This is the part where I say, if there are opportunities, they should be taken instead of insisting on remaining unemployed. If there is no work where she is and the out-of-state opportunity isn't taken, the hand-up becomes a hand-out.

I think a cap and length should be set on the help.

If we are discussing welfare, there is a life time cap on it and you have to be doing school or work search and volunteer work to get welfare.

If we are discussing disability, well they are the disabled and elderly, there isn't much that can be done there. They are the disabled and elderly.

And this is the part where I say..bite me!!!. She has been trying to get work here for less pay and they won't hire her. There are costs involved with making a big move...would you like to fund her very expensive move out of state?

I have much respect for the three voices quoted above and on its own, the last quote is a moving testament to the ideal of a human philosophy of ethics.

I really wanted to agree with both perspectives voiced but they are unequal. So I started thinking - what would be the factor or factors that might bring both perspectives in closer alignment?

Both agree that charity is a virtue that most humans have a natural affinity for. When there is plenty or when there is ENOUGH we very likely to share, even to the point of creating near equalization.

When we have physical connection to those in need we share basic human needs, food, water, shelter, clothing, in other words we extend CARE.

When we lack physical connection to those in need we very often contribute money and we do this through some organization or another and in the case welfare we contribute through taxation.

The State and Federal taxes then become entitlements, distributed theough a series of grants to charitable organizations or through direct disbursement from governmental agencies to those in need.

Charitable organizations are bound by certain criteria, laws that restrict the organization itself and its constituents (those utilize the charitable resources)from profiting from those resouces. So it's rare that constituants receive resouces in the form of cash or access to cash.

So now we have a State government, California, with a state welfare system that was not privitized and somehow felt exempt or perhaps above the laws which other charitable organizations are compelled to comply with. THERE IS a reason those laws in place - the state of California leaned a difficult lesson.

When you share resources it is not for profit, it is for survival, and because we are social creatures, we need others to survive. We gain opportunities through others and meeting basic needs, keeping ourselfs and other alive creates opportunities for everyone to prosper and that is the profit we gain.

BUT - when you GIVE money - is that charity, donation, or is it profit for the reciever? What if the reciever who got the money, also found ways to gain other necessities making the money, "disposable income"? Enter the quote by Dragoness:



When we give money are we giving it freely or with the expectation that the reciever will use it the way WE see fit?

We can lean a good lesson from California AND from the laws that govern charitable organizations. If we want to 'share' the necessities, we MUST GIVE the necessities other wise we are simply sharing our disposable income and when share disposable income the only way we can expect it to be used is in the form it was given - as disposable income.

So both perspectives are actually correct and I believe the only thing between them was a gap to be filled by the question "what is it that was being shared or given?"

This site lists 2,277 Diagnostic imaging jobs around the country.

If she wants work, here they are.

http://www.careerjet.com/diagnostic-imaging-jobs.html

She's already done the research..but thanks. Would you be willing to help fund her move? I would.
I recall a thread/post once willing where you spoke of being on assistance taking care of children and watching all those around you take advantage of the system and commit fraud.
Am I correct on this? If not then tell me.
If I am correct, what is the difference between you getting help when you needed it and her getting help now? She isn't committing fraud or taking advantage as you said you weren't.
hy was alright for you..but you have issues with her doing it? I guess I'm not understanding that part.

Yes, I was single and had 2 young kids. I was on assistance and was discriminated against.

While welfare career women only had to re-qualify once a year, I had to redo the paperwork every month. Even though, my youngest was only 6 months old.

As soon as she was accepted into daycare, I went to school to train for a job that gave me plenty of time to care for them. Yes, I took what I could.

I didn't sit on it and suck it for generations.

PS Child Support wouldn't help me go after her for support. I was told,"Kids belong with their Mother."

So, no, I don't feel sorry for folks getting the boot for fraud or failing to take a job paying less than they think they are worth.

Is the offer to bite you still good?

Bedtime. Later, Lady!

I believe those that try deserve help but I think we should go even further than we have and require those that do the bare minimum face tougher hours of partcipation after so long of only doing minimum or their clock starts counting....as long as you do the bare minimumthe clock does not run out on welfare. State switching saying u never received benefits before......

Were not on a different page as far as those who are committing fraud. That isn't what any of my posts have been about.
She has never gotten help before, she comes from a line of professionals who were never on assistance. She went to school to get a career, she is a single parent who doesn't get child support. Why do you begrudge her this when you did it yourself...that is what I'm not understanding. You feel she should leave her home state to take a job....
would you be willing to help fund her move to take an out of state job? As I said, I would... and I struggle myself, I would still help her.

You are incorrect.

The clock ticks as long as you receive benefits for the month. If you do not participate you do not get any benefits. And you get sanctioned so you cannot get benefits for three months the first time and 6 months the second time and a life time after.

I the months of sanction could be off by some but the rest is right.

I worked the pilot program that helped to make welfare reform what it is today. We worked out all the kinks in it before it was actually law. And then set it up for everyone after it became law.

If I understand your position correctly I am in agreement but there are some hurdles, limitations, and obsticles which would make enfocing this idea a nightmare, ending in discriminatory charity.

A few examples: some people do not have transportation, some have physical, mental,or medical limitations. Some people are the only caregivers of children or elderly family members who cannot be left alone.

An acquaintence of mine, took time off work to care for her dying daughter. We cannot predict death and the time stretched until she lost her job. Shortly after her daughters death she began her job search, when her ex-husband, dying of cancer, needed care. Although he was her ex, he was the father of their children and he had no one else but them. So she interrupted her search to care for him. Now her search is more difficult, unemployment done, a car that needs repair, rent overdue. How does she continue to search for a job if she is working to recieve the the charity that provides the necessities to maintain her existance?

You see, when we help others to survive we HOPE those people will recognize and appreciate the opportunity that is given with the charity.

If we attach anything else to the charity we give, if we attach strings, even the invisible string of casting judgement when our expectations are not met, then we are not giving charity, we are paying someone to accept terms and conditions based on our preconcieved beliefs and the expectations that stem from them.

Plus after all that and then some.... once we pay our taxes the money is no longer ours to judge. The only rights we have is to vote and not vote for the public figures but the tax money is no longer ours to judge about.

When we pay insurance, we cannot tell the insurance company or employees what to do because we pay the premium.

It can be related to (on a smaller scale) those who 'panhandle' for help. Many won't give because they assume the $$ they give will just go to booze or drugs, which may be the case at times. When we give we can't mandate where that $$ goes. If what that person needs at that moment is a drink, it's none of my business. I don't get to choose their need, only if I want to give em the 5 bucks.

I have a friend on SSI that has worked in the past. She's also working here and there while on SSI too. She got severe rheumatoid arthritis at a young age. Some days she can't work. She has Section 8 and food stamps. She still tries her damnedest to work.

Also, people that receive Social Security and make less then SSI are given SSI until their income level is raised up to the SSI level.

That's not true. Gamblers don't spend everything. Compulsive gamblers on a binge might do that though.

Don't tell me I am incorrect, I do it for a living an no as long as you meet requirements /d do the bare minimum the clock does not count and goes on unending.....My job is health and benefits.....I do know what I speak of......and no I am not talking about people that need things and bust their buts to get it do going further than the guidlines to succeed LadyLid. We are talking about the one that do the bare minimum to keep things going. They know the loop holes and policies. They lie and work under the table and do not report it. We hear about our clients , but can do nothing to them if we cannot get proof. The public helps some of these people lie because they feel sorry for them. ITs fraud straight up.

Then it is not SSI it is OASDI.... everything they mail out say social security on it......