I gave away my Dell Laptop today.....

[KC2UGV]

Without trying to get into the politics of this situation: Our welfare system has a stupid rule the hinders pulling oneself out of this sort of situation. You are not allowed to have a savings account, or else they cut you off.

I found out about this from a friend in this situation. I suggested that while she is staying with us (As well as her daughters), she open a savings account, and drive every last dollar into it that she can.

Then she told me: Then I'd lose the health insurance, due to my assets.

That hurt. What I did, is let her deposit with "First National Bank of Corey", and I'll split the interest earned with her when she makes the withdrawal. Yes, I'm taking the tax hit, but she's trying, and the first step to financial security is an emergency savings. Hard to dig out of debt when you rack up new debt with surprise expenses.

[KG4CGC]

Without trying to get into the politics of this situation: Our welfare system has a stupid rule the hinders pulling oneself out of this sort of situation. You are not allowed to have a savings account, or else they cut you off.

I found out about this from a friend in this situation. I suggested that while she is staying with us (As well as her daughters), she open a savings account, and drive every last dollar into it that she can.

Then she told me: Then I'd lose the health insurance, due to my assets.

That hurt. What I did, is let her deposit with "First National Bank of Corey", and I'll split the interest earned with her when she makes the withdrawal. Yes, I'm taking the tax hit, but she's trying, and the first step to financial security is an emergency savings. Hard to dig out of debt when you rack up new debt with surprise expenses.

Did this system you describe start in the 90s? You know, keeping them down and not allowed to have a savings acct?

[KC2UGV]

Did this system you describe start in the 90s? You know, keeping them down and not allowed to have a savings acct?

Honestly, I don't know.

[KG4CGC]

Honestly, I don't know.

If you recall, Reagan and Gingrich were responsible for "reforming" the welfare system. I wouldn't be surprised if what was actually accomplished was to make it more punitive.

[W3WN]

Did this system you describe start in the 90s? You know, keeping them down and not allowed to have a savings acct?

I don't know about that. It may depend on the location, too, as some states have different rules regarding how they distribute welfare funding.

I think the real issue, though, is simply this: No matter how lofty and noble the proposed laws are, and no matter how lofty and noble (and constructive) the goals are... the actual rules and procedures are written not by the law makers, but by the bureaucrats that run the agencies. Too many of these rules are written to actually serve THEIR needs -- to keep their jobs, to keep their control & power(such as it is), and to make their lives easier.

So, for example, a desired outcome of a rule might be that no one with significant assets should receive public assistance... as they clearly have the means to support themselves. Sounds like a good idea, right? But -- where do you draw the line? What is "significant" in this situation... a house? a car? a savings account with $50,000 in it? $5000? $50?

Better & easier -- for the bureaucrats -- to frame the appropriate regulations to just prohibit a savings account, period. Besides, if you're saving money, then The Government must be paying you too much, right?

It just takes a few rules based on fractured logic like this to set up a system that is designed to keep people in, instead of giving them the means to find a way out.

[KG4CGC]

I don't know about that. It may depend on the location, too, as some states have different rules regarding how they distribute welfare funding.

I think the real issue, though, is simply this: No matter how lofty and noble the proposed laws are, and no matter how lofty and noble (and constructive) the goals are... the actual rules and procedures are written not by the law makers, but by the bureaucrats that run the agencies. Too many of these rules are written to actually serve THEIR needs -- to keep their jobs, to keep their control & power(such as it is), and to make their lives easier.

So, for example, a desired outcome of a rule might be that no one with significant assets should receive public assistance... as they clearly have the means to support themselves. Sounds like a good idea, right? But -- where do you draw the line? What is "significant" in this situation... a house? a car? a savings account with $50,000 in it? $5000? $50?

Better & easier -- for the bureaucrats -- to frame the appropriate regulations to just prohibit a savings account, period. Besides, if you're saving money, then The Government must be paying you too much, right?

It just takes a few rules based on fractured logic like this to set up a system that is designed to keep people in, instead of giving them the means to find a way out.

This sounds logical but I what the information that will specifically put the blame right square on the Republicans.