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 WhiteOneActual
I have been saying this for years.
Why should my tax dollars go to someone's drug habit?
Caviat-
I am all for legalization. The government shouldn't have influence over what I put into my body or the decisions I make about my health as long as it doesn't directly effect another citizen. I'm informed. If I want to smoke tobacco, I pay the tax of years of life. I shouldn't have to pay a monetary tax on the tobacco I smoke. If I don't want to wear my seat belt thats my problem. Am I going to kill an innocent person as I'm flying through the windshield? Likely no.
Since I've started paying taxes I've had an issue with welfare in general. It serves a purpose, for a period. As long as something is subsidized, you will continue to get more of it. Provide opportunities, not handouts. Welfare should be drug tested, have a maximum payout of three years (with monthly proof of active employment seeking), and allow the funded birth of one child during the duration of coverage. If you don't like the regulation, you're free to get off welfare.
Any public welfare should be closely monitored and limited.
If you can't find a job, the Army is always hiring- food, house, and health care included.
Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Originally posted by Fingersoup
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.
I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.
If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!
So, if someone is on disability because he/she is dying of cancer or some other type of painful ailment, you would want them cut off because they use drugs to cope with the pain?
Some disabled veteran wants to take a swig of whiskey and you'd want to cut him off?
Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Got my support. And while we're at it can we figure out a way to not reward welfare single moms producing extra children to gain more money per month? It's a sensitive area but it needs some attention.
There have been caps on this for about two decades now. Any new children do not get added to the cash case.
So much for not having stereotypes and preconceived notions.
Buried within the stimulus bill rammed through Congress by President Obama and the Democratic leadership are measures that dismantle the momentous 1996 welfare reforms and create a massive new infrastructure of dependency. According to Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who played a critical role in crafting the landmark legislation passed 12 years ago, the stimulus bill would increase welfare spending by close to $800 billion over 10 years, about $22,500 for every poor person in the United States and more than $10,000 for every family paying income taxes. Worst of all, it contains a new mechanism that virtually insures welfare spending and caseloads will rise in the future.
T IS CRUEL, Mr. President. It is corrupt. It is wasteful, it is unjust. And it is delusional.
What I am talking about? I am talking about the reports from Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems, Mickey Kaus and from Robert Rector that your stimulus bill is repealing welfare reform.
All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs. The bill will result in a return to the status quo ante 1996. And that is wrong.
I think it is fair to say that nowhere, Mr. President, did you say that you would be turning back the clock on welfare reform. I am talking about the rotted, dysfunctional welfare system that had been a national scandal for 30 years before President Bill Clinton signed off on the landmark reform bill in 1996.
The stimulus package will gut welfare reform even more than previously feared. That’s the conclusion of Mickey Kaus, a moderate Democrat who now appears to regret voting for Obama. The stimulus package will reward states that promote welfare dependency, even more than federal subsidies did before the 1996 welfare reform law, and reduce economic growth.
A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
Originally posted by Fingersoup
Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Originally posted by Fingersoup
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.
I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.
If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!
So, if someone is on disability because he/she is dying of cancer or some other type of painful ailment, you would want them cut off because they use drugs to cope with the pain?
Some disabled veteran wants to take a swig of whiskey and you'd want to cut him off?
No they would more than likely be on pain management paid for by the state. (you and me) - they wouldn't need to use recreational drugs. Where would you draw the line at recreational vs. medically beneficial? - I'm sure everyone would have their own opinion about that. Hell we can't even get people to agree med marijuana is beneficial because of plain old igornace and the stigma from of all those years of negitive propaganda. - Not going to turn this into a pro med marijuana thread.. back on topic:
I should of clarified, You want to take a chunk of my money for assistance, it better be for assistance - not so you can lay around and abuse drugs. ---
Does that seem more fair? --- It's not an attack on people for what they choose to do with their body, it's simply me not wanting to be forced to pay to enable their irresponsibilty - no one is forcing them to take assistance but with the assistance should come accountability.
Originally posted by dreamseeker
I don't agree with this why target one portion of the population. Not all on welfare are lazy some had circumstances that are beyond their control. My sister was fired from a job and she is 8 months pregant. She worked hard for 8 months and had to apply for welfare to get by.
Not all poor people do drugs. The people who do the most drugs are those who have the money to afford it so let's drugs tests all the rich as well!
Originally posted by Libertygal
Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Got my support. And while we're at it can we figure out a way to not reward welfare single moms producing extra children to gain more money per month? It's a sensitive area but it needs some attention.
There have been caps on this for about two decades now. Any new children do not get added to the cash case.
So much for not having stereotypes and preconceived notions.
In the bill that Obama signed shortly after being inaugurated, the bail out bill that no one read? Well, he reversed Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act. Fact.
He is spending more money on Welfare now, than ever before. Women *do* get WIC increases for every child they have. It's been over a year now since the bill was signed and the Welfare Reform Act was undone. Shame not more people know this.
www.washingtontimes.com...
Buried within the stimulus bill rammed through Congress by President Obama and the Democratic leadership are measures that dismantle the momentous 1996 welfare reforms and create a massive new infrastructure of dependency. According to Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who played a critical role in crafting the landmark legislation passed 12 years ago, the stimulus bill would increase welfare spending by close to $800 billion over 10 years, about $22,500 for every poor person in the United States and more than $10,000 for every family paying income taxes. Worst of all, it contains a new mechanism that virtually insures welfare spending and caseloads will rise in the future.
www.roadtothemiddleclass.com...
T IS CRUEL, Mr. President. It is corrupt. It is wasteful, it is unjust. And it is delusional.
What I am talking about? I am talking about the reports from Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems, Mickey Kaus and from Robert Rector that your stimulus bill is repealing welfare reform.
All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs. The bill will result in a return to the status quo ante 1996. And that is wrong.
I think it is fair to say that nowhere, Mr. President, did you say that you would be turning back the clock on welfare reform. I am talking about the rotted, dysfunctional welfare system that had been a national scandal for 30 years before President Bill Clinton signed off on the landmark reform bill in 1996.
www.openmarket.org...
The stimulus package will gut welfare reform even more than previously feared. That’s the conclusion of Mickey Kaus, a moderate Democrat who now appears to regret voting for Obama. The stimulus package will reward states that promote welfare dependency, even more than federal subsidies did before the 1996 welfare reform law, and reduce economic growth.
www.heritage.org...
A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
Actually, it is up to the states to decide how much new mothers will get for welfare babies. Just know this, they get funding of 4$ for every 1$ they spend. Why not encourage it?
Originally posted by Libertygal
Originally posted by dreamseeker
I don't agree with this why target one portion of the population. Not all on welfare are lazy some had circumstances that are beyond their control. My sister was fired from a job and she is 8 months pregant. She worked hard for 8 months and had to apply for welfare to get by.
Not all poor people do drugs. The people who do the most drugs are those who have the money to afford it so let's drugs tests all the rich as well!
Then she wouldn't have anything to worry about if she isn't doing illegal drugs, right? So why all the concern?
I hadn't heard of Obama signing something like that. Where can I read up on it?
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Jessicamsa
There is also state funded child care. Lots of it. Up to age 26 if the child is disabled or has special needs. Up to 13 otherwise.
Then, they have afterschool programs, too.
Surely, if you tired hard enough, you could find other moms in your area that would gladly trade two days of weekday childcare for two days of weekend childcare.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, rather than making excuses there are no ways at all.
[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Jessicamsa
I hadn't heard of Obama signing something like that. Where can I read up on it?
I provided 5 links in the post, and you can google for the information.
I am sorry to hear about your situation, I know it is a painful and difficult one to be in. I was also in an abusive relationship, and managed to get away. Thank goodness I was not married, and it didn't involve children.
I do have a daughter, and my grandaughter. She was in an abusive marriage and she left. She managed, barely, but she did. It wasn't easy, and no one said it was. She now has a new husband and they both make 78k a year plus, so I am quite happy for that.
Only for a short time did she have any government support though, even as bad as it was for her. She lost her home, and almost lost her child to chiild welfare services. She too was depressed over losing the father of her child, and the failed marriage, but I taught her to use the anger she felt to focus on herself, to fight to be better because it was the best paybacks she could get on him. She did, and it worked.
Everyones' situation is different, but I do agree that I see too many women with coifed hairdo's, salon nails, hair extensions, nice clothes, better cars than I have - spending their government checks and foodstamps. It really makes me angry.
I am all for helping people in need. People, like I outlined above, are not in need, they are in greed. It becomes a way of life for some.
[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]
btw, I was wanting to find the actual bill on the gov website, but I guess I didn't make myself clear lol. I'll try searching it down later. I just assumed you knew the bill already is all.