It's quite an art to be able to troll in the way he does.
Back on topic: I'm all for welfare recipients being tested as long as all recipients of government money are tested. Including the heads of the banks receiving bailout money.
It's quite an art to be able to troll in the way he does.
Back on topic: I'm all for welfare recipients being tested as long as all recipients of government money are tested. Including the heads of the banks receiving bailout money.
He really got to ya huh? But in the future, please don't post pm's, that's pretty bad. In case you didn't know, pm = PRIVATE MESSAGE.
Again, no one has addressed the fact that some people are working for this money while others expect it in return for nothing. Big difference in my mind.
But as I said, really no point in it anyhow, because if someone loses their welfare, what are they going to do? All of a sudden be a working, productive part of society? Not likely. You may simply create a criminal...well, since they are already a drug user they are already a criminal, but you will likely create an incentive for them to steal, etc.
i will address it. i will boil it down into the simplest form to understand. if you receive government funding, whether working or not, you are still receiving government money. if we are going to give some people money to rape our financial system through bailouts and not give money to a legitimately poor and unable to work person who is not taking drugs and is just taking money to get by and live, i think i would rather give it to the second guy. there is a difference between not working, working, and working in a manner that is detrimental to our country... so that is why i say if you test one poplulation then all should be tested.
and i completely agree with you about creating criminals when you cut them off.
Again, no one has addressed the fact that some people are working for this money while others expect it in return for nothing. Big difference in my mind.
But as I said, really no point in it anyhow, because if someone loses their welfare, what are they going to do? All of a sudden be a working, productive part of society? Not likely. You may simply create a criminal...well, since they are already a drug user they are already a criminal, but you will likely create an incentive for them to steal, etc.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think the more important issue with regard to welfare assistance should be having it coupled with a work requirement. Earning something for yourself provides a sense of dignity.
I think the more important issue with regard to welfare assistance should be having it coupled with a work requirement. Earning something for yourself provides a sense of dignity.
I agree. And this is what happens. It varies by state because the federal government was largely taken out of the equation by Clinton with his welfare reform in the mid 90s. I think that at the very least receipients are required to start working again after two (?) years of receiving benefits.
I don't know why people think that it is an entitlement program that just endlessly hands out money to people who don't want a job. oh yeah, I do, it is because that is what the talking heads like Rush and Beck say.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Comments
Back on topic: I'm all for welfare recipients being tested as long as all recipients of government money are tested. Including the heads of the banks receiving bailout money.
He really got to ya huh? But in the future, please don't post pm's, that's pretty bad. In case you didn't know, pm = PRIVATE MESSAGE.
Again, no one has addressed the fact that some people are working for this money while others expect it in return for nothing. Big difference in my mind.
But as I said, really no point in it anyhow, because if someone loses their welfare, what are they going to do? All of a sudden be a working, productive part of society? Not likely. You may simply create a criminal...well, since they are already a drug user they are already a criminal, but you will likely create an incentive for them to steal, etc.
and i completely agree with you about creating criminals when you cut them off.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree. And this is what happens. It varies by state because the federal government was largely taken out of the equation by Clinton with his welfare reform in the mid 90s. I think that at the very least receipients are required to start working again after two (?) years of receiving benefits.
I don't know why people think that it is an entitlement program that just endlessly hands out money to people who don't want a job. oh yeah, I do, it is because that is what the talking heads like Rush and Beck say.