Posted by penguin5612 on May 16, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since my husband and I have been considered "elderly", and he has become disabled, we have discovered how unfair the system is. I watch as people with children get so much help. We go hungry. I watch them at my place of business with over $600 on their Lone Star card, while they spend their cash on TV's, toys and clothes. We get $60 for food and go hungry when that runs out. We don't get new clothes or any other luxury. We sought help before and was told no because we have no children living at home with us. Yes, we need to take care of the children! But what about us? What about those who can't go to work because of physical limitations? We have just been left out in the cold. There is no help for you if you have no children in your household.

Posted by conserveABI on May 16, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are several churches and food pantries in town that offer food to anyone who walks in (701 Walnut is Christian Ministries). Please go there, and you'll get food.

Posted by elizabeth on May 16, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

penquin, there is a wonderful apartment complex for the elderly downtown at the Windsor. You can bet if you were to move there you would never go hungry. They even have a pantry for the residents there that is 100% backed by donations. I personally donate there because my grandmother lived there before she passed away and currently I have an uncle living there.
Since I was in my teens I took care of both my grandparents and 2 mentally handicap uncles and I have considered it an honor. More people should realize the value of our elders and make sure they are taken care of in the golden age. No one deserves it more. :)

Posted by Tumbleweed on May 16, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My elderly and disabled friends, SunSet Arbor apartments is also a low-income friendly place and very nice. My sister lived there before she died, and they have two story and one story apartments just for wheel chairs.

I feel your pain when watching a parent of XX number of kids is buying a 50 inch plasma TV and receives food stamps (lone star). I'd like to see everyone getting welfare benefits of any kind have to take a drug test randomly once a month while getting benefits. I had to take them when I was in the military.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pengiun, I totally agree with you. My grandparents, who were in their 80's, got $40.00 a month on their LoneStar card. But I have seen young adults who are more than capable of working get hundreds of dollars a month from the system. While I do not have a problem helping the TRULY needy, I don't think we should continue to support people who are more than capable of taking care of themselves. If you are able to go to work, than do so. I should not have to take care of you because you are too lazy to do it yourself or you think you are entitled to it. Quit having babies you can't take care. I guess what irks me the most is we practically reward people for being irresponsible.

My son is getting ready to graduate high school. We applied to financial aid and various student loans. Per the goverment, we made too much money for any financial aid. This is a student who has never been in trouble with the law, makes good grades, and has a job. But we will now have to take loans or pay cash along the way. But a girl who is also graduating has two babies (at the age of 18). And you know what?? She is getting tons of financial assitance to go to college.

Posted by jimmypickens on May 16, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The community of individuals, not the government, has that moral responsibility. What about families? Are there children? Might one of them or you have to relocate to be near the caregiver? What about your neighbors? What about your church? What about your friends? Life is not fair and thankfully we don't get what we deserve but the government has neither the responsibility nor the constitutional obligation to take care of you. The responsibility rests with each person.

Posted by Tumbleweed on May 16, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tumbleweed, good point about the drug testing. My husband and I both subject to random drug testing by our employers. And my kids attend a school that does random drug testing for any student participating in a UIL activity, such as athletics, cheerleading, or band.

Posted by whachoodoin on May 16, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rsjz4,

There are plenty of other places to look for college money and loads of scholarships out there if the time and effort is put into finding it. Resenting a young woman for qualifying because she is in greater financial needs doesnt speak much to your character. Thats like being jealous of someone poor because they get foodstamps. I can't see faulting a young woman for wanting to better herself and not spend her whole life dependant on the welfare system because she made mistakes.
As for the elderly and their need, this is why it is important to plan financially for your retirement people, it's not like we are all unaware of the fact that we cant live off social security.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The point I was trying to make and maybe I didn't say very well what I was trying to say: Our government seems to reward people for their irresponsibility. How come their is no help for people who did things the 'right' way? How come we aren't tyring to help kids go to school who did not make 'mistakes'. If seems if you get up go to work everyday and do things the way they are supposed to be done, you end up paying for everyone else. I have a friend who says if she ever gets rich, she is going to start a scholarship fund the average, middle class child.

And this student who is getting a college education handed to her is only in greater financial need due to own stupidity and irresponsibilty.

BTW, don't ever speak of my character like you know who I am.

Posted by whachoodoin on May 16, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rsjz4,
With regard to your character, I call it like I see it, like it or not. Your whining about not getting a free ride. BTW, there are scholarships for "average students" try researching instead of complaining about what someone else has. I'm sure your perfect and have never made a mistake which is why you can sit there casting stones at this young lady. As a college graduate i can tell you..the door may be opened for her but nothing is "handed" to you once you get there...it takes work. Try calling financial aid at your local college, they should be able to assist you with other possible financial means other than loans for your sons education. Good luck to him.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. And BTW, we have applied for scholarships and have received some things but they were not based on financial need.

And two kids before the age of 18 is not a mistake. One kid I might say is a mistake but two is just being irresponsible.

Posted by whachoodoin on May 16, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fasfa has a link to a vast number of scholarship sites and tips for researching and not getting scammed. As for the young lady, some might say that not planning ahead for your sons education by setting up a college fund when he was born was irresponsible of you as well. She is trying to do the right thing with her life I can't see that beating her down for having 2 children will be of any service. Trust me, raising 2 kids and going to college will be hard enough. You apparently care about your sons education and I commend you for that. Most of my undergrad education was paid for via scholarships, I had to put a lot of time and effort into it but it was worth it. Anyway, good luck in your search, I hope you find the means to assist your young man with his education.

Posted by whatuthink on May 16, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jimmypickens - Well said..

Posted by conserveABI on May 16, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

whatchoodoin, I find it dichotomous that you would tell elderly people "you need to have planned for the day you retire so that you will not be in need" but you will not tell a young adult "you need to plan your child birthing so that you can afford it and not be a drain to society." RSJZ is dead-accurate in his assessment that young adults who make stupid decisions are rewarded by the government, and I don't care if you think that evinces bad character on my part.

Posted by whachoodoin on May 16, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

conserve,

how interesting that i said all that...hahaha that being said, you do need to plan for your retirement as well as your children...that includes their college education...do I find another mother on welfare approving..no...do i want to pay for your kids educations because you didnt plan ahead for them...again..no...i take care of my family ..and my grandparents never went hungry because as a family we took care of them when they no longer could but they also had money set aside for their retirement. Not to mention, many entire families live off less than $40 in food for a month in other countries and they dont have near the resources available we do in this country.
The problem is people thinking they are owed something..its one thing to NEED it..its another ball of wax to think i'm obligated to make sure you have it.

Posted by Mellonello on May 16, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They have the new places on south 7th across the street from Rose park, brand new, and I beleieve its for the elderly and work on a sliding scale. Suzane you might try that.
I was fortunate that my husband and I could help my mother and his mother stay in thier homes, by supplementing thier income till they could no longer stay when they got ill. We felt it was our responsibility as thier children to make sure they were taken care of. I wish more adult kids felt that way.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, conserve.

Posted by marshall on May 16, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with some and disagree with others of you,. That being said, my father had to retire several years early due to cancer. His retirement benefits are pitiful. It wasn't his fault that he got cancer and could no longer work. Thank goodness, he is a WWII vet so he can use the VA for a lot of his medical. Now here is the kicker. I have a step daughter who is so overweight that she was able to get medicade to pay for an intestional by pass. She lost a lot of weight for a little while but now she is even bigger than before. (5-600 lbs) She also gets all kinds of government help. What I don't understand is how she is rewarded for being (excuse me) fat when an elderly wheelchair bound veteran gets very few benefits outside of medical. I do as much for them as I can but still it is not enough.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goober, that is the point I have been trying to make. We reward someone for being irresponsible but don't want to help someone who is a contributing, responsible member of society.

Posted by dalai-llama on May 16, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If anyone in Abilene is in need of assistance, the first place to start is by calling 2-1-1. The 211 call center is linked to the network of social service providers here (public, private non-profit, faith-based, etc.) and can make referrals necessary to help anyone in need of social services.

I ain't touchin' the rest of this thread. Y'all have at it.

Posted by elizabeth on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dalai the only thing with the elderly is they have a lot of pride. Most I know would not even think about asking for assistance no matter how bad they had it. They weren't raised to expect hand outs like the current generation.

Posted by ranchero63bob on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What chaps me is to be checking out groceries & a WIC,LoneStar,whatever card user is in front of me.Then they go outside & are driving a gas guzzler suv or large car with 22 inch shiny wheels.There is something wrong with this picture.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 16, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

elizabeth, when my grandfather was away fighting in WW2, my grandmother was left alone with 2 small children. There was no govt assistance at that time. She did whatever she had to do to feed her babies. Most of our younger generation do not have that work ethic. Today, my grandmother is 85 years old and still mows her own yard. She gets mad if I send my boys over there to do it for her. She says, "I may be old but I'm not dead". LOL!

ranchero, I agree with you on that one. Or they 'pay' for the groceries with food stamps and then pull out a big wad of cash to pay for their beer and cigarettes!

Posted by Tumbleweed on May 16, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get a government welfare handout give a urine sample. Pretty simple. We don't have to do this the hard way. There is no reason for anyone in Abilene to be hungry or homeless. There are too many resources. I know personally!

Posted by dragonlance41 on May 16, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the real point to be making at least in one part is can we really afford baby boomers getting older? At any level the economics is a very scary thing to contemplate. It really has nothing to do with what kind of person you were as you were working. I believe the govt at federal and state levels should be more willing to aid our elderly. The best way to fund this would also be to cut our foreign aid spending no matter how good the cause. A half million dollars to China, to help with their earthquake relief? Millions of dollars in supplies that the Junta in Mynammar are confiscating. No telling how much more money is trickling away to expand Democracy across the world whether the people want it or not.
Everybody feels sorry when they see the kids in the third world countries going hungry. However, as bad as it sounds I see and our elderly and kids starving as well. They dont have proper medical care or nourishing food at all. Why should the US taxpayer be responsible for all of that. You want real aid for the elderly, its not because the local football coach makes 98,000 or so a year. Its because Billions of federal dollars are leaving this country to feed and take care of people screaming, "Death to America!!"
Everybody, knows the welfare system is messed up and probably will remain messed up. People cramming 8 people in one house and getting cash jobs, while their wives pop out children. Yes, they get to drive nice trucks and cars, but do we have a plan to stop it. What does the govt need to do to stop this at state and federal levels. The magnitude of accomplishing that would require a new branch of law enforcement, specializing in welfare fraud. Which would mean more taxes at every level. Any plans? Or just complaints and gripes?
As far as college funding goes theres always gonna be unfairness at every level. The girl with 2 kids yah she messed up, but do we want to pay for her food and health for her and kids for the next 20 years. Or have her get the financial aid and maybe get a degree and get off our tab in four years instead. However, once again if you want to see where the money is for our youth and for our elderly just turn on CNN or MSNBC and actually watch, instead of gossiping with your old cronies, and dreaming about the good old days.

Posted by texmade2 on May 16, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think if they have more than 2 kids at home ,only
give them food stamps for 2, let them make do or
find a job.

Posted by cougar on May 16, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i want my library instead of the old folks building in rose park.
and i think yall voted down our kids last saturday did ya not?

Posted by qquixi on May 16, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have been married for 29 years and raised 2 girls some years we only made about 7,000-8,000 a year but when I applied for food stamps or afdc they told use we didn't qulify because we were married if we had not been married just living together that would have been ok...Family Values ...my butt
We made it and the girls have both finished college and are on thier own
My hubby got hurt at work in 2000 and has been on ssdi since 2002 we get by on 871.00 a month and that bites But it can be done if you put your heart and mind too it

Posted by texmade2 on May 16, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

qquixi
I know what you went threw, I was a full student at UT Arlington and worked full time ,was fired because I was not aloud to do both, I applied for food stamps or afdc they told use we didn't qulify because we were married

Posted by weeman on May 17, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

as far as the children are concerned, 3 words, "Texas Tomorrow Fund". My two girls college education is already paid for...check into or other types of programs like that.

As to the elderly: Yes it would have been wise to save up for retirement...however, the baby boomers had no idea at the time of their prmie years that Social Security would be all jacked up at this point.

I do feel for the elderly because it is tough especially for those who have too much pride to ask for help...but though there is not as much help compared to the young, there is help indeed.

and for the record, I get outraged to see someone on any gov. assistance, pay for their food with Lonestar and get into a nice shiny new Escalade...Drug test for assistance?? most definitely!

Posted by rsjz4 on May 17, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know of a girl that was told by one of the local colleges that if she would have a kid (she was a teen just out of high school) that she could pretty much get the govt to pay for her schooling?? Is the system messed up?? Yes.

cougar, the kids weren't voted down. The use of DCOA funds was voted down.

Posted by greygoose23 on May 17, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our system often makes no sense and costs all of us. An elderly friend recently disabled whose house is almost paid for and payments are less than the Rose Park housing has to give up her house and move into government housing to receive any assistance. That is asinine.

Posted by ropers40 on May 17, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We continue to give the working able free benefits while our handicapped and elderly do without.
We let illegal residents recieve food stamps and housing while the AMERICAN needy do without.
When do we say enough is enough and stop people who are more than able to work and tell them the free ride is over.
The govt will give the elderly half what they need to live on, but will pay nursing home 4 times the amount to house them.
We as AMERICANS meed to stop pandering to the people that are nothing more than lazy and start taking care of the ones before us that helped make this the best damn coutry on this ball.
Stop the Illegals and stop the lazy, it is then our elderly wont have to choose between the gas for DR's appointments and food.
I am a staunch democrat when it comes to helping the ones that need it, and a devout Republican when it comes to the ones that dont.
Stop the mess we helped create and do the right thing by those who got us to being the greatest Nation in this WORLD.

Posted by ropers40 on May 17, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry I get riled up when it come to the elderly doing without, while the lazy and the illegals get it all.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 17, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ropers, no need to apologize. I know lots of people who feel the same way you do. And I am one of them. I don't mind helping people who are truly in need but I should not have to take care of you because you are too freaking lazy to get off the couch. If you can't take care of the babies you have, THEN QUIT HAVING MORE.

Posted by whatuthink on May 17, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At Wal-mart I watched a family buy over $100 on a lonestar card and then pay almost $900 cash for a new T.V.

Posted by dalai-llama on May 18, 2008 at 3:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read.

Learn.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Posted by conserveABI on May 18, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dalai,

I read this in your suggested link::

"Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education."

This writer calls a person's choice to have children and to not go to school "structural barriers." That alone shows me the bias of the writer. So, I urge YOU to "read, ANALYZE, and learn."

Posted by ropers40 on May 18, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know when I was raising my 3 daughters by myself, and not getting any child support from my ex I did not qualify for any help.
I was a state employee and made the same thing as one of my co-workers, yet she recieved foodstamps and housing assistance with 2 kids.
When I called this to their attention I was told they could not comment on other cases, I was also told that since I was a male i had greater earning potential. Needless to say I ended up getting a second job and my girls became latch key kids and had to grow up a lot quicker than kids should. I will say this for my girls they have my work ethic and I couldn't be more proud.

Posted by weeman on May 18, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

well played conserve - I, too, wonder where the ACTUAL facts are to back up this obviously biased article......

It is a fact that I have seen many many times, someone paying for food in lonestar card and then buying beer, cigarettes and then hopping into a gas guzzling $40,000, vehicle to go party down for some grilling with the hundreds of dollars of steaks they just bought.....give me a break! and no, this has nothing to do with race...i feel that people of every race take advantage of the governments free handout while they sit on their collective a**'s, watch their big screen plasma's and wonder why they never ammount to anything. I also realize there are those out there that DO need the help to get by, but then as soon as they better themselves and their family are off the Lonestar...thats the whole point of this...if you use govt help, and need it...thats fine..but dont just sit there and expect it and not even try to better yourself..........

Posted by texmade2 on May 18, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They told me to get a divorce if I wanted any
help. The kids had only bread to eat when they
did not have school lunch. We did what we had to to get by , money for blood.

Posted by dalai-llama on May 18, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"This writer calls a person's choice to have children and to not go to school "structural barriers."

Analyze: Do you think that the education and options available to your child are identical to those available to the women described in that paragraph? Do you believe that your lives are comparable?

The report summarized it beautifully:

Welfare is not the problem. Poverty is the problem.

Futhermore, in this very thread we have people griping about the educational benefits welfare moms get; they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(P.S. - I'm in 100% agreement with you that the poor should be having fewer kids. That's why I support meaningful, informative, early sex education, along with free birth control, abortion on demand, and subsidized child care. Then again, I'm a crazy liberal who favors solutions THAT WORK over solutions that make me feel good.)

Weeman,

The link was to the American Psychological Association's web site. They compile a lot of psychological and sociological information and break it down in ways that make it easily accessible to the general public (LLama, 2008). This report was prepared specifically to address the issue of welfare and poverty reform in context. If you want to look at the ACTUAL facts, their sources are referenced.

(http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/ref.html)

Your apocryphal personal anecdotes of welfare queens are amusing, but they are not in accord with the facts.

As the report says:

"These popular prejudices hold firm in the face of research that clearly documents the fallacy of these perceptions."

I'm out.

Posted by conserveABI on May 19, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dailia wrote "Do you think that the education and options available to your child are identical to those available to the women described in that paragraph?"

Me: Yes. All kids are forced to go to school until aged 17. All needy kids can get free lunch to help them study without being hungry. All graduates are guaranteed acceptance into (at least) a community college by virtue of the Open Admissions Act of 1969.

One more thing: a report is not free of bias just because the APA publishes it.

Posted by blueevo on May 19, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like every other article, the focus of comments stray from the article. The article is about help for the elderly, not welfare kids. There will always be someone abusing the system, and I know of a few that are proud of their skills at knowing the right info to put on the paperwork. If the people standing in the welfare lines would be reading the job postings instead of what's on at the show this weekend.......

Posted by dalai-llama on May 19, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, I lied. I'm not out quite yet.

ConserveABI, you have raised some very good points and caught me being careless with my language. As you have noted, the options available are (for the most part) pretty even.

I fumbled my word choice, but the point I was trying to make is that even though the options are the same, when a family is in poverty their ability to take advantage of them is not. The free lunch program has been expanded to cover breakfast, but does not account for an evening meal or overall nutrition. The child's health, home environment, study time, attitudes about school, school supplies, and ability to participate in extra-curricular activities will all be directly (and negatively) impacted by living in poverty. Many of the secondary factors associated with poverty, such as crime and substance abuse in the home and neighborhood, are entirely beyond the student's control and will further negatively affect the child's education. As students in poverty get older, it is increasingly likely that the family's immediate concerns will be of greater importance than their long-term educational goals, and the child will get pulled into caring for younger siblings or getting a part-time job. Poverty will also negatively impact a child's social standing in the school environment. All of this assumes that the schools the child attends are competent to prepare the student for further education and have the resources to do so, which is certainly no guarantee in many of the poorest districts (through no fault of the educators.)

All of these conditions contribute to the circumstances under which kids turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, and criminal behavior to cope with their environments. Engaging in those behaviors is certainly a choice for which young adults should be held accountable, but punishing them after the fact is not an effective way of stopping the behavior or setting them up for success.

All this and we haven't even gotten the child out of high school, let alone into junior college where the kid has to pay for school, books, rent, and food.

You are right: the ladder is there for everyone. It's just very difficult to climb it when poverty has tied your hands behind your back. The law of averages dictates that some will manage it despite their handicaps. Until our society addresses the systemic causes of poverty, however, most will still need the helping hand that social welfare provides.

You are also right that every source is potentially biased. If you would detail the parts of the APA report that you believe to be biased and the reasons why you think they are, I'd be happy to discuss those issues specifically.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 19, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know several kids who grew up in poor homes. They wanted a different adult life for themselves. They took advantage of grants and worked their way through college. It all depends on the person and how much they want to change. How many of the families live in poverty due to their own choices? Children born to teenagers, drug abuse, domestic violence. Too many of them sit around and whine they live in poverty, but don't do anything to change their situation.

There are tons of programs in which they can get free school supplies, free school clothes. Most of those in poverty also have access to free health care and food stamps. They are responsible for changing their own destiny, not the government or society.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 19, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, kids who grow up in poor homes usually have more financial resources through grants and financial aid to go to college than say 'middle class' kids.

Posted by dalai-llama on May 19, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"They took advantage of grants and worked their way through college. It all depends on the person and how much they want to change. How many of the families live in poverty due to their own choices?"

Absolutely. There is a ladder out, and those who have the will AND the resources can climb it. That's why we have welfare programs: to provide the resources that people need to effect change in their lives.

This is a good thing.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 19, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But, dalai, how many of these families are generation after generation of welfare recepients? My guess would be more choose to live off the system than pull themselves out. That is why there need to be time limits on welfare - force the ones who are capable of taking care of themselves to do so. I don't mind helping the truly needy but we should not continue to support the lazy.

Posted by dalai-llama on May 20, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"My guess would be more choose to live off the system than pull themselves out."

Many people think that, but even with government assistance, living in poverty is not easy and it's not at all preferable to living independently.

From the APA report on poverty:

"A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent."

To be fair, the article did say that the return rate was high, but that is a reflection of the fact that poverty is very difficult to escape. Without some kind of meaningful intervention, poverty is cyclical; kids who grow up without the resources to succeed are not in a position to provide the resources necessary for their own children to succeed. Having a sister who can drive you to school, a neighbor with the leisure time to look after your kid, a parent that can cover your electric bill for a bad month, a $40 ink jet printer on which to print a late-night report - for a person in poverty, all it takes is one unlucky break for any of those things to mean the difference between an A and a W in a critical junior college course.

On average, our federal and state governments spend between 1 and 2% of their budgets on social welfare programs. Nobody's getting rich off your welfare dollar, and reducing poverty benefits all of us who share the streets and neighborhoods of this community. If nothing else, reducing poverty reduces the likelihood that someone will rip off my lawnmower, jack your car stereo, or shake down your kid for his sneakers.

It is also worth noting that "welfare" is only one component, and there are a lot of people working hard to fill in the gaps. 211, United Way, Region 14, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the YWCA, enough churches and faith-based programs to fill a phone book - the list is long here in Abilene. The resources are out there. People are willing to help. Yes, there will always be a handful of jerks trying to game the system, but most of the people these programs are trying to reach are just like us: they want a better life for their children just like we do for ours.

Posted by rsjz4 on May 20, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If nothing else, reducing poverty reduces the likelihood that someone will rip off my lawnmower, jack your car stereo, or shake down your kid for his sneakers."

So we have to let someone continue to live off the system so they don't steal from me?! That is one messed up system. Why don't these people get a freaking job and be a contributing member of society instead of a drain?

"Nobody's getting rich off your welfare dollar". That may be true. BUT I have seen these Lonestar recepients with way better groceries in their basket than mine. I have seen them pull out their Lonestar cards from $80 purses and with their freshly manicured nails. And let's not forget the new cars they get into in the parking lot. I am not saying this is every person who is on welfare but I have seen my fair share.

Why do you believe these people are not responsible for their selves or their own destiny? Why do you believe that it should be our responsibility to take care of people who don't want to take care of themselves? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you feel this way.

I grew up poor in a neglectful, drug-ridden house. I pulled myself out of that situation and do not drink, use drugs, or live off the system. I did not expect anyone but myself to take care of me.

Posted by mstiah on May 20, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These threads can sure race off the beaten path. How did it go from helping the elderly to I have to pay for my own kids college and its the welfare recipients fault. Crazy!

Posted by rsjz4 on May 20, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It started with how we will ignore our elderly but give handouts to able-body people who sit at home on their butts and keep having babies they can't take care of.

Posted by bab98a on May 20, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds to me like mostof the complaints are [rightfully] aimed at programs that are state/national in origin and not under local control. They are abused. My problem with this letter is how it uses these issues as a sign of LOCAL apathy towards elderly citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth! Search abilene texas non-profits and see how many organizations provided assistance. Check with local churches and see how many wonderful opportunities they provided for "seasoned" citizens. Call the city housing authority and discovered the numerous sources for reduced/subisidized housing for the elderly we have in Abilene. I am one of the first to point out the problems with government welfare programs, but Abilene treats it's seniors better than just about any other city you can find!