From a recent Washington Post article... From Welfare to Work The state's cash assistance welfare rolls have shrunk by more than half, but at the same time, many of those leaving welfare still have difficulty meeting their families needs. Perhaps a more modest home entertainment budget, one that does not include 52" televisions, would make life easier. Check out the picture using the link above; I'll try to post it here but I suck at figuring out where they stash these stupid pictures on their servers. Aren't I insensitive? ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 13, 2000).]
LOL BK, Love it. Keep them coming. ------------------ "Is this thing on? I'm in charge now"-Alexander Haig
I agree. I guess with that many kids, buying a smaller TV and putting away the extra money for the kids' education just doesn't make sense. Maybe it's the angle of the picture, but that looked like a "wide screen"???!!! My wife wouldn't let me have one of those, maybe I should go into welfare. ------------------ "All doors must remain open in order to maintain proper air flow." - a quote from a US Home Customer Service Manager. I Don't Think So!!!
For one thing, I missed that part of the article that said that she bought that TV from her welfare benefits. (If I did, point it out to me) I guess I'm just more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem. 98% of those who receive welfare do not abuse the system. They really need the help. Remember Reagan's "welfare queen" back in the 1980s. He talked about a woman with however many children living in luxury and driving a brand new car because of what she made off welfare. Guess what, he was lying. No one could find record of this "welfare queen". Plus, welfare benefits are still below the poverty line. People act like welfare recipients get like $1,000 a week to sit on their asses. I agree that the other 2% should be 0%, but using that 2% to somehow show that all welfare mothers are the same is wrong. That's like saying all Republicans are racist a$$holes just because a few of them actually are. Anyway, I'd rather have 2% of welfare recipients living like this than the 100% of the rich getting richer with government assistance. ------------------ Just because you're white and play basketball doesn't mean you're a Matt Bullard clone, despite idiotic accusations to the contrary. visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited July 13, 2000).]
I was a 16 year old grocery sacker at Randalls #19 when Reagan was in office. If I had a dollar for every time I sacked groceries that were paid for with food stamps, then carried them out to a new cadillac (which of course I don't have dollar for every one of those times, 'cuz I never got tipped on those jaunts), I'd be quite a bit richer. If Reagan's welfare queen was never found, it's because no one ever looked for her. She was everywhere, and we had plenty of them in Southwest Houston--and I'm sure we still do. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Damn RocketMan95, well said. Although I would never wish ill will on anyone, including of course my family, I was glad to see the after effects that the dole had on my mother. She too was a Republican that only watched the 'sensationlist' shows (i.e. the kind the Fox network makes), in fact this was her entire way of acquiring her news. She took all of her generalizations with her down to the unemployment line and realized that there are actually real people that require public assistance. But, in that this is a Xtreme, COPS™ society, I do not think the image of the 'well fare queen' will ever go away. Too many sound bytes, too much data. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 13, 2000).]
The biggest problem with welfare is that everytime the "good intentioned liberals" try to help, they just make it worse. I really believe that most people do not want to be on welfare. Certainly, the exceptions such as the disabled and mentally ill may well need governmental assistance, and there may be some short term safety net requirements. Most people would rather have a decent paying job and take care of themselves and their families rather than relying on a government hand-out. The federal and local governments have to be the biggest slumlords of all. In their good intentions to provide housing, they created high-rise slums in the Projects. This is true in any metropolitan city in America. Buildings, not homes, were provided with little management and less maintenance. Instead of trying to create a homogeneous living environment, the projects are concentrated in the inner city, and primarily targeted for black Americans. Different ethnic groups seem to prefer living among their own - that's why you have Polish neighborhoods, and Irish and Vietmanese and Indians and Mexicans, even Russians in Brighton Beach in NYC. Most live in these types of neighborhoods by choice. But the inner city blacks were never given a choice - it was the projects or nothing. So they were effectively isolated from the rest of the community, and held back by abhorent practises like mortgage redlining and racial profiling. Is it any wonder that things turned out the way they are? And programs like Aid To Dependent Children were incentives for women to have more babies, so they could get more government help. The conservative answer is to help people "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". The liberal answer is more government involvement. Which is better? Neither if they're wrapped up in bureacracy and greed and bigotry. Better education is key. Not necessarily more money for public schools, but more guidance on how to use it wisely. The hot meals program for both breakfast and lunch should be year around (it's hard to concentrate on studies if your stomach's grumbling all day), until our society transitions to one with better opportunities for all, and that could take years. Concentrate on the basics of reading, writing, and math. Let the local school districts driv their curriculums. Do away with social promotions. Test teachers to ensure they're qualified to teach the kids. Get rid of courses like diversity training and sex education (or at least teach the boys to keep their pants zipped and the girls to keep their skirts down). Instill a little competition with private schools. I think Florida's got a program where districts lose funding if test scores fall below a certain line, and get it back when they achieve the norms. Extracurricular activities, such as sports and music, are important, but no high school needs a dozen football coaches, or trips by the basketball team to play in tournaments all over the country. And finally, enforce the civil rights laws we have. Like gun control, we don't need any more if we'd just enforce the ones we have. Eliminate racial profiling, redlining, job discrimination. Changing attitudes is the biggest challenge - there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that go unfilled everyday because "they're just not good enough for me". Raising self-esteem is difficult, but oh so necessary. Have you volunteered to help today? ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Rocketman95- First let me say I dont want to come off like I have an attitude and I agree with a lot of what you are syaing. I still think you're the one who spoke to soon. Nobody cares if she got the TV from charity or something along those lines. I don't really care if the tv magically appeared in her house one morning. The fact of the matter is that she has a quite large, widescreen looking=relatively new, extremely expensive tv in your house. Lets say your on welfare, have a kid or two, desperately need the money and are given a free state of the art tv. Eve if it is slightly used, the tv in that picture should bring in at the very leats about a grand. All that yougotta do is sell the tv, then if you dont have one at all, you can purchase a smaller, less expensive tv that nonetheless wroks well, somewhere between 19 and 25 inches, nothing too special for around $150 or so at WalMArt. That is definitely what I would do in that situation. As I said, I agree with you on most of what you said. Certainly, some poeple need the help and need that push for the first 6 months to a year to get started. Your sister is a perfect example. Yet having a sister like that, I would think you of all people would be the most angered by this picture. Your sister is actually a proponent for how welfare works. These other people are the ones ripping the system off, the ones that make some poeple stop and say, wait a minute, maybe this system isnt working and changes DO need to be made. YOu know, some of the roads I drive on I like a lot. SOme of them really suck. But I know its not the govt paying for them. I pay for my own roads, out of every paycheck--you know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I also pay for those on welfare who are continually given the chance over and over again yet never take...the lazy ones you mention. The may be less in number, but as the grocery kid mentioned, they are definitely out there. All Im saying is taht it wouldnt be too much to ask to adjust the system, to have osmeone on welfare for only a year at a time and no more than 2 or 3 times a decade...some cahnges like that. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully like my grandfather. Not screaming like the passengers in the back seat! [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited July 13, 2000).]
I'm curious... does anyone know what the actual percentage is of abuse in the welfare system? Since alot of our biases are based on a picture painted back in the Reagan era, perhaps it is best to quote a figure from the 80s (before the 'end of welfare as we know it'). Using that same time period I'm curious to see what the percentage was of welfare in proportion to all government spending. I'll look for these #s, but if you beat me to it, then thanks in advance. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
Well, I grew up on welfare. No shame in that. I lived in a BAD neighborhood where a gunshot use to signify that it was 11pm like some kind of church bell. My mother and father came from the Dominican Republic and they didn't know a LICK of English and already had 2 kids. They ended up with four. My moms worked at Burger King while learning English and my pops went to auto mechanic school to learn a trade. ALL ON WELFARE, MEDICADE and other govt financial assistance. I think we were paying with food stamps until I was about 13. I am now 29. So basically, almost half of my life, we used it. The problem is not the people. The problem is the 2 percent that abuse it. I don't know where that person got here huge TV, but on welfare, we lived in a bad neighborhood with 2 Ford Pintos and barely could afford a 19 inch. Welfare doesn't give you enough so that you can spend it on $3000 televisions, in my opinion. That TV could not have come from that, I think. If it did, then how can she feed her family if she is spending it all on things like that? I am proud of my parents who started on welfare and are now upper middle class and were able to put me through college. We could of moved out of that crappy neighborhood when they started making money, but we stayed until 1990. Some people who live in the projects don't necessarily mean they can't get out. Sometimes, they make friends there and decide to stay. If that person is using her funds for other things other than her family, that person should be arrested and made to pay back the money. Government assistance is necessary for people who need help. I think that if you need it, use it. But don't abuse it because my freakin taxes are paying for that damn TV!(If she used her funds for that.) ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
I think it wouldn't be difficult to spend $1.70 for every dollar you make if you only make $500 per month and have kids. I won't debate whether or not a big screen tv in the home of a welfare recipient is an indictment of the system or not. That is not for me to say. The simple fact is that it is VERY difficult in this country to be poor not just because of the lack of money but because of the stereotype and condemnation that comes with the territory. For some reason, everyone seems to believe the poor are hiding some reason for their poverty. I think it is tough enough to have to deal with the social and psychological difficulties of poverty without those of us who have more than enough to survive lumping more crap on them. I'd rather help than blame. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
I admit, I may have jumped the gun a little and assumed the TV was purchased with welfare money. But, as JayZ750 had already stated, what about a smaller TV? I am sorry, but the 2% (people who does abuse the system) is just too small IMHO. I've seen too many people who have abuse the system to get money from the gov. When I was in college, 80% of the people I knew that were getting grant from the gov for education were driving brand sport cars (most are new). Ok, this is not the same situation as the woman in this story, but my point is that if there is a loophole in the system, people will find it and use it. I believe in the welfare program because I do believe that it helps the less fortunate. As long as it does, I don't mind as much that some people are getting a free ride. Almu, a 19" TV back then wasn't cheap. ------------------ "All doors must remain open in order to maintain proper air flow." - a quote from a US Home Customer Service Manager. I Don't Think So!!!
Looks like a HDTV to me...probably cost more than $2000...that is for sure. Hey...she had to switch over anyway because they quit broadcasting NTSC in...hmm...2006 . Oh yeah...they will have a converter. If she is a welfare Mom and has a TV like that, I say to hell with her....cut her off. These kinds of scams just piss me off. Sure, have 4 kids, get divorced, never work again...we will all pay for it! But, for God's sake, don't try to do anything with your life...wouldn't want to put you out.... Surf ------------------
Moon, It was a hand me down. It ended up being our living room table after 3 years. Ahhh...to get up and change the knob. Remember those days? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
BK, you're due for another response. Allright, welfare sucks, it is not a solution. It is a sometimes abused and poorly run program. However, it is better than nothing. I don't care if that ady somehow abuses the system to allow her to buy a $2000 TV and a 20 pound cheese wheel. For every one that abuses, there are more that really need it. That is all I care about - there is no fool-proof system. BK - I am surprised that the dollar spent per earned is not higher. My uncle makes 6 figures and he probably spends about $100 to every dollar earned, but he is well off, so he can play the system. A friend of mine in high school had a mother who was fired on a whim from some minimal skill job. It took her a long time to find a job because she was a poor black woman with little education and skills. My friend was working at Wendys and was supporting the family. It was the single mother, my friend and two smaller siblings. Anyway, welfare and Wendys was not getting the job done, so he started selling drugs - nothing too big - but he did it. I told him he makes his own decisions and deals with the consequences. Now, this is not a "poor him" story - that he was forced to sell drugs, it is just something that happened. The point is - they were not living large off tax payers. Who knows where he is know, but I am sure it is not in a good place. He was pretty bright, but there was no way he gained any skills in that high school. Hell, I was in all of the advanced classes with the good teachers and I knew more than most of them. Except one math teacher who always told us that, "you honors kids aren't that smart. I'm a lot smarter than you are. And when I was your age, I was so fine and all the boys wanted me..." Rinse, repeat. Anyway, maybe if a little thing like education was improved, people might actually have tools to do something with their lives. What a waste this post was. ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
I knew if I baited the hook one of you would bite. You're absolutely right. Of course, perhaps if she wasn't spending $2000 on a nice big TV, she would have a better chance of graduating from the welfare rolls-- my point all along. Jumped into that one a little too quickly, didn't you? The poor in America spend more than $1.70 for every dollar they earn. This is a huge reason why they stay poor. It is not universally applicable (this standard disclaimer is a necessity when posting anything the left will dislike) but it is an important factor in explaining why the poor stay poor despite the trillions of dollars in welfare, education and health benefits, housing, and tax breaks that have been provided for them by our benevolent dictatorship over the past 36 years. [START literalspeak for people who will now think I am saying the poor are poor only because they all buy big TVs] The poor buy into the role of the American consumer the same way the middle class and the rich do. The difference is that they cannot afford this lifestyle and are not generally educated enough to recognize easy-credit or discount rip-offs when they see them. They spend beyond their means and never acquire any accumulated wealth. This is a major factor in explaining multi-generation poverty. [STOP literalspeak for people who will now think I am saying the poor are poor only because they all buy big TVs] NOTE: I am willing to bet at least one person will post something to the effect that I'm saying the poor are poor because they all buy luxury items. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
I personally hate all forms of gvt. assistance, although I do agree short term benefits are needed (maybe 6 months or so). After that I look at it as more laziness than anything else. AS you can tell I am definetely an a$$hole republican , but people have a choice: 1. Do things to help yourselves (work hard, education, etc) or 2. Sit around and let the gvt. help you I do understand assistance may be needed in other cases (like disabilities where the gvt. may need to subsidize wages to encourage their employment or benefits for those who can't (NOT WON'T) support themselves) but in most cases gvt. assistance is a crutch that people won't get rid of. ------------------
The govt. takes, and the govt. gives ------------------ "Is this thing on? I'm in charge now"-Alexander Haig
I have no problem with people having different opinions than me, or a differnet view of certain circumstances. It's your f*cking condescending attitude I hate. What I meant is that she could have received her T.V. from charity or something along those lines, which is surely possible. Jumped into that one a little too quick didn't you. Pole, I'm sure you remember those, but how many do you remember that paid with food stamps who took the bus, or drove a hunk of junk. I was a sacker once too, and the examples you gave stood out in my mind too. But I'm sure for every time that happened, there 100 mothers who didn't have a brand new car. Maybe you should heed your own advice and be prudent, don't jump to conclusions. Have you ever known anyone on welfare? My sister was on welfare. She didn't have a big screen T.V. She had one child. She drove a car my Dad gave her. She bought Ramen noodles. She still didn't receive enough from the government to cover her minimal expenses. She is the normal family on welfare. And guess what, she was off in around six months, which is the around the average time spent on welfare. But, you let the media lead you to believe that the majority of welfare recipients either take advantage of the system or get way too much assistance in the first place. Common sense will tell you that the poor spends more per dollar they earn than others. There's not different sets of prices for basic necesiites like toilet paper, paper towels, milk, etc. (yeah, there may be a few cent difference, but a middle-class person buying the $2 milk and the poor buying the $1.80 milk is not that much of a difference) 4chuckie, do you like the roads you drive on? Just wondering since the government built those roads. Around 50% of our nation's budget is for social welfare, which includes tax breaks for the rich (which I would bet my left testicle that the dollar amount is much higher than the tax breaks for the poor), the highway system, and numerous other things. Around 2% of that goes to the poor. I'm just sick of people who actually believe that those on welfare are lazy, dumb people mooching off the government. It's just not true (for the most part). Sure there are some who receive too much, or are on it too long, but that is a very small number. ------------------ Just because you're white and play basketball doesn't mean you're a Matt Bullard clone, despite idiotic accusations to the contrary. visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited July 13, 2000).]
Darn. Am I uninvited to Gatti's now? Sorry. I just don't have much patience for knee-jerk reactions, which your reply clearly was. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 14, 2000).]
