If you can afford alcohol, drugs, iPhone etc you shouldn't get entitlements

[Muddy Creek]

Where did I say a welfare check allows that?
Hell, if your on food stamps, you get a free phone + minutes, if you want it.

Right here

You don't need a $110 Data plan + smart phone to make phone calls for jobs.

When I said you need a phone to get a job.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Right here





When I said you need a phone to get a job.

You must be jumping to conclusions here.
I didn't assume a welfare check allows that, because people using state aid, can still have jobs at the same time.

The thing I have a problem with, is the people who use state aid (in it's various forms) don't necessarily prioritize their financial situation (aka cash flow specifically), to get off of state aid.
Hence the $110 data plan/smart phone comment.

 

[Muddy Creek]

You must be jumping to conclusions here.
I didn't assume a welfare check allows that, because people using state aid, can still have jobs at the same time.

The thing I have a problem with, is the people who use state aid (in it's various forms) don't necessarily prioritize their financial situation (aka cash flow specifically), to get off of state aid.
Hence the $110 data plan/smart phone comment.

Ah. Well, doesn't state aide limit the time you can receive it? Unless it's foodstamps.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ah. Well, doesn't state aide limit the time you can receive it? Unless it's foodstamps.

For TANF, yes.
Everything else, I don't believe so.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Well here we are once again, the welfare people shouldn't have thread. How many times have we seen this or something similar?

1. Oil companies, farmers, businesses, government contractors receive government welfare and as far as I know every damned one of them have cell phones and all the other things.

2. Everyone here knows people who have lost their jobs and their careers. Many are just barely hanging on and many have lost their homes. Everyone that I know had cellphones before they lost their jobs. Everyone had cars. Most had homes. I don't know any who were on drugs, some drank socially. Now that they are unemployed and very much looking for gainful employment some people would have them living in a shelter, sharing a pay phone down the hall and otherwise just looking for work or suffering for being such terrible economic losers. It's all their ****ing fault, right? :roll: I mean as soon as you collect welfare you should immediately give up everything, right?

3. The dumb ****ing idea that everyone receiving a hand up from the government is a drug addict and an alcoholic is simply stupid. Anyone who was displaced and out of work and needed assistance because of the OKC bombing, 911 or Kartrina was a loser and should have had all his/her cellphones, etc. asap. If they had been caught drinking a beer while receiving assistance they should have jailed, right? :roll:

 

[Fisher]

I am not going to parse what should or should not be permissible because I get yelled at for stereotyping when I do. I saw a show that said cellphones have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. I cannot prove it. Just something that was agreed to by talking heads on different sides of an issue so I assume it may be true. My problem is that there are no time limitations or any meaningful oversight for a great many of our welfare programs. We make it too easy for people to sit on their laurels and there is no oversight to prevent the abuse. I have been told stories of people who tried to report abusers who had under the table jobs and the like and they were told there was nothing they could do about it or said there was no way they could prove the big wad of cash they carried around was theirs or somebody else's whom they could theoretically be helping out.

 

[radcen]

Cell phones are necessary for most people who actually do want to work. You have to be "contactable".

However, cell phones do not have to be expensive, and I'm a case in point...

Cell phones, and especially smart phones, hold absolutely zero fascination for me. I can afford one, but I have a pay-as-you-go flip phone by choice. The phone cost me $25, and was a one-time expense. I buy minutes at $25 every 90 days... or $100/yr... or averages out to $8.33/mo. That is not a lot of money. My minutes are 10c/min, they roll over and accumulate. So, unless you're one of those people for whom the phone is an extension of their ear, a phone does not have to be an extravagant expense at all.

 

[Ryan25]

Obviously someone who receives the entitlements is going to view this different then others would. But then again people who don't will agree they should be able to spend whatever they want. I said no because to me personally if i was receiving these benefits it would be to maintain a normal style of living. Using money received from the government for high end electronics or cars middle class families cant afford i would consider that living way above your means. All i am saying is for me personally if i were getting welfare checks, food stamps ect.. it would be used to keep me and my family healthy clothed and from starvation.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Actually, if you're really hard up for money to live on, you should inventory your possessions.
Sell some of what you don't need (not all of it, of course) to raise money to cover things that need to be paid for.

Interesting concept. You do realize that many people don't fully conceptualize the need to do that? Some would benefit from advice and assistance. Whoops! Can't do that, that costs money. So what do we do for them?

Of course you know all about the psychological and emotional turmoil people and families go through when they lose everything including hope. They are often traumatized. They often need professional help. They often become depressed, some even suicidal. What is rational when your world no longer exists?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well here we are once again, the welfare people shouldn't have thread. How many times have we seen this or something similar?

1. Oil companies, farmers, businesses, government contractors receive government welfare and as far as I know every damned one of them have cell phones and all the other things.

2. Everyone here knows people who have lost their jobs and their careers. Many are just barely hanging on and many have lost their homes. Everyone that I know had cellphones before they lost their jobs. Everyone had cars. Most had homes. I don't know any who were on drugs, some drank socially. Now that they are unemployed and very much looking for gainful employment some people would have them living in a shelter, sharing a pay phone down the hall and otherwise just looking for work or suffering for being such terrible economic losers. It's all their ****ing fault, right? :roll: I mean as soon as you collect welfare you should immediately give up everything, right?

3. The dumb ****ing idea that everyone receiving a hand up from the government is a drug addict and an alcoholic is simply stupid. Anyone who was displaced and out of work and needed assistance because of the OKC bombing, 911 or Kartrina was a loser and should have had all his/her cellphones, etc. asap. If they had been caught drinking a beer while receiving assistance they should have jailed, right? :roll:

No, it's not like that, for me.
It's all about cash inflow and cash outflow.

If your cash outflow is greater than your inflow, well obviously, try to as a stop gap from losing your home, use state aid.
However, after you've stabilized the situation, it's time to get down and dirty on cutting outflow expenses, so you can move on and off of state aid.
That would, of course, include canceling your contract cell phone service and finding a cheaper alternative.

It's what should be common sense stuff.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Interesting concept. You do realize that many people don't fully conceptualize the need to do that? Some would benefit from advice and assistance. Whoops! Can't do that, that costs money. So what do we do for them?

Of course you know all about the psychological and emotional turmoil people and families go through when they lose everything including hope. They are often traumatized. They often need professional help. They often become depressed, some even suicidal. What is rational when your world no longer exists?

There are many options for advice and assistance.
Free financial planning and counseling services, exist.

Wallowing in misery, does not fix misery.

 

[Fisher]

Interesting concept. You do realize that many people don't fully conceptualize the need to do that? Some would benefit from advice and assistance. Whoops! Can't do that, that costs money. So what do we do for them?

Of course you know all about the psychological and emotional turmoil people and families go through when they lose everything including hope. They are often traumatized. They often need professional help. They often become depressed, some even suicidal. What is rational when your world no longer exists?

How do you teach people to pay their bills when the government does it for them?

 

[Hatuey]

I think if someone was careful, they could easily budget these things into their household. Drugs? Maybe a joint now and then, okay. But drug-drugs? No-way, no-how because it would indicate we were paying them too much -- and what we paid them, even though too much, would never be enough. But since you included that, I ignored it.

Drugs-drugs? How eloquent. What you pay for 6 pack of beer will get you a 10-15 dollar meth hit in most cities South of New York.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the idea that people receiving welfare aren't entitled to buy soda, cellphones, alcohol, candy, etc. is draconian. The intent of these programs is to lift people somewhat out of poverty. Who doesn't have a cellphone today? Hell, the government even gives them away with certain income and usage requirements. Why shouldn't they be entitled to budget their money so they can enjoy steak one day a week? We buy 'em (Choice, by the way) for $4.00 each on sale for 8-oz portions. Why not beer? Candy? If it works, it works. It's theirs to spend.

I think if someone was careful, they could easily budget these things into their household. Drugs? Maybe a joint now and then, okay. But drug-drugs? No-way, no-how because it would indicate we were paying them too much -- and what we paid them, even though too much, would never be enough. But since you included that, I ignored it.

a disabled veteran on a military disability pension buying beer doesn't bother me a bit

 

[LizardofOz]

I really think all of you should read my previous post for more context. What I am saying is, is the system gets abused.

 

[TurtleDude]

I really think all of you should read my previous post for more context. What I am saying is, is the system gets abused.

of course it does-by both the recipients and the politicians who want to create more and more dependents

 

[Anrch-Cptlst]

The only entitlement you should have in America is what you work for.

 

[specklebang]

I do wish there was better enforcement. It is really irritating to see some people living large and yet collecting benefits.

But you can never tell what the back-story is. My ex-wife gets $840 a month from SS. Because she now gets $10K a year, they pulled her Medicaid. Yet you might look at her and ask how she can live in a nice 2 bedroom house whose rent would be $800 plus utilities. The answer is that I pay for it - despite the 30 years that have passed since our divorce. If she wanted an I-phone, I'm sure my son would get her one although she is perfectly happy with the $15 a month phone I also pay for. So, she still get $26 a month in food stamps and thus counts as a "food stamp recipient".

((Her "boyfriend" talked her into applying for the food stamps. None of my business really))

 

[MaggieD]

Drugs-drugs? How eloquent. What you pay for 6 pack of beer will get you a 10-15 dollar meth hit in most cities South of New York.

Well, I guess you'd know.

Meth is addictive. Meth can be exceedingly dangerous. It's illegal. I think it should be. Thus, whether it's addictive or not...whether it's too expensive or not, I don't care. Pot? I don't think it should be illegal; thus my different opinion in that regard.

 

[edeneen]

you can't use food stamps to buy anything but food

 

[Paschendale]

Food for a family, rent, and medical costs are WAY more expensive than drugs, booze or a phone. An internet connection and a subscription to World of Warcraft is a drop in the bucket compared to maintaining a car so that you can drive to work every day. There is no equivalence at all between money for necessities and some spare change for a few entertainments.

 

[edeneen]

should corporations who make billions get government subsidies ?

 

[ecofarm]

should corporations who make billions get government subsidies ?

Do you like socialism?

 

[Jonsa]

I do wish there was better enforcement. It is really irritating to see some people living large and yet collecting benefits.

But you can never tell what the back-story is. My ex-wife gets $840 a month from SS. Because she now gets $10K a year, they pulled her Medicaid. Yet you might look at her and ask how she can live in a nice 2 bedroom house whose rent would be $800 plus utilities. The answer is that I pay for it - despite the 30 years that have passed since our divorce. If she wanted an I-phone, I'm sure my son would get her one although she is perfectly happy with the $15 a month phone I also pay for. So, she still get $26 a month in food stamps and thus counts as a "food stamp recipient".

((Her "boyfriend" talked her into applying for the food stamps. None of my business really))

are you legally still on the hook for paying her or is it just a ethical thing with you?
If its a legal thing, man, that's a really crappy deal.

Fortunatley for me I've been married to my wife for so long that there's no way I'll live for 30 years to be paying her if she divorces me. Not much of a consolation, but.....

 

[specklebang]

No, I paid my divorce settlement many years ago.

She's the mother of my one and only child and she's not realistically employable. Her health is poor, she's diabetic and has had a stroke which still leaves her with balance problems. She had a job working for my company for many years. After I sold my shares, they continued to employ her but within a few years, they drove the company into the ground.

She lived with her boyfriend for most of the last 30 years but in 2001 I adopted a cat that had been hit by a car. Because of her mangled face, nobody wanted her. My boy cat just hated her and she lived on top of a bookcase because he would attack her. Too sad.

So, when she (ex-wife) approached me about getting a place of her own since Mr. Boyfriend is an alcoholic who knows everything (but he loves her dearly and does many things for her so he's aces in my book) I bought her a townhouse on condition she adopt the cat. That was in 2002. The townhouse was next to my ex-girlfriends house and we've (ex-GF) remained close friends over the years. Ultimately, I bough another townhouse for a cat shelter and then another one that I moved into. Silly, huh? I now own 8 townhouses in this complex, 6 for rentals, one for her and one for me and Team Meow.

In return for the house and an allowance, she (ex-wife) does all my food preparation so it's an OK deal all the way around. I never remarried, had 20 pretty hot girlfriends over the years and I'm now content to live with the cats. So, WTH, I support her (and the cat) and I really don't mind it. I'm 69 so my next life stage involves turning into dust, so I might as well be nice.

are you legally still on the hook for paying her or is it just a ethical thing with you?
If its a legal thing, man, that's a really crappy deal.

Fortunatley for me I've been married to my wife for so long that there's no way I'll live for 30 years to be paying her if she divorces me. Not much of a consolation, but.....