What they do not have the right to do is abuse the system. Multiple ER visits a week (so they don't have to work and get disability, it's easier than you think), rampant prescription painkiller ABUSE (by M.D.'s and patients alike)
These are issues with the criminal justice system, not just the welfare system. Spongers are always going to be a problem, but that doesn't justify taking the benefits away from everyone.
Burks wrote:
outrageous charges ($100 for a doctor to spend 10 minutes at bedside), and the like are ruining this country. I'm not kidding you when the same name can pop up on the ER list THREE TIMES A DAY for the same problem. Not only is this a waste of money (of course they never pay their bills...), but a waste of resources. That's a squad run that takes damn near 1 hour for someone that wants a "free" meal and some pain meds. Each visit costs us approximately $2000 in lost money, that's to break even. We charge around $3k. That doesn't include the lost income to the ambulance company either.
Which only reinforces the argument for a Nationalised health service.
Burks wrote:
Give people fair prices and they might actually PAY their bill. If it costs me $40 to see my doctor in his office, why is it $100 to see them in the hospital? They MUST make daily rounds on patients, so they're already there.
See above statement.
Burks wrote:
Do people really need to be on 6-8 Vicodin a day for a back injury they had 10 years ago?
Pain is pain. What a stupid comment to make
Burks wrote:
Should we keep treating people for free who refuse to take their medications, continue to smoke/drink, and continue to live unhealthy lifestyles? Sure it is their life, but it is OUR money. See where I'm getting at? I have no problem helping people who have crappy genes, bad luck, etc as long as they do what we tell them to. Have high blood pressure? Take your f'n meds and lay off the salt!
High taxation of alcohol and tobacco (which I think there should be anyway) easily pays for the damage caused by these substances when they are abused. However, to an extent I agree with you. Priority for healthcare should be for those who make a genuine effort to protect their health, but this is hard to judge. Many alcoholics would outright quit drinking tomorrow if they could.
Statistics: Posted by Nate — November 26th, 2012, 10:47 am
]]>
Frank, to address your health care comment.
I do believe people have the right to health care. Maybe not free, but at a discounted rate.
What they do not have the right to do is abuse the system. Multiple ER visits a week (so they don't have to work and get disability, it's easier than you think), rampant prescription painkiller ABUSE (by M.D.'s and patients alike), outrageous charges ($100 for a doctor to spend 10 minutes at bedside), and the like are ruining this country. I'm not kidding you when the same name can pop up on the ER list THREE TIMES A DAY for the same problem. Not only is this a waste of money (of course they never pay their bills...), but a waste of resources. That's a squad run that takes damn near 1 hour for someone that wants a "free" meal and some pain meds. Each visit costs us approximately $2000 in lost money, that's to break even. We charge around $3k. That doesn't include the lost income to the ambulance company either.
Give people fair prices and they might actually PAY their bill. If it costs me $40 to see my doctor in his office, why is it $100 to see them in the hospital? They MUST make daily rounds on patients, so they're already there.
Do people really need to be on 6-8 Vicodin a day for a back injury they had 10 years ago?
Should we keep treating people for free who refuse to take their medications, continue to smoke/drink, and continue to live unhealthy lifestyles? Sure it is their life, but it is OUR money.
See where I'm getting at? I have no problem helping people who have crappy genes, bad luck, etc as long as they do what we tell them to. Have high blood pressure? Take your f'n meds and lay off the salt!
Statistics: Posted by Saten Ruiko — November 25th, 2012, 4:51 pm
]]>
I do believe people have the right to health care. Maybe not free, but at a discounted rate.
What they do not have the right to do is abuse the system. Multiple ER visits a week (so they don't have to work and get disability, it's easier than you think), rampant prescription painkiller ABUSE (by M.D.'s and patients alike), outrageous charges ($100 for a doctor to spend 10 minutes at bedside), and the like are ruining this country. I'm not kidding you when the same name can pop up on the ER list THREE TIMES A DAY for the same problem. Not only is this a waste of money (of course they never pay their bills...), but a waste of resources. That's a squad run that takes damn near 1 hour for someone that wants a "free" meal and some pain meds. Each visit costs us approximately $2000 in lost money, that's to break even. We charge around $3k. That doesn't include the lost income to the ambulance company either.
Give people fair prices and they might actually PAY their bill. If it costs me $40 to see my doctor in his office, why is it $100 to see them in the hospital? They MUST make daily rounds on patients, so they're already there.
Do people really need to be on 6-8 Vicodin a day for a back injury they had 10 years ago?
Should we keep treating people for free who refuse to take their medications, continue to smoke/drink, and continue to live unhealthy lifestyles? Sure it is their life, but it is OUR money.
See where I'm getting at? I have no problem helping people who have crappy genes, bad luck, etc as long as they do what we tell them to. Have high blood pressure? Take your f'n meds and lay off the salt!
Statistics: Posted by Burks — November 25th, 2012, 4:27 am
]]>
]]>
Simply put, an energy policy that doesn't include coal isn't an energy policy. It's simply an economic suicide pact.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — November 25th, 2012, 2:18 am
]]>
Few weeks into May I got a call from WalMart, got the interview, and they offered me the job on the spot. Now. No matter HOW HARD I work at WalMart, I will not get a raise except once a year on my walmart anniversary. Walmart's corporate structure runs on cheap, uneducated labor. They encourage their workers to work as hard as they possibly can for as little as they are willing to be paid. All the while, encouraging associates to try harder due to these quarterly bonuses that add up to maybe half a normal paycheck if you're lucky.
That is true. Walmart and United are both cheap until you reach management, but also have you shown them the initiative to try new things? I got a raise after about 6 months because I reached 1300 hours and I was doing 4 different things ( Sacker, Checker, Maintenance, and Blocking ), and now I'm able to do Produce and I've asked about stocking but to no avail that the manager in charge of the stockers dislikes me... Also I did receive a raise after my yearly anniversary.
I did not expect raises like most people ( the people that have been there longer than me and still making minimum wage) I appreciated them, but I did not beg.
Landerpurex wrote:
What does that say for the man who dropped out of high school twenty years ago, has a family to feed, yet doesn't have any real marketable skills? He is undereducated, and does not fill out a form well nor does he have a resume, nor does he interview well. GED? Remember, he has a family. College? Family. Bills.
He's made some mistakes along the way, but let's face it: some people just aren't that smart, aren't that good at school, and will be working a minimum wage job the rest of their lives. These are the people who are looking for work, constantly, but get beat out by guys like me in this economy.
If you have a family while you're in school or drop out of school then have a family that is your choice, but the only real people you will hurt is your children in the long run... My parents didn't drop out but they did have to follow wherever jobs were at. I've been to 11 different schools and about 13 different houses during my Elementary and High School schooling. You reach the point as a kid where you don't care about making friends since you will leave them between half a year to 2 years there. People grow up and now that my mom graduated with her LVN this year my little sister will have a better childhood than I did. ( I'm not complaining about mine. I loved moving around and starting over ).
It took me 3 months and like 20 applications and talking to people to get my first job since I had no experience. Yeah the economy is a
in more cases than not, but the attempt should still be the most important thing to everyone who is looking for a better life.Back on topic in the long run they will only hurt the people close to them by not getting an education. Even if it is just High School.
Landerpurex wrote:
There are people that have been here for years and years and years who will get those positions before I ever will. That won't stop me from trying, but I am also scared of getting complacent. If I start working my way up the walmart chain, will I ever leave to find that job in publishing I really want?
That is the same thing with me. I plan on staying with United for the next 6 years. Graduate High School, Go to school for a degree in Criminal Justice, then become a Game Warden. If I do move up into management within that time period, which I highly believe I will. I don't know which way to go. If I have family and friends in the area, or I have my own family and I have a good life with United I might stay and have the Criminal Justice degree as a fallback to do later in life? And If i'm not a manager in the next 6 years I will have no attachments with the Company to stay and miss out on my chance to being my own boss and writing my own schedules as a Game Warden.
People need to think about what they want and if they are serious about having their own family they need to think about what would be best for them. Would you want your children to have to change schools, leave old friends to attempt to make new ones, start over; just so you can keep the necessities for them by following where jobs are for you?
People need to think.
Statistics: Posted by Arya — November 20th, 2012, 10:14 am
]]>
Get a job, get off your
, earn the respect of the people around you, support the family you chose to have, and stop mooching off our government.You can't deny the people that don't have jobs aren't trying hard enough ( there's something somewhere hiring if you just go find it ), if you're making minimum wage after a few months of your job then you aren't showing any interest in your job ( I'm 17 and I've gotten 2 raises at United, which doesn't give them out lightly, there's been people there way longer than me that still make minimum. I've been working there a year and a half. ), it's the effort you put into what you do or finding something new to do.
I agree with almost everything you've said. But you should understand that it's not always that simple, especially for people who aren't equipped that well to find a job in the first place.
I had been looking for a job for about four or five months coming up on my graduation. Come May, I was still unemployed. I had a degree, and was unemployed. I know how to fill out a job application and a resume and not look like a
, and I was still unemployed. Few weeks into May I got a call from WalMart, got the interview, and they offered me the job on the spot. Now. No matter HOW HARD I work at WalMart, I will not get a raise except once a year on my walmart anniversary. Walmart's corporate structure runs on cheap, uneducated labor. They encourage their workers to work as hard as they possibly can for as little as they are willing to be paid. All the while, encouraging associates to try harder due to these quarterly bonuses that add up to maybe half a normal paycheck if you're lucky.
This is company policy, and unless you move up into management, you do not receive a raise unless you have an anniversary. Now, you might say, climb that ladder and get into management! Or transfer into a better paying position: but here's the thing. There are people that have been here for years and years and years who will get those positions before I ever will. That won't stop me from trying, but I am also scared of getting complacent. If I start working my way up the walmart chain, will I ever leave to find that job in publishing I really want?
Long story short, I am an educated man. What does that say for the man who dropped out of high school twenty years ago, has a family to feed, yet doesn't have any real marketable skills? He is undereducated, and does not fill out a form well nor does he have a resume, nor does he interview well. GED? Remember, he has a family. College? Family. Bills.
He's made some mistakes along the way, but let's face it: some people just aren't that smart, aren't that good at school, and will be working a minimum wage job the rest of their lives. These are the people who are looking for work, constantly, but get beat out by guys like me in this economy.
I'm just saying. Some unemployed people are constantly looking for work. An equal or greater amount are doing exactly as Arya said, though.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — November 19th, 2012, 8:51 pm
]]>
Get a job, get off your
, earn the respect of the people around you, support the family you chose to have, and stop mooching off our government.You can't deny the people that don't have jobs aren't trying hard enough ( there's something somewhere hiring if you just go find it ), if you're making minimum wage after a few months of your job then you aren't showing any interest in your job ( I'm 17 and I've gotten 2 raises at United, which doesn't give them out lightly, there's been people there way longer than me that still make minimum. I've been working there a year and a half. ), it's the effort you put into what you do or finding something new to do.
I don't deny there are families that must use Foodstamps and other help ( my family was on them this past year while my mom was in college, but we got off them when she graduated ( she's making $19/hr now at a Health Care Center
I'm jelly ). Use them when you truly need them, but once you're financially stable get off.Fun fact: A friend and I did while it was slow at work. The average person that comes daily into the store and buys 1-3 Beers at a time spends close to $100 a month on just alcohol, and then there's those same people that stop by the store 2...3 times a day to buy the same thing. That's groceries for maybe 3 weeks - month if you're alone and about a week to maybe 3 if you have a family to support ( depending on what you buy ), so why waste it on something that could possible hurting your family if you can't afford enough for decent meals for them. Your family should come before a buzz.
......PS: NO JUNK FOOD WITH FOODSTAMPS, or CASH THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR FOOD!!!
Statistics: Posted by Arya — November 19th, 2012, 8:44 am
]]>
Lander wrote:
I was unaware that student loans were part of welfare. I have to pay them back, barring what you've said. Food stamps are free money. That's why you will hear people cry for education reform and welfare reform in the same sentence.
I assume that since you took out student loans you also received pell grant funds which is free money. And while you do have to pay back a student loan, they're a ridiculously cheap and affordable loan compared to any other loan you'd take on the open market. And for some student loans the government pays the interest that accumulates while you're still actively in school. Which is as good as free money. And none of this is an issue. It's absolutely fine you took these (assuming) programs and used them to your advantage. I've done the same as well. However, it gets me you say of welfare: "It's what keeps poor, worthless, lazy people flocking to the polls to vote for this person just so they can continue their morally reprehensible way of life" and yet receive benefits that are by definition welfare.
You're forgetting the key difference: pell grants aren't exactly free money. They are an investment made by the government in my future. They are an assurance that the program/s will create upstanding, highly taxable members of society. They will receive that money back tenfold from me, personally, in my lifetime in the form of taxes.
What are food stamps an investment in? Failure. Laziness. Refusal, and a knowledge of how to 'work the system'. In some cases.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — November 17th, 2012, 12:59 am
]]>
Lander wrote:
I can't assume anything other than what I see right in front of me and this is what I see. But do you honestly believe that the same people aren't receiving help in government subsidized housing? Do you think they are not receiving help in paying their bills?
I can't say with any real certainty but my own experience is that migrant and probably illegal aliens live in housing that is government subsidized but they 8-10 people per house. So I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see someone control the house income for expenses have a lot of money. There is a lot of people contributing to that one house hold. However, I could also be entirely wrong in this assumption. Without observing/stalking these people I couldn't tell you either way.
Lander wrote:
And I never said the system should be scrapped.
Nor did I accuse you of it. What I said (or at least what I intended to say) is that based on the level of vitriol associated with the welfare system in this thread I felt that people within the thread wouldn't object to an abolishment.
Lander wrote:
I'm in favor of reform, and in favor of far more strict regulation. I've seen plenty of people who work a 9-5, have a family, and still have trouble making ends meet so they have stamps. This is justified. But an immigrant family working a taxless job, whose income isn't reported, should not receive these benefits. A college student who works part time and has their tuition and costs already paid for (including a meal plan) should not get these benefits. And somehow, people who refuse to work because they would rather receive food stamps and whatnot should not receive these benefits.
Agreed.
Lander wrote:
I was unaware that student loans were part of welfare. I have to pay them back, barring what you've said. Food stamps are free money. That's why you will hear people cry for education reform and welfare reform in the same sentence.
I assume that since you took out student loans you also received pell grant funds which is free money. And while you do have to pay back a student loan, they're a ridiculously cheap and affordable loan compared to any other loan you'd take on the open market. And for some student loans the government pays the interest that accumulates while you're still actively in school. Which is as good as free money. And none of this is an issue. It's absolutely fine you took these (assuming) programs and used them to your advantage. I've done the same as well. However, it gets me you say of welfare: "It's what keeps poor, worthless, lazy people flocking to the polls to vote for this person just so they can continue their morally reprehensible way of life" and yet receive benefits that are by definition welfare.
Statistics: Posted by Frank 4.0.1 — November 16th, 2012, 9:37 pm
]]>
Frank wrote:
What shouldn't be happening is using those funds to buy beer/wine/alcohol all of which are clearly against food stamp regulations and any company that allows the transactions should be reported for fraud. I know there was a story a few years back that Benton Harbor Michigan had some liquor stores get busted for this.
And the people who offer their leftover foodstamp money to people in exchange for cash?
I've seen it personally, someone taking $200 in Foodstamps or so to buy groceries with, avoid the tax payment in the process, and pay $200 cash to the card holder in exchange. I can't decide if the lack of tax paid is a good statement, or a bad system play that encourages people to earn money via exploiting benefits further. Probably both, leaning to the latter.
SNAP fraud is when SNAP benefits are exchanged for cash. This is called trafficking and it is against the law. There are other instances of food stamp fraud but exchanging cash for benefits is clearly against the rules of the program.
Statistics: Posted by Frank 4.0.1 — November 16th, 2012, 9:06 pm
]]>
Frank 4.0.1 wrote:
This thread is full of people complaining about welfare recipients and using personal examples where they've either uncovered fraud within the system (and I hope they reported) or they don't understand what's happening within the system. e.g. All of the stories about people griping about people using food stamps and still having cash in their pockets which they could spend on their groceries. What's not being considered is that cash is being allocated towards things like having some sort of house/apartment/slum to live in, heat, electricity... (etc.) All of which isn't covered under food stamps. So using food stamp money for food is exactly what should be happening if you receive those benefits. What shouldn't be happening is using those funds to buy beer/wine/alcohol all of which are clearly against food stamp regulations and any company that allows the transactions should be reported for fraud. I know there was a story a few years back that Benton Harbor Michigan had some liquor stores get busted for this.
There is abuse within the welfare system and welfare reform is a good way to tackle these problems, however the scrapping of the entire system because of the bad apples is insane. And I get the feeling from this thread that maybe people would like that to happen...
Lander wrote:
The article said that loan interest would be forgiven, not the actual loan. Jesus. Forgiving entire student loans would be nothing short of insane.
Well there are actually ways for you to have partial to even full student loan forgiveness. But it involves around serving the public good. Military, Peace Corps, Americorps service. Serving as a Teacher or Doctor in a low-income area. But I'm a bit confused about what you said earlier Lander... You said you loathe the welfare system and refuse to vote for any Democrat because they support it but you took out student loans. You're aware that student loans are part of the welfare system, right?
I don't let people spend food stamps on anything other than food. It's impossible. I work at WalMart. The system is automated. There's no way to 'allow' someone to buy something with food stamps that isn't approved. As someone who works in retail and someone who grew up on food stamps, this has always been the case in my experience.
I was referring to them buying their food with food stamps, then proceeding to buy a bunch of extra stuff with cash. When a person pullsout a wad of 100 dollar bills, I believe it is safe to assume that they can probably afford the food they're buying without the use of food stamps. I can't assume anything other than what I see right in front of me and this is what I see. But do you honestly believe that the same people aren't receiving help in government subsidized housing? Do you think they are not receiving help in paying their bills? I recall as a child that there never were any penalties for my mom when she didn't pay our bills, she always found a way to have the government either pay them entirely, or pay a majority of them.
And I never said the system should be scrapped. I'm in favor of reform, and in favor of far more strict regulation. I've seen plenty of people who work a 9-5, have a family, and still have trouble making ends meet so they have stamps. This is justified. But an immigrant family working a taxless job, whose income isn't reported, should not receive these benefits. A college student who works part time and has their tuition and costs already paid for (including a meal plan) should not get these benefits. And somehow, people who refuse to work because they would rather receive food stamps and whatnot should not receive these benefits.
In terms of student loans, I've known full well about forgiveness due to military (though they won't be forgiven due to military service, only deferred and I think you can get you interest forgiven). peace corps, and teaching in low income areas. As I said, there are options and if you do not fall into any of those categories, there might be a problem.
I was unaware that student loans were part of welfare. I have to pay them back, barring what you've said. Food stamps are free money. That's why you will hear people cry for education reform and welfare reform in the same sentence.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — November 16th, 2012, 4:12 pm
]]>
What shouldn't be happening is using those funds to buy beer/wine/alcohol all of which are clearly against food stamp regulations and any company that allows the transactions should be reported for fraud. I know there was a story a few years back that Benton Harbor Michigan had some liquor stores get busted for this.
And the people who offer their leftover foodstamp money to people in exchange for cash?
I've seen it personally, someone taking $200 in Foodstamps or so to buy groceries with, avoid the tax payment in the process, and pay $200 cash to the card holder in exchange. I can't decide if the lack of tax paid is a good statement, or a bad system play that encourages people to earn money via exploiting benefits further. Probably both, leaning to the latter.
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — November 16th, 2012, 3:11 pm
]]>
He just makes life too easy for Americans. Ride the system, no worries for life. Romney may have been a dick by wanting to cut a lot of free stuff.....but that's exactly why he lost. All the poor pathetic welfare people came out of the bushes to vote against him.
That or people decided not to reward the party that decided to run on the birther ticket, choose a candidate that was quite possibly worse then John Kerry in relatability, and pandered to the crazier elements of their base. Nor did it help that the Republican House was ran by uncompromising misers. Offered a 5-1 spending cut to revenue increase deal and they refused? They were all willing to allow the economy to take and everyone to suffer the results in order to get a better run in 2012. At least I would hope that kind of behavior would motivate the general public to make their voices heard a bit.
Burks wrote:
I'm not saying Wall Street isn't an issue, because it is one. But the Government is the biggest issue. They can be bought for their votes and they buy the votes of others with free phones, health care, and hand-me-outs.
At some level I think health care is a basic human right. Other nations have figured out ways to provide health care to their people in some way or another and they're not nearly as wealthy as the United States is. There has to be a way for America to be able to afford it's citizens some basic form of health care.
Kikori wrote:
The reason we're in decline is because J.F.K. started a welfare program that was meant to help the people who actually needed it, but got taken advantage of by both lazy people who realized they could loophole their way in and greedy politicians who liked sitting on sums of money. Once people found ways to live without having to work, they pursued it (hence the baby boomer era where the goal was to have about ten kids and live off welfare), and needless to say, the amount of money-whoring going on with what Congress passes shows their attachment to having money goes well beyond Wall Street's influence.
I blame the Boomers too but it's because they got suckered into Reaganomics. They got to have their cake with all the government spending and got all those nice tax cuts too. What Magicana said in page one is what happened. "Depending on your welfare system, go on welfare. Leech every single dollar you can from the system - All the while working towards getting that job you want." This describes exactly what the boomers did. They took all the programs that were afforded them when they were growing up and going off to college and when it came time for the Boomer Generation to be the driving force of the economy and fund those programs... they embarked on the "Reagan Revolution" as I've heard it called before.
This thread is full of people complaining about welfare recipients and using personal examples where they've either uncovered fraud within the system (and I hope they reported) or they don't understand what's happening within the system. e.g. All of the stories about people griping about people using food stamps and still having cash in their pockets which they could spend on their groceries. What's not being considered is that cash is being allocated towards things like having some sort of house/apartment/slum to live in, heat, electricity... (etc.) All of which isn't covered under food stamps. So using food stamp money for food is exactly what should be happening if you receive those benefits. What shouldn't be happening is using those funds to buy beer/wine/alcohol all of which are clearly against food stamp regulations and any company that allows the transactions should be reported for fraud. I know there was a story a few years back that Benton Harbor Michigan had some liquor stores get busted for this.
There is abuse within the welfare system and welfare reform is a good way to tackle these problems, however the scrapping of the entire system because of the bad apples is insane. And I get the feeling from this thread that maybe people would like that to happen...
Lander wrote:
The article said that loan interest would be forgiven, not the actual loan. Jesus. Forgiving entire student loans would be nothing short of insane.
Well there are actually ways for you to have partial to even full student loan forgiveness. But it involves around serving the public good. Military, Peace Corps, Americorps service. Serving as a Teacher or Doctor in a low-income area. But I'm a bit confused about what you said earlier Lander... You said you loathe the welfare system and refuse to vote for any Democrat because they support it but you took out student loans. You're aware that student loans are part of the welfare system, right?
Leo Xan wrote:
Wall Street is the reason.
It was the crash of the housing bubble which caused the economic to tank and it's just been tough to jump start consumer demand since then. It would be really nice to see the White House embark on improving the national infrastructure. It would be a boon in job creation and help America become more competitive in the market. Maybe that way we can actually help consumer demand rebound and get his economy revving again.
Statistics: Posted by Frank 4.0.1 — November 16th, 2012, 7:39 am
]]>
I do like Romney's points in the article above, and they are an unfortunate reality.
And Leo Xan...I'm unsure if you are a former user, a current user, or someone who came by and made an account just to comment on this thread. Any which way, welcome! But I heartily disagree with you, and if you could post more than one line reasons as to why we're all wrong, I might take you seriously.
There are a lot of things that influence Wall Street (the stock exchange). It is not some singular entity that decides itself whether to be 'good' or 'bad', and whether to be a 'good' or 'bad' influence on the economy. Wall Street is almost a direct reflection of the economy, so I'm unsure as to what you mean when you say that it is the problem.
If you're talking about what the occupy movement was trying to do, or something else, then that's a different can of worms.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — November 15th, 2012, 2:38 pm
]]>
He just makes life too easy for Americans. Ride the system, no worries for life. Romney may have been a dick by wanting to cut a lot of free stuff.....but that's exactly why he lost. All the poor pathetic welfare people came out of the bushes to vote against him.
Just like when we have a new land tax in my town. All the people living in the welfare apartments vote FOR the increase, because they never have to pay a DAMN CENT. The teachers at the schools even tell kids "If you live in an apartment or government building, tell your parents to vote. It doesn't cost them anything." I hope people like that starve....while I slam down my Chipotle and 30 year old scotch and laugh.
I'm not saying Wall Street isn't an issue, because it is one. But the Government is the biggest issue. They can be bought for their votes and they buy the votes of others with free phones, health care, and hand-me-outs.
Statistics: Posted by Burks — November 15th, 2012, 11:37 am
]]>
It wasn't welfare and food stamps that put this country in an economic decline. If that's the only thing that determines your political stance, then you're better off not voting. Do your research. Stop watching Fox News.
Leo Xan wrote:
It's an issue because there are people who abuse it. It's not the reason why we're in Decline. Wall Street is the reason.
Oh God not this again! I go away for a couple of weeks and this is what I see?! We've all been through it, kids, don't blame everything on Wall Street and Fox News.
I fully support Lander, Burks and Arya.
Using the system to get free food is just low, you have to work to get it, like everyone does. Being supported by someone is one thing, sitting on someone's shoulders is a completely different thing.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... ng-voters/
So Obama wants to grant amnesty to children of immigrants and forgive student loans? Or did I miss something?
Statistics: Posted by SunnyAutumn — November 15th, 2012, 11:00 am
]]>
It's an issue because there are people who abuse it. It's not the reason why we're in Decline. Wall Street is the reason.
I hope you're joking. Wall Street is a problem in America because Congress allows it to buy their favor. You probably don't realize, but removing Wall Street entirely from the equation still leaves Congress as the rich, corruptable tax-happiest branch of the Government who will find other people to play the money game with. Ever heard of... say, the Hydra? Cut off Wall Street's head, Congress will still have the power to grow something else to take its place.
The reason we're in decline is because J.F.K. started a welfare program that was meant to help the people who actually needed it, but got taken advantage of by both lazy people who realized they could loophole their way in and greedy politicians who liked sitting on sums of money. Once people found ways to live without having to work, they pursued it (hence the baby boomer era where the goal was to have about ten kids and live off welfare), and needless to say, the amount of money-whoring going on with what Congress passes shows their attachment to having money goes well beyond Wall Street's influence.
Nations that are great fall because they turn on the principles that made them great. Our people gradually grow towards not wanting to work. and our leaders grow towards not allowing the freedom of market that made our economy strong.
Wall Street is just a stepping stone, Leo.
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — November 15th, 2012, 10:53 am
]]>
]]>
It wasn't welfare and food stamps that put this country in an economic decline. If that's the only thing that determines your political stance, then you're better off not voting. Do your research. Stop watching Fox News.
15% of Americans being a drain on the system isn't something which would cause economic decline?
Well aware that people on welfare can be a product of decline, not the reason for it, but an increase in welfare for near 25 million Americans over the past 5 years is exacerbating economic issues.
Statistics: Posted by Magicana Drofulcus — November 14th, 2012, 8:41 pm
]]>