It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Slackerwire, that is a good question.
I am not against welfare, but I think it should be very limited and rationed. One good thing, about the only one the Clinton did, was that he made it to where a person could only be on welfare for two years without working... After that point, they are cut off and have to either find a job, or live off of family members. Whatever floats their boat.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Slacker, I would tend to agree with you. Of course, I am from a state, Texas, where even if you do get assistance, it is bare minimum. I have seen mothers who had three children only get 600 dollars a month in welfare benefits.
Originally posted by slackerwire
Do those mothers complain that they don't get enough?
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
To the welfare department? I don't know. However, they certainly do complain about it to outside individuals.
Originally posted by spinstopshere
Welfare is needed as a safety net but is abused beyond belief in society today. Then selfish people want even more out of the taxpayers because "They deserve it". My family had to use welfare for about 4 months but they got off it and my father got a better job. Why can't more people do that?
[edit on 14-8-2007 by spinstopshere]
Originally posted by slackerwire
Even though I know it will never happen, I am a form supporter of mandatory birth control and drug testing the moment anyone signs up for any form of public assistance.
If someone can't get their life together in a month or 2, they are a lost cause and don't deserve another dime from the taxpayer wallet.
Originally posted by lombozo
Hey slackerwire. I have to give you props, you're not afraid to go out on a limb with your beliefs. I admire that in a person.
I agree with the mandatory drug testing part of your post. Mandatory birth control - That one I am torn. I understand your point, and it is valid, however there are extenuating circumstances in alot of cases.
Saying that someone is a lost cause if they can't get their life together in a month or two is a little strong in my opinion. Well actually I don't agree with you at all on that one. There are alot of cases, that I personally have witnessed where ALOT more time was needed than that to get back on track.
Originally posted by lombozo
You ask what type of extenuating circumstances. I'll use an example that I have witnessed. There was a young couple who lived in our neighborhood. Nicest paople you could ever want to meet. Just bought a home, and were trying to start a family. He made a good living. Out of the blue, the company he worked for went out of business and he was jobless. It didn't take long for their savings to be depleted, and they had to go and apply for government assistance. Finally after about 6 months, he found a job, and eventually they got back on their feet. During their 'downtime', she managed to get pregnant. They have both said more than once, that knowing they were pregnant is what kept them focused, and sane.
There is a BIG difference between a convicted felon, and someone down on their luck, so I disagree with you on the voting comment as well.
Originally posted by Diseria
It's this 'sink or swim' mentality of capitalism that I loathe, detest, despise...
Originally posted by Diseria
It's this 'sink or swim' mentality of capitalism that I loathe, detest, despise...