It Doesn’t Pay to Work.

[Jim Corrigan]

But it isn't "their money." It's always owned by the Federal Reserve. And if they received that money even though their private business failed, workers were laid off, but because of a Federal Government bail-out, the millionaires still made theirs, you are damn right I deserve some of that money. At least, if you are a conservative.

It's not that people weren't wealthy before governments, it's that governments protect the wealth of the wealthy. Government provides business incentives, including tax free land use, grants and loans, no-bid contracts, infrastructure that aids all trade, EDUCATION, etc. The notion that government does nothing to aid wealth creation, only takes from some sort of "wealth pool" is just plain wrong. The thought that the private sector could do a better job is a viable argument, but you have to agree that governments could do a better job as well. Just like the private sector could fail miserably.

I guess the Louisiana Purchase, the Erie Canal, and the Panama Canal did nothing to create wealth. What are you defining as wealth?

 

[Jim Corrigan]

So, a business that uses a trade route that was created by a government gets all the credit? The government doesn't print money. That power has been privatized. I define wealth not only as capital gains, but a standard of living. Government certainly raises the standard of living. Also, it's hard to say that the FDIC doesn't protect citizens monetary wealth.

 

[RickN]

It comes down to this, business can exist without government but government can not exist without business. And yes you do own your money. It is yours and even the government says so. They may own the token used to express it, but the value behind it is yours.

 

[LightningCrash]

You never said anything about single with a child, single with a child would suck paying daycare but keep one thing in mind. A child in a one parent home usually has another parent paying child support and a good portion of daycare cost as well. The girlfriend did not have health insurance at the time and my son was covered under my insurance. My grandpa drove one point home when I was young and that was "Never buy anything you can't pay for right then and don't live beyond your means." These days people tend to spend every last dime on frivolous junk and then complain that they are broke so they go apply for all sorts of aid. I can't begin to tell you how many people I have seen buying crap with their foodstamps and see them plus their five kids with Iphone 5's. People lack the initiative to better their lots in life these days because alot of them get a damn near free ride from the gov now. I'm not saying this is the case for ALL aid recipients, but I bet it is for damn well half of them.

We did say single, working earning 29K with a child... that's the premise of the entire thread. Receiving child support would count as nontaxable income and count towards the $29K for eligibility purposes in these programs.

I've seen people who seem to have their priorities out of whack and had brand-new Android phones when paying with food stamps, but if I speculate on their representation in the system it would be just that.
My grandma grew up in the depression and still saves wrapping paper from any gifts you give her. Hooray for anecdotes.

 

[LightningCrash]

Child support is not figured into the equation on benefits.

According to their policy, OKDHS counts it as income against the parent.
See policy 340:50-7-29. Income inclusions

Please stay on topic.

 

[ez bake]

According to their policy, OKDHS counts it as income against the parent.
See policy 340:50-7-29. Income inclusions

Please stay on topic.

You're F$#@!ing up everyone's anger-boner with facts man. Nobody is looking for facts (or apparently clicking on the links in that article to see the actual sources of the data and how they've been skewed to spin the story).

It's us against them and "they" are welfare recipients which is synonymous with welfare abusers - and all of those are lifers despite the fact that less than half of welfare recipiants have been on welfare for more than 2 years (and less than half of those have been on it for more than 5 years).

I'll say it again - the welfare system is broken (everybody knows that) but do we really need to spin and skew facts to prove this? If so, then we're discrediting our own arguments.

 

[ez bake]

I have witnessed people being told that child support is not calculated as income and I know several women whose child support is not calculated in as income.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Jim Corrigan]

I think it's kinda funny how one of the most often used talking points against welfare recipients is the old "I've seen people on welfare with fancy cell-phones and Nike shoes!"

You do realize without out-of-control, rampant consumerism (see Black Friday) this nation doesn't do so well. That's kinda all we have now. I'm not saying we should all go out and buy crap, but buying crap is the only way liquidity stays in the markets as we've tainted them.

 

[LightningCrash]

The discussion is on topic, policy doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Hooray for another incoming anecdote! I have witnessed people being told that child support is not calculated as income and I know several women whose child support is not calculated in as income. I have first hand knowledge and insight into how DHS operates and I can promise you that you have a incorrect idea of how it all goes down.

I called to substantiate your claim, and they said child support documents are required to get benefits, because they will go after the non-custodial parent if they can recoup the costs.
Feel free to call them yourself for sime first hand knowledge. (405) 521-3646

 

[inactive]

I called to substantiate your claim, and they said child support documents are required to get benefits, because they will go after the non-custodial parent if they can recoup the costs.
Feel free to call them yourself for sime first hand knowledge. (405) 521-3646

You speak the truth LC. Child Support is EXPLICITLY considered when calculating benefits, because after all... it is money directly paid to support the child, and if the amount is substantial enough then no benefits may even be warranted.

Here's an anecdote


My wife's (she is now over 30 ) father is just now seeing his paychecks garnished for back child support. The system just now tracked him down. My mother in law only sees about 20% per month, because the balance is being kept by the State of Missouri to recoup against the benefits and assistance my wife and her single mother received when she was growing up as the middle of five siblings.