Sister Wives in NYTimes (Kody to challenge law?)

[valsa]

Her excuse for her 5th and final child was that she wanted a nicer apartment. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

Oh, story time! I've met sicker women.

I grew up in a very, very poor neighborhood, in what was rated one of the worst cities in the U.S. to live at that time. Our neighbors were a family of two sisters who lived in the house across the street. Both had kids and got public assistance. The father of the two youngest children of one of the sisters was in jail. The other father lived with the sisters, even though they didn't claim him or the money he made by being a pimp (yes, literally) When the sister whose boyfriend was a pimp got pregnant, she constantly drank and took drugs (she was an addict prior to the pregnancy but used even more heavily) Why did she increase her drug use during pregnancy? According to her and her boyfriend, because they'd get more money if their kid was disabled (SSI/D) than not (just regular welfare benefits increase)

Some people just fucking suck.

[Purple]

If someone was all of a sudden find themselves unemployed, on welfare and Not likely to get another job any time soon in your rural community/the current economic climate... When would be a *better* time to have a child? When they get a job and aren't at home, with the time to raise the child?

When they can pay for it. If they're not disabled and have no aversion to honest work, that's unlikely to be 'never', but if it is, tough luck for them. I'm not going to bore everyone by listing all the things I want that I have no expectation of ever being able to afford, but suffice it to say that, like most adults, I'm able to live with the fact that I can't always have everything I want.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that someone can't properly raise a child while working. Like I said before, I'm surprised to read things like that on this particular forum.

Valsa - why not stop people without the emotional capactiy to teach their child to love from parenting? What about those that are working so hard they don't have time to invest in their child? Or those without the social skills to adequately raise a functional child? These are all at least as significant a deficit as income, surely...

You're right, their are plenty of rich people who are lousy parents. However, the government has no authority to forbid anyone from having children, or force anyone to use birth control. The only thing it can do is use existing entitlements to encourage those behaviors. Obviously, that doesn't apply to those who don't use those programs. Legally, I don't think there's anything more that can be done about bad parenting that doesn't reach the level of abuse or neglect. That doesn't mean I think it's ok or should be encouraged, but the two have nothing to do with each other.

But $ is an easy target. Yet of all the things that make a good parent, money is not that high on the list. If we can assist people, but for money, would be exemplary parents - why on earth would anyone object to doing so? If you're going to be out of the workforce for 5 years with a young child, why not have another immediately? It makes more structural sense than delaying - two children at school in 6 years makes it easier to get a job than being out of the workforce 10 years...

Again, you're assuming that having a child = being out of the workforce for 5 years. It doesn't. If a mother wants to stay at home until her child starts school, that's her choice, and she should find a way to pay for it herself. If someone's circumstances are such that there's literally no way she can work after having a child, and there's no way she can afford to not work for the next 5 years, then she can't afford a kid right then. That's life. You can't always get what you want.

The fact that someone might be a good parent doesn't mean that paying them to have children is a beneficial use of tax dollars. If the American population starts to decline to an extent that can't be fixed by tweaking immigration restrictions, then it might be reasonable to consider paying people to have children. We're not at that point, and I don't expect we will be in the foreseeable future.

And in your other post, you're quite correct. I'm not talking about all parents on welfare, and I have no idea where anyone got the idea that I was. I'm talking about the subgroup that has no intention of ever getting off of welfare - if they did, they wouldn't have added another mouth to feed. I've still not seen a good reason for doing so that doesn't boil down to "I want a baby". Well, I want a Corvette, but that's just too bad for me.

[bicyclecat]

Oh, story time! I've met sicker women.

I grew up in a very, very poor neighborhood, in what was rated one of the worst cities in the U.S. to live at that time. Our neighbors were a family of two sisters who lived in the house across the street. Both had kids and got public assistance. The father of the two youngest children of one of the sisters was in jail. The other father lived with the sisters, even though they didn't claim him or the money he made by being a pimp (yes, literally) When the sister whose boyfriend was a pimp got pregnant, she constantly drank and took drugs (she was an addict prior to the pregnancy but used even more heavily) Why did she increase her drug use during pregnancy? According to her and her boyfriend, because they'd get more money if their kid was disabled (SSI/D) than not (just regular welfare benefits increase)

Some people just fucking suck.

That doesn't surprise me, sadly. My aunt was a NICU pediatrician. She's seen this and more, although she refused to elaborate most of the time.

[roddma]

Cutting benefits reminds of reverend Love Joys wife on the Simpsons always saying:"Think of the children". It all boils down to personal responsibility. Don't use children just to better yourself and make someone else pay for you by playing on emotions. There is a big difference in temporary assistance until you get back on your feet and using it for a way of life. The Clinton admin stopped a lot of bull with the welfare system. Those who abuse the system get the child tax credit on top of their benefits which is unfair. Low income childless are hit the hardest with gov wanting to cut their benefits and some really need it.

[DamnPrecious]

And in your other post, you're quite correct. I'm not talking about all parents on welfare, and I have no idea where anyone got the idea that I was. I'm talking about the subgroup that has no intention of ever getting off of welfare - if they did, they wouldn't have added another mouth to feed. I've still not seen a good reason for doing so that doesn't boil down to "I want a baby". Well, I want a Corvette, but that's just too bad for me.

It seems anytime someone wants to talk about this very real part of welfare, people get up in arms and twist it completely out of context.

There are people that really need help, and in no way would I deny them. My sister was a single mom working her ass off taking care of her children because her ex-husband would trade jobs anytime they would start garnishing his check for child support. 12 years ago she was hit by a semi that broke her neck. She now cannot work, because she is still in pain all the time. She hated every second of being on welfare and losing everything she had. She does collect disability, but she would still rather work.

I know that it is a real needed program.

[bicyclecat]

If someone was all of a sudden find themselves unemployed, on welfare and Not likely to get another job any time soon in your rural community/the current economic climate... When would be a *better* time to have a child? When they get a job and aren't at home, with the time to raise the child?

Valsa - why not stop people without the emotional capactiy to teach their child to love from parenting? What about those that are working so hard they don't have time to invest in their child? Or those without the social skills to adequately raise a functional child? These are all at least as significant a deficit as income, surely...

But $ is an easy target. Yet of all the things that make a good parent, money is not that high on the list. If we can assist people, but for money, would be exemplary parents - why on earth would anyone object to doing so? If you're going to be out of the workforce for 5 years with a young child, why not have another immediately? It makes more structural sense than delaying - two children at school in 6 years makes it easier to get a job than being out of the workforce 10 years...

Lastly on the "keeping alive" point - seriously? You exaggerate. You've seen the astronomical poverty that people around the world live in, and remain alive? You're talking about a certain standard of living, not life and death.

If someone is unemployed, on welfare and unlikely to find a job in the near future, creating another mouth to feed is just counter productive. When I was broke with a cat and was having a hard time feeding the two of us, I didn't go out and get another cat. Why would I bring another cat into the family, when I was having a hard enough time feeding the cat that I had? It also wouldn't make sense for a family going into forclosure to buy another house. Or for someone who's about to get their car repossessed to buy another car. During tough financial times, adding to the financial burden is just stupid.

I get that a lot of women want to be SAHM's and welfare provides an avenue to do that. But at what cost? The money that's going to provide for that new baby is being taken away from someone else. One more baby may equal one homeless person not getting section 8 benefits, one person not getting medical care, food stamps, etc. The entitlement mentality of the mother than wants babies while on welfare, because she'll be able to be a SAHM potentially takes food off someone else's table. How selfish to put one person's desire to have a family over the survival of others!

[Sola]

Niether do I. If someone, or a couple, can support their children from the money they get from disability, more power to them. However, having children should be the privilege of only those who can afford to care for them. If you cannot care for yourself or the children you currently have without financial assistance from welfare or foodstamps, etc- you cannot afford to have a(nother) child.

How would feel if that disabled person didn't need financial assistance to feed, clothe and house that child, but did need support in other ways? Perhaps they needed help doing the things a able bodied parent takes for granted such as sports and extra curricular activities. Some disabled parents do all the normal household things but struggle to provide things like that. Over here there is support, usually in the form of child-carer groups, which is run by social services. These things are obviously provided through taxation. Financial assistance doesn't stop at food stamps and housing assistance, all means of support cost money. Do you agree with support such as I've mentioned for a disabled couple who decide to have a child?

What about a couple with learning disabilities/low IQ's? They would need additional support in bringing up their child, sometimes something as simple as homework help for the child (remember the movie 'I am Sam'). Do you think that this support should be denied government funding because the couple decided to have a child?

@ jaelh

I think it's important to note that welfare recipients =/= highly dysfunctional. There are some highly dysfunctional welfare recipients, but there are many, many people who'd make wonderful parents who need economic support.

Absolutely this^

I'll also add that even in dysfunctional families you can guarantee that 95% of those families have issues which cause that dysfunction. Quite a few of the children I work with come from such families. When you meet the parents you see very low educational attainment (often through undiagnosed issues), undiagnosed chronic mental health issues, adult ADHD (far more common than previously thought). This then cycles through to the next generation and I get to work with their dysfunctional kids. All the above make it less likely that the parents are going to sustain employment and more likely that they are going to have more kids and those kids are going to end up screwed up.

I can give you an example: One boy that I work with has severe behavioural issues - that's pretty much why I work with him. He has low educational attainment too. If all this is left untouched this boy's life will pan out as a life of petty crime leading to more serious offences, probable drug misuse, mental health issues and he will be highly unlikely to sustain employment. He is ten years old. TEN, and right now I can see his future mapped out for him.

His mother has 7 kids in total, to 6 different fathers. She doesn't work and hasn't for years. She herself has very low educational attainment, mental health issues, boundary issues, has a history of failed relationships with dysfunctional and abusive men and has minor substance misuse issues. Her kids are filthy, badly fed and the boy turns up at school tired from lack of sleep, pumped up on e-numbers from the crap his mother feeds him ready to traumatise his classmates for another day. Several of his half-siblings have ended up in care and he himself is on the 'At Risk' register here.

It's not hard to see why her son is so messed up. It is very, very easy to say she shouldn't have had children, she is an absolutely lousy parent. But all those issues she has make it more likely that she'll have kids. She has very severe self esteem issues and is, as a result of her own messed up childhood, very needy. She gets with a man and thinks that the way to cement that relationship - which is probably doomed anyway - is to have a baby. Baby comes, puts even more strain on an already dysfunctional relationship, and the dad leaves.

The only way to stop this sort of thing is to break the cycle. If we can give that boy what his mother can't - a good start in life - then we can break the cycle with him. Same with his sisters who are already known to colleagues of mine. We break that cycle and each one of those kid will grow up to be a functional member of society.

Cutting off welfare payments and all forms of support to this boy's mother wont make her find work. She wouldn't have a chance of finding employment and with her many issues is highly unlikely to sustain any job. She'd be far more likely to turn to petty crime to support herself as she already has done in the past (she's been convicted of having a small cannabis farm at her home, has shoplifting convictions and has put her whole family at risk of electrocution after having her power cut off for non-payment - she 'wired' her home up to the lamppost outside).

The best thing we can do for her is to give her parenting classes, adult education, mental health help, rehab programmes etc and for her kids give them the help they need to break that cycle. It all costs money of course and it is much easier to say 'let's cut off all payments to her and force her into work' when in the end she'll end up in and out of prison and her kids will end up in the care system even more messed up than they are now, which will cost even more money.

[deelaem]

I disagree. No one is forcing his wives to stay in that situation. They've consented to the situation and to his other wives.

I'm reminded of the people who want to force Muslim women to not wear veils- forcing them to not wear veils is no different than forcing them to wear veils. I don't see how your ignoring the sister wives consent is any different than Kody would be if he ignored their lack of consent.

Of course you do. :roll:

[deelaem]

And considering he was "disgusted" by the idea of Meri with another husband, shows that for him polygamy is a one-sided game. It's okay for a man, but not for a woman in his opinion. And that's pretty misogynistic.

Exactly! Thank you.

[valsa]

How would feel if that disabled person didn't need financial assistance to feed, clothe and house that child, but did need support in other ways? Perhaps they needed help doing the things a able bodied parent takes for granted such as sports and extra curricular activities. Some disabled parents do all the normal household things but struggle to provide things like that. Over here there is support, usually in the form of child-carer groups, which is run by social services. These things are obviously provided through taxation. Financial assistance doesn't stop at food stamps and housing assistance, all means of support cost money. Do you agree with support such as I've mentioned for a disabled couple who decide to have a child?

What about a couple with learning disabilities/low IQ's? They would need additional support in bringing up their child, sometimes something as simple as homework help for the child (remember the movie 'I am Sam'). Do you think that this support should be denied government funding because the couple decided to have a child?

I haven't done enough research into it to give a firm opinion on either of these issues.

Of course you do.

If you've got something to say, try spitting it out. Passive aggressiveness never looks good on anybody.

[JesusFightClub]

What Sola said.

Some of the saddest times for me as a benefits official were seeing people I just know will never be able to hold down a job anywhere.

There are categories of people who won't be able to get or keep employment. This is capitalism. That's part of how it works. Examples:

Schizophrenic man, works to stay in compliance with meds but isn't always and when is not is a person no employer will ever want.

Junkie with list of previous convictions as long as your arm. Got on Methadone and is now turning her life around...or would be, if she could get a job to support her and her (disabled) child.

Man with mild to moderate learning difficulties. Can't read or write. Very suited to manual work but becomes tearful and doesn't understand when he "thinks he's in trouble".

Severely disabled woman, highly intelligent but can't communicate well in speech and uses a motorised wheelchair. Has facial deformities. Might need a lot of time off work due to pain.

Kid from a bad area who left school without any qualifications, drifted into some petty crime. He was on a scheme to help underprivileged kids into jobs, but due to government cutbacks the scheme was cancelled. Comes into Jobcentre weekly, but more for a social visit than anything else.

I saw all these cases and they were all people who really wanted jobs. And I saw them before the present recession. The employer wants Mr or Ms Healthy Jo/e Normal who will show up to work at precisely 8.30am. No convictions, no disabilities and preferably a degree. Twas ever thus, but now it's biting harder.

To say all those people should be chemically sterilised for the time they are on benefits is quite disgusting IMO. I agree it would be a better decision not to bring kids into the world. But it can't be enforced and society has a duty to those children if/when they arrive.

[emmiedahl]

I'm not talking about popping out child after child to get the TANF. Here is an example of what goes on. We'll call her Mary. I know Mary fairly well.

She lives in Section 8 housing. She won't work because they charge rent if you. If you don't work, you also get some money to pay utilites. She sells her food stamps for money. She was on TANF until the father of her child had starting paying support. Let's people live in her apartment without notifying the people they are living there. If she did they would base rent off their paycheck (which usually they won't work either, but some have).

I have mixed feelings about the welfare queen stereotype. I am on multiple forms of government assistance, live in Section 8 housing, and have five children in the home. You could look at that situation and judge away, right?

But. We conceived all of our children while making a very comfortable income. After I had #5, dh had a vasectomy because hell no am I bringing another kid into a 1200 sq ft apartment. We do not receive cash aid; we both work. I work from home, mostly, so I bet someone on the outside would see me in my jammies all day and think otherwise.

You do have to pay for Section 8 housing--I pay 920 a month for a four bedroom apartment but on this side of town that's a bargain. We are on the waiting list for HUD, which will make us pay only a portion of our income (it'll cut our rent in half) but from what I hear you can wait a decade or more.

dh and I are both in school, also. Both in school illegally because in my state you cannot work on a Bachelor's degree while being on assistance. That makes it damn hard to get off assistance if you are a stickler about not committing felonies. I bet some of those welfare queens would love to get an education and get off assistance except--oops--it's welfare fraud to do so.

[BlackHawk]

I have mixed feelings about the welfare queen stereotype. I am on multiple forms of government assistance, live in Section 8 housing, and have five children in the home. You could look at that situation and judge away, right?

But. We conceived all of our children while making a very comfortable income. After I had #5, dh had a vasectomy because hell no am I bringing another kid into a 1200 sq ft apartment. We do not receive cash aid; we both work. I work from home, mostly, so I bet someone on the outside would see me in my jammies all day and think otherwise.

You do have to pay for Section 8 housing--I pay 920 a month for a four bedroom apartment but on this side of town that's a bargain. We are on the waiting list for HUD, which will make us pay only a portion of our income (it'll cut our rent in half) but from what I hear you can wait a decade or more.

dh and I are both in school, also. Both in school illegally because in my state you cannot work on a Bachelor's degree while being on assistance. That makes it damn hard to get off assistance if you are a stickler about not committing felonies. I bet some of those welfare queens would love to get an education and get off assistance except--oops--it's welfare fraud to do so.

Seriously you can't be on welfare and go to school? WTF... isn't the point of welfare to help you for a bit while you get back on your feet? No wonder we have so many people who seem to "fit" the stereotype... you can't do anything about it while on it and you can't survive without it... That makes me ill.

[emmiedahl]

I'm not even on "welfare" as in cash assistance, I'm on food stamps, Medicaid, and live in Section 8 housing. I can stay in the housing while in school provided our grants, financial aid, and income stay under 35K a year combined. I would lose food stamps and Medicaid, though. I had a friend kicked off of a subsidized childcare program because they found out she was taking an evening class at community college. She works full time, but no child care for students! She had to drop the class because she needed the child care to work.

So, yeah, when people start talking about using welfare as a hand up and not a hand out... it depends on the state, but in some states that requires committing felony fraud of the government.

[Buzzard]

I deal with people on assistance daily. Sure, there are the good people that have fallen on bad times, especially in this economy, but there is also a significant amount of abuse.

I'm sick and tired of the young mothers with their nails and hair done, carrying an iphone (and on it all the time) toting around toddlers with bright white sneakers and handbags I cant afford, living in section 8 housing and on all other forms of assistance. They dont work and sit around all day smoking pot, "watching" the toddlers, and hanging out with convicted felons making more babies.

My solution:

To be on assistance you must either:

- actively look for a job - once that fails (90 days) see below

- enroll and actually go to a training/counseling course. If you are mentally ill you must come daily for treatment, counseling, vocational skills. If you are disabled but functional you must attend a vocational class that will train you to work in a way that you can. If you are completely disabled you must be certified by a doctor annually. If your disability is obesity you MUST take nutritional classes. Child care will be provided. You may not sit around your house, consort with losers, and chill out.

- Go to school or a like training program.

Food stamps should be tied to a biometric so they cant be sold.

Narcotics should be legalized and birth control put in them, depending on how "hard" the drug is. Weed sterilizes you for a day, meth forever.

I dont care if they sit around a gym all day and do eachother's hair. I'm just sick and tired of the welfare queens popping out kids they hardly watch and buying prada.

[emmiedahl]

How do they even afford all that Buzzard? I am genuinely curious because I don't see a lot of drugs around my apartment building (and felons aren't allowed to live here, my landlords are on top of things so there are no unregistered houseguests either) or any other illegal businesses. It's Section 8 so we are all below the poverty level... yet I am struggling to make ends meets (just basic stuff like rent, electric, etc, no extras) while my neighbors who make like $600 a month have a brand new Escalade and perpetual manicures.

I guess the point is: where are they getting the money? More important, where can I get it(lol, j/k)?

[3 is enough]

I'm sick and tired of the young mothers with their nails and hair done, carrying an iphone (and on it all the time) toting around toddlers with bright white sneakers and handbags I cant afford, living in section 8 housing and on all other forms of assistance. They dont work and sit around all day smoking pot, "watching" the toddlers, and hanging out with convicted felons making more babies.

THIS is what bothers me. I know it's a stereotype, and I don't know what percentage of people on assistance actually fit this profile, but it's this kind of behaviour that makes me lean towards the "birth control is not optional" camp.

So here's a silly question: Do people actually get welfare cheques? Maybe they need to have vouchers for everything- rent, utilities, clothing, food. Medicaid would handle health visits and medicines. And make all vouchers biometric, as Buzzard suggested, so they can't be sold. That way there is no cash for salon services, liquor, and all the luxuries that should not be paid for by the public. Of course, someone would figure out how to work the system eventually, but at least it would be a deterrent.

[Buzzard]

Now remember what I do... Im a prosecutor...

Many of the people I encounter are baby mommas to drug dealers and various other convicted felons. They spend their days sitting around, smoking pot, talking the man of the week on the phone (collect call from jail, of course), and occasionally watching the kids. They sell their food stamps and allow others who arent qualified to stay with them in their section 8 house. Said extra person usually sells a lil sumin sumin on the side, which keeps their nails and hair did... especially because the rest of the people in the community are sitting around doing nothing as well.

It breaks my heart because you DO have the person on hard times, the good person trying to break out, the elderly etc who are stuck with these "people" as neighbors because they cant afford to go anywhere else or has been there for years. I've had cases where we have had to threaten to pull section 8 housing from a woman who kept letting her boyfriend back into the apartment after he had been 1) banned by the community, 2) ordered by a judge to stay away, and 3) was charged with multiple burglaries within the community. In the end, what do we do? She has 4 kids...

So, my solution is to give people the benefit but remove the fun lazy. You want benefits? Fine... be productive. If you cant be productive you get to sit in my version of detention and stare at a wall in a community center all day but alteast you wont be ruining the community for everyone else.

[DamnPrecious]

In Indiana the food stamps are on cards. The person can either give you the card or go with you to the store.

Emmiedahl, In the this particular Section 8, you don't have to pay rent unless you have a job.

[Buzzard]

In Indiana the food stamps are on cards. The person can either give you the card or go with you to the store.

Emmiedahl, In the this particular Section 8, you don't have to pay rent unless you have a job.

Or you can "place an order" and they buy what you want and they pay you cash/drugs/etc. When I go into houses of people on TANF or WIC I generally see churchs chicken and very little of value in the fridge.

[Daisy4]

I don't know much about welfare here, but when I was little, my parents fell on rough times in Ireland. At first, they were too proud to take help from welfare, but eventually, they did and they pulled our family out of poverty into a better situation.

Now, my parents own a restaurant and they are often employ people who may have trouble finding a job elsewhere. They participated in a local program that gave work release to prison inmates and they give lots of people a chance that other people might not give. The inmate program was moderately successful, except for the guy who didn't go back to jail after his shift (he went to visit his GF). Other employees, not so much. One cook, who BTW had his wages garnished for multiple kids, was caught stealing. I wouldn't mind so much if he was stealing to feed his kids, but he was stealing lobster for some woman (not his current girlfriend). I have plenty of stories like this, our most recent employee called in sick b/c she was high.

All I know is that for whoever listed the people who couldn't get jobs, my parents would love some dependable employees, they cant' seem to keep a full staff.

[bicyclecat]

Now remember what I do... Im a prosecutor...

Many of the people I encounter are baby mommas to drug dealers and various other convicted felons. They spend their days sitting around, smoking pot, talking the man of the week on the phone (collect call from jail, of course), and occasionally watching the kids. They sell their food stamps and allow others who arent qualified to stay with them in their section 8 house. Said extra person usually sells a lil sumin sumin on the side, which keeps their nails and hair did... especially because the rest of the people in the community are sitting around doing nothing as well.

It breaks my heart because you DO have the person on hard times, the good person trying to break out, the elderly etc who are stuck with these "people" as neighbors because they cant afford to go anywhere else or has been there for years. I've had cases where we have had to threaten to pull section 8 housing from a woman who kept letting her boyfriend back into the apartment after he had been 1) banned by the community, 2) ordered by a judge to stay away, and 3) was charged with multiple burglaries within the community. In the end, what do we do? She has 4 kids...

So, my solution is to give people the benefit but remove the fun lazy. You want benefits? Fine... be productive. If you cant be productive you get to sit in my version of detention and stare at a wall in a community center all day but alteast you wont be ruining the community for everyone else.

I'm a firm believer in the notion of "if you can't find anything to do, we'll find something for you." Parks need to have garbage picked up, animal shelters need help cleaning cages, hospitals need help. I'm a big fan of the idea of giving people a list of organizations that need help, telling them to pick one and giving them a minimum number of hours required per week. If they don't bother to do it, they can kiss that week's support goodbye.

As far as the woman with 4 kids and a good for nothing boyfriend, she loses benefits and the kids go into foster care until she gets her act together. My brother and his wife do work with women like this through their church and one of the women they work with is in this exact boat. She keeps going back to a guy who beats her and her children, so the kids are in foster care until she gets her priorities in order.

Sometimes tough love is the only thing that's going to wake people up. If they've been given all of these opportunities and continue to piss them away... I don't know what else can be done. Continuing to support them and enable their lifestyle is counter productive, if the end result is producing contributing members of society.

And Daisy, I'd love a few dependable employees too. I've interviewed for weeks and haven't found a single person who'd work out. They either don't want to work hard and complai about the most basic duties, they ask for WAY too much money (more than what I make, actually) or have so many demands that it's not worth it. And my starting wage is more than most similar companies pay for a long time employee. For all of the complaining about few jobs there are, you'd never know it, based on how demanding most applicants I've met are being.

[Guest Anonymous]

I come from the land of "oil and gas" and I just finished a four year stint working for a man who was wealthy beyond my dreams of avarice. I have also done my share working for some smaller corporations. Most recent boss wrote off everything under the sun (you would not believe what this man categorizes as "travel"). Prior former boss belonged to at least three country clubs, but since he was the CEO, the company (read - shareholders) paid for it all. This same company rented Cadillac Escalades for all of the corporate officers. Most of them had "III" after their names, had been given educations and a leg up by their families and had absolutely no empathy for anyone else.

Frankly, very few "welfare queens" could manage to steal half this much and get away with it.

[3 is enough]

I remember a big stink about 20 years ago in Canada. A worm farmer needed help to harvest his worms. He couldn't find anyone, and someone suggested welfare recipients. None of them volunteered so it went to court, and the judge basically said either work at this man's farm, or lose your benefits. In the end, he got the help he needed.

[bicyclecat]

I come from the land of "oil and gas" and I just finished a four year stint working for a man who was wealthy beyond my dreams of avarice. I have also done my share working for some smaller corporations. Most recent boss wrote off everything under the sun (you would not believe what this man categorizes as "travel"). Prior former boss belonged to at least three country clubs, but since he was the CEO, the company (read - shareholders) paid for it all. This same company rented Cadillac Escalades for all of the corporate officers. Most of them had "III" after their names, had been given educations and a leg up by their families and had absolutely no empathy for anyone else.

Frankly, very few "welfare queens" could manage to steal half this much and get away with it.

I agree with this too. Stealing is stealing, whether it's a baby mama on welfare or a corporate big wig using tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. It's all wrong and it all needs to be dealt with.