All you welfare haters... how about this?

[MaggieMae]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

I agree that the crumbling infrastructure should be the next Apollo Project: Just get it done. The number of jobs, from architects down to guys with dustpans sweeping up construction debris have unemployment down to near zero for able-bodied persons.

But will it happen? Would any president in today's polarized political atmosphere dare to drop the flag and order a GO? Of course not. Congress would hem and haw, fritter and bicker over whether such an endeavor is even necessary (duh...), then they'd want to vie for a piece of the pie for their own districts (more bickering), then they'd force a cost analysis looking at the situation from every angle up, down, sideways and run the numbers all again--just for giggles.

Nope, the only way a monumental program like that will ever happen will be following a major catastrophe, such as huge segments of I-10 falling into Lake Ponchartrain due to crumbling supports and a few days later the Brooklyn Bridge collapses during rush hour. This country once was forward thinking and proactive regarding growth and modernization, but not anymore.

Of course the private sector could always step up and invest their own talent, time and money into our infrastructure, but will they? Probably only if Uncle Sam guarantees their loans, so like building nuclear power plants, nothing major gets built by the private sector without government assistance. Imagine that.

Uh, who pays for it?
Don't you know WE ARE BROKE.
Why should we borrow any more $$ from the Chinks that YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS will have to pay back?

It would pay for itself over time. So why not address the part about private companies getting it done instead of making an asshole comment?

 

[Gadawg73]

I agree that the crumbling infrastructure should be the next Apollo Project: Just get it done. The number of jobs, from architects down to guys with dustpans sweeping up construction debris have unemployment down to near zero for able-bodied persons.

But will it happen? Would any president in today's polarized political atmosphere dare to drop the flag and order a GO? Of course not. Congress would hem and haw, fritter and bicker over whether such an endeavor is even necessary (duh...), then they'd want to vie for a piece of the pie for their own districts (more bickering), then they'd force a cost analysis looking at the situation from every angle up, down, sideways and run the numbers all again--just for giggles.

Nope, the only way a monumental program like that will ever happen will be following a major catastrophe, such as huge segments of I-10 falling into Lake Ponchartrain due to crumbling supports and a few days later the Brooklyn Bridge collapses during rush hour. This country once was forward thinking and proactive regarding growth and modernization, but not anymore.

Of course the private sector could always step up and invest their own talent, time and money into our infrastructure, but will they? Probably only if Uncle Sam guarantees their loans, so like building nuclear power plants, nothing major gets built by the private sector without government assistance. Imagine that.

Uh, who pays for it?
Don't you know WE ARE BROKE.
Why should we borrow any more $$ from the Chinks that YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS will have to pay back?

It would pay for itself over time. So why not address the part about private companies getting it done instead of making an asshole comment?

Who pays the private sector?
We have no $$$.

 

[SuMar]

Bullworth said it best:

Angry black woman: Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?
Bullworth: Isn't that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!

Bulworth (1998) - Memorable quotes​

 

[The T]

So what was 'WORKFARE'?

The Safety net set forth by the Statists has become a hammock occupied by the Moocher class.

 

[Steelplate]

34% efficiency in our electrical system... That means that 64% of our power generated(by whatever means) gets lost till it gets to our homes and businesses. Japan, China, and Europe run at anywhere between 80-90% efficiency.

Don't you guys even begin to talk to me about "American Exceptionalism" when you guys that keep saying this have your head stuck in the ground like some damned ostrich.

But we don't want to talk about that. We don't want to talk about our monopolies(Energy, Health Care, Telecomm, Defense, Agriculture, and a couple others) and how to deal with them.

We don't want to talk about China and it's rigged monetary system that is fucking us taxpayers over and making our elite all that much more powerful.

No, we'd rather play games around real issues and talk about welfare people, Unions, Immigrants and Obama's Birth Certificate.

You guys really can't see a bait and switch to save your lives, can you?

 

[MaggieMae]

Uh, who pays for it?
Don't you know WE ARE BROKE.
Why should we borrow any more $$ from the Chinks that YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS will have to pay back?

It would pay for itself over time. So why not address the part about private companies getting it done instead of making an asshole comment?

Who pays the private sector?
We have no $$$.

Somebody does, and somebody needs to take its wealth and start investing HERE, not everywhere but. The US is still the richest country in the world.

Top 10 Most Richest Countries in the World - 2011 | Tip Top Tens

 

[Flopper]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

The problem I see with your proposal is that many people on welfare already have a job, usually a temp or part time job. For one reason or another they can't hold down a permanent job that makes enough to support a family. Also consider that most of these people are unskilled and do have a decent job history.

 

[The Rabbi]

Buffett a flaming liberals that forces his kids to earn their own keep?
Where do you get this stuff?
Buffett sets a conservative model for his kids.
You claim that wealthy folks are not conservative?

Can't keep more than a single fact in your head?
In fact Buffet has consistently supported more and higher taxes and opposed tax cuts. When he was advisor to Arnold Schwartzenegger in CA he recommended raising property taxes and others.

However Buffet raised his kids is immaterial to his political views, which are decidedly liberal.

Setting examples at home is far more important than political views. One is not defined liberal or conservative by views but by actions.
Buffet opposed cuts in the dividend tax. I do not agree with him.
Buffett had a problem with the tax on his 4 million dollar home in Laguna Beach CA being 2 grand a year while the tax on his 500 grand Omaha Neb home being 14 grand a year because California was in financial trouble and Nebraska wasn't. Your head is not large enough to ever gather ALL of the facts.
Of course an ideologue is all about talk and not action.

OK, so you admit Buffet is a liberal philosophically.
That's all. You're dismissed.

 

[hipeter924]

When are the Republicans going to tackle the military budget? Cutting social security and welfare to increase military spending is not a cost reduction.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $553 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD). This is $13 billion below the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) estimate, released last year, but represents about 3 percent in real growth over the funding the department would receive for FY 2011 under the current continuing resolution, which expires on March 4.
In addition, the Administration has requested $117.6 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a 26 percent decrease from last year’s request of $159.4 billion and represents the administration’s commitment to reduce troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and place more strict rules on what can and cannot be included in the war spending request. In the past, additional funding has been made available through emergency supplemental appropriations, when needed. This remains a possibility for FY 2012. This brings the FY 2012 defense budget request to a total of $670.6 billion.
These numbers do not include nuclear weapons related spending in the Department of Energy (DoE) or other defense related funding.
In addition to an initial $670 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities. This brings total non-Pentagon defense related spending (053/054) to $25 billion, an increase of about $200 million over FY 2011.

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy_2012_briefing_book/

 

[thereisnospoon]

Welfare has its administration problem, but these problem are not as bad as rw kooks state. For example, Reagan attacked welkfare moms, but didn't provide evidence. He thought every welfare mom was abusing the system and driving around in a Cadillac fabricating their SSN and their husband's death.

However, Cons do not see the world in this light. Instead, they see it as a personal affront on them, which is odd. Most Red States receive welfare from Liberal States.

I say fuck them and their welfare. However, Cons hate the free market. They only lobby for it when it benefits them.

Oh please. If anyone is not seeing that the majority of people on public assisatnce are not gaming the system, they are blind, ignorant or complicit.

I guess that would depend on how you define "gaming the system", I guess. I don't think anyone believes, or has suggested, that most people on welfare are actively lying or defrauding the system.

all who are capable of working but refuse to do so in lieu of a taxpayer funded vacation.
I am amazed at the capacity of liberals to exhibit compassion....with other people's money.
I am sick of people who deliberately produce children just to get a larger check. I am sick of people who drive nicer cars than most people using WIC cards or food stamps.
I am sick of the "you owe us" mentality of people on welfare.
I am sick of lilly livered weak kneed politicians who sit idly by knowing full well the system of social entitlements is badly broken and do nothing due to the pressures of political correctness.
I am sick and tired of these people getting theirs while others who are much less fortunate through no fault of their own, are sent away by bureaucrats. Examples.... Middle aged couples who must care for an aging and ill parent being refused assistance because "you live in to nice of a home to need our help"....
Or the brother or sister who must care for a sibling who has been injured in an auto crash but hasn't the money to properly care for them and is left with no choice but to seek assistance only to be told "put them in a home or hospice, you make $2000 per year too much to get help".

 

[Mr.Nick]

Do the liberals believe communists have welfare??

There was just a nice article posted in the LA Times and Chicago Tribune about Pol Pot/Killing Fields..

Cambodia: Visiting the country's killing fields and other Khmer Rouge-era sites - Los Angeles Times

I love the woman that told her grandchild "laziness is death" or something along those lines.

 

[xsited1]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? ...

We might have to if Obama continues killing jobs and sends the US into a deep depression.

 

[The T]

When are the Republicans going to tackle the military budget? Cutting social security and welfare to increase military spending is not a cost reduction.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $553 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD). This is $13 billion below the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) estimate, released last year, but represents about 3 percent in real growth over the funding the department would receive for FY 2011 under the current continuing resolution, which expires on March 4.
In addition, the Administration has requested $117.6 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a 26 percent decrease from last year’s request of $159.4 billion and represents the administration’s commitment to reduce troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and place more strict rules on what can and cannot be included in the war spending request. In the past, additional funding has been made available through emergency supplemental appropriations, when needed. This remains a possibility for FY 2012. This brings the FY 2012 defense budget request to a total of $670.6 billion.
These numbers do not include nuclear weapons related spending in the Department of Energy (DoE) or other defense related funding.
In addition to an initial $670 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities. This brings total non-Pentagon defense related spending (053/054) to $25 billion, an increase of about $200 million over FY 2011.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Analysis of FY 2012 Budget Request

*IDIOT* Military is Constitutionally MANDATED...the others are NOT.

When are you IDIOTS gonna wake the Hell up out of your SOCIALIST stupor?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree that the crumbling infrastructure should be the next Apollo Project: Just get it done. The number of jobs, from architects down to guys with dustpans sweeping up construction debris have unemployment down to near zero for able-bodied persons.

But will it happen? Would any president in today's polarized political atmosphere dare to drop the flag and order a GO? Of course not. Congress would hem and haw, fritter and bicker over whether such an endeavor is even necessary (duh...), then they'd want to vie for a piece of the pie for their own districts (more bickering), then they'd force a cost analysis looking at the situation from every angle up, down, sideways and run the numbers all again--just for giggles.

Nope, the only way a monumental program like that will ever happen will be following a major catastrophe, such as huge segments of I-10 falling into Lake Ponchartrain due to crumbling supports and a few days later the Brooklyn Bridge collapses during rush hour. This country once was forward thinking and proactive regarding growth and modernization, but not anymore.

Of course the private sector could always step up and invest their own talent, time and money into our infrastructure, but will they? Probably only if Uncle Sam guarantees their loans, so like building nuclear power plants, nothing major gets built by the private sector without government assistance. Imagine that.

Uh, who pays for it?
Don't you know WE ARE BROKE.
Why should we borrow any more $$ from the Chinks that YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS will have to pay back?

It would pay for itself over time. So why not address the part about private companies getting it done instead of making an asshole comment?

Trying to convince others that any federal government program will pay for itself over time when history shows precisely the opposite to be true, is most definitely ans asshole comment.
The other issue you failed but attempted to cover is the private sector is not getting it done because of government interference. Not regulation, but interference.
Unfettered government power is every bit as dangerous as unfettered business practice.
And right now we have an all powerful all encompassing federal bureaucracy which is literally smaqshing the life out of American business.

 

[Steelplate]

*IDIOT* Military is Constitutionally MANDATED...the others are NOT.

When are you IDIOTS gonna wake the Hell up out of your SOCIALIST stupor?

Oh..... so what you are saying is that because it is constitutionally deemed that we have a military... we need to bankrupt the country and make defense contractors fat, while the rest of the country slowly goes into a death spiral?

You call him an idiot? Yeah, you're a genius.

BTW... why don't you throw the word Socialist out a few more times.... that always works with simple minds.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told a TV station that he still uses food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the prize went to taxes.

Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it.

 

[Too Tall]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history.

Actually, it was the CCC, Civilian Conservation Corp and it was formed before I was born. And, it was for unemployed, unmarried men from families on relief only.

 

[CountofTuscany]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told a TV station that he still uses food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the prize went to taxes.

Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it.

Wow! Only in America

 

[The Rabbi]

When are the Republicans going to tackle the military budget? Cutting social security and welfare to increase military spending is not a cost reduction.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011, the Obama Administration has requested a base budget of $553 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD). This is $13 billion below the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) estimate, released last year, but represents about 3 percent in real growth over the funding the department would receive for FY 2011 under the current continuing resolution, which expires on March 4.
In addition, the Administration has requested $117.6 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a 26 percent decrease from last year’s request of $159.4 billion and represents the administration’s commitment to reduce troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and place more strict rules on what can and cannot be included in the war spending request. In the past, additional funding has been made available through emergency supplemental appropriations, when needed. This remains a possibility for FY 2012. This brings the FY 2012 defense budget request to a total of $670.6 billion.
These numbers do not include nuclear weapons related spending in the Department of Energy (DoE) or other defense related funding.
In addition to an initial $670 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Administration has requested $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities. This brings total non-Pentagon defense related spending (053/054) to $25 billion, an increase of about $200 million over FY 2011.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Analysis of FY 2012 Budget Request

*IDIOT* Military is Constitutionally MANDATED...the others are NOT.

When are you IDIOTS gonna wake the Hell up out of your SOCIALIST stupor?

You could also point out his scary graph doesn't support what he wants to say and is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[GHook93]

Fixing the energy grid, roads, bridges and water supply with people on welfare! What makes you think they are educated, qualified for and simply motivated to take part in such tasks? Part of the problem in communist Russia was that they had people building their infrastructure who had no incentive to do a good job, had any training or even a desire work efficiently. Sorry but I want qualified people working on a very complex jobs, like road and bridge work!

How many welfare receiptants are drug addicts, conservatively speaking 20% report drug use, but that is only who admit to be a druggie. I bet the number is more around 75%!

You Blueball Dimocrats are mental midgets!

SAPRP: Key Research Findings
Substance Abuse Trends among Welfare Recipients
Harold A. Pollack, Ph.D., University of Michigan
- 20 percent of welfare recipients report (which means they admit too, how many druggies on welfare don't admit to it, the liberals stop us from drug testing welfare receiptants) recent use of some illicit drug during the year,

- Illicit drug use and dependence are more common among women receiving welfare than among women who do not. Drug use is a risk factor for welfare receipt, even after controlling for race, educational attainment, region and other factors.

- Alcohol dependence also appears more prevalent among women receiving welfare than among those who do not, though this effect is smaller and more ambiguous than is the case for drugs.

- The prevalence of illicit drug use among welfare recipients nationally declined between 1990 and 1998, although recipients are more likely than non-recipients to use drugs.
Psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than illicit drug dependence among welfare recipients. States should screen, assess, and refer to treatment those welfare applicants and recipients who have a broad range of mental health and substance abuse problems that hinder the transition from welfare to work.

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.