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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
im pretty sure Corporate Welfare beats the pants off Domestic welfare, any day.

More "Classism" and twighlight language with the State wanting to take the kids away.......

just remember: Corporate Welfare costs more to taxpayers than foodstamps to the little people.




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rainbowbear
 

Both should end. That still won't make you happy though. The thing you liberals never seem to get about corporations and all other businesses is that THEY DON"T EVER ACTUALLY PAY TAXES. They only collect taxes from individuals. Only individuals ever actually pay taxes. Companies just raise prices to compensate for the cost of the taxes.

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



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZDay care would not cost the state more than paying for the other benefits. What it would do is dump hundreds of thousands of people into the workplace...a workplace that is already suffering from high unemployment rates as it is. What jobs does he expect them to do? A lot of those welfare mothers have very little education, and jobs aren't exactly easy to come by at the moment. They would likely end up as WORKING POORS.
Ending up as working poor, is a step up from being among the non-working poor.


Originally posted by MrXYZEnd result?

- Kids see their moms less
- Daycare providers make a fortune (somebody check his donors list...but of course we can't track SuperPACs)
- States save a bit most likely
- Welfare recipients turn into working poors


- Yep, my mother worked 2 jobs after my father was murdered and we saw her a whole lot less than before, but she never went on welfare... ever. That would only have happened had she been physically unable to work, or dead.
- Yeah, well one person staying at home on full welfare to care for one or two kids is pretty damn expensive as well.
- Again, I say the working poor is better than non-working poor.

I think anyone on public welfare should at the very least be required to participate in community volunteer programs. This would be a great way to provide assistance to the elderly at home and in nursing homes, day care centers, animal shelters, etc. I'm sure there are many ways their services could be put to use within their communities to earn their public assistance and would be a great deal better for their children to see them being productive, rather than not.

All the wrongs about corporate welfare, do not negate all the wrongs about public welfare.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 

There is so much about your post that i want to star as a show of support, but it is negated by this:




I think anyone on public welfare should at the very least be required to participate in community volunteer programs. This would be a great way to provide assistance to the elderly at home and in nursing homes, day care centers, animal shelters, etc. I'm sure there are many ways their services could be put to use within their communities to earn their public assistance and would be a great deal better for their children to see them being productive, rather than not.
This should all be paid work. Your idea would create a state subsidized labor pool in those areas eliminating paid jobs.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


welfare is a tough issue for America. On 1 hand you have babies-toddlers who truly need one of their parents until pre school, which at this point cash aid should end. On the other hand if a woman has more then 1 kids while on welfare I would say all signs point to a male in the mothers life, this is hard to prove but if a woman keeps having kids on welfare the cash aid needs to end, I know for a fact because I know woman who do this, keep having babies to stay on cash aid-welfare. Welfare truely needs reformed but not ended. Many people use it for the right reasons and it can be used as a temporary assistance.
But factor in Americas unemployment and people on welfare I don't see welfare attack as a good thing.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


i think you should relax with the ASSumptions and labels, ok? im no expert and I doubt you are.

example: judging by your avatar id say you are a Patriotic, Corporate dupe with a wicked Nationalism streak.

Does that seem like an accurate assumption of your character? Doubtful.

Either way, you may be right, but you are incorrect in youre ASSumptions.....



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I've been a single mother for over 7 years. Also, I have always worked. Even when my son and I qualified for public assistance, my pride would not let me take it. Instead, I made everything stretch, pinched pennies and personally did without some things to make all of the ends meet and to keep our heads above water. And we survived. This was far from the hardest thing I ever had to do as a single mother.

The hardest aspect was dropping off my month-old baby for someone else to watch while I went to work.

I think if Mr. Romney wants to talk about giving women the dignity of a job, he should think about this:

The Dignity of Knowing You Raised Your Kids Right!

I couldn't give a rat's patootie what happens to my job. My focus is on my child and doing right by him. Thusfar, I seem to be able to pull off both, but I can tell you right now that if I had to choose between the two, I'd let the job go to do what is right by my son.

You can't put a price on good parenting and proper upbringing.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
One of the biggest problems with welfare is Romney's religion. Polygamy in Utah and LDS Mormons do practice spiritual polygamy!!! If you do your study's on it you'll find that "THEY REALLY DO PRACTICE IT", though the mainstream christians totally condemn it.

Just check out the fundamentalist (LDS truly related) polygamist and how the 2nd, 3rd, 4th "stay at home wives" take advantage of the welfare system.

Though mainstream LDS say there is no tie - in to THEIR brother's and sister's in the "true faith". So, you will find that Romney has relatives that were indeed in that type of welfare system

But does it all mean being that the book of mormon is truly and fraud and that on ALL angles the book of mormon have been consigned as a fraud by many of the top scholars in the country, archeological scholars, scientific (DNA)
Linguistic (King James Bible verses in the book of mormon). let alone the problems dealing with seeing the plates with spiritual eyes instead of actual real eyes. Plus the fact that Joseph used a stone in a hat when members were told it was a breast plate in the bible.

Why is that a tie in you ask? Because there would be no massive polygamy welfare problem if Utah if Romney's religion told the TRUTH about the Book of Mormon fraud !

So if Romney gets elected what will he be reading in the White House? The book of mormon FRAUD ! And HIS TEMPLE allegiance will be with the advancement of mormonism (remember book of mormon FRAUD) and TEMPLE FRAUD (based on masonry which DOES NOT go back to Solomon's Temple)
edit on 16-4-2012 by thetiler because: spelling



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Romney can put whoever he wants to work, but not before he finds a job himself.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

He says he wants to give them dignity.

What's wrong with that ?


Slow down there cowboy...wouldn't that infer that staying home to raise your children is niether "work" nor "dignified"?

Isn't this where the left starts a media storm about how Mitt Romney thinks there is no "Dignity" in being a stay at home mother? And that it is not "work"?


edit on 16-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Yeah, nothing like seperating mother from child, how they love to do that.
Stay home with your child, that's fine. Just say NO to stealing from the taxpayers.


Yet no anguish over Goldman Sachs stealing trillions in tax payer bailouts? Then get tax credits on top of that.

Nice Psyop though.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 

There is so much about your post that i want to star as a show of support, but it is negated by this:




I think anyone on public welfare should at the very least be required to participate in community volunteer programs. This would be a great way to provide assistance to the elderly at home and in nursing homes, day care centers, animal shelters, etc. I'm sure there are many ways their services could be put to use within their communities to earn their public assistance and would be a great deal better for their children to see them being productive, rather than not.
This should all be paid work. Your idea would create a state subsidized labor pool in those areas eliminating paid jobs.


What if there are not enough jobs to go around?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 





Ending up as working poor, is a step up from being among the non-working poor.


No it isn't!! If you can live of welfare, why would you voluntarily give that up for a working poor job...one that by its very definition doesn't make enough for you to live on? Read the definition of working poor!!



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Yeah, nothing like seperating mother from child, how they love to do that.
Stay home with your child, that's fine. Just say NO to stealing from the taxpayers.


Yet no anguish over Goldman Sachs stealing trillions in tax payer bailouts? Then get tax credits on top of that.

Nice Psyop though.
Have you read any of my other posts in this very thread concerning corporations? Obviously not, neither have you read any of my posts regarding the evils of corporations. Nice attempt at deflection though. Now, how about addressing the actual topic?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman


What if there are not enough jobs to go around?
Get the God damned(I mean this literally) federal government out of the way and let the free market reassert itself without their pro-corporate biased interference and watch jobs spring up like weeds.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 

There is so much about your post that i want to star as a show of support, but it is negated by this:




I think anyone on public welfare should at the very least be required to participate in community volunteer programs. This would be a great way to provide assistance to the elderly at home and in nursing homes, day care centers, animal shelters, etc. I'm sure there are many ways their services could be put to use within their communities to earn their public assistance and would be a great deal better for their children to see them being productive, rather than not.
This should all be paid work. Your idea would create a state subsidized labor pool in those areas eliminating paid jobs.
A volunteer program would put people helping out in areas that are usually short staffed due to corporate penny pinching putting profit before people, or supplemental hands on for communities w/o the funds to afford additional staff. See it however you will, but I like the idea of people making a contribution.

I suppose it shouldn't be called a volunteer program lol so perhaps a mandatory contribution program. Perhaps the Required Reciprocity Program



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoAngel2u
]A volunteer program would put people helping out in areas that are usually short staffed due to corporate penny pinching putting profit before people, or supplemental hands on for communities w/o the funds to afford additional staff. See it however you will, but I like the idea of people making a contribution.

I suppose it shouldn't be called a volunteer program lol so perhaps a mandatory contribution program. Perhaps the Required Reciprocity Program
Maybe you don't see the inherent double think required to hold this position?

Required volunteerism is an oxymoron. They are antithetical to each other.

Those positions should just be "jobs" with remuneration involved or strictly "volunteer volunteers" so to speak.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Well guess what, they already pay for daycare. It's called ABC Vouchers and you qualify if you have welfare (Now called Family Independence btw) and work or go to school full time. This pays for your child's daycare. Once you are in the FI system you have to search for jobs, return job search forms, and develop a plan in which to get employed as soon as possible. Fantastic, right? In theory.

So your Family Independence support system also includes Food Stamps. AWESOME, now you can actually feed your child. Super.

So you find a job making 9.50 an hour, you have your child in Daycare, you are working 40 hours a week...then guess what? You get that god forsaken perforated paper in the mail from your local DSS office saying "We are sorry, you no longer qualify for FI benefits".

Panic ensues.

Now you have your child enrolled in a Daycare, they are making friends, used to a new routine. Your measley paycheck of what, 640 every two weeks? Is now supposed to cover everything.
So let's break this down...

Your rent is 650 if you are lucky.
Food for you and your child per week is 150 if you are frugal and practically anorexic yourself.
Gas per week is 50 if you don't commute.
Your electricity runs 100 bucks in the dead of summer or cold of winter.
Your water bill is 30-40.
Now you have a daycare bill of 130 bucks a week. 520
Since you no longer qualify for Medicaid you have to pick up your own health care through work. Every two weeks it was 130 bucks for me and my son.

Let's add all that up. 1,630 bucks. You make 1280. Oh yeah, now you cant buy diapers.

You have a respectable job now, you are no longer waiting tables. You have a respectable job now...but you never see your kid and you still can't make ends meet. You have as much money as you did as a waitress on welfare and you saw your kid 4 more hours a day and could also handle going to school part time.

Tell me how this does not keep people within the Welfare system, and I will give you a cookie.
edit on 16-4-2012 by ValentineWiggin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 





Ending up as working poor, is a step up from being among the non-working poor.


No it isn't!! If you can live of welfare, why would you voluntarily give that up for a working poor job...one that by its very definition doesn't make enough for you to live on? Read the definition of working poor!!


There needs to be some sort of exchange, otherwise we are simply giving them the bread of shame.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by NoAngel2u
]A volunteer program would put people helping out in areas that are usually short staffed due to corporate penny pinching putting profit before people, or supplemental hands on for communities w/o the funds to afford additional staff. See it however you will, but I like the idea of people making a contribution.

I suppose it shouldn't be called a volunteer program lol so perhaps a mandatory contribution program. Perhaps the Required Reciprocity Program
Maybe you don't see the inherent double think required to hold this position?

Required volunteerism is an oxymoron. They are antithetical to each other.

Those positions should just be "jobs" with remuneration involved or strictly "volunteer volunteers" so to speak.
I guess you didn't read my last line?



I suppose it shouldn't be called a volunteer program lol so perhaps a mandatory contribution program. Perhaps the Required Reciprocity Program


If they are receiving welfare and are on a reciprocity program, then they are technically working in exchange for goods, right?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join