As a property owner who's property was just fucked up to the tune of 10k by someone on section 8 (realizing full well that not everyone on section 8 destroys property), I can understand the sentiment behind this.
Yes, there are LOTS of reasons people go on welfare. No, not everyone who is currently on welfare was on it when they got their nice tv's/cars/etc. However, I saw first hand multiple receipts for $250 worth of 'food' all bought with food stamps (no steaks, but lots and lots of processed crap). Again, I get that this is anecdotal evidence, but there's some truth to this.
Tubal ligation? No. Too far. Having to help your community (picking up trash/painting over graffiti/ etc) to help 'earn' your welfare - not necessarily a bad idea.
I am normally a lurker, but as someone who used TANF (Temporary Assistant for Needy Families), this is the case in Florida. For 6 months I did 22 hours of "work" (in my case cleaning up cat poop at my local SPCA) and doing job search for another 18 hours per week. You do 40 hours of work activities per week. I received $198/month for 160 hours of work a month. My daughters had to be in childcare and my subsidized co-payment for childcare had to come out of the $198 and gas to and from my worksite had to come out of that. That didn't include the diapers and other things I needed to provide for my newborn twins. (I was on TANF because I was terminated from my job when I came back from Maternity Leave). It is a good idea in that it will prevent some from abusing the system, but I don't know if this is a nationwide thing or just in a few states. I really didn't appreciate being away from my daughters for 40 hours a week for ~1.16/hr, though.
This story just breaks my heart. I hope you are in a better financial place now.
Also, people who live in subsidized housing do get their units inspected.
And I'm happy to provide a profile at any time of the average tenant in my section 8 portfolio. That person does not fit the description provided earlier.
If welfare recipients can't vote due to a conflict of interest, then no one with a government or government funded job should be able to vote, including judges, senators, mayors, public school teachers, public health depts... The list goes on and on.
They did a story on our local news recently showing someone trying to shop for a family of four on the amount of money typically given for food assistance. It was heartbreaking. There is no way to buy any kind of fresh produce or meat. Even buying the cheapest things they could find they could still barely provide enough food at all. Very eye opening.
Hi. Just delurking to add some more anecdotal evidence. One of my best friends lived in Section 8 housing while working three jobs and putting herself through grad school to become a teacher. And yes she ate processed food because she was too exhausted to cook. In her case, the landlord was charging a ridiculous sum for that apartment because Section 8 was paying for part of the rent, so abuse of the system goes both ways.
Also, how about forced sterilization and disenfranchisement for CEOs of multimillion dollar companies who pay their full time employees so little that they need food stamps. (not really, of course, but just saying).
Anyway, aren't most people on welfare actually working? And most people on welfare live in rural areas so gtfo with that bit about buying rims while on welfare.
I get particularly ragey about this post when I see it on Facebook. I can't even fathom being that out of touch with the reality that things can spiral out of control quicker than you even realize.
When I had my accident, I was out of work for months. Yet, FI made just a little too much at his job for two people to have any government assistance.
Never mind the fact FI only makes a grand total of 30k a year.
I was lucky my dad had graciously had continued wanting to have me covered under his own health insurance until I graduated college.
I went back to work before I should have, after pleading with my doctor to let me. Just so we could stop worrying where our next meal was coming from.
Food stamps would have been a blessing. Any kind of assistance would have made life far less scary.
Of course though, let us punish those on government assistance. No help for the poors and all that.
Other than the first time I saw this posted on Facebook, I haven't commented on it. It was posted by a now former friend and when I piped up that you can't just enforce these types of rules on people, I was told poor is a choice.
In her case, the landlord was charging a ridiculous sum for that apartment because Section 8 was paying for part of the rent, so abuse of the system goes both ways.
This is my program, so I always try to dispel rumors where I'm able--sorry for the tangent. Section 8 does a rent reasonableness evaluation on every new contract to prevent this very thing--most rents are within 100% of the fair market rent for the area. That said, you're right. Abuse does go both ways. For example, on the inspection issue raised earlier: inspections catch more landlord abuses than they do tenant trashing of the unit. Anyway carry on.
re: processed food. In most cases it's cheaper than buying fresh ingredients. It's also much easier and faster to cook. Some people are never taught how to cook from scratch, others are too tired after working their minimum wage job(s). Rice and beans take forever, yo! Soaking the beans, cooking the rice = at least 30 minutes. Chef boyardee? 2 minutes max.
The main theme in that facebook post is that we should take all pleasures away from those in need. It's about tearing down, not building up. They should read "Poor Economics". It will give them insight on what goes into the decision-making of poor people in developing countries. I cannot recommend this book enough.
This facebook poster is young. I hope she learns soon that empathy is as important as knowledge.
Dammit, my ex-welfare office employee rant is apparently lost forever.
It's probably for the best. I'm constantly amazed though how uniformed people are about welfare, especially about work requirements. Google is your friend.
My aunt posted a rant a few weeks ago about how kids who skip school should have their fb taken away because that clearly would work. I'm just going to stop here.
In her case, the landlord was charging a ridiculous sum for that apartment because Section 8 was paying for part of the rent, so abuse of the system goes both ways.
This is my program, so I always try to dispel rumors where I'm able--sorry for the tangent. Section 8 does a rent reasonableness evaluation on every new contract to prevent this very thing--most rents are within 100% of the fair market rent for the area. That said, you're right. Abuse does go both ways. For example, on the inspection issue raised earlier: inspections catch more landlord abuses than they do tenant trashing of the unit. Anyway carry on.
I'm glad to hear this. I wonder what was up in the case of my friend? It was a tiny place in a bad neighborhood but an expensive city. I lived a few miles away, same small city, in a bigger place and in a nicer area and payed about $300 less, which is why I thought her landlord was being sketchy.
I would also like to add, I was on Wic, and could of gotten food stamps, but my dh parents gave us to much money as a gift for saving. I ended up on medical leave and then discharged from the military, and my dh was still in when we qualified. There are a lot of people in full time jobs, who just can't make it. A lot in our military. Even the extra money for deployment might seem like a lot, but it still kept us below the poverty line. Thank goodness civilian life pays a lot better. We didn't qualify financially, but my son is going to headstart because of disability and inclusion classes. We know we have a higher income then most of the other parents, but I don't think my family is any better. I don't think we deserve better treatment, or that the other kids should be ignored since they get some kind of aid. I know most of the parents who stand outside with me are likely on welfare, food stamps, and other types of asst. Should they be punished for looking nice, wearing good clothing? Sure there are a few bad apples, but I don't want to punish the ones who really need it.
If welfare recipients can't vote due to a conflict of interest, then no one with a government or government funded job should be able to vote, including judges, senators, mayors, public school teachers, public health depts... The list goes on and on.
This is ridiculous.
RIGHT.
Also, nobody in the government should be allowed to vote. At all.
Sorry Obama, go take a seat. NO VOTE FOR YOU.
Or, you know, anyone who gets any kind of federal aid.
Medicare? No vote for you. Tax deductions because you bought a house? No vote for you.
Several states do this, and it's a money-loser in every one of them. Utah spent $30K on drug tests for welfare recipients in 2011-2012. They got 12 positives. TWELVE.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Several states do this, and it's a money-loser in every one of them. Utah spent $30K on drug tests for welfare recipients in 2011-2012. They got 12 positives. TWELVE.
What a waste of resources. I just replied to AutumnRose that we need large scale studies to prove that this is useful but if its already been done and has proven to be a failure, then obviously there is no further discussion needed.
No, but by all means, keep blathering on your crappy uneducated worldviews on issues you know nothing about. Don't bother educating yourself before shooting down entire populations of people. Just, KOKO with your bad self and all of your OPINIONS
You really think that punishing the people who can least afford, it will make other people stop wanting to do drugs for fun?
And no, most private companies do not drug test.
Punishing people? Addiction counseling and rehab is not punishment. Anyway, these are all just theories. We would need public health studies to study their feasibility and usefulness on a large scale.
Lets say this was a good idea. Who pays for the couseling and rehab? Medicaid? The poor person? I have "good" insurance and it covers no rehab. I can get couseling, but only something like 3 sessions.
my sincerest apologies for "eating" as a child. too bad I turned out to be such a drain on society.
and BY THE WAY
my dad was working full time and getting his bachelors degree part time
my mom was working part time and taking care of us full time. she would have worked full time but daycare for the kids would have cost more than her paycheck.
it worked like this:
M-F 9-5 dad works, mom watches kids M,W,F 6-9 pm dad has class, mom watches kids T, Th 6-9pm mom works, dad watches kids Sat, Sun 9-5 mom works, dad watches kids
I am normally a lurker, but as someone who used TANF (Temporary Assistant for Needy Families), this is the case in Florida. For 6 months I did 22 hours of "work" (in my case cleaning up cat poop at my local SPCA) and doing job search for another 18 hours per week. You do 40 hours of work activities per week. I received $198/month for 160 hours of work a month. My daughters had to be in childcare and my subsidized co-payment for childcare had to come out of the $198 and gas to and from my worksite had to come out of that. That didn't include the diapers and other things I needed to provide for my newborn twins. (I was on TANF because I was terminated from my job when I came back from Maternity Leave). It is a good idea in that it will prevent some from abusing the system, but I don't know if this is a nationwide thing or just in a few states. I really didn't appreciate being away from my daughters for 40 hours a week for ~1.16/hr, though.
OMG this sounds too awful to be real. I am so, so sorry they did that to you. I just don't understand how they could give you so little for so much work and keep you away from your kids at the same time. I hope things are better for you now.
Thank you. Thank the three of you who quoted me and all of you here who are understanding that welfare is not fun, easy, or any of the other things that people assume that it is. Things are a little better. The girls are just over 2 years old now. I found a job that I worked for a year. I married my husband. We didn't qualify for childcare after I was offered my new job and our childcare situation was another obstacle. By the way, in Florida they tell you that they will continue the subsidized childcare if you find a job while using TANF. This is not completely true. My new job paid about $13.00/hour and we "made $50" too much a month to get the help we needed so that I could work, so I assume what they mean is if you find a job that will pay you $10.00/hr or less. My MIL watched our daughters but she watched them in her home. An hour an a half away. So I only say them on weekends for almost a year.
DH was offered relocation and a pay increase in March and we jumped at it. Things are still tight, but I quit and I am a SAHM right now. I am looking for part time work so that we can go and do things are not just sit at home all the time, but things are certainly better now than. I feel so very strongly about these people who say such awful, uneducated things and I try to tell them that the myth of the Welfare Queen is just that...a myth. I survived welfare; and I certainly didn't have a iPhone.
poverty is a cycle. and if you're going to pull yourself up out of it you're going to need a little help. my parents accepted help for a short amount of time (under a year, I believe). My dad graduated from college and their income is 3 times higher than what it was before he graduated. They accepted from the system and now they contribute to it
but for fuckin real, sorry I had that birthday cake in 1988.
Crop insurance and rural farm development programs issued over $17 million in high-dollar improper payments during the 2012 fiscal year, but the five food assistance programs conservatives frequently criticize as fraud-riddled issued exactly zero such payments. The numbers come from a report released Wednesday by the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Inspector General report.
Regarding drug tests for welfare recipients:
Utah has spent more than $30,000 to drug test welfare recipients since last year but just 12 people tested positive. Florida became the first state with such a policy in 2011, but while it spent $45,000 on net on the program, just 2 percent of recipients failed the tests, a lower rate than drug use in the state’s general population. The law also almost immediately ran into legal problems and a federal appeals court rejected it in February. Virginia scrapped a similar bill when lawmakers realized it would cost $1.5 million to administer while saving just $229,000.
In total, at least eight states have laws that require drug testing for those who apply for or receive public benefits and at least 29 new proposals to do so have been introduced this year. But they often run into legal problems, as many recent court rulings have blocked them on the grounds that they are likely unconstitutional.