On Sep 15, 10:00*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article > ,
> *Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
> > Minimum wage doesn't pay the bills. I am barely paying the bills on 13
> > an hour; which is twice the federal minimum wage.
>
> > I am all for education, but without a *college* education, or a lot of
> > on-the job training and promotions, (which takes a long time) it's
> > *very* difficult to find a job that can support a family on one income.
> > Even a family of two.
>
> > --
> > Saerah
>
> > "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! *Adapt or haul ass!"
> > - some hillbilly from FL
>
> Sometimes even having a college education is no guarantee of a good
> wage... *$14.00 per hour should be a living wage for my relatives, but
> it's not. Not with today's economy. :-(

Have a look at the minimum wages across the USA.

If $14.00 is not a living wage, the minimum wages; $6.25 in Arkansas
or even $7.02 in Colorado is not going to make you rich. Is Kansas
at $2.65 for real.

If I'm reading the table correctly a lot of states don't require
premium pay for overtime either.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:13:21 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> "John Kane" > wrote
>
> On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>>Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
>>this idea?
>
>>Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
>>something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
>>response to a complex socio-economic problem.
>
> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>

as someone upthread pointed out, welfare payments don't amount to much of
your tax bill:

Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each
take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to
expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will
inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student
loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the
economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most
vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and
have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined
federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both
programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined
federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

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

....so why not think of it as a 'spite tip' for a really cruddy waiter?

your pal,
blake

"Tiger Lilly" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

Nobody gets to stay on the "welfare rolls" longer than 5 years. Welfare
Reform Act of 1996.

Ms P

On Sep 15, 2:30*pm, (Tiger Lilly) wrote:
> 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

And where did you get this information?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada.

"Tiger Lilly" > wrote in message
...
> "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


To break the "welfare cycle" you're going to need to do a whole lot more
than that. First the minimum wage will have to go up a whole bunch. Second
you'll have to pay the people who run day care a whole lot more if you
expect them to have master's degrees. Oh wait, that'll affect everyone
won't it.

Nobody gets a monthly check longer than 2 years at a time with a lifetime
max of 5 years. People living in the "projects" get subsidized housing and
food stamps and medical care.

Ms P

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:11:08 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
> for getting wasted.

you seriously need to get out mo

Drug Rehab Need By Employment

* Current employment status also correlated with addiction treatment
need in 2000. An estimated 7.7 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or
older needed addiction treatment for illicit drugs, while only 1.6 percent
of full-time employed adults needed addiction treatment for an illicit drug
problem.
* Most of the adult population needing addiction treatment for an
illicit drug problem in 2000 was employed. Of the estimated 3.6 million
persons aged 18 or older who needed addiction treatment, 1.9 million were
employed full time and 0.6 million were employed part time. Thus, an
estimated 70 percent of adults needing addiction treatment were employed.
An estimated 359,000 unemployed adults needed addiction treatment.

<http://www.drug-rehab-referral.org/drug_rehab_addiction_treatment.html>

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, Cheryl wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
>> wasted.
>>
>
> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
> disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
> ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
> resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
> pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
> I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
> ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
> comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
> circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
> legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."

what kills me is how many people seem to be *jealous* of the poor *******s.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:44:49 -0400, kilikini wrote:

> cybercat wrote:
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find
>>>> that most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them
>>>> because they already had too much spare time on their hands. Most
>>>> people who are gainfully employed and have other activities on the
>>>> side don't have time for getting wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of
>>> what is disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are
>>> the fortunate ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal
>>> or sell drugs or resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did
>>> at one time but have pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're
>>> angry at those still taking. I prefer to think of it as a loan. No,
>>> they might not pay it back. The ones who abuse the system are the
>>> ones you think of when the word "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is
>>> abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate circumstances beyond
>>> their control. Some can't get health care through a legitimate job
>>> and have kids to think of. Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some
>>> of the posts in this
>>> thread where most of you posting think people who are poor are that
>>> way by choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE
>>> supposed to help them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I
>>> ..."
>>
>> There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!
>
> I'm reading all this and I'm feeling a little sad and ashamed at what some
> folks are saying because I'm on disability. I don't get much a month, but
> if I don't receive my monthly disability allowance, I don't get Medicaid -
> that's the rule. I can tell Social Security that I don't want their money,
> but if I don't take it I can't receive Medicaid. It's kind of silly.
>
> Medicaid is *state*-funded free health care, not *federally*- funded free
> health care. It takes a lot of phone calls, paperwork, leg work and time to
> finally qualify for it. You've got to get all your doctor records together,
> take a psychiatric evaluation, get all your financial statements in order,
> taxes, gosh. It was a full-time job to become eligible. I guess they make
> it that difficult to weed out the lazy folks and the ones who are out to
> abuse the system.
>

really, being poor is a lot of work. it's not surprising these folks don't
have time to hold down a job.

your pal,
blake

On Sep 14, 4:13*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "John Kane" > wrote
>
> On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
> >this idea?
> >Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
> >something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
> >response to a complex socio-economic problem.
>
> You really seem to like the welfare solution. *I wonder why.

I don't but even less do I like the simplistic "cut them off'" ideas
etc.

I have actually seen some of these people in real life. A lot of
them have minor little problems like serious physical disabilities
that the provinical government won't acknowledge so they cannot get a
disbility pension, instead they are on welfare.

Others are not mentally stable enought to work regularly or suffer
from serioius learning disabilities that make holding a job
difficult.

Others are too old, or too young.

So far every idiotic cut off the welfare idea that I have seen does a
lot more damage than good both to those who are cut off and to others
in the society.

>
> >It really sound like a good idea until you start to think of what
> >happens when people get tosssed off welfare.
> >Of course, a lot just die so that helps solve the problem. *This is
> >what happens when you just cut welfare payments not stop them
> >completely.
>
> I said it was a simple overview. *The plan is not a simplistic
> as you have latched onto.

Well it certainly sounded that way.
>
> >Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
> >combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.
>
> You're right. *Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>
> nancy

Well, it may not cure it but it cuts down on the desperate competition
that leads to drive-by shooting etc. No welfare, no poor kid
graduates from Gr. 8 let alone high school. It builds a permanent
underclass, which I guess the USA has already admitted that it has.


John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:17:29 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> 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. :~)
>>
>> kili
>
> You are not abusing the system babe. :-)

well, guess what? in the mania to kick 'shiftless' people off the rolls,
some people like kili get swept up, too.

yeah, some people cheat, but i'd venture to say the percentage is lower
than those who cheat on their taxes.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:42:58 -0400, 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?)

on the other hand, if you're not married there's no one to bitch about
underwear on the floor.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:44:42 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
>
> Thank you, Cheryl.
>
> Boron

as an atheist it almost pains me to say this, but we could do with a more
christian attitude around here.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:33:57 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Cheryl" > wrote:

>> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
> Cheryl, I have no issues with helping people. The issues I have are with
> those that don't try... Those that are on 3rd generation or more of
> moochers!
>
> I know that not all welfare recipients are like that, but the few tend
> to ruin a good system for the many. :-(
>
> I give away a good 10% of my net income to help both family members and
> the family of a good friend that I pay to do housecleaning I could do
> myself.
>
> I'm not without compassion.

if you're so ****ing compassionate, you shouldn't begrudge the one percent
of your taxes that go to welfare, even if part of that goes to the 'few'
'bad ones.'

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:05:37 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> T > fnord
> . org:
>
>>
>> Huh, RI is even stingier. You only get 2 years here but here's the
>> dirty little secret. While they won't pay the adults to stay on the
>> dole they sure as shit pay for the kids until they hit age 18.
>>
>
> Um, how do they "pay for the kids", without giving the funds to the
> parents? Do you think it is a child's responsibility to have parents who
> remain consistently employed?

well, they *did* make an awfully poor choice of parents. personal
responsibility, people!

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:20:29 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> No more welfare. Work or starve.

check back with us when you're hit by a bus and have no insurance.

your pal,
blake

"Omelet" wrote in message
news
> 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...

I would like to see an example as described above happening in New
Orleans.

-Mike

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:55:06 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> 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!
>
> 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.
>
> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare system
> is seriously ****ed up.

why not then argue for wider coverage, rather than kicking people out of an
inadequate system?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:13:53 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
> Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass.
>
> Let's get back to food.
>
> Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated garlic, and
> cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, onion slices, and
> lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola
> cake for dessert.

just like them welfare chiselers, except they probably had kobe beef.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:48:10 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> Omelet > fnord
> news >
>> In article > ,
>> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> That is why work at home programs would be the practical answer to
>> that.
>
> What kind of work do you suggest they do (for the government, right?) at
> home?

build tactical nukes.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:04:54 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> Omelet > fnord
>> news >>
>>> In article > ,
>>> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> That is why work at home programs would be the practical answer to
>>> that.
>>
>> What kind of work do you suggest they do (for the government, right?) at
>> home?
>
> Sewing, clerical work, etc. Now with the internet, even some businesses
> have people doing computer work from home.

yep, all you have to do is buy a computer and pay for internet access. no
problem there.

your pal,
blake

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> "Ms P" > :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> This is a stupid question... but... Is Welfare federal, state or both?
>
> Michael

Both. It's a federal program that's state administered.

Ms P

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:47:02 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article > ,
> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?
>
> I think that's the entire basis of this discussion babe. :-(

maybe so; you assume most recipients are unworthy and i do not.

your pal,
blake

On Sep 14, 7:07*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
>
> > Try spending money on programs to rehabilitate prisonners, rather than
> > warehousing them. *Include real vocational training.
>
> You live in Ontario John, so you know there is a decent education
> system. it is i\one of the best in the world. *But there is not much
> point in educating too many people to post secondary levels if there are
> not jobs available for them. You end up with people who won't accept low
> end jobs because they aren't good enough for them.

I'd disagree. At it's best it is very good but there is something
wrong with it when the dropout rate is as high as it is. I also find
that we are educating people not because many jobs need the education
but because employers are demanding credientials even if they are not
needed. However that's another topic.

I was referring more to the USA and its immenses numbers of prisoners
but the education level in Canadian (including Ontario ) prisions is
abismally low.

I'm doing this from memory (a Queen's public lecture a year ago) but
I think in the Federal prison population has about 20% high school
graduates but for the new cohort of prisoners (post Mike Harris'
welfare cuts[1]) the high school graduate rate is about 10% or less.
A huge number of prisioners are almost completely illiterate and
currently the Federal system spends almost nothing on serious
educational efforts. Also IIRC getting into a drug treatment program
in the Federal system is extremely difficult if it is at all
possible.

Steven Truscot came out of Kinston Pen (or where ever it was
Warkworth?) with solid trademan's training as a millwright. Now
prisoners are finding themselves in a kind of limbo, even those who
have been able to get into some training programs. some who are 1,2
even 3 years into an apprenticeship have been left hanging with the
programs cancelled and no papers.

One of the things that helps a prisioner go straight after getting out
is an ability to support himself/herself legitimately. When we
warehouse people with few or no marketable skills and don't train them
and don't do anytning to get them off drugas we're just asking for
hgh recidivism rates.

> >> Too bad there isn't an unpopulated island somewhere where they could all be
> >> shipped.
>
> > Australia is not accepting new immigrants. Oh and the Brits still have
> > crime and welfare problems
>
> FWIW, Britain only started sending prisoners to Australia after the
> American Revolution because up to that point, they had been sending them
> to the American colonies.

I was trying to be polite to our American contingent.

[1] Primier of Ontario whose famous "Common Sense Revoluton" did
immense damage to the province. And the worst of it was that some of
the "simiplistic" ideas were reasonable. The implementation was a cock-
up worthy of rating up there with the Katrina plans.

John Kane wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:13 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>
> I don't but even less do I like the simplistic "cut them off'" ideas
> etc.

As I've said, there is more to it than just cut them off.
Training, exemptions for some, etc. Other benefits that
are not cut off, for lack of a better term.

> I have actually seen some of these people in real life. A lot of
> them have minor little problems like serious physical disabilities
> that the provinical government won't acknowledge so they cannot get a
> disbility pension, instead they are on welfare.

I understand. Despite what you or others might think, I am not
against welfare and I do understand that there are people who
cannot support themselves for one reason or another.

> Others are not mentally stable enought to work regularly or suffer
> from serioius learning disabilities that make holding a job
> difficult.
>
> Others are too old, or too young.

I understand more than you know.

>> I said it was a simple overview. The plan is not a simplistic
>> as you have latched onto.
>
> Well it certainly sounded that way.

I said it was a simple overview, in those exact words. Meaning
there is more to it than my little blurb to Wayne about how they
are trying to stop the cycle of welfare dependence that runs in
families.

>>> Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
>>> combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.
>>
>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

> Well, it may not cure it but it cuts down on the desperate competition
> that leads to drive-by shooting etc.

This is why I was sarcastic, because there is welfare and there
has been drug dealing, drive bys, gang violence for *years* ...
so when there is welfare, there is that activity, but take away
welfare, we'll have that activity. That argument makes no sense
to me.

> No welfare, no poor kid
> graduates from Gr. 8 let alone high school. It builds a permanent
> underclass, which I guess the USA has already admitted that it has.

Again, welfare has built a permanent underclass? I happen to
think that has a grain of truth. And welfare or no, people are
required to send their children to school through a certain age.
Or school them, themselves. School is the part everyone pays
for, welfare or not. Separate from welfare is what I'm getting at.

Regardless, this subject has been beaten to death here, and
nothing has been solved. Surprising!

nancy

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:49:56 -0400, 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

the problem is, that would cost money, at least upfront, and as you can see
here people are ****ing and moaning about the measly one percent of their
taxes that go toward it now. there would be mass strokes if it was
suggested that maybe we should spend *more* for these shiftless ****ers.

your pal,
blake

On Sep 14, 4:35*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *John Kane > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14, 12:32*pm, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > > The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity.
>
> > Cite?
>
> Oh please!

If you cannot provide a cite then the statement is nonsense.

>
> > And if it does, why? *Has society made it so difficult to excape that
> > it is not even worth trying?
>
> Yes.

So you're saying that the system is so rigged against welfare
recipients that they cannot escape even when they want to?


> > What is the breakdown of the people on welfare in your community?
>
> I live in South Texas.

Means nothing to me. Do you know who is receiving welfare. Say broken
down by age, sex, marital status, disability status.

> > Just how much money do they get?
>
> Enough to survive,

As in Kraft dinner 25 days a week and a food kitchen the rest of the
time or driving a Cadillac to the store?

>but I'm not happy about supporting freeloaders. Are you?

I would not be but just how many free loaders do you have there?
Any ? How do you know?

Actually I am willing to tolerate a few freeloaders since it is going
to be far more expensive to weed them out than it is to put up with
them. That's just me thinking like a pragmatic bureaucrat.

>
> > > John Kane *Kingston ON Canada
>
> The USA is not as socialist as Canada is, yet.

Yes, I've noticed the health cost problems. It is rare if not unknown
for anyone to go bankrupt in Canada due to health care expenditures.
>
> What is your income tax rate?

I have not the faintest idea.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:15:54 -0400, kilikini wrote:

> 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.
>
> kili

with all due respect, kili, i doubt your race had anything to do with it.
they may ask, for statistical purposes, but it has nothing to do with
eligibility.

your pal,
blake

Omelet wrote:
>
> 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.

I've got to make a couple of Dr.'s appointments in the next few weeks, so
I'll ask about one of those. I'm still too weak to even get up off the
toilet without help many times so if I can stimulate muscles, I'm all for
it! I'll see what my PCP says. Thanks. I wouldn't have thought of that.

kili

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:09:28 -0500, 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?

you're saying 'they' do? complete and utter bullshit. cite, please.

blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:46:27 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
> 5.247:
>
>> 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!
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
>> system is seriously ****ed up.
>>
>
> I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic
> healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace
> that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative
> care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more
> money in the long run.
>
> It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break
> on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home.
>
> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided
> to me by my employer.

still, it would be nice not to have to continue in a job you hate, as not a
few people do, for fear of losing your insurance.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:29:54 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance
>>>> provided to me by my employer.
>>>
>>> So do I, and I still can't afford it. ;-)
>>>
>>> The health care issue is a whole 'nuther topic. Regulation adds a
>>> considerable expense to it. Since I work in health care, I see it
>>> first hand.
>>>
>>> And by the way, no federally subsidized ER (like ours) can refuse
>>> basic and emergency health care to anyone. We care for plenty of
>>> homeless in our ER...
>>
>> What happens in regards to recurring medical treatment? Someone may become
>> sick and initially go to the ER, but what if the situation is serious and
>> the individual needs lots of follow-up appointments?
>
> They keep coming back to the ER usually. We have a lot of "frequent
> flyers". I know some of the more compassionate MD's that even do
> volunteer work not only here, but third world countries too.
>
>> How does a person with
>> no insurance receive that? That was the situation I found myself in. I
>> initially got help for a private cancer agency, but when it came to multiple
>> surgeries and the myriad of doctor's appointments, I was stuck. Luckily, I
>> qualified for Medicaid. I wish it was available to everyone; it certainly
>> should be. All my tests are covered, all my follow-ups and all my
>> surgeries. If I had private insurance, most of the tests (partly due to the
>> frequency of the tests) would probably not be covered.
>>
>> kili
>
> 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!

why not go to the emergency room, since treatment there is so peachy?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:45:58 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Welfare ABUSERS are the problem and the issue.
>
> I'll say again, I have no problem with helping people that need help!
> It's those that go out of their way to earn a free living that are the
> entire problem!

and what percentage of the awful, awful one percent of your taxes do they
absorb?

christ, you begrudge these people the crumbs off your table. how
compassionate.

blake

On Sep 15, 10:03*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article > ,
> *Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Omelet > fnord
> >news
>
> > > In article > ,
> > > *T > wrote:
>
> > >> In article >,
> > >> says...
> > >> > In article 7>,
> > >> > *Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > In other words...... your claim that most welfare recipients
> > >> > > > are actually single white males is absolutely false.
>
> > >> > > > * *http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
>
> > >> > > 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 * *
>
> > >> > The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity.
>
> > >> > It needs a serious overhaul.
>
> > >> So tell me since you're the expert, what reforms would you make to
> > >> the welfare system?
>
> > > Government work programs. *I already stated that.
>
> > > Give them the welfare they need, but make them work for it.
> > > It really is that simple...
>
> > > I believe in helping people, just not in giving them a totally free
> > > ride. I work hard for the money I make.
>
> > So will the government pay for child care under your program, too?
>
> _Home_ work is my idea.
> That way they can stay home with the kids.
>
>
>
> > An overhaul of the system is needed, certainly. What kind of jobs are we
> > going to give these people so that they can get off welfare and make a
> > living that is enough to support their family?
>
> > Except for the three months I took off for maternity leave, and the few
> > months when I was unemployed a few years ago,(and it's not that I
> > "wouldn't" work; there were retail and fast-food jobs available, but
> > most of the places I applied at could not give me a set schedule, which
> > I needed because I could not afford childcare), I have worked full-time
> > my entire adult life. Until I was able to get my current job, I had
> > never made enough money where I could have supported myself and my
> > daughter on my paycheck alone. Does that make me lazy?
>
> Of course not. :-) *You are not the kind of person I had an issue with.
> There are some people that don't _want_ to get off of welfare and some
> are generational.
>
> I'm not against helping people in need! How many times do I have to say
> that? *I have a problem with deliberate freeloaders! *There are those
> that even feel that welfare recipients should be drug screened...

What freeloaders? The press may talk about 'freeloaders' but I bet
they're awfully hard to find on the ground.

> > It's more complicated than "have them work for the money". Basically,
> > you would have these people work for *less* than minimum wage. And
> > that's not a solution.
>
> Did I ever mention an amount? Is welfare less than minimum wage?

Perhaps you should call your local welfare office and ask?

You might find it suprising. Texas minimum wage is $6.55 apparently.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm#Texas

I don't know enough about Texas and US laws and terminology to easily
track down the welfare equivelent.

Welfare is well below the minumum wage in Ontario $520 pear month
according to this site http://www.uclg.ca/en/services/ontar...assistance.asp

Ontario minimum wage is $8 / hr. or roughly $1200 per month (assuming
a 40 hour week)
http://lpaula.wordpress.com/2007/02/...e-hike-canada/

Ergo 520/1200 is roughly 43% of the minumum wage.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:46:30 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> Omelet > fnord
> news >
>> In article 7>,
>> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Welfare ABUSERS are the problem and the issue.
>>
>> I'll say again, I have no problem with helping people that need help!
>> It's those that go out of their way to earn a free living that are the
>> entire problem!
>
> You act as if these people get enough money to live comfortably on. That
> is not the case.

but they all live in nicer houses, drive better cars, and watch bigger
t.v.'s than om does, all for sitting on their fat food-stamp asses! it's a
****ing disgrace, i tell you!

your pal,
blake

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Omelet >
> news > rec.food.cooking
>
>>> 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.
>
> GAWD!!! Then they'd have Sarah Palin spying on them with her opera
> glasses from her living room window. Well... maybe not. I doubt
> Palin knows what an opera is.
>
> Michael <- ducking but couldn't help himself

But I know she knows "Jesus Loves Me This I Know".

kili <------ double ducking

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:38:53 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> <shudder> It used to be that way... My dad is a victim of that
> mentality. :-(
>
> Probably not a bad idea, but it's terribly harsh.

um, maybe being terribly harsh makes it a bad idea? just thinking out loud
here.

blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:28:55 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 12:26:21p, Mark Thorson told us...
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> My proposal is that we agree to pay for their upkeep,
>> but they are required to move somewhere where those costs
>> are cheapest, and we can contract out the upkeep to the
>> lowest bidder. Russia and Mexico come to mind.
>>
>
> Or an unpopulated island.

don't forget to thoroughly flog them first. sure, they'll complain, but
it's for their own good.

blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:44:54 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>> The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity.
>>
>> It does, indeed!
>>
>>> It needs a serious overhaul.
>>
>> And it needs to be at shock level. Boom! No more freeloading. Get a damn
>> job or don't eat.
>
> No argument there...

charming.

blake

On Sep 15, 10:57*am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> > 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.

But your argument posits that support is wasted. Mine is that support
works and I can prove it. If you really want people to get off
welfare, you should stop trying to make them guilty for your opinions.

> > 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..

And that's not a conspiracy? One of the meanings of "conspire" is
"seem to be working together, esp. disadvantageously". So if
employers agree that they must keep welfare recipients out of the work
force while dexter governments try to drive them in, one can conclude
that the employers have indeed conspired to work against the stated
policy (i.e. disadvantageously). The fact that they will claim it is
in their interest to behave in this unsociable fashion doesn't do
their case any good.

> > 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.

Oh, get over that one. Find a better argument than that whiny flip.

> > 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 said it was another debate. If you want to have that debate fine,
but it's not the current topic so stick to it.

> > 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???

But we're talking about YOUR agenda. Besides, what do you know about
my "strange political agenda"? I have no political agenda, except
maybe breaking through encrusted prejudices. You, on the other hand,
feel justified in demanding things of people you yourself would not be
prepared to do were you in their situation.

Tell you what. Spend just three months on welfare, living in a cheap
rented room that smells of mildew, using a public toilet, eating the
cheapest food you can get every single day, feeling your health
decline every day and being told by "honest citizens" (tm applied for)
that they cannot take a chance on hiring you because of your current
circumstances, and then come tell me how you feel. I think you'll
understand then that you're the one with the agenda.

Of course, your agenda includes ignoring the real world in favour of
your bourgeois construct. And don't deny it.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:35:04 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article
> >,
> John Kane > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 12:32*pm, Omelet > wrote:
>>>
>>> The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Oh please!
>

yes, god forbid you should have to back up 'compassionate' beliefs with
some facts. i mean everyone knows the welfare rolls are filled with
shiftless hypersexual wastrels.

blake