Lawmaker: On welfare? No beer or HBO for you

[AZRedhawk44]

Ummm. . . Take that, and do this with it.

I have no problem with a 100% of gun owners being prohibited from smoking and drinking while on the job ("gun owner" means no alcohol in the house and no smoking households).  Just not a big deal, IMO.

See how easy that is? Its funny how some here would limit others freedom in just because it seems right to them. Do you guys know another groups that do that?
 
Why should foster parents be banned from drinking alcohol? (I get the no smoking in the household thing, but surly they can smoke outside the household right?)

Sigh.

Take the blinders off, please.

Foster parents are NOT a hindrance to meaningful welfare and food stamp reform.  Solving problems related to their compensation for caring for a ward of the state is not difficult.

And... up in WA state, foster parents that worked with our agency were required to not smoke in the house, to keep firearms (and in some cases even scissors/knives) secured (more so than just regular old parents), to keep alcohol and prescription meds secured and to maintain a vigilant care of the kids under their custodianship.  I worked for a subcontractor to CPS called Pierce County Alliance and we got the worst of the worst, most screwed up kids with backgrounds of violence, drug abusive parents, sexually abusive parents and so on.  The foster parents were screened VERY carefully.

Working with kids like these is not a casual job.  The financial compensation is most definitely not worth it.  I had one foster family that I ended up recommending we remove a kid from that environment, because the foster parents were not supportive enough of the kid and didn't put in the necessary work.  I remember them complaining about the loss of household revenue after that.

That kid ended up moving on to a fantastic foster family that were actually there to help rehabilitate kids in this program.  Yeah, they got compensated... but it doesn't pay enough to account for food/utilities/floor space and family oriented activities you might do with the kid.  You do foster care because you want to help these kids out and it gives you pleasure to do so.

The moral of this long-winded post is that foster parent compensation is easily re-routed... and that foster parents that would complain about a different format for compensation, or a few niggling restrictions on household items, probably shouldn't be foster parents in the first place.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Ummm. . . Take that, and do this with it.

I have no problem with a 100% of gun owners being prohibited from smoking and drinking while on the job ("gun owner" means no alcohol in the house and no smoking households).  Just not a big deal, IMO.

See how easy that is? Its funny how some here would limit others freedom in just because it seems right to them. Do you guys know another groups that do that?
 
Why should foster parents be banned from drinking alcohol? (I get the no smoking in the household thing, but surly they can smoke outside the household right?)

100% of gun owners are not getting regular gov. checks to pay for stuff. some may, but thats not the point. we're talking about foster parents.
the gov. is paying them to raise children (and as blondie pointed out a lot of these kids have some pretty serious issues) and i would say has a reasonable expectation of making rules for how these kids are raised, including being able to dictact what kind of envirnoment the children are in.

i would agree that perhaps banning them from smoking and drinking would eliminate some good foster parents that perhaps have a cigerette a day or like a glass of wine with dinner, but i think the point with this is not having these things where the kids have access, and someone like that, if they wanted to be a foster parent, would willingly eliminate from their daily lifestyle.

and hank, that word is one of my devils. thats the only way i seem to automatically type it, but it frustrates me with spell check since it actually IS a word.
i see its missspelled. i know its misspelled. i can't figure out why its misspelled. and unless i stop and consult a dictionary, which takes time and frustration for me, its gonna stay misspelled since most of you are smart enough to figure it out. 

[taurusowner]

Would it be too much for me to say that I think the people in Ambulancedriver's story should be shot?

[Boomhauer]

Would it be too much for me to say that I think the people in Ambulancedriver's story should be shot?

I see the exact situations Ambulancedriver sees all the damn time. ALL THE TIME. I can't stand these aholes!

I've also been in stores beyond some 20 or 30 something person with a cartload of namebrand/top quality groceries, paying for them with that magical card and then walking out to a brand new car. I've seen where the person will have a bag of dog food, but upon learning it isn't eligible for the EBT card, take it back and get a couple of ribeyes for the dog, and then sashay out to their new car.

[Seenterman]

Take the blinders off, please.

Foster parents are NOT a hindrance to meaningful welfare and food stamp reform.  Solving problems related to their compensation for caring for a ward of the state is not difficult.

Who has blinders? Did you even read what I wrote? What I wrote had nothing to do with food stamp reform. You stated that foster parents shouldn't be allowed have alcohol in the house.

I have no problem with a 100% on-call-all-the-time guardian of a ward of the state being prohibited from smoking and drinking while on the job ("foster parent" means no alcohol in the house and no smoking households).  Just not a big deal, IMO.

And I asked why? And I implied that it seemed hypocritical coming from an (assumed) gun owner, when some people would consider firearms an unacceptable risk in a household with children. What would you say if a foster agency required that a household be disarmed in order for it to place a child in that home? Obviously there is a difference, being that firearms are Constitutionally protected but it all boils down to responsibility and personal choice.

. . . and that foster parents that would complain about a different format for compensation, or a few niggling restrictions on household items, probably shouldn't be foster parents in the first place.

Yes I understand that, but the whole purpose of my comment was that is seemed hypocritcal for a gun owner to advocate banning a item from a home for no obvious reason. Its practically the battle cry of the Brady's "It's for the children!"

[BlueStarLizzard]

Who has blinders? Did you even read what I wrote? What I wrote had nothing to do with food stamp reform. You stated that foster parents shouldn't be allowed have alcohol in the house.

And I asked why? And I implied that it seemed hypocritical coming from an (assumed) gun owner, when some people would consider firearms an unacceptable risk in a household with children. What would you say if a foster agency required that a household be disarmed in order for it to place a child in that home? Obviously there is a difference, being that firearms are Constitutionally protected but it all boils down to responsibility and personal choice.

Yes I understand that, but the whole purpose of my comment was that is seemed hypocritcal for a gun owner to advocate banning a item from a home for no obvious reason. Its practically the battle cry of the Brady's "It's for the children!"

the children are wards of the state, which means the state has the right to dictate how they are raised, just like you have the right to dictate how your children are raised.

we are talking about banning items from the homes of people who VOLEENTARLY open their homes to the state for inspection based on the fact that these homeowners and citizens are applying for the right to work for the governement by taking the governments wards into their homes.

now, do we have to have all of those who work for the government, in any capacity, on this board come on here and tell all the stories of the restrictions and requirments they must obey while "on the job"?

foster parents go "on the job" 24-7, with their homes being the workplace.

and these restrictions are not "for no obvious reason." it has been pointed out that foster parents are often agreeing to take in children from backgrounds very diffrent from children generally not in foster care. for some reason, these children no longer have legal gaurdians from there own families. many of those reasons are because those families could not/would not raise them in a safe manner and the kids, understandably have issues, including Post tramatic stress, tendancies for violence, drug abuse issues, clinical depression and much much more.
which means special considerations to prevent them (the children) harming themselves and others.

now, if you have issues with how the governement dictacts the raising of its wards, then that is for another theater of disscussion.

[KD5NRH]

I see the exact situations Ambulancedriver sees all the damn time. ALL THE TIME. I can't stand these aholes

I used to run into them a lot when I worked pest control, since property managers would send us out so we could come back and give it to them in writing that we would not warranty our pest control services while the renters had not-quite-empty beer bottles and rotting food strewn around and a half-dozen or more animals living in the house.  Invariably these were the same houses with garage-sale-reject toys and worn-out clothes for the kids, while the parents had the latest game system hooked up to a big screen TV.

[alex_trebek]

I was standing in line at the grocery store the other day. As usual I wasn't paying too much attention, until there seemed to be a dispute between the cashier and customer ahead of myself.

They were disagreeing about v8 juice being covered under Wic (sp?). Apparently only the low sodium variety is covered in these parts, and she had the correct one. This abnormality peeked my curiousity, and that's when I noticed the food stamps (wic if there is a difference). As soon as she realized I noticed the food stamps, her face turned bright red and she rushed out of the store (after completing tthe transaction).

I don't think I made a face or any gesture of judgement, I think she was simply embarrassed or ashamed.  It was nice to see someone who dislikes being in this position, hopefully she will find a way to a better life.

I thought I would share it before too many negative stories are posted.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'm gonna post a personal experience here now of the flipside.

Sadly, I have seen entirely too many of the abusers of the system.

However, for a long time, my family was really really hurting.  My family moved up from Brazil in 1987.  Dad was a very successful mechanical engineer in Brazil.  We left because the Brazilian economy was getting clobbered.   Inflation was at over 1000% per year (Yes, ONE THOUSAND PERCENT inflation).  We simply couldn't afford to live there anymore.  So we moved to the US (Mom is an American citizen). 

When we arrived, Dad couldn't find work.  Most places claimed he was over-qualified (one of the worst insults he ever got, people saying he'd do the job too well) or simply weren't hiring engineers.  So he did what he could.  Delivered pizzas, did mechanic work, whatever he could do to put food on the table and a roof over our heads.  Mom did the same.  They both worked their butts off.   But it wasn't enough to make ends meet.  So they had to get some assistance.  Mostly was food stamps.  Dad ended up on unemployment a couple times when work was too thin and he'd get laid off.  But they did EVERYTHING they could to minimize the amount of time they spent on it, and only to apply when it was completely unavoidable. 

I think this is why I have such a vehement reaction to those who abuse the system.  Because I know how much my parents hated receiving government assistance.  And I hate the thought that I get hammered on taxes every month in order for these parasites, these leeches, to sit on their asses and get paid.

[BridgeRunner]

WIC is not foodstamps.  WIC is not even specifically a low-income program. 

I'm sorry I even brought up the foster care thing.  That is one very limited part of the issue at hand.  But, since that can of worms has been opened, on the thread drift part, I'd like to point out again that a LOT of foster placements are with families.  These are people taking in kids because they have a relative who, for any number of reasons, cannot care for their kid(s).  No, I don't think those people should have to conform to unnecessary conditions that are not rationally related to providing good care for the kids. 

[seeker_two]

I'd like to thank Rep. Frank Antenori for helping me choose my post-retirement career.....selling booze & cigs to welfare recipients on the underground market.... 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I would be so ashamed at being eligible for food stamps that I probably wouldn't use them. Maybe we need to bring back shame.

Yup.  People should be ashamed to be on the dole.  

We have it backwards right now.  It's socially incorrect to look ill upon someone taking public assistance.  That needs to change.  As taxpayers, we should have every moral and social right to be unhappy with the people consuming the product of our labors.  That includes both the politicians who make the laws, and the average individuals who choose to take our money as if they had a right to it.  Both are culpable.

Welfare should be something people feel an urge to hide.  If we could get to this point we'd be a long way towards fixing our country's biggest problems.

[Monkeyleg]

Two of my wife's closest friends are on public assistance to some degree or another. My next door neighbor, who has a house much, much nicer than mine, was on food stamps when he was laid off. When he got back to work, he found county programs to subsidize new windows and siding for his house, and a new garage (lead paint, you see).

The neighbor has four very nice vehicles, and a motorcycle. My wife's friends live fairly well. We're not talking welfare queens here. I can only conclude that there's a sizable chunk of the middle class that's getting our tax dollars, too.

[Grandpa Shooter]

I have had this discussion for many years now and it seems to come back to the same thing.  Welfare is so entrenched in our society it is now a part of the social fabric.  We have the working poor, the working middle class, and the non working middle class (recipients of the redistributed wealth of the Nation).  Just as we have taught our children that it is expected that they will work and contribute to the general well being of the society, those who have made a life of collecting the redistributed wealth, have coached their children in how to survive in what they consider to be a hostile environment.  Until we can teach people that contributing is a higher and more rewarding goal, those who make a living by collecting will continue to do so.

My Lady says they need to re-learn pride, the opposite of shame.  I must say I agree.

Monkeyleg said,

The neighbor has four very nice vehicles, and a motorcycle. My wife's friends live fairly well. We're not talking welfare queens here. I can only conclude that there's a sizable chunk of the middle class that's getting our tax dollars, too.

We have the working poor, the working middle class, and the non working middle class (recipients of the redistributed wealth of the Nation).  Yup, and as long as there are programs which redistribute the wealth created by the productive portion of society, there will always be folks who figure out how to abuse it, or stretch it beyond its intended purpose.

I worked in social welfare many, many moons ago and left because social programs are inherently self perpetuating.  As Tallpine put it and I paraphrase, "Do you think the social workers are going to turn in their customers?"  Nope, it won't happen.  Without a dependent portion of society, they won't have jobs.  Bureaucracies grow on apathy and complacency.