How much money do you get get if your in Connecticut and getting welfare?

Powered by

If you were on state welfare in connecticut 15-20 years ago and you inherit a house is the state allowed to take it from you as re-imbursement. i was told they could take it even if you were on it long ago and you just get the house today,that you can't purchase a home in the state you received welfare from without paying them back when you sell it. even if it's given to you.

I've never heard of such at thing and can't find any reference to it. Such a policy wouldn't make a lick of sense, because then Habitat for Humanity would be building houses for the state. Unless you're guilty of welfare fraud, you have no debt incurred, so they have no reason to take your property. Who on earth told you this?

Powered by

I am very worried about my bi-polar friend. she's been hospitalized twice in the last 5 months. she doesn't have family that can help her out. she can't hold down a job because she's agoraphobic (afraid to leave her home). i got her to on social security disability so she wouldn't lose the home she bought before she "lost her mind". i have control of her bank account and have all her bills and mortgage statement sent to me, so that i can make sure they get paid. the problem is, after her mortgage and common charges are paid, there is hardly anything left for utilites, food and other living expenses. i tried to get her to apply for welfare and food stamps, but she was declined because she owns property and because of the amount of money she gets from social security. sometimes, i add money into her account to cover her bills - but i really can't afford to keep doing this. she still needs more money. what can i do? i've called churches, but they said "we do not give hand outs!" not enough room to give all the details above. the problem with her, is most of the time, she just can't function. once in a while, she has a good day and seems like a normal person, but it's really rare. i do have her hooked up with a local mental facility that she goes to once a month to get her medication, and i got her on medicaid, but i don't know what to do with her other living expenses. she refuses to sell her home! she goes into a rage when i bring it up and starts crying because she says it's the only place she feels safe. so, until she recovers (or if she recovers) i think it's for the best to keep her in the home she loves so much. she lives in connecticut. i hooked her up with a charity there called person to person for cloths and food - but because she's single, the amount of food they give her isn't enough to last the entire month. i hooked her up with help for heat - but that's only for the winter - what can i do with her utilities for the rest of the year? the reason i am doing this is because she has no family and can't do all this by herself. if i didn't do all this - she's be homeless. i have exhaused every source of help that is out there in connecticut that i can think of - is there anyone out there that can help me think of ways to get her money to cover utilities, toilet paper, tampons, toothpaste, shampoo and food? again, the food bank doesn't supply enough food for the entire month, and they don't provide toilet paper, shampoo and other basic hygene products. please - i need ideas, suggestions. i'm not a relative so i can't go to the courts - and i've tried to talk with her social worker at the mental health crisis center - but the won't talk with me for confidentiality reasons. i'm all out of ideas! i don't have "power or atty" - she just handed over her bank account to me because she "can't deal with it". her other friends aren't financially able to help - and i can't afford to subsidize her leftover expenses. help! guys, please be nice. this woman is not a dead beat. she's very sick. she's struggled with her illness for a long time and was an executive assistant for 17 years. she used to work 12-16 hours a day for years in an extremely high pressured envoinment before she had her breakdown. i think the long hours she used to work, plus losing her jobs at corporations that had financial problems is partly to blame with her breakdown. that's how she was able to buy a home - back when she was working. but all her all of her savings and 401k went as a down payment on her home - so there are no savings left - its completely dried up. remember - some people with her illness/disabilty never work - she did for almost 2 decades. cut her some slack. this could happen to anyone, even you and would you want people to be unsympathtic to you if you got sick and couldn't work anymore? be humane please. re: "does she have a drinking problem?" technically, she did. since i took over her bank account - i took away her debit card and placed a password on her account so she could not order a new one behind my back. i did this so she wouldn't blow her social security check on alcohol and other worthless things to guarantee that her mortgage and maintenance charges are paid each month. i've reviewed her account for the last year - and the only transactions are the ones i've made online for her bills. since there's nothing left after paying for the roof over her head - there's absolutely no money for alcohol. there isn't even money for groceries and the electric bill - i'll be darned if i'm going to give her money for whiskey and cigarettes. food is a necessity. alcohol is not. to the best of my knowledge she hasn't had a drink since i've taken over her account - even if it's only because she doesn't have the money to abuse alcohol anymore. that's the back story for her and alcohol sun, thank you for your suggestion. the utilties are a scaled down as the can get: cable is included with common charges - so that can't be eliminated. no internet for her anymore, but i have to keep her phone connected so she can call me if there's a crisis or so she can call 911 or the mental health center if she's having a crisis. but no extra features like caller id. just a dial tone. not even long distance. nikkismo: no, i didn't call the govnm't center because i didn't even think of it. now that you mentioned it - i will do that today. thank you for thinking of something i didn't think of! you guys are great. i knew yahoo! answers would be helpful. i know i haven't thought of everything i could do - and that's why i came here. thank you again for all your sugesstions, please - keep them coming. sun, thank you for your suggestion. the utilties are a scaled down as the can get: cable is included with common charges - so that can't be eliminated. no internet for her anymore, but i have to keep her phone connected so she can call me if there's a crisis or so she can call 911 or the mental health center if she's having a crisis. but no extra features like caller id. just a dial tone. not even long distance. nikkismo: no, i didn't call the govnm't center because i didn't even think of it. now that you mentioned it - i will do that today. thank you for thinking of something i didn't think of! you guys are great. i knew yahoo! answers would be helpful. i know i haven't thought of everything i could do - and that's why i came here. thank you again for all your sugesstions, please - keep them coming.

Try 211 in CT (Info phone) they can direct you in the right directions. Catholic Charities (its not a hand out its a gift). CL&P has matching payments for her electric (time to enroll maybe over though) Untied Family Services. The Untied Way. I don;t know where in CT she lives but she maybe able to get Meals on Wheels. But like I said try 211 they do help

Powered by

Especially considering that red states receive the most amount of welfare or "hand-outs" as the juice drinkers call it. the tax foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill. us 50 states mapthe report shows that of the 32 states (and the district of columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are red states that voted for george bush in 2000. indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are red states. here are the top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with red states highlighted in bold): states receiving most in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. d.c. ($6.17) 2. north dakota ($2.03) 3. new mexico ($1.89) 4. mississippi ($1.84) 5. alaska ($1.82) 6. west virginia ($1.74) 7. montana ($1.64) 8. alabama ($1.61) 9. south dakota ($1.59) 10. arkansas ($1.53) in contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are blue states that voted for al gore in 2000. indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are blue states. here are the top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with blue states highlighted in bold): states receiving least in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. new jersey ($0.62) 2. connecticut ($0.64) 3. new hampshire ($0.68) 4. nevada ($0.73) 5. illinois ($0.77) 6. minnesota ($0.77) 7. colorado ($0.79) 8. massachusetts ($0.79) 9. california ($0.81) 10. new york ($0.81) two states -- florida and oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

This is what they are told and as we all know they never question their leaders

Powered by

Serious answers only please. ok, heres the story. i lost my job, we are surviving on foodstamps and my fiance's unemployment. we are both trying really, really hard to find a job. but heres my question; what if no matter how hard we try we cant find a job, his unemployment runs out, and we have no money? at that point, will the state allow us to go on welfare? our rent is 600 so its not impossible to pay. we are trying to find jobs, ive had one interview, and im waiting and waiting for an answer. its not like we are trying to scam the state for welfare. we're not. wer'e trying really hard to find work, chasing after every and any job opening. seriously, if the only way the state ill allow us to have welfare i will make my fiance impregnate me im not kidding. im just really scard and really stressed. if you know the law about this please tell me. oh and the state is connecticut. ok people, i dont want criticism or smart ass answers. if you know the law then answer, if you dont, then dont tell me how to run my life. i get on here for hhelp, not another episode of the view. just help, and by helping i mean answer my damn question.

If you draw welfare the state will go after him to force him to pay support for the amount of welfare you are getting.

Powered by

You couldn't possibly ever know under what circumstances a person comes to be in this situation, could you ? wouldn't it be a better idea to make welfare more of a plan for the future than a way to become dependent on the system ? in connecticut, where i live, before you can even apply for assistance you must go classes in what's called the "jobs first" program. after which you must put in certain hours a week looking for a job and complete a certain number of applications as well. there are certain exemptions, but not many qualify. they also pay the majority of your daycare so you can go back to work, or go to school and get a degree. what alot of people don't seem to understand is just how ridiculous day care cost are. it would cost me in excess of $500.00 a week, not to mention gas, lunch, and car repairs. even if i am college educated, this is a huge chunk of money to shell out simply to be able to go to work and earn a living. even if you're making $12.00 an hour, which is not going to happen unless you have some sort of training or schooling, that's only $480.00 a week. you're still $20.00 short for daycare. now you have to figure out how you're going to pay your rent and eat and you say f*ck it, i give up. if you were to get a second job, you would never see your children. for those of you who will say she should have thought of that before she got pregnant i say that most of us usually expect the men to stick around but they just don't always do that, not all women intend on raising their children alone you know ? then the women end up paying 100% of their income to take care of their children while the men are giving up only (in ct) up to 28% of theirs. how does that work ? i myself am not on welfare, but my husband died of cancer 3+ years ago he was 41 and our daughters were only 2 & 3. do you think i was planning on being alone with 2 children ? no, i was not, nor was i prepared. thank goodness for social security or we would have been homeless and starving to trying to get help while the rich people were trying to keep it from us. would we have been asking for handouts as well ? could you look my daughters in the eye and tell them it's their mothers fault they can't eat because she should have just ran out and gotten a job asap ? i certainly hope not. you say we all could work harder in school, get a scholarship and go to college just like you. is that truly a reality ? i wonder if it were 90% of kids whole work hard their entire lives to do their very best because they want to do something with their lives, would there really be enough scholarships to send them all ? how many would have to be turned away after such a struggle ? the point is that the ratio of students to the amount of scholarships given each year is preposterous. where would the government get that money from ? maybe if we weren't dropping billions and billions into iraq we could manage to concentrate on our own people and their future well-being, instead of taking it away from struggling mothers . they are either going to need help with the cost of living, help with daycare, or help with college, so you are going to need to give it up one way or the other. i am sorry, but the reality is that it's just not possible for some people to make ends meet with all we need to live minimally comfortably. i realize welfare fraud is rampant, ruining it for those truly in need. maybe we should concentrate on those people instead. let me also just say that there are no jobs to be had for alot of people, but thank goodness for the uneducated, or who would be making your latte's for you, mowing your lawn, cleaning your houses, etc..... philip: i don't live in virginia, i live in connecticut, the highest per capita state in the country, and no, i'm not willing to move to afford daycare. it should be made more affordable instead. also most people have more than one child in daycare, so multiply your 150.00 by 3 and do the math. not everyone has family. you people seem to think that we all have exactly the same resources and opportunities when it's just not a reality.

Agreed. And the bigger problem is the lack of education a lot of the people born into welfare are getting about how to live normal and productive lives apart from the system. All that they've seen in a check coming from the government. They aren't encouraged to get jobs in a lot of cases, until they turn 18. At that point, they've seen nothing but people working the system so that they never have to get a job! Their cousin working the fryer at McDonald's is the responsible one from their family that "made it". We need to spend the money on similar programs to the one that you write about having in Conn. If people know how to get jobs, and more importantly that they have to have a job, then they are more likely to not only get out of the system, but to be an example to those around them of how to get out of the system.

Powered by

Http://www.taxfoundation.org/resear ch/topic/92.html these states get more money from the federal government than they pay back. mississippi $2.02 alaska $1.84 louisiana $1.78 west virginia $1.76 north dakota $1.68 alabama $1.66 south dakota $1.53 kentucky $1.51 virginia $1.51 these states pay out more money than they get back new york $0.79 california $0.78 delaware $0.77 illinois $0.75 minnesota $0.72 new hampshire $0.71 connecticut $0.69 nevada $0.65 new jersey $0.61 now i'm confused, i thought liberals were suppose to be welfare bums?? turns out it's quite the opposite with mostly southern republican countries sucking the teet of the federal government. republicans: stop spending our money, we can't afford it! andy g: you seriously think that red states are taking more money from the federal government then they pay out because there is large black populations in those states? you said it, no me. ugta: ah i see, those states which voted republican have a majority black population? that's makes as much sense as elton john being straight.

it appears that libs will believe anything except reality!!! You do that MS for instance has a high black population and local elections results in libs holding office!!! If you are as smart as you think you are look up Bennie Thompson!!! Please get a grip on reality and stop lying to yourself !!!! The only truth to the question is and I QUOTE,..."Now I'm confused"!!!!

Powered by

"the report shows that of the 32 states (and the district of columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are red states that voted for george bush in 2000. indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are red states. here are the top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with red states highlighted in bold): states receiving most in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. d.c. ($6.17) 2. north dakota ($2.03) 3. new mexico ($1.89) (flipped red in 2004) 4. mississippi ($1.84) 5. alaska ($1.82) 6. west virginia ($1.74) 7. montana ($1.64) 8. alabama ($1.61) 9. south dakota ($1.59) 10. arkansas ($1.53) in contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are blue states that voted for al gore in 2000. indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are blue states. here are the top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with blue states highlighted in bold): states receiving least in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. new jersey ($0.62) 2. connecticut ($0.64) 3. new hampshire ($0.68) (flipped blue in 2004) 4. nevada ($0.73) 5. illinois ($0.77) 6. minnesota ($0.77) 7. colorado ($0.79) 8. massachusetts ($0.79) 9. california ($0.81) 10. new york ($0.81)"' http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writi ng/2004/11/red_states_feed.html

Here's the head welfare queen: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html

Powered by

"the report shows that of the 32 states (and the district of columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are red states that voted for george bush in 2000. indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are red states. here are the top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with red states highlighted in bold): states receiving most in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. d.c. ($6.17) 2. north dakota ($2.03) 3. new mexico ($1.89) (flipped red in 2004) 4. mississippi ($1.84) 5. alaska ($1.82) 6. west virginia ($1.74) 7. montana ($1.64) 8. alabama ($1.61) 9. south dakota ($1.59) 10. arkansas ($1.53) in contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are blue states that voted for al gore in 2000. indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are blue states. here are the top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with blue states highlighted in bold): states receiving least in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid: 1. new jersey ($0.62) 2. connecticut ($0.64) 3. new hampshire ($0.68) (flipped blue in 2004) 4. nevada ($0.73) 5. illinois ($0.77) 6. minnesota ($0.77) 7. colorado ($0.79) 8. massachusetts ($0.79) 9. california ($0.81) 10. new york ($0.81)"' http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writi ng/2004/11/red_states_feed.html

What hypocrites they are. Thanks for posting this.

Powered by

Red staters are supposed to be "rugged", "self-sufficient", "pick themselves up with their own bootstraps" type of people. so why have they been leaching of blue state tax dollars for years now? in general, blue states (being wealthier and all) tend to pay more in federal taxes, than they recieve. red states, on the other hand, tend to take in more federal revenue than they pay in federal taxes. check the right-wing anti-tax tax foundation data: http://www.taxfoundation.org/resear ch/show/266.html should obama and the democratic congress come up with a law that says the difference between taxes payed versus revenue recieved should not exceed say 10%? how about it conservatives? ================= federal revenue recieved vs payed per dollar redest of the red states alaska, $1.84 alabama, $1.66 mississippi, $2.02 kentucky, $1.51 bluest of the blue states new york, $.079 massachusetts, $0.82 connecticut, $0.69 california, $0.78

Way to move forward their sparky. Or is it snarky? In any case, you don't want to go down the REAL road of who is lapping up tax dollars free of charge, now do you? Start being for the country instead of anti-partisan. It would be a start to all this so-called change you and your type preach.

Powered by

Blue states in general pay more federal taxes than they receive in revenue. it is quite the opposite for red states. apparently these rugged self-sufficient red states have been leeching off blue state tax dollars for years! how does that make you feel? fed spending per dollar payed in federal tax 1) new mexico, $2.03 2) mississippi, $2.02 3) alaska, $ 1.84 4) lousiana, $1.78 5) west virginia, $1.76 6) north dakota, $1.68 7) alabama, $1.66 8) south dakota, %1.53 9) kentucky, $1.51 10) virginia, $1.51 . . . 40) massachusetts, $0.82 41) colorado, $0.81 42) new york, $0.79 43) california, $0.78 44) delaware, $0.77 45) illinois, $0.75 46) minnesota, $0.72 47) new hampshire, $0.71 48) connecticut, $0.69 49) nevada, $0.65 50) new jersey, $0.61 http://www.taxfoundation.org/resear ch/show/266.html phosho, you are proof conservatives have lost touch with reality. you spout nonsense and never provide facts to back it up. blue states are the heavily populated sattes. red states are often more rural states. often, the cities is where most of the wealth is created. blue states, being more urban, have higher median wages and therefore pay higher federal taxes. rural areas have extreme poverty. teekno, wages and cost of living are higher in the more advanced parts of the world. the northeast, japan, europe. life is cheaper in mexico, third world countries, and the south. zaza, more nonsense without any facts.

Yeah, it sucks. And the worst part is that they are not prospering despite the infusion of funds due to their backwards conservative mentality. WE can only keep trying.