Col, everything you posted here has nothing to do with the article. You take an article that has nothing to do about Bush, and turn it into a Bush bash. Pathetic.

I see you do not address the issue col, just blame Bush.

While not every person who is on welfare actually NEEDS that welfare, not every person on welfare is there for a free ride. There are individuals who are working hard to provide for their families and who need just a bit of help getting back to being productive members of society out there. And I don't begrudge those sincere, hardworking people a bit of my family's taxes

I don't mind assisting others with a hand UP. It's all of the people that are leeching from the system and using it as a hand OUT, that really get my goat.

I have had to use the welfare/medicaid programs before. Recently married, child on the way and recently laid off, I didn't have much of a choice at that point. However, we worked as hard as we could to be able to get off of those programs and be self-sufficient. Once a person gets back on their feet, then the assistance should slow down, and ultimately stop. Limits should be in place (and enforced, regardless of race/religion/creed/capability) that place SEVERE restrictions on those that are otherwise ablebodied and capable of work. Folks that are disabled from disease (like the young lady that my wife works with part time as a caregiver, or LW) or injury, are an exception. These are the kinds of folks that, we as a society, need to care for.

On another note, my wife and I are currently semi-debt free. The only debt that we currently have is the note on the house. Both vehicles are paid off (or were bought w/ cash), we have no credit cards (by choice), and any major purchases are paid for w/ cash, or we do without. In fact, the new computer that we purchased this weekend was paid for 100% before we walked into the store. Been saving for that baby for a couple years now.

It's nice to know that, if I died tomorrow, my life insurance would cover everything that is still outstanding (and burial costs) and still leave my wife enough of a nest egg that she wouldn't have to run out and get a job before I'm even buried.

Also if we are talking about "entitlement" programs. I recieved WIC, subsudized lunches and the Earned Income Credit. These are entitlement programs that we qualified for even though my husband was active duty in the military. We were at a lower pay grade at the time but these programs did help our family greatly.

First off, thanks to you and your husband for his service and to you for putting up with it!! Thanks!!

Now, where I may offend. Did you already have children before entering the military? If not, I would only suggest that were it me, I would have waited until I was at a higher pay grade before having children. Again, I think the problem with our system is that it is no longer a safety net but rather, it allows people to engage in behavior that they would not so readily do if assistance were not available. For example, when one says safety net, it means a way to protect you from the unforseen (loss of job, death of a spouse, medical emergencies, etc.). It is not meant to allow people to have children that they are not financially prepared for. My sister's husband is still in the military and they have timed their three children with his rank and pay increases as they were able to afford more. My wife is about to have our fourth child. I will get a vasectomy as soon as I know I have a healthy baby girl. I am getting the vasectomy not because I simply don't want any more children, but because we have looked at our finances and determined that we would not be comfortable with having any more children as we could not guarantee being able to fully provide for their needs. Additionally, my four children are aged 14, 9, 6 and the last due Sept. 30th. The difference in ages is primarily due to financial concerns. Simply put, I will not bring a child into this world that I am unprepared to financially provide for on my own.

I am not lecturing, but even your case, as innocent as it may seem, is yet another example of abuse unless you had an unforseen reason to require the assistance that you recieved. Otherwise, you used my tax dollars to ease your burden while I waited until I was financially able to afford my own children without assistance.

Most of the things that locamama listed are dual purpose. WIC not only benefits families but also farmers. Subsidized lunches benefit the schools financially (school administration encourages all parents to apply for reduced price lunches). And of course, Earned Income Credit is a tax benefit, and I can hardly see how anyone would consider filing income taxes correctly to be an abuse of welfare.

WIC: WIC is primarily a program to provide protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C as these are the items most lacking in the diets of low-income families. The side program that you must be referring to is available in 32 states and is basically a coupon service for fresh fruits designed to increase the public's awareness. The latest numbers available in 2003 showed a total budget of $4.696 billion for WIC in FY 2003. The appropriation includes $25 million for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. To call WIC a dual benefit is somewhat of a stretch.

Reduced Cost Lunch: The school is going to get paid for lunch one way or the other. They do not recieve any more money for a reduced cost lunch than a regular priced and in fact must wait to be reimbursed by a slow moving bureaucracy. I am quite sure that the schools would prefer cash paying customers as would most businesses.

EIC: Okay Tex, you are gonna make me have to say it like it is. If you truly qualify for EIC (as in you are a low income married couple, not a single mom hiding the babies daddie's income to rip off the government) then I would say that even though you are not abusing an entitlement, you are still irresponsible for having children unless of course you qualify for the EIC only because you have experienced a job loss. But plain and simple, if you have a child while qualifying for these programs, you are irresponsible. Now if you have had some sort of job loss or what not, then fine, but having kids while technically at the poverty line is just not right and it is an abuse of a system designed as a safety net. It is not designed to allow low income families to have babies before they are financially capable of supporting them.

If you have a problem with EIC, take it up with President Bush. He recently (recently being in the past couple of years) approved an increase in the child tax credit ($400 more per child, I believe).

Not only that, but childless low income wage earners qualify as well (income of less than $11,490 annually)...so if a single adult is attending college and working part time at The GAP, and receives EIC, are they being irresponsible?

Further, a married couple with one child making $31,338 annually qualifies for EIC. I hardly consider that an irresponsible income level.

Receiving public assistance is not a requirement (and in fact is in no way related to) for EIC. Therefore, a low income family with two or three children who receive no assistance and provide a simple but loving lifestyle for their children are not being irresponsible for receiving EIC. It's not something they need or ask for, but it is provided to them regardless when their income taxes are filed appropriately.

Your idea that one must have a lot of money in order to raise a child properly actually feeds into the entitlement mindset. A child can run and play just as well in hand-me-down Payless shoes as he can in $80 Nikes.

To call WIC a dual benefit is somewhat of a stretch.

"Somewhat of a stretch" = false?

I am quite sure that the schools would prefer cash paying customers as would most businesses.

And you are wrong. Many schools ENCOURAGE all parents, even those who doubt they will qualify, to fill out the application forms. I'm not sure how the funding works, but I do know that I have heard many administrators at many different schools tell the parents to fill them out because the more students they have that qualify (i.e., more low income students), the more funding the school will receive.

ericseba: I assume that you've been busy today and that is why you haven't replied...but I want to bump this to make sure you see it.

because the more students they have that qualify (i.e., more low income students), the more funding the school will receive

You make it sound almost as though they receive MORE money if someone is low income which is not the case. These administrators may simply have the same mentality as dentists or doctors that prefer Medicare and Medicaid recipients. While the government is a slow moving bureaucracy, they do reimburse and probably ask fewer questions than most private insurers. Perhaps that's why administrators like reduced cost lunches; guaranteed money from the government. And like most people of that mentality, they think government money grows on trees. They tend to forget that people like my wife and I contributed that money while paying for our own children’s lunches.

One other thing Tex, please don’t get the impression that I am “well off” or at least that I was born that way. As I mentioned earlier, I have lived as an Airman 1st Class in the Air Force, later as a $15,000.00 a year fast food assistant manager, a waiter, a delivery driver and after many years, the operations manager for a food manufacturer in Atlanta. In fact, I am now the number two man in the same company that hired me as a delivery driver. I got here by hard work and dedication to my job and my family. Because I used to be an Airman 1st Class and other jobs that earned less then $20,000.00, I guess I appreciate money a little bit more than others (I’ve known what is like to not have it). I took my time, had my children as I could afford them and I now enjoy the ability to raise them without the assistance of the federal government, in fact, I would say the federal government needs me a lot more than I need them.

I repeat, I have no problem with safety nets, but it is undeniable that many people use goverment "assistance" as a way of life and as a means to afford children that they would otherwsie be unable to.

Okay Tex, I can speak from even better experience than you if you have a mere two years in the Army. I was an Army brat for ten years. My father was in Vietnam when I was born at Martin Army hospital on Fort Benning, I vividly recall growing up on Fort Belvoir and later on Fort Bragg. I served for three years active and two reserve myself. Please do not accuse me ever again of disdain for the military. I can merely speak from 13 years of experience that the benefits mean much more than you seem to want to give credit for.

Before my husband joined up, we were both employed full time and working on our degrees. We had a monthly income of around $2,700. That's LESS than $35K a year. Rent, $600, Utilities, $100, Car pymt $330, Child care $300, Gas $120, Groceries $400, Phone $40, Cell Phones $65, Cable $35, Internet $20, Auto Insurance $200 We had nearly $600 left over for incidentals, including doctor's visits, clothing, etc.

Was that $2,700.00 before or after tax, if so you made much more than 35k and if not you had much less than $600 for incidentals. $600.00 rent? Very hard to find in metro Atlanta. $100.00 for utilities? Please tell me where, I'm moving. $300.00 child care? I've never found day care at less than $125.00 per week for an infant and I've been looking for 14 years now. Groceries $400.00? Seems like I spend that on formula alone sometimes. What you left out was diapers, baby powder, liquid tylenol (unfortunately not available as hand me downs). How about laundry soap, bath soap, shampoo, conditioner, razors, toothpaste (I'm just burning up your so-called incidentals money). I don't know about you poor people (my dad's military career is such a distant memory) but us rich folk tend to bathe so those last items are kinda handy.

Just wondering; where did you dig up money for tuition and books?

Okay Tex, I can speak from even better experience than you if you have a mere two years in the Army.

Oh really sir/ madam? Then you need a refresher course.

If my kid goes to the optometrist and needs a new pair of glasses, it's not free for me as it is for you. It's going to cost me around $300.00. Now let's say my kid goes out and breaks those glasses in two weeks, I won't have to pay for a new exam, but it's the frames that cost the most, so there's another $200.00. Now let's say my other child goes to the dentist and needs braces. I have dental insurance, but guess what Tex? In the "real" world most dental insurance policies have individual maximums of $1,000.00 per family member. Guess what? I'll be about $4,000.00 short of what I need. I don't know what kind of benefits you think the military gets, but we'd be out about the same amount as you. Our insurance pays for a portion (not the whole thing) of our civilian optometry care. Glasses, contacts exams and prescriptions, all that...out of pocket. We don't get free dental. We have a dental policy that we purchased. We pay a monthly premium and a co-pay for our dental work. I've spent several hundred dollars over the past year on dental services. Puhleeze

ONLY the military "member" gets it for free. That is unless it's changed since 1981 (correct me if I'm wrong Tex)?

tell me this tex, does your health insurance compare to this?

Link

Let's see, I've taken the liberty of applying at Aetna for insurance for a family of four. We have a nice plan staring at the low monthly price of $281.00. Now we do have an annual deductible of $10,000.00 per family after which the 20% co-pay kicks in. Or let's look at the next plan, if you are willing to pay $9.00 more per month ($280.00) then you eliminate the co-pay yet keep the $10,000.00 deductible (quite a chunk out of the old 35k huh?).

But hark!! they offer a plan that has a deductible less than 10% of your annual income at $3,000.00 per family, unfortunately your rate just jumped to $411.00 while you continue to pay the 20% co-pay up to $3,000.00. So let's see, you have $411.00 per month ($4,932.00 annually) and an annual deductible of ($6,000.00) for a grand total of $10,932.00 or roughly 31.2% of you annual gross income.

I talked with my sister down at Benning on the way home. You are really painting a much bleaker picture than is realistic. My sister says they are deducted $19.00 for dental, as you said, two free cleanings and she mentioned an annual full mouth x-ray. She says that dentists must charge a set fee and that your co-pay is 20% (she just paid $140.00 out of pocket for a root canal). There is no charge for the health insurance for military dependents and she tells me that while there is a 5-10 dollar co-pay for prescriptions, there is no co-pay for emergency or doctor vists. I illustrated above that paying out of pocket for premiums, co-pays and deductibles is a $10,000.00 investment for a family of four (unless you are very healthy).

This is not to demean the military or it's members. Every single American soldier and their families are my personal heros and the benefits and pay they receive are not enough if you ask me. But the simple fact that I originally tried to illustrate before you painted me an anti-military, rich, elitist is that it is unrealistic for a family of four to exist on $35,548.00 in the civilian world. You have nearly made my point by illustrating that your "real" family income is more like 50-60k and you still have to budget and save for a dental procedure, yet you feel it's appropriate to have two children in the civiian world while earning 15-25k less than your current "real" income.

eric: I've NEVER had private insurance. When my children were babies we had Medicaid. That's it. The rest of the time we paid out of pocket.

And guess what? It didn't cost anywhere NEAR $11K a year. We probably spent less than $1K on medical care any given year. I don't have sickly kids. My husband and I are both healthy adults.

I'm really sorry that your family requires so much medical care. I suppose if my family was like that I'd be freaked out about it, too.

I talked with my sister down at Benning on the way home.

Hahaha. Now you have a sister in the military? Ok, sure.

My sister says they are deducted $19.00 for dental

There's NO "they deduct". It's insurance. Optional. Not mandatory.

Our premium is $25, not $19. Insurance doesn't cover everything. It's just like any other insurance policy you buy. You'll notice I covered it in detail above, so I'm not going to reiterate. I'm not sure what your point is here. It's dental insurance. It's no big boon for us.

As far as health care goes, it's free if you see your PCM on base or a physician from the list. Just like any HMO, it's very specific about who can see you and what can be done.

Prescriptions provided on base are fully covered (surprised your "military sister" didn't tell you this). Generic prescriptions are around $3 at an approved pharmacy, name brand is much more.

Health care benefits are EARNED by the service member. Why you refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me.

This is not to demean the military or it's members. Every single American soldier and their families are my personal heros and the benefits and pay they receive are not enough if you ask me.

BULLSHIT! If that were true, you would not be claiming that we have all these "FREE" benefits that make our lives so nice and tidy. You wouldn't be insisting that it's not like the "real world".

But the simple fact that I originally tried to illustrate before you painted me an anti-military, rich, elitist is that it is unrealistic for a family of four to exist on $35,548.00 in the civilian world.

I didn't illustrate you as anything. I wrote about an elitist attitude that concerns me. If you saw yourself reflected in that article, then perhaps you should do some self contemplation.

You have nearly made my point by illustrating that your "real" family income is more like 50-60k and you still have to budget and save for a dental procedure, yet you feel it's appropriate to have two children in the civiian world while earning 15-25k less than your current "real" income.

$50-$60K in Hawaii is different than $50-$60K on the mainland. Understand this. We make enough money to be comfortable, but we do not have a lot of flashy things. Our lifestyle is fairly modest. Better than some, worse than others.

Budget and save for a dental procedure? What?

I've had several (expensive) dental procedures in the past year, and each time I've paid them out in installments. That's what regular people do. That's what people who make $35K and under do. This is not rocket science, dude.

Ergo you don't really live on 35k per year then do you?

I never claimed that we currently live on $35K. You're all over the map with this one.

BULLSHIT! If that were true, you would not be claiming that we have all these "FREE" benefits that make our lives so nice and tidy. You wouldn't be insisting that it's not like the "real world".

Tex, you of all people should know that you do not live in the real world. You and every one of your neighbors is a famiy with a man or woman who may very well one day put their life on the line for our country. No, you don't live in the real world.

EIC: Okay Tex, you are gonna make me have to say it like it is. If you truly qualify for EIC (as in you are a low income married couple, not a single mom hiding the babies daddie's income to rip off the government) then I would say that even though you are not abusing an entitlement, you are still irresponsible for having children unless of course you qualify for the EIC only because you have experienced a job loss. But plain and simple, if you have a child while qualifying for these programs, you are irresponsible.

OK, this is a load of finely tuned BS. Just because your income levels are low enough for you to qualify for EIC does NOT mean you do not make enough money to have children. In case you weren't aware, the EIC benefit for a married family with two children tops out at over $30,000...more than ample income in many areas of the country to raise a family.

EIC, for all its flaws, actually encourages responsible behaviour. By paying more for married couples than for unmarried, it encourages families to stay married and thus (in theory at least) curbs one of the major risk factors for generational poverty. Furthermore, you can't receive EIC unless you actually EARN money, which means it encourages families to be out working, earning money.

Don't get me wrong. EIC, along with many other entitlement programs, needs to go. But of the personal entitlement programs out there, EIC is one of the most benign.