Welfare in Maine (Bath, Limestone, Loring AFB: loans, insurance, apartment complex)

[forest beekeeper]

Originally Posted by deerislesmile

for the past 7 years, and up until a week ago, I worked for a program that worked with ONLY limited income families/individuals- in their homes, out in the community, within groups at housing complexes- plenty of exposure there (and I am NOT talking about the Deer Isle Smile this time..lol..). In 7 years, I never met a so-called Welfare Queen*, or saw ANYONE living high on the hog from their windfall of food stamps and/or TANF, regardless of immigration status...

* not that you said that, flycessna, but I have heard it repeatedly from others about how bountiful life is once a person qualifies for welfare- I have yet to see that in reality...

I was one of the folks who had posted with the assumption that 'welfare queens' exist in Maine.

I had have renters who would have fit in to such a category, in California and in Connecticut.

Our last, no never mind, I could describe them, but it would only infuriate me, so I won't.

If you say that such does not exist in Me, I believe you.

Again I do apologize for having added fuel to the fire, is this debate.

[Parrotpaul]

Originally Posted by deerislesmile

edit/add: And as far as the term "Welfare Queen", (I believe) it is most usually referring to those women who fradulently receive excessive welfare benefits (either through multiple aliases, claims in multiple states, ficticious children, or other big whopping lies), not just for those women who are recieving any benefits. I do remember one case (only because of the given name of the offender...it's kind of ironic..) in which a woman, Queen Esther Lastname, claimed close to 60 kids for benefits. As bad as it is that this woman set out to intentionally fraud the welfare programs (and she did end up in prison..), I think it's worse that someone, somewhere, didn't catch that until she had recieved more than a quarter mill in benefits.. (This was not in Maine, though- just to clarify..)

Are there significant numbers of these people, or is it conjecture?

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by deerislesmile

edit/add: And as far as the term "Welfare Queen", (I believe) it is most usually referring to those women who fradulently receive excessive welfare benefits (either through multiple aliases, claims in multiple states, ficticious children, or other big whopping lies), not just for those women who are recieving any benefits. I do remember one case (only because of the given name of the offender...it's kind of ironic..) in which a woman, Queen Esther Lastname, claimed close to 60 kids for benefits. As bad as it is that this woman set out to intentionally fraud the welfare programs (and she did end up in prison..), I think it's worse that someone, somewhere, didn't catch that until she had recieved more than a quarter mill in benefits.. (This was not in Maine, though- just to clarify..)

I was not aware thats what queen meant specificly. I used it loosly in describing a women who has more than one child and using her children as an excuse to obtain welfare when she is completley capable of working and choosing not to have children. Which is what I have been exposed to here in Maine.

[Zymer]

Not everyone who is receiving some type(s) of welfare benefits is scamming the system (and I do not advocate a complete dismantling of the programs, though I may have given that impression in another post).

Some single women with children can get "trapped" by the system. When my wife incurred a disability that ended her former career, she was on unemployment for a while. She went to a state sponsored education program that prepared her to start a new career. Another woman was attending the same classes- she was single with children.

As long as she was receiving benefits and attending the class, the state provided day-care for her children. However, when the course was done and the woman tried to get a job she found that, while the job would support her and her children, if she got the job she would not be able to continue the the day-care program and the job would not pay enough for her to afford private day-care.

She was trapped in a catch-22. She wanted to work, but if she worked she had no one to watch the kids.

Having said that, I have seen first-hand how a great many people in MA *do* abuse the system, especially around Boston. I can't speak to numbers in ME, but in one case where I looked at a 2-family rental house in either New Sweden or Stockholm (I misremember which town the house was in) I know for a fact that the residents were on the system and it was obvious that they were abusing it.

[msina]

I knew a young woman many years ago that came home from her part time job (after picking up her 2 small children from a babysitter) to find her husband had packed up most everything in the house and gone. She did go on assistance temporarily. She ended up moving back in with her parents. It happens and that's what it was intended for.

[mollysmiles]

We do have subsidized child care here, to help in the situation that Zymer describes, but the numbers (income eligibility) are very clear cut, and it just isn't able to help everyone who needs the help.

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by mollysmiles

We do have subsidized child care here, to help in the situation that Zymer describes, but the numbers (income eligibility) are very clear cut, and it just isn't able to help everyone who needs the help.

With respect to income elegibility I think theres a problem with a system that basically rewards laziness and irresponsability. I knew a girl that had a child at a fairley young age. She realized she wasn't prepared for this and that it was her mistake. Unfortunately the father was a bum. Though she worked and went to school getting help from her family with her child she was not elegible to recieve any assistance because of her income from working. She was basically incouraged to quit her job and move out of her parents house and then she would be eligible for assistance.

[freckles888]

As long as she was receiving benefits and attending the class, the state provided day-care for her children. However, when the course was done and the woman tried to get a job she found that, while the job would support her and her children, if she got the job she would not be able to continue the the day-care program and the job would not pay enough for her to afford private day-care.

She was trapped in a catch-22. She wanted to work, but if she worked she had no one to watch the kids.

excellent point, i agree that this is the biggest problem with the system. but welfare itself is not the biggest problem facing our country. it is one of those "scape goat" issues that gets brought up time and time again to distract us from more important issues like the amount of $ we are spending on the "global war on terror" (last i checked 30% or so of the national budget) . personally, i'd rather it was given to a "queen" to pay for her hershey bar habit rather than the other

[forest beekeeper]

Originally Posted by freckles888

excellent point, i agree that this is the biggest problem with the system. but welfare itself is not the biggest problem facing our country. it is one of those "scape goat" issues that gets brought up time and time again to distract us from more important issues like the amount of $ we are spending on the "global war on terror" (last i checked 30% or so of the national budget) . personally, i'd rather it was given to a "queen" to pay for her hershey bar habit rather than the other

The numbers usually thrown around as being for the war, are generally the DOD budget. Which includes retiree pensions, around 25% of the DOD budget. And is almost all money paid to Americans and/or American businesses.

So while it does not go to welfare programs it does go to employing our citizens. [Mostly in consumable goods] Keeping those citizens off welfare.

When you have 100,000 troops in uniform, you pay them almost the same salary if they are marching in circles at Fort Failure in Oklahoma, or if they are patrolling the streets of some foreign land.

The big difference in spending comes from the tanks, trucks, planes and stuff that we buy and destroy. We consume stuff more when at war. So it costs more.

But that extra money is money spent in Limestone Maine, and Bath Maine, and Groton Ct, and every other small manufacturer scattered all over the US.

[mollysmiles]

Originally Posted by flycessna

With respect to income elegibility I think theres a problem with a system that basically rewards laziness and irresponsability. I knew a girl that had a child at a fairley young age. She realized she wasn't prepared for this and that it was her mistake. Unfortunately the father was a bum. Though she worked and went to school getting help from her family with her child she was not elegible to recieve any assistance because of her income from working. She was basically incouraged to quit her job and move out of her parents house and then she would be eligible for assistance.

ok, I'm confused....she would be eligible for Mainecare, because she has a child and is going to school, making it unlikely that she's making enough to pull her out of that bracket. She's living at home, so no rent, she's eligible to receive WIC, and should be receiving child support from the Dad....which the State of Maine will pursue....why was she needing help beyond that?