Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm on both sides of the fence, because I have seen both sides.
I grew up very poor and my family was on assistance most of my childhood. I am grateful for the assistance, because our family may have starved without it. I will say, though, that a lot of that was due to my parents poor decisions and laziness, not because they couldn't work. My parents were too busy using and selling drugs to be bothered to work. Later, My mother did use this time to attend school which was free (or almost free) and has a very good job in Occupational Therapy because of it.
We definitely did NOT grow up in the lap of luxury. Certainly no nice cars, designer handbags and such.
I try not to judge others because I don't know their situation, but, I have certainly been in the grocery line behind people that were using the EBT card ( I lived in Texas and it was easy to spot, and sometimes they would be joking about it in line). I also had a guy follow me around the grocery store a few months ago and offer to sell me his EBT money (90 for $60). I try to look at those as a smaller percentage of the people that are receiving these benefits that truly need them. I'd rather my tax money go to that instead of about 98% of the other things it goes to.
Reminds me of the time my wife was let go from her job for a few months. We went to apply for unemployment. This was during the real height of the unemployment mess about five or so years ago. My wife didn't want to do it, and we really didn't have "need" for it, but I told her we have every right to obtain that money like everyone else. So I went with her to the office and of the 20 or so people in line, I count no less than seven or so designer handbags.
I tell people that story and of course the pro-state welfare crowd always chimes in with how they were all likely knock-off bags. It is possible, but unlikely. It would actually be more likely that some were stolen and given as gifts or purchased for cheap (the person likely having a good idea the bag was stolen) than for them to be fake. Of course you do see the most current cell phones being used, fancy nails (not just basic nice looking nails), designer clothing, etc.. I don't think everyone should sell everything if they are unemployed, but the fact remains that when people complain about lack of income, lack of savings, for most their spending choices are the problem.
My wife and I are fairly frugal spenders. We didn't even get smart phones really until the i-Phone 4 was free with a contract. We don't eat out a lot and designer clothing is always purchased with some sort of discounts/rewards. My wife gets a new purse every two years, something decent enough from Amazon or Kohls, for about $30.00. If she wanted a $100 designer purse, sure I wouldn't care if she got one, but I would expect that to be something that is used on special occasions, not a daily purse that will need to be replaced within a year or so.
All this reliance on the welfare state and not making good choices will eventually destroy this country. Technically we are broke, but we just pretend along with the other countries of the world that our debt is manageable.
So, you didn't "need" the money but went to get unemployment because, hey why not, you've paid for it.
Just like you, the others at the office went to get unemployment after paying unemployment insurance for some period of time, perhaps for many years or even decades, right? How are you different from those folks? I think I know . . .
What does welfare state have anything to do with unemployment insurance?
Reminds me of the time my wife was let go from her job for a few months. We went to apply for unemployment. This was during the real height of the unemployment mess about five or so years ago. My wife didn't want to do it, and we really didn't have "need" for it, but I told her we have every right to obtain that money like everyone else. So I went with her to the office and of the 20 or so people in line, I count no less than seven or so designer handbags.
I tell people that story and of course the pro-state welfare crowd always chimes in with how they were all likely knock-off bags. It is possible, but unlikely. It would actually be more likely that some were stolen and given as gifts or purchased for cheap (the person likely having a good idea the bag was stolen) than for them to be fake. Of course you do see the most current cell phones being used, fancy nails (not just basic nice looking nails), designer clothing, etc.. I don't think everyone should sell everything if they are unemployed, but the fact remains that when people complain about lack of income, lack of savings, for most their spending choices are the problem.
My wife and I are fairly frugal spenders. We didn't even get smart phones really until the i-Phone 4 was free with a contract. We don't eat out a lot and designer clothing is always purchased with some sort of discounts/rewards. My wife gets a new purse every two years, something decent enough from Amazon or Kohls, for about $30.00. If she wanted a $100 designer purse, sure I wouldn't care if she got one, but I would expect that to be something that is used on special occasions, not a daily purse that will need to be replaced within a year or so.
All this reliance on the welfare state and not making good choices will eventually destroy this country. Technically we are broke, but we just pretend along with the other countries of the world that our debt is manageable.
You have confused unemployment compensation benefits with welfare/food stamp programs.
The people you and wife spotted carrying designer handbags were waiting to sign up for the benefits they had worked to earn - unemployment is underwritten by taxes paid by the employer (and in some states, by the employee) based on the number of employees and how often those employees are "laid off". Some work is seasonal and regular employees are frequently laid off for a few weeks or months until the cycle repeats. Since that's what the tax is financing, why would anyone refuse the benefit?
So, the woman is angry because the "system" does not value her "skills", which has to do with low paying kitchen work even after her "college" education? And, even as she has never had anything but poor paying jobs in her life, she still had "kids" (multiple) with no partner support, and she is angry at the "system" for keeping her poor? What happened to owning one's personal choice? If you want the freedom of personal choice, then you should not be angry when personal choice yields bad results.
She shouldn't be angry. She should be grateful that there are social welfare programs that exist for her and her kids, despite her very poor and personal life choices.
I don't think she is angry at the system for keeping her poor. I feel it's more an anger at the lack of understanding of how the system is set up. If you read she talks about issues such as scheduling and pay and how those things are set up to benefit the employer without taking into account the needs of the employee. I would imagine having a schedule change last minute would be very hard for a single parent. When I was younger and worked in the service industry once the schedule went up that was it, and it went up a week in advance. I couldn't imagine having it change a few hours before the shift. I would expect anyone would have issue with that and it's unfair. She also talks about how judgmental people are. I agree they are, we all are, even she is judging people who are in a different situation than she is.
I am glad she brought up the celebrities trying to eat on a dollar a meal. When I see what they, celebrities, buy it is just out of touch with reality. One thing anyone who consistently cooks will tell you is you need to build a pantry of items. That is hard and expensive to do. However, without those basic stock items it is expensive to cook. I get the feeling that this woman has built a pantry which is a very smart, yet expensive endeavor. In the long run it can save you. She states she looks for sales and plans her shopping which is very smart.
Overall, this woman is very lucky to have her family for support. She says her rent is low because of her grandparents and her mom takes her shopping. Without that support she would not be as "well off" as she is. Yes she might have better luck moving elsewhere with respect to money but family support in priceless. It sounds like her children are doing wonderful and that is probably possible because of family support. I take issue with people who condem others for having children when they are poor. She was married and had children. I'm guessing she wasn't expecting to get divorced and become a single parent. Yes she received assistance when she was married but she wasn't planning on making a lifestyle out of it. People fall on hard times it happens.
I think that those who are giving people less than the full value of the food stamps, should be charged and subject to large fines. 30% for the service of cashing food stamps, and the person felt they were doing nothing wrong?
I know that wrong and illegal are not always the same.
I think it is outright wrong to charge what people are charging when they exchange cash (or any non food item) for food stamps. This just further taking advantage of the people.
Food stamps is one of our safety net programs that I am in favor of, however I would like to see it change so that it is more like WIC, and people can not buy many of the items they now can.
Or maybe it's a disgrace that people have kids they can't afford.
Scenario: Husband and wife, happily married, look forward to having their first child. Baby is so sweet and they want to have another rather quickly (within two years) so baby will have a playmate. Husband is promoted on his job and with the second child on the way, Mom is able to quit her job and be a SAHM.
Family life is loving and caring, until husband, on a business trip, dies in a plane crash, leaving Mom to care for two babies and all the legalities. Of course, insurance pays off their house and their car and the funeral expenses. Now what?
Is it a disgrace to have kids that you can't afford when yesterday you could? Not everything is as it seems.
Certainly there are people who abuse the system. No denying that. But not everyone does that. MOF, I personally know a party who refuses to apply for any kind of assistance, although he is certainly eligible, because he doesn't want to be judged. Any kudos for him?
Or maybe it's a disgrace that people have kids they can't afford.
Or just maybe, they had the kids before the parents got laid off or fired. Ya think? This kind of thinking is similar to what people say when someone else has lost their home to foreclosure. "Well, they shouldn't have bought a house they couldn't afford." I have news for you. Unless you have paid for your home in cash, then you can't afford your home either. You bought your house on a loan, just like everyone else and if you weren't working for a year or more, who would pay your house payment? People always think they're so special if something bad happens to someone else and not to them.
No, I don't think there is anything wrong with food stamps when they are used appropriately. It is not OK when you have been on them for 16 years, off and on. That is more than enough time to get your mess together. It is also not OK for you to think you are entitled to have steaks, lobster tails and Red Bulls bought for you on the taxpayer's dime. If you can't make it off of beef, chicken, fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta, etc., then you obviously aren't so hungry that you need someone else to pay for your groceries.
Apparently, you don't shop for food. Where I live right now, hamburger has gone down a little, but it's still $3.49 to $4.99 per pound. If they have a sale on London Broil (steak) for $2.99/pound, then I'm going to buy that instead of hamburger and I don't care what you think. Food stamps is sometimes getting the most bang for your buck.
Do you know what other foods are on the list to be banned by these useless politicians? Spaghetti sauce and bagged beans. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to make your own spaghetti sauce? No, I didn't think so. So much for that pasta. And I make my own refried beans for much cheaper from the bagged pinto beans than I can buy the refried beans in a can for. And get more of them.
And I'll tell you something else. Sometimes I crave shrimp. In order to buy that, I must cut corners somewhere else. It's called budgeting. So I will have peanut butter sandwiches or bean burritos for a week so I can afford the shrimp. I get absolutely fed to the teeth with people saying that I can buy shrimp on food stamps but they can't afford it on a regular job. Horse puckey. If you wanted to eat shrimp and you were willing to eat peanut butter sandwiches for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for a week in order to buy it, you could afford shrimp, too. You just aren't willing to do that. So why should I be penalized because I can do something you could do too, but won't?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
