Does welfare make people lazy?

[ClosedCaption]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

 

[bedowin62]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

silly leftard; it's silly to think some wont take the easy route if you let them.

gullible, naive left-wing idiots

 

[ClosedCaption]

"JOBS HAVE TO EXIST"
millions of Hispanics come here why?
They have a work ethic.

To get paid $4 an hour

Yes, the unskilled and uneducated get paid minimum wage, not $4 a hour.
And the Mexicans around here get paid $8-10 a hour.
Because they have MORE SKILLS than many Americans.
Something about supply and demand.
We have a large supply of unskilled and uneducated Americans and no demand for them.
Something about personal responsibility for you to educate yourself for WHAT THE MARKET DEMANDS.

Hispanics come here to make more money. $4 an hour is more money. Many dont get minimum wage until they are legal.

So you asked why do hispanics come here. For $4 an hour jobs which is more than they can make at home and for the chance to become Americans and earn even more money.

You wont find one hispanic outside of Home Depot getting $8-10 an hour

 

[bedowin62]

The $5 trillion you wasted on Iraq would have paid for yours AND mine. Quit giving America's wealth to foreign countries, and start taking care of Americans, idiot.
And another thing, there are far more people that have paid into SS that never lived long enough to collect, than have collected.
And another thing, the cons have raided over $2 trillion from SS. The interest from that alone would pay for mine AND yours.
http://http://angrybearblog.com/2013/12/social-security-trust-fund-ratios-solvency-and-the-reagan-raid.html

None of those points would have made social security not a welfare program.

Well first idiot, I was against Iraq, so I don't know what your point is.

And as for your claim that it's one party and not both parties doing it to us, what can I say, you're just an idiot. It's all of them.

Same old lame con bullshit. All you got is childish insults. Try debating on an adult level, with facts. Here's some......

Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt.


By cutting taxes for the wealthy he left the government with less money. We were 900 billion in debt when he came into office and 2.8 trillion in debt when he left. Do the math.


The Iran/Contra affair. If wingnuts believe that Benghazi(drink drink, gulp) is a scandal,they should read up on Iran/Contra a little bit sometime. Now that, my friends, was a scandal.


Under Ronald Reagan unemployment went from 7.5% to 11%. It eventually started falling again with the help of low paying jobs. This happened in part because large American companies started shipping jobs oversees and cutting out the American worker.


Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis, and, one could argue, contributed to the devastating crack epidemic that engulfed inner city America in the eighties. Sadly, it is a scourge that is still ravaging some African- American families today.


Ronald Reagan did more to destroy unions and the American middle class than any other President in history. (Google Reagan PATCO for an example.)


Ronald Reagan raided the Social Security Trust Fund and raised the social security tax on the middle class to fund his scheme.


Finally, Ronald Reagan and his government funded the Taliban and Afghan freedom fighters so that they could fight the "evil" Soviets.

http://http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2014/02/rethinking-reagan.html#.Uyrvc6JuK9U

III: How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared….

Exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen ? Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus
It's not the liberals that have been trying to destroy Social Security for the last 70 years, it's the cons. So your "both parties are doing it", is just a con job.

george soros tells you what to think; you're pathetic

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

silly leftard; it's silly to think some wont take the easy route if you let them.

gullible, naive left-wing idiots

Thats why we dont let them. Are you refuting what I'm saying about work requirements? Yes or No?

 

[bedowin62]

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

silly leftard; it's silly to think some wont take the easy route if you let them.

gullible, naive left-wing idiots

Thats why we dont let them. Are you refuting what I'm saying about work requirements? Yes or No?

obama loosened work requirements you idiot; and i already know where you're going. states HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO ASK for the work requirements to not be followed when OBAMA EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[bedowin62]

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.
The Heritage Foundation explains that:

“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”

In the negotiations that preceded the passage of this landmark legislation — in which I participated heavily — then-Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) was particularly suspicious that future HHS secretaries might dilute the work requirement, just as the administration has done. He worked overtime with counsel to make sure that education and training would not be used to substitute for the work provision. “I don’t want anyone going to a truck drivers school that advertises on a matchbook cover and avoiding work,” he told me. Now the administration has done just what Lott feared and the act prohibited.


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[bedowin62]

Obama distorts facts in effort to expand welfare state - Washington ...



washingtonexaminer.com/obama-distorts...expand-welfare.../2504276*




Aug 7, 2012 - President Obama has a long and well-documented record of opposing welfare reform. When he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama spoke ...

 

[Spiderman]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

Yeah a few on line job applications a week Now that's what i call hard work.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

Yeah a few on line job applications a week Now that's what i call hard work.

So, why say they arent doing anything when clearly you know the procedures? I mean, why lie about it then cop to it and dismiss it?

 

[hangover]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

Yeah a few on line job applications a week Now that's what i call hard work.

Politicians have to work really hard about 120 days a year. Keeping up with the lies they've told is really tough.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Another fine example to illustrate the point.....
NEW YORK....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Clarksdale Housing Project shortly before demolition....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Is this a thread about construction?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Is this a thread about construction?

I don't expect you to have the brains to connect the dots..well actually...you do have the brains. But your willingness to lie to yourself blocks those synapses from completing their connections.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Is this a thread about construction?

I don't expect you to have the brains to connect the dots..well actually...you do have the brains. But your willingness to lie to yourself blocks those synapses from completing their connections.

Jesus with all the bluster. Whats your point?

 

[Spiderman]

Except you have to have record showing you are looking for a job if you dont have one sooo...what you said is...uh....not reality

Yeah a few on line job applications a week Now that's what i call hard work.

So, why say they arent doing anything when clearly you know the procedures? I mean, why lie about it then cop to it and dismiss it?

Do you really think spending 10 minutes a week on line to fill out a few bogus job apps worthy of hundreds of dollars a week?

Any person who actually worked for a living would call that getting paid to do nothing.

 

[kaz]

How does that statement change anything?

BTW, they were never "borrowing from SS," they just taxed and spent it. There was never anything saved to borrow.

I was wondering the same thing, since all I did was copy your statement, which also had no meaning.

False. The money was replaced by US bonds.

That was a patently good move.

And actually added liquidity to the program.

So go down to the bank and try that. List that you have $1 million in assets and a $1 million debt because you loaned yourself $1 million See if they consider that to have added "liquidity" to your financial situation...

 

[kaz]

I was wondering the same thing, since all I did was copy your statement, which also had no meaning.

False. The money was replaced by US bonds.

Social Security taxes are paid into the General Fund. Social security checks are paid from the General Fund. Government issued itself treasuries. So according to you, if I loan myself $1 million, I have a $1 million asset and a $1 million debt. Bull, I have nothing. Government or anyone else loaning themselves money isn't an asset.

Government took your social security payments and immediately spent the money. Nothing was ever saved, there was never an asset. They just wrote down how much they spent, and you gave the bills to your children. Both to pay social security, and to pay back the t-bills for the money that your generation spent as it came in. Fine, but you don't get to call it an asset, it's us paying your bills.

Thanks...

You are welcome~!

However, I do blame your parents for not giving you a college education in economics (or history~hint~my generation did not create SS).

Actually, you did. FDR created it as a supplement to the elderly's income and it didn't start paying until they were near the end of their life expectancy. Your generation turned social security into what it is, a retirement plan to span decades.