I just read that the average amount of welfare for a family of three is $235 per month. How can people say that you will pop out additional kids for more money when the amount of money given is next to nothing? Seriously, what could you possibily do with 235 per month and 3 kids?? In fact, what's the point of the welfare system if they are going to provide that little? That isn't going to help anyone!
Answers:
That average is just cash money. It doesn't include food stamps, low income housing, medical insurance and the rest of the benefits that welfare families get.
So maybe everyone should find a way to provide their own money. We're doing the best we can, so it's better to appreciate the fact we care instead of insulting it.
average was the key word. many families get over $1000, but some seniors just get $20 in food stamps...so the average is just that.
People who qualify for welfare also get free or subsidized housing, free health care, food stamps, free school supplies for their children, free school lunches for their children, etc. It's a whole different way to look at life when it's down to basics. That's all that welfare covers and in my opinion that is enough.
Maybe it will teach these people to get off of their lazy @$$ and get a job like the rest of society. I live in Ontario, Canada and the welfare trash do get more if they keep popping kids out. It burns my husband's butt when he is driving home from work after a 60-70 hour work week and when he drives past the welfare building they are all sitting out on lawn chairs smoking and swilling beer into them, while their kids are dressed in rags.
The point of the wefare system isn't to use our tax dollars to pay someone who is too lazy too work. It is supposed to help them get by while they are "actively seeking employment". (ya right)
You are right, you can't. A part-time job would help. The current Earned Income Credit helps those working tremendously.
That's just the Welfare check. You have to add to that all the other "extras" to consider their true "income." I knew someone with two kids, which when you considered the whole package, was doing better than a lot of people NOT on welfare.
He also worked at a full serve gas station with a mechanic's bay, which he would do small jobs and sell and mount tires.
He got:
His check (minimum wage plus commission from the bay)
Welfare
Nearly free housing (low income apartment complex cost him $17 a month. Included utilities and cable)
W.I.C.
Food Stamps
Free health care
Some kind of allowance for his vehicle (not sure what)
Free lunches for his kids in school
Help from a Food Kitchen (got bags of free groceries)
All in all... he was doing pretty well. He had NO incentive to change his lifestyle, really. Because he was content to live in public housing and drive old cars.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Many of them have other jobs or ways to make money.
There is no way to support them on 235.00. I am sure they get a lot of food stamps too. There is so many of us that really need the help and get it. I have experienced that.
I am on disability, can't work, and only receive enough to barely pay bills. Groceries are not often bought, and they will provide no help with my health problems or Dr. or hospital.
My husband has died about 1 1/2 yrs. ago and it has been really tough to get by. Sure can't buy any clothes, or misc.
Most of the immigrants get all the help they need, and people that can really cheat. I can't because they have the info to my disability and I can't find another way to get money.
It is disgraceful! Yes, they keep having kids and receive more and more or lie alot. They know I can't have kids and I sure don't want to at my age.
They have done away with so many things to help people, because they say money is so short, well if they would really check out those people they would know why and where the money has gone.
I agree with you whats the point. I have to laugh when people who go on and on about how people in this position are living a carefree life at taxpayers expense. The big problem is how do you get out of a system that you cant really LIVE in.No money for even the basic need of life.Never mind the things children should be able to expect in life. I commend anyone who has had to live like this and survived. Yes there are stories of great heroics concerning people who managed to work out of this situation with great difficulty, but there are many sick and discouraged who have been unable to, many , many, whos life is struggle after struggle. Help with training and transportation needs to be better, quality daycare ,and basic food and shelter needs are inadequate. Have compassion for those who struggle in this situation , as for those [and the number is statistically small]who are supposedly taking advantage [Of what] this exisits in all walks of life , lawyers ,polititians, ect Why pick on the powerless?
the amount they are giving you is to help you out not pay your way in wisconsin there is no longer welfare you have to work for every penny you get .. it sounds like its time for other states to follow wisconsin .. and for you to go get a job and attend some classes to fuether your education so you can better take care of your children with out the aid of the welfare system.. and leave the system help those that are disbaled and elderly more .. so with that said give up the soap operas and hoo hoo's and get off the couch and get a job.. learn to work for what you want in this life and need, stop making others pay for your laziness..and teach your kids better than you were tought and give them a better life .. they will thank you for it make them proud of you..
Welfare cripples people. The system should be abolished. People become codependent and won't LIVE their life and face challenges. You make rats out of them. If they had no welfare, people would go and do something for themselves. I think an ocational free linch would help, but never monthly stripends. There are many jobs and opportunities that these people could go for but won't because they already get a check. Look at the movie "pursuite of happiness" for this is the driving force within all people...to make something of themselves. Had will gotten an easy check, he might have become a lazy slob which later could never enter the work force. But instead he rose up father than anyone could imagine and became very rich for his personal drive for sustainablility. Welfare creates stupid, lazy people. What would God think, when he sent these people down wo do their souls work to find they just went the easy route? Each person has a gradn souls path and it is time we create a better system to help people find them!
Welfare never helps anyone...myth! It steals their soul.
I know that here in California when someone applies for Welfare they are required to sign a form stating that they understand that they will not receive any additional amount of money should they have more children.
That was one of the main problems with the Welfare System. Women would keep having more and more kids and then when they turned 18 and aid ended the mother would still be in the hole.
Welfare Reform has changed much of that and has guidelines as far as the adults in the family being required to work, attend school, do volunteer work, etc., or any other approved activity. If they do not comply then their cash aid amount will be lowered or sanctioned until they are in compliance.
As far as $235 a month for an adult and 3 children, that is a little low. You have to keep in mind that they are receiving cash aid, food stamps, and sometimes child care paid for and transportation reimbursed. The cash aid amount will also be affected if the parent is working at all. Their cash would be lowered then.
The amount you said sounds like that would be an amount if the parent was working at a 40 hour a week job. If they grossed about $1200 a month, their cash aid would very likely be close to $235.
Regardless of the amounts it is still difficult for a family to live on nowadays. Plus if it is only a mother and her children she is required to sign over her rights to child support. Typically she would only receive a $50 disregard amount.
I hope this helps some!!
A few weeks ago I was reading a story about a New Orleans woman who was complaining about how far away her "temporary" housing was from the city. The point of her arguement was that it was not fair that she did not have access to things as she did not have a car and was basically stranded out there. In this interview she stated (paraphrased but the amount is correct cause it stunned me) she said...i live here in this trailer trying to provide for my family on 686 dollars a week.do you know how far 686 dollars gets you these days...net very..Now mind you she has no mortgage, no car, no medical expenses and no groceries to pay for.
dear pop-out: the idea of welfare is to sustain (on the barest of $$$), until such a time that the person can do for themselves. the $$ depends on where that person lives. they are also given food stamps %26 surplus food but still i know that isn't enough, really. as the family increases, so does the state/city dole amt. it is not meant to keep people on welfare but to encourage them FROM staying on the dole. see? under most circumstances when a person has next to nothing, a small something is better than a lot of nothing!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Question about trust funds. Before my father passed away, he told me that after he died, I would be a rich?
woman and my children would be taken care of for the rest of their lives. My stepmother is still living and she has told me that I can't have any of the trust fund until she dies because she is living off it. Is this legal? Is it possible? Could she be lying?
Answers:
It all depends on the terms stated in the trust fund.
Many are written to provide for one person, and then pass to another after that person dies -- so it is possible and legal.
What the trust document in your particular situations says is entirely a different question. There's no way to tell if your trust is being administered properly without evaluation the document and the laws of your state.
You should review the terms of the trust.
Do you know who handled your father's estate when he died? This person may have been called an "executor" or "administrator" or something like this. Or do you know if your father had an attorney who helped him arrange his finances? These people might have some answers about the specifics of the trust.
It is very possible to set up a trust so that one person receives the income for their life, and then it passes to another person, so you need to get the specific terms of this trust to know what you may be entitled to.
Annie:
In a nut shell, a trust is settled to transfer ownership of property, for tax advantage without the necessity of having a will.
To solve this case, a lot of more information is needed: THE SETTLER was your father, THE TRUSTEE the one that holds and administer the property Who is that? your stepmother? another family member?; THE BENEFICIARY the people named as the ones to receive the benefits, You? Your siblings? Your stepmother? Who else?; and above all, we need the TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
But do not waste your time, talk to an attorney experienced in state planning.
It looks to me that stepmother is acting as the only BENEFICIARY.
Answers:
It all depends on the terms stated in the trust fund.
Many are written to provide for one person, and then pass to another after that person dies -- so it is possible and legal.
What the trust document in your particular situations says is entirely a different question. There's no way to tell if your trust is being administered properly without evaluation the document and the laws of your state.
You should review the terms of the trust.
Do you know who handled your father's estate when he died? This person may have been called an "executor" or "administrator" or something like this. Or do you know if your father had an attorney who helped him arrange his finances? These people might have some answers about the specifics of the trust.
It is very possible to set up a trust so that one person receives the income for their life, and then it passes to another person, so you need to get the specific terms of this trust to know what you may be entitled to.
Annie:
In a nut shell, a trust is settled to transfer ownership of property, for tax advantage without the necessity of having a will.
To solve this case, a lot of more information is needed: THE SETTLER was your father, THE TRUSTEE the one that holds and administer the property Who is that? your stepmother? another family member?; THE BENEFICIARY the people named as the ones to receive the benefits, You? Your siblings? Your stepmother? Who else?; and above all, we need the TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
But do not waste your time, talk to an attorney experienced in state planning.
It looks to me that stepmother is acting as the only BENEFICIARY.
Question about trespassing?
From my understanding, the most anyone gets for trespassing is a misdemeanor charge. However, lets say that I have enclosed my property with bamboo and an electric fence and the only entrance into the property would be a gate which would be locked. The property would also be posted on all sides with no trespassing signs. Now, if someone were to still come onto my property, would that be considered breaking and entering on top of trespassing? They would either have to climb over the electric fence and through the bamboo (which would damage the bamboo since it's grows so thickly) or climb on my gate.
Answers:
If you are seeking compensation, they don't have to damage anything to be guilty of trespass, but you wont recover anything. If they damage, they are liable for the damage. Trespass is trespass. If they destroy something while there (i.e. your car), it may elevate it to conversion, but otherwise - still trespass.
Breaking and entering is a criminal matter - if you're asking whether they'd be guilty of burglary, the answer is no. They'd actually have to enter a building or structure, with the intent to commit a crime (other than entering).
no it would still be just trespassing but it might elevate it to menacing
Trespassing assumes that access is not restricted by any barrier. Once a fence or gate is breached, then the charge becomes breaking and entering.that is from a criminal standpoint
The criminal courts seldom take "damages" into consideration.that would be a matter for civil courts.
you have to take into account what the intention of the person was who has entered your property, if it was a child who was trying to get back a ball that had been kicked over your fence, then he will not be done for breaking and entering if he just claimed over your fence, if he got an Axe and smashed his way in, then he would be done for criminal damage, it really depends on the case at the time
Answers:
If you are seeking compensation, they don't have to damage anything to be guilty of trespass, but you wont recover anything. If they damage, they are liable for the damage. Trespass is trespass. If they destroy something while there (i.e. your car), it may elevate it to conversion, but otherwise - still trespass.
Breaking and entering is a criminal matter - if you're asking whether they'd be guilty of burglary, the answer is no. They'd actually have to enter a building or structure, with the intent to commit a crime (other than entering).
no it would still be just trespassing but it might elevate it to menacing
Trespassing assumes that access is not restricted by any barrier. Once a fence or gate is breached, then the charge becomes breaking and entering.that is from a criminal standpoint
The criminal courts seldom take "damages" into consideration.that would be a matter for civil courts.
you have to take into account what the intention of the person was who has entered your property, if it was a child who was trying to get back a ball that had been kicked over your fence, then he will not be done for breaking and entering if he just claimed over your fence, if he got an Axe and smashed his way in, then he would be done for criminal damage, it really depends on the case at the time
Question about the Court? Please answer!?
I was wondering what roles people play in the court I mean like a judge, or something. Like I want you to tell me what type of people there are in the court and what they do.
So say, the judge does the case or whatever,
The attorney fights with the opposite attorney.
THe Prosecuter does this and so on.
THe Bailiff does that and so on.
Please tell me the characters of the court and what they do and how a court looks like. I am doing a play on a case where a murder has taken place, I have to write the play and I hardly even know who the people are in a court and what they do. If possible please supply me with a website with a video or a play wher I can actually see how a whole case works so I can write my play in that set-up, so that I get it right. Please answer me, thank you very much.
Answers:
Simplified version:
Judge or Commissioner (hears case, with or without jury)
Courtroom clerk (takes notes-minutes, assists judge)
Courtroom reporter (takes down everything everyone says to create a "record" of the proceedings), handles and labels physical evidence.
Attorneys, in criminal, Prosecutor and Defense counsel. There may be two attorneys on each side, in death penalty cases there is usually co-counsel on each side.
Witnesses-May be present under subpoena (ordered to be there) or a willing witness. Presents testimony based on their personal observations or knowledge of the situation.
Jury (sometimes no jury, may be just a judge in some cases)
hears the evidence, receives "jury instructions" from both attorneys on both sides, and decides the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Bailiff: Keeps order in the court, calls the proceedings and the entry of the judge or commissioner. Will receive physical evidence from the attorneys and take it to the court reporter. May take defendants into custody in criminal proceedings or other persons in the case of contempt in a civil matter.
There are transcripts of real proceedings here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects... and http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs...
I can't vouch for the content of the cases, just found them online. Good Luck.
really not to much to tell ya. you pretty much explain everything yourself in the question.
Like this and so on.
.
After I spend an hour answering this, ther'll be a standard fee of $50 - send it on Pay Pal.
.
The best way is to go to court.
Trials are public. Take a few days or afternoons, and go sit in different courts.
Criminal. Civil jury. Divorce.
No one does this anymore, but you should.
You can ask anyone in the courtroom about their role. Judges are usually very helpful (after the trial, of course), but the attorneys will usually be very co-operative.
As mentioned, you can actually go to court and watch in most cases with exception of Family Court, which has a lot of "closed courtroom" days, and Surrogates Court which you can go, but it is pretty boring since it is mostly paperwork.
The most basic Court will have the Judge, Bailiff or Clerk depending on the type of Court, 2 opposing attorneys and a Court reporter.
You already answered in your question to what most of those people do.
The Court reporter will be taking down everything that is said and done so that there is a transcript of the court proceedings. Usually they use a shorthand machine, like a mini electric typewriter.
You can probably find lots of old movies in the library showing Courtroom scenes to get an idea. The older ones tend to be a little more accurate of what happens in comparison to the newer ones that want lots of trill and drama every second.
So say, the judge does the case or whatever,
The attorney fights with the opposite attorney.
THe Prosecuter does this and so on.
THe Bailiff does that and so on.
Please tell me the characters of the court and what they do and how a court looks like. I am doing a play on a case where a murder has taken place, I have to write the play and I hardly even know who the people are in a court and what they do. If possible please supply me with a website with a video or a play wher I can actually see how a whole case works so I can write my play in that set-up, so that I get it right. Please answer me, thank you very much.
Answers:
Simplified version:
Judge or Commissioner (hears case, with or without jury)
Courtroom clerk (takes notes-minutes, assists judge)
Courtroom reporter (takes down everything everyone says to create a "record" of the proceedings), handles and labels physical evidence.
Attorneys, in criminal, Prosecutor and Defense counsel. There may be two attorneys on each side, in death penalty cases there is usually co-counsel on each side.
Witnesses-May be present under subpoena (ordered to be there) or a willing witness. Presents testimony based on their personal observations or knowledge of the situation.
Jury (sometimes no jury, may be just a judge in some cases)
hears the evidence, receives "jury instructions" from both attorneys on both sides, and decides the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.
Bailiff: Keeps order in the court, calls the proceedings and the entry of the judge or commissioner. Will receive physical evidence from the attorneys and take it to the court reporter. May take defendants into custody in criminal proceedings or other persons in the case of contempt in a civil matter.
There are transcripts of real proceedings here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects... and http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs...
I can't vouch for the content of the cases, just found them online. Good Luck.
really not to much to tell ya. you pretty much explain everything yourself in the question.
Like this and so on.
.
After I spend an hour answering this, ther'll be a standard fee of $50 - send it on Pay Pal.
.
The best way is to go to court.
Trials are public. Take a few days or afternoons, and go sit in different courts.
Criminal. Civil jury. Divorce.
No one does this anymore, but you should.
You can ask anyone in the courtroom about their role. Judges are usually very helpful (after the trial, of course), but the attorneys will usually be very co-operative.
As mentioned, you can actually go to court and watch in most cases with exception of Family Court, which has a lot of "closed courtroom" days, and Surrogates Court which you can go, but it is pretty boring since it is mostly paperwork.
The most basic Court will have the Judge, Bailiff or Clerk depending on the type of Court, 2 opposing attorneys and a Court reporter.
You already answered in your question to what most of those people do.
The Court reporter will be taking down everything that is said and done so that there is a transcript of the court proceedings. Usually they use a shorthand machine, like a mini electric typewriter.
You can probably find lots of old movies in the library showing Courtroom scenes to get an idea. The older ones tend to be a little more accurate of what happens in comparison to the newer ones that want lots of trill and drama every second.
Question about the ADA?
I do vaulinteer work for a drop in center for people with mental illnesses. I am also board president and I do the newsletters for them to tell them the upcoming events and I tell them about things like the ADA. I have writers block and I need a little help on what to say about the ADA. Some good things. I know that means Adults Disabilities Act. I know of some of the good things they do but I need help putting it into words.
Answers:
Go to the U.S. dept of Labor website, find the section governing the A.D.A.. I would suggest printing out the F.A.Q.s (frequently asked questions) and their is generally a summary or condensed version of the features of the act. Try google (i.e. u.s. department of labor + A.D.A.) good luck.
cough - Americans with Disabilities Act... cough
I'm a little concerned if you are a board president of the mental health center...especially with your lack of education and spelling errors!
First off, it is the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA was signed and in effect in 1990. The ADA is a set of laws to enable individuals in having equal access to their community. This includes, accessible entrances, parking, and other amenities in public businesses and to help with accommodations.
Also the ADA helps protect individuals with disabilities and to provide equal opportunities to employment, services, and public buildings.
For more information contact the ADA Technical Center at 800-949-4232
Also if a person is being discriminated due to a disability, all states have many different organizations to help individuals such as Independent Living Centers, Disabilities Rights Center, Governor Council on Disabilities, etc. The different agencies and organizations may have a different variation on titles, but they are similar!
Answers:
Go to the U.S. dept of Labor website, find the section governing the A.D.A.. I would suggest printing out the F.A.Q.s (frequently asked questions) and their is generally a summary or condensed version of the features of the act. Try google (i.e. u.s. department of labor + A.D.A.) good luck.
cough - Americans with Disabilities Act... cough
I'm a little concerned if you are a board president of the mental health center...especially with your lack of education and spelling errors!
First off, it is the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA was signed and in effect in 1990. The ADA is a set of laws to enable individuals in having equal access to their community. This includes, accessible entrances, parking, and other amenities in public businesses and to help with accommodations.
Also the ADA helps protect individuals with disabilities and to provide equal opportunities to employment, services, and public buildings.
For more information contact the ADA Technical Center at 800-949-4232
Also if a person is being discriminated due to a disability, all states have many different organizations to help individuals such as Independent Living Centers, Disabilities Rights Center, Governor Council on Disabilities, etc. The different agencies and organizations may have a different variation on titles, but they are similar!
Question about stem cell research . . .?
A scientist in Taiwan has managed to stimulate embryonic growth through use of a human egg without sperm. The scientific findings, once discredited by the international community, have now been substantiated by Harvard University. Since paternal characteristics are not present (the scientist did not use sperm) do you still consider this an embryo (ethical sense - not scientific? For those of you who are against stem cell research, will this bypass any ethical arguments you have against the practice? Or do you still consider the embryo to be human? I am not trying to bear-bait the pro-life community - I would like to know if you think this might be a reasonable compromise. Thank you in advance for your answers.
Answers:
This 'news' is months old. It's not a way around the ethical dilemma of embryonic research, though: they've simply found a new way to make an embryo present. So rather than simplifying the ethical calculus, this multiplies it. (They try to make this seem like a third alternative, by stating that the blastocyst won't develop into a baby and inferring that nobody could dare suggest it's a person. But their research procedures ensure that all these embryos are destroyed before they could get that far, so there's no way they can say for sure.) So this is neither a compromise nor a workaround. It's just another way to fall into the same da*n hole as before.
Focus on cord blood (so many discarded umbilicals), and leave the babies alone already.
the dark age mentality of the neo-cons will halt any scientific progress.
Since the United States is the only first world country where people think killing an embryo is murder, your not going to get much of a response this early on a saturday in the US.
there will always be pros and cons.
what it is, is a scientific finding.that's the object.
the intention or the motive behind the act, probably be the first one to do it/be in history,kill all males,but what for?,or why?is it personal?
the circumstance surrounding the act, who is he that did it?
is it really in Taiwan or Korea?
when was this?
And finally can he show us how he did it?
I think he is an Egoist. I stand with the scientific community.
Why does everyone on YA feel that opposing govt. sponsored stem cell research makes one a right wing wacko? I oppose govt. sponsored research because it puts the govt. in the female womb. If an anti - abortion group was granted access to a women contemplating abortion to encourage her to not have an abortion, most people would find that offensive. A scientist, under federal funding, advising an abortion to harvest stem cells is equally offensive. Lastly - what if stem cell therapy does what it says? Doesn't nature have a way of limiting our numbers to prevent overpopulation - why mess with this?
Answers:
This 'news' is months old. It's not a way around the ethical dilemma of embryonic research, though: they've simply found a new way to make an embryo present. So rather than simplifying the ethical calculus, this multiplies it. (They try to make this seem like a third alternative, by stating that the blastocyst won't develop into a baby and inferring that nobody could dare suggest it's a person. But their research procedures ensure that all these embryos are destroyed before they could get that far, so there's no way they can say for sure.) So this is neither a compromise nor a workaround. It's just another way to fall into the same da*n hole as before.
Focus on cord blood (so many discarded umbilicals), and leave the babies alone already.
the dark age mentality of the neo-cons will halt any scientific progress.
Since the United States is the only first world country where people think killing an embryo is murder, your not going to get much of a response this early on a saturday in the US.
there will always be pros and cons.
what it is, is a scientific finding.that's the object.
the intention or the motive behind the act, probably be the first one to do it/be in history,kill all males,but what for?,or why?is it personal?
the circumstance surrounding the act, who is he that did it?
is it really in Taiwan or Korea?
when was this?
And finally can he show us how he did it?
I think he is an Egoist. I stand with the scientific community.
Why does everyone on YA feel that opposing govt. sponsored stem cell research makes one a right wing wacko? I oppose govt. sponsored research because it puts the govt. in the female womb. If an anti - abortion group was granted access to a women contemplating abortion to encourage her to not have an abortion, most people would find that offensive. A scientist, under federal funding, advising an abortion to harvest stem cells is equally offensive. Lastly - what if stem cell therapy does what it says? Doesn't nature have a way of limiting our numbers to prevent overpopulation - why mess with this?
Question about STATE TAX LIENS ...?
I have a state tax lien filed against me (NC-USA) from several years ago. I was working with a criminal attorney, and he assured me he could resolve the civil lien as well as my other "issue". Well, it appears he's dropped the ball in the civil arena, and I don't know what my options are at this point. Does a state tax lien ever "expire" after a number of years?
Answers:
No, it doesn't expire -- it remains until it is paid in full.
If the lien was solely based on a conviction that has since been overturned, the lien can be removed by notifying the tax agency of your state of that fact.
Other than that, the lien remains until paid, or until you get the governor to issue a pardon excusing you from paying it.
No. You have to pay if you wish the lien to be removed.
Answers:
No, it doesn't expire -- it remains until it is paid in full.
If the lien was solely based on a conviction that has since been overturned, the lien can be removed by notifying the tax agency of your state of that fact.
Other than that, the lien remains until paid, or until you get the governor to issue a pardon excusing you from paying it.
No. You have to pay if you wish the lien to be removed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)