RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


erieangel -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 12:48:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


"some"...."in the past"....


He`s not implying what you hateful angry extreme republicans are.


You two are just not familiar with candor and honesty.


It`s refreshing really,not scapegoating as the problem.





Read the article, look at the numbers and do the math.  You support handouts.  You support failure.  The time for people sitting on their asses and collecting a check is OVER.  The till is very nearly empty.  If you are too obtuse to understand that now, you will understand it shortly.



Ok, then lockedaway, tell us how people on welfare are supposed to find jobs when the unemployment rate is at 10%? Duh. The time end welfare is not now, people will starve.




MrRodgers -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 12:51:21 PM)

These are approximations made valid by the extremely high amounts and differences.

Entire history of welfare begun under LBJ's Great Society. (believe it or not and not some capitalist propaganda, FDR NEVER sent a check to anyone who wasn't working)

From 1965 to present (after slight reform during Nixon renaming it AFDC, and the Clinton reform) Approx. $500 billion. Paid to 4-5 million families in almost 50 years.

Farm subsidies growing from a post WWII $5 billion to $15 billion under Bush I to $20 billion/yr. Bush II Approx. $1 trillion. This went to about 2-3 million now down to about 700,000 'qualifying' farms.

Corporate welfare (those 'liberal' bastions at the Cato inst. $100 billion for the last 12 yers alone) $1.2 trillion. Total in 50 years...countless $Trillions !!

Look at the average recipient and tell me just who are you describing really when you speak of welfare and just who is getting a govt. check for doing nothing ?

Oh I am sorry, I could just spend all of my 'free speech' on investing in govt....one of the best 'free market' [sic]  returns on investment there is today. Our corporate plutocratic courts has that as a const. protected redress of my grievances. Wher do you think by far most of the money invested in govt., is going ? Just what have we seen as its affect ?




Lucylastic -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 2:34:42 PM)

[image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/asshandedgop.jpg[/image]




rulemylife -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 3:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Sorry Louve, Subrob is calling Owner a moron for good reason.  The banking meltdown was started by Carter, accelerated drastically by Clinton and was warned about by Bush in 17 speeches/press releases.  For Owner59 to ignore historical fact is moronic and unethical.



Well...............isn't that special?

Care to explain what happened between Carter and Clinton?




Owner59 -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 6:44:46 PM)

"Started by Carter"? [sm=abducted.gif]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY


and


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLHfKjiQew






Musicmystery -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 6:53:16 PM)

quote:

People call me all sorts of names, talk about what a sonofabitch I am. But I really tried to have an intelligent conversation with him where we might actually make some headway. Not only did he decide not to answer....he logged off. I tell you, this proves the hypocrisy and the ugliness of liberalism.

Hmm. You're not really grasping the concept of logic either. Nor of irony.




Musicmystery -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 6:55:48 PM)

quote:

When O'scumbag wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire there was going to be a corresponding increase in all brackets.

Your grasp of politics isn't any better....Obama pushed for extending the tax cuts on all but the top.




Musicmystery -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 6:56:53 PM)

quote:

So, if you're as successful and have it together as much as you claim in some of your posts and in your profile, what are you so fuckin angry about pal?

I was wondering about that myself.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 7:00:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

When O'scumbag wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire there was going to be a corresponding increase in all brackets.

Your grasp of politics isn't any better....Obama pushed for extending the tax cuts on all but the top.


Unfortunately his definition of "top" is far from it.




lickenforyou -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 7:09:46 PM)

quote:



So...you believe that people should have to do nothing to get a welfare check?  You want to use mothers as your red herring, right?  Those welfare mothers?  Are all people on welfare mothers Owner? 

Picking up trash is a valuable service, is it not?  Someone receiving welfare could pick up trash for 4 hours per day and have the rest of the day to look for work and we would have cleaner neighborhoods, right?  What about this, employers volunteer to allow welfare recipients to work at their businesses for 4 hours a day.  The employer does not pay them because they are getting welfare.  But those recipients may also be picking up job skills.  Right?

What about all of those welfare mothers?  Who is going to watch their children.  Is that the idiocy of your argument?  Because if it is, then those welfare mothers never have to work, do they?  Not until the kids are emancipated, right?  Or are you just saying that welfare mothers have to watch their children until they are enrolled in school and then aftercare?  Did you know there is care provided in the early mornings as well?   Really...the whole welfare mother argument is very very thin.

The fact is hat you want people not to work.  They make up the voting base for the liberalism that is crippling this country and that you hold so dear.



The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWOR) (PL 104-193), was signed in to law on August 22, 1996, by President Bill Clinton.  

Welfare Reform Act,

Most recipients are required to find jobs within two years of first receiving welfare payments.

Most recipients are allowed to receive welfare payments for a total of no more than five years.

The states are allowed to establish "family caps" that prevent mothers of babies born while the mother is already on welfare from receiving additional benefits.

"What about this, employers volunteer to allow welfare recipients to work at their businesses for 4 hours a day.  "

This has got to be the dumbest fucking idea that I have ever heard. YOU said these people don't want to work. And now you want them to take work away from people who are looking for a job. Have them pick up trash off the streets? What about the people who's job it is to do that? Then they're out of work. And again, according to you these people don't want to work, so they'll do a half assed job and the neighborhoods won't be clean.

And, yes, most welfare recipients are single mothers.

You're wrong on so many points and you're so disrespectful to the people on these boards. The foul names that you have called the president clearly indicate that you are a vile little man.

Edited for formatting




Owner59 -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 7:24:59 PM)

How about elderly woman or people who can`t walk or become to ill to work?


Basically, the most vulnerable amongst us.


Care to guess how many homeless children there are?


No,I didn`t think so.


We can narrow down the list to able bodied men and we might agree.


But cutting money for the program is going to hurt everyone, across the board,including the most vulnerable.


To me a measure of a nation`s greatness is how the least fortunate and needy are treated.







FirstQuaker -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 7:35:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

These are approximations made valid by the extremely high amounts and differences.

Entire history of welfare begun under LBJ's Great Society. (believe it or not and not some capitalist propaganda, FDR NEVER sent a check to anyone who wasn't working)

From 1965 to present (after slight reform during Nixon renaming it AFDC, and the Clinton reform) Approx. $500 billion. Paid to 4-5 million families in almost 50 years.

Farm subsidies growing from a post WWII $5 billion to $15 billion under Bush I to $20 billion/yr. Bush II Approx. $1 trillion. This went to about 2-3 million now down to about 700,000 'qualifying' farms.

Corporate welfare (those 'liberal' bastions at the Cato inst. $100 billion for the last 12 yers alone) $1.2 trillion. Total in 50 years...countless $Trillions !!

Look at the average recipient and tell me just who are you describing really when you speak of welfare and just who is getting a govt. check for doing nothing ?

Oh I am sorry, I could just spend all of my 'free speech' on investing in govt....one of the best 'free market' [sic]  returns on investment there is today. Our corporate plutocratic courts has that as a const. protected redress of my grievances. Wher do you think by far most of the money invested in govt., is going ? Just what have we seen as its affect ?



Yes, the dichotomy of that never fails to amaze me. The same fools that whine about handing a couple hundred bucks a month to some poor cripple and then giving him/her food stamps to boot while himself cheerfully accepting a couple hundred grand a year not to grow crops has never failed to amaze me.






lockedaway -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 11:16:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway


And here is my response:

1.  When Reagan re-did the tax code, the top bracket was 28%.  OK?  H.W. took it up to 35% and Clinton up to 39.5%.  Please don't tell me how great a president Clinton was, he gutted the military, he had the benefit of a dot com BOOM and it burst and his presidency ended in recession.  Let me ask you this and I really would like an answer.  Do you think it is fair for the federal government to take 39.5% of your income and allow a state like New Jersey to take another 9% all the while as you are paying .52 cents per gallon of gasoline in taxes?  Property taxes?  FCC line charges?  Taxes on your cable?  Tolls on your road?  Do you "really" think is is fair for people to lose 55% of their income and some people even more?  Doesn't that render this government a tyranny?  What happened your right to pursue happiness?  You are a slave!!!!!!!

2.  What burden are Republicans putting the working man?  Oh...do you mean a responsibility to pay 3% towards their health care?  Really???  I pay 100% of my health care.  I pay 100% of my retirement.  I work as hard, if not harder, than anyone.  I carry my own freight and I cost YOU nothing.  Isn't it about time that everyone pay more to support themselves?

3. You want to pay more in your taxes?  Go ahead.  It is voluntary.  Pay all you like.

4.  What could Bush do to stop the mortgage meltdown.  He came out and said that the repeal of Glass Steagall was a mistake and those protections had to be re-instituted.  They were not (that would have required a bill) and they have not been under O'scumbag.

5.  Two terms to fix?  The fix is easy....a corporate flat tax, massive government lay offs, a flat income tax and a one year suspension of the capital gains tax.  If those things were done, this country would explode in financial activity.  The Dow would shoot up over 15,000.  His first term has been an abject failure.

6.  Your last paragraph does not make sense.  Please re-read it.  You still have to pay a self employment tax and the payroll tax if you hire someone.  You also have to pay mandatory worker's compensation insurance.  You ask whether it is the nation's obligation for small business to succeed.  The answer is yes.  By not taxing small businesses to death many would have a much greater chance at success.

7.  You did not give me your thoughts on the estate tax.  Do you support democrats confiscating private property with a estate tax at $200,000.?



Ok....

1.  First, I never even mentioned Clinton.  I don't believe in blaming the current on the past.  Granted, the past is what we're working on now, but to go as far back as Carter is getting rather ridiculous (I mean we are getting well into more than one decade here and all because Carter started it? Really????  And tell me not to tell you that Clinton wasn't a great president is not only what you wanted me to say, but what I didn't say.

2.  I am not going to spend the day on google, googling facts that you and I will never agree with.  The fact is, I have yet to see any republican look for a fix to healthcare.  I just recently bought some health insurance.  Before that I too payed for 100% of my healthcare, but as I get older I must face the facts that age will place burdens of ill health on me just because I'm becoming decrepit (sorta lol).  Although, I happen to know that under Obama's new health reform, (unless the republicans repeal it, which is what they are trying to do with all their might), that they can't deny me the coverage I need if I do get terribly sick.  I know before that reform, when my husband got cancer, his insurance company (that we faithfully pd premiums on for years before) suddenly said this wasn't covered and that wasn't covered.  So much so, that to help keep the cancer from winning his battle, we refinanced our house to pay for his insurance denied treatment and STILL paid the premiums so they'd help with what they were helping with.  Now THAT made me bitter as hell towards insurance company and the whole "health care" farce that was going on and that I was forced to open my eyes and see it.  As far as retirement.  I have a retirement that was made in the private sector, so I can only hope (Hope hard) it's still intact when I get to that point.  (So far it is, as I've been calling Hartford every year to make sure of that, because my pension does not come from Wall St.  My 401K does.  So I don't pay 100% for my retirement.  I'm sorry if you haven't figured out a better way to make it easier on you when you reach your golden years.  Maybe a financial consult will help you there?

3.  No, I don't want to pay more for my taxes and never stated that I did want that.  I can't help that you twisted my words from "I would be willing to pay my fair share of taxes if taxes went up on the middle class when the tax cuts expired on the wealthiest in my country.  Pay attention, don't assume please.

4.  The moment Bush started to warn.  From the very first warning, he should have started to talk to the Dept of the Treasury, to Congress, to anyone who could help him reign in the pandemonium.  Not just sit back and say "Hey folks, I told ya so".  Because now we are sure paying a lot to let Wall St run rampant like it did.  And yes, I blame Wall St.

5.  A flat tax?  I don't know where you live, but down here in Florida.  Big corporations have so many tax breaks and loop holes, that only 2% of businesses in Florida pay taxes at all!!  So, good luck trying to convince them they have to pay anything at all!!!
http://stephen3100047.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/08/6606918-guess-how-few-florida-businesses-pay-corporate-taxes

6.  I did not own a small business.  I was self employed.  I had to pay a self employment tax (on just me,..one individual, or one household) because I didn't have an employer.  And small businesses are the ones who do pay their taxes as in #5.  Its the larger corporations we covet and protect.

7.  I didn't realize you even mentioned an estate tax in your first post to me, or in any interactions we had until now, so did not give you an opinion.  First, you have to realize, I am not a democrat.  I am liberal, but am independent.  And no, I do not support anyone taking anything from anyone, especially if a loved one passed and left it to them.  Now, paying taxes on whatever gain that inheritance left them is another thing.  But to confiscate their property, no.  If they cannot afford the taxes on it, they can either sell part of the estate for the money or work out a deal with IRS.   If you are telling me they will flat out confiscate property just because it was willed to you and you can't afford the taxes, then the one who willed it should have known the laws better and put it into a trust, instead.  (If I am understanding you right).

Edited to correct the link I pasted above, which for some reason reverts back to the wrong link I initially clicked on, so here is the link I was referring to in #5
http://stephen3100047.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/08/6606918-guess-how-few-florida-businesses-pay-corporate-taxes

Or hell.  I just clicked on the first link and read farther down and it does give the same information.  Maybe its just time for me to bow out.  (You're driving me bonkers, lockedaway [;)])



1.  Yes, the train jumped the track with Carter.  If you are going to look at the history of something, LOOK AT THE HISTORY.  Just like the other poster that stated, accurately, that sitting on your ass and collecting welfare was an invention of the LBJ administration.  The brain dead amongst the liberals (Owner59 specifically) say that you can't change welfare because of welfare mothers....albeit a narrow segment of the population.  It is a stupid and fatuous argument.  We can put people into space but we can't figure out how to make welfare mothers contribute back into the system.  It is so fucking stupid an argument that it is a waste of time to address it.  The only thing you need to take away from that argument is that the class divisions will never be healed. 

2.  You are dead wrong on this issue.  The republicans have been saying right along that there should be portability with insurance policies and that people should be able to buy insurance from any state that is willing to cover you even though you live in another state.  Those are VERY simple solutions.  How far will those solutions go to rectify our problems?  WHO THE FUCK KNOWS!!!!!!  The government should have first tried to advance the private sector, not destroy it.  Instead they opted to try to make all health insurance a function of the U.S. Government by making people by a product for their own protection which is in direct contravention of the constitution.  I know you won't agree with anything I have just said despite its absolute accuracy.  So please tell me...why do we continue to talk about this or post on these threads?  The battle lines are clearly drawn.  Isn't all of this an exercise in futility??????  As far as planning for my retirement, I have in excess of 2 million dollars in equity.  I'm not all that worried about it to tell you the truth.  But the fact of the matter is that I AM 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR MY RETIREMENT WHICH IS MORE THAN I CAN SAY FOR THE LOSER CLASS OF LOWLIFE LIBERALS THAT INHABIT THIS BOARD LIKE TERMITES.

3.  Ahem....moving right along....  Again...I have asked you repeatedly.  How much money should people lose on their dollar.  I get fucking sick and tired of asking this question.  You have a dollar, 35% is spoken for by the Fed., 9% is spoken for by the State of New Jersey (6% would be spoken for by the state of Arkansas....Google your own state), then you may have to pay property taxes.  You still have to pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, tolls, permits, fees, licenses, cable taxes, utility taxes, payroll taxes, etc.  Now Goddammit, for the last time, how much should a person lose out of every fucking dollar they make?  With everything I have said, the person being destroyed by this tax scheme is paying over 50%.  How much fucking more do you want people to have to pay.  GO ON...GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE!!!!
And after you give me that percentage, realize that the taxpayer is paying that kind of money for the pieces of shit in our country that don't pay anything.  Not only don't pay anything...but take on top of it.  Remember that.

4.  Don't fucking blame Bush!!!!  Blame the cocksucker that signed the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.  Why the fuck do you give Clinton a pass?????  Look...Glass Steagall was repealed in a BI-PARTISAN measure which means that both parties signed onto this massive debacle. STILL the president (Clinton sex offender) could have vetoed it.  Got it?  Lay blame where blames deserves to be placed.  In order for Bush to have made a change, a bill would have had to been presented to him to re-instate the Glass Steagall Act.....ARE WE CLEAR ON THIS POINT?

5.  Yes...a flat tax. Don't you understand that a flat tax will result in an INCREASE in taxes in some cases?  It is a flat tax.  Understand?  There will be no deductions taken against it which is why it is pitched at only 10%.

6.  Yes...they will flat out take the property.  Let's get back to some figures; O'scumbag wants an estate tax that kicks in at $200,000.00. You can't bequeath a telephone booth in NJ and not have it be valued in excess of $200,000.00.  (Ok...a wee bit of hyperbole but anyone that lives in NJ knows how expensive it is.)  The Republicans want the estate tax to kick in at 2mm.  Let's do some math, shall we?  The Republicans want to give you 1.8million dollars more in protection from the IRS than the Democrats.  ARE WE CLEAR ON THIS POINT.

If you are a liberal, you are a sworn enemy to liberty.  You need to learn the truth.  Here is a book you should read "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin.  I will tell you what, if you read it and allow me to quiz you on it, I will send the price of the book to your paypal account if you have one.  Fair enough?




lockedaway -> RE: welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 11:35:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway


Mr.Roders, I don't know who you are but in 4 posts, you haven't said anything.  Why don't YOU answer the question that I put to Owner59.  Do you feel that people receiving welfare, which is money from the public till, should do something to earn it?  Yes or No.


You didn't ask me, but I'm going to answer anyway. I'm a bitatruble thataway.

110 stat. 2105

It has to do with the way you word the question and the request for a simple yes or no answer to a question which is far more complex than a simple yes or no can answer. Given only those two options, I have to answer no.

I am more than happy to expand on that answer if you so desire but it's going to take us out of the realm of *yes or no* and delve into the complexities of the issue.




I would love to get into a discussion with you but "yes" or "no" are still the viable options.  The fact that your answer may be "yes...but these are the obstacles and the considerations that must be addressed" is still a "yes".  Owner59 answered the question "no" and he hung his entire debate on welfare mothers that need to stay home and watch their children.




lockedaway -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 11:39:00 PM)

quote:

.
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


"some"...."in the past"....


He`s not implying what you hateful angry extreme republicans are.


You two are just not familiar with candor and honesty.


It`s refreshing really,not scapegoating as the problem.





Read the article, look at the numbers and do the math.  You support handouts.  You support failure.  The time for people sitting on their asses and collecting a check is OVER.  The till is very nearly empty.  If you are too obtuse to understand that now, you will understand it shortly.



Ok, then lockedaway, tell us how people on welfare are supposed to find jobs when the unemployment rate is at 10%? Duh. The time end welfare is not now, people will starve.



Oh Erie, if you only realized that the difference in our opinions is much closer than you realize...

I didn't say end welfare, my luv, I said institute workfare.  People who receive taxpayer dollars should do something to earn it.  Duh!!!  No...I'm just kidding, I take that back.  :)




lockedaway -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/9/2011 11:42:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

These are approximations made valid by the extremely high amounts and differences.

Entire history of welfare begun under LBJ's Great Society. (believe it or not and not some capitalist propaganda, FDR NEVER sent a check to anyone who wasn't working)

From 1965 to present (after slight reform during Nixon renaming it AFDC, and the Clinton reform) Approx. $500 billion. Paid to 4-5 million families in almost 50 years.

Farm subsidies growing from a post WWII $5 billion to $15 billion under Bush I to $20 billion/yr. Bush II Approx. $1 trillion. This went to about 2-3 million now down to about 700,000 'qualifying' farms.

Corporate welfare (those 'liberal' bastions at the Cato inst. $100 billion for the last 12 yers alone) $1.2 trillion. Total in 50 years...countless $Trillions !!

Look at the average recipient and tell me just who are you describing really when you speak of welfare and just who is getting a govt. check for doing nothing ?

Oh I am sorry, I could just spend all of my 'free speech' on investing in govt....one of the best 'free market' [sic]  returns on investment there is today. Our corporate plutocratic courts has that as a const. protected redress of my grievances. Wher do you think by far most of the money invested in govt., is going ? Just what have we seen as its affect ?


This was a good post on your part and you have made it clear that the debacle of sitting on your porch drinking Colt 45 and collecting a check was something that came from one of the most evil presidents in American history; LBJ.

I'm not saying that other forms of welfare have to be changed, Mr. Rodgers.  I have never supported too big to fail.  Let the motherf****** fail and let some other Americans come in and run it right.  Although, you seem to be disparaging of farm subsidies and I don't agree with you there.  Farming is essential and extremely hard work.  We have had wheat blowing in the street because farmers couldn't take their crops to market because of some political policy or another.  So on that one small point, I disagree with you.





lockedaway -> RE: Why do Republicans hate America? (7/9/2011 11:52:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Sorry Louve, Subrob is calling Owner a moron for good reason.  The banking meltdown was started by Carter, accelerated drastically by Clinton and was warned about by Bush in 17 speeches/press releases.  For Owner59 to ignore historical fact is moronic and unethical.



Well...............isn't that special?

Care to explain what happened between Carter and Clinton?




Jesus Christ, Rule, if you had read the thread you would see that I absolutely addressed it.  The Carter mandate of  33% or so of bad paper continued through two terms of Reagan and one term of H.W. Bush.  But it got ramped up to 50% under Clinton.





lockedaway -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/10/2011 12:20:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

quote:



So...you believe that people should have to do nothing to get a welfare check?  You want to use mothers as your red herring, right?  Those welfare mothers?  Are all people on welfare mothers Owner? 

Picking up trash is a valuable service, is it not?  Someone receiving welfare could pick up trash for 4 hours per day and have the rest of the day to look for work and we would have cleaner neighborhoods, right?  What about this, employers volunteer to allow welfare recipients to work at their businesses for 4 hours a day.  The employer does not pay them because they are getting welfare.  But those recipients may also be picking up job skills.  Right?

What about all of those welfare mothers?  Who is going to watch their children.  Is that the idiocy of your argument?  Because if it is, then those welfare mothers never have to work, do they?  Not until the kids are emancipated, right?  Or are you just saying that welfare mothers have to watch their children until they are enrolled in school and then aftercare?  Did you know there is care provided in the early mornings as well?   Really...the whole welfare mother argument is very very thin.

The fact is hat you want people not to work.  They make up the voting base for the liberalism that is crippling this country and that you hold so dear.



The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWOR) (PL 104-193), was signed in to law on August 22, 1996, by President Bill Clinton.  

Welfare Reform Act,

Most recipients are required to find jobs within two years of first receiving welfare payments.

Most recipients are allowed to receive welfare payments for a total of no more than five years.

The states are allowed to establish "family caps" that prevent mothers of babies born while the mother is already on welfare from receiving additional benefits.

"What about this, employers volunteer to allow welfare recipients to work at their businesses for 4 hours a day.  "

This has got to be the dumbest fucking idea that I have ever heard. YOU said these people don't want to work. And now you want them to take work away from people who are looking for a job. Have them pick up trash off the streets? What about the people who's job it is to do that? Then they're out of work. And again, according to you these people don't want to work, so they'll do a half assed job and the neighborhoods won't be clean.

And, yes, most welfare recipients are single mothers.

You're wrong on so many points and you're so disrespectful to the people on these boards. The foul names that you have called the president clearly indicate that you are a vile little man.

Edited for formatting



Let's see...where are we now?  Oh yes...I finally get to the MOST idiotic post pasted on the board since I have been gone.  This takes a special kind of stupid. 

Ok...let's look at the feckless law you cited that was enacted by a feckless president:
          
              Most recipients are required to find jobs within two years of first receiving welfare payments.

              Most recipients are allowed to receive welfare payments for a total of no more than five years.

              The states are allowed to establish "family caps" that prevent mothers of babies born while the
              mother is already on welfare from receiving additional benefits. 

Ok, English major..."most" does not mean all.  Now go find me the data on how many people received welfare in the past two yeas and how many have found jobs within the past two years and whether the total of people who have found jobs amounts to "most".  Think you can do that?  I don't think YOU FUCKING CAN!!!  LOLOLOLOLOL
The law should be written "Recipients are required to find work within two years.  If the recipient fails to find work within two years the recipient's welfare payments shall be terminated.  The recipient may appeal the decision to terminate and the appeal will be heard by a panel of no fewer than 3 members of the Welfare for Losers Dept.  The recipient must show by clear and convincing evidence that he/she has made every effort to find work.  In the event the recipient prevails on the appeal, welfare payments shall re-commence for a period not to exceed 12 months."  That is how the law should be written. 

Welfare for 5 years is extreme.

"States shall establish family caps...."  And that is how that should be written.

Now...let's get onto your other palpably stupid arguments in this post.  Genius has written this:         

'This has got to be the dumbest fucking idea that I have ever heard. YOU said these people don't want to work. And now you want them to take work away from people who are looking for a job. Have them pick up trash off the streets? What about the people who's job it is to do that? Then they're out of work. And again, according to you these people don't want to work, so they'll do a half assed job and the neighborhoods won't be clean."

NO YOU WONDERFULLY BRILLIANT MAN WITH BRAIN POWER I WOULD ASPIRE MY CHILDREN TO EMULATE!  Employers would be able to opt into a program whereby they are able to hire a welfare recipient for 4 hours per day.  It costs the employer NOTHING.  In the employer's eyes, it would be like volunteer work although some of your liberal dimwit comrades would call it slave labor.  It is neither slave labor nor is it volunteer work because the welfare recipient is getting a check every week.  The welfare recipient gets job training and the employer gets extra help.  Is the employer going to fire someone because they got a welfare recipient who knows nothing about the job to come in for only four hours a day?  No...I don't think so.

More Brilliance:  "Have them pick up trash off of the streets?  What about the people whose job it is to do that?"  Wow...I didn't know high schoolers participated on these boards.  The welfare recipients would report to the department of Public Works.  They would work along side people, not replace them.  And not only public works...zoning, land use, code enforcement, etc. etc. etc.  Even if you took one of these characters and had him follow around a code enforcement official performing Certificate of Occupancy Inspections, it would be an education that the recipient had not heretofore received.

Awwww..didums whines that I call our president bad names.  He is a scumbag, left wing, piece of skunk shit that is destroying this country.  He is garbage....pigeon shit, smegma, phlem and that weird shit you pick out of your eyes.




lockedaway -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/10/2011 12:25:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

These are approximations made valid by the extremely high amounts and differences.

Entire history of welfare begun under LBJ's Great Society. (believe it or not and not some capitalist propaganda, FDR NEVER sent a check to anyone who wasn't working)

From 1965 to present (after slight reform during Nixon renaming it AFDC, and the Clinton reform) Approx. $500 billion. Paid to 4-5 million families in almost 50 years.

Farm subsidies growing from a post WWII $5 billion to $15 billion under Bush I to $20 billion/yr. Bush II Approx. $1 trillion. This went to about 2-3 million now down to about 700,000 'qualifying' farms.

Corporate welfare (those 'liberal' bastions at the Cato inst. $100 billion for the last 12 yers alone) $1.2 trillion. Total in 50 years...countless $Trillions !!

Look at the average recipient and tell me just who are you describing really when you speak of welfare and just who is getting a govt. check for doing nothing ?

Oh I am sorry, I could just spend all of my 'free speech' on investing in govt....one of the best 'free market' [sic]  returns on investment there is today. Our corporate plutocratic courts has that as a const. protected redress of my grievances. Wher do you think by far most of the money invested in govt., is going ? Just what have we seen as its affect ?



Yes, the dichotomy of that never fails to amaze me. The same fools that whine about handing a couple hundred bucks a month to some poor cripple and then giving him/her food stamps to boot while himself cheerfully accepting a couple hundred grand a year not to grow crops has never failed to amaze me.





Goddamn...another stupid post.  "cheerfully accepting a couple hundred grand a year  not to grow crops has never failed to amaze me."  Jesus...you certainly don't fail to amaze me either.  If the farmer does not grow his crops, genius, what does he sell?  Nothing!!!!!!!  With what does he pay his mortgage?  With NOTHING!!!  With what does he maintain his tractors, combines, mowers, rakes, bush hogs, pasture dreams, irrigation system?  WITH FUCKING NOTHING!!!  That's right, pal, the GOVERNMENT (you know the thing that does all of your thinking for you) tells the guy not to grow because he won't be allowed to sell it for some reason or another.  The government pays him to abstain from his normal business.  Understand?

Fuck...you guys have a lot of nerve criticizing me.




Kirata -> RE: O'dingdong admits welfare = dependency (7/10/2011 2:53:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I will try to address this point one more time though - If work gets done faster, then (try to stay with me) less man hours are needed to do the job. Less man hours means... THAT SOMEONE ISN'T GETTING PAID!

When someone is being mentored in how to do a job correctly, I can tell you from direct experience that everything takes longer. And if they're not being specifically trained to take over that job, then once they can do it with reasonable skill and efficiency they move on to another learning task. That's how we trained new executive hires in our company. You had to know everything from the ground up before you got to plant your ass in the big chair.

Unpaid interns wouldn't necessarily be expected to learn as much as a new executive hire. But they would learn a lot of transferrable job skills, and be getting actual experience working and interacting in a business atmosphere. I think it sounds like a damn good idea, personally. But you'd probably have to offer the companies some incentive, because training somebody takes time and effort. Interns ain't "free help".

K.





Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625