# Why would a single mother need more thant $20.00 in her wallet? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 9, 2003, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590 "2003-06-09T04:17:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/41 "2003-06-09T15:03:25Z")
Found some websites: [http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/congress\_corporate\_welfare.HTM](http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/congress_corporate_welfare.HTM) Sez here the average taxpayer pays $400 yearly on social welfare and $1,400 for corporate welfare. (Note: I am just throwing this out as information. I do not know the first thing about corporate welfare and thus cannot debate it.) ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/42 "2003-06-09T15:15:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > **tdn, when I was on welfare I was constantly told that my computer was an unnecessary luxury and I should sell it to raise funds. Yeah, sell the Amiga 2000 that was obsolete when I bought it (long before I went on welfare, too). To whom? For what, $25?** If that. And how would you have gone about selling it? How much of your time would that have wasted – time better spent, say, looking for work? > [@](#): > > **This is all about punishing the poor for being poor.** I agree, but I think it only partially explains it. I think control and over-simplification are components as well. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/43 "2003-06-09T15:29:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\ ***misstee** , ah, I see, everyone who applies for welfare is presumptively trying to defraud the system, and so everyone should be treated as if they were liars until they prove otherwise. > > Having to ask for help is hard enough on the dignity. And then you run into this sort of crap. \*\* I’ll agree with **misstee** that some people abuse the system, and that hurts everybody (including, in the long run, those that abuse the system). But draconian attitudes like some of those expressed in this thread are, well, baby, bathwater, and the inclusive throwing out thereof. Sometimes one has to accept a bit of fraud as a compromise when trying to better society as a whole. It comes with the territory. An allegory would be to suggest that we arrest all citizens in order to reduce the crime rate. It would be very effective, but hardly beneficial to society. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/44 "2003-06-09T15:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\* > I was poor last summer. Dead broke, with no job, and facing eviction. With the “luxury” of a computer, I was able to get a job interview (my only one in a year and a half). Just prior, I spent money to get my suit cleaned and a shirt pressed. That’s a luxury. The night before the interview, I treated myself to a nice dinner and a movie. I went to the interview cleaned, pressed, healthy, and relaxed. I got the job. > > So – were these luxuries of which I partook a bad thing? \*\* The dinner and the movie, obviously. If you bought an iron second-hand (check the garage sales or Goodwill) you could have saved the money on pressing your shirt and suit. My local library offers free Internet access as well as job postings, but you may not live in my area, so the computer access is a wash. Congratulations on the job. Perhaps next time you are “dead broke and facing eviction” you could spend your money on the rent and not going out to dinner and the movies. But no, I would not consider keeping yourself clean and presentable to be a luxury. Fortunately, soap is cheap, and none of this has anything to do with the inherently stupid statement that people are going to starve to death if they cannot withdraw more than $20 a day from their welfare accounts. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SnoopyFan \* > \*\* > And Shodan, you’re FOS: > > “If you cannot afford food or trips to the doctor, you don’t belong in a restaurant or a movie theater. Never ever.” > > You, dear, are a control freak. How do you propose we police this, for starters … and do you, as a taxpayer, want to foot the bill for the Welfare Police? > \*\* No, I, darling, am a taxpayer, who does not care to subsidize the stupid decisions of others. We already have a number of measures in place to prevent the charity cases of the world from wasting what is given them. My state recently passed legislation to prevent the EBT cards in our welfare system from being used in the ATMs in our local casinos. There is already a list of things you cannot buy with food stamps - liquor and cigarettes, for example. And lots of people are already being prosecuted for welfare fraud. None of these strike me as particularly onerous, and referring to a desire to get the most bang for your welfare spending buck as being “a control freak” is a little too silly to bother refuting. I have, in common with a number of other people, some life experience. I used to be poor, and now I am not. Therefore, I am familiar with at least one way to do what we want everyone in our society to do - reach a point where they produce more than they consume. This is called “making the world a better place”, and it is something everyone should want to get around to sooner or later. I know what it is like to live on a limited income. I know what it is like to budget, to choose the cheapest food I can find because it is the cheapest, and I know how to live without a car in a rented room. I also know how to escape the necessity of doing all these things, and eating at McDonald’s twice a week and going to first-run movies at $7 a pop did not form the cornerstone of my Master Plan to Escape Poverty. Most people who are on welfare get off of it. Many of those who don’t, could, if they would do what the rest of us do - work hard, delay gratification, get an education, and don’t have children you cannot support. Could do, and should do. And whatever we do to add to that “will do” benefits everyone - the poor because they will tend to cease being poor, the middle class because they don’t have to subsidize some stranger under coercion, and the rich because they won’t have to listen to idiotic claims from losers that their children will starve in the streets if they can’t go to restaurants every weekend. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![misstee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@misstee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misstee)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/45 "2003-06-09T15:43:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > Having to ask for help is hard enough on the dignity. And then you run into this sort of crap. \*\* This “crap” is questioning weather or not the recipient actually needs the help. IF you in fact, do need the help, I doubt you are going to have a hard time proving you need it. People will get away with what society will let them get away with. If social workers ( or whomever determines eligibility) do not check into matters they make society a worse place for all of us. Would it be easier on people who apply for welfare of any sorts to just give a phone call, and be handed a check, no questions asked? I am not saying all people who apply for benefits are liars who are trying to defraud the system, I am saying that they should be asked to prove to the system that they do in fact need the help. If they have a medical condition that prevents them from working, they should be seen by a doctor and the doctor should submit his findings to the social worker. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/46 "2003-06-09T16:26:23Z")
Dang it! I hate doing this, but I’m going to have to quote myself because something I said in another thread is just begging to be re-posted here. Although the portion on family planning decisions isn’t really the focus of this pit thread it still belongs because there was discussion of the issue in the thread which inspired this one. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mtgman_ > \*\*Clearly action needs to be taken to ensure the ability of people to become a burden on the taxpayer through poor choices and/or accidents is kept to an absolute minimum. I like the analogy of welfare to a military boot camp. Once you begin drawing from taxpayer-funded coffers you immediately lose many of the priveleges and civil liberties that people who can afford to pay for their own food and medical care are entitled to. > > The first step is obvious. Forced sterilization of welfare recipients. It sounds harsh, but protecting the taxpayer’s dollar is paramount. Since no birth control method is 100% foolproof, we can’t be sure that simply criminalizing procreation while on welfare would be adequate. Once a person is off welfare they should be able to have the surgery reversed if they choose to have children on their own nickel. You want kids? Well, think of it as incentive to get off the teat. Only fully self-sufficient citizens are allowed the privelege of procreation. > > The next step is equally obvious. Each welfare recipient will be evaluated by a doctor to determine their nutritional needs. Their activity habits will be tracked to determine the proper rate of caloric intake based upon their level of physical activity. Food stamps will be allotted on an individual basis and will be sufficient to cover a basic, although bland, assortment of genericly-branded foods adequate to keep their body running at peak efficiency. Not a single calorie above your basic needs will be paid for by those hard-working citizens of our fair state of whom YOU, as a welfare recipient, are clearly not one of. There will be not be a single gram of fat gained by a recipient of welfare. Their absolute base needs will be met and not a single calorie more. > > Another obvious step deals with the reduction of potential medical costs. Each welfare recipient will be required to show up for a bi-weekly delousing in which all their bodily hairs will be shaved to reduce the risk of contracting lice and helping reduce their chances to they will be given an extensive regimin of enemas(to keep their system flushed out and avoid the extremely costly treatment for impacted bowels) and oral antibiotics. Each of the welfare recipients will occasionally be required to “donate” blood to the local blood bank as part of a recriprocal program in which they recieve the “donated” blood and they provide some basic services such as screening for potential genetic diseases and STDs. This leverages one of the few resources the welfare recipients have and keeps the costs of the services of the blood bank personnel off the shoulders of the taxpayer. As noted above, the taxpayer’s costs must be kept to the absolute minimum. Welfare recipients are not allowed to refuse to “donate” at their appointed time. They are second-class citizens and shall not be allowed to forget it. > > A couple of non-obvious measures spring to mind as well. Welfare recipients shall not be allowed to vote in local or federal elections. These people have already demonstrated a lack of civil responsibility by not properly providing for themselves(which, given the robust economy and full employment, can only be attributable to irresponsibility with their finances) so it follows naturally that they are unfit to fulfil that most important civic duty of selecting representatives. After all, beggars can’t be choosers. > > The population-based representation in local and federal congresses shall be based upon total constituent numbers LESS two-fifths of the subset of the constituents on welfare. This will help ensure local governments take the problem seriously. The more second-class citizens(welfare recipients) a state has, the less its influence will be in the governmental sphere. > > I’m sure more measures can be devised. The paramount consideration is not the health, happiness, or freedom of a citizen on welfare. They abrogated all their rights to such things the instant they started drawing monies from taxpayer-funded coffers. The paramount consideration in the design of all welfare programs is to simultaneously provide incentives for them to become fully self-supporting and to punish them for their irresponsible choices which led them to the point where they actually needed help. A carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. > > In any event, the primary consideration in any citizens decision-making processes should be the financial impact. We’ve given decent standards of living to people on welfare long enough. They have been allowed to retain some dignity and still exercise their priveleges and civil liberties as they see fit for too long. It is time we put the “suffer” back in “sufferage.” All hail the almighty mother fucking dollar. \*\*Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/47 "2003-06-09T17:10:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Congratulations on the job. Perhaps next time you are “dead broke and facing eviction” you could spend your money on the rent and not going out to dinner and the movies. \*\* First off, thanks for the congrats. Secondly, let’s talk about your 2nd statement here. It’s not like I was foregoing rent to eat at _Chez Ooh La La_ every night of the week. The movie I saw was the first movie I’d been to in over 2 years. Had I bought a cheap second-hand iron, I would likely have ruined the only suit I own (I suck at ironing). Yes, I could have used a public computer, but I owe part of my job success to promptly answering my e-mail. It was a time sensitive position, and a delay of a few hours would have cost me the job. And the eviction? Had nothing to do with my failure to pay rent. It had to do with a new landlord that demanded a 150% increase in rent right away, or I was out on my ass. There was no way I could come up with that money on my own, even if I skipped the 99 cent value meal at Wendy’s for 4 years in a row. I could go on and on, but do you see how when I explain my circumstances, they make a bit more financial sense? That my situation made sense to me at the time, and I turned it into a success story? “Ah”, you might say, “But you never explained that.” Or perhaps your response would be “In light of all that, I understand. Why didn’t you mention that in your previous post?” The answer is simple. You didn’t ask. And this is at the crux of the matter. You simply assumed my situation, then applied a one-size-fits-all solution. One that would have hurt me greatly. You must understand, you cannot see all ends. You have no idea what it’s like to be in another city, at another time, in someone else’s shoes. What makes perfect sense to you may not apply to everyone – or anyone – else. You are not omniscient. Furthermore, when I bought that dinner, I was fully aware of my budget, and of the consequences of exceeding it. I am not an idiot. I knew fully well what I was doing. I would have been greatly insulted had you imposed your will on my life, as if you needed to hold my hand through my every transaction. And the insinuation that you know better than me. When you say that _every single welfare mother in the US_ can get by on $20 per day and needs no more, you are doing exactly that. When you say you know better than any one of them, you are being ignorant at best. Give people a little credit to find their own way through life as they deem best. Don’t be such a busybody. And failing that, please submit your budget to us so that we can dictate your financial situation to you. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/48 "2003-06-09T17:11:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by misstee \* > \*\*This “crap” is questioning weather or not the recipient actually needs the help. \*\* No, it’s not. It’s intrusive, demeaning, and pointless. Why did I, when I got food stamps, have to reprove my income **every month**? Why did I have to submit to a two hour interview at the welfare office (which was half an hour away by car and two hours by public transportation) every month if I wanted to keep my benefits? When you’re a member of the working poor you can’t afford to take half a day (or a full day) off each month just to maintain your benefits. Oh, and by the way, they pick the date and time of the interview. You don’t. If the date and time they give you is incompatible with your employment schedule you can ask the caseworker to reschedule, but they don’t have to reschedule it if they don’t want to. If you fail to show, your benefits may be terminated. (I personally think the point of all this is to discourage people from trying to hold down jobs while on public assistance. It certainly is the effect. Is that a social positive?) > [@](#): > > **IF you in fact, do need the help, I doubt you are going to have a hard time proving you need it.** The system is set up to make it hard to prove. I know people who have been denied benefits for failing to prove that they don’t have a bank account, or failing to prove that they don’t have a job. How do you prove a negative like that? Who’s going to pay for that doctor to certify the individual unable to work? Doctors aren’t cheap. I couldn’t afford to see one for years when I was poor, for **anything** , except for the short time I was on Medicaid, and even then they would not have paid for an office evaluation of any sort. I strongly suspect that more people who deserve benefits are denied them by draconian “fraud control measures” than would gain benefits illicitly without them. “Fraud control measures” are all about control. They have very little to do with verifying deservingness. No, this is another form of punishing the poor: forcing them to jump through hoops like trained rodents in order to be given their handout. Plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/49 "2003-06-09T17:23:21Z")
You guys are a bunch of assholes. I sure am glad that when I was five years old being raised by a single mom doing her best to make ends meet I had no clue that that there were whole contigents of people who avidly believe that I should have spent my sixth birthday party chopping cabbage alone while my mom wandered around town aimlessly looking for ‘help wanted’ signs instead of watching a matinee of the Care Bears movie. Yep, they begrudge my fucking birthday party. A little poor kid’s birthday party. Something she’ll remember as a special day out with her mother for the rest of her life. And it shouldn’t have happened. I should have known better than to be born poor. Maybe if my mom was _really_ needy she could have done like the peasents do and make a cake out of rice and beans. At least I wouldn’t have had it so bad as my best friend, who was raised on welfare by her aunt because her mother wasn’t mentally capable of raising a child. Now her aunt worked as much as she could, but it was hard when her bones were breaking out from under her because of cancer. She tried to get hired at her job full-time, because it is tough to feed your own kid plus two of your sister’s kids on welfare. They were already crowded into a two bedroom apartment in the ghetto living mostly off food bank donations. But year after year they did not pick her up as a full-time employee. She died the day after her oldest child graduated from high school. According to you all, that oldest kid should have never seen a movie, never tasted food that wasn’t cheaper than beans, certainky have never tasted soda, never had a birthday party, never recieved a present (they could have sold the stuff they got from charity for christmas) never have gone to a prom even in a thriftstore dress, never have gotten a book or used computer, never traveled outside her hometown, and probably should have sold the black and white television they used to watch tv until it broke in 1995 because it was taking away from her job search time. That is, assuming that they aren’t argueing that they shouldn’t exist at all, which is also apparently an valid point of view. Maybe I’ll tell that to the next poor looking kid I see. I’m sure it will make their day. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/50 "2003-06-09T17:23:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by misstee \* > \*\*I am saying that they should be asked to prove to the system that they do in fact need the help. If they have a medical condition that prevents them from working, they should be seen by a doctor and the doctor should submit his findings to the social worker. \*\* In a simple world that would be true. But then you run into all sorts of issues with rights to privacy. And issues with all sorts of grey areas where medical problems might not be so clear-cut. Really, should one have to subject oneself to a government-ordered anal probe and the opinion of a state appointed doctor in order to receive benefits? (I’m starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist now – :eek: ) ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/51 "2003-06-09T17:46:05Z")
**tdn** , civil rights only belong to the wealthy. Poor people, being subhuman, have no rights. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/52 "2003-06-09T17:53:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\* True, although most of the effort involved in “getting an education” necessarily comes from the person being educated. So the responsibility for avoiding jail is much more that of the poor than of society in general. \*\* This was in response brutus coment that he should not have to pay for public schools since he doesnt have kids. If there are no public schools, then the poor won’t get an education, no matter how much they want to. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also true, but only if the poor cooperate. > > If they cooperate, and put forth the effort expected of most of us to get and hold a job, avoid becoming pregnant with children they cannot support, graduate from high school, etc., they tend to become un-poor, and the money spent on them is a good investment. If they don’t, you have to factor in the cost of the crimes prevented by incarceration before you conclude what is cheapest in the long run. \*\* Most people who are on welfare do put forth the effort etc. take away the welfare, and you make them truely desperate. I’m not saying we shouldnt incarerate people who comitt crimes, or excuseing them for doing so…Im saying its cheaper not to put people in that situation in the first place. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Naturally, it is not a simple dichotomy between prison or welfare. Poor people have other options in life, and most of them take advantage. \*\* The simple fact is that most crimes are committed by the impoverished. The worst that becomes, the more crime rate rises. Yes, they have other options in life, but when you grow up in poverty, it doesnt seem like it to many. Take away the only safety net many people have, and you see this get much worse. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > What I am disagreeing with is the idea that welfare is a life-long bribe to prevent the poor from becoming career criminals. Most people get off welfare, and do not wind up in prison. \*\* I never said anything about a life long bribe, only that if we eliminate welfare as a safety net for people who fall on hard times, we will pay a greater amount in the overall cost of crime. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also true, but also beside the point. We are not talking about people starving to death; we are talking about allowing people on welfare to withdraw only $20 per day from their benefits. \*\* Really? Are you sure? slide up there and see who I was replying to…I’ll wait… Brutus said that the government should end all welfare, and implied that public schools should go too. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It depends on what your definition is of “tiny”. [Means-tested programs in 1998 consisted of some $400 billion, or something over 20% of the federal budget.](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0258.pdf) (pdf file). This is the federal budget; most welfare benefits come from state spending and [vary widely.](http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=5978) > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* Read your own link. That 400 billion includes Federal, STATE AND LOCAL expenditures…not just federal. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/53 "2003-06-09T17:59:19Z")
**Mtgman** , i’m _praying_ that your post was sarcastic. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/54 "2003-06-09T18:02:41Z")
I’m confident that it was **lezlers** ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/55 "2003-06-09T18:08:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Congratulations on the job. Perhaps next time you are “dead broke and facing eviction” you could spend your money on the rent and not going out to dinner and the movies. > \*\* Shodan, you are the very fucking definition of ‘fat cat’, sitting there in your easy chair watching the over the shoulder of the poor saying ‘you shouldn’t have that…OR THAT.’ Ever hear of ‘mental health’ and its contribution to our ability to work and interact with people? tdn had been suffering and was CELEBRATING the fact that he got a fucking job interview. No doubt his spirit was on the edge of broken, he was exhausted, stressed, nervous about the interview, and needed a bit of rejuvenation. And you have the fucking nuts to come in here and say he shouldn’t have done it, because I suppose in your opinion, poor people should be home wearing a burlap sack and eating creamed toast until they make enough money to satisfy YOU enough that they are allowed to enjoy their finite and rapidly passing lives? Give me a fucking break. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/56 "2003-06-09T18:09:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by misstee \* > \*\*What about the parents who have a choice? Get off their asses and work? > > _NOTE_ I understand there are those who can not support themselves, and they have been trying. How many posters have had a specific case/person/instance in mind when they made a post against welfare/foodstamps? I can think of several abusers of the system. I know one family who claims the husband can not work because he has back problems. These “back problems” do not prevent him from riding his 4-wheeler, or going to the races, or standing for hours at a time when his is out with his buddies. I get fucking angry when the wife tells me about how much aid they get. Why hasn’t someone in the system checked in to his “back problems”? Why I are you and I responsible for feeding his kids when he is not? I would not have a problem with them getting aid if he really was making an effort to work and support himself and his family and was falling short. There is nothing wrong with accepting help if you are trying to make it but can’t. I bet if someone told this family, we are taking away your aid, they wouldn’t have to resort to crime to feed their kids, they would only have to work. \*\* Well, most peo[ple who are on welfare do work, they just cant make enough. And most people who are on welfafe stay on it less then three years, and most people who are on it more than three years are disabled, elderly or children. And maybe your friend is screwing the system. But maybe not. My father-in law injured his back about 20 years ago or so. His life is effectively over as far as working, but you wouldnt know if you just met him socially. He looks healthy, seems fine. But ive had to carry him to the hospital on more than one occasion when the pain just got to bad. He will have good days where he can stand around for hours at a time, he used to ride a motorcycle occasionally…then he will have times when he will be bedridden for months at a time. I doubt he would ride a four wheeler, but he gets so bored he sometimes does things that are risky. I don’t see what going to the races has to do with anything. people with back problems often had good days and bad days, and if there are too many bad days, they cant work. ---
**Author:** ![misstee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@misstee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misstee)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/57 "2003-06-09T18:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\*No, it’s not. It’s intrusive, demeaning, and pointless. > > Why did I, when I got food stamps, have to reprove my income **every month**? Why did I have to submit to a two hour interview at the welfare office (which was half an hour away by car and two hours by public transportation) every month if I wanted to keep my benefits? When you’re a member of the working poor you can’t afford to take half a day (or a full day) off each month just to maintain your benefits. Oh, and by the way, they pick the date and time of the interview. You don’t. If the date and time they give you is incompatible with your employment schedule you can ask the caseworker to reschedule, but they don’t have to reschedule it if they don’t want to. If you fail to show, your benefits may be terminated. \*\* I suspect I know why you have to reprove your income every month. It maybe to do the fraud other people have committed. Lets say you are working at Burger King, making $6.75 an hour. We all know that $6.75 an hour isn’t going to pay the bills for an individual, let alone a family. So you apply and are granted aid. You jump through the hoops to get the aid started. If they don’t check every month who is to say you are not going to get a better paying job, say at a factory making $12.00 an hour? The difference between $6.75 an hour and $12.00 could make the difference between being able to receive the aid and being turned down. I don’t know you personally, but who is to say you are honest enough to report the increase in income. How many individuals would report and lose the aid they receive? I do understand that it is hard to lose a half or a full days pay to go to an interview, and some bosses/jobs don’t understand the need to take care of it, but the reason that you have to do these things is because of abuses in the past and these are safe guards. You can’t blame society for not trusting everyone. I don’t believe everything people tell me, so why should a social worker? You can trust people only so long, before you start to verify the information they give you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/58 "2003-06-09T18:31:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\*First off, thanks for the congrats. > > Secondly, let’s talk about your 2nd statement here. It’s not like I was foregoing rent to eat at _Chez Ooh La La_ every night of the week. The movie I saw was the first movie I’d been to in over 2 years. Had I bought a cheap second-hand iron, I would likely have ruined the only suit I own (I suck at ironing). Yes, I could have used a public computer, but I owe part of my job success to promptly answering my e-mail. It was a time sensitive position, and a delay of a few hours would have cost me the job. > > And the eviction? Had nothing to do with my failure to pay rent. It had to do with a new landlord that demanded a 150% increase in rent right away, or I was out on my ass. There was no way I could come up with that money on my own, even if I skipped the 99 cent value meal at Wendy’s for 4 years in a row. > > I could go on and on, but do you see how when I explain my circumstances, they make a bit more financial sense? > \*\* Frankly, no, they do not. You are still spending money you haven’t got on things you don’t need. And your dismissal of suggestions on how you could have done it on the cheap with the excuse that it is too much bother for you to learn to take care of your own clothes bodes less than well as regards the rest of your excuses. The story about the rent increase is also irrelevant. If, by your own statement, you were “dead broke”, you could not have paid your old rent, let alone a 150% increase. So, rather than retaining any resources for the future, you blow the wad. As it turned out OK for you, and if you were spending your own money, good for you. If a welfare recipient came to you and said, “I am about to become homeless. Should I save my money and try to build up enough to get a deposit on a new place, or go out to eat, spend more on amusement for myself, and pay a laundry to press my shirt for me?”, would you begin discussing what wines go well with what entrees? Or would you point out that it is stupid to rely on getting a job offer from the only interview you have had in months? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\* > You simply assumed my situation, then applied a one-size-fits-all solution. One that would have hurt me greatly. > \*\* It hurts you greatly to be expected to live within your means? You must have cried yourself to sleep every night of your adult life. “Don’t waste money on stuff you don’t need”. Maybe not one-size-fits-all, but it sure fits a lot of poor people I know. Rich ones too, but they have a greater margin of safety. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\* > You must understand, you cannot see all ends. You have no idea what it’s like to be in another city, at another time, in someone else’s shoes. What makes perfect sense to you may not apply to everyone – or anyone – else. You are not omniscient. > \*\* I don’t have to be omniscent to see when someone else is shooting themselves in the foot. Poor people know how to be poor. Rich people know how to be rich. Formerly poor, currently rich people know how to stop being poor and start being rich. Who do you think is best equipped to advise someone on how to spend their money? Or put it this way. Who is more likely to move up in the world - the one who says, “Never touch your principal”, or the one who says, “Easy come easy go - I haven’t been out to a movie in a long time, and I might get a job offer tomorrow”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\* > When you say that _every single welfare mother in the US_ can get by on $20 per day and needs no more, you are doing exactly that. When you say you know better than any one of them, you are being ignorant at best. > > Give people a little credit to find their own way through life as they deem best. Don’t be such a busybody. > \*\* Since I didn’t say that, I will have to reject your accusation of ignorance. What we were talking about is people whining about how they will starve to death because they cannot withdraw more than twenty bucks per day. If you can’t put together a budget with less than a $20 per diem in pocket money, you got problems that won’t be fixed by letting you blow the wad ten minutes after the welfare checks get cut. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\* > And failing that, please submit your budget to us so that we can dictate your financial situation to you. \*\* And the day I apply for my first welfare check, you will have every right in the world to do so. Until then, the advice flows the other way. If you don’t want the lectures and the unsubtle kicks in the pants to get you to budget, and invest, and play the percentages, get your own money, and spend it however seems right to you. But not on my dime, thankyouverymuch. > [@](#): > > _I been poor, and I been rich. Believe me, honey, rich is better. - Sophie Tucker_ Advising people on how to become the second and avoid the first is hardly being a busybody. You don’t like it? Then spend your own damn money. Until then, you will have to deal with the assumption that I do know better than you. Because I can pay my own bills. If you can’t, you are doing something wrong. And I will tell you what you are wrong about, and take steps to make you fix it, so you can stand on your own two feet like a grown up. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/59 "2003-06-09T18:38:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by misstee \* > \*\*This “crap” is questioning weather or not the recipient actually needs the help. IF you in fact, do need the help, I doubt you are going to have a hard time proving you need it. People will get away with what society will let them get away with. If social workers ( or whomever determines eligibility) do not check into matters they make society a worse place for all of us. Would it be easier on people who apply for welfare of any sorts to just give a phone call, and be handed a check, no questions asked? I am not saying all people who apply for benefits are liars who are trying to defraud the system, I am saying that they should be asked to prove to the system that they do in fact need the help. If they have a medical condition that prevents them from working, they should be seen by a doctor and the doctor should submit his findings to the social worker. \*\* And that is done. My father in law goes through all kinds of very painfull test every couple of years to see if he is still disabled. He has had surgery many times. They have to document the hell out of it. you don’t just get handed a check. ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590/60 "2003-06-09T18:43:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\* > And the day I apply for my first welfare check, you will have every right in the world to do so. > > \*\* More assholishness. Poor people deserve to be scrutinized and told how to spend every dime, but we should give the rich a pass, and indeed a right to privacy. Talk about stripping people of their self worth, dick. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-a-single-mother-need-more-thant-20-00-in-her-wallet/180590.md?page=4)