Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> chain email about welfare
gordonfann
post Nov 20 2011, 01:36 PM
Post #1




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 6-June 08
From: Land of 10,000 lakes
Member No.: 15,036





To Pee or Not To Pee



I have a job.

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes & the government
distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).


What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes
to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT
----doing drugs while I work.


Can you imagine how much money each state would save
if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!



disclaimer.. This was an chain email I received. I'm sure most of you have seen one like it.


I actually think it's a good idea as it would make sure(never 100% foolproof) monies people get on welfare would be used for feeding, clothing the family. Doubt it would ever be enacted though.

This post has been edited by gordonfann: Nov 20 2011, 01:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maw
post Nov 20 2011, 01:53 PM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 4,117
Joined: 24-January 08
From: Michigan
Member No.: 12,971





While I believe that we need to get stricter regarding the requirements to received state funds, I am also fully for feeding ANY child that is hungry. How do we not allow those drug users to get our money but still get the food to their children? (Hopefully at least SOME of the money still feeds their children). We've got to find a solution to that problem.

As I understand it, each welfare recepient has a "Bridge Card" and the government puts the welfare check directly to a "bridge card". What I also have a problem with is what type of "food" we are allowing those bridge cards to be used for. I was at a party store last summer and a lady walked in and bought 2 cases of soda with her bridge card. Ummmmmm.... no. I don't begrudge one iota using the money I work for to provide nutrious foods for those in need. I do have a huge issue with buying "junk food". On weeks that my budget is stretched thin, I am not able to items like that - but they can??? I'm not liking that too much. Maybe I can buy them a Cadillac, too - even though I have a Chevy. mellow.gif


--------------------
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body.

Rather it should be to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand and the Good Book in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO what a ride!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wingsovernc
post Nov 20 2011, 02:35 PM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 63,889
Joined: 1-March 10
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 22,154





I soooooo believe in sharing whatever I have with those who need it, even
giving till it hurts because sometimes, it does but not nearly as much as
it hurts little bellies that are starving. But I also believe there should be
better oversight of how the help is distributed. Most of the time people
just cannot help being in those dire circumstances but it is also true that
in many cases some families are there because the head(s) of the household
would rather 'party down' than hunker down and look for gainful employment.
But the children cannot be responsible for their parents and we must get the
help to them. I don't pretend to know the answer but I wouldn't mind being
on the committee that helps make some good decisions. Because I've been
on both sides of this coin. Because of an abusive relationship when my kids
were small, I was a 'welfare mom' for a few months and lived in a subsidized
community. I saw first hand how some single moms would rather forgo
paying for the basic needs of their children in order to buy themselves some
new party duds. It sickened me and thankfully I wasn't in that situation long
before I was able to work my way out of it.
If all of the 'needy' were able to make good decisions for themselves and
their families then they would probably not be in the situation they are in.
And so someone needs to help with those decisions before the downward
fall is unstopable. A food cooperative perhaps? Or instead of so many food
stamps which get sold and turned into ready cash for less-needy purchases
(i.e. drugs and alcohol), perhaps there can be a central location where they
may come and pick out their food items, paper goods (not presently allowed
with food stamps), and clothing needs for their family. Just an idea.


Forgot to address the original question of drug testing. I support at least
random drug tests because for a lot of people just the possibility of having
one is enough. If there are those that feel it takes away their dignity let me
explain that their dignity has already been taken away. You're trying to help
restore it.
What would benefit the most I believe would be "life counselors" to help
plan out a strategy to regain some control over their lives. Many don't
have a clue how to do that and I believe it would be well worth the money
spent to provide that kind of help. Kind of like "Give a man some fish and
you feed him for a day, show him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Yeah, I know, that one's been around forever but sometimes it's the simple
concepts that are overlooked the most.
is enough.

This post has been edited by wingsovernc: Nov 20 2011, 03:20 PM


--------------------














When twilight drops her curtain down and pins it with a star,
Remember that you have a friend though she may wander far.

~L.M. Montgomery
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nicole
post Nov 22 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #4




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 30-August 10
From: Greenville, NC
Member No.: 23,515





This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I have seen in a while. There are so many loopholes around it it's insane:

1. Marijuana is the only drug that stays in your system for more than 3 days (typically). Society has much bigger problems than casual marijuana users.
2. This only affects the adults in a family. The parents can still apply on behalf of their children, and the benefits be directed towards the children. The parents will be the ones responsible for purchasing food, etc, with the benefits. Do you really think a crack head is going to starve themselves and feed just the kids? That's if the food stamps even make it to the kids. A lot of drug addicts sell them for money for drugs. The family will still receive benefits, but the amount will be short 1 or 2 people, or however many adults couldn't pass the drug test.
3. ^^ this is exactly how illegal immigrants benefit from the system.

What do I think would help welfare more than drug testing?

1)Adding a lifetime cap for benefits. I would rather see people given a maximum of five years to get their act together. There are enough benefits out there that anybody should be able to get a GED if needed and graduate from a community college with some sort of vocational training within five years. Social services will pay for your daycare, food, housing, etc. I think the only caveat to this should be that the training you receive needs to have a regional average starting pay that is higher than what would qualify your family size for welfare benefits. Defeats the purpose of educating people to do jobs if that job will still keep you in poverty.

B)requiring single parents to claim a father on their benefits application for the children. Then going after the father for child support. And THEN assessing the need for social services benefits. Did you know that most states don't require a mother to declare a father on assistance applications if she doesn't want him involved? Therefore instead of the father being responsible for paying child support for his own children, we all end up paying child support for these children in the form of welfare benefits. Even better: if you cannot, or are unwilling to provide the name of the biological father of your children, that will be verified with paternity testing, you get NO benefits. NONE. I understand it isn't all single mothers, and single fathers exist too, but the reality is that their numbers are signifigantly less than the mothers.

ETA: The other big thing that really, really drives me insane is subsizing stay-at-home mothers in two-parent households. I would really like to see rules enacted that if there are 2 able-bodied adults living in a home, they both need to be working to support their family. I constantly hear the argument "once the baby came along is wasn't worth it for me to work, so I quit" and now they draw whatever benefits they can- medicaid and food stamps usually. A parent working full-time at $8 an hour should bring home around $1000 per month. Daycare can be had by an in-home provider for usually $125 per week (we are talking grandma-types). You still bring home $500 per month. I understand it isn't a lot, but it's grocery and gas money for a small family for a month. And if your husband doesn't make enough $$ to support you for the lifestyle that you want (SAHM) maybe you should have rethought the timing of your child, or better yet, the person you married.

Rant over. I am just tired of subsidizing lifestyles that are unattainable for most.

This post has been edited by Nicole: Nov 22 2011, 11:14 AM


--------------------
Don't try to argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience
.

If it is that unbelievable... it is probably too good to be true!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rbrtkln
post Nov 22 2011, 01:26 PM
Post #5




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,934
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Middletown, NJ
Member No.: 12,261





QUOTE(gordonfann @ Nov 20 2011, 01:36 PM) *
To Pee or Not To Pee
I have a job.

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes & the government
distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes
to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT
----doing drugs while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save
if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!



disclaimer.. This was an chain email I received. I'm sure most of you have seen one like it.


I actually think it's a good idea as it would make sure(never 100% foolproof) monies people get on welfare would be used for feeding, clothing the family. Doubt it would ever be enacted though.


One issue I have with this.... If you cut off a drug addicts welfare check, then he will need another form of income to support his habit. What will he do? Commit crimes, steal the money, and worse things!

So make 'em take a drug test, thats fine, but don't just cut off their income, put them in rehab at least!


--------------------
My Winter 08/09 Snow Tally: 29.1"
My Winter 09/10 Snow Tally: 56.5"
My Winter 10/11 Snow Tally: 54.8"
My Winter 11/12 Snow Tally: 5.7"
My Winter 12/13 Snow Tally: 20.9"
My Winter 13/14 Snow Tally: 58.8"



Everything Else- The most fun you can have with your clothes on. For Real! Not kidding!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordonfann
post Nov 22 2011, 11:23 PM
Post #6




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 6-June 08
From: Land of 10,000 lakes
Member No.: 15,036





QUOTE(Nicole @ Nov 22 2011, 09:54 AM) *
This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I have seen in a while. There are so many loopholes around it it's insane:

1. Marijuana is the only drug that stays in your system for more than 3 days (typically). Society has much bigger problems than casual marijuana users.
2. This only affects the adults in a family. The parents can still apply on behalf of their children, and the benefits be directed towards the children. The parents will be the ones responsible for purchasing food, etc, with the benefits. Do you really think a crack head is going to starve themselves and feed just the kids? That's if the food stamps even make it to the kids. A lot of drug addicts sell them for money for drugs. The family will still receive benefits, but the amount will be short 1 or 2 people, or however many adults couldn't pass the drug test.
3. ^^ this is exactly how illegal immigrants benefit from the system.

What do I think would help welfare more than drug testing?

1)Adding a lifetime cap for benefits. I would rather see people given a maximum of five years to get their act together. There are enough benefits out there that anybody should be able to get a GED if needed and graduate from a community college with some sort of vocational training within five years. Social services will pay for your daycare, food, housing, etc. I think the only caveat to this should be that the training you receive needs to have a regional average starting pay that is higher than what would qualify your family size for welfare benefits. Defeats the purpose of educating people to do jobs if that job will still keep you in poverty.

B)requiring single parents to claim a father on their benefits application for the children. Then going after the father for child support. And THEN assessing the need for social services benefits. Did you know that most states don't require a mother to declare a father on assistance applications if she doesn't want him involved? Therefore instead of the father being responsible for paying child support for his own children, we all end up paying child support for these children in the form of welfare benefits. Even better: if you cannot, or are unwilling to provide the name of the biological father of your children, that will be verified with paternity testing, you get NO benefits. NONE. I understand it isn't all single mothers, and single fathers exist too, but the reality is that their numbers are signifigantly less than the mothers.

ETA: The other big thing that really, really drives me insane is subsizing stay-at-home mothers in two-parent households. I would really like to see rules enacted that if there are 2 able-bodied adults living in a home, they both need to be working to support their family. I constantly hear the argument "once the baby came along is wasn't worth it for me to work, so I quit" and now they draw whatever benefits they can- medicaid and food stamps usually. A parent working full-time at $8 an hour should bring home around $1000 per month. Daycare can be had by an in-home provider for usually $125 per week (we are talking grandma-types). You still bring home $500 per month. I understand it isn't a lot, but it's grocery and gas money for a small family for a month. And if your husband doesn't make enough $$ to support you for the lifestyle that you want (SAHM) maybe you should have rethought the timing of your child, or better yet, the person you married.

Rant over. I am just tired of subsidizing lifestyles that are unattainable for most.


Nicole, I agree with your ideas. They are the kind of changes that need to be looked at.


I want to add more but don't have enough free time at work to put it all down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nicole
post Nov 23 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 30-August 10
From: Greenville, NC
Member No.: 23,515





QUOTE(gordonfann @ Nov 22 2011, 11:23 PM) *
Nicole, I agree with your ideas. They are the kind of changes that need to be looked at.
I want to add more but don't have enough free time at work to put it all down.


Thank you. They are all actually pretty common sense stuff, it is just getting the politicians and policy-makers to start worrying about doing what is right, and not about doing what will win them back their seat in the next election. FWIW- I am also a huge proponent of 1 term for all politicians unless they can win an certain % of the vote (66%) in the next election. But, a girl can always dream, right?


--------------------
Don't try to argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience
.

If it is that unbelievable... it is probably too good to be true!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmi16
post Nov 24 2011, 04:45 AM
Post #8




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 20,138
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 13,204





Drug Test Congress


--------------------
Never too old to have a happy childhood!


....................


Don't put an age limit on your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CMeyers
post Nov 24 2011, 09:46 AM
Post #9




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,075
Joined: 29-May 10
From: Delton, MI
Member No.: 22,879





QUOTE(mmi16 @ Nov 24 2011, 04:45 AM) *
Drug Test Congress


I don't know, it'd be even more depressing to learn that they aren't on drugs. I've always liked to think that the only way they could be as incompetently idiotic and hazardous as they are is if they're on drugs. It's comforting in a sick way... laugh.gif


--------------------
ChsChargers09 - Please be aware that there is a significant chance I was being sarcastic in the above comment. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jacksonville
post Nov 25 2011, 08:35 AM
Post #10




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,312
Joined: 16-January 10
From: Somewhere SC
Member No.: 20,964





QUOTE(Nicole @ Nov 23 2011, 11:43 AM) *
Thank you. They are all actually pretty common sense stuff, it is just getting the politicians and policy-makers to start worrying about doing what is right, and not about doing what will win them back their seat in the next election. FWIW- I am also a huge proponent of 1 term for all politicians unless they can win an certain % of the vote (66%) in the next election. But, a girl can always dream, right?

I agree with you on all points, but comman sense doesn't work here. Also all women of child being age should be on Norplant or something likeit while collecting benefits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmi16
post Nov 25 2011, 10:31 AM
Post #11




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 20,138
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 13,204





QUOTE(Nicole @ Nov 23 2011, 11:43 AM) *
Thank you. They are all actually pretty common sense stuff, it is just getting the politicians and policy-makers to start worrying about doing what is right, and not about doing what will win them back their seat in the next election. FWIW- I am also a huge proponent of 1 term for all politicians unless they can win an certain % of the vote (66%) in the next election. But, a girl can always dream, right?

The overwhelming majority in voting is part of what has gotten Congress into the mess that they are in .... Power in Congress is based upon seniority - the longer you remain in Congress the more seniority you attain. Those that lead Congress (Committee Chairmanships etc.) are those that are from 'safe' districts - districts where the voters continue to return them to office, no matter how out of touch they become with political realities, that cause members from 'contested' districts to never gain any clout.

The political problems that I see today is the the leaders in Congress - on both sides of the aisle - have only attained the seniority to get to those positions - they have never attained the traits, weilding power, working to compromise ideas, building voting majorities - LEADING.

Effective politics is not pretty politics. Effective politics is not carried out on the Sunday morning talk shows. Effective politics is not the doctrinaire - my way or the highway - bovine feces that we have been stuck with for the past decade and more - and what we seem stuck with for the foreseeable future.


--------------------
Never too old to have a happy childhood!


....................


Don't put an age limit on your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CMeyers
post Nov 25 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,075
Joined: 29-May 10
From: Delton, MI
Member No.: 22,879





QUOTE(mmi16 @ Nov 25 2011, 10:31 AM) *
The overwhelming majority in voting is part of what has gotten Congress into the mess that they are in .... Power in Congress is based upon seniority - the longer you remain in Congress the more seniority you attain. Those that lead Congress (Committee Chairmanships etc.) are those that are from 'safe' districts - districts where the voters continue to return them to office, no matter how out of touch they become with political realities, that cause members from 'contested' districts to never gain any clout.

The political problems that I see today is the the leaders in Congress - on both sides of the aisle - have only attained the seniority to get to those positions - they have never attained the traits, weilding power, working to compromise ideas, building voting majorities - LEADING.

Effective politics is not pretty politics. Effective politics is not carried out on the Sunday morning talk shows. Effective politics is not the doctrinaire - my way or the highway - bovine feces that we have been stuck with for the past decade and more - and what we seem stuck with for the foreseeable future.

Agreed 100%


--------------------
ChsChargers09 - Please be aware that there is a significant chance I was being sarcastic in the above comment. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
galatea
post Sep 30 2012, 07:49 AM
Post #13




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 2-August 11
From: gainesville, ga
Member No.: 25,864





QUOTE(Nicole @ Nov 22 2011, 10:54 AM) *
This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I have seen in a while. There are so many loopholes around it it's insane:

1. Marijuana is the only drug that stays in your system for more than 3 days (typically). Society has much bigger problems than casual marijuana users.
2. This only affects the adults in a family. The parents can still apply on behalf of their children, and the benefits be directed towards the children. The parents will be the ones responsible for purchasing food, etc, with the benefits. Do you really think a crack head is going to starve themselves and feed just the kids? That's if the food stamps even make it to the kids. A lot of drug addicts sell them for money for drugs. The family will still receive benefits, but the amount will be short 1 or 2 people, or however many adults couldn't pass the drug test.
3. ^^ this is exactly how illegal immigrants benefit from the system.

What do I think would help welfare more than drug testing?

1)Adding a lifetime cap for benefits. I would rather see people given a maximum of five years to get their act together. There are enough benefits out there that anybody should be able to get a GED if needed and graduate from a community college with some sort of vocational training within five years. Social services will pay for your daycare, food, housing, etc. I think the only caveat to this should be that the training you receive needs to have a regional average starting pay that is higher than what would qualify your family size for welfare benefits. Defeats the purpose of educating people to do jobs if that job will still keep you in poverty.

B)requiring single parents to claim a father on their benefits application for the children. Then going after the father for child support. And THEN assessing the need for social services benefits. Did you know that most states don't require a mother to declare a father on assistance applications if she doesn't want him involved? Therefore instead of the father being responsible for paying child support for his own children, we all end up paying child support for these children in the form of welfare benefits. Even better: if you cannot, or are unwilling to provide the name of the biological father of your children, that will be verified with paternity testing, you get NO benefits. NONE. I understand it isn't all single mothers, and single fathers exist too, but the reality is that their numbers are signifigantly less than the mothers.

ETA: The other big thing that really, really drives me insane is subsizing stay-at-home mothers in two-parent households. I would really like to see rules enacted that if there are 2 able-bodied adults living in a home, they both need to be working to support their family. I constantly hear the argument "once the baby came along is wasn't worth it for me to work, so I quit" and now they draw whatever benefits they can- medicaid and food stamps usually. A parent working full-time at $8 an hour should bring home around $1000 per month. Daycare can be had by an in-home provider for usually $125 per week (we are talking grandma-types). You still bring home $500 per month. I understand it isn't a lot, but it's grocery and gas money for a small family for a month. And if your husband doesn't make enough $$ to support you for the lifestyle that you want (SAHM) maybe you should have rethought the timing of your child, or better yet, the person you married.

Rant over. I am just tired of subsidizing lifestyles that are unattainable for most.





what about the stay at home mom who has to take care of a disabled child which until school age alot of "gramma types" wont deal with? what about the 2 parent house hold that still gets welfare because they just dont make enough. how about rather than taking all the impoverished's why not require to get the aide they have to learn a trade... like job corp, so they can learn to provide for them selves. it seems alot just dont know how because they didnt have the positive examples as kids


--------------------
the moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. ~omar khayyam~

i hate going outside to look for caterpillars cuz when i do all i find is worms. ~my daughter after her 4th bday~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
66BLACKBIRD
post Sep 30 2012, 02:25 PM
Post #14




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 25-July 12
Member No.: 26,801





Excellent response Nicole.........

man ......can't believe that this thread did not blow up like a small mushroom cloud ...??? maw , wings , nicole , mmi16 , CMeyers , Rbrtkin ....and others ...good replies - all seem right on target ...lots of good things to read and consider .....i thought this was a new post , and then noticed the date . Question : since this was almost a year ago .....i wonder what this election will bring as far as this topic.? I added to a post earlier today and was talking about America getting soft . We as a country have taken in all kinds ...tried to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless and give the poor a hand in getting on their feet .......i think in theroy this is a greaat thing ...we took alot of pride in going to work and providing when the greatest generation was in full swing ( WWII era ) ....man roll up them sleeves and get with it - right ..? Don't let your neighbor go with out - and i bet you at that time when you were in need the neighbor on each side of you was the to return the helping hand ....just as it should be ...working hard to provide and in turn each person wants to do their part and not take advantage of the system ......( sounds good huh ) HOWEVER - there are those that see this going on and say - hey man ...i can do that....you know sit around and get paid and still have time to do things besides go to work..i mean why work if you can get paid ....oh yea , and paid to party !! woo-hoo!!
We all have our stories ....some are rough , and some worked out by circumstance ( btw wings ....the reason you got out , it sounds like to me , is becuse you can ' hunker down ' , and had something inside of you that would not let you become complacent , the spirit of an american that says i have always got a chance , even if small , and i will make this situation better ...and you did ) .....but i too was living on the boder line of poverty ....livin in a motel , with no fridge and a broke down car , using a ice chest to have necessities in for months .....could have filed for help ...but kept finding ways to make the moment work ..pay my part , did my fair share ....and keep moving forward. I am not patting my self on the back , just sayin ......there are thousands of examples of people that have the abiliy to make it work , and they do not .....they sit and collect ...and that is b.s.......if the people that could , would ...and the people that actually - truly - cannot , were able to be assisted .....man what a better off place that welfare system would be in - without integrity in place the system has a never-ending juggernaut draining it down to nothing. We hard working American's continue to pump money back into the system and it will not stop until changes take place that will eliminate waste and greedy decision making that will line pockets of the undeserving.....but here we are back to greed , lazyness , poor decisions ....human factor again in place ....man it never stops .

i too have to take randoms for my job, not only randoms , but a breathlizer as well ......no sweat. got a good , good job now ... and this has to be in place , and it is a good thing. but i love the correlation that if i have to ....then the people that get my hard earned money should as well ! The ' free ride ' society has to come to an end ...i mean we have so many things tearing us down from all sides that i'm not sure how long the ' good ' people of this nation can carry this on their backs ??

Politician's - man that thing has to get worked out as well ....talk about free-loadin .....some of them get in their and milk that thing for all it's worth ....and return all the fresh ' hot air ' to society that they can muster up ....


done here ....sorry so long .....


take care of the babies and children for they are not able to defend yet ......
take care of the elderly for they have lived and they too now cannot defennd...
take care of your self , so you will be able to Defend and take care of the defensless....
live your life with honor and integrity ....do what is right , right the wrongs , think before you speak , and when commited , then act without hesitation .....


--------------------
Thought for the day.......The blood that flows from the torn flesh of yesterdays battle, pools to create the armor needed for tomorrows... "a moment in the in the mind of a crazy man"

Sitting in that pool of blood, preparing for the tommorrow’s , realizing……the iniquity of my soul cast a shadow…..but the darkness of my destiny will not reflect it ..... "Contemplations – from a Crazy Man’s friend "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apologistnky
post Oct 3 2012, 02:24 AM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 5,930
Joined: 19-July 10
From: ...in front of the monitor!
Member No.: 23,191





The problem with creating and enabling an "entitlement" society is that once it's in place...it is next to impossible to 'tweak' it to become more efficient...much less do away with altogether. That would be my position...do away with it altogether!! Why? Programs such as this negatively affects the individual by killing personal intitive and productivity, and fostering long-term dependence upon a third party. This is because there is no deterrent to long-term government dependancy on programs such as welfare and thus open themselves to rampant abuse by recipients much in the same way that todays' criminals do not fear long-term incarceration...it poses no deterrant to recidivism!

I would argue that society needs to return to an ideal where stigmatism towards potential welfare recipients and highly negative alternatives to non-productivity be in place so as to eliminate welfare, as we currently experience it now.


Prior to the establishment of government-sponsored welfare programs, persons in need had access to various agencies and groups at the local level such as local churches, county agencies, for example. Aid was done at the local level and focused primarily on reestablishing the family so as to get them back to being productive contributors in society. For the most part, families were the "support-system" for those who had fallen on hard times. Society attached a certain stigma to those who had fallen into such low circumstances, and had a deterrant for such...THE COUNTY POORHOUSE!!

Every county in the US, up until the early 1960's, usually through the Health Department and working in concert with local law enforcement and judiciary agents, maintained a "county home" for the expressed purpose of housing (on a short-term basis) and educating those individuals who could not support themselves due to circumstances beyond one's control. If there were children involved, they were taken to a separate facility until such time as the destitute parent(s) regained employment and/or got back on their financial feet.

As a result of such potential negative outcome, many people did not allow themselves to reach the point of dependancy...simply out of pride and fear! A commidity that is sorely lacking in many folks...self pride and fear of public failure!! But until such time that the public tires of this forced wealth distribution...they should not only be peeing in cups (without warning and at any hour...), they should also be giving up their EBT cards and subsising on rations handed out on first of each month...based on number in IMMEDIATE FAMILY! You want more food, or variety...go to work or raise it yourself!!

Just in case you readers think I'm some hard-case without a heart and doesn't understand...I've been destitute and down and homeless and needed assistance to get back on my feet; once upon a time!

This post has been edited by Apologistnky: Oct 3 2012, 02:29 AM


--------------------







The Revolution has been in effect...go get a "late pass!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SFhyph
post Oct 3 2012, 07:40 PM
Post #16




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 11,170
Joined: 10-May 09
From: Denver
Member No.: 18,192





this would affect children, and that im not ok with..


--------------------
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assalent, "If I live I will kill you, if I die you are forgiven". Such is the Rule of Honor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmi16
post Oct 4 2012, 01:45 AM
Post #17




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 20,138
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 13,204





QUOTE(Apologistnky @ Oct 3 2012, 03:24 AM) *
The problem with creating and enabling an "entitlement" society is that once it's in place...it is next to impossible to 'tweak' it to become more efficient...much less do away with altogether. That would be my position...do away with it altogether!! Why? Programs such as this negatively affects the individual by killing personal intitive and productivity, and fostering long-term dependence upon a third party. This is because there is no deterrent to long-term government dependancy on programs such as welfare and thus open themselves to rampant abuse by recipients much in the same way that todays' criminals do not fear long-term incarceration...it poses no deterrant to recidivism!

I would argue that society needs to return to an ideal where stigmatism towards potential welfare recipients and highly negative alternatives to non-productivity be in place so as to eliminate welfare, as we currently experience it now.
Prior to the establishment of government-sponsored welfare programs, persons in need had access to various agencies and groups at the local level such as local churches, county agencies, for example. Aid was done at the local level and focused primarily on reestablishing the family so as to get them back to being productive contributors in society. For the most part, families were the "support-system" for those who had fallen on hard times. Society attached a certain stigma to those who had fallen into such low circumstances, and had a deterrant for such...THE COUNTY POORHOUSE!!

Every county in the US, up until the early 1960's, usually through the Health Department and working in concert with local law enforcement and judiciary agents, maintained a "county home" for the expressed purpose of housing (on a short-term basis) and educating those individuals who could not support themselves due to circumstances beyond one's control. If there were children involved, they were taken to a separate facility until such time as the destitute parent(s) regained employment and/or got back on their financial feet.

As a result of such potential negative outcome, many people did not allow themselves to reach the point of dependancy...simply out of pride and fear! A commidity that is sorely lacking in many folks...self pride and fear of public failure!! But until such time that the public tires of this forced wealth distribution...they should not only be peeing in cups (without warning and at any hour...), they should also be giving up their EBT cards and subsising on rations handed out on first of each month...based on number in IMMEDIATE FAMILY! You want more food, or variety...go to work or raise it yourself!!

Just in case you readers think I'm some hard-case without a heart and doesn't understand...I've been destitute and down and homeless and needed assistance to get back on my feet; once upon a time!

Why not lock them up in Debtor's Prison's.


--------------------
Never too old to have a happy childhood!


....................


Don't put an age limit on your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apologistnky
post Oct 4 2012, 02:01 AM
Post #18




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 5,930
Joined: 19-July 10
From: ...in front of the monitor!
Member No.: 23,191





QUOTE(mmi16 @ Oct 4 2012, 01:45 AM) *
Why not lock them up in Debtor's Prison's.


Indeed...as I said, earlier...entitlement breeds dependancy. Welfare, of any kind, should be the exception...not the rule!! Life is hard...harder when you have to work not only for yourself, but for those who WILL NOT work...PERIOD! The deterrent has to be of such magnitude as to make it unattractive to all but those in genuine need.

And, as I also stated, we HAD such things as debtor's prisons, county poorhouses, and even work gangs for freeloaders. Bottom line...you want my money for doing nothing...pee in the cup!!!


--------------------







The Revolution has been in effect...go get a "late pass!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmi16
post Oct 4 2012, 02:14 AM
Post #19




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 20,138
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 13,204





QUOTE(Apologistnky @ Oct 4 2012, 03:01 AM) *
Indeed...as I said, earlier...entitlement breeds dependancy. Welfare, of any kind, should be the exception...not the rule!! Life is hard...harder when you have to work not only for yourself, but for those who WILL NOT work...PERIOD! The deterrent has to be of such magnitude as to make it unattractive to all but those in genuine need.

And, as I also stated, we HAD such things as debtor's prisons, county poorhouses, and even work gangs for freeloaders. Bottom line...you want my money for doing nothing...pee in the cup!!!

peeing in the cup isn't working for it.

And before we have the dregs of society pee in the cup - we need to have Congress pee in the cup before each vote!

This post has been edited by mmi16: Oct 4 2012, 02:16 AM


--------------------
Never too old to have a happy childhood!


....................


Don't put an age limit on your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wingsovernc
post Oct 4 2012, 01:43 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 63,889
Joined: 1-March 10
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 22,154





QUOTE(SFhyph @ Oct 3 2012, 08:40 PM) *
this would affect children, and that im not ok with..



Children must always come before governments, before policies, before parent's
bad decisions and selfishness and especially before any individual's sense of
social justice and social reform. And yet they continue to be the pawns in the
game of 'who deserves what' in this world. Who makes that determination
anyway? I just saw a movie that attempts to address these very problems:
"The Tall Man," which I rented because I thought it was purely suspense
but it's aim was more far-reaching. It is the subject of our entire debate
here....taken to extremes and their natural conclusions. It doesn't give
answers but rather helps to better define the questions.


--------------------














When twilight drops her curtain down and pins it with a star,
Remember that you have a friend though she may wander far.

~L.M. Montgomery
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2014 - 12:13 AM