posted on February 9, 2001 12:06:48 PM new
I don't know what state you live in krs, but taking in children is not a lucrative business here. I cannot have more children, though I desperately wanted them, am I choosing to spend thousands and thousands and wait years to get that perfect, white child that is so much in demand? No, I am not. Jada, what are you doing to alleviate the plight of those children that are in foster care? What I will be doing is temporary foster care until those children are returned back to their families.
A woman and 3 or 4 kids in this state can score $500 a month in food stamps, it takes a lot less than that to feed my family of 4. Yet, their food stamps never make it through the end of the month, why is that? Food stamps are vouchers in a sense, they can almost any kind of food they want with it, and no they cannot buy paper goods, toothpaste, laundry soap, and other essentials. This town I live in is a huge welfare town, I have volunteered enough to know what they do with their food stamps. Don't you think it sad that they fill their carts up with chips, coke, and candy? That is the way to make their child happy? What you are saying is it is much better for them to spend all their stamps on junk and then worry about trying to feed their kids for another 2 weeks? I know what I speak of, I see it everyday with my volunteer work. Maybe your part of the country is different than mine.
posted on February 9, 2001 12:24:38 PM new
snowydays,
Maybe the answer is to increase the food
allowance. It must be very difficult to
feed a family with only 500.00 a month. When a
few chips, coke and candy blows the
budget I think that it's time for a raise.
In order to handle this, it helps to focus
on the plight of the children
and not the failure of the parents to provide
food or budget their money wisely.
posted on February 9, 2001 12:51:09 PM new
Lol very hard to feed a family on $500 a month? We eat very well, thank you. My kids eat healthy meals three times a day and there is plenty of extra for a few boxes of Captain Crunch and some chips. I am not talking about a few packages of chips and candy with them, I am talking about a cart filled to the brim with soda, chips, and sugar.
"In order to handle this, it helps to focus
on the plight of the children
and not the failure of the parents to provide food or budget their money wisely." No, it is not the childs fault, that is why I volunteer. I would rather see the children eat than the adults. I was overjoyed yesesterday when I went to the store to pick up a gallon of milk, the family in front of me made me proud to know that our tax dollars are going to such a worthy cause. They had a cart full of junk food that they were eating while waiting in line. Not a single, healthy thing in there. Donuts, chips, cookies. No bread, milk or meat. The mother had to have weighed at least 400 pounds and the kids were as wide as they were tall. All paid for with food stamps, $300 worth. How is that healthy for a child? What benefit is that child getting from this, a bunch of empty calories that get them nowhere? Then not having anything to eat for the last few weeks of the month.
That is very sad.
posted on February 9, 2001 02:30:38 PM new
Snowydays,
I'm sure that all of these people that are living off of junk food have marvelous kitchen with stoves and refrigerators that work. If they would only plan ahead, they could cook extra casseroles and put them into the big freezer they have in the basement. That way, they could pop them into the microwave when they wanted a quick meal.
posted on February 9, 2001 02:51:45 PM new
There is always an excuse for them, isn't there? Nothing is ever their fault, they are a poor victim of circumstance. Don't put another thought into, let them continue to be a drain upon society, do nothing to change it, do nothing to help them make better lives for themselves. It is our duty, after all, to support all of them for the rest of their lives and ours. Lets not try and help them to help themselves. That is the American way.
posted on February 9, 2001 02:55:01 PM new
Maximum possible food stamp benefit for family of 5 in 2000 was indeed over $500 -- $508 to be exact. But to receive that, you'd need to have no income and monthly rent cost of $1,000 per month. A lower rent or _any_ income would reduce the foodstamp benefit. So it's actually rather unlikely that you've ever seen anyone who's receiving "over $500 a month" in food stamps, snowydays.
DWest - great comments. I think that when some folk ask themselves "what would I do in their situation", in the process of determining what the Right Thing For Them To Do is, they forget that they don't get to take the cards they're holdin' with them.
What anger I have is not directed at someone in line a the market buying potato chips with food stamps. It's reserved for a system that spends as much to administer the system as it does in benefits; where paperwork is more important than the supposed clients. I've had occasion to help people through the maze, and it's astonishing. F'r instance, don't apply for food stamps hungry. It'll take six weeks to process you. But they do provide a list of church basement soup kitchens. An out of date and incorrect list, but it's the thought that counts.
-gaffan-
posted on February 9, 2001 03:02:08 PM new
But, Julesy, what fun! I can envision myself gleefully snatching bags of snickers from carts and substituting bags of melba toast. Because, by God, I can afford those snickers and I deserve them.
But really I believe the problem is the failure of the public schools, as are most other social ills. If we could only come together as a nation and sacrifice a few teachers with a public burning a couple of times a year, I believe that would solve the problem.
posted on February 9, 2001 03:02:37 PM new
"There is always an excuse for them, isn't there? Nothing is ever their fault, they are a poor victim of circumstance. Don't put another thought into, let them continue to be a drain upon society, do nothing to change it, do nothing to help them make better lives for themselves. It is our duty, after all, to support all of them for the rest of their lives and ours. Lets not try and help them to help themselves. That is the American way."
This is what they call in RHET 001 (Remedial Rhetorical Techniques) The Fallacy of the False Alternative. Nobody has contended anything of the sort, anywhere in this thread.
But I really have to ask, snowydays: Why is it that you engage in all the charitable work listed earlier? It sounds as though you are very resentful of and disgusted with the people served. Does it feed some sense of superiority?
-gaffan-
[ edited by gaffan on Feb 9, 2001 03:04 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 03:12:08 PM newAntiquary LOL!
Maybe you can take Julia Child along with you, or Martha Stewart...so each and every ice cream indulging FS recipient can learn how to cook a 7 course meal, in between caring for their children, while spending 4 hours per day getting around town with public transportation.
posted on February 9, 2001 03:18:37 PM new
Oh yes, that woman must have been storing all the ice cream and frozen pizza outside in the ice house. After all, we do know that those on Welfare don't even have the basic essentials of life don't we?
Yes, those on Welfare disgust me, but the children do not. That is why I do what I do. Tell me, what are you out there doing?
[ edited by snowydays on Feb 9, 2001 03:20 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 03:19:35 PM new
Julesy, your additional tasks are a piece of cake, echoing a famous and quite conservative view from the past.
edited because I wanted to
[ edited by Antiquary on Feb 9, 2001 03:21 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 03:38:20 PM new
Snowydays,
Since you are a volunteer and in close touch
with the problem, I am interested in what you
think is the best solution to what
you percieve as misuse of foodstamps.
Helen
edited again to try to write a question
nicely.
[ edited by HJW on Feb 9, 2001 03:42 PM ]
[ edited by HJW on Feb 9, 2001 03:50 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 03:56:59 PM new
Do a search on welfare fraud on the internet. You will find out who truly benefits from welfare, those with substance abuse problems, the scammers, the cheaters.
Look at all the cases of Welfare fraud in each state, and then tell me there is not a problem that needs to be fixed.
posted on February 9, 2001 04:08:17 PM new
Julesy: It took me 5 and 1/2 hours a day to get my daughter to and from school (5 miles) using public transportation when my car was broken .
After all, we do know that those on Welfare don't even have the basic essentials of life don't we?
Snowydays, you might be very surprised how many people do not have electricity or telephones. The stereotype you are presenting of the welfare cheat I encountered rarely in 20 years of working with people in poverty.
posted on February 9, 2001 04:17:19 PM new
I was wondering how long it would take to wind up here.
Alarmists not withstanding, welfare fraud over the past decade adds up to about the cost of one (1) stealth bomber tail assembly. In the greater scheme of things (and realizing that I'm dangerously close to echoing Dirksen's famed "a billion here, a billion ther, pretty soon you're talking real money" comment), it's just not that much.
But let's take your contention at face value, that there are lots of terrible, terrible, conniving scum who ought to be ashamed, pilfering our precious tax dollars by somehow subverting the system and getting more than they deserve. You characterize these folk as "those who truly benefit... from welfare".
So, shall we cut out the programs entirely because some abuse exists? Or shall we spend twice as much on administration to cut the fraud in half? Doesn't seem an effective use of our tax dollars, that.
You seem to be very angry at all people on welfare, or who receive any form of "government handout".
-gaffan-
posted on February 9, 2001 04:29:40 PM new
Snowydays
That is exactly the answer that I got on the aids thread.
If we send aid to help contain the aids epidemic then some of
it may be misused. Therefore, don't do anything. Let Aids
proliferate. Let babies be born to suffer with the disease and die.
Here we have people in the United States without enough money to
feed their family. Since
there is some abuse of the system and some know nothing about nutrition, are you in favor of stopping all aid to these people also?
posted on February 9, 2001 04:32:39 PM new
There actually could be a lot of finger-pointing regarding the not-so-well planned use of foodstamps. True, I have seen what snowydays describes...I am almost certain we all have...But instead of criticizing the people, it would serve the government well to make the parents sign up for a class on nutrition, when they sign up for food stamps, to teach them how to use them well, and make the food last...But no! That would demand a little effort! But in the end, is it not more costly to treat these poor kids and the parents for heart problems and diabetes?
Education, I believe, is [a small] part of the solution.
Also, listening to my grand-kids report what they ate in the cafeteria makes me want to go after the school system...What they offer the children is a disgrace....Of course, the child is going to chose the pizza vs the salad and fruit...Schools should not be offering that kind of choice to children or young adults. There should be a well-balanced meal...period...If kids did not like that, then they could pack a lunch...That sounds very radical, and I apologize. But teaching the young ones has to start early.
********
Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 9, 2001 05:10:24 PM new
I do believe highly in the value of education, but especially in this particular application, I question its effectiveness unless there is also training and follow-up. The costs I envision ensuing would be enormous with the constant and consistent supervision. In other words, one is still likely to see shopping carts with the forbidden goodies unless some sort of monitoring occurs. Thus the same arguments arise that the system is being abused and they need to be forced into complying with the acceptable standard modes of behavior. So more must be done.
Since we now have the means to develop universal electronic surveillance, movements toward monitoring for success make me a tad uneasy. I'm sure that all of us have faults that a benevolent Big Brother could see that we perfect. I'm very much in favor of providing assistance, personally and societally, for those with needs; but for my own beliefs about personal freedom, I am reluctant to set too high standards of mandated behaviors for others.
syntax
[ edited by Antiquary on Feb 9, 2001 05:13 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 05:20:37 PM new
Snowydays, you can feed a family of 4 on $500 a month??? Where do you live???
I spend a LOT more than that for just me and my 2 kids...of course, we do live in Hawaii, but I spent about the same when I was living in L.A.
Oh, and question regarding wayyy back there when you said that you would never go on welfare.
Let's say that, God forbid, something happened to your wife and you had to take care of your kids by yourself. Then let's say, again God forbid, your house burnt to the ground with all of your possessions in it and you were laid off from your job. Let's say your parents and/or other family members aren't around to help. Would you still work those triple shifts at McDonald's and leave your children unattended? Or would you break down and go on welfare?
posted on February 9, 2001 05:28:23 PM newkrs...thanks to you, I might never again enjoy a spoonful of ice cream...Good job......That was GROSS!!!
See, I was right...those kids should NOT have chosen pizza...
...That was GROSS!!!