Anonymous wrote:Illegal border crossing isn’t something immoral anymore; then why is working under the table?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was a single mother of three kids, I was forced to go on AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 since the Father of my kids was not paying a dime of child support. Whatever government help I received was never enough to meet the basic requirements of four people. For example, our Food Stamp allotment only sustained us for the first two weeks of every month.
So like Alex, I had to work for cash, off the books just to make ends meet. I worked as a nanny/housekeeper, I folded men’s clothes in an indoor swap meet and I also did nails at my Great Aunt’s nail salon. All for cash. I also had headstart preschool for my three kids so fortunately did not have any co pay for daycare.
Now this was all early-90s.

To anyone who criticizes Alex for getting govt. help while making side money in cash, the struggle is real. Social services do not even cover the basics especially when young children depend on you and their Dad is not in the picture. If I didn’t work for cash on the side - we all would not have survived.
Alex could not have survived with even just ONE child on assistance, it was a necessity to earn some cash on the side…

That's why you shouldn't have that many kids. It's too many for any one person to support.

Anonymous wrote:While this series was compelling, motivating as well as tough to swallow (have not read the actual book yet!), I think it was wrong for the main character to accept cash jobs on the side while receiving housing, food, free medical and financial assistance from taxpayers.
Welfare fraud is a huge crime yet this movie treats the character with sympathy for having to try so hard to survive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was a single mother of three kids, I was forced to go on AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 since the Father of my kids was not paying a dime of child support. Whatever government help I received was never enough to meet the basic requirements of four people. For example, our Food Stamp allotment only sustained us for the first two weeks of every month.
So like Alex, I had to work for cash, off the books just to make ends meet. I worked as a nanny/housekeeper, I folded men’s clothes in an indoor swap meet and I also did nails at my Great Aunt’s nail salon. All for cash. I also had headstart preschool for my three kids so fortunately did not have any co pay for daycare.
Now this was all early-90s.

To anyone who criticizes Alex for getting govt. help while making side money in cash, the struggle is real. Social services do not even cover the basics especially when young children depend on you and their Dad is not in the picture. If I didn’t work for cash on the side - we all would not have survived.
Alex could not have survived with even just ONE child on assistance, it was a necessity to earn some cash on the side…

That's why you shouldn't have that many kids. It's too many for any one person to support.

Anonymous wrote:When I was a single mother of three kids, I was forced to go on AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 since the Father of my kids was not paying a dime of child support. Whatever government help I received was never enough to meet the basic requirements of four people. For example, our Food Stamp allotment only sustained us for the first two weeks of every month.
So like Alex, I had to work for cash, off the books just to make ends meet. I worked as a nanny/housekeeper, I folded men’s clothes in an indoor swap meet and I also did nails at my Great Aunt’s nail salon. All for cash. I also had headstart preschool for my three kids so fortunately did not have any co pay for daycare.
Now this was all early-90s.

To anyone who criticizes Alex for getting govt. help while making side money in cash, the struggle is real. Social services do not even cover the basics especially when young children depend on you and their Dad is not in the picture. If I didn’t work for cash on the side - we all would not have survived.
Alex could not have survived with even just ONE child on assistance, it was a necessity to earn some cash on the side…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I found unbelievable about this show was that she could effectively clean an entire house from top to bottom and three hours or clean out a hoarders house in one day.

Yep. It would have been FAR more believable to see her working at the Dollar Store or in a fast food place. The house cleaning business was totally unrealistic.

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I found unbelievable about this show was that she could effectively clean an entire house from top to bottom and three hours or clean out a hoarders house in one day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this series was compelling, motivating as well as tough to swallow (have not read the actual book yet!), I think it was wrong for the main character to accept cash jobs on the side while receiving housing, food, free medical and financial assistance from taxpayers.
Welfare fraud is a huge crime yet this movie treats the character with sympathy for having to try so hard to survive.

Cite for this assertion?

Really??!
Why do you need a citation for this??
It is common knowledge (just like cats are felines!) that welfare fraud is a crime.
A huge one at that. A felony.

If you go into the Nanny forums on this site > there are tons of posters on threads declaring how shameful it is for domestic workers to work “under-the-table” for cash wages.
People accuse people of doing this as cheating the government and/or getting out of paying their taxes.
Yet this movie seems to say it is a-okay to receive food coupons and rental help while at the same time accepting cash paying only jobs on the side.
Remember how after being fired from ValueMaids Alex put up ads on job boards advertising she was available for cleaning houses - yet only for cash?
How is this fair when the taxpayers are covering her food/housing/medical costs?

You can put lipstick 💄 on a pig……
Welfare fraud is welfare fraud.
And Alex is committing a serious felony yet it is never acknowledged to be bad which is why this program should not have been shown on Netflix.

The Closer with Dave Chapelle got so much criticism…..however he was not committing any offenses to the law.

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I found unbelievable about this show was that she could effectively clean an entire house from top to bottom and three hours or clean out a hoarders house in one day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While this series was compelling, motivating as well as tough to swallow (have not read the actual book yet!), I think it was wrong for the main character to accept cash jobs on the side while receiving housing, food, free medical and financial assistance from taxpayers.
Welfare fraud is a huge crime yet this movie treats the character with sympathy for having to try so hard to survive.

Cite for this assertion?

Really??!
Why do you need a citation for this??
It is common knowledge (just like cats are felines!) that welfare fraud is a crime.
A huge one at that. A felony.

If you go into the Nanny forums on this site > there are tons of posters on threads declaring how shameful it is for domestic workers to work “under-the-table” for cash wages.
People accuse people of doing this as cheating the government and/or getting out of paying their taxes.
Yet this movie seems to say it is a-okay to receive food coupons and rental help while at the same time accepting cash paying only jobs on the side.
Remember how after being fired from ValueMaids Alex put up ads on job boards advertising she was available for cleaning houses - yet only for cash?
How is this fair when the taxpayers are covering her food/housing/medical costs?

You can put lipstick 💄 on a pig……
Welfare fraud is welfare fraud.
And Alex is committing a serious felony yet it is never acknowledged to be bad which is why this program should not have been shown on Netflix.

The Closer with Dave Chapelle got so much criticism…..however he was not committing any offenses to the law.

Anonymous wrote:While this series was compelling, motivating as well as tough to swallow (have not read the actual book yet!), I think it was wrong for the main character to accept cash jobs on the side while receiving housing, food, free medical and financial assistance from taxpayers.
Welfare fraud is a huge crime yet this movie treats the character with sympathy for having to try so hard to survive.