Interesting discussion on radio call in show
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Interesting discussion on radio call in show
I was listening to a very interesting discussion the other day on the radio. Now, I didn't get to hear all of it because I was running around and in and out of the car. But the topic they were debating was drug testing welfare and other government supported people.
The issue was if I have a job and at any time my employer can drug test me, why don't welfare (and others) have to be drug free for their money? They were in support of random drug testing for them. If I do drugs, I loose my job and my money, why are we allowing welfare (and others) to do drugs?
I don't think it would ever happen, but it does make you stop and think.
It does make you think & I think it is something that would be interesting to see implemented. I don't feel like the government should pay for Joe or Sally Blow to spend money that is supposed to help them get back on their feet on drugs. Of course I also don't feel that people should be able to stay on welfare for years & years.
In my town, if you want a job you could have one. The problem is that not everyone wants to work & can't always pass the drug tests. We have had restaraunts have to shut down early or for a few days a week because they can't find help. We have had places go out of business because they can't find workers, but the rate of people on welfare hasn't gone down.
I just feel that all able bodied people should have to work. And maybe having to randomly take a pee test before getting your check would help with that.
I'm for it 100%. I've been drug-tested for every job I've ever had, from minimum wage to my teaching position.
About 80% of my clientele over the last 10 years have been welfare recipients. I've been in their homes, their cars, their personal business. My personal experience is that at least 70% of those people over the years I've either personally seen high or drunk, have seen others in their homes who are high or drunk (all living in gov't housing together), or have actually been arrested on more than one occasion for an incident involving an illegal substance. Keep in mind if I'm working with them then that means they have children.
I'm ALL for it and I frankly can't understand anyone who wouldn't be, considering working people have them for the jobs where they EARN their money. It will likely NEVER happen, but it should IMO.
I am 100% for it. If they cannot test clean pull the income. If they have kids and cannot be a good parent give them a chance to clean up and if not do something. I also think that if you continue to live on the system they should be able to tell you not to hav anymore kids. Not steralize the women but tell them no more babies while on our dime. And if you have more we DO NOT up what we are giving you sorry. Limits need to be set and WELFARE people need to start living by them like the rest of the world.
Preach it sister!  I agree.
Another in agreement here for the drug testing. Of course, realistically, it costs money to do that, and a system for the actual testing would have to be implemented - would it be monthly, random, etc. Who would pay for it. Urine tests, hair tests, etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is a number of other things will then come into play, and yes, I am for it, but imagine the red tape this one will create. :-0
And here is the other side of that....
What about the kids? So mom is a druggie, she test positive, so no more food stamps, med care etc...what do the kids do? So do we remove kids from their care if they test positive? What are the levels. Kind of like drinking? Can they have a beer, or two? Where does this all start and stop.
Very simply, kids will be hurt if you do this. I would like to believe the percentage of people who abuse the system is small compared to the number of children that are helped by the system.
I used to think there should be all sorts of limits on food stamps, what you could buy, how you buy it etc. But the reality is, people on assistance are people too, we can't really treat them as lesser. We can't really judge them, because you don't know their stories.
Also my husband works at a chem plant, they do testing there. There are of course several people who smoke mj on a regular basis, but they know how to beat the system.
I just think fundamentally we want losers to not have access and waste our hard earned tax dollars. But the reality is innocent people will get hurt if this is done. The woman slipped drugs when out with friends, a person who inhales at a concert. I just don't really want to live in a place that divides what we do and how we do it based on our income. I am sorry, you are on food stamps, you can only eat healthy and don't get to go to places that serve alcohol, or anyone is smoking. It just seems innocent kids will be hurt.
I would think their drug addiction is hurting their kids. How is government subsidies helping children when the money is spent on drugs?
When I was getting government help for my children I would have been the first to volunteer for drug testing. Why be afraid of it if you are doing nothing wrong? Why not weed out the people that are using it for their addictions so that there is more available for the honest people that need it? Why not use the results to help get those people that don't know how to help themselves with their addiction the help they need.
If all we do hand them a check & look the other way aren't we as a society failing the innocent kids?
Besides at any income level drug use is illegal.
I agree, if they are doing drugs, the money they are getting isn't being spent on the kids anyway. It isn't going to hurt the children anymore than the parents doing the drugs. Maybe the best thing that could happen to those kids is to be taken from their parents.
I have mixed feelings. I agree with the general idea but singling out people who get welfare really isn't fair if it's in the name of saving kids. There's no rule that just because you make too much money to qualify for any welfare program means you aren't abusing drugs or alcohol or otherwise endangering your kids. If this were to be done to parents on welfare it should be done to all parents. Qualifying for a welfare program doesn't even mean you are more likely to do drugs. I get grants for school. I get food stamps. My kids get medical cards. My husband has never been out of work and there were years I worked too yet we always qualified for these programs. Right now he works and we both attend college. The workers and the cashiers and certain medical personnel make me feel like a failure enough I'd like to not have to prove I don't do drugs in addition to all the other stereotypes there are. Like having to go to the little meetings to prove I haven't won the lottery and starting out that yes he is my husband and yes he is the dad of all my kids. I think it makes it easy for the higher ups to assume most people who get welfare are able bodied Americans working the system or using drugs or some hooker popping out 10 kids instead of admitting that it is ridiculously hard to live nowadays with gas being over $3 a gallon, eggs being $2 a dozen, milk being $4 a gallon, wages are stagnant and the healthcare system is a joke. I would guess that the people who thought this up make over six figures a year and likely always have. The income cap for a family of 5 in my state for a medical card for children is nearly $50,000 a year. The median income for a family of 4 where I live is $24,600. Even when my husband earns his teaching degree we would still qualify for our kids to get medical assistance. This is the face of most of the people who do. The druggies and the deadbeats are in the minority but when you here about someone taking advantage everyone gets labeled.
Rayelle- You are the wonderful exception in my experience. It is only my personal experience, but that is people who are generational welfare recipients. Have absolutely no desire to work or become educated in anything. Wouldn't last at McD's 3 days to feed their kids or to maintain their dignity because they don't have any. Yes, I've worked with wonderful hard working people who can't get ahead because the system doesn't always actually help them get ahead, but the majority is quite the opposite. I find that there are few restrictions and lots of advantages, which is actually one of the problems. As a result though, people take advantage and live what they consider to be the easy road of never working or learning and sitting at home all day engaging in 'extra curricular activities'.
I think there are major problems with the welfare system that make it difficult to get off of it, don't get me wrong. It's not a wonderful system. But working parents DO have this same criteria in all honesty. We have to be drug tested to GET the job. Then if we're not performing (maybe because of drug use), or we come to work stoned, we're fired. The money stops. Isn't that the same thing?
2 nurses that I worked with, about 15 years ago, had been on welfare, while they went to school to learn how to be nurses. After they graduated, they both got good jobs and didn't need the welfare anymore. They also used it for the purpose that it was intended, to help them over a rough spot. Fran had gotten divorced and was the single mom of three girls. Dawn was a single mom with 2 girls. (not me, though.) Neither one of them smoked, let alone did drugs.
I understand about the money. Not every job does drug testing so I think if this were to be done it should be across the board. I also think that if it got to the point that a drug test on welfare meant your kids were taken away that should be true of a job. Can they? Dh is subject to drug testing at work but I never thought about it since it's a non issue. Anyway, I agree with what someone said above, it likely won't because of the money it would cost. I am sensitive to the "food stamp" stereotypes. For example I've heard people complain because people "on the system" have nicer clothes than they do. I am an expert bargain shopper and likely pay less for things at a department store than what most would go pay at walmart. I also have a well off relative that passes clothes on to me and there are great things to find at yard sales for the kids. I have also used my card to get a steak since we couldn't afford to go out for a special occassion. A $10 pack of steak is cheaper than the $20 a plate dinner out no matter what. I also get some junk food because I use coupons and it costs me next to nothing. I know I am the exception to the rule. There have been social workers comment on the fact that we are what these programs are for to help people get a leg up, to improve their circumstances or in a rough spot. We get stuck in the cycle due to dh being on commission. I just hate having to be a part of it at all. Don't even get me started on the wic lectures about how carrots are healthier for my toddler to snack on than cookies, but I do what I need to. I guess I too am guilty of feeling like I am above it but that feeling is what is going to get me through school.
I am 100% for it.
I also think kids are better off not living with drug addicted parents.
Comparing a working person's rights to welfare rights is not acceptable. When you work for a company, you are not being supported by that company. I believe most companies do drug testing, certainly every job my husband has had.
Why should money be handed to someone who clearly is not using it to better themselves? If you have a drug addict in the family, it is very unlikely the children are benefiting from the welfare support.
I agree with Tonya on the limits. I see way too many baby makers milking the system. That really angers me. I have 2 children... not because that was all I wanted. I have 2 children because we decided that was the right number to guarantee that we could provide for them. Why should people on the system be allowed to keep having children they cannot support?
I agree addicts should not be fed off my dollars. However the harsh reality is I don't want a governemnt telling me what I can and can't do as a parent. An alcoholic isn't a good parent, but what about one who has an occasional drink? I have never used any drugs, but I assume there are users and addicts, people who smoke weed on occasion. Those guys who have job and are subject to random drug testing, they take those cute packets of vitamins in the gas station to cover it up and pee it out. I think the real losers get caught and stopped anyway.
Simply yes I would love to know every person who gets help, views it as a hand up and not a hand out. But I have known many who use it correctly and few to abuse it. But I think the abusers are really not the majority and we only see them because they are the squeaky wheel. Rayelle (and sorry to point you out) never comes on this board and says look what I bought with my food stamps, or wic denied me this, but I got around the system with this. The truth is, I had no idea she got help, because it is a non issue, she is a normal parent. I think there are alot of people like her that we just don't notice.
As for number of kids, well again I don't want my governement telling me, no matter what my income level is, how many kids I can have. It leads to bad things. People choose the number of kids they have based on different things. For some people it is income, for others it is space, for others it is companionship.
I think what are system needs are police to take care of the illegal crap people are doing and then removing kids from unhealthy situations. If that was done, then the loser druggies would be a non issue, they would be in jail, not getting food stamps and the kids would be in healthy foster homes due to a bad environment. Win win and a better choice for my tax dollars to be spent instead of more red tape.
Oh man... I am so trying to bite my tongue..
OK. First, we got away from the notion of the "worthy poor" generations ago. It used to be, when most "welfare" was done by private charities, that only the "worthy poor" would qualify, i.e., widows, other people of good character who had fallen on hard times. The family of a single, unmarried mom with multiple kids certainly wasn't "worthy poor".
Second, every state has to conform to federal rules, and there is very little "generational" welfare these days except for people who are sufficiently physically or mentally disabled that they can't work. Thanks to "welfare reform", the maximum time a reasonably healthy person can stay on welfare is 5 years, and most states require at least part-time work well before the 5 years are up.
Deanna, you say that 80% of the families you visit are on welfare. But I believe you are not visiting them because they are on welfare, but because for some reason they require social services. If that is the case, it doesn't surprise me that those families are disfunctional. I suspect you see a lot more of drug or alcohol abusing people because you are visiting disfuctional families, not because they are on welfare.
As Kaye points out, if a family with a drug abusing member is cut off welfare, what happens next? You then have a homeless family, moving from shelter to shelter to shelter. Much worse for the kids.
And to talk about taking children away from families does not recognize a couple of realities. One is that most states are scrambling for foster care homes. There aren't enough foster families available in big city areas to enable the protective services programs to find placements for children who are being literally physically abused, let alone kids who are not physically abused but who have a drug/alcohol abusing person in the household. And from what I read, because of the shortage of foster families states all too frequently accept foster parents into the program who should not be foster parents. In the Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey area, stories of abuse of children by foster parents are in the newspapers a couple of times a month. And, of course, stories of children abused by their natural parent(s). Fact is, taxpayers don't like taxes and especially don't like using taxes to pay for services for the poor, and most protective service programs are seriously understaffed, with unreasonably and unmeetable case loads for the social workers, and the social workers are paid so poorly that it is surprising the agencies are able to hire any good people.
Do I think people should use drugs or abuse alcohol - no! But until you can come up with an alternative that doesn't likely mean more harm and more suffering for the children in such families, let's not start a drug testing program that would be costly to administer, would certainly turn up a number of false positives (this happens in job drug testing too, but you are more likely to have the opportunity to re-test or provide medical reasons from your doctor), and would leave you - where?
And frankly, while I am sure that there are many families on welfare where the parent uses drugs or abuses alcohol, I do wonder what the percentage is. Have there been any studies? I would suspect the percentage is fairly low, mostly because people who abuse drugs/alcohol are seldom together enough to be able to jump through the continuing welfare hoops. I wonder if this is the new "welfare Cadillac" myth? (By the way, no one was ever able to identify a welfare mom who was driving a Cadillac unless the Cadillac had been given to her by a family member or friend. It really was a myth that someone used welfare money to buy a Cadillac.)
Kaye there are a lot of people like me that go unnoticed. We weren't raised to think government handouts were the way to go. I hate it and it's embarrassing. It's the people who feel like they are entitled and are cheating the system that go around bragging about stuff. I know people who make more money than me but that doesn't make them better parents. Not that it matters but even though we had kids young I never applied for food stamps until a few months after having youngest dd. While pregnant with her we bought our house tiny as it may be and I even had private insurance. Walmarts come in and life happens. For the majority of the time we have been married my dh has put in well over 40 hours a week. We're also stuck in that if I got a job I'd only be paying for childcare and it would not be enough to not get food stamps anymore anyway. Instead I go to school which will allow me to get a job that WILL pay enough to not need help and they will get their tax dollars spent on me back and then some.
In sociology class we discussed welfare. Most people in the class thought the majority of people receiving government aid were able bodied working males. The instructor said 98% are not. It's the case where everybody knows somebody who heard of somebody that laughs at the government giving him his check or someone having a 7th baby because her oldest turned 18 and it gets sensationalized. It is also these people who are proud to say they get assistance. The fact remains there are leeches in the world who will take advantage of anything and everything.
I only admitted what help I get to try to put a face on it. The person ahead of you in line with a food stamp card buying chips and ice cream likely isn't a drug addicted baby factory that ignores her children. She is more likely someone like me, getting done school or work or both, picking up the last couple items for her child's birthday party, going through the temporary embarrassment of paying with food stamps so her child gets what they deserve. That is the majority of people on welfare. Drug testing people who get assistance would likely cause more hassle for the honest without doing much to weed out the leeches and tax dollars would pay for it.
>"However the harsh reality is I don't want a governemnt telling me what I can and can't do as a parent."<
Whoa. Big difference here! I think the government has a RIGHT to have a say in what you do with the money THEY give you - that all of us taxpayers are providing for the less fortunate. Could not disagree with your statement more! If my mom is supporting half my bills every month, I DO think she has a right to step in when she sees me spending it all on italian leather shoes or whiskey or pot or anything that's absolutely ridiculous like that when she's providing it for my family's NEEDS. I don't care where the handout is coming from, but ESPECIALLY since the rest of the taxpaying population is paying for it, yes, there should be a say. I think it's ludicrous to think differently quite frankly.
I don't think this whole topic is meant to put anyone down whose receiving welfare. Getting welfare/assistance isn't terrible. Generational, don't care receiving welfare IS. There is a HUGE population of those people, I can tell you. Studies, stats, I have no idea, but experience is right there. Ask ANY in-home therapist, teacher, or social worker and hear their response. I know too many of them! The cases of the good ones just getting back on their feet will be rare, believe me. I SO think the abusers are the majority.
I'm sorry, when you are unable to support your kids independently and you continue to have more, that's a problem for me. Again, if someone is giving you handouts, anyone, then you should be respectful and responsible with those handouts. Try to do your best to spend wisely, reproductively plan accordingly, do your best to get in a better place. Sitting on your ••• smoking pot all day is not doing that!! Then delivering babies into the world who are disabled due to substance abuse, oh my don't even get me started. I think some people need a crash course in working with these people, seriously. Ten years ago I had a VERY different opinion believe me, but that's what experience teaches you.
Ginny- I know that laws have been changed to try to limit the time spend on welfare but it is STILL in place believe me! These people find loopholes to everything. I have been working with some families for the entire ten years and they are still living in the same projects, paying the same rent, having more babies, and still sitting on their duffs. I'm not sure what these laws have done, but I have not seen the benefit.
I never said that I only see these people BECAUSE they are on welfare. I see a few that are regular working families. Yes, they need social services and as a result I see their lives and where they are coming from. What I described is just that. So only dysfunctional families are on welfare? I guess I'm not understanding your point Ginny. My working families may be smoking pot on the side, but I have no idea. Why? Because there home is being maintained. The children are clean, fed, clothed, and appear happy as can be. Parents are involved, working, providing, with no sign of doing anything other than trying to be a family. My homes are dark, filthy, kids are filthy, eating junk, indecent furniture, clothes, bedding, and the place is like a bar on Friday night with all the cigarette smoke thick in the air because 8 people are upstairs doing God knows what with blaring music. Mom is sitting on the couch staring at Jerry Springer while 2 year old is in a dirty diaper eating a bag of chips. THIS IS NOT ONE of my clients, or even one of all the kids when I taught for 7 years. I was required to make home visits throughout that teaching time and it was the same thing. Maybe 30% of those kids were from 'normal' homes. I'm not sure what's worse harm and suffering for children than the picture I painted above. Then they grow up - now they're 6-10 and in JAIL because they have so many issues from being little in this kind of environment.
When a welfare recipient is deemed a drug user, then like Kaye said, kids should be removed, parents in jail. The system isn't efficient enough to even do that. Often the rest of the family that would take the child in also has similar problems, there aren't enough foster families, and the drug users don't stay in jail anyway. It's a no-win.
I guess I just don't see the harm in a program like this. I have no idea what percentage of welfare and government assistance people use drugs. Even if it is a small amount, I am sure drug testing in regular companies only weeds out a few people too, but they still drug test! I would even go as far to say that drug testing was invented for only a handful of people, but they are out there. I guess I just look at it as if it is ok to drug test working people, why so up in arms about drug testing government assistance people? Why should they be held to a different standard to get their money?
I guess for me it would have to be a little more clear. Working people can still qualify for benefits but at least in the state I live in if you have a job at all, even minimum wage you do not get cash assistance. I do not get government money that can be spent on drugs. I don't get food stamps on a level that they aren't budgeted. I guess even amongst those who qualify for benefits there are different classes and I hate getting lumped in with the real losers. So I don't think if you have a job and are fit parents you should have to be subject to drug testing.
Tonya, As far at I'm aware of. When I left the system 10 years ago to begin work. The program changed form being known as welfare to AFDC (Aid for Dependant children) and one of the new rule was that if you have any more children they would not be added on to your current support payment you where on your own with them. They also said that after 60 months (5 years) from the date you signed stating that you understood the new program that you will be cut off form support. I have not seen this happen. But I do know individuals that have not been able to add anymore kid(s) on there current support payments.
The actual cost of welfare programs, take up about 1 percent of the federal Human Resources budget. They set aside 32% percent of the total tax to go towards Human Resources, which is the category of tax that "welfare" falls under. Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans receive the remainder of these "welfare" funds in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Student loans, Earned Income Credits/Child Tax Credits, School lunch programs, Public Education for your children and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" even though they come from the same funds that are set aside for Human Resources. When they revamped "welfare" 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people, while the "welfare" for the middle class and wealthy remained the same or were increased.
Medicaid, which is by far the largest component the 1 percent of the poverty "welfare" fund, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled, only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC/TANF recipients.
Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are single mothers. The 38 percent of the recipients are White, followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups. For those that think all/most welfare people use it as an life time income, 56 percent of support ends within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years. The people that remain on assistance longer than 4 years tend to have less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had been abandoned by the birth father, had a child below the age 3, and were under age 24. The average size family that receives aid is 1 parent and 2 children. Seeings that in most states you only make $69 dollars per child, it kind of doesn't pay to have more than the ones you already have. In the cases where they are being popped out, that likely has more to do with emotional, mental illness and those kids are likely there to trap the current man not get more welfare. FYI, if you are married to the father of your children, you do not qualify for cash funds unless one of you is signed up through the works program. So those two parent laying around the house families, are living on some other form of cash because they aren't getting cash assistance. You get food stamps, for a family of 6 we got $400 a month, surly not enough to buy a whole heck of a lot of junk food on.
They can not segregate a law on parental rights, which is not mandated by the same legislation as Welfare by the way, based on who is on welfare and who is not. The law would have to be based on parental rights (not welfare rights) vs the right of the government (federal and state) to intercede in family situation to remove the child from the drug addicted parent. Especially if there is no maltreatment present. This law would be separate from welfare and would effect all peoples with in the United States. You do not go to traffic court to file for divorce and you don't go to the welfare department and change parental rights laws.
This might surprise you but drug addiction alone is not grounds for a child being removed and in many states children are returned to addicts because there are not enough homes to take them in.... They have to reserve the homes they do have for children that are in true need. Might need to reopen the Orphanages because there are going to be a lot of kids in CPS, since the majority of people are welfare are lazy drug using slobs.
They investigated 899,000 reports and removed 317,000 children. Of these children 49.7 percent were white, 47.3 percent were male, and 50.7 percent were female. The victimization rates were highest between birth to 3 years. Mothers are the perpetrators of 93% of physical neglect of children, 86% of educational neglect, 78% of emotional neglect, 60% of physical abuse, and 55% of emotional abuse. 78% of fatalities are committed by the mother. We all know of dysfunctional affluent families. Should mothers be tested? Well, the ones on welfare should right?
70 percent of people in prison did time in children services. These children are statistically emotionally deprived, there mental maturity slows/declines after the trauma of removal from their parents and they often become emotionally deprived adults. Oh and placing the addicts in prison will cost money, we will be paying to hold them in jail, we will be paying for placement of their child and then we will be paying for the homeless shelter they live in when they get out of jail.
AND they do not drug test you on the job to take your pay check. They drug test you because IF you are on the job under the influence of drugs and you harm/kill someone they are liable. They will suffer from sanctions through OSHA and they can have their license to operate suspended if not terminated. They will also be sued by the family of the person you injured. etc... It isn't that they don't want pot smokers on the job, they don't want to suffer the consequences of a pot smoker. Many corporate office holders are among the biggest addicts in the world. In corporate society it is generally about the top dollar not the lives of the people effected.
Which seems to be the reasoning behind this never ending debate. However, I have never heard on the news of a person running someone over with their couch, while watching their soaps/Jerry Springer. It is all about top dollar.
I would also like to mention the majority of you would fall in median income, which means that you pay very little towards that 1 percent of the "welfare" tax. Many of you actually get all of you paid in tax back and then some.
For those that are in the next pay bracket where you do not get all of your money back, be thankful that you aren't in the top 10% (which is made up mainly of corporations).
Every one pays taxes, welfare or not. Do you think we get our toilet paper tax free?
The majority of your federal tax goes, to pay for the military. Oh and billions of dollars are paid to NASA every year. on and on... Seems the only tax people are concerned about is the barely above minimum wage, welfare checks, for people most of you wouldn't want serving you anyway, let alone working with you.
Oh and I have been to affluent homes that were dark and dirty.. Being a dirty isn't a "welfare" thing... It is a slob thing.
You are fishing in the bottom of the barrel and calling all the fish rotten.
No I'm not Bobbie - absolutely not. I'm telling you what MY personal experience has been over the last 10 years + of working with all kinds of families, from 2-parent doctors to 8th gr educations. I have had families with 8th gr educations doing a great job of parenting and doctor's kids who were slobs. I recently had a doctor's child whose home was a mess. Not dirty, but cluttered, unorganized, a real disaster. I couldn't have found a pair of socks in that house and it drove me personally crazy. BUT mom and dad were THERE, they wer participating, they were involved, child was obviously well-cared for and happy, clean, fed, clothed, and loved. I didn't get stoned walking in the door, and believe me I have before in some of my homes!
I never said or will say that being dirty or a druggie is a welfare thing because I absolutely do not believe that. I can say though, straight from fact and being there, that out of ALL the homes/families I've been in/worked with, my welfare homes ONLY have had the obvious drug users in them. I said it above and I'll say it again - my doctors may be smoking pot in their free time but there is NO evidence of that in the home or the demeanor of the child(ren). PLEASE come stay with me a while and do my route. PLEASE! It is an eye-opening experience to say the least and it is life-changing. I'm not saying what I "think", I'm sharing what I SEE. And by no means have I ever treated any of my families any differently than my $$ families because I have to reach them in order to reach their child. My job is to work with the family as a whole to meet the child's needs, and it always will be.
You are exactly right Bobbie in that you can't get kids out of the home for drug use - completely! I've tried many times, and for more things than that, and it never happens. If it did, again you're right in that we would have nowhere to put ALL those kids. I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that I see kids daily who are not living a good life and no one can do anything about it. I am an emotional wreck many times at how my kids live - what they see, what they eat, what they inhale, what they never get. I don't think people use welfare $ to buy drugs, I just think their using them.
The topic here wasn't dysfunctional families. That's a completely different story! For heaven's sake I definitely come from a dysfunctional family. The topic isn't should all parents be drug tested to see if they're fit parents. The topic is welfare recipients who are drug users and the continuation of their welfare checks.
I do not think that one person that posted in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients ever said that ALL people that receive government assistance is addicted to drugs, dirty or anything else. If that is the stigma that you feel people receiving assistance have, I am so sorry for that. I would never & have never treated anyone at any income level differently. I have received assistance myself & thankfully had a great case worker that didn't make me feel like I was a bad person for needing help.
I believe that every 3,6, or 12 months (depending on what assistance you are getting) you have to re-qualify to receive your benefits. There is no reason a hair follicle test can't be done at that time randomly. If you fail then you should be given help for your problem & repeat the test the following month (or 2), if you fail at that time then your benefits should be taken away. Like I said before if you are not doing drugs then why should this bother you, it is just another form of making sure you still eligible. It seems to me that maybe weeding out the drug addicted people that are on welfare simply as a means to get their next fix and not interested in staying clean for their family would help free up funds for those that actually need it.
My husband has random tests all the time at his job.
I also don't think any one said that the only people that do drugs are on welfare, you just have to turn on your TV to see the latest celeb with substance abuse.
Thank you Emily. Well said.
ditto Deanna and Emily.
I don't care what color or race or marital status most of the people on government assistance are, I don't believe anyone ever mentioned that. And if this testing were ever to be put into place (which I know it never would be) then EVERYONE would be subject to testing and I don't think they would single out only one "group" of people to test or not test. So all the statistics are really a moot point to me.
And honestly, it only makes sense that most of the people on assistance are children. Some of the families might have one adult and several children so it only make sense that there would be more children.
I agree with this that Emily had to say:
I do not think that one person that posted in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients ever said that ALL people that receive government assistance is addicted to drugs, dirty or anything else. If that is the stigma that you feel people receiving assistance have, I am so sorry for that.
Honestly, it makes no difference to me WHY or WHO is receiving the assistance, I just want to make sure that it is being used for what it is intended to be used for and not being used for illegal drug consumption. I want to make sure that it is being used to help the kids and to help people get to a place of a better life and not being shot up or snorted or smoked or whatever someone is doing.
And I don't know how you came to this conclusion:
"Seems the only tax people are concerned about is the barely above minimum wage, welfare checks, for people most of you wouldn't want serving you anyway, let alone working with you."
You are assuming a lot here.....
"Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance." Thus testing the parents won't mean anything. The parents are just the payee's for their children, meaning they (the child) receives the funds not the parent. What would you do, employee outsiders to handle funds for the family so that you know where the money is going? That would cost the government all the more money, wouldn't you think? Couldn't entrust it in the hands of a family member because anyone that knows and addict knows they will beg borrow and steal from their families to get their fix. So, you would have to hire and outsider to manage the "income".
Do you realize the percentage of people receiving aid would go down if men stepped up and paid their child support. The number of women I know that are on TANF (which is the current term for ADC) because their ex husbands, babies daddy isn't paying his support just astounds me. The majority of these women are working, the ones that aren't have babies. That kind of makes me think that the parents of these men failed in some way, and I so hope I can instill in my son the importance of being a father to your child irregardless of the mistakes you make in choosing a "mate". I have a huge feeling that the majority of this is the current trend of lack of moral thought. Sex is just thrown around, with out thought of the out come. We have so many babies having babies, people not ready to have children, yet they are pumping them out. We have gone in for recertification, (which yes they do every 3 months for foods stamps and TANF and every 6 months for Medicaid only aid, unless you request an earlier review) and the waiting room is full of preteens and teens lugging around babies. Children not ready to be parents. The ones that end up pregnant by yet another/the same daddy with in the three months after the birth of their first. Instead of the drug issue you all bring up, I really think this situation needs to be addressed and quickly. There are way to many middle school kids coming up pregnant. Wondering how much this has to do with the divorce rates in the US and the lack of parental (parents that don't have time for their kids, parents refusing contact, etc) involvement after the divorce. In all three of my kids classes, DH and I are one of the very few couples still married, and the parents of all of our children (with no step children). In our youth group my kids are the only ones with parents still married, there is a girl being raised by her grandparents that are still married, yet her parents are not involved in her life.
I remember recert for WIC and sitting through the hour long meetings you had to attend to get aid. I would sit through the classes with people that I had gone to school with. The girls with parents that were "well off" were just as many as the "poor" kids I had gone to school with.
Heck my father is in the top 20 percent in income, he makes over 100 thousand a year and my mother makes over 60 thousand a year which makes her in the second top income bracket, I believe. My dad is one of the "supervisor" (can't remember his title) of one of the major companies out of Columbus, has been with this company for over 20 years. My mom is the director of hospitalist, over seeing the hospitalist in 7 hospitals, down in Florida and the lower portion of Georgia. Both of my sisters have good paying jobs, own their own homes, etc. We definitely were raised upper middle class and at one time DH and I had been on our way up, then the bottom fell out.
I am the very first person in my family to receive aid, ever. I was not raised to be on assistance. I graduated with a CGPA of 4.0, with honors, at 6 months pregnant. I had my actually received my freshman credits in Marketing and Management, taking classes through the local vocational school. I gave up that to take care of my child. Then we did what we had to do to get by and DH took on a foundry job to provide for his child. I worked for the first three months of her life and realized I was barely bringing home 35 dollars every two weeks after day care and I quit to stay home and took on babysitting. He worked at the same place for 13 years, we were doing great. Taking vacations, paying all of our bills, and then BAM, we were one SSDI and welfare. One day, I am running out buying new kitchen curtains because I can. The next I am struggling to keep my home.
I get everything under control with DH and BAM, I find out I am sick... Here we both sit, he confirmed disabled and me confirmed disabled. Yet, I am not able to collect anything because I chose to stay home and raise my children and I do not have enough work credits to collect SSDI. I own more than the 3,000 in assets, because I own two cars. I am only aloud to have a second car worth 3,000 dollars, to collect SSI.
I am 36 years old with the spine of a 50 year old linebacker. I have had the nerves in my tail bone severed. I have Advanced Fibro and I hurt all over, like I am 80. I have no energy and have to use a wheel chair to go through a store because just walking the store requires a four hour nap when I get home.
I take 15 pills a day, including Vicodin. I see three specialist every three months and a therapist every week. I am driving all the way to Columbus for the best care I can get. I suffer from brain fog so bad on some days I am lucky to sit on the couch and watch tv. Talking becomes and effort in the evenings, I slur my words and I forget what I am saying or what I want to say period. I often forget what I am doing and I am prone to falling, my balance is effected. It is very frustraighting to be dealing with all of this, my mind knows I should be living a life, but my body is unable to do it. There is no pushing through because that means days laid up to recoup. I wasn't raised like this but what can I do? I didn't ask to be sick, DH didn't ask to be sick, and we surely didn't every dream we would be a drain on society. My doctors all are against me getting a job. They are afraid I will slip a disk, because my spine is so fragile and anyone with fibro will tell you surgery is a very bad thing on the advanced fibro, so we are holding off and i have x-rays every three months to check on the progress.
We have done everything we can to give our children the best life we can.. Like Rayelle, I am a super shopper and my kids have always dressed in the latest fashions, from name brand stores, Good Will and Yard Sales in the high end neighborhoods. I have spent so much time explaining to my kids that welfare shouldn't be an option for them, that they have to strive for more, because this is no life to live. I have worked hard to give them every opportunity to take life and run with it.
I am trapped, my physical ability is limited. I have applied for every job I have seen advertised as hiring for the past three months, and NOTHING. I have to have insurance, because I am skirting eligibility for assistance as it is. I need something that requires no lifting and a lot of sitting. As it stands, I am high risk hire. No matter how cute I am, how able I am to complete the job, no matter how driven I am, I am being passed over for jobs. The thing about all this, I need to take my medication to control the pain, the medication makes me tired, a side effect I have to live with, and I nap at least twice a day... How am I going to manage that and work??? I would love to work from home, but how exactly do you do that? Something I could work on as I am able, 3 hours here, 3 hours there, type of thing. But I don't even know how to get something like that going on. It seems to be every SAHM's dream but are there anything out there?
Anyway, I think there are more issues in the system than the possible drug abuse issues. Pregnancy prevention, education and mental health services should be given to anyone that is abled bodied. So they can get past the reasoning behind their need for assistance. I think we need to toughen up the laws for child support and follow through with them. Make all boys fully aware that if they end up with a child they will have to pay or go to jail (or something) to help prevent these young people from having babies.
I also think abled bodied people should be hired if they are applying for jobs. 3 months and no job offers, you want me off of your federal tax dollars, hire someone that needs the job. However, the stigma of welfare people being lazy means that only the crappy, low paying jobs, with no insurance will hire you. You then loose your medical coverage and in many cases of people that are on full aid through welfare, (housing subsidy, cash, food stamps, and Medicaid) absolutely can not take on those jobs. The maximum amount of income that bumps you off of welfare is lower than the federal poverty level. We make under 1,700 a month and we are skirting, as I sated, assistance with five people. Someone that has one child, would have a lower amount of income to get them bumbed off. There they will be, making minimum wage, trying to pay rent, all the other bills and for any medical care they might need. Does this make sense? 45% of people that get off of welfare end up back on it with in 6 months because they can not survive on the jobs they are able to acquire, not because they are lazy.
Stigmas, stereo types, are creating just as much of an issue as the lazy people that won't work are causing. If you are an employer of a good paying job the last thing you want to hire is some one that has taken two, three, four, or in my case five years off of work. No matter the reasoning, you do not want to hear it and you don't want to hire a high risk person, even though they might be the best employee you have.
It is easy to point out all the flaws when you don't live in it. It is even easier to see/feel the flaws when you do... Life on Welfare is hard for most of us, especially those of us who would love nothing more than to be able bodied to make it happen.
Also, with the price of gas, milk, eggs, bread, utility bills... a minimum wage job just will not pay the bills. Work two jobs, okay who watches the kids then, day care isn't cheap. Leave your kids alone, CPS is called. Can't you see how people end up trapped??? Can't you see that this system is broken, not the people using it? People out there not on welfare, never been on welfare, are saying just do it.. if just doing it was that easy then there would be less people on welfare. It has to be a group effort and those of us on aid ofter are left swinging in the wind.. I know this isn't "your" fault, your hands are tied just like mine.. But it is someones problem. I can't make someone hire me... So what is my options. WELFARE, I have to provide for my kids....
No Vicki, you assume a lot. If you are with in median income most people receive most if not all of their paid in federal tax back at the end of the year. I have worked and I had paid taxes for over 20 years and I know how it all works. This would mean you are complaining about something that has little to no effect on you. And truly it is none of your business who is on what and why. Because it has no effect on you or your life... the majority of welfare funds come from corporation tax dollars, so they donate to help out the needy in this country, as they should.
Like I said it is easy to point fingers when you have no clue how the welfare system actually works, and those of us (the majority) that aren't the low lives bragging about getting a free ride, are over looked in every post that comes out about this topic...
You want to test me, go ahead and waste your money, you can test every one in my family for that matter. I could care less. But a generalized statement about welfare and drug users isn't fair to those of us that are using/needing support from the system... And complaining about something that cost you little to nothing, while the government uses your money to build nuclear bombs and killing innocent people in the name of peace is bunk.
No one is knocking all people on welfare. They are knocking people who use drugs and are using welfare money to support their habit. While it may or may not be few and far between, there is no denying it happens.
Please don't assume to know me or what income level I fall into or what I do and don't know about the system. I will just say that I do have the right to be concerned about where my money is going and leave it at that.
Vicki, is said "If you are with in median income..." Which you may not fall into, in that case the "If" does not include you but I am certain that many of the people that are members of this list are. Seeings that only 10% of this countries population is above median income, that means that the number of people that are able to claim right off's for their children, for being married and such are more than the people that are able to claim losses in their companies, while they store money in off shore accounts. "IF" is a general statement and I meant no offense to you.
But, in the same turn 10% of Welfare using drugs, doesn't constitute a major concern in my book. That is not the masses using drugs, that is not even enough to justify screenings. Michigan tried it, it didn't work. Drug testing over 14 billion people would be another case of wasting tax payers money to run test on the 90% that are not using drugs. They don't even have enough case managers to properly handle accounts as it is, DJFS is understaffed with heavy case loads, forget hiring in people just to screen all those people for drugs.. Line of people, pee and then we will give you your check?
It is suggested that kids be taken from their parents and put in foster homes. Do you not think that the funds that are paid to foster parents are miss used? Do you not assume that at least 10% of them are under some type of addiction? Don't you wonder how many of them are corrupt and only fostering for the money? Isn't that tax abuse/miss use?
What about the kids living in modern day Orphanages? These places are staffed by people that are paid with tax dollars. They might be drug screened but are they treating the kids right?
Or are many foster children being aged out at 18 and thrown out on the streets to find their parents and repeat the life that had them taken away from their parents in the first place? 70% of the people in prison are former foster children, according to the data I found. So they roll over from a welfare burden to a prison burden?
How about being mad at the man/woman that your DH's, or you yourself, work with that does not pay support for his/her children. Your brother, your sister, cousins, neighbors, guy that works at the gas station you frequent that have baby after baby by different men/women that are not responsible enough to pay for the children they create. I am sure the great majority of you know the person I am talking about, we all went to school,etc, with someone that was in love until after the baby came and now their child will age out on TANF/ADC funds. These are the majority of the kids receiving assistance, not the drug users. If the other parent was being held accountable, then they primary parent could use the child support they are supposed to use for the care of their children to buy their pot.
Or at the current economy, where a hard working minimum wage, lower end median, worker can't even afford to rent an substandard apartment to live in. Where people are letting their houses be repo'd because they can't sell them for the amount they owe on them and they have lost their job. Where mothers are having to work two jobs to take care of their children. Where low income families can't even afford to buy milk, when soda/pop is cheaper then orange juice. Then they are judged for feeding their kids junk food when you have to stretch your food stamps and the "real" foods cost so much. It is cheaper to buy a bag of chips then it is to buy a bag of potatoes. The number of people on welfare would drop, if they didn't have to supplement their income through the system to survive. Gas is $2.95 a gallon here, you think that hits you hard, what about the kid at McDonald's who is getting paid $7 an hour? He has no choice but to work there because in many communities the good jobs have been moved out of town or out sourced to some other country. If you don't believe it come to my town, other than retail and food service, your choices are very limited and many places that do hire want X amount of years of training or a degree and a many are requesting that you have worked for a year prior to them hiring you (kind of eliminates people on welfare, huh?). Just since October, they have closed down a call center here in town, 150 people out of work, they laid off people at Whirlpool, Wyandot Popcorn (Cracker Jacks), our library even laid of 12 employees. If you are on welfare it isn't likely you have reliable transportation to drive the 45 minutes to the next town over to get a job, they don't give you an allowance for car repairs in their calculation of 30% of your actual utility bills every three months. Yes that is right, you do not get the full amount of your electric bill, gas bill, water bill, etc.. They only give you a percentage towards it. Also government housing (Metro around here) is calculated according to the number of people in your home, then you have to find something with in that range, which usually ends up being a hole. So you loose your job, can't find a new one, end up needing to leave your housing and get moved into Metro housing, if/once you return to work, you loose your housing in many cases because the landlord only rents to Metro and you signed a contract knowing this when you moved in. How do you get the money saved up to move? You have thirty days, you still have to pay him rent and all your bills, and buy food on the $9 dollar an hour job you just happened to find.
It all sounds so easy, just get your self off it, just take any job, I would work three jobs not to have to be on welfare and so on. It is a trap!! To people that are under educated and that have physical/mental/emotional issues without a support system to push them up they loose hope to do anything but barely survive. Every where they turn they are seen than less than, many places will not hire them and the ones that will are terrible places to work, for just enough money to bump them off of assistance and leave them struggling. If you had a job opening, would you hire someone that has had 5 years off of work because of illness, that you will likely have to modify the work station for, or would you hire the person that has no limitation and has worked steady for the past 10 years?
The majority of people that abuse alcohol and drugs are not doing it because it is a good time, the first couple of times maybe. But, after that they use them to escape reality. To mask/kill their pain, to self medicate. To hide themselves away. Most parents with children on TANF/ADC do not qualify for Medicaid themselves and the free clinic isn't free to all people. Especially if you are one of the mom's that is working, it is a sliding scale payment plan, so do you buy diapers and smoke a joint with a friend or do you go see a doctor. They don't all have the opportunity to get treatment for themselves. Once again it is a sense of hopelessness.
A check a month gets them by it doesn't lift them up. It isn't a hand up. I am making reference to the very people that you all are referring to.. Because, yes I know them, I am helping to raise up their children through the youth group at my church, we have an out reach for kids in trouble. I know their stories, their lives and the lives of their parents all to well. I hear the complaints, the concerns and the desperation in their voices. I know parents that are addicted and on welfare, through these kids. We have reported the parents, we have talked to the parents ourselves. They can't/won't get help, because they have no insurance to cover treatment and the free treatment center is nearly 2 hours away. So we help their kids, who by the way want to stay with their parents, and we try to instill in them the power not to repeat the cycle of self destruction they have grown up in.
Being proactive makes a difference, sitting and complaining does nothing but make the transitions for these people even harder. The world knows the stereo types and stigmas that are attached to a person on Welfare and many aren't willing to take a chance on them, or their children for that matter. Even though you might feel there is a difference with people on Welfare, we are all know that most people don't.
From what I've read, no one is stating welfare recipients are drug users. Just that they should be treated the same as those receiving their funds from a paying job. We all should be drug tested.
And no, all drug testing at work is not because of the liability of killing or harming someone else on the job. I worked in an office and was randomly drug tested. Don't see how that comes into play there...
I'm the first to say that a lot needs to be changed. I've always said you can make it better on welfare than you can working the majority of jobs around the area that I live. My husband has been at the same job for almost ten years and makes pitiful money for working at a job that long. But it's the best paying job around besides coal mining. How do we make it? He works about 55 hours a week. We survive on the overtime pay. And we are getting ready to move from this area to a place where there are much better opportunities.
But Bobbie, don't get me wrong. I know all about being disabled. I became disabled suddenly at age 20. I woke up one day feeling lightheaded and ended up on a walker and in a wheelchair, and unable to drive, pay bills, or play with my children. The doctor bills and hospital bills broke us. And I worked from the age of 16, so at age 21, I barely met the requirements for Disabilty. It's not all it's cracked up to be. I make $600 a month, and that includes money for my children. And medicare wouldn't pay anything because my husband had insurance. So I definitely understand all about that. It puts you in a totally different category. If you are both disabled, you can't work. Period. I don't know what your husband's disabilities are, whether or not he can work a job in an office, etc., but I know, from experience with many or most of your same symptoms, that you can't. I know what it's like for your boss to give you a phone number, and by the time you write down the first three numbers, you have forgotten the last four. I also know what it's like to forget info you should know or to not be able to pull everyday words from your brain when trying to have an important conversation.
However, I still feel that it is not asking too much of any recipients of benefits to be asked to have a random drug test. I'm not offended when I have had to have them while working. I don't necessarily feel they should take children away from the first offense, etc. but I feel they should have to get treatment, just as an employee does. I also think everyone that works with my husband should have to have them, but I am definitely not saying that they are all druggies.
And no, you can't test the children when they are the recipients of the check, however, it is the parent who is spending that money and who is the one who is unable to support the child, so they should have the testing.
Unless you are disabled, there are ways to get out of the system. Rayelle is working at that right now. She isn't satisfied with her life, so she is doing what she has to to better it. Just like children will not always be in need of childcare all day. When they go to school, the mother has all day long to work. And as much as my husband and I hated it, we worked different shifts for awhile so one of us would always be home with the kids. We knew that childcare was too expensive, so we made the sacrifice of being away from each other so we could make it work.
So Bobbie, I know your situation is hard, and impossible. And it isn't fair. And we aren't grouping you as a druggie. However, my husband has never touched drugs. But even so, since there are the morons out there who get high and then try to run a machine, my husband has to go through the tests, too. Same thing with the welfare system. Not everyone in it is on drugs, but because some of them use the system to help supply their habits, everyone would have to have the tests.
Oh, and one more thought. Just because they only receive a food stamp card, and no cash doesn't mean they aren't using it to supply their habits. By not having to spend their money on food, they are able to spend it on drugs. Or who's to say they don't purchase the food and sell it for a little less than cost and then use that money for drugs? They find their ways.
Oh, and no one is saying everyone has to take a test every month. Sometimes knowing there will be random tests is enough to deter people.
By the way, I am that girl in high school you are talking about. I had my daughter when I was 17. The father refused to work and care for her, so I refused to let him see her. Thought he would miss her enough to get a job. Thought wrong. But I've been with my husband since she was just a few months old. He adopted her when the bum finally signed off his rights when she was four and I was threatening him with health insurance and child support that he had never paid. But she nor I have ever been in the system. She was never on medicaid, and we have never received any support from the government. We are definitely the exception to the rule. But I don't take offense to comments about teenage pregnancies, and that kind of thing, and the post about Jamie Spears because I KNOW that I'm the exception. Just like those of you who are the exception to welfare shouldn't get offended but be proud!
Well said Adena!!!
I agree, well said Adena!
I also agree that no one has said that all people on welfare do drugs etc. I don't know how it got turned into that.
And Bobbie, this statement you made has really bugged me....
"This would mean you are complaining about something that has little to no effect on you. And truly it is none of your business who is on what and why. Because it has no effect on you or your life... the majority of welfare funds come from corporation tax dollars, so they donate to help out the needy in this country, as they should".
How you can say that drug use has no effect on my life is beyond me. I think drug use effects EVERYONE. If it hasn't touched your life by way of a family member being a user, you can bet it is in the schools etc and that effects me because I have a child in school. Lets not forget crime that happens because of drug use. So for you to say it has no effect on me is just wrong. Anything that can be done to help stop drug use is nothing but a plus. And lets just say that your stats are correct and most working people have very little of their money going into the welfare system, that doesn't mean we should have a concern as to what happens there? You think that just because it is only a small percentage of our money that goes into that system doesn't give us a right to have an opinion on how it works or doesn't work? Does that mean that you feel that people have have no "income" shouldn't have an opinion or a voice about it either?
I dont' know how anyone got out of this that anyone thinks ALL welfare or government assisted people do drugs. Or that anyone wouldn't want a welfare person serving us or working with us... I never said any of that or even implied it.
Yes, there is a lot wrong with MOST goverment programs out there. Yes, there are plenty of dead beat dads. Yes, there are people that work HARD to get out of the system and yes, there are people that abuse the system.
Perhaps if we dealt with drug use by people in the system it would help them more than anything. Perhaps if they knew their assistance would be cut off if they tested positive, that would be enough for them to get clean. Perhaps if they were clean they could see clearly and get themselves out of the system? Perhaps the children would be better off if their parents were clean and teenage pregnancy might come down for that group of people. All things to think about.
Adena, That is not the norm, be proud. When I was getting food stamps, I would walk up to a cashier and she would be nice as pie, whip out the food stamp card and I would get the cold shoulder from then on. I started shopping at one of the stores I use to work at only because they "Knew" I was sick and they didn't assume why I was using food stamps.. When I first went to the pharmacy on the Medicaid card to get my medication, I was treated like crap by one of the techs. I went in one day, the lady before me she was nice to, I walk up and she started up. So, I told her off, right then, right there in front of everyone. Which believe me wasn't my typical behavior. I just got "whatever do you mean" from her, needless to say her attitude changed from then on. I have gotten so much grief, so much attitude, I have heard so many people talk about all the Welfare trash, etc. That I could scream.
To look at me, fist of all, you wouldn't know I was sick, unless I am in a serious flare (which I am in right now). To everyone else I look "normal". I have never asked anyone what they thought about what a flare looks like. I do everything in my power to appear "normal" and very few people know how sick I am. When I am like this I usually limit my trips out to dr appointments and church and I stay locked up in the house until it passes otherwise. it is depressing. Yet I am looking for a job?? Might not be the best idea, huh? Can't fake it in this condition.. LOL
When Callie was a baby, I took her to the Health Department to get her shots and have a physical because I didn't have health insurance. We paid cash for all of her health care for the first 3 months of her life, because I wasn't going to go on Welfare. Rob's switched jobs four days before she was born, he had been laid off, the week before. He stayed at that job for 13 years, before he was taken off of work. All of my children were born under insurance and Callie was the only one to receive WIC. Anyway, the health department nurse talked me into seeing if I qualified for WIC, I did and after a lecture about why it was okay for me to take the help I did.
Up until Rob got sick the first time, I had refused to sign up for welfare. Each time he returned to work I called and closed my case. We might have qualified but I didn't want to be on it, unless I needed it. Right now we are only getting the medical card, which I did get back, in case I forgot to say something. It took me until the middle of January to let me know I qualified under the new limits. I might qualify for food stamps, but I haven't applied for them.
Rob is so tired of listening to it all, he went out today to apply for jobs... He is mad because I can't get anyone to hire me that he is going to get a job. Keep in mind he has 13 years at his last job, that he has his GED, he is a Certified Machinist and a State Tested Certified Welder as of May 2007. What do you think the chances are that someone will hire a 43 year old man who has had three break downs and been off work for nearly 6 years??? I am thinking not good...
Anyway, you might have a right to ask for drug testing but I think I also have a right to be on the defense. You hear well meaning people, giving their opinion enough you tend to get a bit tired of hearing the welfare stigma's pour out of people's mouths... You may all not be referring to all welfare people, (and you may not understand) but enough people out there are that you get tired of listening to opinions, opinions with no answers.
You know, you have visions of people sitting around getting high, I see all the people I know that are on welfare and I know all the crap we are put through first hand... I know they try to do right and they can't get a head. Rayelle, is educated.. One of the women I know ran away from home at 14 because she was being sexually molested by her step father, she told her mom and her mom just ignored her (not welfare by the way) and she ended up living on the streets.. She found a man, he had a good job, they had three children and life was good up until 7 years ago. He left, with a girl he was working with and she fell flat on her face. And at 43 she is on welfare. And honestly she is probably still 14 mentally, she can't barely read, and she is so low on herself that if it wasn't for her kids I am not sure she would even be here. She needs emotional help, but she can't afford the sliding scale they tried to put her on, so she is barely living. The system is supposed to help, but it can't help the number of people in the system and not at the rates they want to charge them..
And I completely understand what it is like dealing with people who look down on you. It wasn't easy walking around at 17 with a baby. It was even harder walking around with a baby when you looked like you were 13. I still get people doing the math when they find out how old my children are. When I start seeing it register, I simply say, yep, I started early. And then I change the conversation.
And even though I didn't have medicaid for Emily, I still got stuck with that stigma. Every single time I walked into a drs. office with her, I was asked if I had my medicaid card. So I said no, but I have an insurance card.
And because I was young during the few months I had medicare, I would tell them I had a medicare card, and they would say "do you mean medicaid?"
And boy did I get dirty looks when I got out of the front seat after parking in a disabled parking spot. But when my husband opened the back door and gave me my walker or my forearm crutches (depending which I was on at the time) looks changed a little. And I also remember when I ballooned from 135 lbs to 195 even though I couldn't keep any food down at all. It was due to my health problems, and fluid, but I felt like everyone who looked at me felt like I just didn't take care of myself.
And I can guarantee you that I am judged when I drive up in my new mustang and cash my social security check every month. But we have saved for that car, and I work as a substitute teacher to supplement our income, and my husband works long hours to get me that car and I have chosen to drive it proudly.
I'm very fortunate. I have come a long way from when I was at my worst. And I sincerely believe I am going to finally be able to hold down a full time job in an office when we move and I won't have to stay on disability. But I also know that at any time I could lose all that. Especially if I do have MS which they suspect. And I know that a lot of people will never become healthy again.
Nothing to add to the post really, just wanted to let you know that I do understand what it's like living with people who want to judge you all the time. I think many people are judged for many different reasons. I just wanted to let you know that you aren't alone and that some of us aren't judging you so hold your head up high.
Bobbie, you know I agree with you 100% - except I think you ought to apply for food stamps. I am so glad you got your medical card back.
I went back to the original post by Vicki, and what she posted was that they were debating "drug testing welfare and other government supported people.". Other government supported people could include anyone on Social Security, SSI (disability), and veteran's benefits. Maybe even retired government employees, including members of Congress (wouldn't that be fun!).
I will go back to my original question. If the drug testing were started, and a woman who was receiving cash welfare tested negative, then what do you do? Cut off the welfare, and she and her children are out on the street. Then what? Most big cities don't have enough homeless shelters as it is. Or enough foster care placements for even the children who need them now. So then what?
I don't for a minute approve of anyone using drugs or abusing alcohol. But before people propose a program like this, they ought to think about what happens next. How about putting more money into drug rehab programs instead? We spend tens of millions of dollars every year housing drug users in prison, and a heck of a lot less for drug rehab programs. I have read many times of people who WANT to go into rehab who are told there is a 3 to 6 months waiting list, or even longer. Read Mara's post above - if she had been told there was a 3 to 6 month waiting list for her to get into a rehab program, do you suppose she would now be 6 months into the program she got into, with her life turning around?
And how about providing real, serious job training programs for people on welfare - not just training for fast food or supermarket jobs or nursing aides, but serious computer training, for example, or other kinds of jobs that would pay more than the minimum wage and be likely to have health care benefits. And serious education programs. When I worked for a non-profit, one of the organizations we worked with (which grew out of the church I now attend) was a program for school dropouts, to train them for decent jobs. The first six months to a year of the program for at least half of the people in it was teaching them how to read on a 10th grade level and do basic math. The program had a 80% success rate, which is pretty astounding. But there was only enough funding to handle about 50 people a year, which is a drop in the bucket.
I lived for many years in a low income, predominantly minority neighborhood. I saw very clearly just how badly the City of Philadelphia and its public schools cheated and neglected low income areas. For several years I was a volunteer advocate in a program serving parents of public school children. And I can tell you from experience that the city's neglect was primarily income based, because the low income areas that were exclusively white were just as much cheated and neglected. And in each community where I was involved, I saw shut down factories where most of the people in those communities had been employed, some for generations, until those jobs went overseas.
I guess I agree with Bobbie - don't get me started. So I'll stop now.
"I saw shut down factories where most of the people in those communities had been employed, some for generations, until those jobs went overseas." Ginny that is where I live now. We have huge buildings, sitting empty and some idiots in charge decided we needed more retail business. Keep in mind that the great majority of people in this town are on welfare or barely making it. Sure we need more stores. Anyway, so they tore down a bunch of Farms and now we have a Kohl's (the majority of the people in town are poor and they put in a Kohl's, it is always dead there when I go in to cruse the clearance racks) and we are getting Target and we have a bunch of little shops and well known fast food joints. OH and we are getting a Mega Theater.. The deal is they all pay about 7 dollars an hour for general laborers and managers make 12.... AND they are all the way across town, where are only well off housing is, the buss (a mini) system only runs until 6 and it cost money to take the bus, could call a cab but that also cost money. Do you walk the 3 hours it would take to get across for $7 dollars an hour, working part time so that they don't have to insure you? In the next town over a fast food jobs starts at 10 to 11 dollars an hour, they pay more because people have more options. Here they pay $7 because only the trained and educated have options and people apply in mass numbers for the jobs and they have their pick, most places disqualifying you straight away because they want to know if you have transportation or not. This leaving the uneducated, welfare people right out of luck.
I know a girl (well she is 25, so not a girl), high school graduate, that just got out of the battered womens shelter and welfare helped her get a part time job at the YMCA washing towels, to qualify her for her welfare. Do you think that is a skill she can turn into a career that will ever pay her enough to support herself and her son on her own? They offered her no training, they offered her no college, to get the aid she needed she had to be willing to go to work the next day, they said here is a job take it or we can't help you. It pays $7 an hour. Which to wash towels, okay, it is minimum wage around here. But is she going to be off of Welfare in 6 months on that?
And I do know alcoholics and drug addicts. My DH's family is multi generational addicted, both of my fathers brothers are addicts, and none of them are on welfare. My fil was a drunk that beat his wife until she abandoned her children when DH was 7. He spent 3 years in the children services being abused by the very guards and then foster parents that were paid to protect him and give him a better life. Then his grandmother made his father get them out to spend the next 8 years being verbally abused by him. Dh would give anything to have 18 years of his dad verbally abusing him, because it surely isn't anything compared the the crap the people that swore to protect him did. My brother in law R, is in and out of prison and his son R jr is in prison right now. R, R jr and T (R's daughter) are all alcoholics and addicted to crack. T has a baby that she has no idea who the daddy is because she was so high that she can't remember who was there and who she was with. She is living with family and working at a shop owned by her grandmother. T and R jr served 5 years in children service, dad's girlfriend didn't want them around and mom's boyfriend didn't want them around so mom locked them up in a storage unit for months and served no time for it... T was 11 and R jr was 10, the first report field against the parents was made when T was not even 1 years old. We took T in four years after she had been taken, I filed for them right after I found out they were in, R jr was in a really good home and we did weekend visits and Wednesday night visits with him. T was so messed up, she didn't see anything wrong with what her mother did and she just wanted to go home. Mom at the visits she would bother showing up to would run her mouth about how CPS did this to HER and the loving their mom blamed the system to this day. Even though they lived through being locked up in that storage unit, using a five gallon bucket to go to the bathroom and not seeing there mom but once a week... At 16 T asked the judge to go home, she wanted to be with her mom and he granted her permission, she was going to be going there anyway, she made it clear. R jr was sent home too. Drug addiction is not grounds for with holding a child from the parent and the judge felt they were old enough and that they had had 5 years of outside influence to keep them clean, wrong. With in a year R jr had stolen his first of 6 cars.. He has been convicted 6 times for car theft. He sits in jail now waiting for sentencing. My brother in law M died of aids contracted while he was in prison while serving a 15 to life sentence for manslaughter. He killed a man that had picked him up hitch hiking, after the motorcycle he was driving, to bring drugs into Columbus from California, broke down. M went into pay for the guys gas, the guy was looking in M's bag when he came out and he shot him in the head. M was 17 years old at the time. He got out of prison at 32 and was dead by the time he was 35. My last BIL J, lives off of his wife, is an alcoholic and is addicted to crack. He won't work because he can't handle being told what to do. He is physically able, but would much rather party. he is 45 years old but emotionally he is that 9 year old kid that was ripped away from his mother. the answers the government had that were supposed to help did more damage then good. My uncles are both alcoholics and my Uncle B is always in trouble with his dealer, my dad has had to bail him out several times, and he has a supervisors position.... So I know drug and alcohol addiction. I also know that a person addicted will sell the soul of their child if they need a fix and threatening to make them homeless will not work.. How many homeless people are already out there because of their addictions??
Dealers give them drugs, with the agreement to pay them later, later comes and the dealer deals with them, they aren't afraid of that....
I don't agree with drug addiction, but in the same turn you are wanting people tested, that have no insurance to get clean, no way to get to a facility to get clean. It isn't like soda/pop you can't just drop your usage until you are off. You can't just go cold turkey with out medical help around. This means you will be making 10% of 14 billions of people homeless. You will be making their children homeless. And a kid might have shame in their parents addiction, but two generations of my husbands family in CPS tell me that they would rather deal with mom passed out rather then what they dealt with in foster care. I have very seldom met a child that wouldn't rather be home with mom and dad... And these aren't the only addicts I know, the town I live in is full of them. We are a hub between Detroit and Columbus. We have drug bust every week, two young men have been killed, another was wounded in three separate incidence and a 4 year old little boy was shot in a retaliation drive by shooting. I know full well the effects of drugs on a community but I also know that our 3 homeless shelters are not going to hold them all... What do you think they will do?? I bet they will start dealing to make up for the loss of welfare. That or prostitution. Neither required any education. But I am certain that since people on welfare aren't the only ones using drugs, that their likely will still be drugs in the schools and on the streets. They have been around for centuries and nothing has gotten people to listen about the harm they do up until now.
And that wasn't a generalized foster parent statement, I have already completed my classes and I plan to begin my application process next week.
I know what you mean about attitudes, Bobbie. When my sons were about 2, 3 and 8, my husband (who was a consulting engineer) was suddenly out of work when his major client for the previous two years shut down and went into bankruptcy, owing him about $20,000 for work done (we wound up having to go through bankruptcy ourselves because of that). And, unhappily, we were in a recession of sorts and engineers were the proverbial "dime a dozen". So, while he looked for work, we went on welfare, for about two years. For about six months before that happened I had been thinking about going back to work (I hadn't worked since about 5 months before my oldest was born), and most of my friends and acquaintances told me I belonged home with my children. But once we were on welfare, those same "friends" and acquaintances were asking me why I didn't get a job. Didn't my children still need me at home? Of course, if I had taken a job, we'd have to pay childcare on the days my husband was out job-hunting (which was most days), which would have left us no better off in terms of money and would have cut off food stamps and Medicaid.
That was when food stamps were literally coupons of a sort, and everyone at the checkout counter knew I was using food stamps - not like the swipe cards some states have now. My pediatrician accepted Medicaid, but I had to find a dentist who accepted Medicaid when Scott knocked a tooth out, and that wasn't easy.
During that period my husband wound up having emergency surgery to remove his gallbladder. He came home from the hospital with a draining incision which needed re-dressing twice a day, and a prescription for anti-infection meds (I suppose antibiotics) that he had to take twice a day. When I went to the pharmacist, who was a supportive friend, he told me Medicaid wouldn't pay for that number of pills unless the doctor contacted Medicaid and told them it was medically necessary. The pharmacist called the doctor, who was a hospital resident, and the doctor said just to cut the dosage in half. When I called him, I asked what had changed, saying that the doc had prescribed two a day before he knew we were on Medicaid. Arguing did no good - the doctor wasn't going to take the trouble to contact Medicaid.
The welfare checks were made out to my husband. One time when the check came he was out of town on a job interview. I took the check to the bank to deposit it, and the teller said that my husband had to endorse it and I couldn't endorse it for him. He didn't come back until 3 days later, so the check couldn't be deposited until then.
Interestingly, when he got a job we notified welfare to stop sending the checks. We continued to get checks for another 6 months. We returned them, marked VOID, by certified mail, so we'd have a record of returning them.
|
Members
