Why Work?

[Conservative65]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

The fact that you're asking tells us that you are a bitter malcontent that would rather not work.

Most people know why they work. Why they like to feel they have a purpose and a goal in life.

All of these programs have requirements - "entitlement" means you have to qualify -- many have to do with veterans, the disabled, and the children of poor families.

The problem is no one is entitled to something someone else earned and had taken away.

I'd rather be dead than to know I was a sorry piece of shit that demanded someone else support me.

 

[Conservative65]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

The fact that you're asking tells us that you are a bitter malcontent that would rather not work.

Most people know why they work. Why they like to feel they have a purpose and a goal in life.

All of these programs have requirements - "entitlement" means you have to qualify -- many have to do with veterans, the disabled, and the children of poor families.

Thank you. In other words these guys are whiners. And then they accuse others of whining.

Just suggest telling some sorry parent that someone else is no longer going to be forced to fund for his/her kids what that parent won't even do and you'll see whining.

 

[Moonglow]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

The fact that you're asking tells us that you are a bitter malcontent that would rather not work.

Most people know why they work. Why they like to feel they have a purpose and a goal in life.

All of these programs have requirements - "entitlement" means you have to qualify -- many have to do with veterans, the disabled, and the children of poor families.

The problem is no one is entitled to something someone else earned and had taken away.

I'd rather be dead than to know I was a sorry piece of shit that demanded someone else support me.

Is that why they killed Jesus?

 

[Conservative65]

Talking about Federal Income taxes.

Don't try and tell me the poor pay Fed Taxes. Oh an all those people collecting welfare sure don't pay taxes.

Freeloaders that the rest of us are paying for.

Tell. What happens when 55% of folks don't pay taxes. Who do you think will pay the difference??

No they don't. If you qualify for welfare, you don't pay and vice versa.

 

[Conservative65]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

The fact that you're asking tells us that you are a bitter malcontent that would rather not work.

Most people know why they work. Why they like to feel they have a purpose and a goal in life.

All of these programs have requirements - "entitlement" means you have to qualify -- many have to do with veterans, the disabled, and the children of poor families.

The problem is no one is entitled to something someone else earned and had taken away.

I'd rather be dead than to know I was a sorry piece of shit that demanded someone else support me.

Is that why they killed Jesus?

Who is they?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Only illegal immigrants and refugees deserve the benefits of welfare...

Need is the only true requirement comradistas..... Lol

 

[Davros]

The rest of you are required to pay taxes that in part provide a social safety net because we the voters said so. That's how representative government works.

If you can convince people that we ought to be more like Africa where there's real poverty and we ought to be a place where consequences of bad choices should be permanent, go ahead. But you can't. Because most voters appreciate the social safety net, whether or not they actually use it personally.

You mean voters who aren't paying the costs? That's easy to do when you're not paying.

All leeches appreciate the handouts. They get what the rest of us earn and buy without having to pay for it. Sorry pieces of shit.

And all you can do about it is whine.

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean voters who aren't paying the costs? That's easy to do when you're not paying.

All leeches appreciate the handouts. They get what the rest of us earn and buy without having to pay for it. Sorry pieces of shit.

And all you can do about it is whine.

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too fucking bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Ahhhh.... The military-industrial complex conspirazoids.......

If only unionized state "employees" were in charge of the nations defense...

 

[Flopper]

how about demanding unwed mothers give up the name of the father as a condition of receiving welfare??

Why, you're not likely to get any child support from them?

how about ensuring the money isnt going to strip clubs, for weed, and casinos?

How would you propose we do that?

what makes you say we are "not likely to get any support from them"????

2. make it illegal to use welfare funds for those things. duh

1. Currently, in order for the mother to receive Medicaid benefits, she has to agree to disclose the name of the father and assist in locating him. Passing another law would just be a waste of money. If the father can be identified, child support payments will be levied on the father.

2. Passing a law to make it illegal will do nothing without providing investigators to identify violators. Since most welfare receipts don't have the funds to buy pot and gamble in casino, it would be a waste of money. Even if you caught someone violating this law, what do you do? Cut them off welfare and then the state would have to care for kids which would be even more expensive.

 

[Andylusion]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

 

[Flash]

The Liberals have come up with an idea of a welfare state so that the sorry bastards that are too dumb and too lazy to provide for their own welfare can use the filthy ass government to steal what they are unable and unwilling to earn themselves.

Tony Soprano would be envious of the thievery.

 

[Flopper]

And all you can do about it is whine.

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too fucking bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

Maybe that's because there was no such thing as food stamps, WIC , MediCAID then. However, "provide for the general welfare" is in the constitution.

 

[Andylusion]

Ahhhh.... The military-industrial complex conspirazoids.......

If only unionized state "employees" were in charge of the nations defense...

If only? Only what? If unionized state employees ran the military, Alaska would be part of the Russian Federation by now? I'm confused by your statement.

 

[Andylusion]

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too fucking bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

Maybe that's because there was no such thing as food stamps, WIC , MediCAID then. However, "provide for the general welfare" is in the constitution.

Yes it is, and it means something entirely different from what you suggest.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.
As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government​

So let me sum that up for you.......


There is no power to provide for the "general welfare". And logically there shouldn't be, because anyone could claim anything, is to provide for the general welfare.

In essence, if the government has a blank check, to provide for the general welfare, then basically government has absolute unlimited power to do anything.

Now how anyone can be dumb enough to read any of the writing of the founding fathers of the country, and conclude they supported unlimited government power.... is beyond me.

"General Welfare"

What does that mean? If I take money from you, and give it to someone else, is that providing for the general welfare, or for a specific group welfare?

Does social security benefit me? No. It benefits others. Not me. Welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing.... taxing one group, for the benefit of another group, does not provide for the "general welfare" but rather "special interest welfare".

In short, all the programs and policies that you claim are justified by the 'general welfare', clause, are all actually prohibited by it.

 

[Flopper]

WHY WORK?

When you can sit on your ass and take advantage of up to 126 Welfare and anti poverty programs offered by the Gov't...................

In many states it is more than the minimum wage for those milking the tit of the Federal Gov't.

2 Studies...............ENJOY
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

What's in your wallet?

Why do 1000 people show up for 100 shitty jobs at a Walmart if no one wants to work?

Perhaps you actually don't know... which is odd to me.

I have to assume you have never had to deal with welfare and unemployment, and food stamps.

Now, some states are different, so I'm speaking about the rules here in Ohio.

In Ohio, for most benefits, you are required to have applied for at least one jobs every single week. If you do not apply for a job, your benefits are cut off.

So 900 of those people may know they have no chance of getting a job, and may even be applying for the job that they honestly don't want. Because applying for and not getting hired, will still net you government benefits.

The second reason, is that even if you apply for a job every week, eventually you run out of benefits, and you have to work. As long as you work for a few months, you can lose the job, and get back on benefits.

So some of those people are getting a job at Walmart, that they really don't want, with the intention of working just long enough to get back on benefits.

And thirdly, some of them actually want jobs. Walmart is actually a pretty good job. I know quite a few that worked at Walmart, who made good money from it.

Not every single person in that line, is a welfare queen. Many are people like me, who actually work for a living. Walmarts not that bad of a place to work. Between the tuition reimbursement, their management training program, and their employee stock purchase plan, it's really not nearly as bad a job as you morons on the left, claim it is.

Rules do vary by state because these are basically state run programs with federal matching funds which allows the feds to specify ground rules. Most programs have rules related to job search, training, and expiration of benefits. It's not quite as easy to get benefits from these programs as some people believe. In most states, a single visit to DHS allows you determine your eligibility and the rules.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too fucking bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

Maybe that's because there was no such thing as food stamps, WIC , MediCAID then. However, "provide for the general welfare" is in the constitution.

Provide for the general welfare is different than fund the general welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

how about demanding unwed mothers give up the name of the father as a condition of receiving welfare??

Why, you're not likely to get any child support from them?

how about ensuring the money isnt going to strip clubs, for weed, and casinos?

How would you propose we do that?

what makes you say we are "not likely to get any support from them"????

2. make it illegal to use welfare funds for those things. duh

1. Currently, in order for the mother to receive Medicaid benefits, she has to agree to disclose the name of the father and assist in locating him. Passing another law would just be a waste of money. If the father can be identified, child support payments will be levied on the father.

2. Passing a law to make it illegal will do nothing without providing investigators to identify violators. Since most welfare receipts don't have the funds to buy pot and gamble in casino, it would be a waste of money. Even if you caught someone violating this law, what do you do? Cut them off welfare and then the state would have to care for kids which would be even more expensive.

25-year-old Detroit $1M jackpot winner found dead
Amanda Clayton pled guilty in June for fraud - was still collecting food stamp benefits after she won a $1 million prize. Drug overdose suspected, says police.
BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Sunday, September 30, 2012, 8:58 AM

Detroit Lotto winner found dead. 

 

[Conservative65]

No, whining comes from those who demand someone else support them. I can't whine about wanting to keep something that's already mine.

Wrong. You are whining. The law says your tax is X%. So that money is not yours.

All Conservatives do is whine about taxes. And mostly it's whining about the tax that the fat cats have to pay. As if you'll ever be a fat cat. LOL.

I earned it. Seems you think some piece of shit like yourself getting a portion of it means something you didn't earn is yours.

Just suggest that something someone didn't earn be taken away and you'll see whining. You're confused thinking someone that earned it is wrong to want to keep it while someone that didn't is owed a portion of it.

Should military spending be cut in your opinion?

Hell yeah. Military spending is mostly about enriching fat cats at Lockheed, Monsonato, DuPont, and Haliburton not national defense.

Using your thought process, the law says that the current military spending is $X. Too fucking bad if you don't like it and that's using YOUR way of thinking. As predicted, it's OK and the law when it's something you support but wrong if you don't.

By the way, the Constitution delegates authority to spend on the military. Not one word in it mentions food stamps, WIC , MediCAID, healthcare, etc. I support what the Constitution actually says. You support only what you want it to say.

Maybe that's because there was no such thing as food stamps, WIC , MediCAID then. However, "provide for the general welfare" is in the constitution.

And you assume that means social welfare?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have access to many luxuries and pleasures that welfare recipients have no access to. Enjoy that instead of whining that they are able to live.

As I said, if you have ideas for welfare reform other than do away with it because "it's not fair. Make them pay the consequences they deserve. And I want to keep my whole salary" I'm all ears.

If it were up to me, for one, nobody would get a dime of government money until they were fixed first. If you are a woman, you have to get your tubes tied. If you are a guy applying for public assistance, you need to get a vasectomy.

Poor people may not have luxuries yet, but think of the stress they don't have to suffer like working people do:

You can have as many kids as you want unlike parents who have to limit the size of their family.

You don't have to worry about paying utility bills.

You don't have to worry about paying rent or a mortgage.

You don't have to worry about getting medical care for you and your family.

If you get sick, you don't have to worry how long you will be laid up for. Your check and benefits don't change.

You don't have to worry about having enough to eat or clipping out coupons to make your grocery dollars stretch further.