Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
SacaJawea

Welfare State State

Recommended Posts

Hey guys

Im a single mother.

I survive by taking benefits and living on a reservation (Hence my nickname)

I have 3 kids and yeah more than one father.

My Dad has been put in a home and he has Alzheimers. He had promised me Id never have to be taking benefits no matter what happened; but ... the government take all

his money wow ..that why I get benefits.

Great life yeah

 

Part time job? ( not asking to cause offence but just confused - why did your dad say you would never have to take benefits?)

 

+ 1 ....Please clarify, SacaJawea.......?

 

SacaJawea was an Indian (Native American) Princess whose French Canadian husband was a guide and interpreter on the Lewis and Clarke expedition across the unknown hinterland of the USA to reach the Pacific Coast

 

She had been sold as a slave to be the French Canadian fur trapper's "wife" (If I recall my history correctly)...I think she was later rescued as it were by either Lewis or Clarke after hitting hard times.

 

If this poster is Native American then the posting is obscure as how many people even in the USA have heard of SacaJawea sufficient to give someone a complex nickname no one can pronounce? And if some sort of jest how many people have heard of SacaJawea on the Island?

 

I find it odd that an alleged American uses the term "Dad"...My experience is confined to Texas and Oklahoma in the early 1980s and they all seemed to use the term "Daddy" .....which I thought a bit sissy coming from grown men!

 

Native Americans on their reservations get a special deal from the US Federal Government by way of welfare and benefits as a sort of compensation for their ancestors having been uprooted, force marched to the most barren land they could find, massacred and then robbed when oil or gold was found on the reservations.

 

Overall, seems more like a Norwegian Troll than a native American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure you are not dealing with another Edinburgh male 'wanabe' writer who blogged as a gay female in Damascus - as all those who post on this MB you have no idea who is posting - glorified troll setup ?

 

Not sure, but if you ignored troll and sockpuppet accounts you'd never post at all on MF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my Dad and I know he loved me. He now doesnt know who I am and what he was.

He was, in a previous life, a well known trade union activist and a well known campaigner for civil rights and gay rights.

he was a lovely man and if anyone told him they were broke he would give them money.

 

Anyhow; when I first got pregnant at uni my dad said: "No worries girl!I will always look after you!!You wont ever need any social."

Thats what I meant and thats what he did till he took ill.

I am very sorry about your father's Alzheimers. I do know how distressing it can be when people no longer recognise you and no longer in some ways seem like the person you have known all your life.

 

On the wider issue you have raised your father sounds to have been a very good person in the care he has for you. It sounds (and this is reading between the lines of what you write) that unfortunately your children's fathers may not have been so responsible and supportive. I hope I am totally wrong and that they have been responsible parents too. At the risk of sounding like him I think Spook raises one important point in that your partners should be helping you, if not directly, at least financially in raising your family. That is not a benefit it is (excuse me reflecting my anno domini) part of the responsibility and a duty that parents share.

 

I think others have written more eloquently about what I was trying to say in my post. It is wonderful that your father wanted to support you and for you not to have worries - but it has now sadly come to the time when you have to support him. If that means that his money goes into his care isn't that a good thing?

 

I have an aunt with dementia - she is close to 97. I share the POA for her with a solicitor in Austrlia where she lives. Both of us believe that her money, what she has worked for and saved in her lifetime, should be used, and is being used, to give her as dignified, comfortable and stimulating life as possible - it is what she deserves as she did so much for everyone else when she was fit and healthy - it's her turn to receive the care and attention now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case for some bizarre reason you are presenting a quite disgusting attitude to life and I wonder why. Decent people in your position would maintain an embarrassed silence AND get work in order to at the very least offset some of their dependence on living off the earnings of other people.

 

OP, please don't think this judgemental idiots opinion is representative. The welfare state is there for a reason, and peoples circumstances are complex. While there are undoubtedly people who milk the system, there are also people who depend on the system and as a caring supportive society it's our duty to provide the care that they need. If we're currently drawing benefits or not, we all have the security blanket of welfare should we fall on hard times.

 

 

If they're out of work then THEY should get employment, ANY employment in order to do their duty towards the children they have been a part of producing and if that means going across then that is exactly what they should do because it's what countless fathers have done and continue to do in order to meet their responsibilities to their wives and children.

 

They should yes. Real life is not always so straight forward.

 

 

Well said slim, i mean it, well spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment that the Welfare State stops being anything beyond a safety net for those who can't support themselves it becomes wrong. The state should not provide subsidies for people to live lives they can not afford by their own efforts.

 

It is wrong in that it demotivates people to look after themselves as much as they possibly can and it is wrong in that by being beyond a safety net it is in effect redistributing the earnings of people who DO put themselves out.

 

Providing care that people NEED is one thing. That is where the concept of state aid being the resource of last resort should apply but when need gets replaced by want, or when need becomes more than the provision of the essentials of life then all bets are off.

 

As for being judgemental, what is wrong with that? Being judgemental when dealing with immorality, and allowing other people to sustain one beyond the provision of essentials of life when one can not provide for one's self IS immoral and should be exposed for what it is.

 

Out of work and no job? Then in order to get state aid people should do community work including the menial jobs that we presently pay people to do and if it puts them out of work then so what. It reduces gross expenditure.

 

People won't like this concept, that of being self supporting as far as one possibly can, but the fault is in them, not those who push for it to become a general principle.

 

The Welfare State needs to be rolled back and restarted but this time on the basis of it being only a safety net, NOT a thing to be used for what amounts to little less that pure rotten rancid socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spook, you mentioned in you post on more than one occasion "illegitimate children" and I was just wondering where you stand on my circumstances. My children's father and I weren't married but had planned to do do until he beat me black and blue (my real name is no secret on here, you can search through the IOM newspapers for the delightful facts). So you think I should have carried on and got married in those circumstances to legitimise my children?

 

I know you are going to say that I should have got married before I had them but no offence, it is 2011 and the stigma that was there up to 50 years ago is no longer there with being an unmarried mother. I have asked my children how they feel and they have absolutely no problem with it at all.

 

Oh, and just to throw this one into the fire, their father's name isn't on their birth certificates either. And they don't have a problem with that. Men who batter women will use just about anything to control them, and this was one of his favourites.

 

SacaJawea - you have my deepest sympathies. My father had dementia (he had Korsakoffs which was brought on by alcoholism). If you pop my name into the search box, it will bring up some threads where the lovely people of Manxforums have given me the most fantastic help and support, it might be worth reading through them. If you need someone to talk to, drop me a PM and we can take it from there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spook, you mentioned in you post on more than one occasion "illegitimate children" and I was just wondering where you stand on my circumstances. My children's father and I weren't married but had planned to do do until he beat me black and blue (my real name is no secret on here, you can search through the IOM newspapers for the delightful facts). So you think I should have carried on and got married in those circumstances to legitimise my children?

 

Your children are illegitimate in secular law, but that is all. Should you have wed the male (I won't use the word “man”) who was a part of the creation of your kids?

 

Should you have wed under the circumstances that you describe? In answering that question I am coming as close to using profane language as I ever would, but I will simply say no.

 

I know you are going to say that I should have got married before I had them but no offence, it is 2011 and the stigma that was there up to 50 years ago is no longer there with being an unmarried mother. I have asked my children how they feel and they have absolutely no problem with it at all.

 

I totally agree that there was no overriding reason why you should have wed before bed, especially in the post 60's world. It might have been better in normal situations but when it turns out that the person in the frame turns out to be as you described then it is just as well you did not.

 

There is actually no strict Christian directive that you should be married before having children. (I'm talkking Christian, not church) There is no strict Christian directive that you should be married after having kids either. The closest is there is comes is in exodus 22 :16 – 17 but even there there is a get out clause.

 

Oh, and just to throw this one into the fire, their father's name isn't on their birth certificates either. And they don't have a problem with that. Men who batter women will use just about anything to control them, and this was one of his favourites.

 

I absolutely agree. Physical violence in a marriage is always wrong but many times more wrong when it is the man who is the perpetrator. Such “men” who engage in violence against their partners are beneath contempt. They are not men in the true meaning of the word.

 

Maybe there's a little more to this Christian thing than you thought? After all while there are many people who claim to be Christians and who are regular church attendees it does not follow that they are even if they think they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment that the Welfare State stops being anything beyond a safety net for those who can't support themselves it becomes wrong. The state should not provide subsidies for people to live lives they can not afford by their own efforts.

 

 

It is wrong in that it demotivates people to look after themselves as much as they possibly can and it is wrong in that by being beyond a safety net it is in effect redistributing the earnings of people who DO put themselves out.

 

 

A single mother with three children realistically can't support herself. The cost of childcare is more than anything she could earn herself unless she's a very high earner.

 

 

There's some people who are prepared to accept a quality of life on benefits over what they could earn for themselves, and there are gaps in the system that allows this. That's not ideal, but it's also not relevant in this example.

 

 

As for being judgemental, what is wrong with that? Being judgemental when dealing with immorality, and allowing other people to sustain one beyond the provision of essentials of life when one can not provide for one's self IS immoral and should be exposed for what it is.

 

 

Out of work and no job? Then in order to get state aid people should do community work including the menial jobs that we presently pay people to do and if it puts them out of work then so what. It reduces gross expenditure.

People won't like this concept, that of being self supporting as far as one possibly can, but the fault is in them, not those who push for it to become a general principle.

 

The Welfare State needs to be rolled back and restarted but this time on the basis of it being only a safety net, NOT a thing to be used for what amounts to little less that pure rotten rancid socialism.

 

 

What's wrong with being judgemental? Because your opinion of what is moral is bollocks. What you call immoral is totally beyond the benchmark of the rest of reasonable people. Come on, if you're not juts trolling; join this century, leave your Victorian sensibilities behind.

 

In this example, it's not that she won't work, it's that she can't work while she has kids to care for. Forcing her to do menial work won't help that will it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

Let's have your suggestions on how a single mother with three kids can go out to work all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SacaJawea was an Indian (Native American) Princess whose French Canadian husband was a guide and interpreter on the Lewis and Clarke expedition across the unknown hinterland of the USA to reach the Pacific Coast

 

She had been sold as a slave to be the French Canadian fur trapper's "wife" (If I recall my history correctly)...I think she was later rescued as it were by either Lewis or Clarke after hitting hard times.

 

If this poster is Native American then the posting is obscure as how many people even in the USA have heard of SacaJawea sufficient to give someone a complex nickname no one can pronounce? And if some sort of jest how many people have heard of SacaJawea on the Island?

 

I find it odd that an alleged American uses the term "Dad"...My experience is confined to Texas and Oklahoma in the early 1980s and they all seemed to use the term "Daddy" .....which I thought a bit sissy coming from grown men!

 

Native Americans on their reservations get a special deal from the US Federal Government by way of welfare and benefits as a sort of compensation for their ancestors having been uprooted, force marched to the most barren land they could find, massacred and then robbed when oil or gold was found on the reservations.

 

Overall, seems more like a Norwegian Troll than a native American.

 

 

Barrie you fucking idiot, don't you realise she bought the "Night at the Museum" boxset at HMV with her last handout? ;)

 

Personally, if you are not a Troll, then shame about your dad but it sounds like you are a lazy little slapper who has become too accustomed to being supported by family because you cannot keep your legs together; seen it all before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys

Im a single mother.

I survive by taking benefits and living on a reservation (Hence my nickname)

I have 3 kids and yeah more than one father.

wow ..that why I get benefits

Great life yeah

Given that you have chosen not to respond to enquiries about your future life plans are we to assume that you have decided to have a few kids in order to get the state funding to finance your life style. I know of a number of young women in London who chose to take that option in order to get a free council house and benefits which could be added to by having a boyfriend or two who gave them a few quid ,doing a bit of "soft drug" dealing and shoplifting safe in the knowledge that if caught they would dodge any significant punishment as they were a "poor single mum".From other posts you have made on this site it is evident that you aren't 'thick' and claim to have a university education so having one child may have been an accident but three ? or are you just "having a laugh", if so I think the bit about your dad was out of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

Let's have your suggestions on how a single mother with three kids can go out to work all day.

 

.Who said all day? For that matter why NOT all day and get someone to look after her brood.

 

It's the assumption that it should be down to the rest of us tax payers to fund the upbringing up of a bunch of kids when there is any work that the mother could at the very least reduce the cost to the state for her obligation because the obligation in the first place is on her to feed those that she breeds.

 

Support, true support and true charity is to help in every way, and that includes at times motivating some people to help themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.Who said all day? For that matter why NOT all day and get someone to look after her brood.

 

 

It's the assumption that it should be down to the rest of us tax payers to fund the upbringing up of a bunch of kids when there is any work that the mother could at the very least reduce the cost to the state for her obligation because the obligation in the first place is on her to feed those that she breeds.

 

Support, true support and true charity is to help in every way, and that includes at times motivating some people to help themselves.

 

I still don't see an answer spook. How can a mother with three kids spare any time to work? Childcare for three will cost more than she can earn. Explain how she can work to me, an actual solution not just a judgemental finger waggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.Who said all day? For that matter why NOT all day and get someone to look after her brood.

 

 

It's the assumption that it should be down to the rest of us tax payers to fund the upbringing up of a bunch of kids when there is any work that the mother could at the very least reduce the cost to the state for her obligation because the obligation in the first place is on her to feed those that she breeds.

 

Support, true support and true charity is to help in every way, and that includes at times motivating some people to help themselves.

 

I still don't see an answer spook. How can a mother with three kids spare any time to work? Childcare for three will cost more than she can earn. Explain how she can work to me, an actual solution not just a judgemental finger waggling.

If she has friends or family they could help out with childcare as people used to do not that many years ago. Or get together with others in a similar situation to share childcare if several took part time work. In reality if the will was there not to simply be a Welfare Witch she could at the very least provide some income to reduce the load on the working tax payers.

 

If all else fails she should seriously consider putting her unaffordable kids up for fostering in order that she would be able to reduce her dependence on others paying her bills. And before you ask, yes I AM being serious. This welfare state dependence has gone far too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...