Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:18:37p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>> 5.247:
>>
>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>>>> 5.247:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't
>>>>>> get a job?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>>>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>>>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
>>>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to
>>>> those who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their
>>>> child is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be
>>>> disallowed from having children?
>>>
>>> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
>>> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no
>>> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the
>>> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that
>>> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children.
>>>
>>
>> You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think
>> that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because
>> their parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in
>> the home of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the
>> government for their efforts, is better for that child.
>
> Actually, I know quite a lot about the foster care system, as I work
> for a not-for-profit mental health agency and I see similar situations
> all the time. I would rather see foster parents receive the
> government benefits than the parents who *refuse* to work. They
> clearly do not deserve the beneefits. I have no further comment on
> that situation.
>

Of course, you won't define "refuse to work". Are you aware of how
expensive childcare is? If you're making a thousand dollars a month, and
half or more goes to childcare, what are you supposed to live on?

>>>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find
>>>> another with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I
>>>> have family who would either help me out financially until I could
>>>> find a comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my
>>>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid.
>>>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be
>>>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that
>>>> people who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond
>>>> their control, should have their children taken from them, is
>>>> horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ?
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many
>>> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls
>>> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These
>>> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while
>>> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get
>>> on with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any
>>> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an
>>> expected way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I
>>> don't give a damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare
>>> families" should most definitely have their kids removed. They
>>> might think twice about having another eight kids, since they
>>> wouldn't be receiving benefits for them. Sometimes horrific
>>> measures are necessary.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>>
>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>
> The difference is, if the parent(s) are working for wages that are
> inadequate, they deserve to receive benefits to supplement what they
> need. Those who *won't* work deserve nothing. There's a huge
> difference between trying and making absolutely no effort. I have no
> further comment on that situation. either.
>

The catch 22 here is that a family can have both parents working, not be
able to pay their bills, but be making "too much" money to qualify for
assistance.

>>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
>>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
>>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>>
>> All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation
>> than most. Give yourself a pat on the back there.
>
> Bullshit! I desparately needed help and couldn't get it. Just
> because I had previously been working was of no benefit to me when I
> was no longer working. I have no further comment on that situation.
> either.
>
>>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
>>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
>>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
>>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical
>>> care.
>>>
>>
>> They don't get "everything under the sun".
>
> You'd be very surprised if you lived where I do. Given my place of
> employment, I know exactly what many people get.
>

From what you have said, it would seem that you deal with people who
have an even harder time finding and keeping employment than most. I
find this a bit skewed.

> I realize that people *do*
>> abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person
>> on welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare.
>> Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is
>> rather unfair.
>
> I take that very personally, especially when you make the
> differentiation you do. When you're back is against the wall, you
> have no immediate propects for employment, and need medical attention
> but are refused by the system, it becomes very personal. **** on the
> system that refuses me and gives freely to others. No further
> comment.
>

If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the
emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance.
They cannot refuse you treatment.

<snip>

> You won't win me over. We definitely do not share the same values.
> I'm done.
>

I agree that people abuse the system. But saying someone "won't" work,
when the only option is to take a minimum wage job that won't cover the
costs of living, let alone childcare so that you can work that job, is
somewhat unfair. Some states have programs that help cover the costs of
childcare for low-income families, but the income threshold is such that
one would not be able to live on it.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL