Kinda long post here; read on if that does not annoy you.
My wife has to refuse middle school lunches to those who don’t bring money. When it becomes chronic, and the kid is hungry every day; after contacting the parents, the child can be placed on administrative benefits regardless if the parent qualifies for aid.
So those who don’t make enough money to pay for kid’s lunches, but do not want to go on “welfare”, gets forced onto free lunch program.
Should we allow the law of natural consequences to get rid of the layabout class? They could all starve for all some people care, while the hurting family decides what to pay for: food, rent, medical bills, insurance. The median income will not cover all of these expenses; even though the median income earners SHOULD be able to modestly get by
Say bye bye to over 50% of our school’s population.
Without wage inflation, lucky duckies MUST take government aid if they want to provide food, medical, housing for their kids. Unless they make 100k/year; unfortunately the median income in our area is around 30k/year.
If you are at the median like we are; it is easy to see that it is not enough; 20k of our income last year went to health insurance/doctor/hospital bills/medication; 12k went to rent. That makes for 0 dollars left for food, gas, insurance, utilities, clothes, dentist(the list goes on); but we want health insurance and a roof over our heads.
Don’t make babies in the first place unless you are able to support them?? Great idea, but do you know what “entertainment” could replace sex as a free pastime?
So the kids are there, regardless of their parents situation, and they need food. The parents are not providing the care(”layabouts”); or they can not financially handle it on their own (lucky duckies).
We take free lunch for our kids, Oregon state health care, and food stamps(all for the first time in my life) for the last few months. And we work, but without medical benefits, we are both looking for a job that would allow us to join in their group insurance. Daunting task given I spoke to a state administrator who says they receive 350 applicants per teaching job opening. So finding better work with higher wages or a benefit plan is not easy. Nevermind a job that also has a pension plan.
Both my wife and I work for the schools; however I am an “at will” employee(sub) and my wife is kept to part time so she gets no bennies either.
Diogenes, what solution(s) do you propose? Drug tests for welfare families I support, but can a politician support such action and still be elected, considering 50 million are on food stamps and out of that 50 million a portion of them are illegal drug users?
Or tie unempoyment to vocational trainings that must be completed or no $$. That would cost as much to implement as it would save by denying benefits to drug users, I would think.
But still, druggies have children too, so I don’t agree that the kids should have to pay for their irresponsible parents that arguably should not have bred in the first place. One poster suggested to me that I was such scum that I should not have procreated. I lost a higher paying job that I had at the time due to medical issues making my job duties too hard to continue. Maybe those without jobs for life should also be sterilized to prevent kids that go without care.(too draconian?) But as I perceive it; for some, pride does not goeth before the falls; and they let their kids go hungry rather than admit they need help. Sometimes my wife breaks the rules and gives a middle schooler a lunch(she throws away a certain amount anyway) because the parent’s pride hath gone over the falls and they would rather let their kids go hungry than recieve benefits.
Now what? What is a ducky to do? Stop being a layabout; feed your kids, don’t be obese, and get a job, loser? Cuz Diogenes(who may have risen above this level of humaness and landed in the group that gets by) seems to not be feeling very charitable about funding welfare programs for the “layabouts”. Trouble is; determining who is really a layabout/druggie/true lazy loser as opposed to who is in an unfortunate situation due to medical expenses, or have become disabled, or not being able to find decent work seems like it would also be costly.
Yank out the safety nets; cancel a program like the food stamp program and watch it morph into soup kitchens and let us see the true level of poverty in this country at the moment. A handy little debit card(SNAP) both helps with the old food stamp stigma and their books of stamps. Also the Food stamp booklets of old were subject to being sold for drugs, etc. And also SNAP helps hide widespread poverty, by keeping its 50 million-ish recipients off the streets. This helps keep the issue of poverty tidily off the streets. Convenient for a politician to not have to say; we have more people on the streets than ever! Instead they can brag that they have kept people off the streets with their social programs.
Would you rather end welfare programs?; Those who felt charitable could feed a hungry family at the offramp. Those not keen on feeding could just avert their haunted gazes and drive away; happily ignoring the hunger, but knowing that your taxes are not going towards feeding the down and out.
No comments:
Post a Comment