Welfare Recipient:"Why Would Anyone Want To Work in America??"

[DiamondDave]

Thanks for the laugh! As always you deliver.

c'mon man.. 1 more time.. just tell us again how demanding payment from others for the charity you want to give others is honorable... and how treating all persons equally and giving voluntarily of yourself is dishonorable...

you know you want to

"Demanding payment". LOL. You do pay taxes, don't you? I am voicing my opinion of where I would like to see OUR tax dollars go. I want it to go to help people who are truly in need, you don't. Simple as that.

And your version of "treating people equally" is in fact not equal. I've proven this to you before countless times in numerous threads. You're obviously too closed minded to be able to grasp the concept so I'll let you continue to live in ignorant bliss.

Uh huh.. tax dollars you want more of from others.. while wanting yourself to pay less. and some to pay nothing at all

You have only proven that taxing someone more than the zero they currently pay is an increase... you have proven nothing.. everything you have given is the SUBJECTIVITY of perceived impact and 'fairness'

I want tax monies to ONLY go to those things SPECIFICALLY listed in the constitution.... and I want people to take care of their own personal needs, and for those who have a calling to support a cause to VOLUNTARILY contribute to those out of the goodness of the ir own heart. .and if, unfortunately, some people wish to exercise their freedom and give nothing, well that is on them.... But even if you don't like it, you do not get to infringe and FORCE Them to give for your want of charity

You sir, continue to be an idiot

 

[Foxfyre]

Listen to this welfare recipient ask why anyone would want to work in America with all the benefits they get from not working.

Click through to Cameron Harris: Welfare Recipient: "Why Would Anyone Want To Work In America" to see the video

Gawd almighty, are you folks FOOLED so easily!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luo40WjBKWI&feature=player_embedded"]Chapter - It's Free Swipe Yo EBT (Clean) - YouTube[/ame]

the whole video segment is an ACT, A HOAX......it's the SAME ACTRESS doing ALL of these videos....

And there STILL is a work requirement to receive welfare, IT WAS NOT ELIMINATED by the Obama administration as claimed by the far right wingers....that's simply a LIE.

In addition to this, you can NOT receive money for daycare if on Welfare, UNLESS you are working or in a training program or in school to learn a trade....daycare for your kids as this ACTRESS CLAIMED can not happen and does not happen, UNLESS working or the other things mentioned above....

seriously, you guys need Mental HELP....to get you off of this WELFARE ENVY TRIP that you are on!

It isn't envy Care. It is compassion to want kids to grow up seeking to reach their full potential instead of mimicking a welfare mom or dad who sits on their butt watching soap operas all day. It is compassion to break the entitlement mentality so that people will have incentive to be more than that.

And you are wrong that Obama didn't end work for welfare, at least as it was intended:

This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF.

Contrary to some perceptions, the formula that made welfare reform a success was not giving state governments more flexibility in operating federally funded welfare programs. The active ingredient that made the difference was requiring state governments to implement those rigorous new federal work standards.

Today the Obama administration issued a dramatic new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements will be waived or overridden by a legal device called a section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).

Section 1115 allows HHS to “waive compliance” with specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: All provisions of law that can be overridden under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. . . .

. . . .In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” Welfare reform instituted work standards to block these dodges. Now that the Obama administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work. . . . .

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector

 

[Sallow]

Well that does it...End Welfare! and Stupid people! End Stupid People on Welfare!

Maybe conservatives could create "Heaven Transportation Booths" for poor people. It would be kind of the next step after "Self Deportation".

 

[RDD_1210]

c'mon man.. 1 more time.. just tell us again how demanding payment from others for the charity you want to give others is honorable... and how treating all persons equally and giving voluntarily of yourself is dishonorable...

you know you want to

"Demanding payment". LOL. You do pay taxes, don't you? I am voicing my opinion of where I would like to see OUR tax dollars go. I want it to go to help people who are truly in need, you don't. Simple as that.

And your version of "treating people equally" is in fact not equal. I've proven this to you before countless times in numerous threads. You're obviously too closed minded to be able to grasp the concept so I'll let you continue to live in ignorant bliss.

Uh huh.. tax dollars you want more of from others.. while wanting yourself to pay less. and some to pay nothing at all

You have only proven that taxing someone more than the zero they currently pay is an increase... you have proven nothing.. everything you have given is the SUBJECTIVITY of perceived impact and 'fairness'

I want tax monies to ONLY go to those things SPECIFICALLY listed in the constitution.... and I want people to take care of their own personal needs, and for those who have a calling to support a cause to VOLUNTARILY contribute to those out of the goodness of the ir own heart. .and if, unfortunately, some people wish to exercise their freedom and give nothing, well that is on them.... But even if you don't like it, you do not get to infringe and FORCE Them to give for your want of charity

You sir, continue to be an idiot

There is that strawman again. Feel free to show where I advocated I pay less while others pay more. I'll wait.

When you can't show this, I'll have shown you to be another idiot who needs to create strawmen to try and make a point. Emphasis on try, as you get knocked down each and every time we do this.

Sad.

 

[t_polkow]

Welcome to the welfare states of jesusland

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

 

[Wyatt earp]

One of us wants to help those who are truly in need and the other says fuck everyone but myself. Which one is honorable?

yea but you want to use OTHER peoples money. use your own to help the poor if you care so much....

I want to use OUR money. Learn the difference.

Lmao.... so thats what they teach you now in skool? Why should you use my tax dollars to give people android obama phones and I dont even have a smart phone? {and google it before you say that dont have android phones, so I dont make you look dumb}

 

[BlackFlag10]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

Do we need to go back to your first post in this thread??

 

[RDD_1210]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

Yeah, these people are the fringe assholes of our country who live in a delusional bubble that they've created.

This site isn't about changing minds, it's about getting a good laugh at the BS they spew.

 

[RDD_1210]

yea but you want to use OTHER peoples money. use your own to help the poor if you care so much....

I want to use OUR money. Learn the difference.

Lmao.... so thats what they teach you now in skool? Why should you use my tax dollars to give people android obama phones and I dont even have a smart phone? {and google it before you say that dont have android phones, so I dont make you look dumb}

Way to avoid what I actually said. Nice job to stick to the playbook.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

If you ever find yourself down and out don't look to the liberals to help you. It's a fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

Liberals talk a good game, but that's all it is....talk.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I want to use OUR money. Learn the difference.

Lmao.... so thats what they teach you now in skool? Why should you use my tax dollars to give people android obama phones and I dont even have a smart phone? {and google it before you say that dont have android phones, so I dont make you look dumb}

Way to avoid what I actually said. Nice job to stick to the playbook.

what play book? I dont subscribe to welfare weekly...

 

[RDD_1210]

Lmao.... so thats what they teach you now in skool? Why should you use my tax dollars to give people android obama phones and I dont even have a smart phone? {and google it before you say that dont have android phones, so I dont make you look dumb}

Way to avoid what I actually said. Nice job to stick to the playbook.

what play book? I dont subscribe to welfare weekly...

Ooooh, good one!

 

[RDD_1210]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

If you ever find yourself down and out don't look to the liberals to help you. It's a fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

Liberals talk a good game, but that's all it is....talk.

So you like the liberal message?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

There's way too many who are cocksuckers who think they know everything. I issue this challenge - if it's so motherfucking lucrative on welfare, TRY IT on for size and find out for your own goddamned self! No, don't stay there, just try it for a year. THEN report back with all your silly-ass statements.

 

[RDD_1210]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

There's way too many who are cocksuckers who think they know everything. I issue this challenge - if it's so motherfucking lucrative on welfare, TRY IT on for size and find out for your own goddamned self! No, don't stay there, just try it for a year. THEN report back with all your silly-ass statements.

 

[ba1614]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

There's way too many who are cocksuckers who think they know everything. I issue this challenge - if it's so motherfucking lucrative on welfare, TRY IT on for size and find out for your own goddamned self! No, don't stay there, just try it for a year. THEN report back with all your silly-ass statements.

My pride wouldn't let me leech for a year, sorry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

Do we need to go back to your first post in this thread??

It was Post #35 in case anybody wants to know what "Mr. Compassionate" had to contribute.

As for those of you who are hammering on conservatives as being the hateful or clueless ones, have you really listened to yourselves? Every single conservative is advocating getting people off welfare and not promoting policies that encourage people to stay on welfare. Every liberal is defending those policies.

What is more compassionate? Not wanting people to be on welfare or defending policies that encourage them to be on welfare? What is more compassionate? Promoting a nanny state that keeps people right at the poverty line in perpetuity? Or promoting a culture in which people don't want to and don't have to stay poor?

Maybe the illustration in the OP was contrived or staged. Most stuff like that is regardless of who is putting it out.

But what is more compassionate? Condemning those who point to the problem? Or looking for ways to solve it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Having skimed this thread for a couple of pages, I am absolutely amazed at how mean spirited posters from the Right are on this board. It is obvious that they are not going to change, come hell, or high water (until, or unless, they find themselves down and out, and in need). I have to tell you, RDD, that these are not the kind of people that I would want to know in real life, so I am surprised that you deal with them at all.

Out of here~~~~~>

If you ever find yourself down and out don't look to the liberals to help you. It's a fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

Liberals talk a good game, but that's all it is....talk.

So you like the liberal message?

Like it? No. Tolerate it? Yes.

 

[peach174]

Yes lets cut off their welfare!!

Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BftL9GgN9g

Your you tube post is about taxes not welfare programs.
States with the highest welfare recipients
The Biggest US Welfare States

Notice that it is California that is number one.
Then Maine
Tennessee
Vermont
New Mexico
Washington
Minnesota
New York
DC
Massachusetts
Indianan
Rhodie Island
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Oregon
All Blue States

The facts remain the Blue states pay for the backward jesusland cracker rightwing controlled red states, who get more then they pay in. In any thinking persons books that spells WELFARE.


the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid.

By the way, the same logic explains why there has been a jump in dependency since 2008. Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney suggest, Mr. Obama has not radically expanded the safety net. Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits. Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.

But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.

First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.

Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: High-income residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; high-income residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer neighbors. Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Gelman invokes social issues, but in the opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like the G.O.P.’s war on contraception.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=0

Blue States have higher Taxes. Red State have lower Taxes.
To compare State Taxes with welfare recipients paid for by Federal Taxes (paid for by All Americans who pay their taxes can't be broken down by the States.
Phoenix and Tucson plus Sedona who have very Wealthy People living there, pay more taxes to the Feds but State Tax is low. So you can't compare State Tax with Federal Tax paid by Individuals.
See how the left twist things?
You also have to be in the upper middle income and Rich in order to afford to live in Blue States so of course the Blue States pay more in Federal Taxes.
But Blue States have more recipients on welfare than Red States.