammo..............were gonna need it


Boy, don't they. 

From a sociological standpoint, it's fascinating.

And thanks for backing me up. I hate posting my observations and experience about welfare matters because there are posters who seem to not believe me, or think I'm exaggerating or something. But I know what I know.

I MUST post because it's a sore subject with me. It makes me mad to see able-bodied adults working the system and living high on the hog, and on the other hand to see honest, working families scrounging to make ends meet but can't get help when they don't have enough food on the table.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> Too bad this thread is about Arnold and California, eh?


Too bad you THINK this thread is "just" about Arnold and California. Last time I checked California is STILL part of the USA and Arnold is STILL governor.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

lilmizlayla said:


> so? what about it? thats not welfare..that just offsets what it costs to raise a child.
> 
> There is one tax EIC or the child tax that does NOT give you money in your pocket..it just offsets what you owe. I dont recall which it is...


Sorry, but it is welfare. Having children gives you tax deductions to allow for the costs of raising them. Child tax credits are purely welfare. They also allow millions of people to avoid any income taxes at all. People who don't have to pay income taxes have no concern about taxes because they do not affect them. That is terrible policy and shifts the total tax burden to fewer and fewer people.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

blooba said:


> No, it wasn't the retirees, its GOVERNMENT. If government would step out of land use laws the prices would be alot more reasonable. Zoning,building codes,and taxes all attribute to higher prices. Let alone all the land the government owns. Did you know the Federal Government alone owns over 30% of all land in the U.S.? And that's not even counting Washington D.C.(which is "under the tutelage of the federal government.")*84.5%* of Nevada is owned by the Feds! 65% of the land west of Denver is owned by the the Federal Government.
> 
> And this isn't even counting the State and Local lands!!!!! Which probably account for the same or more!!!! 17% of all of Minnesota is State owned, not even counting the local governments!
> 
> The government owns way more land than those "retirees" so I don't think the "retirees" are to blame.


 Land use laws? In Appalaichia?


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> Sorry, but it is welfare. Having children gives you tax deductions to allow for the costs of raising them. Child tax credits are purely welfare. They also allow millions of people to avoid any income taxes at all. People who don't have to pay income taxes have no concern about taxes because they do not affect them. That is terrible policy and shifts the total tax burden to fewer and fewer people.


you have to be working in order to get it....and the income limit is 110K for couples and 75k for single.....

so you are for a flat tax..no deductions at all?


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

Try to make sense out of this:

*Assembly backs food stamps for drug felons*
_05/13/2010_

SACRAMENTO â The California state Assembly approved a bill today that would allow convicted drug felons to collect food stamps without proving they are in treatment for their drug addiction. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15080532


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

poppy said:


> Sorry, but it is welfare. Having children gives you tax deductions to allow for the costs of raising them. Child tax credits are purely welfare. They also allow millions of people to avoid any income taxes at all. People who don't have to pay income taxes have no concern about taxes because they do not affect them. That is terrible policy and shifts the total tax burden to fewer and fewer people.


And Republican and Democrat's alike take advantage of it. And I even know some union members who also get them!


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

blooba said:


> Hey, I've paid my share in taxes where's my small amount of aid? Why is it that the government should be able to take my money and give to you to better yourself but I get no aid because I'm not a single mom?
> 
> You don't see what's wrong with this picture?
> 
> ...


I applied for pell grants too and STILL had to take student loans out. They did NOT pay for my college, I paid for whatever the scholarships I got while in college, and the pell grants did not. I just paid off one student loan and I have one more left to go.

I did not get free college. I got help while going to college to pay my MOM for the cost of letting us live there, food, utilities, etc. THey showed me how to apply for college and the loans, because I had no clue how to, but no, I did not get free school in any way.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

blooba said:


> By the government paying for college for these poor "wedlock single mothers"


The government did NOT pay for my college. I PAID for my college with pell grants , scholarships and student loans. They show you how to GET them, yes, and anyone could do it.

So stop saying government pays for college for people , it does NOT.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

poppy said:


> Sorry, but it is welfare. Having children gives you tax deductions to allow for the costs of raising them. Child tax credits are purely welfare. They also allow millions of people to avoid any income taxes at all. People who don't have to pay income taxes have no concern about taxes because they do not affect them. That is terrible policy and shifts the total tax burden to fewer and fewer people.


Well I have two children and did not qualify for EIC and I did not make that much money last year. I got the deduction for dependents and that was it


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> so women who are divorced did not take their wedding vows seriously?


Clearly, you enjoy arguing, and not reading what people say. You read what you "want to see" then off you go down tangent lane.



> divorce is something no woman with children wants. sometimes that is how life is..it happens.
> It takes TWO people to make a marriage...only one to break it up


Really? It takes two committed to their vows, to make a marriage work. And it takes two, who no longer wish to commit to their vows to divorce. There are rare instances where one fights to the bitter end NOT to get divorced. It is those, who should be cared for by The Church.



> the fact that women use their kids as dollar signs from an ex is the biggest load there is.


I agree! Most women completely take advance of the the fact they are women raising kids to SOAK their ex-husbands for every dime they can. _Manipulation_ is 'her' favorite tool. 



> It takes money to raise children.


Then maybe (unless the husband is abusive to her or the children) she should have tried a little harder in the marriage commitment? There's a thought.



> The child support laws SUCK. If a father doesnt pay willingly...you get nothing.


Yep, and that stinks for the kids. So mom has to go work her guts out to make ends meet. Maybe move in with her family until she can get on her feet. It's not an easy life, but it's an HONEST life.



> It is up to the woman to chase him down. the state will NOT do it for you. Like all government programs..it is ineffective and slow. a woman may as well take that child support order and blow her nose with it..thats about how much its worth.


A. If everyone knows this, then work a little harder on the marriage.
B. If everyone knows this, then learn a marketable skill.
C. If everyone knows this, then get a job, get two, live within your means.
D. If everyone knows this, WHY DO WOMEN KEEP CRANKING OUT BABIES WITH LOSERS???????
Oh, the free welfare, my bad. Duh.



> Divorced and unmarried mothers love their children as much as you love yours.


I never said I loved my kids more. I said, I was committed. 
Committed to God.
Committed to my husband.
Committed to my children. 
Committed to keeping my vows.
Committed, dear, is what I said. Not that that matters to you, because you love to twist and _manipulate_. 



> If you dont have a HS education...guess where you will be if your husband walks out?


My 'skill' provided everything we, as a family, needed for 2 years while my dh went back to college and earned his degree (um, that WE PAID FOR, cash American). If the Lord takes my dh before me, I will use that 'skill' to earn a wage, to pay the bills.

Please, slow down and re read what I said before you twist and _manipulate _my words.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> The government did NOT pay for my college. I PAID for my college with pell grants , scholarships and student loans. They show you how to GET them, yes, and anyone could do it.
> 
> So stop saying government pays for college for people , it does NOT.


Please look up the source of "pell grants" - do not be surprised to find that some (if not many) look at them as a type of welfare - or at least a "government program" since they are funded by tax payers. Yep, government pays for college for "...people".


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Here's an interesting idea. How about not having kids unless you can provide and care for them? And if you get pregnant anyway...well then get a job. Guess that horse has left the barn a lonnnngggg time ago for some.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> And Republican and Democrat's alike take advantage of it. And I even know some union members who also get them!


I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of anything that gives them tax benefits. I blame government for making them available.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I agree! Most women completely take advance of the the fact they are women raising kids to SOAK their ex-husbands for every dime they can. _Manipulation_ is 'her' favorite tool.
> 
> Then maybe (unless the husband is abusive to her or the children) she should have tried a little harder in the marriage commitment? There's a thought.
> 
> .


That is something only a second wife would say...


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> That is something only a second wife would say...


Or someone who has observed it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> That is something only a second wife would say...


Married when I was 24, and my dh was was 20.
Pretty sure I was the first wife ;-)



> Or someone who has observed it.


You are spot on!


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Clearly, you enjoy arguing, and not reading what people say. You read what you "want to see" then off you go down tangent lane.
> 
> Really? It takes two committed to their vows, to make a marriage work. And it takes two, who no longer wish to commit to their vows to divorce. There are rare instances where one fights to the bitter end NOT to get divorced. It is those, who should be cared for by The Church.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah.

Yeah, she really needs to work on that marriage! Work on not minding while her husband pumps himself dry in other women and brings his filth home. Work really hard on covering up those bruises. And then work extra hard on being a mindless slave who doesn't provoke her overlord into beating the snot out of her. She really has to work on making sure that wonderful man has plenty of daughters to rape. And she's got to make serious strides on ensuring she has no mind whatsoever and that her life has no merit or importance, only his.

You know, you set back women decades. And maybe you should look around some. Losers don't always show up until after the I do. He often masquerades as the star student, the manly responsible one, the football hero, the doctor, the lawyer or anything else.

I know of only one woman whose divorce I don't understand. Every single other one is either male adultery, male absconding with their funds, male abuse of a child or something ridiculous. And these aren't loser women. They are just as educated as I am, just as successful and just as smart. Yet even they tried to work it out with their inferior males as is the female habit.

If you choose to be a slave, bowing your head and dropping your drawers whenever required, then that is your choice. But it isn't the choice of anyone with any idea of being a free human. Marriage is a partnership and when one partner abuses that relationship in whatever way, then the other should not be required to devalue themselves in order to keep a piece of paper.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> Blah blah blah.
> 
> Yeah, she really needs to work on that marriage! Work on not minding while her husband pumps himself dry in other women and brings his filth home. Work really hard on covering up those bruises. And then work extra hard on being a mindless slave who doesn't provoke her overlord into beating the snot out of her. She really has to work on making sure that wonderful man has plenty of daughters to rape. And she's got to make serious strides on ensuring she has no mind whatsoever and that her life has no merit or importance, only his.
> 
> ...



And this stuff just suddenly happened? Or did the guy have a history of catting around before he got married? Did he suddenly be come possessive and abusive? Or did she just over look it and think he'd change after they were married?

I have NEVER seen a case where the offending spouse had not given warning signs. If the guy likes go out and get drunk every weekend he's a fun guy, until after marriage then he's a jerk for not wanting to stay home. If the guy got into a lot of fights, he was a tough guy; until after the marriage then he's a bully. If the guy has a car he's poured hundreds or thousands of dollars into he's cool; until after the marriage then he's irresponsible with money. 

I'm in the middle of a situation right now. The guy knocked up one girl and before that baby was even born he had knocked up a second girl. Now he is marrying the second girl. I figure in a year to 18 months his new wife will find out he's doing another girl. IMO, when she does she has no right to cry and whine because she knew what kind of guy he was before she got involved with him.

The only way a person doesn't know something like this is coming is if they marry quickly w/o taking the time to "get to know" someone because after all "we're in love, that's all we need". Unless there is brain trauma or mental illness people don't just suddenly change their personality.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> Please look up the source of "pell grants" - do not be surprised to find that some (if not many) look at them as a type of welfare - or at least a "government program" since they are funded by tax payers. Yep, government pays for college for "...people".


No, they dont pay for college for "....people". A pell grant doesn't cover college, not even CLOSE. Have you been through the program? Do you know what a pell grant covers and what it doesnt? I do. And there is no way that it comes even close to covering college costs.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Really? It takes two committed to their vows, to make a marriage work. And it takes two, who no longer wish to commit to their vows to divorce. There are rare instances where one fights to the bitter end NOT to get divorced. It is those, who should be cared for by The Church.


And what do you suggest for those that don't fight to the bitter end because they are escaping from hell? The ones that are getting their children away from someone that abuses and beats them? The ones that tried for 23 freaking years to"make it work" and hope it would get better, and have been made to feel less than an insect for all those years? All those women and children should live on the street and beg for food, right?

What about those that dont WANT to be cared for by a church, that dont believe the way YOU do. Just because you want to be taken care of by a church doesn't mean everyone else believes in your faith or wants to.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

watcher said:


> And this stuff just suddenly happened? Or did the guy have a history of catting around before he got married? Did he suddenly be come possessive and abusive? Or did she just over look it and think he'd change after they were married?
> 
> I have NEVER seen a case where the offending spouse had not given warning signs. If the guy likes go out and get drunk every weekend he's a fun guy, until after marriage then he's a jerk for not wanting to stay home. If the guy got into a lot of fights, he was a tough guy; until after the marriage then he's a bully. If the guy has a car he's poured hundreds or thousands of dollars into he's cool; until after the marriage then he's irresponsible with money.
> 
> The only way a person doesn't know something like this is coming is if they marry quickly w/o taking the time to "get to know" someone because after all "we're in love, that's all we need". Unless there is brain trauma or mental illness people don't just suddenly change their personality.


Baloney. My ex never even swore , never drank, never got in a fight, saved all his money, never spent frivolously, etc UNTIL we got married. I knew him a year first and there were NO signs.

These people are good actors. You have no idea.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> No, they dont pay for college for "....people". A pell grant doesn't cover college, not even CLOSE. Have you been through the program? Do you know what a pell grant covers and what it doesnt? I do. And there is no way that it comes even close to covering college costs.


Federal Pell Grant 
These federally funded grants help about 5.4 million full- and part-time college and vocational school students nationally.

Who is Eligible?
Students with family incomes up to $60,000 may be eligible for Pell Grants. However, most Pell awards go to students with family incomes below $30,000. There is no charge to apply for a Federal Pell Grant.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The point is not who deserves welfare but who needs it. I have known too many single women raising their children all by themselves without help. The sleaziness of a spouse is not a reason for welfare- it is not a rational thing to decide to get what you can elsewhere because someone "done you wrong." It's just an emotional response to feeling abused.
I remember several conversations with welfare mothers (I'm sure there are welfare fathers too- I just never talked to them,) in which I was told that society owes them money as they were raising a child and going to work would take time away from that, that the government should provide a college education so they could get off welfare with a decent paying job, and that others in their family paid lots in taxes so they felt they were only getting their won back. Never have I heard anything about what they should do to make their own situation better.
It is hard to raise children on your own- it is not fair that some father refuses to support his children, it is heartwrenching to see a pregnant 14 year old or drug addict. But none of that is justification for receiving welfare- the only reason welfare exists is that others are extending charity (however reluctantly.) Welfare is hardly every earned by the recipient. The only thing that makes it alright for those whose money is taken to pay out to others is when the recipient makes best use of the time it gives to improve their own situation. Then it feels that there is a reward to the person who pays- a sense of satisfaction.
But hardly ever are the words "thank you" ever expressed. Just endless "you don't understand" and "I have a right."


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> Federal Pell Grant
> These federally funded grants help about 5.4 million full- and part-time college and vocational school students nationally.
> 
> Who is Eligible?
> Students with family incomes up to $60,000 may be eligible for Pell Grants. However, most Pell awards go to students with family incomes below $30,000. There is no charge to apply for a Federal Pell Grant.



Yes, I know that...... I told you I have been through the program.

So where is your proof that it pays for college in full?


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Beeman said:


> You left out the part where the retirees came and raised the land values out of reach of the local working people. Also the fact that the factories that came only came seeking labor they could exploit and land,air and water they could pollute. Usually encouraged by local GOB that profitted from the land sale and promised to keep the workers uneducated.


Well I was trying to keep my post short. But they did mention all this too on the show I was watching. Many of them found theirselves being cheated or forcefully removed from their land due to greedy developers.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

blooba said:


> It is a ploy to get the conservative right saying, oh those poor wedlock single moms need some sort of assistance, lets pass some more welfare! And this time instead of having the states run welfare(like it should be) the Federal Government will. I choose not to live in CA for this reason. They give way too much welfare and way too much of it goes to illegals. If the federal government steps in and pays for it(which they do too much of already) I will have no choice in the matter.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> Federal Pell Grant
> These federally funded grants help about 5.4 million full- and part-time college and vocational school students nationally.
> 
> Who is Eligible?
> Students with family incomes up to $60,000 may be eligible for Pell Grants. However, most Pell awards go to students with family incomes below $30,000. There is no charge to apply for a Federal Pell Grant.



Here is a question for you - do you consider government subsidies given to farmers, as "welfare"?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

watcher said:


> And this stuff just suddenly happened? Or did the guy have a history of catting around before he got married? Did he suddenly be come possessive and abusive? Or did she just over look it and think he'd change after they were married?
> 
> I have NEVER seen a case where the offending spouse had not given warning signs. If the guy likes go out and get drunk every weekend he's a fun guy, until after marriage then he's a jerk for not wanting to stay home. If the guy got into a lot of fights, he was a tough guy; until after the marriage then he's a bully. If the guy has a car he's poured hundreds or thousands of dollars into he's cool; until after the marriage then he's irresponsible with money.
> 
> ...



You know that's not true. Laura herself says what age she was when married. When you know a person growing up they may not develop those habits yet. And quite frankly, the worst ones KNOW they won't get a wife if they show how they really are before the slavery papers are signed...oh, excuse me...before the ring is on the finger.

Personally, I got married like Laura. He grew up into something I would wind up being a "Mom" too, not a wife and I dumped him. Before there were any kids or anything.

He still took my 64 Impala and required a pay off in order to not drag my cat through custody battles! 

I did see the warning signs...after we were married...and I ditched him. He's still a dirtbag.

No one ever wants to admit that men, with rare exceptions, always want their cake and eat it too. They don't stay, they don't do their fair share in the house even when the spouse is the one doing the lion's share of the outside earning (with the time spent at work), they are more prone to violence and they cheat like marriage vows are just guidelines. 

You guys are all exceptions, I'm sure.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> so? what about it? thats not welfare..that just offsets what it costs to raise a child.
> 
> There is one tax EIC or the child tax that does NOT give you money in your pocket..it just offsets what you owe. I dont recall which it is...


The one your thinking of is the dependent deductions. You know the one that you claim 4 people or whatever. Which we should abolish also but thats another story.

Deductions can only tax your tax liability to 0, tax credits will actually take your tax liability into negative numbers so Uncle Sam pays you back more than you paid in. I.E. Child Tax Credits, Earned Income Credit. So yes it is too welfare.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> the working poor DO qualify for some benefits..foodstamps....wic..medicaid subsidised utilities, but it depends on how much they make.
> 
> I dont know how much welfare pays there but a family of four gets cash benefits of 350 a month here. and that will pay for what? ....AND you either have to be in an 8 hour work program (5 days a week) to get the cash or in college
> 
> subsidised housing? yeah..but who wants to live in a drug infested apartment building? shootings all the time..murders....its the lowest of the low. May as well live under the bridge.


When you pay 
$10/month rent
$5/month electric
get $500/month food stamps
free medicaid with $0 deductible
$1000/yr per child tax credit
And if they are working making min. wage with 4 kids they get another $5,000/yr EIC
why do you need any more cash than $350/month?

The majority of Section 8 houses are inspected for crime and maintenance and must be rebuilt every so many years. Most of them are better (although a little smaller) than my house. Definitely worth $10/mth. True there are a few where the state doesn't mandate they are kept up, mainly in big cities. They are probably owned by friends of the governors. 

And I've never seen any state that required a work program although I'm sure there maybe one.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Shygal said:


> The government did NOT pay for my college. I PAID for my college with pell grants , scholarships and student loans. They show you how to GET them, yes, and anyone could do it.
> 
> So stop saying government pays for college for people , it does NOT.


Pell Grants are the government for one.

Secondly, lol, well the government does pay 100% tuition. Not sure what the qualifications are exactly though. I'm glad you had to pay something at least. It makes it worth something to you. But sorry to burst your bubble but my brother and his wife are going to school for free at WVU all on the taxpayers dollar. She's been going to school for about 7 years now, first for nursing, now for finances(tax preparation). Neither of them have worked more than 30 days in a row in their lifetime and haven't worked for at least 10 years now(since their 2nd kid).


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Shygal said:


> Baloney. My ex never even swore , never drank, never got in a fight, saved all his money, never spent frivolously, etc UNTIL we got married. *I knew him a year first *and there were NO signs.
> 
> These people are good actors. You have no idea.





> I knew him a year first


 Ding,Ding,Ding, we have found the culprit. It takes longer than a year to really get to know someone!


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

NY state shouldn't be to far behind, they can't keep paying for all the social programs,state pensions and CSEA workers union.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Shygal said:


> Here is a question for you - do you consider government subsidies given to farmers, as "welfare"?


*YEP*

It definitely is welfare even though they are WORKING for it.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> They can come to New York!!!! Beautiful New York! Mountains, trees, lakes and a welfare system second to none! Where a small businessman like myself is a slave to the State! New YorK! We're busting our hump so you won't have to! Come on, see the falls! Down at social services I'TS ALWAYS CHRISTMAS!!!!!! (brought to you by the democratic party, vote democrat and vote often)


 Aren't you forgetting about Pataki giving into the unions?Both side have sold out NY tax payers.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

Any money given out by any town,county,state or the federal Gov is welfare money and giving it a name like grant,subsidie or what ever does not change it from being tax payers money.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

ChristyACB said:


> You know that's not true. Laura herself says what age she was when married. When you know a person growing up they may not develop those habits yet. And quite frankly, the worst ones KNOW they won't get a wife if they show how they really are before the slavery papers are signed...oh, excuse me...before the ring is on the finger.
> 
> Personally, I got married like Laura. He grew up into something I would wind up being a "Mom" too, not a wife and I dumped him. Before there were any kids or anything.
> 
> ...


Christy, does he still have that Impala? I'm looking for a 64 to add to my collection.:gaptooth:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

stranger said:


> Any money given out by any town,county,state of the federal Gov is welfare money and giving it a name like grant,subsidie or what ever does not change it from being tax payers money.


Thank you stranger. It's all becomes welfare after a point.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

blooba said:


> By the government paying for college for these poor "wedlock single mothers" It makes the cost of such education skyrocket and out of reach of the ones that normally would be able to afford to go. Why do you think education costs are skyrocketing (even in the middle of a recession/depression)?
> 
> If the government would step out of the education game the colleges would be able to charge more reasonable tuition and more people would be able to afford it! If the government was so worried about educating EVERYONE they would have a one time education tax credit applied evenly at the end of graduating. The current system is just another form of social engineering that is causing education inflation to skyrocket.
> 
> Look at the 2 largest inflation markets. Both have had government paying for the majority of the market for years. Healthcare and education. Think the inflation and the government payments are linked?


I agree w/gov't stepping out of a lot of things...
This time we're talking about getting folks off welfare. Gotta look long-term.
Do you want generations of welfare folks? Or do you want to assist someone in a hole who needs some education to be productive?
I guarantee if you are poor enuf, you'll get college help. Only if its food stamps during school.
Lets hear some better suggestions-other than continuing welfare forever. Or no help for single moms. I was divorced w/3 kids & THREE part-time jobs during college. Lets see someone get thru school like that.
I certainly agree w/trying to prevent the single mom situation in the 1st place, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.
Just heard that 42% of babies born are to single moms? That can't be right!!!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Then maybe* (unless the husband is abusive to her or the children)* she should have tried a little harder in the marriage commitment? There's a thought.


That is what I said.

Your comment:



> Yeah, she really needs to work on that marriage! Work on not minding while her husband pumps himself dry in other women and brings his filth home. Work really hard on covering up those bruises.


Slow down, and read what I said.

It is not 'mindless slavery' to honor your vows, and love your husband.
And I simply don't believe that 90% of divorces are caused by the husbands being scoundrels and their wives were at home being Donna Reed.
Sorry sis, just not buying that.
Too many man hating oprahs in the world..... Thanks N.O.W.!

It takes two.
Two to make the commitment.
Two to fulfill the commitment.
Two to break the commitment (only on rare occasions does one say NO to the bitter end)
You totally missed my point. You totally didn't read.



> And what do you suggest for those that don't fight to the bitter end because they are escaping from hell? The ones that are getting their children away from someone that abuses and beats them? The ones that tried for 23 freaking years to"make it work" and hope it would get better, and have been made to feel less than an insect for all those years? All those women and children should live on the street and beg for food, right?


Um, I said The Church should care for them......that is what I suggested......slow down and re read please.



> What about those that dont WANT to be cared for by a church, that dont believe the way YOU do. Just because you want to be taken care of by a church doesn't mean everyone else believes in your faith or wants to.


IF a person's foolish pride and sense of self enlightenment is stronger than the rumbling in their child's stomach, then they have bigger issues to deal with. 
THE Church was set up to show love. 
To care for those who are hurting, and in need.
Sounds pretty hostile huh?

Unfortunately the chruches today operate nothing like Scripture commands. They are big fat money making machines.....not following the Written Word, but doing what "they feel" is right. See what happens when "feelings" rule? Bad bad bad.

Slavery was abolished years ago, and I am not going to willingly slip my hands and feet into the cuffs of slavery by taking the 'governments' hand outs.........
No thanks. Not for me. 

Slow down and read what I wrote, not what you want to read.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> I agree w/gov't stepping out of a lot of things...
> This time we're talking about getting folks off welfare. Gotta look long-term.
> Do you want generations of welfare folks? Or do you want to assist someone in a hole who needs some education to be productive?
> I guarantee if you are poor enuf, you'll get college help. Only if its food stamps during school.
> ...


Yep that's right.

Well it's one thing to assist someone thru college, it's another to pay 100% and still support them. My Sister in law is on her 2nd degree and has no plans of stopping. I would think that there are plenty of jobs in nursing but no, she is now going for tax preparation. She is just trying to find all the tax loopholes so she doesn't have to pay someone to find them for her. I guess saving $100/yr is worth the government paying tens of thousands of dollars for her schooling, heck it'd be cheaper if we just paid for her tax filing fee.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> And this stuff just suddenly happened? Or did the guy have a history of catting around before he got married? Did he suddenly be come possessive and abusive? Or did she just over look it and think he'd change after they were married?


Thank you. On rare occasions, men do 'hide' their true colors until after the vows are taken. I have a friend that thought she was marrying prince charming, and on the wedding night, he showed his TRUE self.
It was scary......so she annulled. It was that scary. BUT BUT BUT.....again, rare case. Too many men / women want to 'rescue or change' the person and think that they are the ones that can do it.
Wrong.




> I have NEVER seen a case where the offending spouse had not given warning signs. If the guy likes go out and get drunk every weekend he's a fun guy, until after marriage then he's a jerk for not wanting to stay home. If the guy got into a lot of fights, he was a tough guy; until after the marriage then he's a bully. If the guy has a car he's poured hundreds or thousands of dollars into he's cool; until after the marriage then he's irresponsible with money.


Exactly. 99% of the time, a man or woman's poor behavior should not come as a shock. Unless you met them on line, and 2 months later, got married, and then found out that they are satan..... in which case it's your own stupid fault for rushing.



> I'm in the middle of a situation right now. The guy knocked up one girl and before that baby was even born he had knocked up a second girl. Now he is marrying the second girl. I figure in a year to 18 months his new wife will find out he's doing another girl. IMO, when she does she has no right to cry and whine because she knew what kind of guy he was before she got involved with him.


RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. And who pays for her poor choice?
The child. The tax payers.....



> The only way a person doesn't know something like this is coming is if they marry quickly w/o taking the time to "get to know" someone because after all "we're in love, that's all we need". Unless there is brain trauma or mental illness people don't just suddenly change their personality.


RIGHT.
Again those are the low percentage chances. 
People make poor choices then want to blame others for their mistakes.
Human, nature. Bleck.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> The government did NOT pay for my college. I PAID for my college with pell grants , scholarships and student loans. They show you how to GET them, yes, and anyone could do it.
> 
> So stop saying government pays for college for people , it does NOT.


Yup-me too. It was really tough. Took YEARS to pay off loans and sometimes grants are a couple hundred-helps but not for too long.

I don't want to discourage anyone from trying-it seems rough times can be tolerated when you know there's an end in sight. It takes a mindset of success, not dependency.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

blooba said:


> And I've never seen any state that required a work program although I'm sure there maybe one.


Hate to burst YOUR bubble , but Vermont does. You know, that socialist bleeding heart liberal state, requires a work program and has a LIFETIME limit of I believe 5 years, it MIGHT be 2 years, on welfare.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That is what I said.
> 
> Your comment:
> 
> ...


How about slowing down yourself and re read what YOU SAID. YOu said the ones that should be taken care of, are the ones that fight tooth and nail to KEEP THE MARRIAGE TOGETHER.


Laura Zone 5 said:


> IF a person's foolish pride and sense of self enlightenment is stronger than the rumbling in their child's stomach, then they have bigger issues to deal with.
> THE Church was set up to show love.
> To care for those who are hurting, and in need.
> Sounds pretty hostile huh?
> ...


Again, slow down and read what I wrote, not what you want to read. Im not a christian. I dont believe in your faith. Which church do you suggest I go to help for? How long before the churches are out of money?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> RIGHT.
> Again those are the low percentage chances.
> People make poor choices then want to blame others for their mistakes.
> Human, nature. Bleck.


I honestly think from your posts that you know very little, if nothing, about real human nature, or the reality of life.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

blooba said:


> I'm glad you had to pay something at least. It makes it worth something to you.


My nursing degree would mean something to me if I had to cash in bottle returns to pay for it, if I took out loans for it, if Donald Trump paid in full for it, or if all of you on HT donated a dollar to me to pay for it.

Not everyone looks at whether they should enjoy something or feel proud of something, by the amount of dollars spent on it, as you seem to.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Shygal said:


> How about slowing down yourself and re read what YOU SAID. YOu said the ones that should be taken care of, are the ones that fight tooth and nail to KEEP THE MARRIAGE TOGETHER.


Duh, that's what I meant.




> Again, slow down and read what I wrote, not what you want to read. Im not a christian. I dont believe in your faith. Which church do you suggest I go to help for? How long before the churches are out of money?


That's why I wrote:

*IF a person's foolish pride and sense of self enlightenment is stronger than the rumbling in their child's stomach, then they have bigger issues to deal with. *
THE Church was set up to show love. 
To care for those who are hurting, and in need.
Sounds pretty hostile huh?

Because you are not a Believer, you do not understand the idea of the Lord providing, so your question about 'when will the money run out' if I answered it, you wouldn't get because it would make no sense to you.
The short answer is this: it won't if it is God's Will.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Shygal said:


> I honestly think from your posts that you know very little, if nothing, about real human nature, or the reality of life.



Welcome to America where your opinion and freedom speech is welcome! Well, for now at least.......

Because you and I are so far apart in Belief, that is why you do not understand what I say. As a Believer in Christ, there are so many things that those who do not believe, simply don't understand.......I wish there was a way that I could make it make sense to you. But I cannot. :-(


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> Here is a question for you - do you consider government subsidies given to farmers, as "welfare"?


Key word there - subsidies. In the case of farmers it boils down to a little social engineering - while it is given to farmers, supposedly to benefit the public, it is still wrested from the tax payers and is paid out of "Barack Hussein Obama's stash" and is commonly known as WELFARE.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

blooba said:


> The one your thinking of is the dependent deductions. You know the one that you claim 4 people or whatever. Which we should abolish also but thats another story.
> 
> Deductions can only tax your tax liability to 0, tax credits will actually take your tax liability into negative numbers so Uncle Sam pays you back more than you paid in. I.E. Child Tax Credits, Earned Income Credit. So yes it is too welfare.


Very true. With EITC, it's possible to get back a check that exceeds your earned income, let alone any amount paid in income tax.

The amount received:

$5,657 for 3 children 
$5,028 for 2 children
$3,043 for 1 child

This is IN ADDITION TO standard deductions.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

When I worked in an inner-city health clinic in New Jersey (Trenton)..I was horrified at what I saw day after day after day..13 and 14 year old girls HAPPY to be pregnant..with their 29 year old moms happier still..5 generations of Welfare..each collecting money and services every month. 

14 year old with a new baby
29 year old Grandmother with 6 children of her own
44 year old GREAT-Grandmother with minor children
62 year old great-great-grandmother 

The state was paying huge amounts of tax dollars to these families..free medical care, monthly clothing allowance, ..not to mention that EACH mom got their own welfare check monthly..The great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother did the child care for all, while the younger women went about life as usual. 
One pregnant young girl of 13 said to me:
"How many children do you have?"
" Five"
"How many grandchildren?"
"None."
"WHAT? How old are your kids?"
"The oldest is 23 and my youngest is 14"
"And not a single grandchild yet? That's weird!"

That was in 1993..Surely by now, that 13 year old is a grandmother. 

IMHO, able-bodied people ought not to be supported by state tax dollars for having babies..and more babies..and more babies. There is NO incentive to change this.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> You know that's not true. Laura herself says what age she was when married. When you know a person growing up they may not develop those habits yet. And quite frankly, the worst ones KNOW they won't get a wife if they show how they really are before the slavery papers are signed...oh, excuse me...before the ring is on the finger.
> 
> Personally, I got married like Laura. He grew up into something I would wind up being a "Mom" too, not a wife and I dumped him. Before there were any kids or anything.
> 
> ...



So you are saying in the years before you married you nor anyone around you ever saw any of this in him? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. People don't drastically change, as you prove by your statement "He's still a dirtbag." If is is still a dirtbag it means he was a dirtbag when you were dating him and was a dirtbag when you married him. Take a few minutes to look back w/o all the emotions involved. Think about when you were dating. How many things can you see now that you over looked then because you vision was clouded by your emotions?

I've seen it over and over again. You have a person in love who refuses to see the real person. No matter what people tell them they just deny it. Usually after a few months of dating they start to see it but some times they jump into marriage before the emotion has worn off.

I have also seen when people who marry too young. They are still kids and find things fun. As they mature those fun things become irritating. Things like in brought up; going out drinking, spending money on his cool car and the like.





ChristyACB said:


> No one ever wants to admit that men, with rare exceptions, always want their cake and eat it too. They don't stay, they don't do their fair share in the house even when the spouse is the one doing the lion's share of the outside earning (with the time spent at work), they are more prone to violence and they cheat like marriage vows are just guidelines.
> 
> You guys are all exceptions, I'm sure.


There are two sides to the problem. There are men who want their cake and eat it too and then there are women who are willing to be cake. No one can take advantage of you unless you let them. How many women do you know who's husband cheated on them did it with a woman who KNEW he was married? In the situation I'm no longer involved with the second woman KNEW he was involved with and had impregnated the first woman before she got involved with the guy. Now do you really think a man like that is going to stay faithful to her? I don't and most people who will be honest don't yet the woman married him. She's was willing be be cake and in a few years, if not sooner, she will grow stale to him and he'll find him a fresh piece of cake. Who will be at fault?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I agree w/gov't stepping out of a lot of things...
> This time we're talking about getting folks off welfare. Gotta look long-term.
> Do you want generations of welfare folks? Or do you want to assist someone in a hole who needs some education to be productive?
> I guarantee if you are poor enuf, you'll get college help. Only if its food stamps during school.
> ...



Real simple solution. You set a life time limit on help and require the people to pay a percentage back. If they are in need of a safety net they get it, if they are looking for a hammock they don't. Also those who have gotten help should be more than eager to provide help to others.

Harsh but if you have used up your life time limit and still can't support your kids you might just be unfit to be a parent and you kids could be better off being removed from your attempt at care.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Here is a question for you - do you consider government subsidies given to farmers, as "welfare"?



Yup-and mostly its 'corporate welfare' b/c the majority goes to huge corporation farms.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Real simple solution. You set a life time limit on help and require the people to pay a percentage back. If they are in need of a safety net they get it, if they are looking for a hammock they don't. Also those who have gotten help should be more than eager to provide help to others.
> 
> Harsh but if you have used up your life time limit and still can't support your kids you might just be unfit to be a parent and you kids could be better off being removed from your attempt at care.


There is limits like this in place, problem is, too many push to that limit. 

Social workers hands are tied in most instances & all they can do is just give more $$$ or find another 'program'. Individual needs should be considered, like physical handicaps. 

Too much is given w/no means for payback. I remember thinking that I desparatily wanted to be off food stamps but when I graduated, I knew my taxes would skyrocket & there would be the 'payback'. IMHO, there should be some short term way to show you've paid back...volunteering? a small extra tax?


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

bostonlesley said:


> When I worked in an inner-city health clinic in New Jersey (Trenton)..I was horrified at what I saw day after day after day..13 and 14 year old girls HAPPY to be pregnant..with their 29 year old moms happier still..5 generations of Welfare..each collecting money and services every month.
> 
> 14 year old with a new baby
> 29 year old Grandmother with 6 children of her own
> ...


Thank you for your post! :bow: More proof that I'm not making things up! 

In multi-generational welfare families, you'll see pregnant girls as young as 12 years old.

And I share your sentiment: it IS horrifying.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

bostonlesley said:


> The state was paying huge amounts of tax dollars to these families..free medical care, monthly clothing allowance, ..not to mention that EACH mom got their own welfare check monthly.
> 
> IMHO, able-bodied people ought not to be supported by state tax dollars for having babies..and more babies..and more babies. There is NO incentive to change this.


Oh, and BTW, if you can find some sort of work you can do for a *few days a year*, you can get those humongous EITC checks. Not hard to get a part time job Christmas week, if nothing else.

And you know what they do when they get those checks? Party party party, and go on shopping sprees for expensive clothes and electronics until it's all gone.

*ETA: this post is specifically referring to multi-generational welfare families who are scamming the system.*


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Loquisimo said:


> Hang onto your preps:
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/14/2751461/schwarzenegger-budget-would-eliminate.html
> 
> Women with children *would have* their welfare, called CalWorks (the TANF benefit), 100% eliminated, along with child care being eliminated too, starting in October. These women's income would suddenly drop to zero, at the same time that there are no jobs and tons of unskilled workers (like single mothers) looking for work. What will they do? Who knows? They won't even have money to buy bus tickets to another state, as some of the comments on that article suggest.



key phrasing here... it will never happen


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup-and mostly its 'corporate welfare' b/c the majority goes to huge corporation farms.


Exactly


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Slugmar said:


> Before I met my wife she worked a fulltime job as a cna and went to school to get her LVN lic while raising two kids without any aid what so ever from there dad.
> 
> The only thing she need was some one to watch the kids some days and nights which her parents did.
> 
> Granted it would be easier but its not needed, no one person is better then anthor.


I was a single mom at 19..I worked three jobs during the summer and two in the fall while I went to school...I never received any assistance...I remember one of my friends suggesting it and I said.. that is for poor people..I had no idea I was poor just thought I was always broke. LOL..my family/friends helped when they could with watching my son. Yes it was hard.. _really hard.. _hungry for me so my kid could eat hard..pawn shop to pay an unusually high electric bill hard...but hey..life is suppose to be hard and even at times a struggle..but it does pay off...and all the rain eventually does stop and if you're blessed to be paying attention.. you will catch sight of the rainbow...


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

watcher said:


> So you are saying in the years before you married you nor anyone around you ever saw any of this in him? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. People don't drastically change, as you prove by your statement "He's still a dirtbag." If is is still a dirtbag it means he was a dirtbag when you were dating him and was a dirtbag when you married him. Take a few minutes to look back w/o all the emotions involved. Think about when you were dating. How many things can you see now that you over looked then because you vision was clouded by your emotions?
> 
> I've seen it over and over again. You have a person in love who refuses to see the real person. No matter what people tell them they just deny it. Usually after a few months of dating they start to see it but some times they jump into marriage before the emotion has worn off.
> 
> I have also seen when people who marry too young. They are still kids and find things fun. As they mature those fun things become irritating. Things like in brought up; going out drinking, spending money on his cool car and the like.


LOL...so funny. No, we dated for 10 years. But, umm...we were kids. He was a very popular, good looking, smart young man. Beautiful home, well kept room, neat and clean. Parents didn't want him to work and focus on studies so no job.

Of course, when you don't cohabitate first you don't necessarily find out that all the cleaning happened because of Mom and a maid. Believe me, I knew him. I just didn't know he wouldn't grow up ever.

Of course now when I look back as a jaded middle aged woman, I can see things. But unless you get the experience of them, they are awfully subtle. And, when faced with the inability to mature in a world that demanded he do just that, he got worse. It happens a lot! Coddling boys is one of the worst things a woman can do to a future daughter in law.




watcher said:


> There are two sides to the problem. There are men who want their cake and eat it too and then there are women who are willing to be cake. No one can take advantage of you unless you let them. How many women do you know who's husband cheated on them did it with a woman who KNEW he was married? In the situation I'm no longer involved with the second woman KNEW he was involved with and had impregnated the first woman before she got involved with the guy. Now do you really think a man like that is going to stay faithful to her? I don't and most people who will be honest don't yet the woman married him. She's was willing be be cake and in a few years, if not sooner, she will grow stale to him and he'll find him a fresh piece of cake. Who will be at fault?



Of course not. Which is why the very day I faced facts, I kicked him to the curb and he drove off in my beloved Impala. 

Don't confuse me with the simpering idiots who do this habitually. I'm formidable and not at all likely to fall for things like that. And I don't approve of welfare either...just so we're sure we're on the same page here. I'm pretty vociferously against it, even in the grocery store when I see people selling their groceries.

It is merely that the top reasons still stated for divorce (since no fault widely instituted in 1980s most of the info comes from studies rather than official paperwork) continue to be male infidelity, abuse, alchohol addition or substance abuse, financial instability (often cited as male controlled finances not going to the right places) and, of course, communication.

Until males understand, 100%, that marriage is not a license to be boss in a home and have their way all the time; that women are not servants; that the other partner is, in fact, a living intelligent being; we'll continue to have this problem of divorce at the rate in which we do.

More women initiate divorce now than men. While there are no firm, concrete, totally comprehensive studies that can absolutely tell you why because of the complicated nature of divorce, there is a trend. That trend is that as women become less fearful of consequences of standing up to males, they also won't put up with bad male behavior.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

shanzone2001 said:


> Illegals do not receive welfare, but once their "anchor babies" are old enough to reproduce then those children qualify. From my experience working in the city, it is the blacks and whites who are most dependent on the system. Many Hmong families receive government money as a "payback" for helping in Vietnam. There is a large population of Russians as well.


Migrant workers most certainly can receive welfare for the time they are here picking or whatever they do. They receive medicaid and food stamps, because they make so little picking. I worked as a volunteer at a migrant farm, helping the Mexicans, but quickly quit because they were doing better than my kids and I, and there was NO ONE helping me. There were guys with 'rims' on their pick ups. I know it sounds racist, but I don't mean to be, but there is something wrong when the migrants are doing better that the actual citizens. Please don't come back with anything negative, i worked two jobs AND my kids detasseled corn, so we are a hard working family. But, we NEVER got the breaks the migrants and illegals received. I even considered joining them in the cucumber field, but the guy only hired migrants.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> LOL...so funny. No, we dated for 10 years. But, umm...we were kids. He was a very popular, good looking, smart young man. Beautiful home, well kept room, neat and clean. Parents didn't want him to work and focus on studies so no job.
> 
> Of course, when you don't cohabitate first you don't necessarily find out that all the cleaning happened because of Mom and a maid. Believe me, I knew him. I just didn't know he wouldn't grow up ever.


I'm still having problems here. You dated him for 10 years and didn't know he had a maid?




ChristyACB said:


> Of course now when I look back as a jaded middle aged woman, I can see things. But unless you get the experience of them, they are awfully subtle. And, when faced with the inability to mature in a world that demanded he do just that, he got worse. It happens a lot! Coddling boys is one of the worst things a woman can do to a future daughter in law.


*You got that right* and it applies to coddling girls. It should be one of the biggest flashing red lights for a male or female. Its one of the things I tell young people to look at when dating. How does mommy and/or daddy treat him/her and how does he act around them. If someone expects mom to fix him a plate and bring it to him you can bet he's going to expect his wife to do the same. If daddy gives her everything she wants you can darn well expect she is going to expect her husband to do the same thing.

As for maturing. . .that's one of my points. Many people marry when they are still kids. They have NO idea what the real world is. Kids see something they think is cool and want it. Once they have it for a while they discover it isn't as much fun as they thought. Anyone with kids knows what I'm talking about. Just because someone is over 18 it doesn't mean they are mature. IMO, no one should marry until they have been out of school and on their own for at least two years. To do otherwise is like building with fresh cut lumber, you can't be real sure just which way its going to twist.

It can work out. My sister married when she was 15 and is still married (and its even the same guy :grin. I have a friend who was married at *14* and was married for almost 50 years before her husband was killed.






ChristyACB said:


> Of course not. Which is why the very day I faced facts, I kicked him to the curb and he drove off in my beloved Impala.
> 
> Don't confuse me with the simpering idiots who do this habitually. I'm formidable and not at all likely to fall for things like that. And I don't approve of welfare either...just so we're sure we're on the same page here. I'm pretty vociferously against it, even in the grocery store when I see people selling their groceries.


Good for you. Now go forth and share your wisdom with the young people of today. Think of the suffering you would have avoided if someone had sat you down and talked to you. As I tell them; you learn from your mistakes but its a lot easier and less painful to learn from the mistakes of others!




ChristyACB said:


> It is merely that the top reasons still stated for divorce (since no fault widely instituted in 1980s most of the info comes from studies rather than official paperwork) continue to be male infidelity, abuse, alchohol addition or substance abuse, financial instability (often cited as male controlled finances not going to the right places) and, of course, communication.


And I again state most of these women could have seen this coming before marriage if they had taken their time and looked. The reason for dating isn't to have fun, its to see if this person would make a good spouse for you. When we can drill this into the heads of men AND women we can reduce the number of divorces way down.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

That don't sound too good... Not that welfare is a very good program. If you're on it, you have to cheat the other gov programs to survive, since welfare gives you SQUAT to live on.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Hey, what about that Impala?


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

vickiesmom said:


> Migrant workers most certainly can receive welfare for the time they are here picking or whatever they do. They receive medicaid and food stamps, because they make so little picking. I worked as a volunteer at a migrant farm, helping the Mexicans, but quickly quit because they were doing better than my kids and I, and there was NO ONE helping me. There were guys with 'rims' on their pick ups. I know it sounds racist, but I don't mean to be, but there is something wrong when the migrants are doing better that the actual citizens. Please don't come back with anything negative, i worked two jobs AND my kids detasseled corn, so we are a hard working family. But, we NEVER got the breaks the migrants and illegals received. I even considered joining them in the cucumber field, but the guy only hired migrants.


Being migrant does not mean you are illegal. Yes, if they are citizens, they can receive welfare and state subsidies.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

bowdonkey said:


> Hey, what about that Impala?


Let it go........she did. :bdh:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Duh, that's what I meant.


Ah, "Duh", that is a very adult comeback.
Again, I will say to READ WHAT I WROTE, not what you think I wrote. I asked you what about the ones that DONT fight tooth and nail because they want to get out of the marriage so desperately. So "Duh", you did not read my post very slowly and carefully, did you?
What about them?



Laura Zone 5 said:


> That's why I wrote:
> 
> *IF a person's foolish pride and sense of self enlightenment is stronger than the rumbling in their child's stomach, then they have bigger issues to deal with. *
> THE Church was set up to show love.
> ...


So in other words, you have no idea whatsoever, and WHATEVER happens, you will explain it away with it being "Gods will". Got it. :huh:

Let me ask you this. If you were in need of help, would you turn to a Pagan group to help you and your children, if you did not believe in what they believed in? Would you turn to a scientologist group for help, if you did not believe in what they believe in?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

ladycat said:


> Oh, and BTW, if you can find some sort of work you can do for a *few days a year*, you can get those humongous EITC checks. Not hard to get a part time job Christmas week, if nothing else.
> 
> And you know what they do when they get those checks? Party party party, and go on shopping sprees for expensive clothes and electronics until it's all gone.


No, "they" all don't do that.

When I was married to my ex, we made little enough to get the EIC. We used it towards bills and food until it ran out.

Don't lump everyone into the same pile.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Shygal said:


> Ah, "Duh", that is a very adult comeback.
> Again, I will say to READ WHAT I WROTE, not what you think I wrote. I asked you what about the ones that DONT fight tooth and nail because they want to get out of the marriage so desperately. So "Duh", you did not read my post very slowly and carefully, did you?
> What about them?


Arguing for the sake of arguing is not very adult either. 

"What about the ones that do not fight for their marriage?"
*(for reasons other than abuse)*
They need to get a job. Or two. Move in with their family until they get on their feet. I have gf's who have done just that. I have seen it done so don't tell me it's 'cruel and impossible'.They did it WITHOUT welfare or little/infrequent/ no child support. It is not impossible.



> So in other words, you have no idea whatsoever, and WHATEVER happens, you will explain it away with it being "Gods will". Got it. :huh:


No. See, you do not Believe so you do not understand. I will not cast my Pearls to you any longer.



> Let me ask you this. If you were in need of help, would you turn to a Pagan group to help you and your children, if you did not believe in what they believed in? Would you turn to a scientologist group for help, if you did not believe in what they believe in?


No. No. No.
I am a Child of God. He will provide.
But this is something that you will not understand because you do not Believe. That's ok. 
I don't understand how you would NOT take from God's People, any more than you do not understand me......really, that's ok.
But I am not going to argue with you anymore.:kiss:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> No. See, you do not Believe so you do not understand. I will not cast my Pearls to you any longer.
> 
> No. No. No.
> I am a Child of God. He will provide.
> ...


Yes, infer I am a swine and bow out, because you really can't answer me. You present yourself as God's People, but your actions contradict your claims. Infer someone is a swine, is beneath you, speak condescendingly and give me a pat on the head because "there there, you dont understand and thats ok", thats the attitude I get from a whole lot of people that constantly proclaim how christian they are.

By the way I was christian for 40 years, I "get it". I "get" what you are told over and over. Its why I am no longer a Christian, because there are way too many of that type of "christian" in Christianity. There are many good ones, a lot of them post here, but that is the attitude that turns people away, and that is why I would not take from "Gods People" like that.

And guess what, I am one of God's people, even if I don't believe in your faith.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Laura - watching something and living through it are two vastly different things.

And I consider myself a Christian, just not of the same variety as what appears on this thread - I hope.

Shygal - while we don't agree on much - please ignore the inexperienced of living through something such as this - and keep on going.

I do find many of the posts on this thread assume a lot by folks that have not lived through it.

and you can not know someone, even when having lived with them for 13 years of marriage - things you were never exposed to as a child/adult so you'd not know the signs. Or that you were brought up to think threats of violence was the norm in a marriage and was astonished when you learned there was life without it. Then the true revealing of a person comes after the divorce papers were filed. Took a couple years or more for government investigating him and asking/telling me things for me to realize what the signs were during the marriage. - 

Angie


----------



## Va. goatman (May 12, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Did you ever think that in time, maybe cutting welfare would be the best thing for America? Was watching a history channel about the Appilachian mountain people. During the 1800's they did fine supporting theirselves by making their own living, which was mostly off the land they lived on. During the 1900's, they became more dependant on welfare and less on the land they lived on. They was showing how a family would raise gardens, wheat fields, fruit orchards, harvest wild edibles and had very little need for money. But during the 1900's most families started depending on jobs to buy all their needs and then with the loss of jobs and the introduction of welfare, they no longer know how to take care of theirselves like they once did.


This is so true I live in SW Va and I've seen it go this way in my lifetime I can remember in the 60s when I was a kid a lot of people still lived off the land here and my dad told me how they grew up they needed very little from the store in town


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Laura - watching something and living through it are two vastly different things.


I totally agree Angie. 
Maybe one who has lived through it as a child, finds a deep resolve to commitment to God and Vows when they are adults? Maybe one who lived through it as a child, finds a deeper commitment to their own children not to repeat the mistakes of their elders?




> And I consider myself a Christian, just not of the same variety as what appears on this thread - I hope.


I am a Believer of Christ, His Word, and His Ways. I can give Scripture after Scripture that addresses this very issue. I clearly spelled out all answers to each question. Next time, I will include all Scripture references.




> Shygal - while we don't agree on much - please ignore the inexperienced of living through something such as this - and keep on going.
> 
> I do find many of the posts on this thread assume a lot by folks that have not lived through it.


You assume. And as 'unfair' as you think 'the inexperienced' are being in their comments, you too, are being 'unfair' in your 'assumption' that they have not lived through it. Maybe they just don't want to 'air out' those personal details?



> and you can not know someone, even when having lived with them for 13 years of marriage - things you were never exposed to as a child/adult so you'd not know the signs. Or that you were brought up to think threats of violence was the norm in a marriage and was astonished when you learned there was life without it. Then the true revealing of a person comes after the divorce papers were filed. Took a couple years or more for government investigating him and asking/telling me things for me to realize what the signs were during the marriage.


Right. If you were raised up in a home of abuse, it looks 'normal'. I get that.
If you were raised up in a home of alcoholics, that looks "normal". I get that too.

Personally, these incidents are not what I was referring too in my posts.
I was speaking of women, who either DON'T get married, and crank out babies then suck the welfare system dry..........OR...........women who know full well when they walk into a relationship that is bad from the start, crank out babies, then hit the road and suck the welfare system dry...........OR............women who just 'give up', 'get bored', or 'quit trying' and divorce and suck the system dry.

I was talking about women who wear their "single mom give me something" badges of honor. I am talking about the give me something free cause I have babies type of women.

I am not, and I think I made that clear when I bold typed and colored it red, talking about abused women. 

*deep sigh*


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

I don`t get in on these threads very often but I have to give my two cents worth. The gravy train should have come to a halt a long time ago. Not a person out there should get a dime without having to do something for it ( unless you are disabled completly). People need to work for what they get be it something as menial as picking up trash in a park, washing windows at Government buildings, watching kids(day care) for the other mothers,cooking meals for the homeless, growing a garden in town,picking up garbage in town, sweeping streets, just doing something to know that they are making a contribution for the overall betterment of this great country. I will gladly feed someone for some extra help around here sometimes. The system has been broken for a long time, and it needs to be fixed soon or the money will dry up, and soon, we can`t keep doleing out money we don`t have. I know myself that I feel much better keeping busy, than I do just sitting doing nothing (happens rarely). As my grandma always said " Idle hands are the devils workshop" I think she was right. > Thanks Marc


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2010)

Shygal said:


> No, "they" all don't do that.
> 
> When I was married to my ex, we made little enough to get the EIC. We used it towards bills and food until it ran out.
> 
> Don't lump everyone into the same pile.


The "they" I was posting about are the multi-generational welfare families who are scamming the system.

I'm the last person to lump everyone in one pile.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> I am not, and I think I made that clear when I bold typed and colored it red, talking about abused women.


Nope - not clear at all. Not to me, but good to know you're talking about the professional welfare folks and not the one's that have had dreams dashed, hope killed, belief bashed, and trying efforts done until there are no more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Yes, infer I am a swine and bow out, because you really can't answer me. You present yourself as God's People, but your actions contradict your claims. Infer someone is a swine, is beneath you, speak condescendingly and give me a pat on the head because "there there, you dont understand and thats ok", thats the attitude I get from a whole lot of people that constantly proclaim how christian they are.
> 
> By the way I was christian for 40 years, I "get it". I "get" what you are told over and over. Its why I am no longer a Christian, because there are way too many of that type of "christian" in Christianity. There are many good ones, a lot of them post here, but that is the attitude that turns people away, and that is why I would not take from "Gods People" like that.
> 
> And guess what, I am one of God's people, even if I don't believe in your faith.


I haven't been following the thread and I have to leave for town in a few minutes but I wanted to drop in here. There are a lot of people who claim the name of Christ who will not make it into Heaven, the Bible tells us that. This means there are a lot of people who say they are Christians who are not. Therefore you can't judge Christianity based on people who say they are Christians, you must judge it based on what the Bible says. 

The example I use all the time is (are?) the white supremacist groups who claim to be Bible following Christians yet preach against Jews. They get their nickers in a knot when I point out to them if Christ appeared outside their door they would have to forbid him entry because Christ was a Jew.

As for being called a swine. As Christians we are told if we tell someone about Christ and that person hears but refuses to believe we have done what is expected of us. Then we are told, basically, to stop wasting our time and move on. Time which could be better used telling another person who maybe open to the message. No one can make another person accept or reject God, its up to that person and God to do that.

I look at it this way. If you are an adult and I see you doing something which could result in you being hurt I feel I have a moral obligation to point the danger out to you. If you tell me to push off, I'll leave because I've done my moral duty. If you get hurt now its your own fault and I'll feel no guilt about it.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

ladycat said:


> The "they" I was posting about are the multi-generational welfare families who are scamming the system.
> 
> I'm the last person to lump everyone in one pile.



Ok fair enough. Its a bit of a sore subject to me because a lot of people think that when someone needs a hand up, they are abusing it somehow


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

My 6th graders no longer go to science camp.
Several parents could not afford it and were given a scholarship. (We purposely chose working parents who did try to help themselves).
Other parents heard about it and wanted their child to go for free, too.
Now nobody goes.

Same problem in CA. There is a subgroup of people who will get anything and everything they can for free. It is their right and they are owed it. Heaven forbid someone else gets something that THEY didn't get.
Now the system is failing and possibly nobody will get help.

What was meant to be temporary assistance was turned into a permanent lifestyle of collecting something for nothing.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> I haven't been following the thread and I have to leave for town in a few minutes but I wanted to drop in here. There are a lot of people who claim the name of Christ who will not make it into Heaven, the Bible tells us that. This means there are a lot of people who say they are Christians who are not. Therefore you can't judge Christianity based on people who say they are Christians, you must judge it based on what the Bible says.
> 
> The example I use all the time is (are?) the white supremacist groups who claim to be Bible following Christians yet preach against Jews. They get their nickers in a knot when I point out to them if Christ appeared outside their door they would have to forbid him entry because Christ was a Jew.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I just thought I'd bring out a statistic for everyone. There seems to be a bit of lumping going on here. The impression that is coming across to (it appears) a good portion of us here, is that Christian=Good=Moral=No Divorce and everything else is just swine rooting around in the leavings of their superiority.

This is from the Barna Research Group. Widely used and even more widely quoted by evangelicals as they focus on culture as it intersects with spirituality, specifically Christian.

Their own research showed that Atheists have the lowest divorce rate. Yep. Lowest. By a very small margin.

The highest....Born Again Christians...


http://www.barna.org/barna-update/a...-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

And some more fun numbers.

This is from the Census information dated 2007, issued in November of 2009.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf
Of particular note, (though the whole thing is super interesting) is that 82.6% of kids were with a mother as custodial parent and 17.4% with fathers. Between 1993 the percent of mothers that received the full amount of child support (self reporting here) rose from 36.8% to 47.1%. The percent of fathers who received their full child support went from 37.2% to 45.0%. Approximately the same if you include sampling error.

Now, consider the numbers.

While the percentages are the same the total numbers are vastly different. There are a total of 21.8 million children living in custodial single parent homes. 

82.6% * 21.8 million = 18,006,800 children with mom
18,006,800 * 47.1% = 8,481,202.8 who are getting all their child support
9,525,597.2 children living with mom are NOT getting all their child support

17.4% * 21.8 million = 3,793,200 children with dad
3,793,200 * 45.0% = 1,706,940 who are getting all their child support
2,086,260 children living with dad are NOT getting child support

When you consider that a certain number will be in prison, a certain number will have abandoned the family and a certain number will be indigent then that leaves an overwhelming number of WOMEN who are left without support for children when divorced.

Nine and a half versus a little over 2 million. You do the math on who will be the one left needing help.

While I repeat...repeat...that I do NOT support welfare as it is and am active in my resistance to these widely abused programs, I think facing facts is also a good thing. Women are almost always left holding the bag. Always have been, always will.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2010)

Shygal said:


> Its a bit of a sore subject to me because a lot of people think that when someone needs a hand up, they are abusing it somehow


Me too! 

I've seen BOTH sides of the issue, and I myself have been a recipient of food stamps and other types of help several times. I don't like being judged for it, and I can't stand seeing deserving people misaligned just because they need a hand up.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

ChristyACB said:


> Their own research showed that Atheists have the lowest divorce rate. Yep. Lowest. By a very small margin.
> 
> The highest....Born Again Christians...
> 
> ...


Christy, thanks for the link. An interesting study.

However, it looks like the faith-identified group with the highest incidence of divorce (according to the article) is not born-again Christians but those with a non-Christian faith.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

cindy71 said:


> I don't know Texas law on welfare but here in Alabama women can get welfare as long as the children are under 18. Now as for being to age 5 that would be the case with WIC. As long as the children are 18 and younger they can get (all based on income and size of family) child care, food stamps, free lunch, free or discounted housing, Medicaid, help with utilities, Pell Grants for school and in some cases free transpartion. I am sure there is more but I can not think of all of them. Then you have the charities that provide things. If you took 2 families the same size 1 family qualifies for all the above and add it together with their income and then take the other families income that is just above the qualifing amount and subtracted all what they had to pay for their incomes would look almost the same. I wonder which family will be complain the most that they don't have.


Hold On! Free lunches, discounted lunches, pell grants have nothing to do with welfare. In fact I would believe that most of the people on this board would qualify for each of these thing. We have people in West Bloomfield who get their utilities. Help is there for everyone, let us not say things that just are not true. If you don't know, you really should look at the income qualifications before just spouting off things.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

*welÂ·fare*

1.the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. 

2.*financial or other assistance to an individual or family* from a city, state, or national government.

3.(initial capital letter







) Informal. *a governmental agency that provides funds and aid* to people in_ perceived or real_ need, esp. those unable _or unwilling_ to work. 

4.*on welfare, receiving financial aid from the government *or from a private organization because of _perceived or real _hardship and need.

Cultural Dictionary
*welfare definition*


*Government-provided support* for those unable _or unwilling_ to support themselves. In the United States, it is undertaken by *various federal, state, and local agencies under the auspices of different programs, *the best known of which are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

ladycat said:


> Me too!
> 
> I've seen BOTH sides of the issue, and I myself have been a recipient of food stamps and other types of help several times. I don't like being judged for it, and I can't stand seeing deserving people misaligned just because they need a hand up.


Me too and I do not apologize for it. The programs were put into place because whites were starving during the Depression, which would have made a couple of generations able to survive on the program. People can hide in anonymity on the computer, but I think that if we could peek into their houses, you would find government cheese and other provisions supported by the 'welfare system'.

That is what I find amusing. There is always a race undertone when people speak about welfare. From the Freedman's bureau to present, there has never been a program that has solely been for blacks. White Appalachians were saved by the welfare program. If you feel blacks are receiving more welfare than whites, perhaps you should look into your community and see what programs could be used to help them move into the workforce.

If you hire migrant workers, you could hire young blacks. Granted you might have to spend a little time on instruction, the federal government has made blacks in agriculture as scarce as hen's teeth. My kids worked on a corn field, and loved it although they said it was the hardest, nastiest work ever. 

Please don't complain about people living off of welfare, or other programs. When you have a government who really has no imagination or creativity in putting these people to work and find it easier to just give them enough to keep them from dying in the streets, it is the fault of the government, not the recipient.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

vickiesmom said:


> Me too and I do not apologize for it. The programs were put into place because whites were starving during the Depression, which would have made a couple of generations able to survive on the program. People can hide in anonymity on the computer, but I think that if we could peek into their houses, you would find government cheese and other provisions supported by the 'welfare system'.


 Nope, I receive no welfare. Never have, never will. No Pell grants put me through college. No food stamps. I don't qualify for them because I don't have any kids. If I popped out a few kids I would qualify in a heartbeat but I have no kids because I know I cannot afford them without welfare. 


vickiesmom said:


> That is what I find amusing. There is always a race undertone when people speak about welfare. From the Freedman's bureau to present, there has never been a program that has solely been for blacks. White Appalachians were saved by the welfare program. If you feel blacks are receiving more welfare than whites, perhaps you should look into your community and see what programs could be used to help them move into the workforce.


 Nobody has mentioned anything about race until you brought it up. But since you want to make this a black/white issue, I will. 
61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black 
79 percent of the population is White , while only 12 percent are Black

I see lots of Black Colleges getting Federal dollars.
I see the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People getting Federal Dollars.
I *DON'T* see the Ku Klux Klan getting Federal Dollars.
I *DON'T* see White Colleges, let alone getting Federal Dollars. 
Shall I continue?


vickiesmom said:


> If you hire migrant workers, you could hire young blacks. Granted you might have to spend a little time on instruction, the federal government has made blacks in agriculture as scarce as hen's teeth. My kids worked on a corn field, and loved it although they said it was the hardest, nastiest work ever.
> 
> Please don't complain about people living off of welfare, or other programs. When you have a government who really has no imagination or creativity in putting these people to work and find it easier to just give them enough to keep them from dying in the streets, it is the fault of the government, not the recipient.


Would you like the government to wipe after you goto the bathroom also? 
It is not up to the government to do everything for you. It's up to the person to do it themselves. Did the government give me a job? Nope, after the government lost all the jobs in Ohio *I* relocated and found another job. You have just as many opportunities (if not more, thanks to AA) than me. There is *NO* excuse!

I would like to know how the government has made blacks in the field scarce? The only thing I can think of is the creation of WELFARE.

It is all in their individual heads that you cannot be caught in a field because thats too much like the slavery days so instead they would rather sit back doing nothing collecting welfare. Your kids worked in the fields, there's no field police keeping blacks off the farms. There is *NO* excuse!

FYI: I am NOT racist. I just believe that WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, should be treated equal unlike others who think the blacks should be treated special.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> FYI: I am NOT racist. I just believe that WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, should be treated equal unlike others who think the blacks should be treated special.


Amen.
I am part of the HUMAN race. 
The level of pigment God Blessed me with should not grant me favors, or treat me as a lesser person.
All of us in the HUMAN Race bleed the same color.
Red.
Get over it already.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

blooba said:


> Nope, I receive no welfare. Never have, never will. No Pell grants put me through college. No food stamps. I don't qualify for them because I don't have any kids. If I popped out a few kids I would qualify in a heartbeat but I have no kids because I know I cannot afford them without welfare.
> Nobody has mentioned anything about race until you brought it up. But since you want to make this a black/white issue, I will.
> 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black
> 79 percent of the population is White , while only 12 percent are Black
> ...



Well, I am glad you are proud of the KKK, and that you are not racist If America was this great country that you wave your dandy flag about, there would be no need for the NAACP or Affirmative Action, which I am guessing you couldn't spell....


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Amen.
> I am part of the HUMAN race.
> The level of pigment God Blessed me with should not grant me favors, or treat me as a lesser person.
> All of us in the HUMAN Race bleed the same color.
> ...


Which all began because of a black man and woman in Africa...:bow:


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

vickiesmom said:


> Well, I am glad you are proud of the KKK, and that you are not racist If America was this great country that you wave your dandy flag about, there would be no need for the NAACP or Affirmative Action, which I am guessing you couldn't spell....


No, I'm not proud of the KKK, nor am I proud of NAACP. Neither should be around and both are racist groups.I would like to know what makes the NAACP so special? The KKK is frowned upon by the general public and the NAACP should be also. There is no need for either of them nor affirmative action. If you don't like the way it is here in the U.S.A. you can go back to Africa, since you are so proud of your African Heritage.Nobody's forcing you to stay in this country or out of the farmers fields. My descendants were Irish although you don't see a National Association for the Advancement of Irish People.

If I sat here and said we should make a separate welfare program for whites I would be a racist. What makes what you said any different?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

vickiesmom said:


> Well, I am glad you are proud of the KKK, and that you are not racist If America was this great country that you wave your dandy flag about, there would be no need for the NAACP or Affirmative Action, which I am guessing you couldn't spell....


Geez, what a contortion of the words!!


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

vickiesmom said:


> If you feel blacks are receiving more welfare than whites, perhaps you should look into your community and see what programs could be used to help them move into the workforce.
> 
> If you hire migrant workers, you could hire young blacks. Granted you might have to spend a little time on instruction, the federal government has made blacks in agriculture as scarce as hen's teeth.
> 
> Please don't complain about people living off of welfare, or other programs. When you have a government who really has no imagination or creativity in putting these people to work and find it easier to just give them enough to keep them from dying in the streets, *it is the fault of the government, not the recipient.*




Where do you get the notion that it is the government's responsibility to get blacks in agriculture? Since when is it the government's responsibility to put people to work. Give me a break. If people want to work, they will work.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

vickiesmom said:


> Me too and I do not apologize for it. The programs were put into place because whites were starving during the Depression, which would have made a couple of generations able to survive on the program. People can hide in anonymity on the computer, but I think that if we could peek into their houses, you would find government cheese and other provisions supported by the 'welfare system'.
> 
> That is what I find amusing. There is always a race undertone when people speak about welfare. From the Freedman's bureau to present, there has never been a program that has solely been for blacks. White Appalachians were saved by the welfare program. If you feel blacks are receiving more welfare than whites, perhaps you should look into your community and see what programs could be used to help them move into the workforce.
> 
> ...


IMHO that is a very racist comment. Are you saying the blacks don't have the ability to look for a job? That they need someone to hold their hands and guide them to do something that simple? Instead why don't they help each other?


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Ambereyes said:


> IMHO that is a very racist comment. Are you saying the blacks don't have the ability to look for a job? That they need someone to hold their hands and guide them to do something that simple? Instead why don't they help each other?


I think that is what she is saying. Apparently it is the government's job to contact them and find them employment. 
And the entitlement cycle continues...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

She has it set in her mind what she wants to believe and she is more than likely impressing this hate into her children so that they will pass it along.
I have not read ONE Thread where ANYONE can communicate with this woman.
It is sad......sad to be so full of hate and rage......sad to be so empty and lost......sad to be so closed minded.

I am the first one to say "don't open your mind too much or your brain will fall out".
But, she is not open, at all. Hate has sealed her shut.
I wish I could spend a day with her, letting her know that she is important, that she has purpose. And that she is raising the next generation, and how she does it will determine their happiness or their misery......

Poor thing.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> She has it set in her mind what she wants to believe and she is more than likely impressing this hate into her children so that they will pass it along.
> I have not read ONE Thread where ANYONE can communicate with this woman.
> It is sad......sad to be so full of hate and rage......sad to be so empty and lost......sad to be so closed minded.
> 
> ...


Laura, you are so kind. Unfortunately, my ability to have empathy for people like her has long run out. Some people will always be the victim and blame others for their problems.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

vickiesmom said:


> Which all began because of a black man and woman in Africa...:bow:


Actually, the idea is that the first human proto humans were far more hairy and probably had the greyish skin often seen on hair bearing primates.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> She has it set in her mind what she wants to believe and she is more than likely impressing this hate into her children so that they will pass it along.
> I have not read ONE Thread where ANYONE can communicate with this woman.
> It is sad......sad to be so full of hate and rage......sad to be so empty and lost......sad to be so closed minded.
> 
> ...


Wow...... Judgemental and condescending all in the same post. It must be a real burden on you to be so right and perfect.

And you think this is bringing love and hope to people? Wow....


----------



## SpaceCadet12364 (Apr 27, 2003)

shanzone2001 said:


> My 6th graders no longer go to science camp.
> Several parents could not afford it and were given a scholarship. (We purposely chose working parents who did try to help themselves).
> Other parents heard about it and wanted their child to go for free, too.
> Now nobody goes.


This year, at a music competition, there were some posters up about some trip program. Got to talking with one of the other adults, turns out he was a teacher at one of the competing high schools. In many areas, especially where you have a greater number of lower income families (like the school this guy teaches at), schools have stopped having enrichment programs where there might be an organized trip to somewhere further away or maybe even overseas. Because the lower income families demand that their children should get to go for free. 

Our child, I know there are things that she would like to be able to do, but she luckily is levelheaded enough to understand that you just can't necessarily get to do everything that other kids that are in better-off-financially families get to do. I guess you can say we are middle class, she gets to do some stuff extra....more than some kids, not as much as others. Until things improve financially for us, thats the way its going to be. We do what we can for her......and that is part of the reason we only have the one.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Wow...... Judgemental and condescending all in the same post. It must be a real burden on you to be so right and perfect.
> 
> And you think this is bringing love and hope to people? Wow....


LOL!!!!!! You know, I don't care what these people think or say about me,or my race. We are here and we aren't going anywhere. My point was, if they donot like the programs the government has now, change them. As I have said before, there has NEVER been a government program made that hasn't benefited whites as well as blacks. Welfare was not developed for blacks, Affirmative Action helped white women as well as black people. While poor white folks are arguing about what poor black folks are getting, the top one percent are laughing all the way to the bank, so cry about folks getting food stamps...the wealthy are still taking your tax dollars and sending it over seas to make other brown skinned wealthier than you will ever be...in their own countries even!!!


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Ambereyes said:


> IMHO that is a very racist comment. Are you saying the blacks don't have the ability to look for a job? That they need someone to hold their hands and guide them to do something that simple? Instead why don't they help each other?


Oh yeah, like you are protecting the blacks?!? When ever we try to help one another you cry foul and it has to be opened up to everyone. Like the poor white boy who couldn't make the grade to an ivy league school and went to court and tried to get in using affirmative action...puh leeze.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

How can we change anything, since the .gov could care less what "we the people" have to say? Health, forgoing the constitution, basically deserting our soldiers... CHANGE IT BACK! 
Matt
BTW, as much as I respect our government, as it was proposed, I have very little faith in it's ability today.


----------



## vickiesmom (Feb 25, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> She has it set in her mind what she wants to believe and she is more than likely impressing this hate into her children so that they will pass it along.
> I have not read ONE Thread where ANYONE can communicate with this woman.
> It is sad......sad to be so full of hate and rage......sad to be so empty and lost......sad to be so closed minded.
> 
> ...



Aw missy, dis huh woman sho iz glad ya'll can reads ma mind and tells me whut i's thinkin'.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

vickiesmom said:


> Aw missy, dis huh woman sho iz glad ya'll can reads ma mind and tells me whut i's thinkin'.


Typical...
Matt


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

vickiesmom said:


> Aw missy, dis huh woman sho iz glad ya'll can reads ma mind and tells me whut i's thinkin'.


Gee, you really earned respect with that comment! If you are representing the black population, you are doing them a disservice!!!

Laura...this is a perfect example of why I no longer have empathy for people who live with a chip on their shoulder. This woman is the epitomy of the "blame game" and will never be satisfied until all white people apologize for being white.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

vickiesmom said:


> LOL!!!!!! You know, I don't care what these people think or say about me,or my race.QUOTE]
> 
> So why do you keep posting defensive statements???? Just have to play the race card, don't you?


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Entitlement...?
Matt
Sorry, just :stirpot: . Some just don't see it...


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2010)

shanzone2001 said:


> Gee, you really earned respect with that comment! If you are representing the black population, you are doing them a disservice!!!


I agree. And there was nothing whatsoever racist about this topic until vickiesmom herself injected the subject.


----------

