Welfare Queen Asks For Too Much

by Bangalore 170 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  This is just a "change the subject" tactic.

  What, from bashing a sad-sack mom with 15 kids and multiple babies' daddies to her credit, dear BTS (peace to you!)? No, I get it that she should be stopped (somehow... for her children's good, as well as her own). But bashing ALL welfare recipients isn't going to do that. It's also not accurate - this woman is the exception to the rule (which, in our Society, is what we hear about most, isn't it? I mean, the "norm" doesn't usually make the news, does it?).

  In Skeeterville, there are many a folk who are seemingly ok with living from paycheck to paycheck. ... or from welfare check to welfare check.

  There are also many people in this fine country, dear Skeet (peace to you, as well, dear one!)... who have no problem living from trust fund check to trust fund check. While wreaking all kinds of other havoc around town, as well. LOTS of drug involvement, let me tell you. Lots of "crime" that the trust pays to get them out of, too. Losers come in ALL classes, dear one. Again, the only reason we know of folks like this lady is because it is the ABNORMAL... the "sensational"... that makes the news. Millions... tens of millions, even... live on welfare and/or receive housing assistance... and live and die without most others even knowing about it/them. As I said, above, they don't "exist." This lady, though... will have a few moments of fame (well, infamy) - we all now know SHE exists. We know Bernie Madoff exists, too, though, don't we?

  Single moms get a check and housing assistance, then move in with the real papa and rent out the housing assistance provided home. Seen this done with my own eyes.

  I promise you, if what you state is true, she is breaking the law... and if they catch her, she will pay restitution and/or go to jail. I promise you. And worse, IMHO: she will NEVER be able to receive housing assistance again, in most cases. Which she will probably need even more, then. The system doesn't work perfectly, no, but it isn't completely a sham, either.

  Again, peace to you, both!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  botchtowersociety

  And all I got from the above was Waaaaaa!

  Want some q-tips?
• 

  NewChapter

  Shelby, I haven't finished reading your first point, but thank you for bringing it out. I wanted to do so in my first post, but didn't have the eloquence. We don't know how these people came to live in this house. Section 8 will not pay what we would normally think of as rent for a million dollar house. But what is motivating the owner? They are accepting that payment. Maybe it is for guaranteed rent as you say. Maybe it is just philanthropy. Perhaps someone has taken an interest in this family, and have agreed to these terms to offer a helping hand. It happens. It could even be a family member.

  Right after my divorce, my daughter and I fell on some hard financial times. I was gifted a vehicle that I never could have afforded on my own. But that is what was given to me. I could took care of it, I just couldn't buy it. I'm sure if someone saw me driving the vehicle, they would have concluded that I had more money than I did. I couldn't refuse the car and ask for something cheaper, any more than I could have refused and asked for something better.

  I just get tired of the black and white world of some people. Oh--look---here is someone living in a million dollar home---so they ALL live in million dollar homes and this is proof that entitlements give too much. Bullshit. We don't know the entire story. It is an unusual story. And as far as the women having all those children, you really don't see that everyday from every person in need. They take the exceptions and pretend they are the rule. Reagan was able to sell that story, and no one wanted to hear the rest of the story or look at the numbers. Everyone knows someone who...and that's enough. But what about all the people you know that are struggling and really need the help? That never gets discussed.

  NC
• 

  NomadSoul

  Wait a minute. I don't mean to pick on this NC, but... What's the difference between saying NOBODY who lives on wellfare lives like royalty, and saying someone is living in a million dollar home so they ALL live in million dollar home... ???
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Oh--look---here is someone living in a million dollar home---so they ALL live in million dollar homes and this is proof that entitlements give too much. Bullshit.

  Nobody has made that argument.

  
• 

  NomadSoul

  And I really hate my wireless keyboard.
• 

  james_woods

  Am I reading these comments correctly?

  1) There is no such thing as a "welfare queen" - they don't really live that well after all -

  2) None of thes unwed girls who have multiple illegitimate children do it deliberately -

  3) Welfare payments in many states, such as Texas and Louisiana are far too low and should be increased -

  Are the people who wrote these things honestly being serious with the readers on JWN???
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Good question.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Welfare payments in many states, such as Texas and Louisiana are far too low and should be increased -

  Dear kind sirs, I only said they are low. I didn't say anything about whether they should be increased or not. My point in bringing this up is that people in Texas and Louisiana sure as heck don't get $1200 a month in AFDC payments. $1200? Where? NYC? And on 15 kids. Get real people, your average AFDC recipient gets very little help in the way of cash. And there is a time limit on how long it can be drawn. If all the kids in the home are old enough to go to school, the mothers or fathers who are the primary caregivers are expected to find work and they lose their AFDC benefits.

  James Woods, my dear old OB/GYN once said to me, "I have learned not to say NEVER or ALWAYS when in a discussion with my wife." Slow down. Read what the posters, including me, are actually posting. You are reading in your own ideas.
• 

  james_woods

  Dear kind sirs, I only said they are low. I didn't say anything about whether they should be increased or not.

  Maybe that was my individual impression - but the logic of the issue would suggest that if some are high and some are low; then either the low ones should be increased (in one viewpoint) - or that the high ones should be decreased (in another alternate viewpoint).