what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
Posted By: recipients DO NOT have to work........nm on 2009-02-25
In Reply to: You need to research Welfare a little bit better...... - sm
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
What planet R U from that you think Welfare and WIC can even come close truly supporting adequately.
A mother (job training, if you want her to pay taxes back into society, day care, so she can work with a safe place for her chld), a SAFE neighborhood to bring up the child, emotional support, do you even know what clothing and shoes cost, formula, diapers, and if we just keep handing out WElfare, how do we break that "chain" when the child grows and the cycle repeats, the President realizes it takes much, much more than a cheap handout, it takes work programs, work training programs, availabiity of safe, good child care, medical care, nutritional care, educational opportunities.....that was a cold statement without forethought to what it is really like, I have three chldren, my husband and I both work very hard, overtime and all, and it is still unbelievably hard and close!
What planet do you guys come from?
You actually think people by this stuff as genuine. Again, do you actually think through what you state, or do you state it for the shock effect. I assume it's the latter.
We can and do affect this planet.
While I agree that we can't exactly know how much we have to do with changing cycles on the planet, there is simply NO doubt that we have had a profound impact upon it. Even when I was a kid there were springs we could drink from and rivers we could swim in without fear of chemical burns. The fields were loaded with turtles and other creatures, every pond and creek was alive wtih frogs and tadpoles and fish. Ask your grandparents what they remember the countryside being like before the supreme arrogance of corporate policy poisoned every water source we have. There was a time that tuna fish didn't have mercury in it. On and on. Don't dismiss the concern many have over the impact we DO have on our planet as arrogance - we are certainly having a BAD BAD impact globally.
And true, not just us. However, America along with other industrialized nations and bankers is certainly complicit in the globalization movement (i.e., move into other lands, usurp the resouces from the native people, give them toxic sludge for their crops as a sort of side joke, suck out all their groundwater, make the corporations richer). We certainly don't stand against it politically or financially.
While the planet may survive the sweeping changes its most prolific environment-altering parasites inflict upon it, we probably will not. Just look at Mars if you don't think a planet can die. Regardless of why, it's certainly dead enough. So are we going to wait to be shaken off like pesky fleas - or are we going to make some effort to SUSTAIN our world and keep it in balance rather than continuously insulting it to the point where we DESERVE to be exterminated? Some of us don't have a deep-seated death wish. Some of us don't think money is more important than good living. Some of us are actually fond of this planet. Excuse US for thinking of it that way.
Flying around? What planet are you from?
He got on Airforce One following the protocol for protecting the POTUS. You know, Air Force One, the flying command center of the United States? The VP has a separate protocol and was taken to a separate location. Geeze, maybe you should avail yourself of some information before you post from now on.
He wasn't 'flying around.' Sorry to pop your conspiracy theory bubble, darling, but get your head on straight. And maybe you should educate yourself about the Katrina situation before you open your gob and vomit out the same tired 'bush caused katrina' drivel.
OBAMA IS A WEAKLING. GRAB YOUR ANKLES AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
What planet do you live on?
"When it comes to disease, we have a choice." Just taking the moist obvious, those babies born with fatal anomalies made bad choices? The stillborn infants made bad choices? You must have had a much busier uterus than I did.
Be glad you're not Catholic. Based on your acknowledgement that being judgmental is a sin, you'd be spending a lot of time on your knees in that confessional.
socialism for a shrinking planet
Im not beating around the bush. Im amazed there is a leader who is that compassionate to care for all of his people. I cant remember a time when America had a leader like that. Closest I can think of is when Social Security was created. Socialism is a fair ideology for all the people of a country. Capitalism certainly isnt, that is unless all a person cares about is making as much money as they can and then locking themselves away in a gated community, driving on the outskirts of the ghetto areas of downtown so they dont have to see how the unfortunate ones live. I, on the other hand, care about people. I put caring before money. All Americans should have a well paying job, a chance to go to college, even if you cant afford it, a roof over your head, a full belly at night, medical care. One major thing that eats away at me is knowing some people do not go through life happy because their whole life is a neverending struggle, mostly due to no fault of their own. I see the writing on the wall, too bad the fat cat capitalists who are so greedy and hording that money away dont. As the population grows in the world, supplies and resources will dwindle. Government programs will have to be created to take care of the people whose only fault is they werent born with a silver spoon in their mouth and not born when houses were inexpensive, college was easy to get into and inexpensive, jobs were plentiful and not outsourced, etc. The masses will out-mass the greedy capitalists and then we will see something like what is happening in Venezuela now..Equality for ALL Americans in the basic needs of life and dignity. Sure there are some fat cat capitalists who are truly good people and are helping the unfortunate and I applaud them but from what I have seen, the majority of the super rich, dont give a darn about the working class or working poor or poor. No person should die on the street for lack of housing or only have a minimum wage job so they cant afford to rent or buy. No person should go to bed at night hungry even though they have worked one or two jobs but had to choose between the rent, gas or food. I see where Capitalism can go hand and hand with Socialism and that is what truly is going to happen. America, the richest country on earth, yet we dont have medical care for our citizens, we have homeless in the streets, maternity leave is not paid for, we take the less amount of vacation days than any other industrialized country. When Kruschev visited America for the first time, he asked why did America have homeless. He stated that The Soviet Socialists Republic did not have homeless, they might have a few families living in the same apartment but they werent homeless. How shameful for America. America might have been great a few decades ago but it is leaving much to want for now and it will only get worse with the division of the classes..poor, working poor, middle class, rich and super rich, which is happening now, and the dwindling resources and opportunities. Now, go ahead, call me a raging lunatic. You have your right to your opinion, however, this is my take on today's America and it makes my heart heavy.
I believe he did drop everything and go
and that says a little about is character to me!!!
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
Barney Frank.....what planet did he fall off
Barney Frank wants less govt and state rights when it comes to drugs.... but he wants "regulation" and "more enforcement" when it comes to everything else that takes away MY rights...... what a joke!
oh drop the flag pin, will you?
x
I personally think that we should drop
everything except for American. We need to unite and come together and we need to drop the extra titles. That doesn't mean we should forget where we come from or our heritage. It just means that when we lose focus on us all being Americans and just Americans....we start to categorize and stereotype and segregate ourselves.
Besides, I really don't want to be call an Indian-German-Scottish-Hungarian-American. I'm an American and I'm proud of that.
This spending is just a drop
in the pocket at what they will actually have to spend to buy us out of this mess. We can't afford to spend our way out of this. They are going to have a spend a lot more money realistically do create the jobs they are talking about. Plus, all this money won't be going into the system right away. To me this package is crap.
At least with major tax cuts businesses could work their way out without government controlling them. I do not like the idea of our government controlling so much.
I bet it will drop as fast as it did
x
Drop the hyperbole. sm
Describing Bush as the "epitome of evil" is not intelligent discussion. It just makes you look ridiculous.
At least I will be on the other side of the planet from you when your vale of tears start.
NM
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
She can drop the messiah off in Chicago along the way...
//
Well, if they spoke, that means I drop
everything and bow to people who do not have the last word on what the administration does.
I decided to let it drop b/c it won't let me post sm
THE CUSS WORDS I WANTED TO ADDRESS TO THE IDIOTS. Thank you to everyone else who had kind words. I hope no one ever has to go through what I did.
Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.
Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.
The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.
Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?
Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976
Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down
By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01
A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.
In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.
The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.
With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.
"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.
Who Gets Abortions?
Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.
The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.
Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:
· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.
· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.
This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.
· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.
· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.
· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.
About the Data
There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.
Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.
Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.
Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.
Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·
Resources
For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."
For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.
Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
If he wasn't in the White House, though, Hollywood would drop him like yesterday's garbage.
NM
Obama is letting them drop charges against terrorists for this horrible sick crime???
What orifice did you pull this out of?
MT on welfare.
I took my first MT job in 1974 when we were still respected hospital employees with benefits. In 1976 I had my first child and in 1980 I became a singe parent. Between 1974 and 1992, I worked between 40 and 50 hours every single week of my life, worked all holidays because I needed the extra pay and had an interval between 1986 and 1993 where I did not take one single vacation day because I bought a home to get my son away from the gang problems that became concentrated in apartment complexes. During those years, I developed hypertension at age 34 and progressive, unrelenting back pain in 1987. With the help of ibuprofen and regular exercise, I worked through it and never skipped a beat. For those who may not remember, 1986 was when outsourcing happened and in the years to follow, not one single start-up MTSO offered medical benefits.
In 1992 I began to develop significant insomnia due to the chronic pain. One morning, after tossing and turning through the night, I got out of bed and found myself unable to stand erect because of the pain. For the next week or so, I had to crawl around on my hands and knees and was unable to work. I got behind in my bills, depressed and was utterly exhausted. I had a physical and "nervous" breakdown that landed me in a psychiatric facility where I received much needed rest and treatment. I couldn't afford to pay that bill.
I lost my car, my job and my house. My son had to go to live with his father since I could not feed him and at age 40 I had to move back in with my aging mother. I tried to apply for social security disability just long enough to get job retraining and get back on my feet again. I was denied those benefits. I applied for unemployment and food stamps and entered the county medical health care system. I was not able to achieve rehabilitation and recovery sufficient to enable me to return to transcription. I ended up out of work for 7 years while I figured out my own rehabilitation and lived with my elderly mother who could not really afford to support the extra expense of feeding me on a fixed social security/retirement income. My unemployment benefits ran out, but I stayed on food stamps for 3 of those years for her sake until I returned to school on a student loan and later on scholarship. When mhy mother's health deteriorated, I became her terminal care attendant and had to leave school.
I am no slacker. It took me 7 years to recover from the disability I sustained from medical transcription and single parenthood. When I was able to return to work, I did. I still transcribe and at age 59, have developed the same back problems I had that disabled me in 1993. I am simply trying to scratch my way to retirement, which probable will commence for me one I drop dead in front of the computer. I would not wish this fate on anyone, but if any of you, your family or your friends ever do encounter such circumstances for whatever reason, (i.e., death of a spouse, for example) and need assistance, you will come to understand the importance of welfare and will never view it with the cold-blooded, icy, self-righteous indignation that some on this board have expressed.
Before you come back with "that's the exception, not the rule," don't bother. I saw plenty of others in my situation along the way, especially during the 6-8 hours I spent in the waiting rooms at the county hospital before MD appointments. I am no better and no worse than any of them. Same human beings, facing the same struggles, each with their own special needs going unaddressed for the most part. Poverty is a cycle that is destructive, not only to the welfare recipients and their families, but to the society at large. Outrage is not going to solve it. Insight will.
Welfare in Florida
Welfare in Florida can add up to about $900-1000 a month! Add reduced rent to that, food stamps, reduced utility bills, and why would you want to work?
I am so sick and tired of driving by low-income apartments with satellite dishes in the front, high-end SUVs in the parking lot and big-screen TVs visible through the screen door.
So yes, welfare does pay!
Isn't the poor the ones that get the welfare now?
So what's your complaint? You think they need more? Fine, give them everything you have and we'll call it a day!
Welfare was initiated for those that
needed a little bit of help at a rough time in their lives. It was not intended to cover those who have teeny excuses as to why they can't (won't) work. I see it in our community. Projects with gas guzzler newer cars than mine.
I drive a ྙ Buick LeSabre when hubby doesn't work. We bought that car for "free"; i.e., a friend gave us a calender for Christmas with daily numbers on it. On December 29, 2 days after my car died, our number came up and we won $100. The car cost exactly $100, blown engine, so we took the engine from my car that would not pass inspection and placed it in the $100 (free) car. We made a profit because I found $.03 cents when cleaning out the car. LOL
If I can live with a car like this, why can't they? They buy brand new or next to new. My car has 150,000 miles on it and still going strong. The engine only had 84,000 miles on it, so it will live a little longer. In the meantime, we're looking for another decent deal just in case. Do they? No, they get a new car every couple years.
What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be in government-subsided housing if they can afford a new car or a car that is only a couple years old. You didn't see that years ago. They drove what I'm driving now.
I think people on welfare should
Same with any unemployed person receiving government assistance.
There is welfare and wick.
.
No fair for the welfare
well, my husband was laid off the 1st of the year. We lost our insurance. I am in between chemo treatments (last one in October) and his unemployment will not cover the mortgage and COBRA. So, a major hospital is pulling strings to try to get me treatment. Am I going to refuse it? No. Call it welfare, call me lazy. I don't give a rats. You need to research all this welfare crap before you spout off about it. A very, very small portion of your tax dollars go to pay for the indigent (lazy). I know. I went into social work. It is political propaganda to get people riled up. So easily manipulated...........sigh
They HAVE to supplement that welfare with something.....
I had to go on welfare when my kids were little (husband took off after he was arrested for pounding on me) and it was HORRIBLE. That was in the late 80s. I sure would like to know what their secret is, because it was a death scrabble for me and that's BEFORE welfare reform was implemented (now it's even harder). It's called temporary for a reason - you get cut off for at least 3 months out of the year - how do they manage? They must have a meth lab in the basement......
You need to research Welfare a little bit better......
It was W who gave the banks all those billions with no oversight. It is the same old song and dance about welfare recipients - which the numbers on the roles had dropped by more than half since Clinton instituted the welfare reform. Just about 12% of our tax dollars goes to welfare programs - not very much in the big scheme of things. The recipients have to work for that money (didja know that?). For a family of 3 they get $445 per month and the adults have to work 40 hours for that money. Then, they are cut off for 3 months out of the year (an incentive to go to school or get a job which is MANDATORY). So, keep crying about all those sucking off the titt of America. I think they should end the earned income credit on our tax returns - that's Welfare for the working. If they don't make enough money, too bad. Right?
How did you get anti-welfare out of any of this?
nm
Welfare and the near death experience
I studied social work and worked at children services. Welfare amounts to $115 a month for an adult which said adult has to work 40 hours for (at least in my state - Ohio). If you have small children - you do not have to work the 40 hours until they are in school. You do get food stamps. Some live in "projects" with reduced rent. You might qualify for home heating assistance in the winter (most times it will not cover the entire bill). If you get on a percentage of income plan on your electric - you still have to pay the whole bill at some point in time - it just keeps adding up. Welfare accounts for less than 15% of the income taxes we pay, politicians would like you to think it is a lot more. Welfare is no picnic - it sux. The mentally ill who are homeless cannot collect any type of benefits as they have no address (smart guy, that Reagan). If we wish to be a "community" then we must extend a helping hand to those who are less unfortunate than the rest of us.
A high-profile, corporate take-over attorney had the good life and was ruthless in his job and did it very well. Every day he had to step over this wino lying on a heat vent on the sidewalk when he walked to his office. He despised that wino. Freakin' bum. One day that attorney had a massive heart attack. He almost didn't make it. He claimed to have had a near death experience in which he was told by Jesus that the bum he stepped over every day had chosen that as his lot in life before birth so as to teach the attorney some humility and compassion. The attorney never forgot this "dream" when he recovered from his heart attack. He devoted the rest of his life advocating for the poor and walked away from all the trappings of his "elitist" life. True story - cannot validate it at this moment.
Maybe this will help - From Capitalism to a Welfare State
COMMUNIST: A person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
CAPITALISM: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. (This is one of the 'foundations of our economy' that McCain refers to and Obama mocks.)
SOCIALISM: The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
COLLECTIVISM: The political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.
COMMUNISM: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. (Such as global redistribution of weath, and socialized medicine.)
WELFARE STATE: A state in which the welfare of the people in such matters as social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions is the responsibility of the government.
MARXISM: The system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
PROLETARIAT: The working class; the class of workers, esp. industrial wage earners, who do not possess capital or property and must sell their labor to survive.
That's the kind of welfare the pubs
fu
So those corporate welfare deadbeats
don't count as socialism? Wait...this bulletin just in. Nobody cares about your e-mail.
so if you don't have voicemail, you are a democrat and on welfare?
x
I have never seen welfare based on your color -
Where would you live that welfare would be based on your color? That seems like a crock to me!
O's plan is actually welfare. People who pay NO
nm
Eeew! I'd rather go on welfare and stay
Welfare won't pay for abortion but will pay for invitro? No way!
I want to know where she got the money for this procedure (and for the 6 children prior to this litter). There are many, many people who cannot have children who would make great parents for those 8 newborns.........If she TRULY loved them, she would do what is right for them and not expose them to poverty and neglect.
The same people who are complaining about welfare...
are the ones looking for a government handout to pay their mortgages so they can purchase big-screen televisions for their bedrooms and build decks on the back of their government-paid houses. I guess welfare is okay as long as they get their house paid off.
Welfare Reform is a Success
Welfare Reform Reauthorized
Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened
Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."
The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.
Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.
"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."
Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.
"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."
The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.
The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.
For more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, view: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/.
I did not say welfare people - I said the poor -
I am sorry, but I consider most single parents poor - myself included. I do not think that 25,000-30,000 makes me middle class - I call that poor in this day and time. It sure as heck ain't getting my any frills in this life...
I am saying that the more money people have right now though, the more they are saving because they are worrying. The poor people with the lower paying jobs have nothing to lose anyway, so why save what they get? I am not saying it is right, but at this point, they are the ones that are out buying the big screen TVs, the cars, the stereos, the game systems, because they are the ones getting the big fat checks back...
those of us who are the working poor are spending our money on bills and necessities and saving just in case and therefore we are not stimulating the economy as much...
That is what I am saying!
WELFARE SPENDING MADNESS!!
And for those that say you HAVE to work to get welfare,...... NO YOU DON'T! I see that waaaay too much where I live...... mostly just generation after generation living off ME!!!! So, MORE government is just FINE with them!!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=578936
Well, of course you have no problem taking welfare from a communist. sm
That's your problem. You believe people should get something for nothing. You believe in support of the masses equally, i.e., socialism where everyone is equally poor but that's okay. I have no problem believing you would think that was okay. He is also virulently anti-American, but then so is the left. Perfect match!
How about knocking some of those able-bodied adults on welfare...
off and using that to fund health care for children? Should go a long way. Make the hard decisions. Which is more important? But then you have the issue of that woman who has 3 or 4 kids and feeding them on welfare, you kick her off welfare to insure her kids, who is going to feed them? See a pattern here? We need to look at ALL assistance programs and trim the fat. The federal government (more specifically yours and my tax dollars) was never intended to support people who can work but won't. Social programs have gone way, way, WAY out of proportion. And the people who get the benefit of the programs pay nothing into them...zip, zilch, nada. How is that fair to the rest of us, pray tell? If they raise our taxes much more, the whole country will have to be on welfare and assistance just to pay for our insurance and everyone else's. There has to be an end to this somewhere...am I the only one who sees this vicious circle?
It is all OUR business because we are putting our country's welfare in this...sm
governor/mother/grandmother's hands.
She will eventually have to face those questions of how she can perform such an important job and tend to the needs of her daughter, her daughter's baby and her own baby.
You've got a distorted idea of what welfare is.
momentarily but I'm going to take it to the top. People who are disadvantaged and live in poverty are exactly what is meant by "the least among you." I live in the bullseye of Ike. People who live in areas where they share a common bond or interest know what it means when it comes time to step up to the plate and help our neighbors to weather a storm. In the middle of announcing phased evacuation advisories, route information and storm preparation instuctions, our mayor emphasized the need for us to do just that. I am proud of him and of our community for understanding our shared humanity. If you don't get that basic concept, there will be much in life that will pass you by. That's a shame.
O's plan is WELFARE, figures you dems want that
nm
|
