Reply With Quote
the school will provide daycare while they're working at valero?
yes.... there has been talk of you avoiding the question.
Talk about avoiding the question...
how do you determine what food is legitimate and what isnt?
the school will provide daycare while they're working at valero?
I was under the impression the micro-focus on food stamps was at least in part to establish whether or not perpetual dependency is, as you suggest, a government provided lifestyle choice.
million? I thought it was more, tbh...
@CC; How many people are government dependent cradle to grave?
Since you seem to care so much about it, why don't you quantify the problem so we can all have an idea how substantial it is.
How big is the permanent underclass? How much does it cost us? What is its rate of growth?
The local school taxes provide child care for working mothers when they're called in to handle the midnight shift at Valero? That's pretty damned impressive, actually.
he can see them walk past his office.
of course, thats just the cradle and not the grave.
Yes, the school will provide DAYcare. But not nightcare. The daycare is adjacent to the high school and is not just for enrolled students that don't skip class. And, obviously the Valero was just one example of potential employers.
i find it hard to believe that they could possibly provide daycare to all the people in need.
Is the number also a record as a percentage of the GDP?
I'm pointing this out because you'll always going to have "record" this and that when using dollar figures, since inflation is real and the dollar will progressively buy less as time goes by.
If you are honestly interested I would suggest that google is your friend and you can do your own research.
It was a stupid obviously loaded question that assumed its own answer. Self serving discussion is just that. i was trying to steer the question back to a discussion of needs based assistance.
Talk about avoiding the question...
So you are not going to back up up your claims of sensationalism but rather expect us to prove your fearmongering ourselves.
As I stated this is the same whit from 1996. The exact same . You got your welfare reform back then and it failed. The answer is not to do the same failed logic again.
google is your friend
http://www.workforcesolutionsalamo.o...re/default.asp
What is your answer?
Put up or shut the up.
I thought you wanted to discuss it, or might have concrete info about perpetual dependency.
My bad.
I also thought you might be able to back up some of the claims you made upstream. Apparently I was mistaken about that as well.
oh, so its just a certain amount of assistance.
be tough to cover that on minimum wage.
Your question assumes the premise was true. I don't buy your welfare dependence dogma any more than i did back in 1996. Now you are going through this machismo nonsense. Its cute but adds nothing.
Show some proof of this perpetual dependency especially how the 1990s reform actually improved the supposed condition then i will answer your question.
At this point i might as well discuss whether or not people going out mocking bald eagles is bad or not.
Yeah, you're right.
Lets just give up and go 100% on taxpayer support. No problem. It's just too much work to actually work for a living.
Bald is beautiful is something only bald organisms say.
HEY CHROME DOME, MAKE YOURSELF USEFUL AND PUT SOME SOLAR PANELS UP THERE!
No, all your attack posturing presumes that YOU have a solution.
Put it out on the table so we can kick the tires.
It is an enrollment figure. 45.8 million Americans.
The cost was $6.13B. Far less than we spend in Afghanistan each month we are there.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-06-2011 at 04:35 AM.
So should you. You've dodged plenty in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions