It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Holes in the social safety net: Keeping the poor in their place

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 

I'm not sure who you're directing your post to.

I am employed as a college professor, as I've said earlier in this thread.

I think some government programs work better than others. That doesn't mean that some of them can't be improved.




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj75
or maybe they got sick of her NOT working and using other peoples HARD EARNED money for stashing and paying for her kids to go to school. bottom line, get off your @$% and get a job. I understand you may need welfare to get through a tough time, BUT if your just stay on it for the easy route you should have it taken away. I work 50-60 hours a week...she can do the same! And tell her kids to study and fill out financial aid forms like I did to go to college....if mom is having that toughof a time then the kids WILL get good financial aid and a chance at a better life...

so this whole "she's a victim" thing is kinda sad...shes no victim..she's just either lazy or tried to abuse the system and thankfully got caught!!


I agree
but they should also have mandatory work for social asssistence for those that can work
picking up garbage on the streets and what ever else we can get out of them mabe shine shoes in the subway
anything to get them off their lazy arses
Im all for social assistance but hey dont let them sit at home and get lard arsed on my money please!
free money only makes you lazy and a useless eater
put them to work
you will find them hustling to get jobs fast trust me



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by justamomma
 

I'm not sure who you're directing your post to.


Since you are a college professor, I am sure you can go back and figure it out.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


You miss the point of the intended benefit of welfare: It is not designed to allow anyone to "get ahead" but as a TEMPORARY means to merely survive. Food and shelter, that is it. For her to save money is great, but it defeats the purpose of the welfare system. The money in her bank account ultimately came from taxpayers and that is not right. I want my money in my bank account, not hers because I am struggling trying to make ends meet and paying in my taxes to ensure her family is fed, not for her to stash money away to be used years later when she obviously needed it now, otherwise, she would not have been getting a government handout.

What the woman could have done was to get a degree or training for a better paying position while she was on welfare because the government would have paid for her education, job training, child care, food, shelter and transportation to and from school. She could have gone to one of the assistance programs to get a used wash machine, such as St. Vincents or the like.

The point someone was trying to make of whether she was employed is not the focus of the issue. The issue is that she abused the system. It is only meant for temporary survival, not a livelihood or a means of getting ahead. If she had $3000, it is expected that she use that money to get herself off of assistance and not save it for later.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Sestias
 


The point someone was trying to make of whether she was employed is not the focus of the issue. The issue is that she abused the system. It is only meant for temporary survival, not a livelihood or a means of getting ahead. If she had $3000, it is expected that she use that money to get herself off of assistance and not save it for later.


We both agree that the ultimate goal is to get people off welfare. If the poor weren't poor they wouldn't need it. However, because the poor stay poor--and the system makes sure of that--they either don't get off or get back on shortly after they get off. One way the poor could become less poor and get off assistance would be not only getting a job but building assets that assure they won't relapse back into poverty.

Saving money is a virtue, or so we've always been taught. It would help lift people out of the welfare trap.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


many of the people footing the bill can't manage to save $3,000, all the money they earn are going to pay taxes, the rent, food for their, healthcare, and well, the basic necessities. anybody willing to give them the money to save also?
as far as the educational opportunities available to them.....what good is it gonna do them if the job market doesn't have the jobs for them when they finish the education, or those jobs don't pay enough to support a family anyways? all we've done is cause the taxpayer to pay a heck of alot more forcing this women to learn something she may well not have really wanted to learn anyways.....the money for the tuition, the money for the transportation, clothing, childcare, it all adds up!
and, it will all add up to the same thing if we force them to work picking up the litter so many of us are too lazy to properly dispose of or to shine shoes in the NY subways.

see, justamomma, this is what awaits many women that buy that nice fairy tale.....just find yourself a good man, submit to him, obey him, be his baby maker.....and he'll take care of you all your life....
he splits, the government practically gives him a free pass when it comes to any obligation to his family, and the women find themselves without the marketable skills to compete in the modern day workplace...
then they are labeled lazy....



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
see, justamomma, this is what awaits many women that buy that nice fairy tale.....just find yourself a good man, submit to him, obey him, be his baby maker.....and he'll take care of you all your life....
he splits, the government practically gives him a free pass when it comes to any obligation to his family, and the women find themselves without the marketable skills to compete in the modern day workplace...
then they are labeled lazy....


I call BS on women "finding themselves" w/out a marketable skill. If so, that is ALL THE MORE reason why they should be wise in choosing a confident and loving man to submit to. If they are so stupid that they can't use their most important marketable skill (located in the region known as the H-E-A-D), then they should NOT have even had kids. Stupid might breed out more Stupid.

Wow
You are going to preach "power to the women" and then you go and admit they are stupid. Am I the exception here? Am I the ONLY women out there who figured out how to turn in a nice profit while still maintaining my freedom to be a mother all w/out having to rely on the government?

You were just counterproductive to your whole woman's lib idea w/ that, my friend



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar



he splits, the government practically gives him a free pass when it comes to any obligation to his family,



What freaking planet are you from?

It's well known that in the family court system, men get the equivalent of prison rape.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by dawnstar



he splits, the government practically gives him a free pass when it comes to any obligation to his family,



What freaking planet are you from?

It's well known that in the family court system, men get the equivalent of prison rape.


well, in my case, he actually got out kind of nicely; of course that might have just been because I didn't pursue anything more than minimum child support.

but to dawnstar: he is right. I could have pursued more and "made him pay." I think a lot of women believe they are owed something for having children. If a woman is not going to be wise in choosing her husband and then have kids w/ this man, she should at least be wise enough to figure out what might happen if HE SHOULD exercise his free will and run away from responsibility.

I can admit I was neither wise in choosing nor wise in having a back up plan. I have learned though, through experience, to always have a back up plan to my back up plans.


Sure, we can keep going around this revolving door of creating problems and THEN figuring out the solutions, but I have learned that it is much better to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place. Add on top of that, I also think it is wise to plan ahead just IN CASE a problem should arise.

And seriously, for the record, trying to use the thievery of working ppl's money for supporting ppl who can't tell the difference btw their heads and their arses to support the idea that women shouldn't submit to their husbands is doltish and mute, IMO.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The OP´s quote absolutely disgusts me.
How far have we (humans) come when we turn something potentially good, like the many helping the few, and distort it so far?

Not only are the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer (with the gradual disappearance of the middle classes), but those deemed poor are no longer allowed to make their own decisions.

In a logical world, people receiving benefits should be actively encouraged to limit their spending and to save some money for unexpected expenditures. As far as I am concerned, this is just one more nail in the coffin of what Americans once called freedom.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


ya sure.....
just like the lady that lived next to my grandma...was smart married a lawyer...made all kinds of money.....things went great....something like 7 kids....then a nice pretty sexitary came to work with the guy...left were with 7 kids to take care of....
really have no idea how much money he ended up paying in childsupport...
it was far enough back, who knows....maybe nothing....

I stand by what I said.
if the child support system was fair, the man would be responsible for half of the child's financial needs, the women would be responsible for the other half...and that include half of the cost for child care while the mother works, runs her errands and shops depending on how many kids are involved. It costs over $9-$10 or more to raise that family....the guy would probably have to be shelling out close to a thousand bucks to meet that halfway goal.

as it is, I have over 5 years experince in the line of work I am doing.....I doubt if I could support myself on it...although, most of the guys in the place don't seem to be having a problem doing it.....but, then they are guys....



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Serious question:

Do you consider yourself a man hating feminazi?

Has anyone else besides me ever insinuated that?

Stop carrying that gender based chip on your shoulder.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


serious question....
many families are now depending on two incomes to make ends meet.....for ONE HOUSEHOLD!!
so, that family breaks apart.....
they now have two households that their income is trying to prop up.
if they were barely holding on when together, they don't stand a chance in hades apart!
so, want to revisit the idea the mom can do it on her own?



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


My mom worked 2 jobs to support us when i was a kid, why can't you?

Now, are you going to answer my question?

[edit on 28-7-2008 by slackerwire]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by justamomma
 


ya sure.....
just like the lady that lived next to my grandma...was smart married a lawyer...made all kinds of money.....things went great....something like 7 kids....then a nice pretty sexitary came to work with the guy...left were with 7 kids to take care of....
really have no idea how much money he ended up paying in childsupport...
it was far enough back, who knows....maybe nothing....


So, you are saying she needs her man, right?


I am not going to argue here w/ you on the importance of a woman submitting to her man. I will continue to do it in the other thread if you like.

But since he is a lawyer and has 7 kids, she should get plenty of child support that coupled w/ a job can support those children. I hardly see how this is relevent or what your point is.

And for the record slackerwire, obviously she has issues w/ men and it is evidenced by the negativity shown toward the father in the statement "really have no idea how much money he ended up paying in childsupport...
it was far enough back, who knows....maybe nothing...."

If you don't know, then don't assume he wasn't paying.

you are *sexist*



[edit on 28-7-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Since a large number of you people don't mind ignoring the Constitution when it comes to welfare, how about we put these stipulations in place for anyone who wants to live on the public dime:

-Mandatory birth control the moment one enrolls for welfare.

We certainly don't need them crapping out any more mouths for the taxpayers to feed.

- The right to vote is rescinded until they are off of public assistance.

Why should they have the power to vote in people who promise to give them more of our money?

- Any children in the welfare recipients household should be placed in temporary foster care until the parents can support themselves and their family.

What better motivation is there to improve your situation than getting your family back?



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

-Mandatory birth control the moment one enrolls for welfare.


It's been done before. It's called eugenics. In the 1930's a number of states, including North Carolina (I'm sorry to say), Tennessee and West Virginia would haul off people who applied for welfare to a state hospital, where they were sterilized. The practice didn't end in N.C. until about 1970. Needless to say, a lot of people didn't apply. Today most of the free world would find that an intolerable breach of human rights.




- The right to vote is rescinded until they are off of public assistance.

Why should they have the power to vote in people who promise to give them more of our money?


Some people would do anything to keep people from voting Democratic. (lol--the laughing face somehow won't work)

Disenfranchisement has been done also. Notably to African Americans, to keep them from voting for desegregation and in other ways that some people didn't want.

That isn't done anymore either. We've come a long way as a society, though there's further to go.

As far as "our money" is concerned, taxes for social programs don't bother me at all. There are other things I object to, but I have the right to vote.

And don't kid yourself; even if all social programs were discontinued your taxes wouldn't be reduced. We have this expensive war going on.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sestias]:

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 

Gender based chip on the shoulder? Do you seriously believe there is not a prejudice when it comes to women working in a traditional man's field?

I am a single mother. I agreed to be a wife and stay at home mother BEFORE I had children. He bailed and left me holding the bag. I do not know how he eluded child support but the bottom line is I could not get him into court to even get a judgment.

I am a smart woman. I went to job service and did a little research. Picked out a few higher paying positions to apply for... ALL traditional "men's" work. I was shot down on every one of them! I did not give up. I took a class at the tech school and became a welder.

Well, the guys I work with are making in excess of $17-22/hr. I am making $12. Last week, the company hired a few welders (men, of course) and those men STARTED at a higher wage than me. Why is that? Do not even make an assumption that the men do a better job. I have a lower reject rate, meaning: my work is higher quality.

I have 2 kids. I have been their sole means of support for the past 14 years. There were a few desperate moments when I had to go on the welfare program.

The issue is not the government's attempt to keep poor people down, the issue lies with the people them self. Just earlier in this thread a gentleman claimed to be on SSI for a work related injury that disabled him, yet he openly admits to WORKING! Collecting cans and rebuilding computers. Oh well, it isn't the kind of work he wanted to do... it is STILL work and can develop into a full-time position! Do any of you think I enjoy being a woman welder and harassed on a daily basis? It pays the bills and keeps me off of welfare... barely!

It appears that many people have some kind of notion that just because they are born, they are entitled to a chunk of the pie. I work my bottom off for a crumb and then read about women having many of kids and SAVING money while on welfare? Give ME the break. Put money in my bank account so when my children ask me for something special, I can actually get it for them, instead of having to rely on every one else's seconds from the second hand store.

Social services in every state DO offer a budgeting and job skills course. There is even help in choosing what kinds of jobs are available in the area that the tech school can train them for. That's how I got my job. There are even free services online that can be accessed from the library computers.

Everyone has reasons why they won't do something or other. It is all just an excuse to do nothing about their situation. I hate to admit it, but the only way to avoid people abusing the humanitarian services is by not having them. The adjustment would be chaos and that is the only reason the system will not ever shut down. The government will just keep turning a blind eye, every once in a while nail a couple fraudsters to the wall, but overall.. WE won't do anything about it either. Why?

Because that would mean those poor souls who know no other way of life would crowd into the street, under our noses and cause the majority of us to feel sorry for them. They would huddle together in front of our businesses, blocking customers and maybe even be brazen enough to sleep in our car if we forget to lock it. The media would pick up a storyline focusing their camera on that poor starving little girl with the messy hair and runny nose wearing only one shoe.... oops, that's already on TV for children in other countries.

There are people who believe society OWES them. They are the ones that never asked to be born and will never stop reminding us of that. No matter what you or I do or can do, those people will interfere with our lives in one way or another. They want what we have without having to do anything but make a claim.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias


It's been done before. It's called eugenics. In the 1930's a number of states, including North Carolina (I'm sorry to say), Tennessee and West Virginia would haul off people who applied for welfare to a state hospital, where they were sterilized. The practice didn't end in N.C. until about 1970. Needless to say, a lot of people didn't apply. Today most of the free world would find that an intolerable breach of human rights.


International opinion means nothing.

You said it yourself, alot of people didn't apply. I am not talking sterilization, I am talking birth control injections until they are off of the welfare rolls.





Disenfranchisement has been done also. Notably to African Americans, to keep them from voting for desegregation and in other ways that some people didn't want.

That isn't done anymore either. We've come a long way as a society, though there's further to go.


This has nothing to do with disenfranchisement. This is a penalty for sucking the public teat.


As far as "our money" is concerned, taxes for social programs don't bother me at all.


I've noticed. I mean, why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of your compassion?


And don't kid yourself; even if all social programs were discontinued your taxes wouldn't be reduced. We have this expensive war going on.


Have any factual evidence to back that up, or is it just mere speculation on the part of someone who doesn't really pay attention to Constitutional matters anyways?



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by peggy m
 


It ever occur to you that those evil men they hired that make more than you do happen to have more experience? Perhaps more certifications?

Of course it didn't, that would require rational thinking.

Incidentally, your sexual discrimination lawsuit court date is when ????????

[edit on 28-7-2008 by slackerwire]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join