If you don't have bastard crotch fruit, qualifying for food stamps is difficult.
I've worked fulltime for the past 24 years, but I lost my job 2 years ago. Here in Texas, I can collect food stamps for only 3 months per 3 year period.
This limit is downright punitive for single people who have chosen not to breed irresponsibly.
The GOP says go to a soup kitchen, as you will get three meals a day for free.
R1 jokes aside,can you actually get 3 meals a day?
Yeah, I saw that on CNN tonight.
There was a woman in your same position, and she goes to the local soup kitchen to get her three meals a day.
[quote] Here in Texas
Your problem AND solution can be found in your own post, OP.
I assume it's about the same in every state, no?
they want uneducated poor desperate workers for the future.
Listings for Texas food banks, hopefully you are not far from one.
If I had kids, I could also get housing for free. I'm really starting to resent the way welfare is handled in this country.
Food banks might also help. But you're right, OP. Childless men are afforded precious little by the social safety net. Not fair when it's considered that you've been paying for others' food, schools, and medical care with your taxes for a quarter of a century without asking for help yourself until now.
I hit a rough patch about 2 years ago and here in VA I was given $200/month for 6 months and then could re-apply. Fortunately I found a job before I needed to re-apply.
You can't be so dim as to think the food stamps offered to people with children actually *feeds* them, do you?
You're single and out of work. But it's just you. You could probably earn enough to keep yourself together (or you wouldn't have net access and still be alive after two years). But kids? Really? You think it's wrong to be sure kids, who had no choice in their parents' misfortunes, shouldn't be at the head of the line?
no, its not the same in every state. Red states especially are hard on every one--just like their rejection of expanding Medicaid as part of the ACA. Poor and unemployed people suffer a great deal more in those states with Republican governors and legislatures.
I agree with r13. People with kids should have access to nutritious food. You can live on ramen noodles. You are an adult. If a child did the same, they would have serious growth and development issues.
[quote]You think it's wrong to be sure kids, who had no choice in their parents' misfortunes, shouldn't be at the head of the line?
I think it is more about no one should be at the back of the line.
Your only hope is to get the fuck out of Texas
[quote]You think it's wrong to be sure kids, who had no choice in their parents' misfortunes, shouldn't be at the head of the line?
That implies that OP and other childfree adults who have suffered this misfortune, DID have a choice to be unlucky.
Besides that, OP makes a good point that it's punishing to those who have made the responsible choice to NOT bring kids into this situation.
Get a job, hippie.
I'm trying to get a job. I average 2 interviews a week. Why don't you tell those whores with their multiple bastards to get jobs? After all, their day care is free.
Also, where are all the deadbeat fathers? Make them feed their own goddamn kids so their growth isn't stunted.
OP, your anger and frustration is understandable, but you are making it hard to feel sympathy for you.
Other than ranting about and blaming women and children for your problem, can you at least acknowledge the posts that are attempting to help you?
I think it's cute that op thinks housing, daycare and food a free for poor parents. The wait lists on those deals are decades long in my state.
OP...we get it, blaming kids is not your answer. Food banks do not discriminate. Go, feel no shame and get some food.
Back in the day men got more. But thank the GOP. You need a stable work history. I suggest temp work.
Yes, I thank the posters who have helped me. I will check out the food banks.
What is bastard crotch fruit?
OP has been subsidizing other people all his working life, as has been pointed out. Fathers should provide for their children. In their absence, due to death or disability, a social welfare net should attempt to fill the gap.
But that works in the case of tragedy.
When you have generations of baby-daddies and -mommas who seem to think that the State is obligated to provide for their children, -in loco- of the father, an emergency substitute becomes an enabler of irresponsible behavior.
You have women who are mothers at 15, grandmothers at 30, great-grandmas at 45, believing that it's required that the State replaces the breadwinner in their families. The State is financed by responsible people, who might have limited their own families, while they are subsidizing the poor behavior of others.
That is as unfair as the plight of a fatherless child. When the emergency fill-in became "I'm owed this", the cart went ahead of the horse.
It's unfair that resources OP might have emergency need of have been consumed by people who have been socialized and educated to expect that they are owed those assets, or that that the existence of those assets exempt them from paying for their children's needs.
Boo and hiss, but no society can sustain itself in the long term with that mentality.
Destigmatizing unwed motherhood was a kindness, but we overcorrected.
R28 its the system of enabling. I feel bad for Op , buy its so many that get it and have that mentality you speak of. I only support food stamps for the elderly & disabled
I used to volunteer at a food bank and they will give out food with no questions asked. I never quite knew why people bitched about food stamps so much when they could just go to the food bank.
R28, your speech sounds like something straight out of the Republican Talking Points handbook. Goddamn succubi bleeding us hard-working 'Muricans dry!
OP, just to clarify: you worked full-time for 24 years and you've *already* gone through your savings? Didn't you get unemployment checks as well? And you can't find even *temp* work in a state where the capital city has an unemployment rate of a mere 5%?
Sounds like the problem here isn't "bastard crotch fruit," hon.
Thumbs up for 28 and 29. I worked in the welfare systems for years. Believe the stereotype that most people feel get all types of public assistance are the ones that do get it.
I can certainly understand the original posters frustration.
[quote] I average 2 interviews a week.
That's all? Lazy!
Those dollars now reduced from food stamps were dollars that went back into the economy. The GOP are idiots, corporate welfare and defense dollars don't go anywhere except ceo's bonuses.
What's bastard crotch fruit?
That may be so in Texas, OP, but not in California.
[quote] I assume it's about the same in every state, no?
No. SNAP and other programs providing financial assistance to purchase food are ultimately administered, at least in California, on the county level. So regulations and the like vary by location.
Bastard crotch fruit = children?
There is a segment of the US known as the "undeserving poor" made up of unemployed males between the ages of 18 and 65.
Presumably able-bodied, unemployed men are the biggest insult to this bean counter society.
It's incredibly amusing how the same people who rant endlessly about lazy welfare mothers and their worthless spawn and all the vile government programs they use to rob honest white taxpayers like themselves blind NEVER hesitate for one moment to stick their hands out and DEMAND the government provide for them the moment their beloved private sector boots them out on their worthless asses.
They NEVER ask their wonderful, magical, all-problem-solving private sector for a penny. They know better. But they're irate when the ebil gubmint doesn't immediately hand over cash prizes the way they do for all the welfare queens they see carting their steak and lobsters home in their Obammy-issued Cadillacs.
Unlike your cohort here, I don 't pity you in the least, OP. You're getting the government you wanted, and unlike your hero Ayn Rand, it doesn't look like you'll get to have your cake and eat it too. But at least your taxes are low, right?
R40 is such a drama queen. I have always voted a Dem. ticket and I have always despised breeders who have children they can't afford.
Oh, you're a lifetime Demon- I mean Democrat! The story just gets more hilarious the more you add.
Of course, having children you can't afford isn't the only to end up needing hand-outs, is it? But then, you know that.
OP, Texas doesn't want you. They're trying to push your welfare onto another state. You're worth tax money as long as you're employed. Without that, you're worthless to them.
Blue cities complain about their swelling number of unemployed and homeless people. They've established and maintained better social safety nets that draw unemployed people from less hospitable areas of the country.
Does your area have a "workforce" development center? Some counties create these centers that work with corporations looking for tax incentives by hiring people such as yourself. You have to show up, though.
Defense should be cut. How'many war ships do we need? How many $200 nails & bolts do we need?
I'm also a democrat who agrees with OP, but I'm a straight woman who has chosen not to have children because I never found a partner with whom I would want to raise a child and I did not want to have a child when I knew that I could not afford to raise one on my own.
My friend (a gay guy) and I were discussing this last night. We see all the poor people who keep plopping out child after child after child, when they know that they cannot afford to raise them. I can see having a poor person having one child, but 3,4 5 or more? WTF?
I really think that in order for a straight woman (or man) to be on public assistance that they must voluntarily use birth control in order to receive benefits. Don't they have a birth control for women that is inserted into the skin and it works for some-odd months?
Sigh. I guess I'm not as liberal as I used to be...
I'd be curious to see the percentage of "welfare" mom there are collecting $$$ for their children. I bet it's not as bad as we think it is.
My mom, who is 83 yrs old, gets food stamps, subsidized housing (which is nice, not a hell hole), medicare, an aid that helps her daily - all paid by the government.
There is something that gets the average person's goat about welfare moms - that pop out kids, without any regard on how they'll pay for them. The whole "ghetto" mentality (white/black/whatever) is just annoying (although I do see the bigger picture).
I have a drug addicted cousin with five kids with different men. She is only 30. She gets welfare, but it is barely enough to get by. It isn't like she is living in the lap of luxury. She will never get off drugs. I don't know what she would do without benefits...I suppose the kids would have to go into foster care where they would more than likely be abused (and the government would still have to pay the foster family). I'm sure it's cheaper to pay welfare than foster care, by the time you factor in the administrative costs associated with the foster care program. She finally got her tubes tied after the fifth child, thank goodness.
[quote] You have women who are mothers at 15, grandmothers at 30, great-grandmas at 45.
It's like evolution on high speed.
r47, I have a cousin like that. The problem wasn't just that she was on welfare, the problem was her irresponsibility. She was pregnant while continuing to drink and the kids were born with damages to them. She wasn't able to care for them. She hooked up with loser guys. She is sober now, but one of her sons she claims is a sociopath. I suspect the way he turned out has a lot to do with her alcohol abuse both physically and emotionally.
I feel really bad for your cousins kids.
I am not against welfare, I am really pissed at people like our cousins though.
[quote]I used to volunteer at a food bank and they will give out food with no questions asked. I never quite knew why people bitched about food stamps so much when they could just go to the food bank.
Don't food banks run out of food? Aren't they based mostly on donations?
[quote]Believe the stereotype that most people feel get all types of public assistance are the ones that do get it.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that social programs are generally insufficient, but give a bit more when kids are involved.
Then again, OP's use of the phrase "bastard crotch fruit" is so offensive that I can't wish him well. No extra benefits are extended because a kid's parents are unmarried. And I use the word "kid" instead of "child" because I wanted it clear that I don't revere children (except my own), but "crotch fruit" is a revolting term.
[quote]I have a drug addicted cousin with five kids with different men. She is only 30. She gets welfare, but it is barely enough to get by. It isn't like she is living in the lap of luxury. She will never get off drugs.
Sometimes I think forced sterilization and work camps are the answer.
R46, in which state does your mom live?
Thank God that even in the poor are like crabs in a barrel, clawing at others that they judge to be worse than them. Keeps them nice and divided.
I will never understand why people have kids when they cannot afford them. When I was in my early 20's and just starting out in the working world I could barely afford to take care of myself, so having a child was not even an option at that time.
New York r55
Thanks, I hear social services in NY state are the best in the nation.
If you hadn't stupidly decided to live in a cesspool like Texas, you'd probably receive more humane treatment.
Are there no prisons? No workhouses?
[quote]I have always despised breeders who have children they can't afford.
Me too. I say, ABORTION ON DEMAND! ABORTION ON DEMAND! ABORTION ON DEMAND!
It doesn't bother me at all.
On the other hand, children actually ARE our future, and will be paying our Social Security checks, so it behooves us to ensure that they are as healthy, and educated as possible, regardless of how irresponsible their parents may be.
" bastard crotch fruit"?
Say, you wouldn't happen to be the originator of the "I like brown people when they're servile" thread, would you?
[quote]On the other hand, children actually ARE our future,
I told you so.
R49, my cousin's first three children were born addicted to drugs (cocaine). CPS threatened to take them all at one point, and I offered to take one. I couldn't take more than one as a single person. Even one would have been a struggle, because I don't know what kind of emotional issues they are dealing with. She told me that she didn't want the kids to be separated. It makes me so sad, but I am not about to take in five kids with issues. I am not a saint.
I am bumping this troll's first thread so you pay his new one little mind.
OP out of work for 2 years....he MUST be a total fucking loser. People who sit on their fat fucking ass and complain about limited welfare can kiss my working man ass!!!
Life is good over here! I'm living the California dream!
OP, you are a poster boy for the Tea Party. They believe that single men should be able to find work under all circumstances and that providing them any benefits will just make them lazy.
This term is so horrible. Children should not be referred to this way.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...