Lori blogs about welfare comment

[lilwriter85]

Last week Lori did a posting about mothers being nurses and someone left this comment.

I totally agree with this Lori. I just want to add that my mother was a single mom who had to work. I made up my mind at a young age that I would go on welfare or live with relatives or whatever it took to stay home with my children. God has always provided without resorting to those measures. I am thankful. Love & prayers, in Jesus, Cynthia

It would be okay to go on welfare just so she could experience every nuance of her child's development, without any guilt? Ummm....

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/09/dependent-on-welfare.html

Today's posting

Before I had children, I believed that I would live in a tiny trailer if that is what I needed to do in order to stay home and raise my children. I teach a lot on mothers being keepers at home. Cynthia commented on one of my posts, " I just want to add that my mother was a single mom who had to work. I made up my mind at a young age that I would go on welfare or live with relatives or whatever it took to stay home with my children. God has always provided without resorting to those measures. I am thankful."

Then another woman wrote, "I am all for moms staying home with their children. I am blessed to be able to stay home, but welfare should not be used so that a mom can stay home with her kids. That is not what welfare is for and that is abusing the system."

I believe women who keep having children without a husband to get more money from welfare is abusing the system. However, if a woman loses her husband when she has young children, she has no living relatives to support her, and the church refuses to support her, I believe this is exactly when welfare should be used.

Connie was a young mother with six children. Her husband was in and out of prison, mostly in. She lived on welfare so she could be at home raising her children. Her husband finally came to the Lord. Who could possibly fault her for that? Should she have gotten a full-time job leaving her children with strangers to care for all day?

The Bible exhorts young widows to get remarried, have children, and guide the home. It exhorts the church to provide for older widows. It exhorts families to take care of each other. If their is no willing family or church, I think it is better for the mother to go on welfare to take care of her children rather than find a full-time job and let someone else raise her children.

Yes, some of you had mothers who worked if you lost your father and she modeled hard work to you so now you are a hard worker. She refused welfare and you admired her for that. If children have lost their father, I see no reason why a mother couldn't receive welfare for a time until she got remarried or found a church to support her.

She would have to learn to live frugally and simply. She would need to cook her food from scratch and shop wisely but all these would be good for her children to see. She would be there to raise and discipline her children and give them the love they so need.

I know this opinion will be controversial since welfare is so abused in this country but I think if there is ever a need for welfare, a widowed or abandoned mother with children without a supportive church or relatives would be the best reason welfare was instituted. I sure wouldn't mind using my tax dollars so a widowed or abandoned mother could stay home and raise her children.

[Minerva]

Isn't "Cynthia" one of us?

...did the FreeJingers just goad Lori into making a pro-welfare blog post?

Admittedly, it was a dumb blog post. She claims that welfare is widely abused, and makes it sound like it's possible to NOT live frugally while on welfare with children, which betrays her lack of contact with reality.

Still, this is awesome. :cracking-up:

[lilwriter85]

Isn't "Cynthia" one of us?

...did the FreeJingers just goad Lori into making a pro-welfare blog post?

Admittedly, it was a dumb blog post. She claims that welfare is widely abused, and makes it sound like it's possible to NOT live frugally while on welfare with children, which betrays her lack of contact with reality.

Still, this is awesome. :cracking-up:

I agree it was a dumb post overall and I found this part to be really dumb

I know this opinion will be controversial since welfare is so abused in this country but I think if there is ever a need for welfare, a widowed or abandoned mother with children without a supportive church or relatives would be the best reason welfare was instituted. I sure wouldn't mind using my tax dollars so a widowed or abandoned mother could stay home and raise her children.

Lori and other fundie bloggers have claimed many times that churches should be the ones helping people in need instead of the government. I don't see any church completely supporting a widow or single mother for years and years. I know churches that do help parishoners/members with some bills or things like groceries during hard times when their job loss or recent tragedies. I don't see church leaders or church boards or councils being ok with supporting a family for years and years either.

My aunt worked at Catholic Charities back in the 80s and 90s and she used to get referrals from different churches or church leaders to see if CC could help out people in need. An uncle of mine was case worker at a welfare office and he would also get calls from churches or pastors about the process to get welfare or other types of assistance. My uncle said he knew that some of the people he serviced were getting additional help from churches and different non-profits and he said he was glad that they were getting that additional help. Ultimately churches can only do so much to help people out and Lori doesn't see that. I know she attends a megachurch, but I don't see a megachurch being able to support families in need for years and years.

[slickcat79]

Connie was a young mother with six children. Her husband was in and out of prison, mostly in. She lived on welfare so she could be at home raising her children. Her husband finally came to the Lord. Who could possibly fault her for that? Should she have gotten a full-time job leaving her children with strangers to care for all day?

Well...yeah, maybe. She did choose to bring these children into the world (with a convict, no less), so she does have a responsibility to try to provide for them. I don't know any specifics of this story, like the earning potential of "Connie", her kids' ages or specific needs, etc. So maybe it would make more sense for her to be on government assistance regardless, but it doesn't really relate to her wanting to be a SAHM and protect her children from the ebil outside world. I'm also not sure how a man "coming to the Lord" with a lengthy criminal record will make him able to provide for a wife and 6 kids, but...whatever, Lori.

She must have twisted her brain into knots over the mental gymnastics that it took to write this post.

[AnywhereButHere]

I've seen a few times from her that churches should support families, and all I can do is wonder how? Every church (not that that's been extensive) that I've been a part of has struggled to keep themselves afloat. There is no leftover money to do more than give token aid to anyone. There are always extra fees and collections on top of membership dues (and those aren't required unless you want a vote on the council) just to keep the lights and heat on and the doors open. I've seen some excellent priests and their families give their time and whatever resources they can to help a parishioner in need, but there isn't money in the church itself to support a family long term. Maybe the megachurches have more resources, but somehow, those are the ones I see also as being less likely to "share" as it were. Maybe that's just my prejudice though, and I should give myself a mental handslap for generalizing...

It is pretty funny though to see Lori admitting that welfare has a purpose. She'll probably wake up tomorrow and try to walk it back, which might be even funnier to read.

[rward]

Well...yeah, maybe. She did choose to bring these children into the world (with a convict, no less), so she does have a responsibility to try to provide for them. I don't know any specifics of this story, like the earning potential of "Connie", her kids' ages or specific needs, etc. So maybe it would make more sense for her to be on government assistance regardless, but it doesn't really relate to her wanting to be a SAHM and protect her children from the ebil outside world. I'm also not sure how a man "coming to the Lord" with a lengthy criminal record will make him able to provide for a wife and 6 kids, but...whatever, Lori.

She must have twisted her brain into knots over the mental gymnastics that it took to write this post.

Things change. We make one plan and then life intervenes and all of a sudden, you're faced with a whole new reality and need a new plan. Healthy people adapt and change, unhealthy people . . . well, my mom stayed with my dad so she could stay home with us. It's bad enough she did that, but blaming it on us just made it worse.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Isn't "Cynthia" one of us?

...did the FreeJingers just goad Lori into making a pro-welfare blog post?

Admittedly, it was a dumb blog post. She claims that welfare is widely abused, and makes it sound like it's possible to NOT live frugally while on welfare with children, which betrays her lack of contact with reality.

Still, this is awesome. :cracking-up:

FTR, it was "Cynthia SWENSON" who make that comment, who is NOT just plain Cynthia.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Also, if you are leaving your children with "strangers" all day, you are doing child care wrong.

I did not leave my children with strangers. I have, however, left Girl 1 with a highly-acclaimed YMCA daycare where I was very familiar with the staff and the facility, left Girl 2 with a neighbor who did home daycare and who gave me a whole binder with her resume, police check and references, and left Boy with a nanny after I had thoroughly reviewed her resume, checked her references and interviewed her, and then sent him to a local nursery school with glowing recommendations. I did not consider any of these caregivers to be "strangers". I knew them, and in some cases, I am still in touch with them.

[moonbeam59]

"However, if a woman loses her husband when she has young children, she has no living relatives to support her, and the church refuses to support her, I believe this is exactly when welfare should be used."

...Including women who are perfectly capable of finding and keeping a job? Okay then. I'd love to hear more examples of actual "welfare abuse" from Lori's point of view.

[Maggie Mae]

Lori is nothing more than a spoiled child who is willfully blinded to the world around her. She has no concept of empathy or goodwill to her fellow people, and she will die that way. She's beyond the point where she could ever be taught anything, she will never learn anything about people outside of her box, and she is overall, a terrible human being and a waste of carbon.

So she thinks a woman who has children outside of marriage & goes on welfare is abusing the system? But she wouldn't want that person to have an abortion, now, would she? Why are relatives supposedly "better" than paid childcare or friends?

Why is she such a judgmental bitch?

[lilwriter85]

The part about relatives supporting a mother and her children is something that isn't realistic for people unless they have wealthy relatives. Having living relatives isn't the automatic safety net that Lori is trying to promote. If my dad died years ago when we were kids, some of my relatives would have helped my mom out for awhile or during really difficult times. But none of them would have been able to help out constantly. Both of my grandmothers wouldn't have been able to help out on a monthly basis and most of my aunts and uncles on both sides had their own families. I don't think my mother and many other women would have been comfortable being dependent on relatives all the time.

[JMarie]

Why isn't Lori getting mad at the churches for not stepping up to the plate and helping their parishoners?

[Hisey]

How come it's only the children of widowed/abandoned moms who are worthy of the privilege of having a SAHM? So if you are five and your mom conceived you out of wedlock, it's perfectly OK to go to daycare and be raised by strangers (not saying that's what really happens). So it's only kids from Lori-approved families who need their moms at home?

So if your mom had sex the right way (married sex, basically), only then do you get to have your mom at home? Too bad for the rest of the kids in the world, I guess!

How is this fair to kids? I can't imagine Jesus making distinctions like that. He loved ALL the little children, if I recall.

[lilwriter85]

Lori is nothing more than a spoiled child who is willfully blinded to the world around her. She has no concept of empathy or goodwill to her fellow people, and she will die that way. She's beyond the point where she could ever be taught anything, she will never learn anything about people outside of her box, and she is overall, a terrible human being and a waste of carbon.

So she thinks a woman who has children outside of marriage & goes on welfare is abusing the system? But she wouldn't want that person to have an abortion, now, would she? Why are relatives supposedly "better" than paid childcare or friends?

Why is she such a judgmental bitch?

I have always suspected that Lori doesn't associate with people who have different economic statuses in real life. She grew up in a upper middle class family and it seems Ken also comes from a similar background. Some of the bloggers she links to and has online communications with do have different economic situations than Lori. I doubt Lori ever thinks about the financial struggles that her online friends go through. Wasn't pretty much discovered that Sunshine Mary's family isn't upper middle class? I'm not making fun of SSM's financial status, but if SSM was going though a hard time financially, I bet Lori wouldn't give a shit.

I think if Lori met some of the fundie bloggers with larger families in real life, she wouldn't have much in common with them. Lori and her family seem to go on expensive trips at least once a year. I can't imagine her being able to relate to Zsu's staycation in Scottsdale or fundie families who can barely afford road trips to ATI or VF conferences.

[fun2beme]

Curious to hear her thoughts on dad's role if his wife dies and leaves him with young kids, and there's no family around to assist. Should he become a welfare-dad or maintain his role as family provider while using evil daycare? Of course, he'll marry again but there's that one-year mourning period in the Bible.

Also, did anyone see "This is 40"? There's a particularly crass reference in it regarding how much women love widowers.

[Rainytown]

Here's a news flash for Lori: Welfare in the USA is a five-year lifetime benefit. Five years, and then the moms she's advocating going on welfare are cut off permanently. Since welfare fraud and waste is an extra-special emphasis of the RW in this country, those who administer it demand that those who accept it are also engaged in job training or must work a certain number of hours at an approved "employer".

One of the biggest problems for the working poor in this country is the cost of child care and believe it or not, diapers. Day cares demand a certain number of clean diapers be sent with the child daily. Diapers are expensive. Most single moms/working poor can't afford the optimal number of diapers per day.

Here's another news flash for Lori: Perhaps she could do a simple Google search and figure out how much those "moms bringing up kids in the Lord" could hope to obtain per month for going on welfare. The monthly amount would STUN anyone accustomed to living on a middle-class income. There's no "frugal living", especially in states that offer less than $300 per month.

As always, Lori has no idea what she's talking about.

[Ms Jess]

Here's a news flash for Lori: Welfare in the USA is a five-year lifetime benefit. Five years, and then the moms she's advocating going on welfare are cut off permanently. Since welfare fraud and waste is an extra-special emphasis of the RW in this country, those who administer it demand that those who accept it are also engaged in job training or must work a certain number of hours at an approved "employer".

One of the biggest problems for the working poor in this country is the cost of child care and believe it or not, diapers. Day cares demand a certain number of clean diapers be sent with the child daily. Diapers are expensive. Most single moms/working poor can't afford the optimal number of diapers per day.

Here's another news flash for Lori: Perhaps she could do a simple Google search and figure out how much those "moms bringing up kids in the Lord" could hope to obtain per month for going on welfare. The monthly amount would STUN anyone accustomed to living on a middle-class income. There's no "frugal living", especially in states that offer less than $300 per month.

As always, Lori has no idea what she's talking about.

Do you have a source for this? And what do you determine to be "welfare?" Food stamps? Medicaid? Housing assistance? TANF?

As a single mother with no health insurance, I had my kids on Medicaid for years (read: more than 5) until I finally got a job that provided affordable insurance for my family. That's the only welfare type program I have used for a significant amount of time, though I have made use of a few other things like daycare assistance, housing assistance and food stamps for a few months at a time. I have no idea what lifetime benefits might exist on any of those because I've never heard of that and haven't used them for longer than a year.

I have worked with a large population of economically disadvantaged people for most of my career and have never heard of these lifetime limits from any of them, either. Just curious if that might be a state-by-state thing or if it's federally mandated or what.

[Cannelle]

http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_states ... imits.html

Brief article on welfare time limits.

[dilannsmom]

I've seen a few times from her that churches should support families, and all I can do is wonder how? Every church (not that that's been extensive) that I've been a part of has struggled to keep themselves afloat. There is no leftover money to do more than give token aid to anyone. There are always extra fees and collections on top of membership dues (and those aren't required unless you want a vote on the council) just to keep the lights and heat on and the doors open. I've seen some excellent priests and their families give their time and whatever resources they can to help a parishioner in need, but there isn't money in the church itself to support a family long term. Maybe the megachurches have more resources, but somehow, those are the ones I see also as being less likely to "share" as it were. Maybe that's just my prejudice though, and I should give myself a mental handslap for generalizing...

It is pretty funny though to see Lori admitting that welfare has a purpose. She'll probably wake up tomorrow and try to walk it back, which might be even funnier to read.

I attend an small (300 or so on a Sunday morning) rural IFB church in upstate New York. Average family salary is probably around 50k per year. We don't wear dresses or headcoverings (the pastors and their wives regularly wear jeans to Sunday church), wives most often work outside of the home. Only one extra large family (12 kids)...next largest "regularly attending" family has 5 kids. We have a Deacon's Fund for those that have a need. It doesn't provide for a person's living, but it can be used for unexpected expenses (job loss, car breakdown, roof replacement after a storm, etc.).

We have a young widow in our church who lost her husband to brain cancer (she is 29, he was 30) and she has 2 small boys (3 and 5). She is a RN. She has stated repeatedly that she is so glad that she went to college, took her boards, took 6 months of family leave per son and went right back to work. She never planned to raise 2 boys without a husband, but here she is. She doesn't expect the church to take care of her (although the Deacon's Fund helped with gas and hotel money when they were traveling for treatment). She is fully capable of taking care of herself.

Lori Alexander is delusional. And she is "mentoring" young women to continue in her delusions. Uuuuggghhhh!

[GolightlyGrrl]

I wonder what Lori thinks of corporate welfare?

[BalconySmoker]

http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_states-welfare-time-limits.html

Brief article on welfare time limits.

The 5 year federal time limit for an assistance program refers ONLY to TANF, which is a cash assistance program.

It's EXTREMELY difficult to receive TANF in the first place, and you have to jump through a shit-ton of hoops to get it monthly. Most of the population who others say are on "welfare" (WIC, Food Stamps, Medical Card or disability) don't even qualify for TANF, which is the only program that actually gives anyone a welfare check anymore. Many people who do qualify for TANF don't even bother with it, because you have to do a ton of paperwork and other stuff to get it and it's usually barely enough money to make it worth it. We're talking like 20-40 bucks a month, and it's an utter pain in the ass.

Other "welfare" programs like Food Stamps, low-income housing, Medical Card etc don't have a federal time limit. You can be on them as long as you qualify income-wise. A permanent disability will also qualify you for them in most cases. States may or may not have a time limit for these things, my state does not.

I was a case manager for intellectually disabled adults for several years. All of my clients used assistance programs, which means that I had to work with DHS a lot and had to become pretty familiar with this stuff.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I got the sense that Lori couldn't possible wrap her head around the realities of welfare today.

On one hand, I was pleasantly surprised that she admitted that there was ANY situation where it was justified. OTOH, I hope she's learning that it's impossible to judge a single mom who is working - not just because it's not good to judge at all, but also because she may have no clue just how little welfare pays, how hard it is to qualify and how hard it is to continue to qualify for benefits. You also have to wonder if she's ever considered how much difference housing can make to a child. Some subsidized housing is good, but some is downright dangerous. Any real or imagined dangers of other people caring for your child during the day pale in comparison to the risks of gang violence in some areas, for example.

I can picture her hearing comments about welfare moms, and just imaging that it's possible for a single mom to live a life of leisure on public assistance. Well, I know that where I live, I saw that it was possible to single moms to support themselves on public assistance 20 years ago IF they were frugal and IF they managed to get into decent public housing. Then, we went through brutal cut-backs that reduced payments by 30% overnight, eliminated new public housing and put new "workfare" requirements in place. Being a stay-at-home single mother is virtually impossible now.

[Ms Jess]

The 5 year federal time limit for an assistance program refers ONLY to TANF, which is a cash assistance program.

It's EXTREMELY difficult to receive TANF in the first place, and you have to jump through a shit-ton of hoops to get it monthly. Most of the population who others say are on "welfare" (WIC, Food Stamps, Medical Card or disability) don't even qualify for TANF, which is the only program that actually gives anyone a welfare check anymore. Many people who do qualify for TANF don't even bother with it, because you have to do a ton of paperwork and other stuff to get it and it's usually barely enough money to make it worth it. We're talking like 20-40 bucks a month, and it's an utter pain in the ass.

Other "welfare" programs like Food Stamps, low-income housing, Medical Card etc don't have a federal time limit. You can be on them as long as you qualify income-wise. A permanent disability will also qualify you for them in most cases. States may or may not have a time limit for these things, my state does not.

I was a case manager for intellectually disabled adults for several years. All of my clients used assistance programs, which means that I had to work with DHS a lot and had to become pretty familiar with this stuff.

See, this is basically the impression that I have gotten from applying for benefits for myself and from working with families who were trying to get benefits.

[lilwriter85]

Curious to hear her thoughts on dad's role if his wife dies and leaves him with young kids, and there's no family around to assist. Should he become a welfare-dad or maintain his role as family provider while using evil daycare? Of course, he'll marry again but there's that one-year mourning period in the Bible.

Also, did anyone see "This is 40"? There's a particularly crass reference in it regarding how much women love widowers.

I'm curious about that too. I remember a thread about the topic of fundie widowers a couple of years back. I recall several posters talked about a fundie dad whose wife died and IIRC he married a fundie widow who also had a large family. I can't remember the name of the family, but I'm sure other members remember the family. Lori already hates stay at home dads, so I can see her hating on some widower who has his kids in daycare.

[Minerva]

You know, this might be the first time "Always Learning" Lori has ever shown evidence of learning.