Quantcast

Should welfare recipients be required to pass a drug test?

\V/ 2009/04/18 21:06:25
Politics Government
Yes and they should also get an implant or tatoo for easy scanning when they apply.
16 votes
23%
No! First, audit the Federal Reserve. Then the Pentagon and no more bailouts for Wall Street
2 votes
3%
No more World Bank loans that destroy third world ecconomies. The rich get richer the poor get poorer with YOUR tax dollars!
5 votes
7%
Get Big Oil off our backs. No more subsidies for Big Oil. They want military escorts, let them hire mercenaries.
1 vote
1%
Repeal NAFTA. No more Free Slave Trade for Corporate profits.
3 votes
4%
9 votes
13%
34 votes
49%
Back in 1965, my high school civics teacher predicted that by 2005, we would have a 3 day work week.

Why? Robotics! She envisioned a country on the cutting edge of technology with robotic factories churning out consumer goods.

Harvesting our crops and using free, abundant and clean solar energy to do all this.

The sad thing is her vision would have come true had it not been for the Pentagon which has “lost” TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!

Today we have 10 military recruiters for every high school councilor.

We don’t want anyone doing “drugs” because we would rather have them in Afghanistan guarding the poppy fields and gas pipelines.

If not there, in one of the hundreds of bases the USA has around the world in its program known as

SOCIALIST WELFARE FOR THE RICH

Using our military as a free subsidized escort service for BIG OIL
WHOSE BILLIONS IN PROFITS SHOT THROUGH THE ROOF LAST YEAR.

BUT WAIT! That’s not all!

Wall street needed a bail out so we gave them Billions for bonuses.

Yet poor people who want some food stamps have to show accountability. Wall street doesn’t.

Mexicans, victims of NAFTA and World Bank loans that promised to raise their standard of living have done exactly the opposite, forcing many of them to immigrate to the USA in search of jobs, while thousands of US citizens buy up cheap land in Mexico.

On top of that, Mexican drug lords get their automatic weapons from the USA and have to compete with the CIA to import these drugs into the USA.

All this while fat racist idiots in the USA rant and rave about some of these people getting free medical care if they are injured.

No of course we should not even act civilized! Any “illegal” Mexican found in the USA should be deported or shot on sight they scream.
Well those Mexicans have teaming millions thanks to the Catholic Church which teaches that even if you are dirt poor, having lots of kids will get you better seating in heaven.

Well let me tell you all something, America, when the shit hits the fan, its not mobs of angry Wall Street brokers who are going to be rioting in your streets.

You must be a member of the group Politics Government to vote on this poll.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Cutterjohn 2009/04/18 21:41:12
    None of the above
    Cutterjohn
    +15
    We should drug test members of Congress they must be smoking/snorting/mainlining something up there in D.C.
    drug test members congress smokingsnortingmainlining

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • cindyp 2009/04/19 00:35:01
    Yes and they should also get an implant or tatoo for easy scanning when they ...
    cindyp
    +3
    Yes drug test, No tatoo's or implants. When you hire in to new employment the company drug test you and the gov should do the same with the people money ... I know for a fact that they sell them for drugs aclohol and smokes...Not fair is it...
  • belle 2009/04/19 00:04:12
    None of the above
    belle
    +1
    No testing, unless they are found to be spending their welfare money on drugs. That is not what it is for, so if they are not going to use it for what it is intended, they don't need it or deserve it.
  • Denny belle 2009/04/19 18:21:10
    Denny
    Let's throw them in prison and make sure they eat real food, dress right, not get tatoo's. We can get Illegal alians to guard them and make sure they live life the "right" way. Maybe we can come up with 3 bedroom cells for familys.
  • belle Denny 2009/04/19 19:08:14
    belle
    +2
    Oh I think you have taken what I said out of context and put your perhaps scarcastic words in a reply to me. Why should we waste good money on people that waste it on things that will not help them, but be harmful. Keep in mind most have children and buying drugs with their food and rent money is not right.
  • Denny belle 2009/04/19 20:58:32
    Denny
    Right, but then again if we don't give it to them what then? Those children still starve. What else you gonna do but have 24/7 family watch to be sure that we get these people what they really need to survive. Right?
  • belle Denny 2009/04/19 21:22:00
    belle
    +2
    There is CPS to handle children in these situation. May not be the best solution, but sometimes better than the conditions they are living in each day. To many results in death or abuse of these innocent children by adults on drugs or booze. It is a no win situation for everyone involved including the American taxpayer.
  • Denny belle 2009/04/19 21:30:34
    Denny
    +1
    the problem is that welfare is like a stream. It's not a bunch of people who get on welfare as a life choice. Lot's get on and then again lots get off. There are victorys in the welfare system and there are loses, but your not going to hear about them in the media. So there is this Image of all these poor milking the government and taxpayers for a lifestyle kind of like Congress.
  • Michaelene Denny 2009/04/21 15:35:45
    Michaelene
    The children dont starve, they get two free meals a day at school already.
  • Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just ... 2009/04/18 23:13:29
    None of the above
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    +1
    Of course not. They might die in the meantime. Where's your compassion? Don't you realize that drug addiction is a disease? We should give them help if they request it, or supply them with literature. That's enough. People from all walks of life and economic circumstances fall into the traps of alcoholism and drugs. The idea of welfare is to help them get on their feet... Why hit them when they're already down?
  • Tessaprn Suz-GOO... 2009/04/19 02:30:11
    Tessaprn
    +1
    Yes, the initial purpose of welfare was good. Today, no. Generation after generation are using welfare for their "employment."
    Literature for drug addicts? I don't think so. Whether a disease or lifestyle that is for another day.
    I agree on the point that welfare is to help one get on their feet. Problem lies with the fact they never seem to get on their feet. Because of the many who use welfare for their way of life, those who would like to have a helping hand to get back on track are out of luck. Stereotyping of welfare recipents has happening because of the generational abuse of the system.
  • Suz-GOO... Tessaprn 2009/04/19 03:08:33
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    +1
    In California, we have Welfare Reform. Bill Clinton signed the bill when he was President. There are strict time limits, and you must be going to school or working to qualify. In my line of work, I deal with welfare moms and I KNOW what they are doing.

    MANY middle class are now on Welfare due to all the job loss across the country ... people that would have never dreamed or wanted to resort to welfare. It's a sign of the times.
  • Tessaprn Suz-GOO... 2009/04/19 03:28:17
    Tessaprn
    +2
    No it is not the sign of the times. Welfare has been used for decades for those who choose not to work and produce children. Granted, a few absolutely without doubt need the assistance. The majority do not.
    You are posting with one who could have used the help when I was going full-time to college, my husband was stationed in Germany and we had 4 children. I worked at 3 jobs and minimum wage was 3.25. i could not even get food stamps because I own one acre of property and it had value of $5000. i either had to sell it or work my tail off. i chose the hard way.
  • Suz-GOO... Tessaprn 2009/04/19 05:45:17
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    I respect you for not taking the easy way out. But, like I said, in California you MUST be working at least 30 hours per week or go to school full time to receive welfare... and you have to show proof.
  • Tessaprn Suz-GOO... 2009/04/20 01:50:07
    Tessaprn
    +1
    If welfare recipent's are monitored and not left to hang onto the system without interventions to becoming self sufficent then this would be a great improvement. Past abuse of the welfare system is going to hang around and stigmatize others who may only need that temporary help. I do not have objections to food stamps, help with daycare, tuition, or temporary assist with housing. But, day after day needs to stop and people need to get up and work like those who have improvements in life due to hard work and overcoming obstacles. A monthly check, needs to stop. You want that extra thing in life than work that extra job. My opinion,
  • Suz-GOO... Tessaprn 2009/04/20 02:13:51
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Yes, I agree. That's why there are lifetime limits of only 60 months....ONLY for those that need it and can show proof that they are looking for a job, working 30+ hours per week or going to school full time. No more welfare deadbeats. Clinton signed this thing in 1996! I guess people still hold onto their old ideas. There is accountability now.
  • Suz-GOO... Tessaprn 2009/04/20 02:15:38
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    +1
    Clinton Signs Welfare Reform, Turns Programs Over to States
    By Barbara Vobejda
    The Washington Post
    Washington

    President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation Thursday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

    "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. "But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began."

    Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But Thursday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

    Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

    Even as Clinton...'

    '

    """"""

    ""



    '""

    ""

    """'"





    Clinton Signs Welfare Reform, Turns Programs Over to States
    By Barbara Vobejda
    The Washington Post
    Washington

    President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation Thursday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

    "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. "But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began."

    Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But Thursday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

    Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

    Even as Clinton signed the measure, women's groups and advocates for the poor protested along Pennsylvania Avenue, vowing to carry their dispute to the Democratic convention in Chicago next week.

    Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

    Thursday, he labeled the measure "far from perfect," criticizing provisions that reduce spending on food stamps and deny aid to many legal immigrants. But he offered an explanation why he was signing it. "We can change what is wrong," Clinton said. "We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

    And he suggested that his decision to accept the bill should remove welfare from the political arena. "The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. � This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning. And we have to all assume responsibility."

    The president challenged Americans to join together to make the legislation work, to end the denigration of the poor, to offer jobs to welfare recipients and reflect on ways to make the new welfare system better.

    Sharing the stage with Clinton was Lillie Harden, a 42-year-old mother of three from Little Rock, Ark. Harden received welfare for two years before finding work and is now employed at a supermarket. Clinton said his thinking on welfare has been influenced by Harden, whom he met a decade ago at a governors' panel on welfare reform. He said when he asked her what was the best thing about being off welfare, she answered, "When my boy goes to school and they say what does your mama do for a living, he can give an answer."

    "I have never forgotten that," Clinton said.

    In a statement, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole praised the bill and said it would be remembered as a Republican victory. "My only regret today is that President Clinton did not join with us sooner in helping end a welfare system that has failed the taxpayers and those it was designed to serve," Dole said. "After two vetoes of similar welfare reform bills, President Clinton knew he couldn't afford a third strike."

    The bill ends the long-standing cash-assistance known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, abolishing an entitlement created 61 years ago that guarantees that any eligible poor person can receive aid.

    States will establish their own assistance programs, funded by an annual federal payment instead of the open-ended stream of federal funds they have received in the past. States can determine who is eligible and for how long, although federal funds may not be used to provide benefits for more than five years over a lifetime.

    Under the measure, states are required to move half of adults on welfare into jobs by 2002. The bill also creates a comprehensive child support collection system, requires unmarried teen parents on welfare to live at home and stay in school and provide $4 billion more in child care funding than is currently available for welfare parents required to work.
    (more)
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/19 16:58:49
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    Where is your compassion to the people working themselves to death to pay for life? Just to have it taken by force by the Federal Government to pay for someone else's?

    When I see someone in need of food, I get them food, clothes, the same, but I do not hand over cash, I give that to a PRIVATE organization that can account for every penny, unlike the government, that can PROVE that the best percent of my money reaches a person or family in need, unlike the government...

    Where is all the faith you have in the people to do the honorable thing with the welfare when it comes to the people that earn the money? Oh, your name says it all, Comrade, the individual is rife with corruption, but the government is an altruistic organization that we should just have faith in because communists you support are in majority...
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/19 23:35:24
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Like I said, in California you MUST be working at least 30 hours per week or go to school full time to receive welfare... and you have to show proof. There is a 60 month LIFETIME limit for people on welfare, since President Clinton put this into law when he was in office.

    I'm a Christian, I have compassion for all. I respect people that are struggling and trying to raise their kids (while their father didn't want to stand up to the plate). I ALSO appreciate and respect those that work hard for their families. I am one of them! I have a license and a business, and this year, I actually took a loss. That's right ~ NO profit. So I guess I'm a non-profit organization.

    As far as you berating my name, the Comrades are here for all of you that want to call us socialists. You think we came up with this on our own? NO...YOU were our inspiration.

    I wish you well. I wish welfare moms well. I want us all to support each other in every way. I keep everyone in my prayers at night. I don't show preference ~ I am all inclusive (kinda like Jesus, ya know....hence the Christianity I live in my day-to-day life).
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/20 09:10:52
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    Obviously you are angry at men...
    A government should not be guided by emotional issue, it is how one gets into the business of taking rights from others

    Let me enlighten you to the difference between us...
    I give of my own free will, and only advocate giving of one's own free will...
    You give as well, but you advocate stealing from anyone who earns money to have it redistributed by the state, regardless of time constraints, this is what it is...

    Income tax as we know it today is meant to pay for "Social Programs", the New Deal Policies and their derivatives, which after the fact the government shows about a 1% efficiency rate, and I am being generous to the government...
    Private Charity, which receives money from almost all of the people in this country, can prove a much more efficient rate, and has to, they are liable to go to jail if they do not...

    Which of these is more compassionate to the donor?
    Which of these systems is more just?
    Which of these systems would your buddy Jesus advocate?
    Finally cite the constitution where it says any branch of the federal government has the responsibility to grant entitlements to individuals?

    On your name, do not think I am berating it, I like that you guys decided to stop denying the fact of what you all support, it makes those sitting on the sidelin...

    Obviously you are angry at men...
    A government should not be guided by emotional issue, it is how one gets into the business of taking rights from others

    Let me enlighten you to the difference between us...
    I give of my own free will, and only advocate giving of one's own free will...
    You give as well, but you advocate stealing from anyone who earns money to have it redistributed by the state, regardless of time constraints, this is what it is...

    Income tax as we know it today is meant to pay for "Social Programs", the New Deal Policies and their derivatives, which after the fact the government shows about a 1% efficiency rate, and I am being generous to the government...
    Private Charity, which receives money from almost all of the people in this country, can prove a much more efficient rate, and has to, they are liable to go to jail if they do not...

    Which of these is more compassionate to the donor?
    Which of these systems is more just?
    Which of these systems would your buddy Jesus advocate?
    Finally cite the constitution where it says any branch of the federal government has the responsibility to grant entitlements to individuals?

    On your name, do not think I am berating it, I like that you guys decided to stop denying the fact of what you all support, it makes those sitting on the sidelines of the conversations between many of you Socialites and Comrades before the name change see that I was right...

    What you need to recognize that equal share and equal rights are two opposing concepts, you cannot advocate equal rights when you take money from one and give it to another...
    (more)
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/20 18:44:32
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Why in the world would you say I am angry at men? I LOVE and ADORE men!

    That's all I have to see. I've already explained several times on this post how I feel.
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/21 08:51:43
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    Your specific mention of men not supporting their children....

    How you feel....
    I will take my rational thought, you take your "feelings", which one of us will have bread at the end of the day...
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/21 20:31:12
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Most of the cases I take involve fathers that don't want anything to do with their children. Most welfare mothers are single.
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/22 14:17:07
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    **shrug**

    So it is the people's responsibility if a woman decided to have a child she cannot afford?
    So it is the people's responsibility to pay for raising children that the fathers of which do not wish to pay for?

    These are cold questions but there is a cold correlation between dependency on the government and increased taxation to pay for (Believe it or not) Welfare....

    Odd... If you take the California Minimum Wage ($8) and apply it for a 30 hour work week ($240), this is close to what I get after Federal taxes are done raping me, and I have a decent standard of life, poor, but livable...

    Now I will get a little technical, I hope I do not lose you...
    Listed below are the resources for the tax tables I will be pulling numbers from...

    $12480 annual income $480 biweekly ($8/hr 30 Hour week)
    California State
    This puts them in the 2% bracket so they will get the 4% back from the 6% taken at refund time, so lets ignore this as these people need every penny, splitting hairs about refund time is irrelevant when you starve to death before you get your refund...
    Federal
    This puts the person in question in the 10% tax rate so they will get their 15% back from the 25% the federal government takes at refund time...
    SSI Taxes 7.65%
    So out of a biweekly check of $480
    California $28.80
    Federal $120.00
    SSI ...








    **shrug**

    So it is the people's responsibility if a woman decided to have a child she cannot afford?
    So it is the people's responsibility to pay for raising children that the fathers of which do not wish to pay for?

    These are cold questions but there is a cold correlation between dependency on the government and increased taxation to pay for (Believe it or not) Welfare....

    Odd... If you take the California Minimum Wage ($8) and apply it for a 30 hour work week ($240), this is close to what I get after Federal taxes are done raping me, and I have a decent standard of life, poor, but livable...

    Now I will get a little technical, I hope I do not lose you...
    Listed below are the resources for the tax tables I will be pulling numbers from...

    $12480 annual income $480 biweekly ($8/hr 30 Hour week)
    California State
    This puts them in the 2% bracket so they will get the 4% back from the 6% taken at refund time, so lets ignore this as these people need every penny, splitting hairs about refund time is irrelevant when you starve to death before you get your refund...
    Federal
    This puts the person in question in the 10% tax rate so they will get their 15% back from the 25% the federal government takes at refund time...
    SSI Taxes 7.65%
    So out of a biweekly check of $480
    California $28.80
    Federal $120.00
    SSI $36.27
    total $185.52
    Your recipient is left with $294.48 BIWEEKLY


    I can understand why your people are on welfare, it is PAYING FOR THE WELFARE THAT IS CAUSING IT!!!!

    http://map.ais.ucla.edu/porta...

    http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/10...
    (more)
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/22 18:40:33
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    It's very difficult finding work in today's economy. I believe that welfare should only be used when families are in extreme hardship. And it is only temporary, not long-term. You have to be working 30 hours per week, show proof that you have looked for 6 jobs/day, or going to school full time. And even then, you are not allowed more than 60 months in your entire lifetime. Nobody is allowed to sit-back and collect a check. It does NOT work that way.
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/23 07:58:53
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    "It's very difficult finding work in today's economy."
    Hence why I wash dishes for a living....

    "I believe"
    I do not care what you "believe", I care about what is...
    Why I posted the numbers for you, was specifically what that was about, it is apparent I lost you there...

    It does not matter how long people are on entitlement programs, these programs get funding not based on recipients but rather benefits are appropriated in regard to funding...

    The programs always get an increase in funding, via income tax dollars, which requires an increase in income taxes, therefore, more people will need assistance...

    This is a perpetual motion machine, even with your time limits as population grows and replacement population comes into play, more and more needs to be spent, so more and more needs to be taken...

    http://www.usgovernmentspendi...

    http://www.usgovernmentspendi...

    Again, how about we let the people keep their money, and those that cannot live without assistance can always go to private charitable organizations....
    "It's very difficult finding work in today's economy."
    Hence why I wash dishes for a living....

    "I believe"
    I do not care what you "believe", I care about what is...
    Why I posted the numbers for you, was specifically what that was about, it is apparent I lost you there...

    It does not matter how long people are on entitlement programs, these programs get funding not based on recipients but rather benefits are appropriated in regard to funding...

    The programs always get an increase in funding, via income tax dollars, which requires an increase in income taxes, therefore, more people will need assistance...

    This is a perpetual motion machine, even with your time limits as population grows and replacement population comes into play, more and more needs to be spent, so more and more needs to be taken...

    http://www.usgovernmentspendi...

    http://www.usgovernmentspendi...

    Again, how about we let the people keep their money, and those that cannot live without assistance can always go to private charitable organizations....
    (more)
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/23 16:24:12
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    I'm not lost. I believe what I believe and I feel as I feel. You obviously do not believe people should be helped as they go through hard times. I disagree. There are strict limits, guidelines and rules as far as these benefits go. They are strictly temporary and people are not allowed to simply collect a check? Have you ever gone through the process? If not, I suggest you do judge. That's wrong.

    In this economy, people are struggling. I would hate living in a country with no compassion for their citizens. Denmark is a wonderful place to live, taxes are close to 50% of income there. There are at least 20 major countries that have higher income taxes than America. You live in the greatest country in the world. Stop bitching, you might live longer.
  • marquise Suz-GOO... 2009/04/24 21:31:55
    marquise
    +2
    You live in a socialist military country, mobama sue, with the difference is that you do not have any of the so called advantages it might bring you....

    But then how would you know that....it requires some reasonable thinking....
  • Suz-GOO... marquise 2009/04/24 22:21:13
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Why would anyone say I'm not reasonable? How rude. I happen to know the laws, and I live in America. What country do you live in?
  • Suz-GOO... marquise 2009/04/24 22:23:13
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    I'm reading your replies here, you are terrible rude and unkind. Being from Canada, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Take your hate elsewhere. I don't subscribe to mean people.
  • Ihr Has... Ihr Has... 2009/04/23 17:22:09
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    (I apologize to the poll creator for replying to myself, but the communist blocked me)
    Awww...

    Can't Argue, go ahead and block...

    "I feel as I feel."
    That is fine, you take you feelings and tell me how you can eat them...

    Obviously sue, you have a reading disability, good thing you work for the government where they prize people of no ability...

    " You obviously do not believe people should be helped as they go through hard times."
    Obviously saying go to private charities, is not saying they should receive help? I just say that if you are going to collect money it should be because it is voluntarily given, not by law...

    AGAIN!!!!
    It does not matter how temporary it is as the system creates more demand of the system....

    Go live in one of those wonderful countries and allow the people that are supposedly free be free...

    So long as your "we are the Majority" does not respect the rights of the individual you are wrong...
  • marquise Ihr Has... 2009/04/24 21:32:40
    marquise
    +2
    You see, I told you....you are wasting your time with these people....You Can Not Fix Stupid, and this is a fact....
  • Ihr Has... marquise 2009/04/25 07:44:27
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    I am not wasting my time as others will read and understand, I cannot allow evil to speak without returning with logical argument....

    Besides it is pleasant to see them squirm under the light of logic....
  • marquise Ihr Has... 2009/04/25 15:31:43
    marquise
    +2
    Ok....you are right....
  • Ihr Has... marquise 2009/04/25 15:41:57
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    LOLZ!!!!!

    I am writing this on the Calendar!!!!
  • marquise Ihr Has... 2009/04/25 16:17:12
    marquise
    +2
    ....with red indelible ink....? :P
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/20 02:17:25
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Clinton Signs Welfare Reform, Turns Programs Over to States
    By Barbara Vobejda
    The Washington Post
    Washington

    President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation Thursday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

    "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. "But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began."

    Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But Thursday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

    Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

    Even as Clinton...'

    '

    """"""

    ""



    '""

    ""

    """'"





    Clinton Signs Welfare Reform, Turns Programs Over to States
    By Barbara Vobejda
    The Washington Post
    Washington

    President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation Thursday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

    "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. "But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began."

    Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But Thursday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

    Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

    Even as Clinton signed the measure, women's groups and advocates for the poor protested along Pennsylvania Avenue, vowing to carry their dispute to the Democratic convention in Chicago next week.

    Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

    Thursday, he labeled the measure "far from perfect," criticizing provisions that reduce spending on food stamps and deny aid to many legal immigrants. But he offered an explanation why he was signing it. "We can change what is wrong," Clinton said. "We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

    And he suggested that his decision to accept the bill should remove welfare from the political arena. "The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. � This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning. And we have to all assume responsibility."

    The president challenged Americans to join together to make the legislation work, to end the denigration of the poor, to offer jobs to welfare recipients and reflect on ways to make the new welfare system better.

    Sharing the stage with Clinton was Lillie Harden, a 42-year-old mother of three from Little Rock, Ark. Harden received welfare for two years before finding work and is now employed at a supermarket. Clinton said his thinking on welfare has been influenced by Harden, whom he met a decade ago at a governors' panel on welfare reform. He said when he asked her what was the best thing about being off welfare, she answered, "When my boy goes to school and they say what does your mama do for a living, he can give an answer."

    "I have never forgotten that," Clinton said.

    In a statement, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole praised the bill and said it would be remembered as a Republican victory. "My only regret today is that President Clinton did not join with us sooner in helping end a welfare system that has failed the taxpayers and those it was designed to serve," Dole said. "After two vetoes of similar welfare reform bills, President Clinton knew he couldn't afford a third strike."

    The bill ends the long-standing cash-assistance known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, abolishing an entitlement created 61 years ago that guarantees that any eligible poor person can receive aid.

    States will establish their own assistance programs, funded by an annual federal payment instead of the open-ended stream of federal funds they have received in the past. States can determine who is eligible and for how long, although federal funds may not be used to provide benefits for more than five years over a lifetime.

    Under the measure, states are required to move half of adults on welfare into jobs by 2002. The bill also creates a comprehensive child support collection system, requires unmarried teen parents on welfare to live at home and stay in school and provide $4 billion more in child care funding than is currently available for welfare parents required to work. (less)
    (more)
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/20 09:14:04
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    He also caused the Mortgage crisis...
    He also exacerbated the illegal immigration issue...
    He also gave the incentive to business to export jobs....
  • Suz-GOO... Ihr Has... 2009/04/20 18:46:20
    Suz-GOODBYE FRIENDS-I just can't handle crazy people anymore!!
    Well, I disagree. I think he was a wonderful President. He was wonderful for the country. That's what makes America special. We all have our feelings and opinions and we're entitled. Have a good day!
  • Ihr Has... Suz-GOO... 2009/04/21 08:47:07
    Ihr Hase ~ Radix Libertas
    +2
    You are free to disagree, but do not think for once I posted my opinion there....

    I posted an analysis based on FACTS...

    You can have your opinions, but facts are not swayed so easily...
  • zyledr 2009/04/18 23:05:52
    No! First, audit the Federal Reserve. Then the Pentagon and no more bailouts ...
    zyledr
    +1
    I don't believe anyone should be, but if we are going to have them the politicians should be the first ones to get them.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/12/22 11:23:17

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals