I'm ok with drug testing anyone who is on the govt dime. With that being said, if that person was supporting children on the govt dime then what? What does the state do about these kids? You can't let them not have health coverage or eat free lunches in school.. so what then?
The only reason I bring these instances up is because it's easy to say cut social services but when the rubber meets the road it is not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Are their lazy people doing whatever they can to live off the govt? Absolutley. Are there people who actually need govt assistance to survive? Absolutely.
I don't have the particulars, just that we need ways to motivate people to take care of themselves. As for the women with, we get the fathers to pay child support in cases that warrant it.
I have repeatedly pointed out in past threads I am not in favor of removing social services from those who truly need it.
Illinois got their stimulus money too. Blago probably stole it.
So why did you pretend Texas didn't?
If I read this right, Texas received slightly more money per capita than Illinois.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...MULUS0109.html
Those rugged individualists in Alaska got the most.
Congress has no problem passing funding bills for Afghanistan and Iraq but
the GOP won't help Americans...
HuffBy the time Congress returns from its July 4 recess next week, more than 2.1 million will have missed checks. The House passed a bill to reauthorize the benefits last week; a similar bill failed in the upper chamber due to a Republican filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that as soon as there is a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Democrats will have the 60 votes they need and the bill will pass. If Reid is correct, layoff victims will be paid retroactively for any missed checks.
Without a reauthorization, 3.2 million long-term unemployed will have found themselves ineligible for extended benefits by the end of the month. If Congress fails to act, it will be the first time since at least the 1950s that federally-funded extended benefits have been allowed to lapse with a national unemployment rate above 7.2 percent.
"I received my last check on June 24th. If Congress doesn't approve the extension, I will have no money," said Shanae Dale of Louisville, Ky, who said she was laid off in December. "I will not be able to pay my rent, car insurance, utility bills or buy groceries. I would like to know how many of the members of Congress can't sleep at night because the only thing that occupies their minds is finding a job and paying bills."
I agree with you.
We can start with paying people a living wage...it's impossible to raise kids at $10.00/hr and not rely on social services to cover the gaps...
How about start by teaching social responsibility. That if you cannot afford to have kids, don't get pregnant.
How do you propose that? Teaching them to say no to sex....yeah, that works..
A concrete time framed up-side down pyramid wlfare payout program. The longer you are on it, the less you get? Cut down and purge half our government dept.s. After all the waste is minimized, then I'd be ok with raising taxes - 20% flat tax.
Chump, I didn't pretend anything. I didn't agree with the stimulus spending then and don't agree with it now. This was going to be new spending...not last years. Enough is enough. States need to balance their damn budgets.
And if that doesn't work?
Let poor kids not eat and more deregulation, then raise their taxes and user fees, that's seriously your answer?A concrete time framed up-side down pyramid wlfare payout program. The longer you are on it, the less you get? Cut down and purge half our government dept.s. After all the waste is minimized, then I'd be ok with raising taxes - 20% flat tax.
Sure you did. You tried to portray the situation as Texas bailing out Illinois. To do that you had to pretend that Texas itself wasn't getting bailed out.
letting govt. decide what is fair works just as well.
you want a gustapo style fairness dictator to make sure we are all poor. are you serious?
way to go allstar.
he started from p. 1 saying that he realized texas got a bailout. it was a 2 sentence post.
come on champ.
...why are the poor responsible for people living longer and health-care costs that exceed the rate of inflation...those are the two primary factors driving social spending costs...
As long as lib s can make "boogymen" out of the rich, they can justify wanting to steel more from society.
Low income people are rational. Reward single mothers with federal/state support for having babies and they will have babies. And have more babies. And have more babies. It's the unintended consequences of good intentions.
..but it's ok for the rich to steal from the poor by not paying a living wage or offering health insurance, right?
Exactly.
He contradicted himself.
Thanks for noticing a half hour late.
I guess that is an improvement for you.
I completely agree. Too bad the left doesn't understand the simple concept of what rewarding poor choices does.
...its the unintended consequences of the poverty cycle...the more people stop being poor, the less babies they have...
How many babies do the average mothers on government support have?
Give a link to the information. I'm curious to see that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote