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.

 

Romney to welfare mothers: ‘You need to go to work’ !!

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Does this guy actually believe he is going to be a god on his own private planet? Not anti-Mormon, since I never met a Mormon I didn't respect and like. I imagine that most of them are unaware of this idea. But, someone who actually believes that they will be a god might try to act like a Caesar.




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


One question: If he said it last January, than what importance does it hold now? Absolutely nil is the answer. How about focusing on what they're saying NOW instead of looking at what they said a bloody year ago. You can do that once we've figured out where we are going right now. The past may only be truly analyzed once the present has run it's course.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
There aren't enough jobs, the government created this monster.
Exactly. The government and all of it's stupid laws and programs are totally screwing up the market place. The government needs to get out of the market place. It's only job in the market should be to ensure a level and safe playing field with no favoritism shown any group in any way. Workplace safety should be handled locally not federally.


How do you ensure a 'safe and fair' playing field if regulations are only at the local level, but corporations have political power that spans beyond national boundaries?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
By the way, I believe that in the Bible God is portrayed a socialist to some degree.

In the New Testament this idea is particularly strong.

With all due respect to Mormons (again, I never met a Mormon I didn't like), Joseph Smith's writings are a bit too American for me to believe that they are divinely inspired. That is my opinion. But, again, I also respect the majority of Mormons I know and would not judge all of them by what I see in Mitt Romney.

My problem with Romney is not his religion, but his allegiance to the 1% which is totalistic, along with his lack of compassion for humans and animals. He seems like a bad human being, and I am terrified that the disgusting American people will elect him President.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I would have respected Romney's point of view if his wife had worked one day in her entire life.! Wasn't he the one who said that his wife's job of staying home and raising the kids more important than his?! Friggen hypocrite.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by sdocpublishing
 


Wrong we dont SPEND anything on corporate welfare.
Tax breaks are not giving corporations money. Tax breaks allow corporations to KEEP MONEY THEY EARNED!
We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. That creates the incentive for corporations to buy political influence and carve out the breaks for themselves. Eliminate the corporate income tax and the economy will kickstart. Eliminate the regulatory and confiscatory hold the government has on business and they will have no reason to corupt government.
Eliminate the personal income tax and all capital gains taxes as well. Any confiscation of a persons labor against their will is slavery.

National retail sales tax with rebate checks up to the poverty level. An equal particapitory tax that limits the ability of the government to expand outside its Constitutional limits.


corporations do not have constitutional rights, humans do (until the citizens united court case)
please look at third world countries where this has occured or is occuring today, show me one country where the general population have benefited from what you propose.
corporations are business entities, they have no rights, they have priviledges granted to them to carry on business as long as that business is beneficial to the majority of the people as a whole.
i find it facinating that you think we should be in the service of corporations, instead of the corporations being in the service of the general population in which it conducts business.
if the wealthy "job creators" are so beneficial to the general population, they could always start up a personally owned business, where the losses as well as the profits are borne by themselves alone. and if other wealthy people want to join them in that business, they too, will put up their own personal fortune and take responsibility for their losses, as well as their profits.
as with the rest of the people who make bad financial decisions and lose everything, so too can the wealthy do the same.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthOej
 


How does a corporation corupt a government that cannot exert power over business?
More importantly WHY would it do so?
If a business has the ability (access to the official force of government) they will use it to stiffle competition and exert power over their customers to level the business cycle.
If the government cannot exert force over the competition nor the customer base then the corporation will have no use for government.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
I would have respected Romney's point of view if his wife had worked one day in her entire life.! Wasn't he the one who said that his wife's job of staying home and raising the kids more important than his?! Friggen hypocrite.

he was born to a multi-millionaire, lived a multi-millionaires son's life, became a multi-millionaire himself. he has no personal knowledge or life-lessons of the bottom 99% of the american population. but apparently people that have struggled with putting food on their own table, and living paycheck to paycheck, say he is the best person to represent them in the white house. i think a little ATS "deny ignorance" could be used with those people.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I find it facinating that you have assumed that I support unlimited corporate power.
I dont and have never said that.
Corporations are formed to sheild the owners from personal liability for business activities.
There is nothing wrong with this. It creates an entity for legal purposes and nothing more.
You are right corporations do not have rights but the Citizens United case did not give them rights either.
The people who own or invest in corporations DO have rights and what all of that amounts to is the ability of those people to use corporate funds to support the causes they wish to support. In the current situation this can only be expected. Why do you think its okay for the government to be able to target specific corporations or lines of business with regulations and yet those busineses have no means to oppose that?
What I am for is for government to have little to no regulatory power over business. Thats not because I want corporations to be all powerful. Its because I fear and distrust government WAY more than corporations. Corporations can be taken to court with a reasonable chance of acheiving success. Government....not so much.
Corporations can be avoided by not purchasing their products. Government...not so much.
Corporations can be destroyed by systematic avoidance of their products and services. Government....maybe.
The above situation is even more assured if Corporations cannot use the Government to gain power. If they are compeltely at the mercy of the shifting winds of the market then they will only remain viable if they constantly innovate and stay ahead of that market. Corporations use their influence to purchase government control so that they can mitigate the market forces. That way they dont have to be innovative and agile. They ineffect become very government like and thus plodidng, stupid and inefficent.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01


What I am for is for government to have little to no regulatory power over business. Thats not because I want corporations to be all powerful. Its because I fear and distrust government WAY more than corporations. Corporations can be taken to court with a reasonable chance of acheiving success. Government....not so much.
Corporations can be avoided by not purchasing their products. Government...not so much.


So in essence, your philosophy is that a company that exists SOLELY to expand it's profit margin at an ever and infinitely increasing level, no matter the destruction it does to its surrounding environs, is something you trust more than a system of laws and regulations meant to give you a level of protection unheard of throughout history?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Yeah, nothing like seperating mother from child, how they love to do that.


Separating? What for a few hours while you earn a living?

I have not had a weekend with my kid in over 3 yrs. I'd love for them to pay for child care so I could get a better job that works with her schedule. I have had to turn down better offers because of the schedule issue. As a single parent I have no one that can take my daughter to school, pick her up, feed her or anything so I have to do it all on my own.

PLEASE pay for my child care so I can support my family better... I still do not care for the guy either way though because he is just another corporate puppet...



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
I would have respected Romney's point of view if his wife had worked one day in her entire life.! Wasn't he the one who said that his wife's job of staying home and raising the kids more important than his?! Friggen hypocrite.


She is not on state-welfare.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Not being able to afford daycare is a big reason some women can't work....it would solve that problem.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
What they NEED to do, is make it a criminal offense to get pregnant anytime over 9 months after getting on Welfare (this is to allow for the fact that someone who is pregnant may then find themselves on Welfare). For some people, getting pregnant (for a bigger welfare check) IS their job! I can't think of a better way of sending the message that this kind of thing will NOT be tolerated by the taxpayer. Make this "occupation" a criminal act when you are on the taxpayer's dime.

Not to mention, they need to re-evaluate some other things. For example, for a two month period a few years back, my wife and I were BOTH laid off (back when the economy sucked even more). She was out, and that wasn't too bad, but when I was too, it really sucked living off 2 unemployment checks for those two months, while we busted our butts to find work (and we did, but took 2 months to find something decent).

Yet, even with BOTH of us on unemployment, we STILL made too much ($250 too much) to qualify for food stamps. Are you frickin' kidding me? Really?

Luckily, that didn't last for long, and we were able to find meaningful and decent-paying jobs relatively quickly, but it really showed us how the system is a bit broken, and really needs to focus on being a hand up and not a hand out.


Not being able to afford daycare is a big reason some women can't work....it would solve that problem.


Sure, but at OUR expense (the taxpayers). Like another said, I've got my OWN bills, let alone taking care of someone else's kids because some idiot likes hitting the clubs, not using birth control, and popping out a baby every 9 months to get a bigger check. Daycare is more expensive than someone would make working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job. Believe me or not, do the math, you'll see. Apparently Romney didn't do it. A Republican for bigger government? Heck, even liberals ought to be TERRIFIED of the idea of state-mandated child care....scary stuff.

Lets face it, Romney has ZERO idea what the common person goes through in daily life. Obama's a do-nothing President, so either way, we're pretty much screwed for 4 more years...and all because the American public continues to let the mass media say who they can and cannot vote for.
edit on 16-4-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
What they NEED to do, is make it a criminal offense to get pregnant anytime over 9 months after getting on Welfare (this is to allow for the fact that someone who is pregnant may then find themselves on Welfare). For some people, getting pregnant (for a bigger welfare check) IS their job! I can't think of a better way of sending the message that this kind of thing will NOT be tolerated by the taxpayer. Make this "occupation" a criminal act when you are on the taxpayer's dime.


So you want to make a Big Government Federal law which incriminates someone getting pregnant?

So, what, forced abortions? Which part of your 'small government' ethos is that again?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



So you want to make a Big Government Federal law which incriminates someone getting pregnant?


If they are receiving welfare, absolutely.


So, what, forced abortions? Which part of your 'small government' ethos is that again?


When did I say that? I never even mentioned the word abortion. No, not forced abortions, but enforcing a criminal penalty of jail time (a fine is useless, as she wouldn't have the money). Up to the criminal if she wants to have the child, just as it is now. If she does, some options as if she were jailed for any other crime (i.e. placement with a family member, etc., etc.). I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but personally, I'm a bigger fan of adoption, as there are plenty of willing adopting parents out there.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I was under the impression US had no jobs?...

Fix that problem first.


No, see, there ARE jobs in the US. You just have to actually look for them. The stupid and lazy are spreading this lie.

"Oh, but there are no jobs in my career field!"

Time to learn a new skill set, broski. Just because you can't find a job in your career field, doesn't mean there are no jobs in the US.

I've gone from baggin groceries, to construction, to IT, and now going in to law enforcement. You have to have the ability to allow yourself to grow and learn something new.

I love that Romney said this. I believe full on that these welfare mothers need to take more responsibility for their lives and their family. Trying to survive solely on welfare is NOT doing that. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to aid, they do. But they need to do everything they can to get out of that situation. Often, people become complacent when they're getting free money.

reply to post by Gazrok
 


Actually, instead of jail time, just cut all funding with a 1 year suspension. After a year and she still needs welfare, she'll get it after a thorough background check.
edit on 4/16/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

I've gone from baggin groceries, to construction, to IT, and now going in to law enforcement. You have to have the ability to allow yourself to grow and learn something new.


Damned skippy!


You have to be able and willing to adapt to the job market to be employed. Simple as that.

I've been laid off repeatedly at different jobs as the economy tanked and work dried up, but each time, it's been a different type of industry, etc., and yet I've been able to increase my salary each time.

You have to be willing to go outside a narrowly defined industry or market.


Actually, instead of jail time, just cut all funding with a 1 year suspension. After a year and she still needs welfare, she'll get it after a thorough background check.


The problem there, is that the kid suffers during this time. With jail time, the kid has to go somewhere to be cared for, while mom re-evaluates her baby-maker career choice.[


One question: If he said it last January, than what importance does it hold now? Absolutely nil is the answer. How about focusing on what they're saying NOW instead of looking at what they said a bloody year ago.


Of course it's relevant. Like Kerry before, Romney is a massive flip-flopper...and this shows he simply says what he feels people want to hear. So, if he has no consistency in his message, how can we trust he simply isn't a corporate tool whose opinion is for sale? Simple, we can't...not one bit.


edit on 16-4-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


You are totally confused....nobody wants to hold them down with a boot...we want them to be responsible for themselves...not expect society to cover their losses.

The boot on their throat is from their government masters that enslaved them with "social programs" instead if lifting them up.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Then will have to add that CPS has her under constant surveillance. She'll have to check in with them monthly or there will be monthly house visits to ensure the child is safe. Something like that.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join