TPS Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Drive by? Sure. Scientific? No. Do you think my assessment of what's going on in the poorer neighborhoods is out of line? Nicer than where they'd be living if they didn't have us paying for all their ****. But then they'd be forced to find work wouldn't they? Depends on what you actually mean. If you're insinuating they are collecting government handouts, then you are probably wrong. If you are insinuating they "work" in the underground economy, then you are probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Depends on what you actually mean. If you're insinuating they are collecting government handouts, then you are probably wrong. If you are insinuating they "work" in the underground economy, then you are probably right. exactly, I've never seen anyone live anything but the merest subsistence life on just government handouts alone - I'll talk about the program from eighties back then it seemed that Rent, Utilities, and food was covered plus maybe bus tokens - no money - which means for supplies like toilet paper, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, cleaning supplies and the like they either needed to do something to supply an income or they'd have go to the local delis use the food stamps on very cheap items collect the change then use the change - diapers were a huge dramatic issue- people who were doing Ok had financial support from their family or they might do off the book work like babysitting, doing hair or nails from home, one girl I knew was doing pretty good because she had a boyfriend sleeping over there giving her money but that didn't last long because a neighbor blew her in after which she ended up in a women's shelter and lost most of her furniture and kitchen appliances - now if you're really living high without a real job it means you are probably selling drugs or guns, or thieving, or pimping or coning or something equally illegal and lucrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Depends on what you actually mean. If you're insinuating they are collecting government handouts, then you are probably wrong. If you are insinuating they "work" in the underground economy, then you are probably right. So they are collecting no: A. Unemployment B. Disability C. Welfare D. Housing allowances E. Food stamps F. Other ways of living off the government teat that I'm not even aware of None, nada, zero? You're going to stand by that statement? And if they're working in the underground they are getting a handout by working tax free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 So they are collecting no: A. Unemployment B. Disability C. Welfare D. Housing allowances E. Food stamps F. Other ways of living off the government teat that I'm not even aware of Educational grants and credits, utility assistance, child care credits. Here's a partial list: http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/browse-by-category/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Educational grants and credits, utility assistance, child care credits. Here's a partial list: http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/browse-by-category/ Volunteer opportunities: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Volunteer opportunities: 3 And all 3 are "Getting old people to do stuff for free" programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 None, nada, zero? You're going to stand by that statement? The country needs to take a page from Maine, where they held childless adults accountable for every 'free' dime they were handed. Article here. No surprise, but the article explains "Since 2008, the food stamp caseload of adults without dependents who are able-bodied has more than doubled nationally, swelling from nearly 2 million recipients in 2008 to around 5 million today." Here's the predictable truth; make takers work for their freebies, and they stop asking for freebies. In response to the growth in food stamp dependence, Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, recently established work requirements on recipients who are without dependents and able-bodied. In Maine, all able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program are now required to take a job, participate in training, or perform community service. Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased. In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I can't believe the spin the media is putting on the new "drug testing" requirement for welfare some states enacted recently. They're reporting 0.002% tested positive in Tennessee (because they include ALL recipients) while ignoring the fact that only those who admitted to prior drug use were screened. Of the idiots who admitted to a drug problem, 13% tested positive, another 9% had ongoing drug problems, and 22% didn't bother to show up to do the test. Overall, a whopping 56% of those considered were dropped. ...but the narrative continues that "it's not a problem because so few people were denied." http://legacy.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/08/drug-testing-of-welfare-applicants-yields-few-positives/23086333/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Subject to change, of course, but it appears sanity is prevailing in 2016. USA Today national poll shows almost entire Republican field can beat both Hillary and Bernie. Against Hillary: Trump wins 45% to 43%. Cruz wins 45-44 Rubio wins 46-42 Against Bernie: Trump wins 44% to 43%. Cruz loses 42-44 Rubio wins 46-42 The ads touting a “vote for Trump/Cruz” is a vote for the Democrats are not only offensive to a large segment of GOP voters who support these candidates, but also apparently not supported by current polling data. Apparently each of the top three GOP candidates are capable of beating either Clinton or Sanders. Of course, that’s not necessarily saying much, since Clinton and Sanders are arguably the worst two presidential candidates in recent history Guy BensonVerified account @guypbenson 2h2 hours ago Young Indian-American female governor (Haley) joins young black Senator (Scott) in endorsing young Latino Senator (Rubio) for president in Deep South state. #GOP ....for a chance to run against an old, bald white guy or an old, sickly white lady. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 I can't believe the spin the media is putting on the new "drug testing" requirement for welfare some states enacted recently. They're reporting 0.002% tested positive in Tennessee (because they include ALL recipients) while ignoring the fact that only those who admitted to prior drug use were screened. Of the idiots who admitted to a drug problem, 13% tested positive, another 9% had ongoing drug problems, and 22% didn't bother to show up to do the test. Overall, a whopping 56% of those considered were dropped. ...but the narrative continues that "it's not a problem because so few people were denied." http://legacy.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/08/drug-testing-of-welfare-applicants-yields-few-positives/23086333/ How much did the drug testing cost the tax payers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 How much did the drug testing cost save the tax payers? Once again, copy/pasting the wrong question. But we fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 Once again, copy/pasting the wrong question. But we fixed it for you. Ok, how much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 Nicer than where they'd be living if they didn't have us paying for all their ****. But then they'd be forced to find work wouldn't they? A lot of working poor are on assistance. Walmart workers qualify for food stamps. And why do the poor take those jobs? Because they are usually the only ones near by or that they qualify for. Being poor sucks whether you have assistance or not. Hating on the poor is pretty cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Subject to change, of course, but it appears sanity is prevailing in 2016. Don't underestimate the the criminal elements ability to steal the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 A lot of working poor are on assistance. Walmart workers qualify for food stamps. And why do the poor take those jobs? Because they are usually the only ones near by or that they qualify for. Being poor sucks whether you have assistance or not. Hating on the poor is pretty cheap. I'm not hating on the working poor. I'm hating on the lazy non-working leaches. You did see that part of my post that says "they'd be forced to find work" right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm not hating on the working poor. I'm hating on the lazy non-working leaches. You did see that part of my post that says "they'd be forced to find work" right? With wages so low you qualify for public assistance I'm not surprised they'd have to be forced to work. I love our system but it ain't perfect by any stretch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 With wages so low you qualify for public assistance I'm not surprised they'd have to be forced to work. I love our system but it ain't perfect by any stretch That's the problem. If you can live a decent (by their standards) lifestyle without working what's the motivation to seek work? Cut the subsidy and force them to figure it out. Work two, three jobs. People can be inherently lazy but they can also be very creative when survival mode kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Poverty is usually a choice but the left is not brave enough to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It's amazing how the average time it takes a person to find another job directly relates to the number of weeks their unemployment benefits last. It's almost like they found motivation to get off their @#%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It's amazing how the average time it takes a person to find another job directly relates to the number of weeks their unemployment benefits last. It's almost like they found motivation to get off their @#%. Unemployment is a lot different than welfare. Anyone I've known that's been on unemployment has only been on it for a relatively short time while in between jobs. Here's a look at the BLS numbers: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts