A tablet under 50 dollars? used maybe, but no need for a tablet in my opinion.

Okay, I accept that point on the cell phone, that makes sense.
if they had a car before welfare , okay, Im on the fence with that one.

you worked at a job paying 8 dollars an hour? really?

As in now ? a few years ago or 20 years ago.

Then you have the person making twice minimum wage who has insurance taken out every week $160 a month and a couple hundred or more in taxes. So the person working is living on less than the one of welfare.

I can say in my own case, unless that working person only takes home 700 dollars a month, they are not.

when I was a teen decades ago, and still had a car and other 'devices', like a computer, which some might say is a 'luxury', but really isnt if its not on the high end.

How can you survive on $700 A month. Cost of living here is low. $700 A month would only cover rent on a small apt.

exactly the point.

decades ago when you were a teen? okay
so and what does that have to do with welfare?

I will assume that you were living with your parents as a teen, I assume they bought you the car, and you bought other devices living under your parents roof.

I dont see what this have to do with being on welfare, unless you are saying your parents was on welfare at the time you were living with them?

why would you ASSume that about me and not all the others you seem to look at and judge?

i was not on welfare as a child. I received assistance when my daughters father bounced on his responsibilities much later in life, this has been within the past decade or so. I had a beater car already paid for (he did do that much before he left). We had TWO computers as my husband had left one behind. i probably had a cell phone too.

And I received a whopping 350 cash benefit (for which I had to do 100 hours volunteering a month) and 350 for food for me and two children. And the average benefit is around the same across the country.

That is not BETTER than a working income.

why would you ASSume that about me and not all the others you seem to look at and judge?

i was not on welfare as a child. I received assistance when my daughters father bounced on his responsibilities much later in life, this has been within the past decade or so. I had a beater car already paid for (he did do that much before he left). We had TWO computers as my husband had left one behind. i probably had a cell phone too.

And I received a whopping 350 cash benefit (for which I had to do 100 hours volunteering a month) and 350 for food for me and two children. And the average benefit is around the same across the country.

That is not BETTER than a working income.

But that's only because you didn't apply for all the programs.

Im a little confused here, we were talking about those on welfare driving cars and having cell phones and then you replied you were working 8 dollars an hour, having a car and toys as a teen, but you were living at time.

what exactly am I assuming?

Why the 3 cap letters in assume?...

and how do you know who HAS applied for 'all the programs' or who hasnt when passing judgment on what you see?

It's not about who applied. The point is people can live better on welfare than working.

maybe my caps key got stuck ...

I was pointing out how little of a budget is necessary to afford cell phones and why someone on welfare having them is not therefore living 'better' than a working person. I was pointing out the different ways people on welfare can and possibly need to be able to have a vehicle, and also how little of a budget that requires.