Future Wife on Food stamps. Would she lose it?

[Ginger cat 3]

If you have legally entered the US and are legally working, and have an income of 35K, yes she will probably lose her food stamps and this is a GOOD thing. Be happy.

not so sure...

well, when you think about it, i mean in some other pov like just "be a public charge", be dependant reliant (is that also a coorect word?)of a man or of the gov..that' still means be dependant and not self reliant, anyway...

i am not sure which is the best.

At least, women are not married to a governement.

personally i prefer to give a little share of my income for sinlge women with kids, than getting them compelled to be married to an idiot that insults her bc no welfare system exists or is too poor to be efficient.

((((((shock of cultures)))))

[Ginger cat 3]

i love that thread...

If i could, i would bump it till the end of time..

it's like the nose in the middle of the face, you can see all the american capitlist individualist culture condeming someone that needs support from whoever it is (hubby, familly, governement)...but the US ppl don't consider that as a matter of the collectivity of the society, bc they presume that we are all equal in front of equality of chances of success in life and everything.

so if you need help that's only your fault, and it's only up to you to make yoru life better.

and i like how it is sooooo easy for some to say, when they have no clue of that woman, her life, her spyche, her skills, her experience, her path:

"time for her to get a job!"

so, so, soooooooo smart...

time for some to go and buy some smartness and wisedom!

Edited May 7, 2009 by Ginger cat

[wizardfitz 13]

actually the problem is the poster did not give enough information for us to be able to give him accurate answers. he has no timeline, no nothing....thats why the replies have been so across the board here. everyone is speculating on what they think his situation is. it would be helpful if he posted a timeline and a more detailed description of what point they are on, where they are at on their VJ.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

She needs to get a job and stop having taxpayers support her.

SPOT ON Im sick of paying for free loaders!

:girlwerewolf2xn: :girlwerewolf2xn: :girlwerewolf2xn:

Have either of you even taken a peak down your upturned noses at the economy lately????? Do you NOT see that the need is RISING!

Before you speak why not GET THE FACTS RIGHT FIRST???

The last I looked, cash assistance & food stamps accounts for LESS THAN 3% of all of what is included in "welfare".

Here are a few other welfare programs your tax money supports.

1. TAX WRITE OFF'S OF MORTGAGE INTEREST

2. PELL GRANTS AND OTHER GRANTS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST STUDENTS

3. FARMERS BEING PAID NOT TO FARM

4. CORPORATE WELFARE

There are more.

BTW Tsup2 - OP's future wife HAS A JOB, she is raising 3 children and if she's like the majority of single moms in the US she doesn't get a DIME of support or any help whatsoever from the sperm donor for those children. HOW DARE YOU EVEN THINK to say this woman doesn't have a job, she has the most important job - raising and taking care of her children.

I think you will not take issue with the fact that earning your way off welfare programs is a GOOD thing. Correct?

As to the other items you mention, NONE are classified as "means based benefits" which immigrants cannot receive, and "corporate welfare" is nothing but a sound bite, there really is no such thing. Pell Grants provide education which, hopefully, prevents someone from needing future welfare (Give a man a fish, he eats today, teach a man to fish and he eats for life) and are in no way classifed as welfare, and immigrants ARE eligible for Pell Grants.

Taxing corporations is an excerise in futility. Only idividuals pay tax. All other tax is passed on to consumers, stockholders or business owners. Corporations are pieces of paper, they cannot pay tax, they have no machine to print money and hand it over as tax (only government prints money)they can only collect tax from others by raising the price of their products or services, and passing it through their bank account to the government. Support the FAIR TAX!

And NO, I am not pleased with paying welfare benefits for people who have a means to get off them and this post brings to point an unintended consequence of welfare...that anyone would consider remaining a single mother (the hardest job in the WORLD) because the government will financially punish her for getting married. It is a hook in the system designed to promote the system and keep people dependent on government. Government has become the "father" to way too many families and it is not beneficial in the long run. I DO support the government pursueing the "sperm donors" and extracting as much as possible from them for the benefit of the children and hard working mother.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you have legally entered the US and are legally working, and have an income of 35K, yes she will probably lose her food stamps and this is a GOOD thing. Be happy.

not so sure...

well, when you think about it, i mean in some other pov like just "be a public charge", be dependant reliant (is that also a coorect word?)of a man or of the gov..that' still means be dependant and not self reliant, anyway...

i am not sure which is the best.

At least, women are not married to a governement.

personally i prefer to give a little share of my income for sinlge women with kids, than getting them compelled to be married to an idiot that insults her bc no welfare system exists or is too poor to be efficient.

((((((shock of cultures)))))

I do not consider the man she would marry an "idiot". I am still, regardless of past erroneous decisions about who she accepted "sperm donations" from, confident in the woman's ability to choose her husband, particularly one involving an immigration process. Gladly women are not married to the government and therefore not in a long term commitment, that sword cuts both ways. When she is married and her husband earns a good income, she will no longer need government assistance and that is a very good thing. Is it not?

Please, fell free to donate whatever percentage of your income you like to the local needy mothers cause, there are lots of these organizations and it is a much more efficient way of helping people than sending it to Washington and hope some is left for the needy mothers when they get done with it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i love that thread...

If i could, i would bump it till the end of time..

it's like the nose in the middle of the face, you can see all the american capitlist individualist culture condeming someone that needs support from whoever it is (hubby, familly, governement)...but the US ppl don't consider that as a matter of the collectivity of the society, bc they presume that we are all equal in front of equality of chances of success in life and everything.

so if you need help that's only your fault, and it's only up to you to make yoru life better.

and i like how it is sooooo easy for some to say, when they have no clue of that woman, her life, her spyche, her skills, her experience, her path:

"time for her to get a job!"

so, so, soooooooo smart...

time for some to go and buy some smartness and wisedom!

American capitalist individualism has been very beneficial for the majority of Americans and our allies in the world. Just for an example, American individualism and capitalism and productivity saved the freedoms of the people of France TWICE in the last century. The country has even erected monuments to the contributions we made to the freedom of its people. Not to ignore the Canadians and British by the way, who per capia contributed even more. It was a SHERMAN tank, built in Detroit and driven by an American farmboy who would much rather have been pulling the steering levers on his farm tractor, that liberated Paris in 1944. I will always believe in the ability of individual American women to do better for themselves and their family, no matter how many people tell me they "can't" and that they "need" the government to do it for them. Sorry, I just have too much faith in American capitalistic individuality to sell the woman down the road and say she "can't".

If people need help, fine, but only they can truly make their life better, through education (Pell Grants) or even marriage to a good responsible person who is dedicated to his family and that is not a bad thing.

To say we have no clue is to suggest that many of us, married to foreign women, have no clue what their life was like before. It is preposterous. It is also to insult these womens choices and accomplishments in life. Certainly there are more choices than living off the government. My wife was sinlge Mom for many years and worked very hard to make good things for her family. She didn't need me, not to say that working together isn't better, and she didn't need the government, or didn't want the government to raise her family. Now she has a stable family life, husband that works with her and is making furhter advancements for her children. Her future and her children's is better and brighter now because we work together for our family. Problem? Imagine the better choices her and her children will now have, imagine what they can do now with better education, more opportunity of places to live. How is it possibly a bad thing?

The reaction you see of many people against welfare is knee-jerk to be sure. We do not like seeing a quarter of what we work for confiscated and largely wasted (its that individuality kicking in again) but it is not because people are uneducated or ignorant.

I hope the OP and his fiancee have a good future, prosperous, obscenely profitable and beneficial for their entire family.

[SterlingGirl 1]

I'll say this much - if the reason she's on food stamps is because she doesn't have a job, then the OP's income should be a welcome help for her to be able to put the kids in daycare or preschool and get a job.

If she's on food stamps but does have a job, then there will be two incomes (from what I gather from the OP's) post. In that event, the food stamps SHOULD be revoked and she should want the first opportunity TO get off of them.

As for her kids "being the most important job" - look, I'm a mother, and I love my child, but my kid was my choice. I doubt if I stood in front of a bunch of taxpayers who also have children and said, "I shouldn't have to get a job/find an adequately-paying job because my children ARE my job" that it would fly very far. You make the choice to have kids, you make sure you have a way to feed them that doesn't involve a lifetime on public support. Our planet isn't so starved for people that one person deciding to have three kids is doing the world a service.

Edited May 7, 2009 by SterlingGirl

[rebeccajo 14]

The reaction you see of many people against welfare is knee-jerk to be sure. We do not like seeing a quarter of what we work for confiscated and largely wasted (its that individuality kicking in again) but it is not because people are uneducated or ignorant.

Do all our tax dollars go for welfare?

[SterlingGirl 1]

The reaction you see of many people against welfare is knee-jerk to be sure. We do not like seeing a quarter of what we work for confiscated and largely wasted (its that individuality kicking in again) but it is not because people are uneducated or ignorant.

Do all our tax dollars go for welfare?

Not for welfare, no, but they're inclusive with state and federal income taxes, and that's not to even mention FICA, which I consider yet another instance of my money being redistributed in a way that OTHER people deem fair. I find it rich that the amount extracted from my pay every two weeks would EASILY cover an insurance payment on my policy for my husband. Rather than have them mishandling it and probably spending a hilarious chunk of it on administrative costs (for some bored 20-something to smack gum and roll her eyes while calling "Next" at the ever-widening black hole of efficiency known as the Social Security Adminstration), I could've taken that amount and used it to support my family directly.

I don't know about anyone else here and I don't speak for them, but some people (myself most vocally included) are miffed at all vestiges of a welfare state - federal insurance, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Things like eating, taking yourself to the doctor, etc - those are responsibilities. They're things people should be doing for themselves. And if there are some who absolutely couldn't allow people to tough it out or use the high stakes to fuel them to better their own situations, then by all means, those people could volunteer their own money.

Again, not speaking for anyone else, but I know I've seen people having to very, very carefully budget their money just to get the person they love into the country, especially when one of them is often crippled by that very system and can't get work immediately (and usually inadequate work once they ARE allowed to). This guy HAS a job, and could at least help support the family, yet the predominate concern is her keeping food stamps after a prospective $35,000 boost to the household income? Of course people are going to be a little critical. That doesn't sound to me like someone who reluctantly accepted some absolutely crucially-needed help, but someone who has become accustomed to that being her way of survival to the point where she couldn't imagine not having it readily available, even though the household income is increasing. I've had people like that in my family (purposefully trying to engineer their working hours so as to hold on to public benefits, etc) and they absolutely disgust me.

Edited May 7, 2009 by SterlingGirl

[rebeccajo 14]

The reaction you see of many people against welfare is knee-jerk to be sure. We do not like seeing a quarter of what we work for confiscated and largely wasted (its that individuality kicking in again) but it is not because people are uneducated or ignorant.

Do all our tax dollars go for welfare?

Not for welfare, no, but they're inclusive with state and federal income taxes, and that's not to even mention FICA, which I consider yet another instance of my money being redistributed in a way that OTHER people deem fair. I find it rich that the amount extracted from my pay every two weeks would EASILY cover an insurance payment on my policy for my husband. Rather than have them mishandling it and probably spending a hilarious chunk of it on administrative costs (for some bored 20-something to smack gum and roll her eyes while calling "Next" at the ever-widening black hole of efficiency known as the Social Security Adminstration), I could've taken that amount and used it to support my family directly.

I don't know about anyone else here and I don't speak for them, but some people (myself most vocally included) are miffed at all vestiges of a welfare state - federal insurance, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Things like eating, taking yourself to the doctor, etc - those are responsibilities. They're things people should be doing for themselves. And if there are some who absolutely couldn't allow people to tough it out or use the high stakes to fuel them to better their own situations, then by all means, those people could volunteer their own money.

Again, not speaking for anyone else, but I know I've seen people having to very, very carefully budget their money just to get the person they love into the country, especially when one of them is often crippled by that very system and can't get work immediately (and usually inadequate work once they ARE allowed to). This guy HAS a job, and could at least help support the family, yet the predominate concern is her keeping food stamps after a prospective $35,000 boost to the household income? Of course people are going to be a little critical. That doesn't sound to me like someone who reluctantly accepted some absolutely crucially-needed help, but someone who has become accustomed to that being her way of survival to the point where she couldn't imagine not having it readily available, even though the household income is increasing. I've had people like that in my family (purposefully trying to engineer their working hours so as to hold on to public benefits, etc) and they absolutely disgust me.

I can see your point.

I feel the same way about my tax dollars being spent for military excursions into other parts of the world under false pretenses.

I'm wondering if your husband feels the same way as you. My husband is from the UK and I know his thoughts about which nation is the most 'family friendly'.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

OH SNAP!!!!

[rebeccajo 14]

OH SNAP!!!!

Well, I didn't mean it to be 'snapp-ish'. I meant it to be 'food for thought-ish'.

And not to play the 'old age card' AGAIN, but I do think peoples opinions on these topics often change as they age. I know the issue of healthcare becomes a more and more 'passionate' one as I age.

[SterlingGirl 1]

I feel the same way about my tax dollars being spent for military excursions into other parts of the world under false pretenses.

As do I. I feel military spending should be FAR more tightly regulated and the majority of our military scaled back to a defense meant for Homeland Security and formal declarations of war brought upon us (or declared on another nation transparently as a response to attack). Overall, I think we should be less involved, militarily, in the goings-on of the rest of the world.

I'm wondering if your husband feels the same way as you. My husband is from the UK and I know his thoughts about which nation is the most 'family friendly'.

He does indeed feel the exact same way as me. Having worked in Britain for quite some time, he was no stranger to the absolutely abhorrent amount of taxes taken out of his checks in exchange for what was often, at best, sub-par healthcare and a dole that literally offered no motivation for anyone to ever get off it.

He had to have a minor surgery on ingrown toenails shortly after he got here, a condition that wouldn't have been as bad if the numerous UK doctors he'd seen since the problem began (at age 17; he's now 25) had actually treated him properly and looked for root CAUSES of the inflammation, rather than just cutting here and there, slapping a bandage on it, and sending him on his way like one in a herd of cattle. Without insurance, yes, it was a bit costly (about $750 for the entire procedure). But the doctor was involved, she X-rayed him for free to be sure that the lack of proper care up to that point hadn't caused a bone infection in his foot (it hadn't, thankfully), encouraged us to follow up with her as needed (at no charge), and sure enough, we've had no problems whatsoever ever since.

He said that, yes, the prices for healthcare were kind of cumbersome (and definitely would be better if we had some insurance for him), but he got exactly what he paid for and he'd be happy to do it again. He appreciated having the choice rather than absolutely sky-high private insurance and costs for private practitioners in a country where an insane amount of his pay was eaten up in taxes and VAT, making it nearly impossible for him to exercise any real "choice" he might have had in the UK.

In his opinion, like mine, it isn't the government's job to be "family friendly", as it's the individuals choice to HAVE a family. No one ever made someone have children at gunpoint.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

OH SNAP!!!!

Well, I didn't mean it to be 'snapp-ish'. I meant it to be 'food for thought-ish'.

And not to play the 'old age card' AGAIN, but I do think peoples opinions on these topics often change as they age. I know the issue of healthcare becomes a more and more 'passionate' one as I age.

I was agreeing with you, sister darneeeeeeet

[Mike B. 231]

I'd much rather pay for someone to buy food for their kids than pay a zillion dollars a minute to send 10,000 high school drop-outs to go torture and kill Iraqis, but I'm not going to jump down someone's throat the next time someone asks a question about how getting shipped out will mess up their visa status. It shouldn't be any more socially acceptable to jump down the throat of someone who is considering getting married to someone on food stamps.

Also, I always get a good laugh out of people who complain about the inefficiency of Social Security. The SSA mails out tens of millions of checks to people across the entire country and it actually manages to get them there in the right amount on exactly the right day. If that's the best example of inefficiency you can think of, that you're living a pretty good life.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Mike B.