Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

For all the "ladies" that are so against those on Welfare/FoodStamps/WIC

If YOU were "in charge" what would qualify people for these assistance programs?

What requirements would they have to meet before you would help them out?

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 10:08 PM on Jul. 21, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (42)
  • So.... let me get this straight.... The majority of people here think that if a child happens to be born to a loser who does drugs, it should just be tough shit for the kid? "Sorry kiddo, your gonna have to starve to death because you were born to a loser. So chew on mamma's crack pipe - maybe that will dull your hunger pains" Is that the basic school of thought here?
    karamille

    Answer by karamille at 5:40 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • I'm not against it but i think they should all be drugged tested and be a legal citizen.
    mommy_of_two388

    Answer by mommy_of_two388 at 10:10 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • "Not drug testing, that's humiliating for those who aren't on drugs and it would disqualify people who smoke a little pot for recreation or medical reasons but tobacco smokers and alcohol consumers would qualify."

    --If you can afford to buy weed for recreational usage, then I think you can afford to buy food instead of drugs.
    xxlilmomma09

    Answer by xxlilmomma09 at 10:26 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • Drug testing, background checks to check for criminal history, legal citizenship proof on all people in the household, and working or actively attending job seeking type classes.
    xxlilmomma09

    Answer by xxlilmomma09 at 10:11 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • I'm not against being on them, I'm against people who abuse the system. I wish they did drug test people, at least once or twice a year, and check for proof of citizenship when they apply. It wouldnt weed out everyone but it would weed out some.
    soccerchik8287

    Answer by soccerchik8287 at 10:14 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • I think it's fine for people who do need the help. I'm not against it in that way.
    But there are alot of people who are able to get jobs, and they just live off of that instead.
    I wouldn't feel right doing that.
    That's why people are against it, because of those who make a bad example of it.
    Rachel24517

    Answer by Rachel24517 at 10:14 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • "Not drug testing, that's humiliating for those who aren't on drugs and it would disqualify people who smoke a little pot for recreation or medical reasons but tobacco smokers and alcohol consumers would qualify."

    Humiliating? Is it humiliating to pee in a cup when you're at the doctors? If you really need the help, you'll do it. If you're smoking a little pot for recreation can't you take your $20 "here and there" and spend it on something that you actually need?
    LishaBee

    Answer by LishaBee at 10:27 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • "Drug testing, background checks to check for criminal history, legal citizenship proof on all people in the household, and working or actively attending job seeking type classes. "

    I totally agree with this.
    thundernlight

    Answer by thundernlight at 10:22 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • Some form of legal immigration status whether that's citizenship or LPR or refugee status. Nutritional education for those getting food stamps, teach them how to cook healthy meals instead of buying junk. Proof that they're actually trying to get off the program in the case of welfare and food stamps, not so much WIC since there are many people on that for other reasons e.g. foster parents with kids under 5.

    Not drug testing, that's humiliating for those who aren't on drugs and it would disqualify people who smoke a little pot for recreation or medical reasons but tobacco smokers and alcohol consumers would qualify.
    RhondaVeggie

    Answer by RhondaVeggie at 10:22 PM on Jul. 21, 2010

  • This is gonna get ugly!
    SabrinaMBowen

    Answer by SabrinaMBowen at 10:10 PM on Jul. 21, 2010