Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/state-mom-shot-kids-self-denied-food-stamps-204249288.html

O we're "confused" why she did it? She and her two kids were starving, simple. Not a coincidence she did this in the state welfare agency she was denied food stamps in.... Why yes, there are consequences to cutting social programs, including mental health services....

Wait, is this the same one from a few pages back? The one who had to lie in the foodstamp thing to feed her family, but paid the money back afterwards, but got a prison sentenve nonetheless?

No.  This person failed to provide some information of undisclosed nature and amount.

They wanted paperwork which anyone with five or more functioning brain cells knew doesn't exist and couldn't be obtained:

1.) Verification of employment of a jobless woman whose last place of employment is entirely defunct. There is no possibility of her being able to get any records and no one to get them from. 
2.) Tax returns (She didn't make any money thus no taxes or or tax returns were filed by the starving woman.)
3.) Demographic information including an address.... She is transient and really homeless. She doesn't have an address....

So in other words it was something like this:
Her, "Please help. Me and my kids are starving and have no food or anything."
State, "Fill out 18 pages of bullshit and give us forms that are impossible for you to give us because they don't exist."
Her, "Food? "

[justinlee999]

http://news.yahoo.com/state-mom-shot-kids-self-denied-food-stamps-204249288.html

O we're "confused" why she did it? She and her two kids were starving, simple. Not a coincidence she did this in the state welfare agency she was denied food stamps in.... Why yes, there are consequences to cutting social programs, including mental health services....

Wait, is this the same one from a few pages back? The one who had to lie in the foodstamp thing to feed her family, but paid the money back afterwards, but got a prison sentenve nonetheless?

No.  This person failed to provide some information of undisclosed nature and amount.

They wanted paperwork which anyone with five or more functioning brain cells knew doesn't exist and couldn't be obtained:

1.) Verification of employment of a jobless woman whose last place of employment is entirely defunct. There is no possibility of her being able to get any records and no one to get them from. 
2.) Tax returns (She didn't make any money thus no taxes or or tax returns were filed by the starving woman.)
3.) Demographic information including an address.... She is transient and really homeless. She doesn't have an address....

So in other words it was something like this:
Her, "Please help. Me and my kids are starving and have no food or anything."
State, "Fill out 18 pages of bullshit and give us forms that are impossible for you to give us because they don't exist."
Her, "Food? "

Sounds like an elaborate troll scheme if you ask me.

[shadenight123]

social services for the kids.

do i have to stress this out enough?
they were minor. she wasn't able to feed them.
social services for the kids.

is it the morally right thing? no.
is it the perfect humanity solution? no.

is it what could have avoided all this? yes.

at the very least, it could have avoided the two childrens deaths.

this is the only sad thing.

and reading the article, it seems she didn't come to the first interview.
she could have had her reasons, but they couldn't even get in contact with her.
she applied on the 7 of july, but she didn't even come back or let anything known for an entire month, and then on the 8th of august she was denied.
she was homeless yet she had kids with her?
why didn't she mention all this stuff during the interview in which she didn't go, or while applying?

those who are cause of their own sickness, have only themselves to blame.

it's easy to say "the state is a troll". the state is impartial.
social services, people who passed laws are trolls. the state is a completely neutral ensemble of legislatives laws, and as such, cannot be a troll.

[RedKing]

Well yeah, there are who do prefer to live in those car-houses rather than buildings, I guess. My neighbour's brother and brother's-wife, when they retired, sold their house, bought one of those big nice mobile homes to drive around Europe with (Spain, France and Italy especially) and live where ever. Pretty cool concept, I think. They certainly aren't lacking for money, but then again, they wouldn't be able to pay any such fees anyway since they don't hang around for long.

Then again I also know that at least a part of Sweden's homeless people statistics is made up out of people who don't live in a traditional housing, wanting to live in "freedom" in their stationary house-carts instead. I saw a documentary about some of them a couple of years ago. They didn't look very rich at all.

There's a difference between an RV (what it sounds like you're describing in the first part) and a mobile home. RVs are basically big bus-like vehicles with beds and other amenities in them. They're expensive and they're usually pretty nice. Kinda like a band's tour bus.

A mobile home is more like a cheap house that can be put on wheels and moved. They're considerably cheaper than an actual house, and so are often the dwelling of necessity for poorer people, especially in rural areas where land is plentiful and cheap apartments aren't. Because people who need to live in a trailer often can't afford land either, they're typically clustered together in lots of open land with electricity and water hookups in "trailer parks". These are sort of your poor rural equivalent of a ghetto.

The house in the story is the latter kind.

To sum up:

Spoiler: RV (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Trailer park/mobile homes (click to show/hide)

Granted, there are no-frills RVs and there are nice mobile homes. But it's two different cultures. RV'ers are usually retirees who have some money and want to tour the country and feel the "freedom of the road". People in mobile homes usually plop them down in a trailer park and don't go anywhere unless they have to move (for one thing, moving a trailer is a much bigger PITA than an RV). I'm positive the house in the story is the latter kind. And as some have already pointed out, they might have not paid the $75 because they couldn't afford it. It's regression to 18th century modes of civil service, when firefighting and police were private organizations that you paid fees to.


Between this and the woman who couldn't get social services because she couldn't provide nonexistent information, I'm beginning to wonder when this country turned into a Kafka novel.

[Nadaka]

social services for the kids.

do i have to stress this out enough?
they were minor. she wasn't able to feed them.
social services for the kids.

is it the morally right thing? no.
is it the perfect humanity solution? no.

is it what could have avoided all this? yes.

at the very least, it could have avoided the two childrens deaths.

this is the only sad thing.

The fuck? It isn't sad that a woman was driven to suicide? Only that a couple kids got hurt (they are still alive last I heard). She missed an appointment, lots of reasons for that when you have no resources. Maybe she couldn't get a ride, maybe the bus was late, maybe she couldn't afford a bus ride, maybe there was no bus, maybe she had a job interview that fell through. She didn't get back in touch with them for weeks? again lots of reasons for that when you are starving and have no help. But none of that matters.

The system here completely failed. Every single thing about it is a tragedy.

[Truean]

social services for the kids.

do i have to stress this out enough?
they were minor. she wasn't able to feed them.
social services for the kids.

is it the morally right thing? no.
is it the perfect humanity solution? no.

is it what could have avoided all this? yes.

at the very least, it could have avoided the two childrens deaths.

this is the only sad thing.

and reading the article, it seems she didn't come to the first interview.
she could have had her reasons, but they couldn't even get in contact with her.
she applied on the 7 of july, but she didn't even come back or let anything known for an entire month, and then on the 8th of august she was denied.
she was homeless yet she had kids with her?
why didn't she mention all this stuff during the interview in which she didn't go, or while applying?

those who are cause of their own sickness, have only themselves to blame.

it's easy to say "the state is a troll". the state is impartial.
social services, people who passed laws are trolls. the state is a completely neutral ensemble of legislatives laws, and as such, cannot be a troll.

Um, what? No, this is the full consequence of cutting social services. Easier, cheaper fix: give them food (stamps) some counseling/a social worker and a place to sleep. Child homelessness is a major problem in the US. You couldn't provide foster care for all of them anyhow. 1 out of every 50 kids in the US, about 1.5 Million, go to sleep without a home of their own each year. O look at that, Texas is one of the worst states for child homelessness.

This is a cop out too many people use, "well just foster care for the kids." No, there isn't enough funding for the kids already in foster care here. How does anyone expect to add 1.5 Million more to the system when the FUNDING IS BEING CUT? Nevermind the fact that it's apparently OK for people to break up families if they are poor, because that's alright.... Nevermind what on earth these kids are going to do when they grow up and move from "homeless children," to "homeless adult." It happens, we ignore it, until something like this hopefully forces us to see it.

This was entirely foreseeable and preventable. Missed an appointment? Didn't have bullshit/impossible to get paperwork? No, the real problem is that no one gives a shit about these people, at all. At all.... Take a look at the comments in that article, the attitude is "welfare leech." Bullshit. No, this is what happens when you deny people basic social services. There are real consequences, because there are real people. "Criminal," "poor," "foreigner," people hear these words and have a stereotype in their heads. Criminals are bad guys from cartoons or old TV shows. No. Poor people are lazy and deserve everything they go through. No.....

Having a country with no jobs and no other way to support yourself, means that people, real people and their entire families, including kids get tossed aside. But, hey, can't raise taxes, especially on the "job creators" rich that utterly fail to create jobs THAT would be an injustice....

[scriver]

There's a difference between an RV (what it sounds like you're describing in the first part) and a mobile home. RVs are basically big bus-like vehicles with beds and other amenities in them. They're expensive and they're usually pretty nice. Kinda like a band's tour bus.

A mobile home is more like a cheap house that can be put on wheels and moved. They're considerably cheaper than an actual house, and so are often the dwelling of necessity for poorer people, especially in rural areas where land is plentiful and cheap apartments aren't. Because people who need to live in a trailer often can't afford land either, they're typically clustered together in lots of open land with electricity and water hookups in "trailer parks". These are sort of your poor rural equivalent of a ghetto.

The house in the story is the latter kind.

To sum up:

*image snip*

Granted, there are no-frills RVs and there are nice mobile homes. But it's two different cultures. RV'ers are usually retirees who have some money and want to tour the country and feel the "freedom of the road". People in mobile homes usually plop them down in a trailer park and don't go anywhere unless they have to move (for one thing, moving a trailer is a much bigger PITA than an RV). I'm positive the house in the story is the latter kind. And as some have already pointed out, they might have not paid the $75 because they couldn't afford it.

I knew about trailer parks and suchwise (thank you My Name is Earl, you reeking, stagnant, class-patronizing pool of sometimes funny), but I thought the only different between "trailer park mobile homes" and "RVs" was luxury. Or if you mean that the real difference between them is that one of them has an in-built engine and the other one is has to be suspended behind a car, then that's the difference I mean between "house-car" (engine built into the home - a buslike) and a "house-cart".

It's regression to 18th century modes of civil service, when firefighting and police were private organizations that you paid fees to.

And it will be glorious.

[shadenight123]

i did not mention poor people as lazy.

i stated that, from the very beginning of her being homeless, she should have called social services.
instead, she trailed her children with her.

secondly, she was starving, but had enough money for a gun and bullets for at least three individuals, which leads to thinking the clip was also included.
i hate to ask it, but does american black market sell guns cheap? in order to avoid all the regulations, it should sell them higher.

she resorted to violence to have her needs heard.
no matter how many excuses, how many defenses a lawyer could bring up to, she resorted to violence and pointed a gun at other people.
And the sad thing is not that she was driven to suicide. because she wasn't.
a month is made of 30 days commercial. excluding the sundays and the saturdays we have 22 days of possibilities. there are people who camp in front of the "caritas" mense in italy at night, or who sleep close by to be able to enter.

you may go and say how horrible and heartless the social workers were, but they are there to do their work. if you don't show up, for an entire month, they can't just keep the line waiting. should she be more worth than another homeless who is hungry and present?

you say childrens are homeless, on that regard i have to ask, isn't there a law which should send childrens at the very least in orphanages?

i know the entirety of the stuff IS sad, but there is "sad because nothing could be ever done" and "sad but it could have been avoided" and this could have been avoided.
if not by giving the children to social services, to at the very least presenting herself once in the 22 days available. to at least get another appointment.

[Truean]

i did not mention poor people as lazy.

i stated that, from the very beginning of her being homeless, she should have called social services.
instead, she trailed her children with her.

secondly, she was starving, but had enough money for a gun and bullets for at least three individuals, which leads to thinking the clip was also included.
i hate to ask it, but does american black market sell guns cheap? in order to avoid all the regulations, it should sell them higher.

she resorted to violence to have her needs heard.
no matter how many excuses, how many defenses a lawyer could bring up to, she resorted to violence and pointed a gun at other people.
And the sad thing is not that she was driven to suicide. because she wasn't.
a month is made of 30 days commercial. excluding the sundays and the saturdays we have 22 days of possibilities. there are people who camp in front of the "caritas" mense in italy at night, or who sleep close by to be able to enter.

you may go and say how horrible and heartless the social workers were, but they are there to do their work. if you don't show up, for an entire month, they can't just keep the line waiting. should she be more worth than another homeless who is hungry and present?

you say childrens are homeless, on that regard i have to ask, isn't there a law which should send childrens at the very least in orphanages?

i know the entirety of the stuff IS sad, but there is "sad because nothing could be ever done" and "sad but it could have been avoided" and this could have been avoided.
if not by giving the children to social services, to at the very least presenting herself once in the 22 days available. to at least get another appointment.

I didn't mean to imply that YOU thought she or poor people were lazy, though I can see how you reasonably took what I said as that.

Yes, you can get a gun illegally for a relatively small amount of money. That's assuming she BOUGHT it instead of FOUND it. Yes, I've seen guns thrown away; it's called hiding the evidence and people do it. Yes, she had a gun and some bullets: her last possessions. Think ahead, she sells those for food and then what? After that she has nothing to sell for food. So she starves in 2 months instead of 1.... She shot herself dead, that is suicide. Yes, she shot her children also, she was trying to take them with her. It absolutely is not right, but that is what desperate, people with mental problems do.

I'm not blaming the social workers; I'm blaming the system and the people who refuse to fund it. The social workers are overworked, underpaid, and entirely unappreciated.

As for the homeless children, yes there are laws. I can think of several and in fact I've gone the extra mile to have a teenage lesbian girl placed as a ward of the state on Ohio, because her bastard father disowned her for being gay. The difference is I know the law in my state and how to use it. Most people don't. Fact of the matter is I squeezed that girl into foster care sideways. Most people are not attorneys and most attorneys like me do not have the time, money, or energy to deal with this shit for nothing. I know lots of kids who don't have it so "lucky" and there is jack shit I can do about it. You can have all the laws you want saying "this should be done," or "that should be done," but the problem is THERE IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH MONEY TO DO WHAT THE LAW SAYS: provide foster care for these kids. Stuff does not happen for free.... Thus, homeless children.

As for her getting another appointment, why? So they can tell her the same bullshit they told her the first time she went? So they can deny her again? It was impossible for her to provide the paperwork they demanded so she had no chance of getting approved, ever.... There is a massive difference between what "Should" be and what "really is."

I am telling you it can't be done for free and that is what people expect it to be done for....

[MonkeyHead]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937

So the US is going to support gay rights in all countries. Maybe they should start at home first. Sorry, cant take this seriously, if this thread has taught me anything about some of the more right wing conservative areas of the US.

[Levi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937

So the US is going to support gay rights in all countries. Maybe they should start at home first. Sorry, cant take this seriously, if this thread has taught me anything about some of the more right wing conservative areas of the US.

Well, at least its a message of support.  US may not be perfect at gay rights(and lets be honest, most other countries are just as bad), but here is them going out in public and telling the world that its a human rights issue. 

I think that is admirable. 

[Truean]

I agree with you both. Telling everyone gay rights are human rights is good. Listening to your own advice is just as good, if not better.

[Andir]

I agree with you both. Telling everyone gay rights are human rights is good. Listening to your own advice is just as good, if not better.

They have rights... they have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex just like the rest of us!  /badperson

[RedKing]

It is a good sign, but at the same time it is mildly hypocritical, because I don't expect to see real action to back up the words. We're not telling the world "You must love your homosexuals and treat them with absolutely the same rights and privileges as everyone else" because we don't do that. We're telling specific countries "Hey, you know what? You really shouldn't stone gay people to death for being gay. Seriously. Not cool. And if you do, we're going to get really mad. You don't want to see us mad. We might even make a tersely-worded report to the UN about you and cut off your foreign aid. (Just kidding, we wouldn't really do that.)"

Case in point: Uganda. Ugandan legislature is trying to make homosexuality a capital crime (as it stands now, it's 'merely' a life sentence in prison). At the same time that we're sending "military advisers" to help root out and destroy the LRA. But at the same time, the LRA are such bastards that it'd be criminal not to help go after them, IMHO. Also complicated by the fact that a substantial amount of funding and ideological impetus behind the "Kill All Gays" bill is coming from certain American evangelicals.

Basically, the State Department is making all the right noises, but I don't trust the White House to back it up with teeth.

[shadenight123]

meh.
being italian i'm sure the pope will have something to say.
being an utter atheist and in favour for gay marriage rights and forth, since it doesn't hurt anyone, i'm simply waiting for what he will say to snicker on it.

maybe i should try and found a religion.
one which has a single rule:
"don't do negative stuff to other people in doing what you want to do".

how could they possibly get it wrong 2000 years from now?