Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> wrote:
>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
>> to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
>> and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
>> the work force.
>
> So, according to your system, only employed mothers in committed
> relationships have the right to demand anything from their country,
> right?


Wrong. They are not making demands. They are fending for themselves and
they contributing to the system rather than taking from it.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "kilikini" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the
>> system. I'm grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want
>> to stay around for a few more years at least, to continue to irk my
>> husband. :~)
>
> I've been lurking in the thread. You had an extremely rough time of
> it. At least you were sent in the right direction when you thought
> all doors had finally been closed to you. So many people just give
> up. There *is* decent, free (or very little cost to the patient)
> health care for patients out there. Finding it is the big issue.
> Someone in the "know" is generally the way to find the open door.
> You were shown a door that might be open to you and you walked
> through it, thankfully. How many people out there can't find, or,
> can't find anyone to help them find that door... I think people with
> chronic illness and children should all have access to health care,
> regardless of the financial status of their family. I'm not saying
> that I am a socialized medicine advocate. I don't know enough about
> socialized medicine to be able to discuss it intelligently. I do
> think something needs to be done. It needs to be done during the
> next presidential term.
>
> Michael

I agree with you, Michael. :~)

kili

cybercat wrote:
> "kilikini" > wrote in message
>>
>> So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the
>> system. I'm grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want
>> to stay around for a few more years at least, to continue to irk my
>> husband. :~)
>
> Oh yessss, let's hear it for that. Look him in the eye and say, "I
> have not borne any children." (The unspoken part is, "so why am I
> picking up somebody else's underwear?)

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In his case it's usually his shoes, his
shirts, his socks and his hats, but, yeah. Same thing! :~)

kili

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in
>> cases like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper
>> solution than welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay
>> at home unless they had a disability preventing them from working.
>> It would have to be a heavily monitored program, but this would mean
>> employment of child care workers, pre-school teachers, social
>> workers, psychologists - most of, if not all, would have to have a
>> college degree. Folks going to school would help the economy.
>> Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities would have
>> to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>>
>> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
>> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
>> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
>> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they
>> got HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able
>> to sustain themselves.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>>
>> kili
>
> All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
> that babysits kids over 5. <g>
> Why not younger?

That was kind of my thinking, Om. Why not?

kili

Omelet wrote:
>
> Heh! Tell me about it! That's what I'm running into right now.
> Insurance is not always a good thing. I'm supposed to see a
> cardiologist and get regular physical therapy, but cannot afford it
> even with insurance! Fortunately, I can do my own therapy routines
> and our local city activity center has a swimming pool and a weight
> room with machines...
>
> and for city residents it's only $80.00 per YEAR! :-)

Yeah, not being able to get the care that you need to prevent a surgery or
loss of life is completely irresponsible on the government's part. Heck,
you'd think the "powers that be" would want to extend folks' lives so they
can continue to pay taxes! :-/

I'm glad you have a local activity center. I was wanting to attempt
swimming to see if I could build a little muscle back up, but we have no
facility, AFAIK - at least I've never seen or heard of one in the 4 years
I've lived here. We have a kid's water park; it's just like a shower area
outside with water jets that randomly spew up from the floor. Whoo hooo!
:~)

kili

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>
>>>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>>>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and
>>>> unable to support the children and living on welfare. Then they
>>>> demand day care and special education and training programs to get
>>>> themselves back into the work force.
>>> If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
>>> support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the
>>> 80's now have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the
>>> system was, it also provided support. Obviously someone then had no
>>> idea what they were doing, eh?
>> Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
>> welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
>> school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. What
>> suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
>> Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as
>> well as ourselves.
>
> Your...argument, for want of a better word...merely sounds like sour
> grapes.

Yeah. Right. Your argument was that you knew some single mothers who
got off the system and eventually got jobs and now own houses because
the system provided support. But my argument that those who got their
education and jobs and houses before having children and without
government assistance has no validity.

> Being on welfare is not a picnic. I was a recipient of basic income at one
> time and having to live on what I got was no help in getting employment, in
> fact it was a hindrance.

>
> Employers, being the sharp pinheads they are, don't want to hire a welfare
> recipient because precisely of the same mentality which you exhibit here.
> Put them to work, yes, but NIMBY.

Yep. Some sort of conspiracy, eh. Employers try to hire the best people
for their companies. Given a choice between someone with experience and
a work history or someone who has not been gainfully employed, most will
choose the one who has experience and who has shown a willingness to work.



>
> So until this attitude of (ugly) capitalist entitlement ceases, it is
> unlikely that welfare recipients will be fully empowered to find their way,
> and, honestly,

OK. I see..... the conspiracy theory is clear. It is about the poor
being entitles to take from the capitalist system.

> I believe not everyone should be made to work. But that's
> another debate.

Oh? Who is it that gets to stay home while the rest of us have to pay to
support them? I am all in favour of assistance for those who cannot
work and those who are facing hard times. Businesses shut down, people
lose jobs and run out of unemployment insurance. They need help. Then
there are the abusers..... those who simply prefer not to work. The
latter are the abusers. I don't care if they don't want to work, but I
don't want to pay for them. Why should I? They won't do anythign for
themselves and they sure don't do anything for me. If they owe noting to
themselves I owe as little to them.




> Me, I have 275 calendare days to go until I retire and yet
> I have no animosity towards those whose basic need exceeds their ability.
> Why is that, do you think?


Because of your strange political agenda???
There is lots to share as long as those who work and contribute have a
surplus. We have surplus because enough of us work to produce it. If we
all produced as much as the abusers there would not be enough for any of
us.

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
5.247...
> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:46:26a, Nancy Young told us...
>
>>
>> "hahabogus" > wrote
>>
>>> The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well
> known
>>> cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet.
>>
>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>> needed it.
>>
>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>>
>
> Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction. I wish that were
> true nationally.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright
>

I think the Welfare Reform Act reformed the welfare system for all states.

Ms P

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
5.247...
>
> Whatever... Maybe it's time we imposed penalties on adult welfare
> recipients and limited the number of children a welfare recipient could
> have to 1, also limiting the benefits they could receive. What you can't
> afford to have, you shouldn't have. It's no wonder there are so many
> children on the welfare rolls. One of the things that irritates me most
> is
> seeing an indigent family or single mother marching into the welfare
> office
> with 8 kids in tow, because most of these people are unemployed by choice
> or lack of even the most rudimentary skills, and have no desire to work.
> With our present system they know they don't have to, yet they keep
> popping
> out kids like it ws a hobby, and they know they'll receive additional
> benefits for each child they have.
>
> There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their
> bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they
> seem to be in the vast minority.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright


You watch who goes in and out of the welfare office? Do you actually know
the rules for recieving welfare? How do you know they're recieving welfare
and not just food stamps?

They reformed the welfare system back in 1996. The rules have changed a
lot.

Ms P

cybercat wrote:
> "kilikini" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
>>> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
>>> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
>> married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a
>> much harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so
>> much more.
>
> So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??

No, that's not what I'm saying. Statistically speaking in America,
Caucasions and Asians have the highest income level followed by Hispanics,
Blacks and Others. Of course it isn't true in *all* cases.

Most cases are based upon whether or not the individual/s have dependents.
If you're married with no dependents getting assistance is more difficult.
It may or may not be easier to receive help if you're one of the minorities,
but based upon income statistics it *could* be.

That's what I was trying to say, but didn't come across very well.

kili

In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote:

> "kilikini" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> >>
> >> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> >> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> >> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
> >>
> >> nancy
> >
> > That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
> > married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much
> > harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.
> >
>
> So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??

Where have YOU been?
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "kilikini" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Our food bank *only* passes out fresh food! They set up an excellent
> >> program with the grocery stores in this area. The food bank has a
> >> truck and they go around to all the major grocery stores, every day,
> >> and pick up produce, bakery items, dairy items, and meat that's
> >> within a day or two of turning and can't be sold. The food bank is
> >> open from 11:30-12:30 every day and at least 50 people a day get a
> >> HUGE box of fresh food. You're allowed to go once a week and the
> >> food lasts a full week; that's how much you get. Just about
> >> everything can be frozen except for produce, of course, so it
> >> doesn't go bad. It's a wonderful program and I wish more food banks
> >> would consider working like this instead of all of this food going
> >> to waste in a dumpster.
> >>
> >> kili
> >
> > I just found out I was wrong a few minutes ago. I talked to Lynn' who
> > goes to the food bank regularly and is trying to get my relatives to
> > go too. She says you get one or two meats, 2 fresh breads, fruits and
> > vegetables, canned and dry goods. They have set amounts for your
> > family size.
> >
> > She gets what she can and what she cannot use, she shares with others.
>
> Ours offers about 5 - 6 different kinds of meat in the box, about 6
> different kinds of produce (fruits & veggies), 4 - 5 loaves of healthy,
> deli, artisan-style bread, a couple of pies or cakes for a dessert and
> various dairy items, like milk, cheese and yogurt. That's just for a family
> of 2.
>
> You should look into taking your family. All the volunteers are wonderful
> people.
>
> kili

I am ok on the food front. Dad and I don't eat very much. :-) I don't
want to take what I really don't need from the needy. I'm going to
discuss it with my Brother in Law even tho' I check with sis' to see
what she needs weekly and I buy for her too.

They will never go hungry as long as _I_ am alive!

I have two beloved nephews too that I want to see grow up strong and
healthy.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> I don't know enough about
> > socialized medicine to be able to discuss it intelligently. I do
> > think something needs to be done. It needs to be done during the
> > next presidential term.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I agree with you, Michael. :~)
>
> kili

Socialized health care is badly needed, and imho, inevitable... It's
just too bloody expensive for any normal family to afford any more.

I just hope they get it right.

I do nightly audits for duplicate charges in the lab and credit them. I
KNOW what it costs! One long hospitalization can totally wipe out
someone's lifes savings.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> >> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
> >> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
> >> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
> >> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they
> >> got HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able
> >> to sustain themselves.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
> >>
> >> kili
> >
> > All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
> > that babysits kids over 5. <g>
> > Why not younger?
>
> That was kind of my thinking, Om. Why not?
>
> kili

It would do a world of good.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> > Heh! Tell me about it! That's what I'm running into right now.
> > Insurance is not always a good thing. I'm supposed to see a
> > cardiologist and get regular physical therapy, but cannot afford it
> > even with insurance! Fortunately, I can do my own therapy routines
> > and our local city activity center has a swimming pool and a weight
> > room with machines...
> >
> > and for city residents it's only $80.00 per YEAR! :-)
>
> Yeah, not being able to get the care that you need to prevent a surgery or
> loss of life is completely irresponsible on the government's part. Heck,
> you'd think the "powers that be" would want to extend folks' lives so they
> can continue to pay taxes! :-/
>
> I'm glad you have a local activity center. I was wanting to attempt
> swimming to see if I could build a little muscle back up, but we have no
> facility, AFAIK - at least I've never seen or heard of one in the 4 years
> I've lived here. We have a kid's water park; it's just like a shower area
> outside with water jets that randomly spew up from the floor. Whoo hooo!
> :~)
>
> kili

I did not know the city center had a lap pool until my sister told me
about it. :-) You may want to call the city. Swimming is a non-impact
exercise so ideal for anyone with disabilities...

The Ortho' told me that surgery is not a good option for me anyway
(which I'm heartily happy about!). Just "management and therapy" as he
put it. It's the weekly Chiropractor visits that are running me around
$200.00 per month right now. That will come down a little when the
deductible is met, but only for a couple of months as insurance maxes
out for Chiro' therapy. Then I start paying out of pocket again but then
they will cut it by 20%.

I'm looking forward to getting my EMS unit. ;-) You may want to look at
one of those too. They are the gods...

And affordable now that you no longer need a prescription to get one!
The Chiro' told me that an EMS unit was better for me than a TENS unit
so that's what I ordered.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"kilikini" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat wrote:
>> "kilikini" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
>>>> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
>>>> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
>>>>
>>>> nancy
>>>
>>> That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid. I'm
>>> married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a
>>> much harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so
>>> much more.
>>
>> So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying. Statistically speaking in America,
> Caucasions and Asians have the highest income level followed by Hispanics,
> Blacks and Others. Of course it isn't true in *all* cases.
>
> Most cases are based upon whether or not the individual/s have dependents.
> If you're married with no dependents getting assistance is more difficult.
> It may or may not be easier to receive help if you're one of the
> minorities, but based upon income statistics it *could* be.
>
> That's what I was trying to say, but didn't come across very well.
>
Okay, just wanted to clarify this for the cretins. Thank you!

"Ms P" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 5.247...
>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:46:26a, Nancy Young told us...
>>
>>>
>>> "hahabogus" > wrote
>>>
>>>> The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well
>> known
>>>> cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet.
>>>
>>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>>> needed it.
>>>
>>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction. I wish that were
>> true nationally.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>>
>
> I think the Welfare Reform Act reformed the welfare system for all states.
>

Yes, it did.

Omelet wrote:

>
> Closed mine, open killfile. How typical, and how sad...

I don't have any r.f.c. regulars in my killfile at the moment. Only
posts I filter out nowadays are the spam posts e.g. handbags, shoes,
jewelry - ya know, that kinda crap - of which a lot comes from Google
Groups (or used to, dunno, I don't see them). But it's easy enough to
use the "ignore thread" option if certain threads don't interest me,
then I just don't see them anymore <shrug>
>
> I, for one, am always open for an education so appreciate seeing and
> hearing others viewpoints. Sometimes it makes me reconsider my
> position.

Although I don't always agree with some of the posters here <veg>, it
doesn't mean I 'hate' them, it just means I don't agree with them, and
last time I checked that wasn't a crime; if it was, a lot of the r.f.c.
denizens would be in jail by now...

However, I've also learned quite a few things from some of the folks
here over the last few years; I especially like being able to ask
questions about recipes, ingredients etc., which you cannot do in
groups like r.f.r.

Heh. even some of the OT posts have taught me a thing or two - this
thread is a prime example - I've learned more than I've ever wanted to
know about the Welfare System in the USA ;-)

>
> sf has sent me some really good stuff by e-mail that gave me a lot to
> think about because she knows I keep an open mind.

I think most (not all) r.f.c.-ers do keep an open mind, but hey, that's
the way life is.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Google is my Friend (GIMF)

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> >
> > Closed mine, open killfile. How typical, and how sad...
>
> I don't have any r.f.c. regulars in my killfile at the moment. Only
> posts I filter out nowadays are the spam posts e.g. handbags, shoes,
> jewelry - ya know, that kinda crap - of which a lot comes from Google
> Groups (or used to, dunno, I don't see them). But it's easy enough to
> use the "ignore thread" option if certain threads don't interest me,
> then I just don't see them anymore <shrug>

I filter by subject mostly. I rarely killfile posters any more. ;-)

> >
> > I, for one, am always open for an education so appreciate seeing and
> > hearing others viewpoints. Sometimes it makes me reconsider my
> > position.
>
> Although I don't always agree with some of the posters here <veg>, it
> doesn't mean I 'hate' them, it just means I don't agree with them, and
> last time I checked that wasn't a crime; if it was, a lot of the r.f.c.
> denizens would be in jail by now...

I was shocked and saddened when I came back and saw that Cybercat had
become so hateful. :-( I wonder what happened to change her so?

>
> However, I've also learned quite a few things from some of the folks
> here over the last few years; I especially like being able to ask
> questions about recipes, ingredients etc., which you cannot do in
> groups like r.f.r.
>
> Heh. even some of the OT posts have taught me a thing or two - this
> thread is a prime example - I've learned more than I've ever wanted to
> know about the Welfare System in the USA ;-)

<snork> I know what you mean.
I'm not anti-welfare. Far from it. I just don't appreciate those that
abuse the system...

>
> >
> > sf has sent me some really good stuff by e-mail that gave me a lot to
> > think about because she knows I keep an open mind.
>
> I think most (not all) r.f.c.-ers do keep an open mind, but hey, that's
> the way life is.

And people vary. It keeps life interesting. <g>
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> Omelet > newsmpomelet-A416AB.10165515092008
> @news.giganews.com: in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Socialized health care is badly needed, and imho, inevitable... It's
> > just too bloody expensive for any normal family to afford any more.
> >
> > I just hope they get it right.
> >
> > I do nightly audits for duplicate charges in the lab and credit them.
> I
> > KNOW what it costs! One long hospitalization can totally wipe out
> > someone's lifes savings.
>
> Oh hon... you don't need to tell me that. I got really sick back in '03.
> I stopped keeping track after the first year but did get copies of the
> hospital, doctor and related charges. All told in one year my medical
> costs were right at 1/2 million bucks.

And few if any people can pay that off realistically in a lifetime. :-(

> That doesn't include medical
> treatment I received before being admitted to the hospital or for the
> past couple of years due to the illness. I had excellent health care
> insurance which covered all of the bills with the exception of a bedside
> commode I had ordered in one of my wonderfully pleasant,morphine induced,
> deliriums (is that even a word .

Yes. <g>

> I couldn't even use it if I had been
> able to.

My mom used a bedside commode the last 6 months of her life. I'm
familiar with them. I bought it from the local health care supply...

> Due to multiple issues and surgeries I was given a temporary
> colostomy.

Glad it was reversible babe!

> The docs and nurses got tired of fighting with me and had one
> brought up. Sooooo... I had to pay $246 out of pocket. For all of the
> bills. I was lucky. 500 grand would have depleted the money supply
> fairly substantially. People in less fortunate circumstances would have
> been wiped out.
>
> Michael

Or homeless... <hugs>
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ms P" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> 5.247...
>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:46:26a, Nancy Young told us...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "hahabogus" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well
>>> known
>>>>> cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet.
>>>>
>>>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>>>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>>>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>>>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>>>> needed it.
>>>>
>>>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>>>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>>>>
>>>> nancy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction. I wish that were
>>> true nationally.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>>
>>
>> I think the Welfare Reform Act reformed the welfare system for all
>> states.
>>
>
> Yes, it did.

I was pretty sure the WRA was federal. So basically Wayne doesn't know he's
ranting about something that was changed over 10 years ago.

Everybody is limited to 2 years at time on welfare with a lifetime limit of
5 years. You can still get food stamps which come from USDA and housing
assistance which comes from HUD and Medicaide and childcare assistance once
you're gainfully employed in that minimum wage job. Oh, and then you'll get
EITC.

Yeah, being on "welfare" is soooooooooooo lucrative these days.

Ms P

"Ms P" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ms P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>>> 5.247...
>>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:46:26a, Nancy Young told us...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "hahabogus" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well
>>>> known
>>>>>> cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>>>>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>>>>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>>>>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>>>>> needed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>>>>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>>>>>
>>>>> nancy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is certainly a step in the right direction. I wish that were
>>>> true nationally.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wayne Boatwright
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the Welfare Reform Act reformed the welfare system for all
>>> states.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it did.
>
> I was pretty sure the WRA was federal. So basically Wayne doesn't know
> he's ranting about something that was changed over 10 years ago.
>
> Everybody is limited to 2 years at time on welfare with a lifetime limit
> of 5 years. You can still get food stamps which come from USDA and
> housing assistance which comes from HUD and Medicaide and childcare
> assistance once you're gainfully employed in that minimum wage job. Oh,
> and then you'll get EITC.
>
> Yeah, being on "welfare" is soooooooooooo lucrative these days.
>

Thanks for the words of sanity. I brought this up early in the thread, but I
think I phrased it something like, "didn't you bitches hear that Clinton
reformed the system" so nobody read it. heh. The ironic thing to me is,
Wayne just got bailed out with a handout when his AC system stopped working.
This SOB KNOWS what it is like to get caught short. As for the rest of them,
I just don't know what to say. I guess by now nobody wonders why I don't
want to CHAT.

lol

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ms P" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I was pretty sure the WRA was federal. So basically Wayne doesn't know
>> he's ranting about something that was changed over 10 years ago.
>>
>> Everybody is limited to 2 years at time on welfare with a lifetime limit
>> of 5 years. You can still get food stamps which come from USDA and
>> housing assistance which comes from HUD and Medicaide and childcare
>> assistance once you're gainfully employed in that minimum wage job. Oh,
>> and then you'll get EITC.
>>
>> Yeah, being on "welfare" is soooooooooooo lucrative these days.
>>
>
> Thanks for the words of sanity. I brought this up early in the thread, but
> I think I phrased it something like, "didn't you bitches hear that Clinton
> reformed the system" so nobody read it. heh. The ironic thing to me is,
> Wayne just got bailed out with a handout when his AC system stopped
> working. This SOB KNOWS what it is like to get caught short. As for the
> rest of them, I just don't know what to say. I guess by now nobody wonders
> why I don't want to CHAT.
>
> lol

It ****es me off when people that don't have a clue start ranting and raving
about how people on "welfare" have so much. I've also noticed those people
tend to be the people that have the most. What is it about being well off
that makes you begrude poor people a few crumbs?

I know a woman whos husband makes over 100K a year and she is totally
convinced people on welfare are getting something she can't or doesn't get.
The last time she started in she was complaining that people on food stamps
were eating steak while she was having to eat hot dogs to save money. Yeah,
I ripped her ass for that one.

Ms P

Sheldon wrote:

On Sep 15, 4:08?am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> ?Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > >Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
> > >welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
> > >school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. ?What
> > >suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
> > >Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as well
> > >as ourselves.
>
> > You make it sound like life below the poverty line is a sumptuous
> > picnic. Have you ever asked these scores of welfare recipients you know
> > to provide you detailed budgets so that you see what their lives are
> > really like? Have you ever been to a food bank or gone to an electric or
> > phone company in tears because service got cut off? Have you ever had to
> > boil water to take a hot shower because the landlord turned off the hot
> > water heater? Have you ever seen your children covered in rat bites? I
> > suspect not, which means you know nothing about what life on welfare
> > actually is. As for your precious tax dollars, I don't see you
> > complaining when your taxes are used to fund wars, pay crooked
> > representatives or selectively patronize certain art forms over others.
> > Yet, when 1% of your taxes go toward the poor, you rant and rave on here
> > as though you were being ripped off.
>
> > Orlando
>
> Good rant and perspective.

I'll agree it's a rant... but there's no true perspective... where's
the perspective about no account parasite *******s who refuse to work.
---------------------

GM replies:

Yup, like a person I know who not only freeloads off of her partner (who
works 60 hours per week) but also off the public system. Got a sympathetic
doctor to diagnose her with MS and so she has a boatload of benefits (SSI,
etc.). Has also received settlements from several somewhat bogus lawsuits
against the po - leece, the last was apparantly enough "to buy a piece of
land and build a house" I was told. The last job she held (more than a
decade ago) she successfully sued for "racial harrasment" - this at a firm
that is very minority - friendly and her boss was a black woman...go
figger...!!!

This gal gets up at noon each day, then hits the bar for Happy Hour each
day, she drinks top - shelf Scotch only, natch. She tells folks she is
"too sick to work...sometimes I don't feel good...". Yet she attended the
Dem convention for a week in Denver, partying hearty, natch - and on someone
else's tab.. She's been to Europe *four* times in the past year and is
going again over New Year's. As she sez, "Heck, anyone with a spare coupla
thou sitting around these days can pop over to Paris or Berlin or Amsterdam
for a week...".

I guess I wouldn't mind *so* much, but she's very vocal about us "suckers
that work". When I once told her that she puts more energy into partying
than many of us do into work, she got all indignant, e.g. "But sometimes I
don't feel good...", to which I replied, "Well, I don't 'feel good' either
when that buzzer goes off at 5:00 AM, but...".

This is one of the more egregrious cases I know of, but there are plenty
more like this. "A party lifestyle on someone else's dime...", I guess I
shouldn't mock it but then I couldn't imagine living like this, I'd rather
be dead...


--
Best
Greg

Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:
>
> > "kilikini" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Nancy Young wrote:
> > >>
> > >> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> > >> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> > >> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
> > >>
> > >> nancy
> > >
> > > That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid.
I'm
> > > married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much
> > > harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.
> > >
> >
> > So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??
>
> Where have YOU been?


"SquareBOOB cyberpants lives under a contraceptive sponge at the bottom of
the sea..."

;-D


--
Best
Greg

In article > ,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "cybercat" > wrote:
> >
> > > "kilikini" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Nancy Young wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> One thing not mentioned, if you don't have dependents, it's not
> > > >> easy to get benefits. If you can, I don't know. You lose your
> > > >> job, you're SOL. I imagine that varies by state, too.
> > > >>
> > > >> nancy
> > > >
> > > > That's one of the reasons I had so many problems getting Medicaid.
> I'm
> > > > married, no children, and I'm white. Without dependents, it's a much
> > > > harder struggle to receive anything; you get scrutinized so much more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you are saying that they descriminate against WHITE people, kili??
> >
> > Where have YOU been?
>
>
> "SquareBOOB cyberpants lives under a contraceptive sponge at the bottom of
> the sea..."
>
> ;-D

;-p
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:

> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>
>> Although I don't always agree with some of the posters here <veg>, it
>> doesn't mean I 'hate' them, it just means I don't agree with them,
>> and last time I checked that wasn't a crime; if it was, a lot of the
>> r.f.c. denizens would be in jail by now...
>
> I was shocked and saddened when I came back and saw that Cybercat had
> become so hateful. :-( I wonder what happened to change her so?

I wasn't referring to cybercat in particular, although it's no secret
we 'don't get along' <cough>... but there are a few other regular
posters here that I have been known to have a disagreement (or two)
with in the not so distant past - but I don't usually plonk them in the
bozo bin and announce it to the world (unless I'm suffering from PMS).
I still read their posts, and have often gotten some good (cooking)
information from them too...

<bit of snipping to try and keep this post under 50 lines>
>
> And people vary. It keeps life interesting. <g>

Quite so. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if we all agreed
with each other here all the time, this group would be as much fun as
watching paint dry (or reading r.f.r. and a few other Usenet food
groups).
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:27:29 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> Whatever... Maybe it's time we imposed penalties on adult welfare
>> recipients and limited the number of children a welfare recipient could
>> have to 1, also limiting the benefits they could receive. What you can't
>> afford to have, you shouldn't have. It's no wonder there are so many
>> children on the welfare rolls. One of the things that irritates me most is
>> seeing an indigent family or single mother marching into the welfare office
>> with 8 kids in tow, because most of these people are unemployed by choice
>> or lack of even the most rudimentary skills, and have no desire to work.
>> With our present system they know they don't have to, yet they keep popping
>> out kids like it ws a hobby, and they know they'll receive additional
>> benefits for each child they have.
>>
>> There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their
>> bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they
>> seem to be in the vast minority.
>
> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I
> resent having to help support people who will not support themselves and
> those who cannot support themselves and then have more children than
> they cannot afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate that those
> who point out the obvious are passed off as sexist and racist by
> claiming that most welfare recipients are single white men. The facts do
> not support that. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

white women are the exact opposite?

your pal,
blake

"Ms P" > wrote
> It ****es me off when people that don't have a clue start ranting and
> raving about how people on "welfare" have so much. I've also noticed
> those people tend to be the people that have the most. What is it about
> being well off that makes you begrude poor people a few crumbs?

It is just pure meanness, in the true meaning of the word. Petty, grabby,
ickiness. The great thing is, it's a boomarang, rang rang! MU hahaha!

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:35:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>>> There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their
>>> bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they
>>> seem to be in the vast minority.
>>
>> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I
>> resent having to help support people who will not support themselves and
>> those who cannot support themselves and then have more children than
>> they cannot afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate that those
>> who point out the obvious are passed off as sexist and racist by
>> claiming that most welfare recipients are single white men. The facts do
>> not support that. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
>
> The vast majority are the children of unwed mothers.
>
> Outlaw reproduction outside of wedlock?
>
> Yah, right.
>
> <sigh>
>

some people just have a problem living in a free society, or, more
precisely, a society where *other* people are also free.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
ChattyCathy > wrote:

> > And people vary. It keeps life interesting. <g>
>
> Quite so. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if we all agreed
> with each other here all the time, this group would be as much fun as
> watching paint dry (or reading r.f.r. and a few other Usenet food
> groups).
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

Agreed. :-)
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:35:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> >>> There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their
> >>> bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they
> >>> seem to be in the vast minority.
> >>
> >> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I
> >> resent having to help support people who will not support themselves and
> >> those who cannot support themselves and then have more children than
> >> they cannot afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate that those
> >> who point out the obvious are passed off as sexist and racist by
> >> claiming that most welfare recipients are single white men. The facts do
> >> not support that. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
> >
> > The vast majority are the children of unwed mothers.
> >
> > Outlaw reproduction outside of wedlock?
> >
> > Yah, right.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
>
> some people just have a problem living in a free society, or, more
> precisely, a society where *other* people are also free.
>
> your pal,
> blake

They need to move to Russia.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:15:19 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> Simple choice, enforced birth control and receive welfare, or no welfare.
> I don't give a damn if they're lying in the gutters. I'm sick of paying
> for benefits that others receive. Welfare recipients in AZ have the
> benefit of AHCCCS, which provide absolutely free health care to any extent.
> Many times I cannot even afford the copay for my medications.
>
> That's fair?
>
> BS
>
> It's almost an inviting proposition to quit my job and live off the dole.
>

you would really be tempted to quit your job and live the life of a welfare
recipient, just so you wouldn't have to work?

ask the average person on welfare where they shop and what delicious items
they cook and how they're contemplating re-doing their kitchens. if you
like what you hear, go for it.

your pal,
blake

"white single men"? Good one! er...you WERE kidding, right?

MOST welfare recips are single mothers, most Black, many white.

I have a proposal, too---anybody who wants a Check gets to have three
years--- FREE child care, gets to attend FREE mandatory classes on
Parenting, mandatory classes to take the GED exam, further classes on
some kind of training that will get them a job, from carpentry to
secretarial work, computers to mechanics, whatever. Free birth control,
and free abortions BUT for every NEW child, the recip LOSES 100 bucks of
the Check.

Meantime, the kids who attend the FREE DayCare are taught by teachers
with advanced degrees who specialize in not only teaching the Three
R's, but focus on establishing self esteem, creating in each child the
belief that he/she can accomplish any level of personal acheivement
through education and hard work.

In other words, we could break the cycle of multi-generational welfare
recips by creating the NEW generation of kids who grow up knowing they
deserve and are capable of MUCH more than living in the projects waiting
for a monthly check.

Yes, it would cost millions---BUT. in ONE generation, we could break the
"welfare cycle".

TigerLilly

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:28:21 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 12:21:24p, Omelet told us...
>>
>> With our current welfare system, you get paid by the unsupported child.
>> It rewards unwed fecundity.
>
> It certainly does. The "rewards" should be eliminated altogether. The more
> kids you have, the less money you should get.

the 'rewards' are a pittance,:


Many conservatives criticize welfare because it increases benefits when a
mother has another child. This, they argue, is an economic incentive to
have more children, an ill-considered policy which inflates the rolls of
our welfare programs. As columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "A family that
works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family
that doesn't work?" (1)

Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive
"financial incentives" to have more children, and far larger ones than
welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per
child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of
child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per
month in increased AFDC payments for another child.

Not surprisingly, these "incentives" are too small to influence the
behavior of potential parents, especially in a decision as life-altering
and important as having a child. Ten major studies have been conducted on
this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any
connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to
bear children. (2)

Just one of these studies' findings is that states with higher benefits do
not see higher birthrates among its welfare mothers. According to a 1992
study by Child Trends Inc., the five states with the highest birth rates
among 18- and 19-year-old women -- Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada
and New Mexico -- all have AFDC benefits below the national median. The
four states with the lowest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women --
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont -- all have AFDC
benefits above the national median.

The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American
family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less.
(3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent.
(4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though
they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless
families to either side of this comparison.)

And, contrary to popular belief, the size of welfare families has been
declining over the decades:

(more at:

<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm> )

do you think you can make a 'profit' on ninety dollars a month to raise a
kid? not unless you can turn him out in the back yard to scratch for his
food like a chicken.

your pal,
blake

Yes, educated women do have fewer children...but FIRST ya gotta educate
them to NOT have their first child at 15 or 16.

In the "welfare ccycle", one girl has her first baby at 15, is a
grandmother by 33 and a great grandmother by 50. People repeat wwhat
they experience as "reality". A child who knows her great grandmother
is a welfare recip, whose mom is a recip also, pretty much sees having
kids young and getting on the wellfare roll as the norm---it's what
people do. Three generations of highschool dropouts having babies
doesnt tend to establish the concept of staying UNpregnant, finishing
school and going ON to college in the wellfare child.

Something needs to happen to break this cycle.

TigerLilly

On Sep 14, 3:50*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *John Kane > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 1:57*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > What do you do in a case like that. He is a woman who was raised on
> > > > welfare, whose college education subsidized and received student grants,
> > > > who had the opportunity to get education and training to help her find
> > > > meaningful employment. But she knew that the system would support her,
> > > > so she intentionally got herself pregnant knowing that she could stay
> > > > home and not have to work. That was the way she was raised, and there is
> > > > a good chance that her kid will grow up with the same mind set.
>
> > > That appears to be the problem in New Orleans...
>
> > > The Answer?
>
> > > No welfare. Period. Government home work programs! *If you get welfare,
> > > you do SOMETHING to earn it! Even if it's just sewing military uniforms
> > > at home...
>
> > > NO free ride!
>
> > And if you think you've got a crime problem now, just wait. * Starve
> > or shoot the lady in the mink coat?
>
> > John Kane Kingson ON Canada
>
> You may note that I offered a Government work program as an
> alternative... or were you not paying attention?

Yes. And so far I''ve read of examples in the USA, Canada and the UK
which usually don't work well enough to do anything other than make a
few consultants a bit better off.


>
> Peace corps or *Civilian Corps of Engineers.

The last time I looked the Peace Corps or something like a CCE
required degrees or at the very least a reasonable level of literacy,
numeracy and passible physical and mental health.

Unfortunately a lot of welfare recipients don't have one or more of
these

>
> Work for the money for the public.

I have no problem with that if a program can be designed that will
actually work. Just explain how you are going to get a single mother
to work when there is no childcare, the mentally disturbed (to
outright barmy) to function etc at less cost than welfare.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Sep 14, 3:27*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >> What do you do in a case like that. He is a woman who was raised on
> >> welfare, whose college education subsidized and received student grants,
> >> who had the opportunity to get education and training to help her find
> >> meaningful employment. But she knew that the system would support her,
> >> so she intentionally got herself pregnant knowing that she could stay
> >> home and not have to work. That was the way she was raised, and there is
> >> a good chance that her kid will grow up with the same mind set.
>
> > That appears to be the problem in New Orleans...
>
> > The Answer?
>
> > No welfare. Period. Government home work programs! *If you get welfare,
> > you do SOMETHING to earn it! Even if it's just sewing military uniforms
> > at home...
>
> And if they don't perform?? *Fire them and let them starve? I don't
> think so.
>
> In the good old days they had debtors prisons, and babies were taken
> from poor single mothers and put up for adoption. I hope there is ahappy
> medium.

A modest proposal? It didn't fly in Ireland but Swift might have been
on to something.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Sep 14, 7:26*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:

> To the conservative mind, tax breaks assisting people who already work
> are reinforcing the positive in our society: self sufficiency, hard
> work, good fiscal planning and responsible procreation.
>
> Orlando

And very often, albeit certainly not always, the forsight to have well-
off parents.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

I wasn't sure I wanted to weigh in on this conversation, but I think I
will. I have been the director of a food pantry for 18 years. Because
we are given government surplus food, we must follow the government
guidelines for eligibility.

These are the income eligibility limits ( in NH) :

family of one = $19,240
two = $25,900
five = $45,880
eight = $65,860

If someone comes in with a gross household income under these amounts
they are automatically qualified.

There are many other aids to the needy besides welfare. I have had very
few clients who were actually on state funded welfare. I've had a few
on town funded welfare. In my town if you are able to work, and you
have received help from the town, they put you to work at the library,
or town dump/recycling center, etc to pay back the money.

The majority of my clients now are 70+ year old widows. It's
heartbreaking sometimes when a new client comes in crying because she is
so ashamed to have to ask for help. Their husbands served their country
in WW2, they paid their taxes, raised families, worked their butts off
their whole lives, and now that they are retired, many are widows living
in government subsidized housing, getting their food from a food pantry.
They can barely afford their medicines/healthcare.

I also see a lot of illiteracy as a reason for public assistance. I
have a client who is receiving disability, is almost illiterate, and at
45 years old is now raising her 2 teenaged nephews, one of whom now has
a newborn, on $8,000 a year.

We have a few "traditional" families (mom & dad + kids) who have no real
education beyond high school and no particular job skills who go from
job to job to job. When you are the low man on the totem pole, you're
usually the first one layed off in a downsizing, so you get another job,
where, again, you are low man on the totem pole, get layed off again,
and it just goes on forever. They never seem able to get ahead.

We have had our share of drug/alcohol problem families too, but they
don't seem able to hang around very long to receive aid, because NH is a
very expensive place to live.

I agree that some families just seem to pass down the tendency to depend
on public assistance. Some truly are deserving, some aren't. There's
always an element who seem to think they are entitled, but they are the
exception, thank God. At least in my experience.

I sometimes wish we could pass out birth control, but that's not my
role.

Some of my clients have been with me for the entire 18 years, coming in
every other week for food. There's a segment of society who will never
have a better way of life. Social Security and disability checks don't
keep up with inflation, the price of gas is depleting any little extra
they might have had left over. Many of my seniors live in the same
subsidized complex and are now carpooling to the food pantry, and those
who are able, are so eager to help me whenever I need help sorting a
canned goods drive. A few even have worked with me on a weekly basis.
I could never get one of the young clients to help out. It just shows
how the older generation still feels that you MUST work for your
rewards.

I guess my reason for writing is to let you know that some of us are
really trying to sort out and help the truly needy. I realize that this
is not the same as huge cities dealing with massive welfare problems,
but on a smaller scale, it's some of the same types of people. Some
you'd like to kick in the butt, most you'd give the shirt off your back
to.

Please support your local food pantries, sometimes a little extra help
in a time of crises is all that's needed to help someone through the
toughest time in their lives.

Don't get me started on the woman who rolled in in a Lincoln Towncar,
waved a W-2 form with an income of over $80,000, for a 2 person family,
and almost punched me out, when I informed her that $80,000 was way over
the income limit. She insisted that no one could possibly be expected
to survive on $80,000 a year, because, after all, that was before taxes.
She stormed out fuming when I told her that most of our clients made
less than $20,000 a year, before taxes, and had 3 or 4 kids.

It takes all kinds.

Denise

On Sep 15, 12:40*pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 4:08?am, Omelet > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > ?Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
> > > >welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
> > > >school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. ?What
> > > >suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us..
> > > >Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as well
> > > >as ourselves.
>
> > > You make it sound like life below the poverty line is a sumptuous
> > > picnic. Have you ever asked these scores of welfare recipients you know
> > > to provide you detailed budgets so that you see what their lives are
> > > really like? Have you ever been to a food bank or gone to an electric or
> > > phone company in tears because service got cut off? Have you ever had to
> > > boil water to take a hot shower because the landlord turned off the hot
> > > water heater? Have you ever seen your children covered in rat bites? I
> > > suspect not, which means you know nothing about what life on welfare
> > > actually is. As for your precious tax dollars, I don't see you
> > > complaining when your taxes are used to fund wars, pay crooked
> > > representatives or selectively patronize certain art forms over others.
> > > Yet, when 1% of your taxes go toward the poor, you rant and rave on here
> > > as though you were being ripped off.
>
> > > Orlando
>
> > Good rant and perspective.
>
> I'll agree it's a rant... but there's no true perspective... where's
> the perspective about no account parasite *******s who refuse to work.
> ---------------------
>
> GM replies:
>
> Yup, like a person I know who not only freeloads off of her partner (who
> works 60 hours per week) but also off the public system. *Got a sympathetic
> doctor to diagnose her with MS and so she has a boatload of benefits (SSI,
> etc.). *Has also received settlements from several somewhat bogus lawsuits
> against the po - leece, the last was apparantly enough "to buy a piece of
> land and build a house" I was told. *The last job she held (more than a
> decade ago) she successfully sued for "racial harrasment" - this at a firm
> that is very minority - friendly and her boss was a black woman...go
> figger...!!!
>
> This gal gets up at noon each day, then hits the bar for Happy Hour each
> day, she drinks top - shelf Scotch only, natch. * She tells folks she is
> "too sick to work...sometimes I don't feel good...". *Yet she attended the
> Dem convention for a week in Denver, partying hearty, natch - and on someone
> else's tab.. *She's been to Europe *four* times in the past year and is
> going again over New Year's. *As she sez, "Heck, anyone with a spare coupla
> thou sitting around these days can pop over to Paris or Berlin or Amsterdam
> for a week...".
>
> I guess I wouldn't mind *so* much, but she's very vocal about us "suckers
> that work". *When I once told her that she puts more energy into partying
> than many of us do into work, she got all indignant, e.g. "But sometimes I
> don't feel good...", to which I replied, "Well, I don't 'feel good' either
> when that buzzer goes off at 5:00 AM, but...".
>
> This is one of the more egregrious cases I know of, but there are plenty
> more like this. "A party lifestyle on someone else's dime...", I guess I
> shouldn't mock it but then I couldn't imagine living like this, I'd rather
> be dead...
>
> --
> Best
> Greg-

Unless you can supply names and cases docket numbers etc I tend to
doubt the accuracy of this.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada.