Have any of us here been helped by welfare?

I know.

I glad of a couple of things.

#1, that the caseworker was someone who just rattled this off, not caring if we reapplied or not. The fact she did as much as she could, by emphasizing and making sure she was being understood, meant a lot.

#2, I'm glad I was there to hear her. As we were going back to the car, I was saying how glad I was that I knew to keep applying, that we were going to be rejected, that I knew it was going to take time and attention to deadlines.
Wally was like "What?"
I said "Did you hear her when she was saying WHEN we get rejected, to make sure we appealed, and WHEN our appeal was rejected, to get an attorney?"

He said no, he really hadn't heard that, or that she was emphasizing it. For him, it all "well, we put in the paperwork, let's see how it goes"

Funny story George...

At some point, I don't know after which rejection, he had to show up for a phychiatric exam, to see if his physical state was effecting him as far a memory, mental status, etc.

So, we go to this doctors's office, our appointment in the morning, I don't know, maybe 10am
We're sitting at such an angle that the doctor could see both of us at the same time, that I could see both of them at the same time, but that Wally would have to turn his body to see me.
The doc is asking all these questions, sometimes glancing at me for confirmation.
He asks Wally what he had for breakfast that morning, (Wally hardly ever eats breakfast).

Wally says "I didn't have breakfast"
I said "Yes you did"
Wally "I did?"
Me "You don't remember what you had?"
Wally (now looking confused) "No, I don't remember"

I look at the doctor using my "wife look" as if to say "see what I mean?"

When we finished, the doctor printed out a copy of his notes that he was going to send in, for us to have. In the notes it talked about short term memory loss, not remembering a recent meal, etc.

We leave, we're walking out to the car, and Wally asks me "Did I have breakfast?"

I said "**** no, you never eat breakfast"

Valuable post there, Chai.
I think Dys has told me that as well, in some past conversation.

Dys doesn't eat breakfast either?

Ah, that was to an earlier post of yours (click on your name in the light small letters).

(I suspect he has tea and toast..)

Not to bring this topic into tangents, but from most of the anecdotal sharing of information on this thread, we can see how many in the US have been helped by welfare.

What I don't understand is why conservatives are so adamant about not taxing the rich to support this country's children and citizens when the majority of us benefited from the welfare system to create the strongest economy on this planet?

When our government helps the majority, we all benefit to increase our standard of living. Why is this simple concept so difficult to understand for most conservatives?

They want to continue the GW Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - implying that those tax cuts will create jobs. In fact, GW Bush's job creation since his 2001 and 2002 tax cuts resulted in the worst job creation since the Great Depression.

Isn't this obvious? What am I missing?

I agree with you. Problem is the majority (the less than rich) out number the rich and the rich aren't wanting to share the wealth, so to speak.

CI
you are correct.

The taxes rich pay support and help the poor who create the base of society that keeps them rich.

scratch your back , you scratch mine and everyone feels good. its pretty simple

My son is on medicaid and SSI. is medication would be around 12 to 15 hundred a month without it.

Now that's another thing that has totally gotten out of hand, isn't it? People needing medication to help them stay healthy but they can't afford it!

Dys is a cream o' wheat man...

When I was a boy, California had a massive welfare system. It gave my mother money for me and my two full brothers, because my father was not in the state ( she did not know, but he had been killed in 1948) and she had no personal income. It did not give money for my half siblings, because my step father was supposed to support them. That he did not support anybody was not considered in the system, that I know of. After he and my mother broke up, in 1956, he became officially a deadbeat dad. As a consequence, welfare to our family increased to $399 mo. My mother saved as much of that money as she could and moved us to Texas, where all of her family lived. Texas had a welfare system too, but it payed my mother just $99 mo. for twelve months. After that, the family was on its own. I doubt that we would, under the present system, get that much. I believe very strongly in helping the destitute by whatever means is necessary.

edgar, You got that spot on@! Children must be taken care of no matter what condition the family is in, because they are the future of this country. If we have learned any lesson at all after the Great Depression, it's that most families needed government assistance - and they did. That followed with the most successful growth of our economy when the majority had the opportunity to get an education, and become the world's economic powerhouse.

Sadly, conservatives do not want to tax the wealthy to help with our children's education and health care, because that's stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Most conservatives happen to be christians. Why is their politics more important than what they are taught in church?

C.I., I was right with you up until those last two statements. Do you really think it was necessary to add those? Do you know what the bible says pure religion is? It's taking care of the widows and orphans....................so if a person is opposed to doing that, would you really consider them a christian?

even you know, there are christians that oppose that.
They think people should take care of themselves and not ask for handouts
they think "illegal" people are the worst thing on the planet
There are even those that stand behind removing any and all government assistance.

you know they are there. everyone does.

Thank you shewolf; it was better coming from somebody other than myself to answer Arella Mae.

My point was, anyone can claim to be a Christian, but that does not make them one.

C.I., please do not feel you cannot talk to me about this. I don't get nuts about it like I used to. All those talks are in the past. I have no problem with you.

I apologize. I really do not want to interrupt this thread. I am really enjoying the discussion.

Taxes are a social necessity and in the self-interest of it's members.

Public assistance is the obligation of a moral society and in the self-interest of its members.

I can't say I have studied all of the accounts provided on this thread by welfare reciepients, but they certainly seem to represent appropriate and benefical use of public funds in providing a helping hand or even a lifesaver.

If all public assistance stories were like these, I doubt there would be much of a debate about welfare. I'm sure there are some folks out there who believe that charity should be left to private institutions and not be a function of the government, but c'mon, these people are not driving the discussion or anywhere near shaping policy.

I hardly expected anyone to provide a testimonial to how they scammed public assistance, but welfare fraud and abuse is not a myth scandalously perpetrated by mean spirited capitalists.

If any of us are going to contribute our money to helping out people in need, I don't think it's too much to ask that the government that spends that money does it wisely and on the truly needy.

There seems to be an attitude among many that the incidents of abuse and fraud are simply the unavoidable price we have to pay to make sure all the needy are taken care of. I don't buy that.

It's easy to call someone else cheap when you're not being asked to foot the bill.

True, with most government programs, there is fraud. MediCare is notorious for fraud by doctors and hospitals. In the total scheme of things, they are good programs that keep our seniors healthy - all citizens including "poor and middle class" conservatives. Most developed countries take care of their citizens through universal health care. Our country falls at the bottom of the rung when it comes to "living standards."

I can understand that....BUT...

it is not practical, nor is it even reasonable to take the time to attempt to identify those that call them selves christians as 'true' or un-true christians when it comes to legal matters.
They are out there in hoards. Millions of them. And they are directly affecting laws while wearing a cross around their neck. And they are using that cross as an excuse for judgment, hate and close mindedness. They are attempting to run a country based only on their personal views and not considering society as a whole.

If you or anyone else were to stand in front of me today and say that there was a movement to put a law in place from the fundamentalist conservative christian action that was going to directly affect ME, the LAST thing im going to do is worry about who can be called a true christian and who can not . Im going to get up and defend myself how ever possible, religious proof be damned..

Arguing if someone is a true member of a faith when it comes to dealing with the masses is a moot point when dealing with those numbers.

Now, if this were a small neighborhood that was working out a rule? Sure. That could be a legitimate fight to help directly affect the outcome of such a ruling. But we are dealing with about 1/3 of the american population.

Millions...

I love your mother! Actually, my first job out of college was as a welfare case worker. I knew other women just like her.