Providers on WIC

[sky_wire]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Put her in jail and do WHAT with her kids?

Feed them to the poor?

[LazurusLong]

Originally Posted by sky_wire

Feed them to the poor?

Sounds like quite the Modest Proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

[hotlips_houlihan]

Originally Posted by mansfield

WIC covers quite a bit more than that. It is supposed to be items mainly for pregnant or breast feeding women, infants, and children under 5 but there is a lot of standard grocery stuff included as well.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wichd/WI...e-brochure.pdf

I only say this to show an example of how a system slowly expands over time, moving away from its original intended purpose. The list is now quite a bit more expansive than just "stuff for babies".

Well, I know it covers more than just what I mentioned. But I disagree. It has not gotten away from it's original intended purpose. The purpose was to supplement for women, infants, and children. They have finally given the kids more to eat than just cheese. Now they have peanut butter and eggs, and juice, etc. It's taken the system a long time to catch up to the food groups.

This topic actually goes back to the fact that men think providers make an outlandish amount of money all the time (some do, most don't), therefore do not qualify for any assistance. I know people who cheat the system for real and it pisses me off. I see people who really need the help and can't get it. That pisses me off even more. There is good and bad in every situation. But children should not have to suffer just because it's parents make bad decisions. They didn't ask to be brought into this world. I'd rather they get their government cheese, milk, peanut butter and cereal than to have to hear another child died of starvation.

Respectfully,

Meg

[mansfield]

But children should not have to suffer just because it's parents make bad decisions. They didn't ask to be brought into this world. I'd rather they get their government cheese, milk, peanut butter and cereal than to have to hear another child died of starvation.

But the problem is that many mothers, since things get taken care of anyway, suffer no consequences for their poor choices. In fact, it's often better for them to have MORE kids to put into the system.

No one is suggesting we ignore starving children but the idea that people can make all the poor decisions they want and the tax payer will simply bail them out later is disgusting, and will collapse this system. It's supposed to be for people in NEED, not want. If you can afford cigarettes for yourself you are not in the NEED category yet. If you buy cigarettes at the expense of feeding your children you shouldn't be rewarded for that with free food for the kids so your money is again available for smokes.

Solving these problems is hard, but it has to be done or the system will fail and then you really will have starving children and NO way to help them. That's where we are headed.

[Randy4Candy]

gawd....DAMN! Hope you goofy bastids don't get a permanent crick in your neck from looking down your noses at people.

I'm still waiting for the Enron fucktards to pay up...and we won't even get into the shitheels who screwed up the financial sector from 1998-2008.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

gawd....DAMN! Hope you goofy bastids don't get a permanent crick in your neck from looking down your noses at people.

I'm still waiting for the Enron fucktards to pay up...and we won't even get into the shitheels who screwed up the financial sector from 1998-2008.

Neck feels great. 1,000's of Enron people lost everything because of a few crooks. I agree on the banking crooks and the politicians who enabled them.

The dude in front of me at HEB that pays for 50lb's of beef steaks,pork and chicken. 2 gallons of milk. 3 dozen eggs. Plus a lot more stuff I can not afford. With a Lone Star card. Pisses me off. But I just pay for my loaf of bread and a 6oz pk of salami. go back to work like a good Zombie. LOL

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by mansfield

But the problem is that many mothers, since things get taken care of anyway, suffer no consequences for their poor choices.

Give me a fuckin' break. Just because the government helps feed poor people's children doesn't absolve women from the consequences of having kids early in life. When women have kids early, especially when they can't afford it, 95 times out of 100, their life is fucked up beyond all recognition whether the child is fed or not. Pretending that providing a little help feeding the kid means that they "suffer no consequences" is beyond ridiculous.

Once a woman has a child she cannot afford and who the father will not support, she is more often than not done with her education. She cannot afford day care. She is discriminated against in the job market because employers, despite the law, figure (accurately) that she'll have to take off lots because of the kid. She is more likely to be fired because of inadequate or unaffordable day care. She is no longer as an attractive candidate on the dating market because she has a kid fathered by some deadbeat. She often can't afford reliable transportation. Depending on her family's religious beliefs, she often looses what little family support she has. And I could go on.

So getting a little bit of WIC doesn't mean that she "suffer[s] no consequences for [he] poor choices." That's a load of "compassionate conservative" bullshit.

[mansfield]

Pretending that providing a little help feeding the kid means that they "suffer no consequences" is beyond ridiculous.

I personally know of several mothers who factored the available asistance into their decision to have more children.

One of them, my stepsister, has made a nice living working this system. Her attitude was, I'm a single mother and not attractive on the dating market so I better have more kids to keep some money coming in. You can stop with the politics, this is real life. You know for a fact that there are many people abusing this system and that there are few repercussions for doing it.

To deny that is either dishonesty or blindness. Your answers to nearly all of these posts have been political party platform answers, not reality. You are desperately trying to make this into a Republican vs Democrat conversation and it simply isn't.

Once a woman has a child she cannot afford and who the father will not support, she is more often than not done with her education. She cannot afford day care. She is discriminated against in the job market because employers, despite the law, figure (accurately) that she'll have to take off lots because of the kid. She is more likely to be fired because of inadequate or unaffordable day care.

At least in one case that I personally know of, all of those things are incorrect. My stepsister experiences exactly the opposite. She has access to better daycare, healthcare, and job placement assistance than my wife and I did when we started out, both working starting career jobs. More by leaps and bounds. She has agencies lined up to help her.

Since I have no political agenda here I'm done with this, it's a pointless discussion.

[TexTushHog]

So your stepsister is better off having had the kid(s)? Or would she have been better off going to college, establishing herself in a profession, and waiting until she was in her mid 30's and largely out of debt to have her kids like reasonable people do?

[Guest0220]

I'm sure she only buys the cigarettes to increase funding for the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The lotto? Just doing her part to contribute to the Foundation School Fund to support public education in our state.

She sounds like a do-good-er to me.

[Randall Creed]

Oh, please. Getting pregnant on purpose to 'milk' the system is a DUMB way to milk it. Being some millionaire CEO tycoon not paying taxes on insane profits, as wrong as it is to do it, is the smarter way to milk it. Having kids for that purpose is just irresponsible, and you're still on the bottom of society's totem pole. The tycoons are going on vacations to Hawaii and have 2-3 homes across the country. Baby mama has an OK house (one house) and an SUV with rims and a fancy stereo. Tycoon has a private plane or always flies first class. Baby mama has never left the state she was born in. Tycoon will retire with millions. Baby mama is a grandma by the time she's 40, and the cycle continues.

Hmmm. Which path would I want to take.


Oh, this is a toughie.

[mansfield]

Originally Posted by TTH

So your stepsister is better off having had the kid(s)? Or would she have been better off going to college, establishing herself in a profession, and waiting until she was in her mid 30's and largely out of debt to have her kids like reasonable people do?

I didn't say she was better off, I said this is how she has decided to live her life. We're not talking about an overabundance of intelligence here.

Laziest path wins, and when there is someone standing there holding free stuff, guess which way lazy people choose?

Originally Posted by Rambo

Oh, please. Getting pregnant on purpose to 'milk' the system is a DUMB way to milk it.

Of course it's dumb. Doesn't mean it isn't done. Apparently you guys think everyone on some kind of government program is an unemployed PhD who just needs a little help getting it back together. There are people who genuinely need help, and there are people who are simply lazy and think they have found that pot at the end of the rainbow. The problem comes when the system either can't, or more often won't, try to weed out those who are abusing it. It's all about "fairness", whatever that means.



Public education is a great example of that. My brother is a high school English teacher. He has a student who is a seriously gifted artist. VERY good. Can barely read, but could make a fortune in the art world. But, it's a low income school and he is not allowed to encourage art and discourage other subjects because that is considered "tracking" and that district says tracking is "racially and economically biased" so you can't find what kids are good at and encourage it, have to make it all fair. If one student made money at art and another can't then that's bias. Of course, the day after graduation it all falls apart when reality hits and these kids wonder why they can't find work. "Can you weld?" "No but I read Canterbury Tales once". Alrighty, french fry machine is over there. Glad you were treated fairly in school.


All of these systems spend so much time worrying about what is fair they can't spend any time worrying what is right. So, you get people who either abuse the system, or are failed by the very system that's supposed to help them. You're not really surprised at any of this are you? You're acting like this is front page news.

Entitlement systems in every country on earth have a percentage of people who abuse them. Why is it bad to suggest that maybe those people should be kept out of that system?

[Guest061312-1]

Originally Posted by hotlips_houlihan

What we do isn't easy. If all she got herself was a scratch off and a pack of cigarettes to reward herself for sucking your dick, well good for her! At least she didn't go pick up any other type of vice.

AMEN, SISTER!!!!

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by mansfield

I didn't say she was better off, I said this is how she has decided to live her life. We're not talking about an overabundance of intelligence here.

Laziest path wins, and when there is someone standing there holding free stuff, guess which way lazy people choose?



Of course it's dumb. Doesn't mean it isn't done. Apparently you guys think everyone on some kind of government program is an unemployed PhD who just needs a little help getting it back together. There are people who genuinely need help, and there are people who are simply lazy and think they have found that pot at the end of the rainbow. The problem comes when the system either can't, or more often won't, try to weed out those who are abusing it. It's all about "fairness", whatever that means.



Public education is a great example of that. My brother is a high school English teacher. He has a student who is a seriously gifted artist. VERY good. Can barely read, but could make a fortune in the art world. But, it's a low income school and he is not allowed to encourage art and discourage other subjects because that is considered "tracking" and that district says tracking is "racially and economically biased" so you can't find what kids are good at and encourage it, have to make it all fair. If one student made money at art and another can't then that's bias. Of course, the day after graduation it all falls apart when reality hits and these kids wonder why they can't find work. "Can you weld?" "No but I read Canterbury Tales once". Alrighty, french fry machine is over there. Glad you were treated fairly in school.


All of these systems spend so much time worrying about what is fair they can't spend any time worrying what is right. So, you get people who either abuse the system, or are failed by the very system that's supposed to help them. You're not really surprised at any of this are you? You're acting like this is front page news.

Entitlement systems in every country on earth have a percentage of people who abuse them. Why is it bad to suggest that maybe those people should be kept out of that system?

At least they all get lots of mandatory Texas History drilled into their brains. That's sure to be a differentiator when looking for a job!