# Poverty In America



## anothermama

for (((tiredx2)))









We've all heard statements before that people who are poor, homeless, or on welfare bring it upon themselves.

Do you agree with that statement? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you believe that the poor bring it upon themselves, does that mean the government holds no responsibility in helping the issue? Some responsibility?

If you believe that the government SHOULD help, what should be done?


----------



## TiredX2

I'm hoping Sleeping Queen will repost her original link. I'd like to debate that









The questions above seem to be closely related to my "What do *Americans* deserve?" post from a little while ago.

First, though, I would like to define the "poor" as those under the federal poverty level. That would be appx $15K (family of 3), $18K (family of 4) and $21K (family of 5).

When I looked the other day, the quintiles were as follows

Bottom up to $24K
Next $24-40K
Next $40-90K
Next $90-165K
Highest $165K and above

That said, the cost of living in an area can dramatically influence exactly how much money a family can live on (without any govt assistance, including WIC). I think in the Seattle area is is something like $35K for a family of 4 to be able to afford all the basics (food, housing, clothing, child care w/no extras like going out to eat, etc...). There is obviously a great disparity between what is considered "poor" and what actually feels poor in a given area.


----------



## candiland

I think that those who feel like "these" people "bring it upon themselves" have led somewhat priveleged, sheltered lives. By that, I mean, having the opportunities to live free of constant sexual or physical or emotional abuse, someone in their lives that have shown them compassion and that there is a better way to live then the life they're living, whatever.
If you lived on Mars, how could you live as if you are on planet Earth? Many people have never been exposed to anything other than the harshest of realities....... many don't even know that anything outside of their world of pain and suffering exists. So should the gov't just ignore them, allow them to suffer endlessly, aimlessly? Of course not. That's like saying because a woman dresses like a "slut" she deserved to get raped. Compassion. It's all about compassion. Most have never walked in the shoes of the truly poverty-stricken...... so how could anyone judge them so harshly?







:

Oops..... Tired and I both posted at the same time. I am talking about homeless/nearly homeless individuals.
To address her post:
It absolutely sickens me that someone who pushes papers all day long can live high on the hog while someone else is deemed far less worthy to society....... say, a janitor or a grocery store clerk. Each and every job that is held is just as important as the next! I find it incredibly elitist that some people don't even want to raise the minimum wage....... which keeps the majority of these people so poor they have no hope of bettering themselves, a lot of the time. It's easy to point fingers if you never had to live that way. I think that unless people have been there themselves, they don't have any business saying otherwise.


----------



## sleeping queen

This is for you tiredx2. Although I hesitate after the last time. Perhaps we all have a case of cabin fever. Did you ever see the Shining:LOL

poverty in america

If it doesn't I'll try agian.

I think some people are poor because of there own doing and others are not. It's not either or , but a little of both.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*This is for you tiredx2. Although I hesitate after the last time. Perhaps we all have a case of cabin fever. Did you ever see the Shining:LOL

poverty in america

If it doesn't I'll try agian.

I think some people are poor because of there own doing and others are not. It's not either or , but a little of both.*
So Laura then the question is....whats to be done?? I recall you mentioned that this could be why repubs don't want to put money into social services, because some poor bring it on themselves. So I'm wondering what then the solution IS, or is the intention to just let it play itself out.


----------



## TiredX2

Thank you sleeping queen. I wish I could get my other response back, but here goes:

That report does not define "poor" that I see. It does say that "Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes" and refers to these being poor according to the census bureau. According to this site (http://financialservicefacts.org/fin...tgage/homeown/), approximately 57% of people who make $50K or less own their own homes. This would lead me to extrapolate that the Summary linked would assume "poor" is actually closer to under $40K than the official poverty level of $18K for a family of four. I do question who these "poor" are and if they are getting any governmental assistance (for example, there are limits to car value if you want to recieve food stamps).

He goes on to make some assumptions that just don't make sense (marraige lifting children out of poverty as a solution, for example). I also wonder, because of varying costs of living if air conditioning is concentrated in the south (where it is hot, and there is low cost of living/high poverty rates) and throws the statistics off.


----------



## polka123

A subject very near & dear to me.
I've spent my life being " The Working Poor"








not really making enough to pay the bills but not earning little enuf to qualify for any assistance.
I was a single mom getting no child support (from a deadbeat dad that jumped from job to job & would disappear at times).
The biggest x-tra I had was cable tv w/ NO movie channels - big whoop - a whole $35/mo then. I figured I wasn't going out because of no $$ so I'd stay home & watch TV.
I raised my DD all by myself & worked 95% of her life.
I cringed everytime school started - how was I going to buy clothes, shoes? My parents were in the same boat so they could not really help.
The other 5%, I was on assistance. In AZ, where I was, the rules were very strict for help. I got a whole $ 335/mo - that was for rent, gas, utilities, etc -







: . My rent alone was $400.
Then I got $100 in foodstamps but that does not pay for potty paper, laundry/dish soap, etc.
I had to actively look for jobs, turn in my job searches, & be @ the case worker every 2 - 6 mos - depending on you situation.
They would go over jobs listed with them & send you out on interviews right then so there was no excuse.
The best thing we got was Free to $10 office visits & Rx's for $1.
They did take care of the kids really well healthwise.
I got reduced daycare for a while when I earned a little over minimum wage but it was not much help.
sadly, as soon as you would get some $6/hr job, everything was cut off EVERYTHING. No transition help so the vicious circle would start over again.
You could not turn down a job they found you or you would be penalized for future help & kicked off the program.
When the reforms went thru, you can't keep having kids to get more money & also you can only get assistance for 5 yrs tops now under clinton's plan.
I worked my way up in banking but it took a long time.
On the car thing.... you cant have a really nice car & apply for assistance.... you have to get rid of it.
They allow you to have 1 auto that can be worth up to X amt of dollars. If you own a home the fair market value is look @ also.
You cannot have too many assets.
then again, what my start gave you to live on was zero.
I've heard some east states gave folks min. $500-1000/mo & more for each child you had. This kind of abuse went on in the '70's & '80's.
DH has been in the East his whole life & watched folks play the system well - mostly the trade laborers. - no offense - most of my family is blue collar -








So - the whole thing needs reformed for the working poor.
Az has many homeless FAMILIES - they were in situations like mine but had way worse luck. Most of those folks could not live on what the gov't gave them so they got evicted & ass't housing is sparse in AZ. Very sad. People get laid off & have no help.
That happens alot there !!!
We have a few schools in Phoenix that are just for homeless kids.
The stories are mostly the same - the family ran into some hard times & ended up homeless.
Here's a catch-22 . you cannot get any assistance (food stamps, cash help) unless you have a permanent address








how that for screwed up??
please excuse any typos - nursing here !


----------



## MirandaW

I have a friend who was helping me with the kids a few weeks ago. She stays home with her 18 month old and her dh, with a degree in Computer Science and oodles of experience, is currently employed in a job that he is very overqulified for. They don't complain, they like paying their bills and luckily own thier house and don't have a mortgage. Her dh makes well above the federal povery limit for a family their size.

However, her dh's company doesn't pay for dependent health care coverage and rather than say STARVE, they do without. When she was over, her ds hurt his leg somehow. Do you know they were denied medical care because thier insurance situation? At an urgent care place! Which they went to because they knew that urgent care is generally less expensive that emergency room care.

When we did go to ER, they were well treated but the whole experience really taught me a lesson. One doesn't have to be out of work or even at the poverty level to be in very precarious straits. Like emergency medical bills. I wish we had some kind of universal health care in this country like every other civilized nation.

The majority of the "poor", I've known are working ,but can't earn anything close to a living wage due to health issues, crappy job market, or outdated skills and no real way to get retraining.


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*I think that those who feel like "these" people "bring it upon themselves" have led somewhat priveleged, sheltered lives. By that, I mean, having the opportunities to live free of constant sexual or physical or emotional abuse, someone in their lives that have shown them compassion and that there is a better way to live then the life they're living, whatever.

To address her post:
It absolutely sickens me that someone who pushes papers all day long can live high on the hog while someone else is deemed far less worthy to society....... say, a janitor or a grocery store clerk. Each and every job that is held is just as important as the next! I find it incredibly elitist that some people don't even want to raise the minimum wage....... which keeps the majority of these people so poor they have no hope of bettering themselves, a lot of the time. It's easy to point fingers if you never had to live that way. I think that unless people have been there themselves, they don't have any business saying otherwise.*








I totally agree with those points! I also feel anyone that argues about raising minimum wage or agrees with programs being cut are usually the people that have been privelaged enough to never need them and have the "don't raise my taxes to help 'those' people" mentatility.

No I do not think all poor people "bring it on themselves" and yes I think the government should help out a bit. Heck half of those people now at poverty level are there because of the government and all those lost jobs in the last few years.









I don't believe people put themselves in those situations all the time because sometimes a job is very unexpectidly lost, sometimes a relationship breaks up leaving a woman alone with children, possibly she was a stay home mom with no income, she needs some time and help if she will ever get on her feet again. Housing costs keep going up if you want to live anywhere that isn't infested or in a crime ridden neighborhood.

And to address SQ's link...
The article in that link is based on Census data only, sometimes the people in the poorest conditions and at the rock bottom of the poverty level or below missed the census. Sometimes they are illiterate and maybe have no one to help them fill it out and sometimes some houses just get missed over! So if they want to base all their info on one source it's skewed.

Not to mention the article mentions poverty could all but be fixed if one parent worked at least 40 hours a week or if more households had 2 parents.

Quote:

If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Quote:

If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
I don't think "immediately" is the right word, and I still don't think it would help.
My dh works over 40 hours a week and we are still at the poverty level for a family of 5, dh is in the army and I stay home with the kids. It's pretty sad when your dh works for the government and your still at the poverty level







: Thankfully we aren't below the poverty level and we have food and a place to live but the point is that shot down both "fixes" according to that link.

Because in my house one parent works over 40 hours and there are 2 parents in the house. Maybe if some jobs paid more that would solve the problem, or if good quality and affordable daycare was available to everyone more people could work, including single moms or dads. Not everyone brings it upon themself to be a single parent, sometimes there is no choice in the matter. More people getting married will not suddenly solve poverty.

(excuse typos and spelling errors it's late :LOL)


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*I think that those who feel like "these" people "bring it upon themselves" have led somewhat priveleged, sheltered lives. By that, I mean, having the opportunities to live free of constant sexual or physical or emotional abuse, someone in their lives that have shown them compassion and that there is a better way to live then the life they're living, whatever.
If you lived on Mars, how could you live as if you are on planet Earth? Many people have never been exposed to anything other than the harshest of realities....... many don't even know that anything outside of their world of pain and suffering exists. So should the gov't just ignore them, allow them to suffer endlessly, aimlessly? Of course not. That's like saying because a woman dresses like a "slut" she deserved to get raped. Compassion. It's all about compassion. Most have never walked in the shoes of the truly poverty-stricken...... so how could anyone judge them so harshly?







:

Oops..... Tired and I both posted at the same time. I am talking about homeless/nearly homeless individuals.
To address her post:
It absolutely sickens me that someone who pushes papers all day long can live high on the hog while someone else is deemed far less worthy to society....... say, a janitor or a grocery store clerk. Each and every job that is held is just as important as the next! I find it incredibly elitist that some people don't even want to raise the minimum wage....... which keeps the majority of these people so poor they have no hope of bettering themselves, a lot of the time. It's easy to point fingers if you never had to live that way. I think that unless people have been there themselves, they don't have any business saying otherwise.*
Oohhh...this is just the post for me







I sure as hell didn't live a privileged life growing up... and ,yes, I do believe that most poor folks are in that situation because they themselves made bad decisions, and those bad decisions resulted in them being destitute....People need to take responsibility for themselves.
I feel sorry for people that have had bad luck(eg-illness, death in the family)..but do I sorry for women who get pg over and over again, taking full advantage of the system? No!Do I despise men who won't work/work hard enough and allow their wives to take assistance? Yes!


----------



## 5796

as I said before on the other thread..

in the state of california, the majority of the people on welfare are intact families. mom/dad/child/child..

not cadillac moms welfare moms who get pregnant over and over again.

for gawdsake... will this ever end.

I would rather pay welfare for a poor family then a f*****d up war so that HALLIBURTON can be war profiteers and only pay 15 million in taxes.


----------



## Bladestar5

Hmm...funny, some people just don't consider 10-12 hour days working HARD enough. Must be nice to get free healthcare c/o my dh's taxes. Guess if all our husbands quit their jobs, some other people who made good choices by marrying into money would have to get jobs









I am pretty sure dh's taxes cover MORE than our WIC.


----------



## Super Pickle

Some people are poor because they have no family support.
Some are poor because they live in a horrible environment--surrounded by drugs, violence, etc.
Some are poor because they consistently make bad decisions.
Some are stricken by circumstances--a family member gets sick, a house burns down, etc.

I think the important question to be asking is "Do the government programs currently in place actually succeed in lifting people out of poverty?" If the programs are proven effective, then it absolutely makes sense to expand them. If not, though, what's the point of flushing more $$ down the toilet?

I don't know how to answer that question. I can read and read but sifting throught the BS is another story.


----------



## Bladestar5

He who dies rich, still dies. You can't take it with you.


----------



## Bladestar5

I agree Superpickle.
Also, if it wasn't for the health insurance thing, I would be happy working at Walmart or something like that. I don't need a lot of money. We could live fine on dh and my income once the kids are in school, but I need the health insurance.
We just moved, so we are strapped as of now. It is nice that at least we get WIC, and the kids get medicaid, to help keep us afloat until we can get settled.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*Hmm...funny, some people just don't consider 10-12 hour days working HARD enough. Must be nice to get free healthcare c/o my dh's taxes. Guess if all our husbands quit their jobs, some other people who made good choices by marrying into money would have to get jobs









I am pretty sure dh's taxes cover MORE than our WIC.







*
Our healthcare isn't free, it's earned. Big difference.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by Super Pickle_
*
I think the important question to be asking is "Do the government programs currently in place actually succeed in lifting people out of poverty?" If the programs are proven effective, then it absolutely makes sense to expand them. If not, though, what's the point of flushing more $$ down the toilet?

*
Or maybe the question should be "Is the government responsible for lifting people out of poverty?"


----------



## Bladestar5

Mary-don't forget that it comes from the government. My husband pays taxes to that government. My husband WORKS to EARN those taxes that pay for YOUR healthcare.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*Mary-don't forget that it comes from the government. My husband pays taxes to that government. My husband WORKS to EARN those taxes that pay for YOUR healthcare.*
Right, but in turn my husband defends your freedom and your dh's freedom. That's the transaction, if you will. Also, dh and I pay taxes....so in a way, we're paying ourselves.
Also, I don't think the fact that you pay taxes should make the fact that you receive assistance "ok". I'm assuming that you get most if not all of the money you pay in taxes back at the end of the year...maybe you even get more....I really don't know(or care)
But if you do, then the argument,"I pay taxes, therefore I deserve WIC" doesn't fly....


----------



## Bladestar5

Quite honestly, it is none of your business who does what.
If I want to have 12 kids on welfare, you can't do anything about it. You aren't getting back at your parents this way, you know.
You came to a website with hundreds of low-income moms, many with large families, and judged them. Shame on you.


----------



## JessicaS




----------



## Lucky Charm

When does it become anyones business?


----------



## Bladestar5




----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*Quite honestly, it is none of your business who does what.
If I want to have 12 kids on welfare, you can't do anything about it. You aren't getting back at your parents this way, you know.
You came to a website with hundreds of low-income moms, many with large families, and judged them. Shame on you.*
When you live beyond your means and have to rely on the support of the American people, you have to deal with such attitudes. Sorry. And before someone spouts off, "Well, we support you and your family.." Uh-uh. My dh works to protect the freedom that we all enjoy, and that's how our pay/benefits are earned. We sure as heck don't sit around and take, take,take.
So while I can't "do anythnig" about it, I can glare at you when you whip your WIC vouchers out of your pocket at the grocery store. I can vote for candidates who will put my tax dollars back in my pocket. I can volunteer at the clinic where bc is freely given.
I can do my part.
Finally, did you ever think about getting off the computer and finding a job? Did you ever consider doing in home daycare? Seriously. You can make decent money and be a sahm.


----------



## Lucky Charm

ouchy. that stung MaryNH, and it wasnt even directed at me.


----------



## Bladestar5

Why did you have to come into this forum if you are against most of us here?


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by sweetbaby3_
*ouchy. that stung MaryNH, and it wasnt even directed at me.*
What stung about it? the fact that it was true?


----------



## Bladestar5

Birth control is NOT free everywhere. I am nursing, and it is not safe to take. Do you have a problem with extended breastfeeding? Hmm? My kids come FIRST. Are your kids in school right now? You are on the computer also. Hmm...judge away, but you are no better. You are very bitter, Mary. Don't you know that you always get what you give to people? I will say a prayer for you, even as my enemy. I have a feeling your life is gonna get harder.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*Why did you have to come into this forum if you are against most of us here?*
The question that was posted asked if the poor deserve their lot in life.I'm answering the question.


----------



## MamaSoleil

Moved already???

I was just going to say. I'm in Canada. And while our system is by far perfect. There are a few key differences, that I believe, would make a big difference for the USA.
But now the thread is gone!








And I can't quote...

We have free healthcare. This does not cover rx's or dental. But those living below poverty line, or on Social Services, get this covered as well.
WE have lots of geared to income housing.
Social Services AND employment insurance, will pay to educate you. While picking up the bill for childcare.
Off to find something....
I'll be back!

Mamasoleil


----------



## Arduinna

well, I venture that those complaining that poorer folks brought it all on themselves and they shouldn't have to pay for it also don't support the wonderful programs that you guys have in Canada.


----------



## JessicaS

heh..it will be back in just a bit.


----------



## MamaSoleil

The programs vary from province to province...which is kind of like state to state.

Here are some links for an example, of the province I live in, Ontario:

http://www.cfcs.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/pr...helppeople.htm

and

http://www.cfcs.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/pr...rticipants.htm

I think that to help those who are not doing well, those young parents, those living well below poverty, is just as someone said, pure compassion. I also believe, by helping them to educate themselves, they one day, will contribute to helping someone else.
What goes around, comes around.

Mamasoleil/samson


----------



## MamaSoleil

A~I think the question though, was, what can be done?
Again, NOT saying we are perfect. But our system seems to leave the 'poor', which 5 yrs ago, I was one...now making 60k/yr
leaves the poor with pride intact.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamasoleil_
*Moved already???

I was just going to say. I'm in Canada. And while our system is by far perfect. There are a few key differences, that I believe, would make a big difference for the USA.
But now the thread is gone!








And I can't quote...

We have free healthcare. This does not cover rx's or dental. But those living below poverty line, or on Social Services, get this covered as well.
WE have lots of geared to income housing.
Social Services AND employment insurance, will pay to educate you. While picking up the bill for childcare.
Off to find something....
I'll be back!

Mamasoleil*
But how good is the healthcare?


----------



## Arduinna

well I completely agree that it's pure compassion.....................
obviously not everyone is compassionate.


----------



## MamaSoleil

Quote:

But how good is the healthcare?
All needed medical attention is taken care of by our government.Except for plastic surgery.


----------



## MirandaW

(Had my fill of taffy, stepping over bait)

One of the complaints I have heard from various think tanks and op-ed pieces is that socialized medicine would lower our standard of health care. That is a myth, IMHO. Most insured Americans are insured in some kind of HMO, which dictates who they can see, and rations just how much health care one can receive.

Furthermore, it seems silly that a select few have access to pretty much anything while a large number of people have no health insurance and get denied care just because they don't have large chunks of cash hanging around for doctor's visits.

My dd broke her arm last summer and her initial care cost over $10K, not counting followup care and I don't think that included the physician's bill.

Is it too much to ask that everyone everywhere have access to basic, non ER healthcare?


----------



## MamaSoleil

I don't think that's too much to ask Miranda!!!AT the very LEAST that should be available!


----------



## Arduinna

I agree Miranda that it's propaganda. Also the insurance lobby in the US is HUGE, as is the Drug Comps. They have spent a ton of money to make sure that the system doesn't change. And I think we are the only ( or one of the few) industrialized nations without a national health care program.

of course we have corporate welfare, soooo.........


----------



## Lucky Charm

Mamasoleil....
I had a patient in the ER from Canada....and said he had to wait 4 months to have his gallbladder removed and another relative had to wait forever to have her hip replaced.

Why the wait?


----------



## MamaSoleil

Was this lately? SARS slowed things down BIG time here.
But yeah, if things are not life-threatening, you can expect a wait of 2-4 wks. I feel this if fairly reasonable.
Again, we don't have a perfect system.


----------



## MamaSoleil

Quote:

heh..it will be back in just a bit.
Abimommy~Is it possible to link this to the missing one? I didn't want to start a whole other thread, just ways that the American system can be improved.
TIA


----------



## Lucky Charm

Yes, just this past Christmas.

I had another patient from Germany who said the same thing.

And your right, no system is perfect.









I have another question....how much income tax do you pay? or is from some other source? I have heard figures of up to 40%.


----------



## JessicaS

ya, I can squish them together


----------



## MamaSoleil

Thanks Abimommy!!!









Sweetbaby3~
Depends on your income. I am making 60K/year now, and pay 33% in taxes. I feel this is high, but the government has helped me out a lot, and now, I'm paying it back.

I remember watching Roseanne YeARS ago, and that's when I found out you don't have free healthcare. This shocked me!
I love that our health is priority with our Government!


----------



## Lucky Charm

Ok.

Thanks Mamasoleil


----------



## Marlena

Quote:

_Originally posted by MirandaW_
*One of the complaints I have heard from various think tanks and op-ed pieces is that socialized medicine would lower our standard of health care. That is a myth, IMHO. Most insured Americans are insured in some kind of HMO, which dictates who they can see, and rations just how much health care one can receive.

Furthermore, it seems silly that a select few have access to pretty much anything while a large number of people have no health insurance and get denied care just because they don't have large chunks of cash hanging around for doctor's visits.

My dd broke her arm last summer and her initial care cost over $10K, not counting followup care and I don't think that included the physician's bill.

Is it too much to ask that everyone everywhere have access to basic, non ER healthcare?*
You're absolutely right, IMO. I certainly wish the majority of Americans could see this. The only distinction is that a private company dictates the terms of one's rationing and access, rather than the federal government. Somehow, people seem to think that if a private company does it, it's somehow ok, as they have a "choice."

For most folks, however, that's nonsense. Most of us have very little choice among insurance plans - if we're lucky enough to have affordable health insurance through our or our spouse's employment, we often have only one choice of plans. And insurance on the individual market is unaffordable to most people, due to risk pool and underwriting issues.

For those who are interested, the IOM recently released their final report in their series on uninsurance in the US. In it, they make a case for universal health insurance - a first for the IOM. You can read it on line here: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091055/html/


----------



## grisandole

Hmmmmm, I guess I'm one of those leeches, whipping out my WIC vouchers and using state funded medical insurance.

Did we do this to ourselves? Well, sort of. My dh made the decision to be a teacher, which doesn't pay well, and in our case, doesn't even offer health benefits to his family. The jobs we've found w/good health insurance are in places that the salary isn't enough to live on, if that makes sense.

I believe that healthcare should be socialized like in Canada and Europe. I think that would curb alot of what is happening with costs going skyhigh...........And I wouldn't mind paying higer taxes for it.

Most of the families that I know who get assistance have a dh who works full time, and sometimes the wife does too. Sometimes, it just isn't enough.

Yes, there are some folks who don't do anything to better their situation; but there are many, many, who try. The "system" is really screwed up.

I guess I don't have much to add; it just disgusts me that there are people who are so judgemental...........why on earth wouldn't you want your tax dollars going to help with health care? Where would you rather have them go? Oh, back in your pocket. Whatever.

Kristi


----------



## MirandaW

One thing that brightens my day is that most people I meet online and IRL show an amazing degree of compassion towards those in less fortunate positions then thay are. The scrooges are few and far between. Unless you are a lobbyist for certain corporate interests.

You know, "There, but for the Grace of G-D, go I".


----------



## MamaSoleil

Quote:

Yes, there are some folks who don't do anything to better their situation; but there are many, many, who try. The "system" is really screwed up.
Very important and valid point I think. Yes, there are some deadbeats, in all countries. But it is not fair to generalize, and put everyone in the same category! IMNSHO


----------



## TiredX2

I just wanted to point out that because of bureaucracy, costs for insurance and health care are very high in the US. For the majority of people, going to Universal Health Care would either leave their health care situation the same, or improve it (I am not one of those, but I still support it).

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/rele...oolhimmel.html

According to this study, bureauracy ALONE costs close to $300 billion yearly in the US for healthcare, 2/3 of which would be cut under Universal Health Care.

Question for MaryNH---

I see you think your husband & dependents deserve health care because of his job. What full time jobs do you believe are not enough value to our society that the holders of them should not have healthcare?


----------



## Marlena

TiredX2, don't feed the trolls.


----------



## anothermama

whew....look at what happens when you sleep in...........

This is an issue near and dear to my heart, and I will offer up my situation for scrutiny as an example because my life has been very "statistically typical" to a point.

Mary (or anyone against entitlements)....
You still didn't answer your own question....is the government responsible to help out the less fortunate? Why or why not?

The article that was linked (is it still there???) was not addressed. It's been mentioned...it simply does not use ACCURATE information. Based on that article, probably all of us here at MDC are "poor". It isn't representative of people who are in poverty. So how is that article really saying anything???

Some say "poor" people bring it on themselves with bad choices or whatnot. Do you see a bigger picture in that?

I come from a town that is working on families that are 4th generation welfare....while it's sad, it also speaks of a bigger probablem...why can't families get off welfare?

Another thing....if someone brings their poverty upon themselves, does that mean they deserve substandard living conditions? Or to not have a home at all?

On a personal note: Mary...I'm going to try to be compassionate here in the hopes you can extend the same courtesey....
How on earth is is ok for you to "glare" at anyone using their WIC vouchers? You have to agree....not all people who are on forms of assistance brought it on themselves, right? Do you think that the government should have NO support for people in that instance?

I was on WIC when I was single and preg with my daughter. I was also on just about everything else. I had to be. I previously had been working for 6 years full time. It was a goal of mine to get off all forms of assistance and I did that within about 2 years. I think thats what that stuff is there for....people who really need it at a time in their lives. Do you agree?

But you wouldn't know any of that and would have the nerve to judge and glare at me in the store for using my WIC vouchers?? Why???

And....since we call can agree poverty in America is a PROBLEM....how does that kind of attitude help the problem???


----------



## Marlena

Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marlena_
*Don't feed the trolls.*
Troll is such a mean word, really.

But it is unfortunate that so many people have so much contempt for others, people they don't even know. This is beyond one or two mean posts, it's a disease in this culture, a disease of self-serving greed and hatred for life. So many of the rich are leeching off the back-breaking work of others and leeching off the land.
This is disgusting. The Bible, for goodness sake, has a lot to say, not much of it good, about the rich. They bring their suffering upon themselves, and others too.
There is nothing wrong with being successful in life, but if you don't recognize that no one is successful without the help of others, you are blind to reality.

Anyone who is struggling with hatred towards the needy and the poor should pick up their dusty old copy of the New Testament and read the words of Jesus. He was poor, too wasn't he?


----------



## Marlena

It's one thing to have a discussion with people who genuinely believe that the government ought not to be involved in assisting the poor, and who are genuinely interested in discussing it. While I don't agree with any views I've seen to date along those lines, many are not beyond the pale of reason. I can see why one might hold such a view.

It's quite another thing, though, to get into a pissing match with someone who, based on most posts to date, appears only to be here to bait others, rile everyone up, and raise blood pressures. That's just a waste of time and space, and diverts discussion from something reasonable and worthy of careful consideration to something that's ridiculous.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marlena_
*That's just a waste of time and space, and diverts discussion from something reasonable and worthy of careful consideration to something that's ridiculous.*
The best way to deal with attention-seeking misbehaviour is to ignore it.
I would rather discuss the issue at hand than give undue attention to this.
C'mon....let's move on!

By the way, another thing not yet addressed is the racism at the heart of many of these arguments against 'baby factories taking advantage of the system' etc.
I wonder what it is like to be judged that way.
I think it's a pretty ugly mentality.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marlena_
*It's one thing to have a discussion with people who genuinely believe that the government ought not to be involved in assisting the poor, and who are genuinely interested in discussing it. While I don't agree with any views I've seen to date along those lines, many are not beyond the pale of reason. I can see why one might hold such a view.

It's quite another thing, though, to get into a pissing match with someone who, based on most posts to date, appears only to be here to bait others, rile everyone up, and raise blood pressures. That's just a waste of time and space, and diverts discussion from something reasonable and worthy of careful consideration to something that's ridiculous.*

*Certain* people aren't giving equal time to the other side, Marlena. A snarky, snotty reply to someone isn't going to get the best reply...it's common sense. If you don't want to get into a pissing match, fine. Post snark. It's not feeding them to ask legitimate questions and give them the opportunity to answer. It's VERY trollish to jump the gun and assume the worst and start name calling.

Please dont try to tell others what to do. And maybe it would be nice if you think someones trolling to simply ignore them and let others use their judgement.


----------



## cynthia mosher

Let me remind everyone that they are free to scroll on by a discussion that irks them. As long as a member is posting in this community they deserve to be treated with the same civility and respect that we all expect for ourselves and for the community as a whole.

To label someone a troll does not fall into civil and respectful discussion. So please refrain from using that term to refer to those whose views you disagree with and whose manner of posting bothers you. We ask in the User Agreement that you report inappropriate behavior. If rules are being violated the member will be warned and repeat offenses will result in suspension. But if you respond in a manner that is inappropriate then you too are subject to the rules and procedures of this community and will also be alerted and warned.

As always


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*The best way to deal with attention-seeking misbehaviour is to ignore it.
I would rather discuss the issue at hand than give undue attention to this.
C'mon....let's move on!

By the way, another thing not yet addressed is the racism at the heart of many of these arguments against 'baby factories taking advantage of the system' etc.
I wonder what it is like to be judged that way.
I think it's a pretty ugly mentality.*
Yep!

However, I *personally* would like to get some basics out there on just fundemental human rights, then you can go into how racist AND sexist our culture and our welfare system REALLY are....

Lots of fish to fry....


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Quote:

_Originally posted by MaryNH_
*No!Do I despise men who won't work/work hard enough and allow their wives to take assistance? Yes!*
My dh is in the military and he works hard and long enough and we are still at the poverty level for a family of 5. He works 50-60 hrs a week and sometimes more, and alot of his weekends that he is supposed to have off he doesn't so he does work hard enough.


----------



## MaryNH

Quote:

_Originally posted by pilesoflaundry_
*My dh is in the military and he works hard and long enough and we are still at the poverty level for a family of 5. He works 50-60 hrs a week and sometimes more, and alot of his weekends that he is supposed to have off he doesn't so he does work hard enough.*
Did someone put a gun to your dh's head and say."Join the military or else?"


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by MaryNH_
*Did someone put a gun to your dh's head and say."Join the military or else?"*
Come on Mary...thats an unfair statement and it doesn't address any issues raised.


----------



## Marlena

Quote:

_Originally posted by Cynthia Mosher_
*If rules are being violated the member will be warned and repeat offenses will result in suspension.*










Gotcha, cap'n!


----------



## Bladestar5

When someone who just joined comes into activism and starts a debate, you KNOW they are here for trouble.
This is the last forum I would want to start off in- and to jump into a thread and start a debate. Do your research, mamas, trouble can't be only here.


----------



## cynthia mosher

Quote:

_Originally posted by Cynthia Mosher_ If rules are being violated the member will be warned and repeat offenses will result in suspension.
Done.


----------



## grisandole

Quote:

_Originally posted by MaryNH_
*Did someone put a gun to your dh's head and say."Join the military or else?"*

Okay, Mary, so who the heck is supposed to be in the military? Only single men w/out families? Should the same go for teachers? Or social workers? I think you are really clueless as to what jobs pay vs. the cost of living. And, the fact is, teachers, social workers, militaray, etc; are VITAL to our society. It's sad that we don't pay them more. And even sadder that people like you judge them for accepting assistance so that their families can have the basics in life.

Kristi


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:

_Originally posted by Cynthia Mosher_
*Done.







*


----------



## sleeping queen

I'd be a lot happier buying groceries or clothes or formula for someone in need vs the government placing programs in place which are basically income redistribution. I really hate this entitlement menality that is developing in our country. I never said we shouldn't be compassionate with one another, but the government makes a mess out of all social programs and it ends up costing the tax payers dearly.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*I'd be a lot happier buying groceries or clothes or formula for someone in need vs the government placing programs in place which are basically income redistribution.*
DO you pay for anyones groceries or clothes or formula? Because I know there are people everywhere that need these things that don't have the money to buy them.
If you do take care of people in your area, that is wonderful, and the world needs more people like you.
Unfortunately, most people don't. In steps the governement...


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*I'd be a lot happier buying groceries or clothes or formula for someone in need vs the government placing programs in place which are basically income redistribution. I really hate this entitlement menality that is developing in our country. I never said we shouldn't be compassionate with one another, but the government makes a mess out of all social programs and it ends up costing the tax payers dearly.*
Heres what I don't get....

With the way our countries budget is, it's about a penny (probably less) of your money a month that goes to welfare programs. It's SIGNIFICANTLY more (something like $5 per paycheck) that goes to SOMEONE ELSES social security. So...what....old people need to not take assistance too?

The "I pay for it because it's my taxes" is, true but it's such a ridiculously small ammount that goes to social services that I just don't buy it as a real valid point.

And, again...the question is....who deserves help and why? And how are they to get it?


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

First, though, I would like to define the "poor" as those under the federal poverty level. That would be appx $15K (family of 3), $18K (family of 4) and $21K (family of 5).
The FPL does not take rent into consideration. In areas where a one-bedroom apartment goes for $1500, minimum wage is still the same.

I don't think the poor, homeless, etc. deserve it or bring it on themselves. I think it is the government's responsibility to help those who need help and not blame them for having kids too young, too many kids, not enough education, etc. If they think lack of education is the problem, why not pay for more education? Why are single mothers on welfare not allowed to go to college? Wouldn't that be more effective at lifting them out of poverty than lining them up with a minimum wage job?

I think childbearing should be celebrated, even if those kids are being born to single teenage low income women. Please don't punish a child because you don't agree with the actions of the mother. And what about the "father"?! If he paid child support more often, the mother might not even need welfare to begin with. Women don't get pregnant by themselves, you know!

Marriage is not the answer. I am poor and married. So are many other people. You think welfare payments are never made to married couples? That's not the case. Marriage incentives encourage staying in abusive relationships. Sometimes a mother really is better off raising her kids by herself. Marriage incentives imply that somewhere there are a bunch of rich men wanting to marry poor mothers. I don't know of any.

I have a right to have as many children as I want. If I can't afford to meet my needs, you bet I will ask for help. I am well within my rights to do so. I am also within my rights to continue my education. I will not go get a meaningless, dead end minimum wage job that will sink us deeper into poverty in the long run. My children and I contribute to our community by our very existence alone. I don't have to justify asking for help that I am entitled to.

I suppose many people will say we did this to ourselves. I don't care; it doesn't change what we are entitled to. Yes, I chose to have two children when neither of us have jobs. (One child was even planned!) Dh chose to go to school to get a teaching license. I choose to stay in college instead of working. We both choose to stay home with our children instead of putting them in daycare so we can work. I buy candy with food stamps. I also buy super-expensive organic produce. I don't plan on saving for my kids' college even when we do find work, because I want them to realize they are entitled to government funding of their education. Although we have an HMO that will pay for a hospital birth, I choose to go on Medicaid so I can have the home birth that I want. I choose to look into private schools, and will explore every financial assistance program those schools offer. My kids have the right to go to whatever school they want, whether we can pay or not. I choose to turn the heat way up in the winter and leave it on when we're gone all day, and to have energy assistance pay for it all. But I know I am entitled to as much help as I need, because I am doing the most important job in the world. Children benefit the entire society, not just the homes in which they live. Society benefits when all children are supported.

Oh yeah, and I'm not getting sterilized!:LOL


----------



## sleeping queen

If you have the right to have as many children as you want then do it but by golly pay for it yourself and don't expect the government to pay for your decisions. I think that is the beef that most of us agianst social services have. The attitude I can do what I want , but help me pay for it. I'll be paying on my twins probably the next 5 years and according to the income guidelines that was given to me at the hospital we could of received quite a bit of free help, but I wanted these kids and I'll pay for them. I don't expect someone else to pay for my choices.


----------



## Greaseball

I, on the other hand, do expect help. For one thing, I am entitled and there isn't much one can do about that. Not even the republicans have managed to completely eliminate social services. Also, my choices will eventually benefit the society that is now paying for them, so in the long run everyone wins. I hate to pull out that old cliche but "children are the future!" It really is true. Educated people also benefit society, and not only because they pay more taxes. As long as dh and I are permitted to complete our degrees, we will be able to be those middle-income people that no one resents. Then we really will have to pay for everything ourselves, but at least we'll be able to. Right now all we buy for dd is clothing and we pay all our own rent.

That's another thing we do that we "shouldn't be allowed to do" - we deliberately rent more space than we absolutely need just so we can be comfortable. I've decided to live as though I deserve everything a middle-income person does, and as long as I ask, I receive! I don't treat myself as some "poor person" who has to do everything the way other people think she should and who doesn't have the right to be reproducing and should only be buying cheap canned food.

Middle-income people also want their choices paid for by others, like with child tax deductions, tax breaks for corporations, school vouchers and better access to public safety. Most middle income families send their kids to public schools, which means other people have to pay for the choice they have made. Yet it's only the "poor people" we resent for it.


----------



## Mona

Still waiting for a response to the last question i asked you SQ, but here is another one....

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*I really hate this entitlement menality that is developing in our country.*
Are you against social security and medicare? because those too are entitlement programs....


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Middle-income people also want their choices paid for by others, like with child tax deductions, tax breaks for corporations, school vouchers and better access to public safety. Most middle income families send their kids to public schools, which means other people have to pay for the choice they have made. Yet it's only the "poor people" we resent for it.
Well put!!!

If it were really about money, rather than moral outrage at "those" people, there would be OUTRAGE towards companies that make billions and pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes while using the fruits of our tax system.

As it is, we are very cleverly goaded into fighting each other, so we don't realize who is really taking our money--- corporate bigwigs!


----------



## sleeping queen

I don't know if our culture is going to be anybetter if we're raising children with the attitude of entitlement, we'll just have more of the same with fewer paying for it.

Companies make money because the consumer purchases the product, if the company want to pay their ceo a ton that is their business. I couldn't run a huge company, could you?


----------



## grisandole

Just want to say, Greasball, I love ya!!!!









Ummmmmm......just don't count too much on that teacher salary, lol!

Kristi


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Companies make money because the consumer purchases the product, if the company want to pay their ceo a ton that is their business. I couldn't run a huge company, could you?
I am not debating the right of a company to pay their CEO a huge amt of money. And yes, I think I could run many companies into the ground at least as well as their CEOs are :LOL My point remains: it IS our business that they do not pay an adequate amount taxes. Just because they have the money to set up off shore accounts to hide their money does NOT mean they should not pay the taxes owed. That is welfare I do not support. WHY should and, and furthermore, why do *you*?


----------



## grisandole

Sort of OT, but do you know that foster children (under age 5) are ENTITLED to WIC? I bring this up for those of you who glare at WIC users. ALL foster children can get WIC, and most foster parents will utilize it, especially for babies as WIC covers formula. So when you are glaring at those WIC users, stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the person using them is a foster parent, who has opened their home to children, and is using those vouchers so that she can provide for them.

We are in the process of being licensed to be foster parents. And you can bet your butt that I'll be using WIC vouchers for formula for the babies I bring into my home.

Kristi


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

Are you against social security and medicare? because those too are entitlement programs....
Yeah, really! "I'm old! Give me money!"

I do want to raise my children to believe in entitlement. I want them to know they deserve to have their basic needs met, and that if they can't meet them on their own, they have every right to ask someone else to do so. I see nothing wrong with kids growing up knowing they have a basic human right to health care, education, etc. It's not like kids are being raised to believe taxpayers owe them a Playstation.

This is what I mean when I say "It takes a whole village to raise a child." (Because I know there are a lot of interpretations of that proverb...) I care about anyone's child, and will do what I can to help them, no matter who their mother is or if their parents are married or whatever. I resist the idea that I should only care about my own kids and to Hell with everyone else's.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*I don't know if our culture is going to be anybetter if we're raising children with the attitude of entitlement, we'll just have more of the same with fewer paying for it.

Companies make money because the consumer purchases the product, if the company want to pay their ceo a ton that is their business. I couldn't run a huge company, could you?*
It has been proven that children grow up to be more productive adults in environments where they have their basic needs met and feel secure. It may sound all touchy feely but its true and can't continue to be ignored.

Greaseballs kids will be taken care of. Therefore they are more likely to grow into respectable, contributing members of society, especially if they see that society as CARING about them.

I've worked in big companies...hell yes I could run one.


----------



## TiredX2

I can't imagine glaring at someone trying to feed their children (foster, biological, adopted, whatever) healthy food. Just not in me. I'm fine with everyone getting WIC if that means that kids actually get fed healthy food! Please, take my tax dollars for *that*!


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by MaryNH_
*When you live beyond your means and have to rely on the support of the American people, you have to deal with such attitudes... So while I can't "do anythnig" about it, I can glare at you when you whip your WIC vouchers out of your pocket at the grocery store...I can do my part.
Finally, did you ever think about getting off the computer and finding a job? Did you ever consider doing in home daycare? Seriously. You can make decent money and be a sahm.*
this is offensive on so many levels... do you really think glaring at a frazzled mom as she signs her WIC voucher is gonna do anything other than make her feel badly? i have been glared at frequently as i used my WIC or food stamps~ (this was years ago...) & let me tell you, it didn't make me feel bad about our situation, it only made me pity the person who was small minded enough to stereotype me without knowing one thing about me.

as for getting a job~ i have one. it is called raising my son to be the best person he can be. he has never been left with a babysitter so that i could make a few bucks. (of course i would then have to PAY the sitter, so there would go my paycheck anyway. my reason for being on this earth is to be amom; i have known that from the time i was little. just because we are not fortunate enough to make thousands of dollars hand over fist, i am still entitled to the privilege of raising my son. and HE is entitled to food clothing & shelter.

as for the assumption that ANYONE who REALLY works would not need public assistance, i will tell you about my FIL. he was on his own as a child, his parents didn't care for him & he dropped out of school in 8th grade. his father gave him money each week & he would buy alcohol & camp by the river. he met my MIL who had 2 kids & had left her abusive husband, they went on to have 3 more children. my MIL was a SAHM & my FIL worked his a$$ off from 4am to after dark, working in orchards, fixing engines, mowing lawns,etc. whatever he could do to make some money. & he was on public assistance then & he still is not at almost 65 years of age. & he still works like a dog from sunup to sundown.

some might look on him with pity or disgust, but i see him as a success~ a man who could have been a lifelong alcoholic but instead took steps to better himself & his family.

how dare you judge him or me or anyone? i hope & pray you never have to be in the situation. if you had a choice between food stamps & seeing your child go to bed hungry, i think i know what you would do~ & i hope no one in the checkout line would glare at you.


----------



## MamaSoleil

Quote:

This is what I mean when I say "It takes a whole village to raise a child." (Because I know there are a lot of interpretations of that proverb...) I care about anyone's child, and will do what I can to help them, no matter who their mother is or if their parents are married or whatever. I resist the idea that I should only care about my own kids and to Hell with everyone else's.


----------



## burritomama

ooooh, I know, let's go to MARS.

talk about entitlement and priorities.

let them eat cake.


----------



## hvl25

I dont think people strive to be poor or homeless. I think some of it is poor planning, no savings, they lose their job, next they lose their house.

I think with some it is a cycle, their parents were poor, their grandparents were poor and thats all they "know". Maybe something happened, and they didn't get the education they wished they would have and end up with a low paying job. Just my thoughts


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Quote:

_Originally posted by MaryNH_
*Did someone put a gun to your dh's head and say."Join the military or else?"*
As someone already stated that wasn't fair but I will leave that at that.

What I will say is this, my dh was working hard at a company, he worked 40 hrs a week and sometimes overtime to keep us off social programs, we were doing okay. We had a son and I was pregnant with my second child, when he very unexpectidly lost his job, if he didn't join the military we would be one of those "baby makers" on welfare you complain about. All I said was some people who DO work long and hard hours are still at the poverty level. Not there fault, it's the fault of the job not paying enough.


----------



## Greaseball

My mother was one of those poor divorced mothers on welfare. When I was 3, I would spend all day in daycare while she worked for minimum wage. It was the kind of place that was run out of someone's home, and where the kids just stay in cribs all day with bottles. It was the only kind the state would pay for.

Then after she got a better job she decided no more public assistance in any form because she was tired of the humiliation and mean comments about how we shouldn't have been born. I can understand her reasoning, but it hurt us even more - we never had enough food, and I never saw a dentist. That's where a good portion of my student loan money goes - dental work that I should have had as a child. We never saw a doctor unless we were in serious pain. I think she should have just taken the food stamps and Medicaid. We would have been better off.

She says she regrets having us grow up in daycare. If she could do it over again, she says she'd stay on welfare and stay home with us. She still lives in poverty, since she wasn't able to finish her education. She was a SAHM when she was married and no one wants to hire someone who has "no experience."

I think my own situation will turn out better, and part of that is because I'm willing to accept help. Some people say "get some pride; don't expect a handout" but it's precisely because of my pride that I know I deserve this help. I know I deserve better than a dead end job that barely pays the daycare bill. And I know that my kids aren't necessarily going to be poor as adults because we will have enough money to help them meet their goals. I want them to follow my example and never think that they have to go without something they need because other people don't think they're worthy enough.

We ALL use services that are tax-funded. If you send your kids to public school, call the police or fire department, or accept social security payments for a disabled child, you are doing your part to spend MY TAX DOLLARS! (Believe it or not, we do send actual money to the IRS each year!)


----------



## 5796

This thread makes me so sad.

Are you sensitive, compassionate moms aware of how many of your questions and legitimate comments have gone by without response by the opposing forces?

it is remarkable.

save your energy. Go up to the "Don't take the bait" thread in politics and war. Post there.

I can't believe some of the callous comments posted here but so what...let them raise their children and let that callous cycle continue and let them take pride in it.

moving on.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Before our society progressed to the level of civilization it has currently attained, there was absolutley no social safety net. There was no social assistance, no government help of any kind. There were many many poor. Children begging on the street, etc. Only the Church was dedicated to 'charity' and helping the poor. Providing, clothing, food, shelter. This is supposedly the one of the primary Christian objectives: to help those in need. This is one of the things I respect most about the Christian Church in our culture.
And so, someone please explain, why the political parties (Bush) that give the most lip service to Christian values (families, god, etc) Do the most damage to the relatively inexpensive social programs that assist those in need? Cutting inner city shool lunch programs? Petty vindictive things like that? Why?
Isn't that just downright hypocritical?


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

All I said was some people who DO work long and hard hours are still at the poverty level. Not there fault, it's the fault of the job not paying enough.
And IMO, that makes any entitlement benifits given to a person who works full time, CORPORATE welfare! If companies were forced to pay a wage that paid for the necessities in exchange for full time work there would be a lot less people on welfare. Instead, the support of THEIR workers is put squarely on the back of those who can afford it the least!


----------



## Greaseball

And about "poor people should just run daycare centers out of their homes..."

What kind of homes do you think the poor have? Would you send your kid to a "daycare" that was in someone's tiny one-bedroom apartment in the worst part of town?

My home and neighborhood, while nicer than that of most "poor people," is no place for a bunch of children to be running around. I wouldn't leave my dd there alone. A neighbor offered to watch her sometimes but I'm not comfortable with her being in that neighborhood without us.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

And about "poor people should just run daycare centers out of their homes..."
I admit, I cringe whenever I hear that. I would hope that if I needed daycare I would be able to find it from someone who considered it a vocation, not a temporary financial stopgap. But, I guess I can expect that because I'm not "poor." Those who make bad financial decisions, well they probably don't love their children enough to care about their daycare providers anyway. And their children certainly don't deserve better!


----------



## cynthia mosher

In case you didn't read it in print:
Welfare Warriors: Honoring the Value of Motherwork


----------



## Greaseball

Poor people who receive subsidized housing live in very unstable situations. The housing is not safe - sometimes it's the neighbors that are unsafe, selling drugs out of their homes, etc. and sometimes it's the landlords that make sexual advances on single mothers and threaten to evict them if they don't give in. This means those mothers have to move a lot. So she could get her daycare license and then end up having to go somewhere else and try to set it up again.

How much does it cost to get a license? How much class time is required? Are people able to take the classes at home? You know, "sit on the computer all day" and get their work done?

They are trying to pass a law in my state that makes it illegal to evict a woman for being a victim of domestic violence. Currently, it's legal to do so. The abusive partner will show up at the woman's home and cause a disturbance, which means the police show up, the other neighbors are uncomfortable, so the landlord just evicts the woman and makes life easier for himself. Another cause of unstable housing.

It's unreasonable that one who works full time has to live in poverty. McDonald's and other minimum wage employers could afford to pay higher wages and health benefits, but they just don't want to.

I subscribe to Welfare Warriors!


----------



## kama'aina mama

Thank you Cynthia. I remember being very impressed with that article when Peggy published it and it is even more powerful now. I am always amazed when I realise that many people look on the poor with disdain and loathing rather than empathy.


----------



## TiredX2

Thank you for posting that.

Quote:

Privatization was touted as a more economical means of administering welfare, but it has been a very expensive, as well as heartless, experiment. In 1985, Wisconsin's welfare program cost $548 million for 299,700 people; in 2001, the budget is $710 million for fewer than 20,000 individuals. From 1985 to 2000, administrative costs jumped from four to 52 percent. The five Milwaukee corporations that run welfare earned $33 million in profits in one year, and $47.2 million in surplus dollars. These profits are the result of denying support to families in crisis.
Say it with me, "Corporate Welfare." Giving to all is often (as has been shown with health care) CHEAPER than the paperwork to deny benifits to some.

It is time we need to recognize the mothering is the profession with the most long term products.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by trabot_
*This thread makes me so sad.

Are you sensitive, compassionate moms aware of how many of your questions and legitimate comments have gone by without response by the opposing forces?

it is remarkable.

save your energy. Go up to the "Don't take the bait" thread in politics and war. Post there.

I can't believe some of the callous comments posted here but so what...let them raise their children and let that callous cycle continue and let them take pride in it.

moving on.*










You're right, and I honestly tried to get some good discussion going.......


----------



## hvl25

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*When someone who just joined comes into activism and starts a debate, you KNOW they are here for trouble.
This is the last forum I would want to start off in- and to jump into a thread and start a debate. Do your research, mamas, trouble can't be only here.*

Ain't that the truth :LOL I have been on here for a year and just started coming here within about the last month. This place is dangerous


----------



## hvl25

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*.

Oh yeah, and I'm not getting sterilized!:LOL*


----------



## momoftwelve

Poverty in America
I am the mother of 12 children and I have taken the vow of poverty.
Poverty imposed is a crime but poverty embraced gives more to those who have less


----------



## sleeping queen

You have 12 children. I'm amazed. I know one other family of 12 and they are a very lovely family. I love watching the older kids with the younger ones. There always seems a lot of mutal love in that family.


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:

*Before our society progressed to the level of civilization it has currently attained, there was absolutley no social safety net. There was no social assistance, no government help of any kind. There were many many poor. Children begging on the street, etc. Only the Church was dedicated to 'charity' and helping the poor. Providing, clothing, food, shelter. This is supposedly the one of the primary Christian objectives: to help those in need. This is one of the things I respect most about the Christian Church in our culture.
*
If you are only talking about in the US (seeing as we are only a 200 year old country) then yes that is true. But it is not true that this occured at all times and in all cultures, or that charity started with Christianity. In prechristian tribal cultures they took care of their own. No one needed to beg.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*If you are only talking about in the US (seeing as we are only a 200 year old country) then yes that is true. But it is not true that this occured at all times and in all cultures, or that charity started with Christianity. In prechristian tribal cultures they took care of their own. No one needed to beg.*
Quite true Arduinna....
but territory I did not want to venture into with the 'scope' of this conversation.

I was refering only to the culture we know of recent times, including Britain and Europe, only to put forward the question of why, in a nutshell, ultra-conservatives subscribe to anti-christian policies while giving lip service to Christian values.
That's all.


----------



## Arduinna

no prob







I really didn't want a religious debate either, which is why I left out the different religions that were practiced by said tribes.

but, just for the record, I was also referring to Britain and Europe and some of the times in question Christianity and tribal religions coexisted.


----------



## Bladestar5

I have to poke my head in...I have been challenged to get to Senior status tonight


----------



## Dar

We're poor, I think. For the past 2 1/2 years I've been living rent-free in exchange for some caretaking, which is great... but the downside is living 45 miles from town and in a house that was never meant as a permanent home, so it's not insulated and parts of the window frames have rotted away and there are termites and mice... but it works for me. I did manage to save a good chunk of money living on a beginning teacher's salary in the bay area, so I'm been using that, and I sell on amazon and ebay and make a few hundred dollars a month, and I care for Rain. Rain ges medicaid, I'm uninsured and don't qualify because I have $ in the bank. My car is 10 years old but in good shape.

Sometimes I feel poor, sometimes I don't. I think Rain feels the same way. It's all relative. When we see homeless people sitting on the sidewalk in Davis, unless we're really in a hurry we generally go up and ask if we can get them something to eat, or drink, and it's always been something reasonable so we get it for them. Coffee with lots of sugar, two double cheeseburgers with no pickles. Rain's dad has been living in his vehicle for 2 years now, so she looks at that and at the guy's on the sidewalk and feels rich, and then we go visit friends who live in 4000 square foot homes and have rooms and playrooms and we feel poor.

I think people should have homes. In my perfect world, we'd create a universal health care system and guarantee everyone a minimum income, around 1000K a month for adults and pro-rated for kids. I'd do away with WIC and food stamps and section 8 (all of which I've gotten at times) and treat poor people like the adults they are, and let them handle their money the way they want. It would be easy to administer, just like social security payments. The money saved in overhead and on not having these other programs would pay for the program and more, so the government would save money. Income taxes could be adjusted so that people making a lot of money would end up paying most of the 1000K back in taxes, because they wouldn't need it.

Dar


----------



## Lucky Charm

Quote:

I was refering only to the culture we know of recent times, including Britain and Europe, only to put forward the question of why, in a nutshell, ultra-conservatives subscribe to anti-christian policies while giving lip service to Christian values.
Good point, Snowy.

I dont want a religious debate either. at all. But that struck me, and i wanted you to know.


----------



## shantimama

What a discussion.

Some random thoughts:

If I look at someone spending "my" tax dollars on their groceries and feel I have the right to glare at/judge them, does that also mean I have the right to tell people how to drive on "my" roads, to judge how "my" government buildings are used and decorated?

Do we want to belong to a society or a collection of individuals? Caring for the society is in my best interest! I live here!

If we resent the working poor for needing social assistance, are we willing to lobby for a better minimum wage and be willing to pay a little more so that these people's salaries are sufficient for their need? Or do we resent having to pay more for our groceries and meals out and conveniences because we want to keep as much money as we can for ourselves? We can't have it both ways. If we want to pay less for an item than it is actually worth in terms of all the lablour that went into producing it, we can't complain that there are poor people in the world!

I don't even know where to begin with the topic of socialized medicine. It is not free, that is a misnomer. I am Canadian and every time I pay taxes when I put gas in my car or purchase something, I am contributing to providing health care for myself and my neighbours. I can live with paying a few cents or dollars more as I go than living with the stress of how to handle the financial stress of a health crisis. When my daughter needed surgery we were under more than enough stress - worrying about the bill would have tipped us over. Knowing that anyone who needs medical attention can get it is comforting - I don't worry about what it will mean if a poor person gets SARS should it ever appear in this country again. Sometimes there are longer waits - and they get the headlines, the good stuff doesn't. Whenever my family or any people I know (my dh and I aer pretty widely connected in our community) people have gotten the care they needed in a crisis. If it is not an emargency, yes, people have to wait their turn. Numerous studies have shown in comparing the U.S. and Canadian systems, waits are longer in Canada but the outcomes are similar. Waiting does not necessarily mean poorer care. Of course there are exceptions, just as there are instances of bad care in the U.S. Bad news makes headlines, good news doesn't.


----------



## MamaSoleil

((((Shantimama))))
Excellent post!!!!!

Quote:

If we want to pay less for an item than it is actually worth in terms of all the lablour that went into producing it, we can't complain that there are poor people in the world!
This is so so so so true. And it really is a cycle isn't it? And yeah, you'll hear me curse, once in a while








about the taxes coming off my cheque....ie:600$ off my last one!!! But then, I think of my fil who had a stroke 4 yrs ago, and was hospitalized for 6 mts, fed, taken care of, received physical, cognitive and speech therapy...all AT NO CHARGE TO HIM. Yeah, my taxes went towards that. I have NO problem with that at all!!!

Always nice to see things put into perspective by a fellow canadian!!!


----------



## asherah

To answer the OP..
We are poor, and we brought it on ourselves.
We are a classic case of making bad decisions.

DH left his job to start his own business, and he isn't making it.
He is looking for a job, but it is hard to find in this economy.
In the meantime, we ran up all kinds of credit cards.
We are barely keeping our heads above water.

I don't expect anyone to bail us out. And I don't expect anyone to even be compassionate.
We bought into consumerism, did not make an effort to live simply. We screwed up every which way.
But I don't think my son should suffer because we made bad decisions.
I think he is still entitled to food, decent shelter and health care.

I think there are different types of, and reasons for.. poverty.. and those need to be considered.
DH and I screwed up. And we are paying for it by giving up nearly everything we once enjoyed, putting most every cent into paying bills.. and giving up dreams of having a home. Our credit is ruined and will be ruined for a long time. I accept that I don't deserve any help.

But people who have been denied equal opportunities and access to resources such as education, shelter, health care.. deserve a leg up, as far as I am concerned. People deserve a chance to overcome their circumstances.

And people should not be punished economically for wanting to stay home with a child. That should not simply be a luxury for the wealthy.


----------



## Mona

s asherah... i'm right there with you....


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

But I don't think my son should suffer because we made bad decisions.
I know...so many of the welfare reform laws seem to punish children for the decisions of their parents.

Children born into families already receiving welfare are not entitled to benefits. Why? The child has done nothing wrong! It's not his fault how he was born. (BTW, this rule has not reduced the number of births to women on welfare.)

If one child in a family on welfare does not go to school, the whole family loses benefits. So everyone is punished because of the actions of one.

It costs so much more for the state to pay for daycare than it does to pay mothers to stay home with them. Yet that's what they would rather do, so they don't "reward" poor women for having babies.







:

No matter what choices the parents have made, the children deserve everything good in life.


----------



## Mona

I just wanted to say how nice it has been to read this thread today. No one being rude, judgemental, or down right mean.
We may not all agree, but today everyone has been respectful.
Wow. it really makes a difference.


----------



## steph

Quote:

I accept that I don't deserve any help
Oh Ashera, I'm sorry to hear about your situation. But, I feel worse that you feel you don't *deserve* any help. We all screw up sometimes. That's life. Regardless of what some might say here with smug satisfaction about making good decisions. Just because we make mistakes doesn't mean we don't deserve compassion and help. If you took that line of reasoning, what are you teaching your children? That you better not try anything because you might fail? It's not about the mistakes that we make, it's about what we learn, how we get up and try again.
Many don't know that the whole concept of bankruptsy is called forgiving debt, and is founded in the Bible. Now I'm not a Christian, so I'm not going on any rant here, but I think it's something worth noting. That every 7 years we forgive those who owe money and haven't repayed it. Forgive them and move on. Anyway, that's a bit OT, but I just wanted to share it anyway.

This thread has had me thinking hard about what the original OP was asking. I could go on and on, but in a nutshell I'll simply say that I don't think most poor people bring it on themselves. Certainly not by choice. Yes, there are decision that are not great ones, but I think we all do the best we can at any given moment. That best may not be THE best compared to someone eles, but their personal best at any rate. Also, I think our system is very flawed in that it doesn't address the causes of poverty, but only the symptoms. Yes, the symptoms need to be addressed, no one can make progress in life if they're hungry, cold and don't know where they're going to sleep (or are afraid of where they're going to sleep). But ultimately, it's the roots of poverty that need to be examined and delt with. Education is a big one. Counselling is another - if you don't have decent self-esteem, you're not going to move very far from your current condition. Universal health care is a no-brainer imo. Mental health (back to councelling) included in that. And then there's what all the conservatives gripe about, how to pay for it all. As someone pointed out pages ago, the actual percentage of your tax dollars that goes for social services is very small compared to something like military spending - not to mention the pentagons "black budget" which of course no one really knows how much that is! If corporations were tax appropriately that would bring alot of money into the mix. Also, the elimination of NAFTA and the WTO would bring jobs back into the US where they've been leaving by the tens of thousand (if not millions). Companies that refused to bring jobs back to the US, could be tarriffed. It's not all that mysterious. OK, I'll stop rambling here.

I must say however, that after my first flush of anger at those with less compassion in their hearts, I really got to feeling sorry for them. Yeah, you want the money back in your pocket, great. But it makes you heavy, real heavy. Very sad indeed.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones




----------



## Bladestar5

This place today. We are all a family here, and we protect one another, whether we agree or not.

One thing that I think is sad is the point that I should not spend money on internet because we get WIC. Also that my children do not deserve extra "goodies" and such.
I will be damned if my son can't have an ice cream cone, or a cake on his birthday because we get assistance. And like I said before....I don't always get everything on the WIC vouchers, because I like to save the government as much as I can, without turning down the little extra that is very helpful to us.


----------



## Greaseball

I feel no need to apologize for the fact that we have high-speed internet, and we just bought a new computer. I take online classes, so I needed a better connection.

Besides, not all poor people who are on this board own computers. Libraries let people use them for free.

I think a computer in the home can be a real asset for job-hunting. Not all jobs are listed in the paper.


----------



## MamaSoleil

I think a computer is a must have in today's day and age...almost moreso than a veh!!!

JMO.

AND I'm loving the tone today!!!!!


----------



## MirandaW

Its so loving today. I am really digging it too.

I have been on several sides to the whole poverty issue. I must say I would rather have money but not have money YET dh and I think we had more fun when we didn't have money and couldn't be as materialistic. It gave us something to really think about.


----------



## MamaChel

I'm relatively happy where we are today. We have enough to pay our bills most of the time with a little extra. We are finally off all assistance but my disability which I helped pay for and it's not much. We were literally hungry almost starving for the past 2 years so I'm grateful to be able to eat, have heat, etc. We did get hit with tons in extra medical bills this year because we have no insurance but this year we won't starve or go without a need to make payments. My perspective has changed so much the past couple years and this discussion has helped me realize some things about how people have treated me and also how I have treated other people.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

Children born into families already receiving welfare are not entitled to benefits. Why? The child has done nothing wrong! It's not his fault how he was born. (BTW, this rule has not reduced the number of births to women on welfare.)
Ah, yes, many people won't support abortions, but they won't help support these innocent souls, either:LOL
I guess they have to suffer for their parents' sins?


----------



## DreamsInDigital

Well, in Washington state you get more benefits for each new family member. I don't understand why a state wouldn't increase your benefits with more children to support!







:


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by DreamsInDigital_
*Well, in Washington state you get more benefits for each new family member. I don't understand why a state wouldn't increase your benefits with more children to support!







:*
Well, remember years back when there was mass welfare reform?

Here in California, they made it so that after that point, if you had over a certain number of children, you wouldn't get more money. I see the issue.....my hometown has a significant number of welfare families...some third generation....and there is a significant number of THOSE who do ignore birth control beacause it means more money.

I don't know that limiting that money solves any issues, but I see where the thinking behind it comes from.


----------



## Dar

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*I see the issue.....my hometown has a significant number of welfare families...some third generation....and there is a significant number of THOSE who do ignore birth control beacause it means more money.*
This is hateful propaganda against poor women, and I'm sorry that you've chosen to believe it.

Do you know how much money you get for that additional child? When I was on benefits it was an additional $30 a month to go from 2 to 3 kids, from $240 a month to $270. That's a dollar a day to buy everything you need for your child - could you do it?

In some states it's more, in some it's less, but it's never much. It's always far, far less than 24/7 childcare would cost, and these mothers on welfare do raise their children.

Why can't you believe that poor women enjoy their children, love them, and want to be mothers? Why do you attach this horrible stigma to poor "welfare moms"?

I must go walk the dogs and calm down now.

Dar


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

I see the issue.....my hometown has a significant number of welfare families...some third generation....and there is a significant number of THOSE who do ignore birth control beacause it means more money.
That's like saying middle-class women just have children for the tax decuctions. Those sluts!

Does anyone honestly believe women plan pregnancies to get an extra dollar a day? You can get that much picking up change off the ground.

If it was all about money, those programs where women are paid a lump sum for going on Norplant would work. Instead, they don't.

*going back to my bon bons, cheesypoofs and soap operas now*


----------



## momoftwelve

Dar,
You tell 'em as it is.
Don't ever lose that spirit , we need more people like you.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dar_
*This is hateful propaganda against poor women, and I'm sorry that you've chosen to believe it.

Do you know how much money you get for that additional child? When I was on benefits it was an additional $30 a month to go from 2 to 3 kids, from $240 a month to $270. That's a dollar a day to buy everything you need for your child - could you do it?

In some states it's more, in some it's less, but it's never much. It's always far, far less than 24/7 childcare would cost, and these mothers on welfare do raise their children.

Why can't you believe that poor women enjoy their children, love them, and want to be mothers? Why do you attach this horrible stigma to poor "welfare moms"?

I must go walk the dogs and calm down now.

Dar*
I certainly hope you DID calm down, because you are waaaay off base.

Sadly, it's not untrue. It's not against women, but against a system that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for a family to get off assistance if they want to. Sure there are many conservatives who want to turn this FACT into what YOU say it is....propaganda. However, misuse of it doesn't make it untrue....especially if you look at multi-generational welfare families, which really needs to be examined more.

You've tried to relate two completely different issues that really have nothing to do with one another. There are people who abuse the system. One form of abuse is having more kids to get more money. If you are only bringing in $800 a month anyhow, an extra $50 a month IS HUGE. This was a legitimate form of welfare abuse, regardless of how the parents *felt* about those children. And I was just saying that it's a reason why the laws have changed to say that families can't get money for more than a certain number of kids. I was just explaining. I didn't say it was right or wrong or anything. But it IS real.

The issue of this country supporting family and supporting one parent staying home with small children is really entirely different issue and not restricted to women below the poverty level.

I would really appreciate less of a knee jerk reaction next time....I was a welfare mom and you comments really offend me.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*That's like saying middle-class women just have children for the tax decuctions. Those sluts!

Does anyone honestly believe women plan pregnancies to get an extra dollar a day? You can get that much picking up change off the ground.

If it was all about money, those programs where women are paid a lump sum for going on Norplant would work. Instead, they don't.

*going back to my bon bons, cheesypoofs and soap operas now**
Its not the same and it's not a social commentary on their virtuousness or anything like that.

I spent 4 years working in a medicaid clinic. Two of those years, while I was in college, I was able to help with a study of the 30,000 users of the clinic, and this study was done in conjuntion with other similar cities in the US. The city I lived in had a high (obviously) percentage of people who were on welfare or some form of assistance.

The reality is that some families deliberately did NOT go on birth control because they knew if they had a child their family would get more money. And as I mentioned in another post, an extra $50 to a family who is on welfare is A LOT. Maybe it's not a lot to you or me, (well, it is a lot to me) but it's a whole grocery trip for a family on welfare.

This isn't social commentary on if they are good people or sluts or anything. In fact, in my opinion, it speaks to a level of desperation that the poverty class has reached and it's more of a comment on the fact that, really, welfare isn't enough to live and feel safe. Thats more of a comment on the state of our government than anything.

The propaganda comes in when people who use the system insist on spouting off about how they DESERVE it and they will "TAKE WHAT THEY WANT" and how things are "OWED" to them. They give the rest of the people on assistance a bad rap.

Oh...and the REAL reason why programs like the NorPlant one you mentioned don't work has to do with the heavy influence of religion, in particular the Catholic Church, has in government. Those programs aren't pushed as well as they should be, aren't funded as much as they need to be, and aren't placed in the communities that really need them.


----------



## Greaseball

Birth control should be a personal choice, not a bribe or extra condition that must be met to receive services. The irony is that when it is a choice, the state often doesn't want to pay.

I suppose one could say I'm having another child to get more food stamps. It wouldn't be true...but they could say it anyway! Now that I think of it, extra food stamps does sound nice. I'll be enjoying them, and my new child too! Wow! Two treats in one!

It's true that being on welfare increases the chance that your children will be too. Being poor and not on welfare increases the chance that your children will be poor and not on welfare. (By "welfare" I mean cash, not FS and Medicaid, etc.) Being rich increases the chance your children will be rich.

People who grow up poor do not receive the same type of education that middle income children do. We are led to believe that public schools do not differ between neighborhoods, but they do. A child who lives in the poorest neighborhood most likely will not receive a decent education. They may not be able to get into college. Some children drop out of school to work in fast food, because additional income is needed in the home.

I was one of the "poor kids" who went to a "rich school." While I worked in fast food after school and during the summers, the rich kids would work in a family business where they were paid real wages.

If we want to stop multigenerational poverty, I think education should be taken more seriously. People with a college degree do not find themselves jobless as often as uneducated people. Since when is higher education a "luxury?" Mothers already receiving assistance should be given a choice between getting a job and going to school. (Of course, I think they should also have the choice to stay home, but I know I'm in the minority there.) Working full time at minimum wage does not allow one to support a family. What it does is allow the state to take away Medicaid from that mother, even if her job does not offer benefits.

I don't think "those children" should never have been born. I think they should have been welcomed and supported from the start. I don't understand how anyone who likes and respects children can say that they should have been aborted or otherwise prevented from existing.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Working full time at minimum wage does not allow one to support a family. What it does is allow the state to take away Medicaid from that mother, even if her job does not offer benefits.*
Great post, Greaseball.

Whoa...are you saying the (US) gov't takes medical coverage away from the people that need it most?!?
That's so horrible!
Who would support that? What purpose could that possibly serve????







:


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Birth control should be a personal choice, not a bribe or extra condition that must be met to receive services.

I suppose one could say I'm having another child to get more food stamps. It wouldn't be true...but they could say it anyway! Now that I think of it, extra food stamps does sound nice. I'll be enjoying them, and my new child too! Wow! Two treats in one!

If we want to stop multigenerational poverty, I think education should be taken more seriously. People with a college degree do not find themselves jobless as often as uneducated people. Since when is higher education a "luxury?" Mothers already receiving assistance should be given a choice between getting a job and going to school. (Of course, I think they should also have the choice to stay home, but I know I'm in the minority there.) Working full time at minimum wage does not allow one to support a family. What it does is allow the state to take away Medicaid from that mother, even if her job does not offer benefits.

I don't think "those children" should never have been born. I think they should have been welcomed and supported from the start. I don't understand how anyone who likes and respects children can say that they should have been aborted or otherwise prevented from existing.*
Who said birth control should be mandated?

Sure, one could say that about you and it wouldn't be true. That doesn't negate the fact that there have been families who have deliberately not gone on birth control in order to have more kids and raise their assistance level. I don't really know what to say other than...it happens. Sure, not with every family...but it happens.

Who said anything about "those children"?

I mentioned that education issue in the child abuse activism thread.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Great post, Greaseball.

Whoa...are you saying the (US) gov't takes medical coverage away from the people that need it most?!?
That's so horrible!
Who would support that? What purpose could that possibly serve????







:*
That is, in fact, usually what it does. The super low level of income one must sink to in order to qualify for medicaid is really really low.

In California, if you are single, once you get a full time, minimum wage job, you pretty much don't qualify for medicaid anymore. Your income would be too high, if you can believe that.

Here its gotten worse with our budge crunch and they've added "share of cost" to medicaid actually....so there are people who technically qualify but still can't really get care because their "share of cost" is more than they can reasonably pay.

Most states have programs in place to help with kids, which is good. The income level is a bit higher and if your employer wont provide coverage, most states will give your child coverage. Again, though, this often leaves parents uncovered.

And, there is the share of cost issue again....many states have a pretty high share of cost for dependant care, so even if technically your kid can get covered through your state, sometimes that share of cost will also be too great to really let you get your kids health care.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

Whoa...are you saying the (US) gov't takes medical coverage away from the people that need it most?!?
In Oregon, the most recent budget cuts to Medicaid led to cutting AIDS patients off from medications that were keeping them alive. It used to be that when Medicaid was hit with cuts, they assured all clients that life-sustaining medications would still be provided, but now it's not so.

We were just hit again, and I've heard the plan will no longer provide coverage for pregnant women, college students or the working poor.

It's supposed to take effect a few days after my due date, but I think I still might be able to be covered. I planned this pregnancy with the intention that the state would be paying for my home birth. (One of THOSE women again...entitlement issues!)

There are programs to help with kids, but often the parents still have to pay something and there is a waiting list.

Anothermama - are you SURE these women planned to have children to get more benefits? Did they tell you this? Or is it one of those things that's just easy to assume? There is a difference between wanting a child only to get more benefits and deciding to have a child and then realizing as an afterthought, "Oh, I guess I qualify for more now!"

You mentioned that Norplant was not being used often enough in certain communities. That's something that can sound like eugenics. Sterilization abuse still continues today. (Of course, only of women; they allow male "baby factories" to be fully operational!)

Has anyone on this thread been born to a woman on assistance, or a very poor woman? Do you wish you had never been born?


----------



## Snowy Owl

Thanks, anothermama.
So when you don't qualify for medicaid, you have to pay for a private insurance company to cover *certain* medical costs, which is expensive, right?

Ouch.

What are the taxes for then?

Anyway, I posted this link in war and politics, and I'll post it here.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

That's an awful lot of debt for such a wealthy nation.
I wonder if it's all those welfare families causing that debt.
All those subsidized cans of pork 'n beans....









edited to add: and thanks also Greaseball for info


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*

Anothermama - are you SURE these women planned to have children to get more benefits? Did they tell you this? Or is it one of those things that's just easy to assume? There is a difference between wanting a child only to get more benefits and deciding to have a child and then realizing as an afterthought, "Oh, I guess I qualify for more now!"

You mentioned that Norplant was not being used often enough in certain communities. That's something that can sound like eugenics. Sterilization abuse still continues today. (Of course, only of women; they allow male "baby factories" to be fully operational!)

Has anyone on this thread been born to a woman on assistance, or a very poor woman? Do you wish you had never been born?*
Yes...I'm sure. The last year of my study, as well as the time I've spent here working with single moms, I had to interview many mothers. Curently, I work with a parent mentoring program. There is often an attitude of "I'm not letting the government to tell me that I have to go on birth control just to they dont have to pay for my kid". There is also many families who feel that it's kind of a no win situation for them, so what does it matter if they have more kids or not. Most of them have unplanned pregnancies and have turned down birth control previously. I've actually had families tell me to my face "It doesn't matter if I have more babies or not, but it would sure help with money".

It's incredibly sad and depressing, because, as I said earlier, it just speaks so profoundly to the sense of desperation that people in poverty feel....they feel the government it out to screw them and they feel hopeless and trapped in their station in life.

YOU BROUGHT UP THE NORPLANT!!!!!!!!! I was just touching on what YOU said. YOU said it didn't work, and I said that it really has less to do with money and more to do with distribution of the program itself....THATS ALL!!!! Yeesh...........
I don't personally care who goes on birth control or not. I think that it would benefit many women if they'd DO it, but I think that education needs to be pushed OVER pushing birth control because, as I mentioned, lots of time poor women just see it as a tool of the government to control them.

Uhm...I was born to a very poor mother on assistance (not a single mom, though..my folks were married two months before I came along). I also gave birth to a child while I was below poverty level on on every form of assistance in the land.

Of COURSE I don't wish I was never born and I would never in a million years trade my baby girl in for anything, either....whats your point?


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Thanks, anothermama.
So when you don't qualify for medicaid, you have to pay for a private insurance company to cover *certain* medical costs, which is expensive, right?

Ouch.
*
Yup...

Except, obviously, thats not feasable for most people who fall in the middle ground.

I remember I worked my ass off to get OFF assistance and then looked into paying for health care out of pocket because my work didn't provide it....and it was so out of my legue it wasn't even funny.

And people wonder why so many are in favor of socialized health care....







:


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

There is often an attitude of "I'm not letting the government to tell me that I have to go on birth control just to they dont have to pay for my kid".
I have that attitude as well. The government should have no say in whether I use birth control or not. It should be a personal choice I make for myself. If the government doesn't want to pay for my kid, well, they make the rules! Why do they still pay if all they're going to do is complain about it?

If women really are having babies to get more money, there is something wrong with the system and not the women. Why do they need to go to such great lengths to get their needs met? Why can't they already have enough to get by on to begin with?

Saying poor women shouldn't have children is almost the same as saying poor children shouldn't be born. (Maybe none of us here thinks that, but there are a lot of other people - mostly rich twits with entitlement issues of their own - who say the children should have been aborted.) It could be that some of us would never have been born if our mothers were subject to sterilization abuse or birth control incentives.

If people want to see mothers get off assistance, then becoming self-sufficient should be a reward and not a punishment. I know a woman who has a disabled child who can get care only because she is on assistance. If she gets a job, her son dies because she will not be able to afford his care. Why in the world should she try and get a job, knowing that it will be the end of his life?


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*
And people wonder why so many are in favor of socialized health care....







:*
What's there to wonder about!? It works!

You have my sincere sympathy. That must be so stressful. Maybe someday you will have socialized health care.
Oh, but get that Bush guy out of office first, to start, please.


----------



## Greaseball

I forgot, has anyone touched on the issue of domestic violence?

"Studies have shown" that two thirds of all women on welfare are fleeing domestic violence. DV is also a cause of homelessness. I remember there was a question at the beginning of the thread about homelessness, and when I was 17 and 18 I was homeless in part because of DV. Luckily I did not have children.

One barrier to leaving an abusive relationship is that a woman may not have enough education or job skills/experience to support herself, and may not be able to arrange childcare. Welfare remains the only option. I can understand why most women don't leave their abusers.

These same studies show that two thirds of teenage mothers have been sexually abused in the home. But, a condition of receiving welfare as a teenager is that you have to live with an adult. This encourages living with your abusive parents, or early marraiges (which can also be abusive).


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*
If women really are having babies to get more money, there is something wrong with the system and not the women. Why do they need to go to such great lengths to get their needs met? Why can't they already have enough to get by on to begin with?

If people want to see mothers get off assistance, then becoming self-sufficient should be a reward and not a punishment. I know a woman who has a disabled child who can get care only because she is on assistance. If she gets a job, her son dies because she will not be able to afford his care. Why in the world should she try and get a job, knowing that it will be the end of his life?*
AMEN SISTER!!!!!!! Youre preachin' to the choir! Thats what I'm saying! I don't think it says much of ANYTHING about the character of the families except that they are DESPERATE because their country will not take care of them.

Our country is EFFED UP!!!!!!!!! The way we distribute aid and the MENTALITY that surrounds it is sick and I'm not refering to those who get it.......

When it comes right down to it, we don't take care of our people. It's embarassing.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

I learn sooooo much at this place!!








Feel the love!!

You mamma's are amazin'...................

I wish we could listen to you on talk radio instead of listening Rush Limbaugh spew his crap............

(not that I ever listen to him - rather I *hear* him thru all the "faithful" fans, IYKWIM)










Well done. You've put a beautiful *face* on *them* ppl . A face we can all recognize.

In trying to comprehend why the wealthiest nation in the world cannot see it's way clear to provide for those in need I was struck by this - perhaps it has some truth:

It is often said that ppl support tax cuts and perks for the uber-wealthy bcuz we all *think* that we have a chance to be that someday.....................

perhaps ppl oppose supporting the needy bcuz we *fear* that we might be that someday? "That which I do not see doesn't exist?

El


----------



## Greaseball

I've heard tax cuts for the wealthy are to reward them for their "hard work."







:

If that's true, women on assistance should be rewarded the most of all! These women work for NO pay other than the pittance that barely pays the rent. (Oh yeah, for those not clear, raising children is work! For some reason, if you raise other people's children you have a job, but when you're raising your own, you're "lazy.")

The true upper class don't really have to work all that hard. They inherit and invest. So they are rewarded for not doing anything, really.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

Sterilization abuse still continues today. (Of course, only of women; they allow male "baby factories" to be fully operational!)









I worked as a receptionist and ped. assistant for quite a while; CAN YOU BELIEVE that Medicaid wouldn't pay for our teenage girls' birth control BUT THEY COVERED VIAGRA??????? Talk about sick........


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*
... But, a condition of receiving welfare as a teenager is that you have to live with an adult. This encourages living with your abusive parents, or early marraiges (which can also be abusive).*
This is sorta







T I think ..

I hated that rule! I needed medicaid badly when Alex was born, I couldn't get him insurance any other way. He wasn't a child of my parents so that didn't work and dh (now but bf at the time) couldn't add us since we weren't married. But I couldn't marry him and move out because my parents wouldn't sign (lived in a state that required it) so I was stuck living at home just so my kid could see the doctor if necessary! I was getting no other assistance so I don't see the point in law.

My mother made my life hell for that time, she hated dh and still doesn't like him. She made it difficult for me and him to see each other, and for him to see his son. She never let him in the house and fought me all the time. She often yelled and swore at me for going out with him and Alex and not being back by the time she told me to just so I could cook her dinner! (i'm talking 7pm!)And yelling at me that she paid the bills but yet wouldn't let me move out (she told me she would report me to the case worker and take my kid etc) I am finally getting over all the crap and abuse (emotional and verbal) she put us all through. And I believe Alex's behavioral problems stem from him not having a peaceful and stable home envirnoment his first 18 months of life. I moved out a month after my 18th bday and moved in with dh and Alex. that was a happy day!!

edit for typo


----------



## plum

Quote:

_Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones_
*

In trying to comprehend why the wealthiest nation in the world cannot see it's way clear to provide for those in need -

*
it's because we need to go to mars!


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:

_Originally posted by sweetbaby3_
*Mamasoleil....
I had a patient in the ER from Canada....and said he had to wait 4 months to have his gallbladder removed and another relative had to wait forever to have her hip replaced.

Why the wait?*
I have limited time and haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if this point has already been addressed.

I live in a metropolitan area, have one of the better HMO/PPOs around (and pay out the nose for it), and we still often have to wait from 2-3 months to get an appointment with a specialist unless we can get our GPs to call and intervene (and even then we might still have to wait). Also, my son has to have surgery, and it's been scheduled four months from the time he saw the specialist.

It's not only with socialized healthcare that you have long wait times....


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*
It's not only with socialized healthcare that you have long wait times....*
It really depends....
My husband had to have a hernia operation recently, he waited about three weeks from the injury to the operation.
I've never had to wait a long time for anything, but have never had major surgery.
I've heard of long wait list in communities that are underfunded and overloaded.
Some provincial governments, like the rodeo crowd in Alberta, made major cutbacks to health care when they were elected (causing a serious shortage of services and mass protests etc.), and tried to privatize the system to be like the 'great, efficient, US system'. It was illegal to do this, so they privatized the liquor stores instead. There's one on every corner.

Anyway, totally off topic, but my point is, I have never been without health care no matter how poor I've been or what situation I've been in.

pilesoflaundry, what a horrifying story. I'm sorry you were stuck in that situation for so long. Your mom must have forgotten that you'll be the one pushing her wheelchair around the grounds of the nursing home in a few years.
I hope it's a good one...


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Snowy Owl, the saddest part is my mom fails to see that is how she was. I'm not exaggerating either, my brother remembers. I don't know if mom forgets on purpose or just doesn't realize how wrong it is to treat people that way.

She jokes she will live with me and my kids when she gets old, yeah right!!


----------



## polka123

Quote:

_Originally posted by plum_
*it's because we need to go to mars!*
boy, do I agree with this.
why are we sending men to the moon when we have homeless families ??
been there, done that (the moon, I mean )
there is so much wealth in this country.
why do "movie stars" get paid what what they do?
because we pay them via the movies.
we do not go to movies. why does someone like ben, matt j-lo, cameron get millions of bucks for "acting"
we need to take care of our own no matter what.
who cares if they brought in on themselves.
give them some basic health care & a roof over their heads.
should folks abuse the system - NO, but that's what limits are for.
Children should not live in a car or be denied health care.
my own health insurance sucks. we have a MAJOR carrier & they only pay $15- per office visit - this is not a co-pay. this is the only plan offered to DH. if you go to ER, they pay almost 100%








So it forces folks to clog up ER for petty things like a bad cold instead of going to your prim. Dr. because your PP charges you $100 per visit of which $15 is paid & you owe the rest ??








is that crazy or what ?


----------



## shine

... the issue of mental health care and it's relationship to homelessness and poverty.

Snowy Owl, how is mental health dealt with in Canada? Is it included in your health care?
That makes a huge difference.

When you consider that the average age of onset for bipolar and mood disorders is 15-30 years of age and for schizophrenia it is 30-40, it means that a person who is working, married with children can become, over time, incapable of supporting themselves or their family. I can tell you, too from experience, that health insurance companies are notoriously poor at paying the costs of psychiatrists, therapists and psychiatric medications. And psych meds are NOT cheap to come by. So many homeless people suffer with psychiatric disorders -- these are physical illnesses which deprive them of the ABILITY to care for themselves and their dependents. Then there are those who are from families who have historically received poor education, are in abusive situations, dealing with alcoholism... choices? what choices? The children of these families didn't get choices. And the parents had pitifully few.

Someday in this country we need to put health care for ALL citizens in the priority position. Then I believe we would see a reduction in poverty, homelessness and child neglect.

sandi


----------



## Snowy Owl

Shine, an excellent point. I don't know that much about it, but I do think that many who or homeless or in prison are mentally ill and have fallen through the cracks of the system. I know that marriage counselling and other types of counselling is covered by OHIP here in Ontario, in other words, free.
In BC, where we lived recently, we had to pay out of pocket, found it too expensive, and ended up only going to two sessions.

Anyway, gotta go, I hope some one else has something to say about all this.


----------



## Greaseball

Good point about mental illness. It's also a major cause of homelessness. There are some illnesses that are debilitating enough to make a person not be able to get a job, but that aren't considerd "bad enough" to get disability money.

Also, most mentally ill people I've known want a job more than anything. They are smart and have experience. It's not that they are lazy and just want the state to pay them, it's that employers generally don't want to hire someone with a psychiatric history. Sometimes a company will give a mentally ill person a chance, and that often greatly improves their mental health.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

people who are poor, homeless, or on welfare bring it upon themselves.

Do you agree with that statement? If so, why? If not, why not?

If you believe that the poor bring it upon themselves, does that mean the government holds no responsibility in helping the issue? Some responsibility?

If you believe that the government SHOULD help, what should be done?
i agree, but only slightly.

i do think the government definitely should help.

so... let me explain.

i'm about 100% below the povety level currently. i'm a full-time college student, and so is my fiance. as it is, i already feel like i don't have enough time for my son... but 1) if i went to work, i'd have even less time with him, and 2) the small amount of financial aid we get is the only money we have to pay bills with, and 3) there are no jobs in the area.

none. not even fast food or waitressing jobs, or supermarket jobs. if we were going to drop out of school and get jobs, we would have to leave the area (which we may have to do before the new baby's born anyway, just to have enough money for the family) -- which means we'd have to save up several thousand dollars (first, last, and deposit for whereever we'd be living), and enlist the help of all our family for the move because we don't have transportation.

we were denied government assistance (welfare / tanf) because we're going to school (to, hopefully, get decent jobs in the future).

welfare only lasts 5 years; for a lot of families, that is not enough time to actually get an education, get a decent paying job and stabilize their life. when we tried to get on tanf, we were told we could only go through an 18 month training program and then county job placement, and you could only get on it if you agreed to get a job in the county. (so is the government responsible for helping families out of poverty? i think so, and i don't think welfare/tanf is the way to do it; if families are truly going to make a better life for themselves, they must do more than go through short, temporary training programs to just be pushed into the work force. the government also must realize that families need to remain strong, and just earning money is not going to help them do that; there are more to families than their income!)

further, if we were to go through the program, we would *both* have to be in the work force *full time*, which means our children would be in daycare (necessarily government subsidized) *full time*, which i don't agree with. i believe that one parent should stay home as much as possible with their kids, and raise them (i don't agree in daycare, although for us currently it is a necessity). i agree in homeschooling and attachment parenting, and so have made choices that although force us to remain below the poverty level, allow me to be the kind of parent i want to be. so to that extent, i believe that some families in poverty do choose to remain in poverty; i know we are.

however, we're also trying to get out of poverty while still living a life we believe in. (goddess, it's hard)

when i was working, and while my fiance was working, we both paid into the welfare system, so we don't feel bad about the fact that people's taxes are used to help people in poverty. after all, do any of us really know (especially in *this* economy) if or when we'll ever need government assistance? i think too many middle- and upper-class people don't understand that idea; poor families usually do work at some point, and so pay into the same system that helps/is helping/helped them.

oh and one more thing ~ when i tried to get a job a year and a half ago, the *one place* that was hiring at the time in the county refused me because the employer didn't think i'd make a stable/dependable employee. the only things on my resume are the graphic design (contract) jobs i've held, and my short time working at the local health food store (which was only short because my baby sitter was a flake, my son kept getting hurt in her care, and she started demanding more money than we had agreed on). i explained to him that (and this was on my resume) i finished EVERY ONE of my graphic design jobs, and the most recent one paid $75/hr. you would think that would count for something at least, or, at least i did. he also brought up that because i was a young mom he didn't think i'd last long there, because "none of the other young moms do." SO it's not always a case of people not being *willing* to get a job... it's also the fact that employers are unwilling to hire anyone that comes in, even if they're fully qualified.

and a note about financial aid: we were both awarded Pell grants, which we were told would be "living money" -- however, we don't even get payments every month; our rent is $500, and some months we only get $417 to live off of. this is mostly due to all of the educational $$ cuts the state has undergone.

and if i mention budget cuts, i must also mention that our apartment is trash -- it's government subsidized, and when we moved in it was quite a nice place. the note rate rent was $450, which we paid before we had the assistance. the note rate rent is now up to $955, the only assistance we get is the bare minimum, the managers are never in the office, the landscapers had to stop coming because of lack of funding, the grass is overgrown and dead, there is trash everywhere, the laundry room is constantly flooded and dirty (there's only 1 washer and 2 driers that work, for all of the 35+ tenets)... we have problems in our apartment that were caused by failing pipes that still haven't been fixed in over a year... all because the government is cutting so much funding from government assistance programs. i think the gov't has more of a responsibility than to just help families get out of poverty; i mentioned strong families before -- well we also need decent places to live.

ok, i need to stop or i'm going to keep ranting all night.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_
*i agree, but only slightly.

we were denied government assistance (welfare / tanf) because we're going to school (to, hopefully, get decent jobs in the future).

welfare only lasts 5 years; for a lot of families, that is not enough time to actually get an education, get a decent paying job and stabilize their life. when we tried to get on tanf, we were told we could only go through an 18 month training program and then county job placement, and you could only get on it if you agreed to get a job in the county. (so is the government responsible for helping families out of poverty? i think so, and i don't think welfare/tanf is the way to do it; if families are truly going to make a better life for themselves, they must do more than go through short, temporary training programs to just be pushed into the work force. the government also must realize that families need to remain strong, and just earning money is not going to help them do that; there are more to families than their income!)

SO it's not always a case of people not being *willing* to get a job... it's also the fact that employers are unwilling to hire anyone that comes in, even if they're fully qualified.

and a note about financial aid: we were both awarded Pell grants, which we were told would be "living money" -- however, we don't even get payments every month; our rent is $500, and some months we only get $417 to live off of.

ok, i need to stop or i'm going to keep ranting all night.*
While I certainly sympathize with you, I don't really understand how all that means that most poor people bring it on themselves.

For your *personal* situation I wonder if you are that far below poverty, because if so they CANT deny you benefits based on your schooling. They can sure as heck make it HARD for you to STAY in school, but to be more than 100% below poverty is saying a lot. What is considered poverty is VERY VERY VERY low.

All that said, your situation is hardly representative of people who live below the poverty level. In fact, you're the exception to the rule....most people that below don't have access to be able to get higher education and if they can access it, they don't, for some of the reasons you described...the system makes it harder to get higher education than it makes it to stay where you are and get benefits. Most people that live below the poverty level are single and very few are in any type of schooling.

The majority of people below the poverty level but on assistance are single moms. The majority of homeless people are single men with a significant history of mental illness.

I guess you can say that, in a way, everyones life choices led them to where they are (which is what I think you were trying to say....) but you also have to take into consideration with most of them the fact that society doesn't offer them any other options most of the time. As you pointed out, it's hard to get a job as a mom to young kids, from issues with child care to issues with discrimination. But the jobs offered aren't even jobs that *you* could get, the graphic design stuff...they are high turn over, low pay minimum wage type jobs. They'll hire anyone because they don't care if you miss work because of your kid...they'll just fire you and hire another warm body.

**I don't mean to slam your situation at all, by the way. I found myself nodding along the whole time because I was struggling to stay on assistance while I finished up college and it was HARD to do. Not only does the system not support families but it doesn't support bettering yourself.**


----------



## Aura_Kitten

ok, i've been reading through the whole thread post by post... i'm only on page 5 so far and i'm going to continue reading after i post this but i just had to mention that a lot of people think that you can just stay on welfare/tanf and keep having babies, and getting more money. at least where i live, you can't do that. you can be on welfare/tanf and have more kids, but they *won't* be covered at all and they aren't entitled to any benefits, and your household will *not* get any extra income or food stamps after the baby is born.

also, as of a few months ago, the child would also not be entitled to any benefits *for the rest of their life*.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

For your *personal* situation I wonder if you are that far below poverty, because if so they CANT deny you benefits based on your schooling.
in my county, that's exactly what they're doing. if we don't agree to go through their county job-training programs, and job-placement, than we *cannot get assistance* no matter how far below poverty we are or how little money we're bringing in.

also,

Quote:

I don't really understand how all that means that most poor people bring it on themselves.
i never meant to sound as if i was saying that "most poor people" bring it on themselves. only that our choices may lead us to stay in poverty... such as me, or my neighbors who choose to remain "poor" so that they can pay for cable/satellite/other expensive stuff that isn't really a necessity. :: shrug :: ultimately everyone makes the choices they believe are best... even if in the future they realize they should have chosen differently........


----------



## Aura_Kitten

ok, a few more things i've noticed while reading:

the Norplant issue, the minimum wage, and the idea of entitlement.

1) Norplant: not everyone can use it, and not everyone would if they could. one of my sisters was on it... and ended up having 4 miscarriages because of it. her body would try to keep the pregnancy, and then quit. she was very traumatized by this. then when she wanted to have it removed, she could not find a doctor who would remove it for her. the first two she went to just weren't qualitifed; the next three had *ethical issues* against it's removal (!!). i remember her telling me that one doctor explicility refused to remove it for her simply because she was still so young and "shouldn't be having more babies" (even though she was married and a full-time mom!). other women just can't take hormone-based birth control due to health issues -- something that seems to not have occured to anyone yet.

2) if the minimum wage is raised, inflation will go up, causing the cost of living to increase... it's basic economics. so, raising the minimum wage won't necessarily help.

3) yes, i believe i (and everyone!) am entitled to have basic food, shelter, and clothing for myself and my children, especially since i have worked in the past and plan to work in the future, and am raising my children to be decent, compassionate, intelligent people. doesn't that benefit the country in the long run?

-- oh and there is one more thing: while i can't get any more money if i have more kids, the government will gladly pay for an abortion.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_
*ok, i've been reading through the whole thread post by post... i'm only on page 5 so far and i'm going to continue reading after i post this but i just had to mention that a lot of people think that you can just stay on welfare/tanf and keep having babies, and getting more money. at least where i live, you can't do that. you can be on welfare/tanf and have more kids, but they *won't* be covered at all and they aren't entitled to any benefits, and your household will *not* get any extra income or food stamps after the baby is born.

also, as of a few months ago, the child would also not be entitled to any benefits *for the rest of their life*.*
Much of this is VERY recent welfare reform.....about 10 years old now.

In many areas, people are kind of "grandfathered" in on welfare...meaning the new, stricter rules don't apply to them if they meet certaing criteria and were on welfare BEFORE the reform came though.

No benefits for life if your folks got benefits??
That doesn't make sense to me...


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_
*in my county, that's exactly what they're doing. if we don't agree to go through their county job-training programs, and job-placement, than we *cannot get assistance* no matter how far below poverty we are or how little money we're bringing in.
*
Aaaah...I see.
Yeah, I get it now. I went through the same thing and just fudged on it all long enough to get by in college. It can be done.


----------



## mamaofthree

I was up till 2 am reading this! WOW! I couldn't post at the time because one, I was pooped, and two I was a bit emotional about the issue.
I want to share "my" story... well really my MIL's story. She got married at the end of WWII to my FIL they found out they would probably never have their "own" kids due to the fact that FIL had very little sperm. So they fostered over 30 kids. Now back in the forty's people couldn't adopt newborns so she took babies right from the hospital until they where about 3 months old. Then in the mid fifties she adopted my SIL and could no longer be a foster parent. Then in the late 50's adopted BIL#1. During this time FIL was trying to "make it" big in avation repair and did pretty good, he liked to live above their means and have a showy house and big car (althought the house lacked much inside that didn't matter) he also lived it up with the bigwigs and started sleeping around. MIL looked the otherway. In the mid 60's she got pregnant with BIL#2! She was so freaking happy! and then in 1968 she had my dear hubby, who was "sickly". I must add as a side note she did keep the books for FIL business, bhut that was "off the books" so she never got paid. She was AP before AP was cool. Co-slept, EBF, cloth diapered (well I don't think she had a choice in that! LOL) What I mean by all of that is she WANTED to be a mom. That was her life, that is what she wanted to do, it was her job. Well about a year and half after DH was born FIL split. And he was a dead beat dad, he "left" her the house, but with no way of paying for it. She took him to court many times, to no avail. I guess back in the 70's no one cared. She ended up on Welfare, foodstamps, medicade. She had two little kids, no real job skills (Other than being a mom which of course they don't count!) Did she "deserve" to be poor? Was it her fault? Her older DD got a job after dropping out of high school to help out some, but she met a man got pregnant and married, and then her and BIL could barely make ends meet. MIL worked a few odd jobs here and there, but like I said my DH was sick a lot, and she was always missing work, even after he went to school. When my DH hit puberty he was suddenly better. And so for a few years she did the books for a local furnature store. But then her mother had a stroke and had STML, and so she started taking care of her. And she did that until about 12 years ago when grandma died. MIL is 75 years old now, she never really worked outside the home. She was dirt poor, living in crappy apartments, selling every nice thing she had, barely scrapping by. She is the nicest person you would care to meet. She would give you the shirt off her back. She took in a lot of her kids troubled friends, off and on during their times in high school. Right now she lives off of $672.00 a month. She is lucky because she really doesn't have a bunch of health problems, if she did she wouldn't beable to afford the co-pays at doctor visits, or the medication.
3 of her 4 kids came out to be very productive members of society. My BIL#1 has a lot of problems. They found out later his birth family had a history of mental illness, drug/alchol abuse. He has been in and out of trouble, but MIL stands by that boy, even if she has got to do the tough love on him some times (ie letting him spend a few nights in jail, and stopped giving him money). But she is a freaking great person.

So why did I share this story? I guess I wanted certain people to see the "face" of the poor. MOMS!!! Did she not deserve help?
What sickens me is someone passing judgement on a situation they have never had to face. YOu need to walk a mile in someone elses shoes. See what is is REALLY like to be without. THere where times she went with out enough to eat, so her kids had enough to eat. Any of the nay says have to do that? Go hungry to make sure your kids ate enough? I am going to venture out there and say NO. Because if you did you wouldn't be acting this way. (Oh and I am NOT talking about you not getting 2nds so your kids could eat more... I mean eating a slice of bread and that is IT!)
I would like to know why is it our government professes to be a Christian nation, and yet practices no Christian values of charity, and helping the less fortunate. And why are Mothers always to blame? And why are children left to suffer? Should my DH and his brothers and sister gone with out a mother as well as a father, so she (MIL) could make $2.00 hour (remember this was back in the 70's) And if you recall there was a resession in the 70's and stuff cost a lot!

My family was also off and on public assistance when I was little, my mom was a SAHM, and my dad worked for a school district teaching carpentry to troubled kids. He got paid once a month. When my little bro started K, mom went to work full time. Bro would walk home to a sitters house (she lived next door to us) and I would pick him up after I got out of school, and then we went home. I was 9 he was 5! Is that better then us needing public assistance? Cause they couldn't afford full time child care. So is that better.
Give me a break. The whole issue is difficult to talk about with people who have NEVER had to live it.

H


----------



## Peppermint

This thread is so very interesting, I am glad it has taken on a more respectful tone as it has gone on









In answer to the OP- Poverty depends on so many things. We have lived below the poverty level, but have never had to receive assistance, I think basically b/c of *where* we have chosen to live(and partly b/c I enjoy being frugal now). We live in an area that is very reasonable as far as cost of living is concerned. At one point we really wanted to move to Boston, dh was offered a job he would've loved there- but we realized it would mean either living so far outside the city that he'd be commuting 2 hours a day, or me going to work and putting the kids in daycare, so we chose to move here instead, and I am glad we did (dh is too).

We are mainly "poor" b/c of bad choices, and consumerism. We have vowed to get ourselves out of debt (instead of bankruptcy), b/c almost all of our debt is our fault. Sure, $7000 is from being uninsured when dd was born, and we have been through more than our share of dh getting laid off, but much of it (more than I am happy to admit) is due to consumerism on our parts.

I think most of the people I know are "poor" b/c of bad choices, but that is b/c most people I know are from middle class families and are educated. OTOH- I work with a CPC and most of the women and children (few dads) I meet there, are poor due to circumstances beyond their control.

It is b/c of knowing the people who are poor through no fault of their own, that we are determined to get ourselves out- we caused our own problem, and I want money to be there for those who didn't, YK?

I am not sure what my point is beyond- #1-you just can't judge someone else's situation, #2-the children should never be "punished" regardless, #3- we all have a responsibility to be charitable with any extra we might have, #4- I wish more families would help each other out- there is no reason why anyone with family that is comfortable should need to be on assistance -not that they don't deserve it, and not that I am judging them- it's just that any time we have ever really needed help, we have never had to ask, my family has provided without question- without expectation of return, etc. I know though, that most "poor" people have families no better off than they are.

I wish I knew what the government, or we as people could really do to make sure everyone had their basic needs met- but I don't- I can see though- that what we have now is not working.


----------



## Greaseball

Pell grants are supposed to cover "tuition, books and fees" according to the school. Now they don't even cover the full cost of tuition. When the university is forced to raise tuition, the federal programs don't raise the amount of money they give.

In the next ten years, I wonder if the poor will be able to get an education at all...


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

No benefits for life if your folks got benefits??
That doesn't make sense to me...
it didn't make sense to me either. when i asked the social worker with whom i was speaking, she said it was an "incentive" to keep families from continuing on welfare for "generations."








:


----------



## cappuccinosmom

I wouldn't say that all poor Americans bring it on themselves, but I'm sure some do. We are way under the poverty line, but not really "poor" in my estimation. I'm content! We were able to buy a house because of savings and manage our mortage and all our bills, as well as tithing and giving money to dh's family back home. That leaves pretty much no room for extras, and we have to scrimp. But we can do it, and we don't really *need* what we don't have, so why worry about it? One thing that we don't have is health insurance (baby has it, not us). I know that is a risk but we simply can't do it. We will be saving up ourselves for things like maternity care. The insurance industry has become way to powerful (if that's the word) and inflated medical care prices incredibly. Actually, it's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you have it, you lose thousands of dollars a year to a company who may or may not give it back when you need it. If you don't you could be thousands of dollars in the hole for a medical procedure.............I can't decide which is better.







:

OTOH, I know personally many, many people who make poor financial choices and then end up in huge trouble. Part of it is just a sense of "needing" lots of things that aren't really necessary. I never could understand my former coworkers who always complained about how little money they had, when driving late-model cars, ordering at least $50 from every Ltd. magazing that came along, and adding new clothes to thier wardrobe 2 or three times a month.
Another part of it is insurance, as I mentioned. Credit cards, ads for "easy money" bank loans and cash advances....it can pretty easily turn into a financial sinkhole.

The problems seem pretty obvious. Beats me though, what the answer is.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

If you have it, you lose thousands of dollars a year to a company who may or may not give it back when you need it. If you don't you could be thousands of dollars in the hole for a medical procedure.............I can't decide which is better.
I would prefer to do without insurance and pay out-of-pocket. It's not like I have a bunch of serious medical problems that are always bringing me into the doctor's office. (Of course, if I did, no one would want to insure me.







: ) The problem is if you don't have insurance you can't be seen at most places. That's why little annoying things turn into big health problems - a doctor wouldn't see the person and wouldn't accpet payment arrangements on a $200 bill.

I think most poor people, especially working poor, could afford to pay their health bills if they were allowed to make arrangements. But because they have to have the cash up front, they can't be seen. So they pay for insurance that assures they can be seen.








T
My mom was on welfare for a few years while I was little...does that mean I would be automatically rejected if I applied?


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

It's not like I have a bunch of serious medical problems that are always bringing me into the doctor's office.
you're very blessed. (i had heart failure when i was 2, and my health has just kind of gotten worse ever since. if i had to pay for all my medical care, i'd be dead by now.)

Quote:

My mom was on welfare for a few years while I was little...does that mean I would be automatically rejected if I applied?
probably not; those rules are new enough you probably wouldn't be screwed over by them.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_
*it didn't make sense to me either. when i asked the social worker with whom i was speaking, she said it was an "incentive" to keep families from continuing on welfare for "generations."








:*
HEY!

I just noticed you are in CA and so I am...so I know thats not true. Whoever told you that is full of crap. Which, doesn't surprise me ...the system here is so effed up.

And I pm'd you....


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by cappuccinosmom_
*
OTOH, I know personally many, many people who make poor financial choices and then end up in huge trouble. Part of it is just a sense of "needing" lots of things that aren't really necessary. I never could understand my former coworkers who always complained about how little money they had, when driving late-model cars, ordering at least $50 from every Ltd. magazing that came along, and adding new clothes to thier wardrobe 2 or three times a month.
Another part of it is insurance, as I mentioned. Credit cards, ads for "easy money" bank loans and cash advances....it can pretty easily turn into a financial sinkhole.

The problems seem pretty obvious. Beats me though, what the answer is.







*
Thats a whole other aspect of it!!!!! Sure, you can say that people bring it on themselves in that way, but at what point to we take responsibility as a society and say "what a minute...maybe we need to teach our citizens to live within their means.". We teach people to constant get the biggest and best and newest.....kids are bullied in school for not having THE clothes or THE shoes.......and then we act surprised when they grow up and get themselves into financial trouble.


----------



## pilesoflaundry

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*Thats a whole other aspect of it!!!!! Sure, you can say that people bring it on themselves in that way, but at what point to we take responsibility as a society and say "what a minute...maybe we need to teach our citizens to live within their means.". We teach people to constant get the biggest and best and newest.....kids are bullied in school for not having THE clothes or THE shoes.......and then we act surprised when they grow up and get themselves into financial trouble.*








that is very true! I was one of those bullied kids, I hated school because of it.

And sometimes when you have nothing else you want to buy 'just that one' nice thing to feel better and then it becomes another... etc. And then suddenly you wake up broke.


----------



## Marsupialmom

Sure some people get to be poor by their own devices. My brother and sister are "them" people that need to be kicked off of the welfare rolls. We are clueless how they manipulate the system to still get it.

Some times when you are poor you have to look at what you have. We are of the working poor. My husband has two jobs. I am working a job for some extra's and niceties. We have plenty of food, a roof over our head, clothes on are back sure they are not always the nicest but we still have plenty.

We had to cancel Dishnet work because we could not afford it, does this make us poor? No, it means we have to live with in our means. Yes, sometimes you have to just live without this is not a horrible concept unless you are living without food, clothing, and decent shelter. To many people are worried about what others think and how they look to others. This boils down to greed and envy which are too emotions that really need to be tamed.

I hate when people suggest raising minimum wage because it puts my husband and I closer to the poverty lines. Sure the person making minimum get raises but what happens to those that are working closer to the bottom? They get even closer. They don't get raises. So you make a new set of people barely making it.


----------



## MirandaW

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marsupialmom_
*I hate when people suggest raising minimum wage because it puts my husband and I closer to the poverty lines. Sure the person making minimum get raises but what happens to those that are working closer to the bottom? They get even closer. They don't get raises. So you make a new set of people barely making it.*
That is a perspective I had never considered. Minimum wage goes up, more squeezed at the bottom

I personally think that more than simply raising the minimum wage, we should be work on the maximum wage. For example, CEO wages are around 37 times more than their worker drones. That doesn't seem very healthy for society, IMHO.

I have nothing against affluence on one's own merit. But there is no way one individual does something that much more valuable than another. Usually, it is getting rich off the backs of others who are relegated to poverty or working poor status.


----------



## mamaofthree

anothermama: good point! People may not "need" the brand new SUV, or brand name clothes, but our society so pushes it on everyone, that honestly I am sure some/or a lot of people feel they are being deprived of some fundamental right.
Plus, it seems a bit silly to even "blame" people about how they handle their money, when our government can't seem to balance a budget or even "buy" what is really needed for the people!

MirandaW: I never thought of a maximum wage. It sounds so nice! I have always thought that certian positions really don't need/deserve that huge amount of money. Especially while others go without.
I think that the whole idea of a maxium wage would never fly is because part of the whole "American Dream" is to beable to be a millionaire. And if everyone is a millionaire then being a millionaire really means nothing. NOT that I agree with this. I mean I have a REALLY hard time with a CEO making tens of millions a year while a school teacher makes jack. In the end you have no society if there is no education. Or maybe that is the thing. No real education for the people, just working drones, who can't think for themselves. SCARY!
(I homeschool, but not everyone wants to or can.)

H


----------



## cumulus

We're looking out the front window of your home on a cold February moring and see a two groups of people outside in the cold. One group is wearing two or more coats and the other have coats at all. The multi-coat group is discussing why the other group has no coats. I think the discussion should be, "Why is that one group wearing more than one coat?" Why are they busy looking for more coats and why don't they just give the people without coats some coats. I look down and see our children are looking outside too and they are looking at the children of the no-coats. A "why" is forming in their eyes.
It seems the worst thing in the world would be for some parents to get enough money to get by on and raise their children without having to work. Sounds like something we should be striving for to me.
I feel wealth requires poverty. To be rich would mean nothing if everyone was rich. Imagine going out to eat at a restaurant where the waiters, cooks, busboys, dishwashers and potato peelers all made $500,000.00 dollars a year. The farm workers who grew the food and the garbage collectors who take it away also make $500,000.00/year. I'm guessing with your 500,000/yr you couldn't afford to eat out too often.


----------



## mamaofthree

Even since I was in high school and learned about the different types of governments/societies, I always felt that a "socialistic" society was the way to go. I just don't feel at this time in our history (when I say our I mean all people) that we are ready for that kind of thinking. Here in the USA we are still trapped into thinking that we "need" everything. That some is good but more is better. And that everyone should want "it all". You know the HUGE house, 2 or 3 SUVs, 2.5 kids, high paying high power jobs, bla bla.
My Dh and I have had "the talk" about what we would do with ALOT of money... you know if you win the powerball sort of money. And honestly, I can't think of anything I want/need that I don't already have. (OK maybe some birkenstock sandles!:LOL ) What my "dream" would be is to open a free clinic and offer Midwife care and well women care and family care to the poor or not even just the poor, people like me, who can't afford health insurance, we make enough money to pay the bills and eat and have a few extras (Like eating out 2 times a month and renting a movie occationally.) But we are too "rich" for public assistance and it cost too much to buy it our selves.
Anyway, I guess what I am saying (if there is a point, I have no clue... :LOL ) that we as a whole society of people of the earth, we need to value people over "stuff". That the health of all the people needs to be tops, and making sure not only does everyone get the medicial attention they need in an emergancy, but preventative care... like having enough to eat to stay healthy, having shelter, having a job/working the land/ whatever.

I dream big!









H


----------



## Greaseball

We are in a little trouble with credit cards. Often they are the only way we can get by, since the amount we can get in student loans is not enough to cover even our most basic expenses. Dh has good credit and can get another card whenever he applies, so that is what we do a lot. Now we only have about 6 cards between us and we are starting to make payments, but with a $6000 total balance and minimum payments at only $50/month, it doesn't get far. Usually by the time we pay off $500 or so then we need to use the cards again.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

It seems the worst thing in the world would be for some parents to get enough money to get by on and raise their children without having to work. Sounds like something we should be striving for to me.
will you please clarify what you meant by this? i'm not sure i understand your meaning.

Quote:

I feel wealth requires poverty.
at first, i thought you were going to follow this with, "the only way to feel rich ** within oneself ** is to have little and live simply." unfortunately, you seem to associate the idea of _wealth_ with the concept of _having lots of money_... ** thinking of Byrd Baylor's The Table Where Rich People Sit. **

$500,000 is an arbitrary amount of money. it only is "a lot" because right now our society treats it like "a lot." what you fail to mention (and what may have been implied and i missed) is that if everyone made $500,000 they may as well be making $0 and just bartering and sharing (which in my opinion would make for a better society anyway...)

personally i think the idea (pervasive though it is) in our society that "wealth" and "poverty" (as defined by money and, respectively, having way more than enough and not having enough) are a necessity is ruining the culture and widening the gap between classes.

i don't think anyone would say they think the government should lift poor people out of poverty and make them rich *poof* suddenly. all we're really asking for is *just enough* -- enough money to pay rent, a roof over our heads, clothes to wear, food to eat, and medicine and health care for our children.


----------



## mamaofthree

YES!
I was trying to say that too. It seems wealth is "all about" the money, when really it is also about being happy with what you have. That being said it is hard to "be happy" when you go to bed hungry at night, or are sleeping in a car or something like that.
When I was studying Buddhism I read a book (can't remember the name... I think it was "Buddhism PLain and Simple" ) that there is an idea of the "Hungry ghost" which you can take literally ie when you die you roam the earth always wanting, never satisified.... OR you can look at it as what is happening with in your self NOW. Like ALWAYS wanting, never satisified. There are other "demons" that people deal with but it is all an internal fight to be come at peace with the here and now, and be satisfied with what you have.
I like occationally poverty is subjective in the way that the people dealing with it look at it, like some here have said money wise they would be considered poor, but they don't "feel" it due to the fact they feel they have enough. That being said... like I said above on this post, if you are hungry, sick and can't afford treatment and have no home, then you do NEED help. No one should live this way. And there for they need assistance, whether or not they "braught it on themselves".

H


----------



## Aura_Kitten

i feel very silly now.

mamaofthree, i did not see your post at all. you made some good points!


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I hate when people suggest raising minimum wage because it puts my husband and I closer to the poverty lines. Sure the person making minimum get raises but what happens to those that are working closer to the bottom? They get even closer. They don't get raises. So you make a new set of people barely making it.
I made the same arguement when Oregon last looked at raising the minimum wage. At the time, I was working on the UO campus and desperately tried to convince the people I worked at (all worked in the $7-9/hour range) that raising the minimum wage from $4.75 to $6.50 would HURT THEM. Unfortunately, the union was behind it and they all voted yes. Then, a year later it was very obvious when prices on necesities started going up.

That said, the minimum wage obviously needs to be adjusted. The poverty level used to signify the POVERTY level. At this point, though, it is completely meaningless--- you can be poverty stricken and make 2X the federal poverty level (or more, depending on where you live). We need a minimum wage with teeth--- one that will actually allow an individual and one dependent (IMO) their needs (food, housing, clothing, education & insurance).

More later.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

For example, CEO wages are around 37 times more than their worker drones. That doesn't seem very healthy for society, IMHO.
You want to know the really scary part--- that number (37x) is actually 30 years out of date. Comparing CEO wages to that of the average worker (hourly comparison) it was already at 42x in 1980, 85x in 1990, and peaked around 531x in 2000 (was down to 411x in 2001). In addition, for the "top 100" pay went from $1.3 million average 30 years ago to $37.5 million (over 1000x an "ordinary" worker). You cannot convince me that that CEO brings more to the company than 3000+ full time workers working at minimum wage. I am not argueing to make everyone the same, but think of the difference in the lives of the workers an extra $27.5 million could make (while not even denting the personal wealth of the guy at the top).

There needs to be a minimum wage that *means* something. And not just that *legally* you cannot pay a person less. But, that it will provide for full time employment the MINIMUM a person needs to exist. And $12K just doesn't cut it for most people.


----------



## Greaseball

More on the topic of homelessness -

Has anyone here ever been homeless as an adult? If so, did you think you brought it on yourself, or was there a situation you couldn't control?

("Homeless" can mean whatever you want, but for me I say it means living in a car, homeless shelter, tent or sleeping on the street, as opposed to staying at a friend's or parent's home until you can save for your own place.)


----------



## ~Jenna~

I was homeless at 18...don't know if that really qualifies as an adult. I was living in the woods. I guess I did bring it on myself in a way because I had run away from home at 16, and had lived with various people until at 18 my roommate kicked me out and I had no where else to go. I could have not run away but i was in an extremely abusive environment and decided that starving and being homeless was a better option. Fortunately I met my husband and moved in with him and that is how I got back on my feet.


----------



## Greaseball

I was homeless at age 17-18, and for maybe a week when I was 20.

Part of it was due to my choices, and part was not. When I was 17 I ran away and lived with friends, who then got evicted. I was addicted to drugs and was also in an abusive relationship where I was literally a hostage. My mom had said I could come back if I ditched the drugs and the guy, but I was watched constantly and was not permitted to have any family contact.

We lived in a van for a while until I was 18, then we stayed with a bunch of other homeless people at a friend's house. There were six of us in one room. After that we lived in a tent in the woods. Finally after the guy left me, I found a job and stayed in a homeless shelter. The shelter asked me to leave after a few days because I had a night job, and since I had to sleep during the day I could not go to the required bible classes.

Since I worked at night, I could sleep in city parks during the day. (Now in that city, it is illegal to ever sit on the ground or lie down on a bench anywhere.







: ) My mom later said I could sleep on her patio during the days. On nights when I didn't have to work, I'd wander around town, sit in 24-hour cafes drinking coffee, or go to the movies. A month later I got an apartment.

People say most homeless are drug addicts who just need to quit and then they can get their lives together. That may be partly true, but when I got my job and apartment I was still using and didn't quit for another year. I think the abusive relationship was more of a factor.

Then when I was 20 I was spontaneously evicted (48-hour notice) because my apartment building got a new manager and he kicked out everyone who had bad credit. Luckily I had a volunteer job where I could sign up for a graveyard shift anytime, and in between work we were allowed to sleep. A supervisor there found out I was doing it because of homelessness and she let me sleep there without working. She said she didn't want me to get burned out. But after a few days my grandma sent a surprise check and I was able to pay the deposit on another apartment.

So it was partly bad choices and partly not. Homelessness is one of my worst fears, especially now that I have a family. Luckily dh's parents are nearby and we always have the option of going there. It wouldn't be pleasant but we would at least have a place to stay.

The bad credit thing is a problem for a lot of people. I am still considered a poor risk and if I were not married, I would not be able to rent an apartment. Very little of it is actual consumer debt; most is medical bills.


----------

