Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Brokenbad

I was never jealous of people on welfare, until today.

108 posts in this topic

What about this scenario, what would you do?

Family of 4 where the mother is a stay at home mom.

Dad works full time but after all bills and gas to get to work and back the family is left with about $400 per month for clothing, food, and the occasional meal at a restaurant.

This family is on WIC, and they get around $350 worth of Bread, Milk, Cheese, Cereal, and fresh fruit per month on the WIC program. Based on the low income of the father, this family is more than eligible for the WIC benefits.

Do you take the benefits or not? Or is this "cheating the system"

Do they have a $3000/mo mortgage and he drives a Hummer? If so, yes they're cheating the system.

If it's because he works a low wage job and can't get anything else, then no they're not cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this scenario, what would you do?

Family of 4 where the mother is a stay at home mom.

Dad works full time but after all bills and gas to get to work and back the family is left with about $400 per month for clothing, food, and the occasional meal at a restaurant.

This family is on WIC, and they get around $350 worth of Bread, Milk, Cheese, Cereal, and fresh fruit per month on the WIC program. Based on the low income of the father, this family is more than eligible for the WIC benefits.

Do you take the benefits or not? Or is this "cheating the system"

Honestly, the old me would ask why the hell are these parents having kids they can't afford. Now i try to look at the economy and think maybe at one time this man had a great job and could afford 4 kids or more only to lose his employment due to outsourcing. Also they could be a blended family like the Brady Bunch. I use to be pretty hardcore in my thinking. I will say this. My daughter will be getting married next year and i told her str8 up don't have any children until you are well enough off to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this scenario, what would you do?

Family of 4 where the mother is a stay at home mom.

Dad works full time but after all bills and gas to get to work and back the family is left with about $400 per month for clothing, food, and the occasional meal at a restaurant.

This family is on WIC, and they get around $350 worth of Bread, Milk, Cheese, Cereal, and fresh fruit per month on the WIC program. Based on the low income of the father, this family is more than eligible for the WIC benefits.

Do you take the benefits or not? Or is this "cheating the system"

Start a community outreach with another family with kids. Switch off kids during different days off so that the mothers can at least have a part time job, and bring in some type of income.

Get a second job delivering pizzas in the evenings, maybe this is the mother after the father gets home from work, or father gets home and changes clothes then goes back out.

Buy a lot of condoms.

Cut up the credit cards and get rid of anything so you can get out of debt to free up cash.

There are ways around everything, it's just much easier to just get a check from the government.....so that's what people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad you brought up the oil industry welfare state. Have you ever actually checked the non- subsidized price on alternative fuels? The evil fossil fuel producers are subsidized at a miniscule rate as compared to your green sources, all to pull the wool over less educated folks into believing that the time is now to dump oil/gas/coal. No, I'm afraid the alternative energy lobby is closer to your "welfare queen" than any oil guy.

Well there is a lot more in the equation than just prices. Coal for instance has a lot of negatives associated with its use that can end up costing money later (this coal ash spill in Tennessee for example cost almost $1 bil to clean up). China is a great example of the costs / benefits of a huge expansion in coal production- it was cheap and helped them industrialize very quickly, but now they have to deal with the negative externalities such as polluted air in many cities.

Also when you consider how completely reliant the entire global market is on cheap, plentiful energy, there is some danger becoming heavily reliant on one energy source because a dramatic change in the supply would have a domino effect on all kind of commodity prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP NEVER said that the person was black...yet you immediately jumped to that conclusion.

I guess that makes YOU the racist one, huh?

uhhh neither did i genius

in fact he was defending himself from accusations of racism in the OP before they ever even happened. he literally said "i know this probably sounds racist"

you are the dumbest poster, and that is quite the accomplishment here in the tinderbox

you're out of your element. back away from the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't comprehend my statement. I was analyzing a minority based on the United States as the sociocultural forum. The countries in your cute graph all have different economies, standards of living, laws, etc. Essentially, it's an apples to oranges argument.

When you apply for financial aid for college, one of the questions ask you if you have ever been convicted of selling narcotics while receiving financial aid. Is that unconstitutional? I think just the threat of drug testing recipients could be enough to sway some people.

I understand some people have grown up living off the government and expect hand outs. They're okay just getting by. I also understand some people need help and it's frustrating when you realize your hard earned tax dollars go some lazy person who just wants to reproduce and eat.

You're obviously trying to make this into a racial thing, but I can assure you AA are not the only people who are guilty of this.

i "didn't comprehend your statement"? you were "analyzing" something? because iirc you said

I have a sociology degree and one semester we talked about how many AA athletes come from underprivileged, large, poor families. A theory on this is that many of the mothers believe that increasing the amount of children she has will increase or improve her odds of having a child that could develop into a star athlete this resulting in the family moving up in class. Interesting stuff with evidence to support.

this isn't analysis. this is throwing poo at the wall. MY point was that all around the world, throughout recent centuries, there has been a significant relationship between poverty and fertility. your analysis was "i took a sociology class therefore"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i "didn't comprehend your statement"? you were "analyzing" something? because iirc you said

this isn't analysis. this is throwing poo at the wall. MY point was that all around the world, throughout recent centuries, there has been a significant relationship between poverty and fertility. your analysis was "i took a sociology class therefore"

I have a sociology degree. you don't. I am more qualified to speak on this than YOU. But by all means continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They put limits on how long you are able to draw unemployment benefits. Why not do the same with welfare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

formal training without sound methodology is dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go. Probably close to what OP was speaking of.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites