100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Prison camps for welfare recipients? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Isn't this thread EVER gonna die a natural death ... ? Holy crap ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just shoot it would you please sweetie?
<hands the gun to Knight> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just shoot it would you please sweetie? <hands the gun to Knight> They still shoot horses, don't they ... ? Hey - nice gun ... izzit a .44 ... ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y0JsoTVimU&feature=related
Dividing rational and compassionate people from the few that care nothing about humanity. Let them be left behind...if they cannot change. Let them hate others while in actuality they hate themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pfffffffft.
 Next ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/05/10 11:06 AM
|
|
its not about blame? its either about blame or scorned hearts,,take your pick Most welfare recipients and recipients of Unemployment milk it to the very end "fuque the poor" but I am not supposed to here This is America and I don't buy this whole "Poor People" BS. Most (about a good 60 to 75%) of the people on welfare have no motivation to do anything to better their situation. Now, why don't you have a job? I have no pride when it comes to supporting my daughter and showing her the right way to live her life by example. And you should be ashamed of yourself, a single mother can paddle her own canoe, why can't you? Get off your butts and be part of the solution and not the problem. Think of all the kids who could go to college and not have to worry about having a job too. Just get the grades. You lazy outfits! GET UP! Takes two to tango, and if a woman lets a man into her bed she had better be ready to deal with the consequences rather than dump an unwanted pregnancy on the guy and expect him to take it well. ...grow you a pair and start swinging with the big boys...or you will ALWAYS be part of the problem and NOT part of the solution. And you know something you might just discover that you can regain alot of the self respect that you left behind there somewhere when you adjust your standards to reality and start working try raising the child without the handouts...then there will be a gal in Vegas I would be very proud of But the biggest difference between the two of us and you? We can look ourselves in the mirror much easier. It is reasoning like yours and Dragonesse's that have turned the system into a total clusterfuque! wow, goes to show how the way we treat people trickles down, I wonder what views people would have if they werent themselves 'turned' down for assistance of some sort ? ?  ? ? ? ? ?
Wha??? WOW, I wonder how people take it when told one thing but have to deal with the complete opposite? "We're here to help," but then "Go away, we can't help you." Here is a song for you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpaNJqF4po as I said, been through that too with immigration and employment agencies still hasnt left me feeling above those who werent turned away though So you use this thinking to justify the hypocrisy of the system and supporting the undeserving and worthless trailer trash? Yeah I was turned down and turned down at every turn for help when I needed it. F the whining crybabies who feel they deserve entitlements. F the poor! Career welfare warriors SUCK! and there ya have it,, the DESERVING are being cut out by the UNDESERVING,,,,, well IF I were a single male with no dependents I could find a job,,,IM sure the only reason I cant find a job right now is because I need alot more from a job than just a paycheck to support myself If I only had to support myself, I would stay in a three hundred dollar a month room and work random shifts at mcdonalds.... maybe THATS why you werent seen as 'deserving'(your word) or IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE (my word) not to mention Im not sure what the economy was doing during the time that all those black folks kept you out or a job I qualify for assistance because I have a CHILD, and if I didnt have a child I sure wouldnt be fussing about how unfair it was that I wasnt getting the same assistance as children and their parents,,, but I guess that TRUTH goes too far into holding people RESPONSIBLE instead of assigning BLAME I am responsible, I need help now, I am both going to school and applying to jobs in my skill set which are on my CHILDS schedule I will be working again and I will have worked just as much as anyone else has come time for me to be able to 'retire'...this is a temporary setback and people who are judging others for having such setbacks and getting help need to jump down off their horse and look at the REAL cause for their 'anger' (IF the shoe dont fit dont wear it,, but the others know who they are) |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giocamo
on
Mon 09/06/10 08:36 AM
|
|
There is a time limit on welfare and also unemployment.
No welfare recipient can sit at home on welfare since the 1990s and there has always been a work search program associated with unemployment Obama took that provision out of the Welfare Reform bill...in the first few weeks of his God awful administration...look it up !! Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. Added to cato.org on February 13, 2009 This article appeared in the New York Post on February 13, 2009 ShareThisMuch of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform. One of the most important changes of the Clinton-era reform law was replacing the individual entitlement to welfare with a block grant to the states. In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people become self-supporting. But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients." Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work. Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. More by Michael D. TannerThis is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses. In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. And this is just for "cash assistance" welfare, or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the bill also dramatically expands other forms of welfare. For example, it would spend $87 billion to subsidize state Medicaid costs. As a result, still more of the middle-class would be shifted on to welfare. It also boosts spending on food stamps by 12 percent to $16.5 billion; hikes funds for the federal school lunch program by $150 million; adds $500 million to the Women, Infants & Children nutrition program, and even throws in $50 million for the surplus-commodity (free government cheese) program. And it gives income tax "cuts" to people who don't pay income taxes - payments that are, in fact, simply another form of welfare. [T]he measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending, another $6,700 for every poor man woman and child in this country, along with the erosion of the 1996 reforms. It can be counted on to "stimulate" the loss of another generation to welfare dependency. Since Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty" in 1965, this country has spent nearly $10 trillion on that cause. Yet, 44 years later, the poverty rate remains perilously close to where it was. By now we should have learned that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. As a state senator, Barack Obama opposed the 1996 welfare reform. As a candidate for president, he praised its results. Where does he stand now? Does he really want to return to welfare as we knew it before 1996 and put millions more Americans on the public dole |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just think that everyone who thinks this is a good idea can go first...walk your talk! go ahead....why dont you go and try this prisoncamp out. Lets say Ooooo six months??? thats generous considering it takes a lot longer than that to break the cycle of poverty...soooo go ahead...what no takers???? ....COWARDS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a time limit on welfare and also unemployment. No welfare recipient can sit at home on welfare since the 1990s and there has always been a work search program associated with unemployment Obama took that provision out of the Welfare Reform bill...in the first few weeks of his God awful administration...look it up !! Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. Added to cato.org on February 13, 2009 This article appeared in the New York Post on February 13, 2009 ShareThisMuch of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform. One of the most important changes of the Clinton-era reform law was replacing the individual entitlement to welfare with a block grant to the states. In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people become self-supporting. But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients." Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work. Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. More by Michael D. TannerThis is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses. In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. And this is just for "cash assistance" welfare, or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the bill also dramatically expands other forms of welfare. For example, it would spend $87 billion to subsidize state Medicaid costs. As a result, still more of the middle-class would be shifted on to welfare. It also boosts spending on food stamps by 12 percent to $16.5 billion; hikes funds for the federal school lunch program by $150 million; adds $500 million to the Women, Infants & Children nutrition program, and even throws in $50 million for the surplus-commodity (free government cheese) program. And it gives income tax "cuts" to people who don't pay income taxes - payments that are, in fact, simply another form of welfare. [T]he measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending, another $6,700 for every poor man woman and child in this country, along with the erosion of the 1996 reforms. It can be counted on to "stimulate" the loss of another generation to welfare dependency. Since Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty" in 1965, this country has spent nearly $10 trillion on that cause. Yet, 44 years later, the poverty rate remains perilously close to where it was. By now we should have learned that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. As a state senator, Barack Obama opposed the 1996 welfare reform. As a candidate for president, he praised its results. Where does he stand now? Does he really want to return to welfare as we knew it before 1996 and put millions more Americans on the public dole UMMMmMMMMM, CA has over 1/3rd of all welfare recipients in the US and also has no real limits on welfare. You can also get extensions on unemployment PRO Obama the Great (LIAR). Why do you think so may of these weak kneed sissies are here in the first place? CA has yet to enact Welfare Reform. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a time limit on welfare and also unemployment. No welfare recipient can sit at home on welfare since the 1990s and there has always been a work search program associated with unemployment Obama took that provision out of the Welfare Reform bill...in the first few weeks of his God awful administration...look it up !! Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. Added to cato.org on February 13, 2009 This article appeared in the New York Post on February 13, 2009 ShareThisMuch of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform. One of the most important changes of the Clinton-era reform law was replacing the individual entitlement to welfare with a block grant to the states. In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people become self-supporting. But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients." Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work. Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. More by Michael D. TannerThis is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses. In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. And this is just for "cash assistance" welfare, or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the bill also dramatically expands other forms of welfare. For example, it would spend $87 billion to subsidize state Medicaid costs. As a result, still more of the middle-class would be shifted on to welfare. It also boosts spending on food stamps by 12 percent to $16.5 billion; hikes funds for the federal school lunch program by $150 million; adds $500 million to the Women, Infants & Children nutrition program, and even throws in $50 million for the surplus-commodity (free government cheese) program. And it gives income tax "cuts" to people who don't pay income taxes - payments that are, in fact, simply another form of welfare. [T]he measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending, another $6,700 for every poor man woman and child in this country, along with the erosion of the 1996 reforms. It can be counted on to "stimulate" the loss of another generation to welfare dependency. Since Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty" in 1965, this country has spent nearly $10 trillion on that cause. Yet, 44 years later, the poverty rate remains perilously close to where it was. By now we should have learned that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. As a state senator, Barack Obama opposed the 1996 welfare reform. As a candidate for president, he praised its results. Where does he stand now? Does he really want to return to welfare as we knew it before 1996 and put millions more Americans on the public dole another reporter without intellectual integrity OBAMA actually CO SPONSORED the welfare reform bill in Illinois in 1997 alot of misleading and manipulated info here,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just shoot it would you please sweetie? <hands the gun to Knight> They still shoot horses, don't they ... ? Hey - nice gun ... izzit a .44 ... ? Naww...30-30. Courtisey of Larry the Cable Guy: "My sisters horse broke his leg...so I shot it...now it has a broken leg and a gun shot wound. Not sure how the gun shot is supposed to help the leg heal." I think this horse is going lame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a time limit on welfare and also unemployment. No welfare recipient can sit at home on welfare since the 1990s and there has always been a work search program associated with unemployment Obama took that provision out of the Welfare Reform bill...in the first few weeks of his God awful administration...look it up !! Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. Added to cato.org on February 13, 2009 This article appeared in the New York Post on February 13, 2009 ShareThisMuch of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform. One of the most important changes of the Clinton-era reform law was replacing the individual entitlement to welfare with a block grant to the states. In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people become self-supporting. But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients." Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work. Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society and other books. More by Michael D. TannerThis is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses. In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. And this is just for "cash assistance" welfare, or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the bill also dramatically expands other forms of welfare. For example, it would spend $87 billion to subsidize state Medicaid costs. As a result, still more of the middle-class would be shifted on to welfare. It also boosts spending on food stamps by 12 percent to $16.5 billion; hikes funds for the federal school lunch program by $150 million; adds $500 million to the Women, Infants & Children nutrition program, and even throws in $50 million for the surplus-commodity (free government cheese) program. And it gives income tax "cuts" to people who don't pay income taxes - payments that are, in fact, simply another form of welfare. [T]he measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform. By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending, another $6,700 for every poor man woman and child in this country, along with the erosion of the 1996 reforms. It can be counted on to "stimulate" the loss of another generation to welfare dependency. Since Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty" in 1965, this country has spent nearly $10 trillion on that cause. Yet, 44 years later, the poverty rate remains perilously close to where it was. By now we should have learned that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. As a state senator, Barack Obama opposed the 1996 welfare reform. As a candidate for president, he praised its results. Where does he stand now? Does he really want to return to welfare as we knew it before 1996 and put millions more Americans on the public dole another reporter without intellectual integrity OBAMA actually CO SPONSORED the welfare reform bill in Illinois in 1997 alot of misleading and manipulated info here,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a time limit on welfare and also unemployment. No welfare recipient can sit at home on welfare since the 1990s and there has always been a work search program associated with unemployment Obama took that provision out of the Welfare Reform bill...in the first few weeks of his God awful administration...look it up !! Considering that isn't true, I don't need to. The added funding they added to the stimulus was a safety net for what may be to come still. Depression. If we don't go into depression they will have no need for the extra. It still didn't change the laws on welfare reform and recipients still have a life time limit of 5 years, two years at a time if they need that long. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just shoot it would you please sweetie? <hands the gun to Knight> They still shoot horses, don't they ... ? Hey - nice gun ... izzit a .44 ... ? Naww...30-30. Courtisey of Larry the Cable Guy: "My sisters horse broke his leg...so I shot it...now it has a broken leg and a gun shot wound. Not sure how the gun shot is supposed to help the leg heal." I think this horse is going lame. This horse just needs to be put out of its misery ... how 'bout you use the .30-30 and I'll use my .30-06 M1 ... ? Then it'll have a broken leg and two gunshot wounds ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so glad I wasnt a negro living in the jim crow days,,,,so glad my parents and grandparents survived it and taught me about survival as a result,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just shoot it would you please sweetie? <hands the gun to Knight> They still shoot horses, don't they ... ? Hey - nice gun ... izzit a .44 ... ? Naww...30-30. Courtisey of Larry the Cable Guy: "My sisters horse broke his leg...so I shot it...now it has a broken leg and a gun shot wound. Not sure how the gun shot is supposed to help the leg heal." I think this horse is going lame. This horse just needs to be put out of its misery ... how 'bout you use the .30-30 and I'll use my .30-06 M1 ... ? Then it'll have a broken leg and two gunshot wounds ... yup...just heard the pop of the bone snapping. Poor sucker was fun while it lasted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so glad I wasnt a negro living in the jim crow days,,,,so glad my parents and grandparents survived it and taught me about survival as a result,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so glad I wasnt a negro living in the jim crow days,,,,so glad my parents and grandparents survived it and taught me about survival as a result,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, people see and perceive what they want to. They are the ones who usually fall prey to Darwinism First.
"OH, it is such a hot day (in Florida) so I am just going to run into the lake for a dip." Then after running BLINDLY into the water... "HELP, HELP! AN ALLIGATOR IS TRYING TO EAT ME!" And the idiots expect us to go into the water to save them. They never look where they are leaping. Worst is now the Alligator has to die becasue it ate some idiot! Humans = 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so glad I wasnt a negro living in the jim crow days,,,,so glad my parents and grandparents survived it and taught me about survival as a result,,, Shoot, white folks have absolutely no clue what it is like to be discriminated against for their skin color. It would be an interesting social experiment to see how they would act in that scenerio. I bet it wouldn't bode well for whoever the dominant race was 
But yet they expect and demand to be able to do it to other races even today.
|
|
|
|
|
