Charlene has been able to keep up with her expenses despite living on Social Security income and raising three teenagers.
But when her husband of 12 years left the family, Charlene, who is limited in the work she can do because she is legally blind, was left to pay all the utilities and the mortgage each month.
Here we have a woman who is legally blind and raising 3 teens. I don't understand why Social Security is being paid to her. Why are we subsidizing this person? Before you call me heartless and callous I have to first say this: Where is her family? Where is her husband? Why is he not paying money to support the family? I'm happy she was able to go to a charitable organization for help...that is good. But that is on top of what the Social Security money that she receives. Again, instead of going to the government for help, she should have first gone to her family for help. Then her community. Then her estranged husband and finally to this charitable group. What will happen if and when she gets older and she's already used her Social Security money earlier in her life? She will continue to be draining the system.
Sure this is an extreme case and I applaud this organization and the paper for alerting me to this idea. But if the social security money is so low... what's the point?