I don't see how this applies to my post (which you quoted), but it's not true. As long as your eligible for food stamps, you can receive them. If you file for welfare for your child, you can continue receiving it until the child is an adult. If you hit the time limit, you can usually get an extension, repeat.



I know people who are getting assistance and who rarely look for work, so that is simply not true. And the system DOES favor staying on the system rather than getting a job. That's obvious by how the system works. It's not INTENTIONAL, but that is how the system works. Once you are on it, there is really no incentive to get off until they kick you off.

I Cant speak for every state, just the ones I have lived in and welfare has slight variations from state to state. Knowing 'some' members of a group who do something is not evident that the group as a whole is representative of that behavior.

In ohio AND in Nevada,, there is a FIVE year limit on assistance. They do not ENCOURAGE you to stay on it. THey make you work your BEHIND off just like an 'employed' person. From regular status appointments, to mandatory training and volunteering, to verified employment searching.

I can state over and over that because people dont 'see' something , doesnt mean its not happening and noone really knows for sure how hard anyone else is working to get through life, even if they are receiving assistance.

The incentive to get off? seriously? I mostly hear this from people who have not ever had to go through the experience themself.

from 120 hours to 160 hours per MONTH of job related activity, for about two dollars per hour,,,having your time and your efforts diminished to such a pittance is plenty of incentive to put that same time into something that will pay more.

That is nation wide unless the state pays all the welfare money out and then the state can have them on as long as they want but for federal money it is a five year limit and two years at a time to boot.

Not true. If the father doesn't pay regardless to marriage, he doesn't pay. Makes no difference to single mothers and poverty.

amen to that

although I do think, for the opportunist, it makes much more sense to risk being 'knocked up' by someone that has status and money than it does for someone who is broke

child support in those cases will be much more than welfare ever will be,,,,as it is based on the fathers income and not some minimal fiscal figure,,,

This attitude is actually even more shameful then the 1 or 2 percent of people who may be getting benefits that they shouldn't. Most people would love to have your job and they wouldn't even brag about the back pain nor their pain pills.

Don is right about the trickle down theory, it has been proven it doesn't work.

Hell even when Warren Buffet tells people on national TV that it is time for him and his ilk to pay more, the hard heads do not listen. He stated that during the Bush years he and his ilk had it very nice and it was time for that to end and for him to do his part.
Still the hard heads didn't listen.

When the rich know they should pay more, people should listen.

Those rich suckers are slippery, it is hard for those girls to get their claws into them...lol

I don't know if the rich have more disposable monies than the poor, expressed as a percentage of their income or of their assets.

A bank manager who makes $100K a year is "rich" in my eyes, especially if his wife, a drug store owner, also makes $250K a year.

But.

They have Johnny at Yale, Beata in Havergal, and their yacht is bought on loan, their $2,000,000 home has a $1,900,000 mortgage, and their cars are trashed, because he is an alcoholic and she is addicted to valium and morphine.

So at the end of the year, when the tax man cometh and goneth, they have aboot (I am Canadian) $4.29 in total that they can spend on frivolities, like a package of gummy bears. (It's a German-made candy.)

Increase their taxes, and their boat will sail out, they lose the home, the kids will be the laughing stock of their respective schools, and the couple will go on welfare and die of disease and starvation, as a Texan man in the bus depot in Toronto told me yesterday. He said very proudly that Houston has the best specialist hospital in the world for open heart surgery and brain tumors, and later it was revealed that only the rich can afford it, and the poor just die, if they can't pay the cost upfront. By poor we mean anyone, incl. the rich, who don't happen to have $300,000 on hand at the moment of truth.

He refused to believe me when I said, that in contrast, in Canada, a body gets sick, he goes into the hospital, and gets cured, no charge, and it is universal. The rich get the same treatment as the poor, no diff. He plain refused to believe me that that is reality. He kept probing, "you mean, you just check into a hospital and they take you in?" Then he told me that two Canadians he had talked to prior to our conversation yesterday, had told him that the Canadian health system sucks. I said, if you asked them, how are the governmental, judicial, transportation, telecommunications, etc. systems in Canada, one system per question, the same two persons would have said to each, "it sucks". I said to him, that in general, I wouldn't place too much emphasis in believing people who use the word "sucks" with a stranger in first-time conversation. Especially if they lack supporting facts to back up their claim, and the opinion ends with the two-word sentence.

We talked about many-many other interesting things, we caused quite a stir, I think. He was a nice man, from Texas, a bit loud, but really nice and friendly. He was drinking a whisky and water solution, from a huge plastic jug. He would chug down a gulp's worth of it every now and then.

I agree but in the sense of the rich living from day to day barely cutting even, they are really not rich anyway, they over extended.

There are those who like McCain believe that middle class begins at 3 mill a year. So they would not hurt from being taxed a bit more to help.

Barb, how does your last name fly when you talk to a native American (of First Nations descent) person?

I mean, that there are no Hitlers left in the world. There are some, but you can bet your life that they had changed their names to Heimlich or Hottentotter or something.

Imelda Jorge Cortez destroyed 90 percent of the inhabitants of central America. I am NOT saying that you had any part in that, or that you have the same attitude. Not at all. I am just curious, because I am truly not familiar with most facts that are obvious to people in this culture. How did the Cortez name survive, and not get eradicated as the name of the leader of the biggest genocide ever committed in the world?

Please understand this is a question of historical-cultural orientation. I am not blaming you for having this last name, and I am not blaming you, personally, for eradicating ten to twenty million souls. I am only asking because of a chance that maybe you have researched the fantastic journey of the name's survival. Please do tell, if you have.

I am glad to agree on this. So how do we separate the "rich" from the "poor" for taxation purposes? You say someone is rich if they have disposable income, lots of it, as a percentage of their real income. You say now, I think very accurately, that that definition is valid to and including the point that we can disregard the absolute income level and asset holdings of the tax payer.

But then how does the government spot a taxpayer who can afford high taxes? The poor can't, and not ALL of the rich can.

For tax purposes, the government has to rely on some indicators. What indicators do you suggest the government should replace the indicator of income level with?

I mean, we both agree that income level is not a satisfactory indication of richness. What is then, which can be determine the richness of a taxpayer in a way that does not need to penetrate and scrutinize the private life of each country man and woman in America who are tax paying citizens?

Well considering that assets which cannot be liquidated to a profit don't count for much anyway. The government knows what and where those are. Otherwise they could not cease everything you own when they want to. And they do. So maybe we cannot determine but I know that the government can.

All very interesting information. I do not know how his family got the name. It is my married name. He is not Hispanic though so I really don't have any clue.

Complete BS.

If a man and woman are married and get divorced, the law can be used to force him to pay. It's a lot easier for a single guy to drop off the radar than some dude trying to get a divorce.

I'll probably not be popular with this reply, but ... "Waaaaah"?

So the couple is raking in 350k/year and I don't really consider them "rich", but when taxing anyone I don't think anything after the colleges for the kids should be considered. For years, the lower and middle classes have been chided for "living beyond their means" just because they wanted a house and/or a new car ... not necessarily because they were picky or greedy, but because they felt they deserved to have reliability and stability just like anyone else. Its one of the reasons Congress approved the bailout for the companies, instead of the homeowners when the housing market crashed.

That said, I don't particularly care if someone owns a yacht (as it doesn't get you to work ... or if it does, its a bit overboard--npi--a way to get there). I don't care if they have a $2M home either and I certainly don't care about his alcoholism and her medication addictions ... there are clinics for both of those.

But in particular, when I think rich, I generally think $500k/year and up. Especially those who make millions a year have little excuse for having no "disposable monies" for taxes. "Its tied up in investments!" "Then untie it ... you have until April 15th LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"

the law must first find out he isnt paying and then spend time and effort to prosecute him,,,meanwhile, the mom is struggling just as hard

Or the mom can say "Hey, he isn't paying"...

I agree, but that sentiment isnt quite as common in a culture which increasingly diminishes the significance of mothers and fathers in the first place,,,

many women feel its 'their' child, just like 'thier' body and they dont feel a desire or a right or an interest in having a fathers involvement anyhow

and some just dont want to have to beg him to step up and take care of what he should



,,,Im not such a woman, but the attitude is pretty prevalent

My mom had a saying for that kind of behavior "Cutting your nose off to spite your face". Any women who do that have nobody to blame but themselves.