NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/childsu/4708

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!hyperion!desire.wright.edu!sbishop
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:56:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University
Lines: 156

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
> [e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (David Garrod) writes:
>>
>>>      Several persons had posted the the base for child support should
>>> be welfare benefits, so I thought it appropriate to investigate same
>>> for my state and post them in this forum.
>>> Source: Peggy Taylor, Indiana State Department of Welfare
>>>         Regional Office, 420 Hoffman St., Hammond, Indiana
>>>         [phone]
>>>
>>> 1 mother, 1 child:           Monthly subsistence  $229
>>>                              Food stamps          $203
>>>                              Total         $432
>>>
>>> 1 mother, 2 children         Monthly subsistence  $288
>>>                              Food stamps          $292
>>>                              Total         $580
>>>
>>> 1 mother, 3 children         Monthly subsistence  $346
>>>                              Food stamps          $374
>>>                              Total         $720
>
>>Does anyone HONESTLY believe that $432/month is enough for one adult
>>and one child to live on???  The other figures seem ridiculously,
>>unrealistically LOW, too!
>
> In my hometown, one can get a 2-br apartment for $200, which takes
> a higher fraction of a total $432 than the typical rule of thumb
> (1/4-1/3).  In graduate school, I lived on barely more than that,
> alone, without a child, but with a more-than-poverty standard of living.

I have no idea where you live, Don, but it must be really in some extremely
wild area.  I live in the mid-west, not exactly the most expensive area of
the country to live in at all, houses, apartments, etc., are considered
very reasonable.  A two bedroom apartment in an area of town where you
can walk outside without being shot will run at the very LEAST $300 to
$350.

> But I had to pay for medical/dental, as well.  Yes, I preferred not
> to live that way forever (a motivation to improve my job skills -- as
> things should be), but it is certainly possible without becoming homeless.
>
> It sounds low, but not "ridiculously;" in fact, basic costs
> shouldn't be high.
>

Basic costs can differ extremely, according to what area of the country you
live in.  Try finding a decent apartment around here for $200.

>
>>I realize that the cost of living in the States is somewhat lower than it
>>is here, the wages are often slightly lower as well.  However, I am an
>>American (born in San Jose, California), so I get down there to visit family
>>as often as possible.  In fact, I was in Grants Pass, and in Portland, Oregon
>>last August and spent some time comparing wages, rent, food costs, etc..
>>They're not that much different than ours in Canada, from what I could see.
>>
>>In B.C., Social Assistance ("Welfare") standard rates (maximum) for one adult is
>>$525/month.  I don't know what the maximum rate is for one parent with two
>>children is now, but in 1990 it was $974/mo., (maximum allowance).  That two
>>year old figure is considerably more than Indiana's $580/mo. for a parent with
>>two children...$396 more!  I can assure you that even in 1990, $974/mo. didn't
>>go very far...
>
> Are you talking about US Dollars?  I just want to be sure.  Canada is,
> in any case, reputedly more generous in its socialism.
>
>
>>No wonder single parents who aren't getting child support and who are also "on
>>the system" are screaming for enforcement of child support orders!  Come on.
>>All of you who are espousing that your own children should only get $148/mo.
>>in total (and/or plus Blue Cross) for all of their on-going needs, while
>>professing your love and dedication as a parent, ought to look at this a
>>little closer. $148/month???  Give me a break!
>>
>>I guess $148/mo. should be adequate for food costs.  But what about clothes,
>>school supplies, shelter, braces and (God forbid!) baseball gloves or birthday,
>>Easter and Christmas gifts?  What about enough for the CP to pay for Life
>>Insurance so that there's something left to raise the kids on should the
>>unthinkable happen?  I just can't believe that anyone living in the real
>>world could honestly believe that $432/mo. is adequate for a parent and child
>>to live on.  How many of you live on that for just yourself, month after month
>>and year after year? (Sure as hell won't pay your University tuition for long...
>>not everyone can get scholarships, you know).
>
>
> As far as life insurance, what makes you feel that the "unthinkable"
> would be:   CP dies, NCP raises children.
>
>
> Why should the NCP pay for CP's insurance?  As far as braces and baseball
> gloves, why should the court mandate that the NCP pay for these?  Why
> should the NCP not be allowed to decide for themself what they want
> to contribute -- in precisely the same way that a married couple does?
> Why should the NCP not have the pleasure of voluntarily providing luxuries
> (and getting the credit for the work they put in to produce them)?
>

Because too many NCPs refuse to pay even the basics.

>
>>> While one cannot from these data separate out the cost of the first
>>> child from the cost of the mother;
>>> the second child cost is $580 - $432  =  $148
>>> the third child cost is $720 - $580   =  $140   per month.
>>>
>>> Medicaid (or is it medicare?) picks up medical and dental on top of
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Based on my experience with economic models for child costs it would
>>> appear to me that a reasonable estimate based on the above numbers
>>> for the first child is about $160/month.
>>>
>>> David Garrod
>>>
>>A "reasonable estimate"?  I'm appalled.
>
>
> Lisa, it would help a lot if you'd avoid the tirades against NCP's
> and against anyone who thinks that "child" support is too high.
>
> Sometimes, you seem rational -- but then comes a post full of anger
> and hate (here, you have five !'s, a couple of ???'s, plus a "God
> forbid" and a "sure as hell" to lash out against people who have
> different opinions).  The point being, regardless of whether you are
> justified or not, you show little respect for people who don't share
> your opinion.
>

A complaint about hostility?  From the Beave?  Wow.....

> I am one of those people, and I would like to discuss child support
> rationally.  Unlike the lurkers that Sue Bishop mentioned, I'm not
> afraid of your negativity, but I would still like to hear agreeing
> and opposing views, without personal attacks.

I just couldn't let this pass.  Don, you are suggesting that the lurkers
were afraid of *Lisa's* hostility.  They weren't.  They were afraid of
yours.

>
> I was starting to think that your support group's goals were
> reasonably balanced -- but I'm a bit worried that it's like
> gender-neutral laws:  the bias can be read between the lines.
>
> Don
> --
> [e-mail]                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

The vast amount of gender bias in this group has come from you and Alan.
Once again, while Lisa is being a little extreme, you seem to be trying
to rekindle the flame war.  Sigh, get a grip, will you?  Or are we going
back to the alt.child-support.male-only again?

Sue