Seniors earned it.
The disabled can't.

Big freakin' difference between can't and WON"T, no?

yep . but who is gonna determine what that difference is?


not someone who believes people should accept any job offered them,, or else they don't 'want to work'


not someone who thinks not finding work and not 'wanting to work' are the same thing,,,that's for sure,,,

yes but people who 'wont work', have not

Refusing to or not taking what's available should be grounds for termination of freebies.

Actually, they are only free to the ones who refuse to work.

Laboring contributors carry the burden.

so, those who aren't employed, should be slaves who accept whatever someone will offer them

gotcha

but , for me, that's ******** that I aint buying


I don't have to accept just ANY date
I don't have to accept just ANY school for my children
I don't have to accept just ANY type of treatement
and I wont feel chastised into believing I have to accept just ANY job that's available

employers don't want that either, , people just applying for a 'job',, there is a certain 'compatibility' that is still expected, by both employer and employee

I once knew of a woman (back in the 90s) who was a well-paid, highly respected third-party property manager. Part of her duties were to leave her office, drive to vacant homes (some renting for as much as $3,000/month at the time) and show them to prospective renters.

On one of these showings, she was ambushed by a "prospective renter" and brutally raped and beaten. While her body healed just fine, she found she was psychologically incapable of leaving her office TO show properties, again, and was awarded disability. To the best of my knowledge, she's still receiving it.


"Legitimately" "can't work"...she got a doctor's note to prove it and everything. She doesn't even HAVE to look for an Administrative Assistant job IN a property management office, where she's not required to leave it for showings. Doesn't even have to accept employment as counter-help at McDonald's, if (since?) she doesn't want (have?) to.

I'm sure there are many, MANY other similar stories, nation-wide.



Lines get blurry when we decide everything's cut-and-dried, huh? *Funny* how that happens.

if capping income limits createivity and 'job creation',, why is it back in the seventies when the wealthy earned LESS of the money, we had LOWER unemployment

and since the seventies , while their share grew,, unemployment also got larger


lets try paying people decent wages,, that is the difference between the 'taxpayer' and the 'non'.. not morals or productivity, but WAGES, as the tax system is based upon income brackets


lets try creating those jobs that these wealthy allegedly can create more of while their income exponentially grows

lets evolve from our slave worker system that tells people take what we offer you and don't complain and don't be upset that you cant participate and don't matter because you are in the wrong income bracket,,

create the environment where people can earn the income necessary to pay taxes, and the gap wouldn't be so large


as to the sexists who continue to blame women having babies ,, women have been having babies since time began,,, it really cant continue to be the scapegoat for all social problems,,,and BY THE WAY,, none of them have managed to do it without an all too willing man,,,,

There may be some truth in what you say but you seem to be missing the point that it is the women who are collecting most of the checks from the taxpayer for having the children. And after taking responsibility for raising the children, they are not instilling the morals, work ethics, and need for education required by the children they bore.

Aside from the infamous Octomom, who gained notoriety FOR her abuses of The System,

how are these poor, welfare-supported moms able to afford the artificial insemination that removes the men-who-impregnated-them's obligation for child support, child rearing, AND "instilling the morals, work ethics, and need for education required by the children they (helped to) bore"?

Seniors earned it.
The disabled can't.

Big freakin' difference between can't and WON"T, no?

Aside from the infamous Octomom, who gained notoriety FOR her abuses of The System,

how are these poor, welfare-supported moms able to afford the artificial insemination that removes the men-who-impregnated-them's obligation for child support, child rearing, AND "instilling the morals, work ethics, and need for education required by the children they (helped to) bore"?

So basically, you are saying that everyone should be required to work. The Stistics show that there are a total of aprox 145 million jobs whereas there are aprox 207 million adults between the ages of 18 and 64. this means that there are a total of 62 million people that can't have a job because they LITERALLY DON'T EXIST.

If they can't work because there are no jobs for them they are SOL because of the job market. and since they have no job they can't get help from the government?

B!!! S!!! I'm calling B freakin' S on this. your argument is invalid. they aren't the problem. the fact that there is no job for them is the problem.

Keep in mind I didn't count down for mentally or physically disabled, and nor did I account for illegal immigrants either. I figure those numbers balance each other out to the point of being statistically irrelevant.

Another example why weed shouldn't be legal.

Artificial insemination doesn't do that. However, if having children you can't support and/or raise properly is a problem, birth control solves that problem.