Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent PER HOUSEHOLD....

[Snotrocket]

What kind of snotty remark was that Snot? And reading is not that difficult. You only biith and have no ability to resolve. Thats it, you have no resolve. Stop your biithing and pats on the back for more silly comments. Do you perhaps need a good poke? i don't poke bears.

simple - "don't poke the bear" was a friendly warning....divemaster was OBVIOUSLY seeing red (that means mad) and you OBVIOUSLY don't have the good sense to avoid his wrath (that means stupid).

If my "resolve" isn't up to your standards - well that's fine - I don't say what I say to impress you. If you only see my outcry of concern for my country as biitching - so be it - I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. You're a hopeless sycophant...and, I suspect, a TROLL as well.

And, in typical liberal misogynistic style, you get personal with me - assuming that I need a "good poke" to soothe my hysteria no doubt. A new low even for you. You libtards can try to control your female followers by shifting focus to their "lady parts" but, I can assure you, it doesn't work on a conservative thinking woman.

Thanks to all who defended the good name - Snotrocket! You're the best

[mdcentral]

I agree with the others, a hand up, not a hand out. Flipping burgers is better than doing nothing. There are jobs out there, but they have to put forth some effort in looking. I was just reading an ar ticle about a businessman in Mississippi who can't get anyone to work for him. He said the ones that did apply would only agree to go to work for him for cash because they didn't want to lose their social security benefits. If I was him, I would have reported every person who told him that.

I agree I worked at an Olive Garden as a host for almost nine years. I was happy to do so, it was a job and the wages were enough to put food on the table. Because I was willing to do that we never needed a hand out. It is not about the kind of job you have it is more about being willing to live with in your income. People want to live this lavish life style and often spend more than they have with out thinking about Gee what if I lost my job? That kind of thinking is how so many find them selves struggling if they loose their job.

[simple]

simple - "don't poke the bear" was a friendly warning....divemaster was OBVIOUSLY seeing red (that means mad) and you OBVIOUSLY don't have the good sense to avoid his wrath (that means stupid).

If my "resolve" isn't up to your standards - well that's fine - I don't say what I say to impress you. If you only see my outcry of concern for my country as biitching - so be it - I REALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. You're a hopeless sycophant...and, I suspect, a TROLL as well.

And, in typical liberal misogynistic style, you get personal with me - assuming that I need a "good poke" to soothe my hysteria no doubt. A new low even for you. You libtards can try to control your female followers by shifting focus to their "lady parts" but, I can assure you, it doesn't work on a conservative thinking woman.

Thanks to all who defended the good name - Snotrocket! You're the best

My apologies SnotRocket, I really didn't know what your message meant especially with your comment about me not answering your question; and I thought I did. No more of the name calling and slinging remarks about intelligence. Again, I don't know what a libtard is except perhaps a rude slanted remark of people who actually have a challenge which isn't cool on any level in retrospect. As far as your other descriptive remarks, I dismiss them, I know I obviously pissed you off.

I've had the wrath of Dive and he/she has little to offer on actual reality; mostly seems to be a conspirator. But thanks for the heads up!

[Snotrocket]

I agree with the others, a hand up, not a hand out. Flipping burgers is better than doing nothing. There are jobs out there, but they have to put forth some effort in looking. I was just reading an article about a businessman in Mississippi who can't get anyone to work for him. He said the ones that did apply would only agree to go to work for him for cash because they didn't want to lose their social security benefits. If I was him, I would have reported every person who told him that.

You're right Cajun - there are jobs out there...but they're few and far between. My 17 year old son was thrilled to finally get an interview for a job at a new pizza place going in near us. The job.....dancing on the sidewalk of a busy street dressed like a slice of pizza! Winter is coming but he's willing to do it. Unfortunately, about 30 other kids applied for the same job.

I have an idea.... Why not change the welfare system from a hand out to a hand up. With regards to requirements. If you are inclined to ask for welfare you must agree to do these items. 1. You must hold down at least a 20 hour per week job. 2. You must also spend 10 hours per week helping in shelters, animal humane centers or even picking up garbage on road crews. 3. You must spend the remaining 10 hours seeking fulltime employment. All three above you would have to show prove to the welfare office each month before you would receive the following months help. That would make a regular 40 hour week. I think with those types of requirements our welfare system could become much smaller and much more productive.

Just a thought. Blessings, MC.

Hey mdcentral - I waited tables at OG when I was in college....still have the bow-tie around here somewhere!

I like your idea although I don't know how realistic it is. I do agree that there should be hoops (somewhat uncomfortable hoops) that must be jumped through to obtain public funds. Nothing will motivate people to fend for themselves faster than having to deal with bureaucratic BS and mandatory requirements of public service. Good post.

[Snotrocket]

It is disheartening. However, I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the original article that said it comes out to "$60,000" spent per household on welfare" That does NOT mean everyone on welfare is getting $60,000/year. Or even $60k worth of housing or food or TANF or Childcare...I think it means that in order to get the benefits to the largest amount of people EVER on Welfare, it "costs", when averaged out amongst household recipients, to $60k to get it done, whether it's the employees paid to do it or whatever goes into getting that much money from the taxpayers to subsidize everything in America. grrr.

It's still out of control and I am not pleased with $60,000. Just wanted to point out, correct me if I am wrong, that this is not saying that each family on welfare receives an average of $60k....because I truly think that's what a lot of people are thinking when reading this. It's what I thought at first too. Just wanted to clarify.

JREDinars - I agree with you that the figure of $60,000 is the "average" - not every household is getting that much. I would assume those with minor children get more for food, housing, healthcare, childcare, etc. Also, it would make sense that someone living where the cost-of-living is very high (NY or California) would require more than someone here in the midwest.

I don't want anyone to go without - every American should be well fed and have their basic needs met. To me, it seems that the system has gotten so out of control and extreme - so ripe for fraud and abuse - it no longer resembles "welfare".....it just reeks of "redistribution of wealth". And, as MyCadillac said (sorta)....it makes no sense to pull the cart if there's a nice, cozy seat in the cart.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Snotrocket