100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 21 year old that gets it | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' IM sure many will agree with her,,, Sounds like you know her personally Harmony...Do you? 
no more than the op who thinks she 'gets it' but I have a mind to come to a conclusion from her rant, just like anyone else can,,, No, your claims are not the same as those of the OP...not even close...  And, if you don't know this 21 year old woman PERSONALLY, you could be liable....
The young lady shows more common sense than Hussein and all of congress. They don't get it. Hopefully, the tax payer will tire of the bs, demand a refund and put the you owe me crowd out of the welfare business. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/17/12 09:53 AM
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' IM sure many will agree with her,,, Sounds like you know her personally Harmony...Do you?
no more than the op who thinks she 'gets it' but I have a mind to come to a conclusion from her rant, just like anyone else can,,, No, your claims are not the same as those of the OP...not even close... And, if you don't know this 21 year old woman PERSONALLY, you could be liable....
The young lady shows more common sense than Hussein and all of congress. They don't get it. Hopefully, the tax payer will tire of the bs, demand a refund and put the you owe me crowd out of the welfare business. LOL...the 'taxpayer'.....lol it will be so much better when only those MAKING ENOUGH to have to pay income taxes have any say or freedom about what goes on in this country,,,, talk about social apartheid,,,lol, that will be GREAT!!!!! survival of the fittest/richest dude! , and when any of those TAXPAYERS ever hit hard times let them die off too from lack of social nets that they didnt want to exist anymore off of 'their' dime great way to make a great nation into a tiny third world entity,,,but I say,, GO FOR IT!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' IM sure many will agree with her,,, Sounds like you know her personally Harmony...Do you?
no more than the op who thinks she 'gets it' but I have a mind to come to a conclusion from her rant, just like anyone else can,,, No, your claims are not the same as those of the OP...not even close... And, if you don't know this 21 year old woman PERSONALLY, you could be liable....
not when no name is given, there are millions of 21 year oids who could hypothetically have written this piece and all I gave was an opinion,, nothing that can be considered slanderous as its nothing that can be 'proven' or disproven,, sounds like,, is not the same as a declaration, its an opinion So slander is OK as long as it can't be proven?.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' IM sure many will agree with her,,, Sounds like you know her personally Harmony...Do you?
no more than the op who thinks she 'gets it' but I have a mind to come to a conclusion from her rant, just like anyone else can,,, No, your claims are not the same as those of the OP...not even close... And, if you don't know this 21 year old woman PERSONALLY, you could be liable....
The young lady shows more common sense than Hussein and all of congress. They don't get it. Hopefully, the tax payer will tire of the bs, demand a refund and put the you owe me crowd out of the welfare business. LOL...the 'taxpayer'.....lol it will be so much better when only those MAKING ENOUGH to have to pay taxes have any say or freedom about what goes on in this country,,,, talk about social apartheid,,,lol, that will be GREAT!!!!! survival of the fittest/richest dude! , and when any of those TAXPAYERS ever hit hard times let them die off too from lack of social nets that they didnt want to exist anymore off of 'their' dime great way to make a great nation into a tiny third world entity,,,but I say,, GO FOR IT!!!
Where do you believe the welfare money comes from? The welfare fairy? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' IM sure many will agree with her,,, Sounds like you know her personally Harmony...Do you?
no more than the op who thinks she 'gets it' but I have a mind to come to a conclusion from her rant, just like anyone else can,,, No, your claims are not the same as those of the OP...not even close... And, if you don't know this 21 year old woman PERSONALLY, you could be liable....
The young lady shows more common sense than Hussein and all of congress. They don't get it. Hopefully, the tax payer will tire of the bs, demand a refund and put the you owe me crowd out of the welfare business. LOL...the 'taxpayer'.....lol it will be so much better when only those MAKING ENOUGH to have to pay taxes have any say or freedom about what goes on in this country,,,, talk about social apartheid,,,lol, that will be GREAT!!!!! survival of the fittest/richest dude! , and when any of those TAXPAYERS ever hit hard times let them die off too from lack of social nets that they didnt want to exist anymore off of 'their' dime great way to make a great nation into a tiny third world entity,,,but I say,, GO FOR IT!!!
Where do you believe the welfare money comes from? The welfare fairy?
the same place the money that goes to maintaining a MILITARY comes form, taxes militar protection is paid by taxes to the portion of the budget ALOCATED for our military similarly 'welfare' funds are paid by taxes (both federal AND state, btw) to the protion of the budget ALLOCATED as a safety net for americans who fall upon hard times noone ever believes they can possibly be 'those people' the way they believe we may be attacked by an 'enemy' , so we continue to fund our military while complaining abhout helping to feed an clothe our poor,,, no fairies involved, they would have more of a sense of humanity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander  I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
oh , I see I think what is implied about welfare recipients in the op is morally slanderous too,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
What would the welfare generation, who take, consume and demand more know about morals and ethics? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/17/12 10:17 AM
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
What would the welfare generation, who take, consume and demand more know about morals and ethics? more moral slander? lol who is the 'welfare generation' since welfare was reduced to five years per lifetime? have they changed the definition of a generation lately? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
What would the welfare generation, who take, consume and demand more know about morals and ethics? more moral slander? lol who is the 'welfare generation' since welfare was reduced to five years per lifetime? have they changed the definition of a generation lately? In the last 10 years, how many people have been cut off the food stamps and/or welfare due to a limit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' and a hypocrite who probably SCREAMS And CRIES about smaller government, but apparently, only for herself and 'employed' people while everyone else should have government dictating EVERY decision in their life,,, IM sure many will agree with her,,, Actually this would advance the country as a whole. You are not seeing it objectively as it is a conflict of interest for you. Oh no don't force us to eat healthy food, live in clean conditions, and work with limited access to fun luxury stuff when I am living off the government. If you have nothing to lose what motivates you to move forward? This life style could motivate people to stay in school which improves their odds of going to college and getting a good wage. This is good for society. You can't argue that our society wouldn't be better if we had no poor people. There will always be lazy people who are content to leech. Not that everyone is bit there are some. There are others that wished they would have made different choices and this could be used to motivate future generations. Our current systems don't work, are not beneficial in the advancement of America as a country. Yea these are extreme ideas and you may nit agree with them but I bet it would reduce the percentage of people on welfare especially if it allowed for time and money for education. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
oh , I see I think what is implied about welfare recipients in the op is morally slanderous too,,,,
Well at least that young lady didn't single out one specific person like you did....And as you pointed out, she probably speaks for many others who share her feelings about welfare fraud... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' and a hypocrite who probably SCREAMS And CRIES about smaller government, but apparently, only for herself and 'employed' people while everyone else should have government dictating EVERY decision in their life,,, IM sure many will agree with her,,, Actually this would advance the country as a whole. You are not seeing it objectively as it is a conflict of interest for you. Oh no don't force us to eat healthy food, live in clean conditions, and work with limited access to fun luxury stuff when I am living off the government. If you have nothing to lose what motivates you to move forward? This life style could motivate people to stay in school which improves their odds of going to college and getting a good wage. This is good for society. You can't argue that our society wouldn't be better if we had no poor people. There will always be lazy people who are content to leech. Not that everyone is bit there are some. There are others that wished they would have made different choices and this could be used to motivate future generations. Our current systems don't work, are not beneficial in the advancement of America as a country. Yea these are extreme ideas and you may nit agree with them but I bet it would reduce the percentage of people on welfare especially if it allowed for time and money for education. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/17/12 10:32 AM
|
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best. This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011 PUT ME IN CHARGE . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.." Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON... spoken like a 21 year old whose parents have still primarily provided FOR HER the majority of the years she has lived and a jealous citizen who cant stand that people that should be 'beneath' her because of their jobless status should have the same options for their purchase power or dietary choices as she does,,, and a citizen (like most who complain) who has little to NO actual experience with welfare themself and still assumes its about getting money for 'nothing' and a hypocrite who probably SCREAMS And CRIES about smaller government, but apparently, only for herself and 'employed' people while everyone else should have government dictating EVERY decision in their life,,, IM sure many will agree with her,,, Actually this would advance the country as a whole. You are not seeing it objectively as it is a conflict of interest for you. Oh no don't force us to eat healthy food, live in clean conditions, and work with limited access to fun luxury stuff when I am living off the government. If you have nothing to lose what motivates you to move forward? This life style could motivate people to stay in school which improves their odds of going to college and getting a good wage. This is good for society. You can't argue that our society wouldn't be better if we had no poor people. There will always be lazy people who are content to leech. Not that everyone is bit there are some. There are others that wished they would have made different choices and this could be used to motivate future generations. Our current systems don't work, are not beneficial in the advancement of America as a country. Yea these are extreme ideas and you may nit agree with them but I bet it would reduce the percentage of people on welfare especially if it allowed for time and money for education. Im seeing it MOST OBJECTIVELY because I Actually know what I am talking about rather than repeating stereotypes from disgruntled supposed 'taxpayers' If the complaint is FUNDING , the proposals to RESTRICT will actually TAKE MORE Than they will cost,, they are merely punitive measures to further degrade those already down and make others feel ABOVE Them the proposal to eat beans and rice, for instance, completely ignores what would be required to REPROGRAM the codes on food to make sure only they are accepted and to go through and qualify each food as 'healthy or non healthy' as well as considering what would be a HEALTHY Diet for each person as each person doesnt have the same lifestyle or need the EXACT same menu as each other person nothing to loose? with a five year per lifetime limit, in a slow economy,,,,,,how about a home, a livelihood, a chance at EVER making a livelihood unless one is especially creative or enterpreneur minded because employers stop hiring those out of work for a time,,, nothing to loose indeed,, another BS stereotype the country would be better without 'poor' people, I Think says it all talk about lack of objectivity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
oh , I see I think what is implied about welfare recipients in the op is morally slanderous too,,,,
Well at least that young lady didn't single out one specific person like you did....And as you pointed out, she probably speaks for many others who share her feelings about welfare fraud... nope and singling out a group is so much better than singling out one person,, probably why we hear so little about people like Hitler, who was only one person,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Tue 07/17/12 10:40 AM
|
|
slander: To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. Slander and libel lawsuits differ in the way that a prima facie case must be proven. In the case of slander, the defendant doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true; instead the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. In other words, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander I was thinking more along the lines of morals and ethics....
oh , I see I think what is implied about welfare recipients in the op is morally slanderous too,,,,
Well at least that young lady didn't single out one specific person like you did....And as you pointed out, she probably speaks for many others who share her feelings about welfare fraud... nope and singling out a group is so much better than singling out one person,, probably why we hear so little about people like Hitler, who was only one person,,,,, Me thinks you do protest too loudly msharmony.....Valid concerns are valid concerns.....In fact, I think the young woman referenced in the OP has more reason to complain than someone my age...After all, the weight of carrying the "needy" will fall on her shoulders much more than mine as a retired person or yours as a self proclaimed welfare recipient.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 07/17/12 10:47 AM
|
|
See you don't take it objectively. Yes it might cost more in the short run. The objective isn't current cost. The objective is to advance society. To move people from leechers to contributors. In the long run this would improve our country and lower costs. Wow so you want people to be poor? You want them to be uneducated? What a horrible person. I want them to be successful and contribute. Who knows, if these people had been motivated to go to school maybe they would have helped cure cancer. We will never know though. You are too busy thinking about yourself then the country as a whole. If it costs us more to do this how is it your problem? I for one would be willing to pay a bit more for something that would help our country and future generations. What I have a problem with is giving people a salary for living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 07/17/12 10:43 AM
|
|
Msharmony,
 Good for you.
If indeed this drivel was written by a 21 year old girl (which I doubt) she will never be in charge of anything. She said: "If you want our money, accept our rules."
I wonder how long she has been working and how much of "her money" has she contributed to society.
Who the hell does she think she is anyway?
One day she may wake up after a car accident and find that she needs some help. I wonder if she will like her rules then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See you don't take it objectively. Yes it might cost more in the short run. The objective isn't current cost. The objective is to advance society. To move people from leechers to contributors. In the long run this would improve our country and lower costs. Wow so you want people to be poor? You want them to be uneducated? What a horrible person. I want them to be successful and contribute. Who knows, if these people had been motivated to go to school maybe they would have helped cure cancer. We will never know though. You are too busy thinking about yourself then the country as a whole. Odor costs us more to do this how is it your problem? I for one would be willing to pay a bit more for something that would help our country and future generations. What I have a problem with is giving people a salary for living. It's that darned old "big" picture thing...Some just claim they see it cause it sounds good... 
|
|
|
|
|
