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.

 

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

page: 12
49
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zeeon
 



That post was very loose and fast with logic.

Like I keep saying....if you want to dictate the morality of the people you are giving money to, just don't give money. There is no moral high ground in creating a maze for rats to run through before they get their cheese.


Please CRY ME A RIVER.

First lets be clear and honest with ourselves.

1. WELFARE IS NOT A RIGHT

I am not above helping my fellow man/woman in times of crisis and more than willing to give a helping hand ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. But when I help/donate/volunteer ITS MY CHOICE, YOU CANNOT DEMAND IT OF ME.

I have been helped in hard times AND NOT ONLY AM I THANKFUL BUT AM HUMBLE in accepting it. I also worked my tail feathers off not to rely on it. i AM P.O ED when I have someone on welfare with 3 kids by different fathers telling me (or their supporters) I OWE THEM. GO POUND SAND


2. The money used by the government IS NOT THEIRS, ITS MINE, YOURS, AND MILLIIONS OF OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. So being its MY MONEY (AND OTHERS) HELL YES WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DEMAND STIPULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND PROCEDURES TO GET IT.

Guess what princess this is common ALL THOUGH THE REAL WORLD.

For exampleS of the REAL WORLD....

I just got my third home (sold my old one) and had (like many others ) to get a loan from the bank. Like welfare the money from the bank was not my money its from the bank, its NOT OWED TO ME, I cannot demand it, and it has GASP REQUIREMENTS AND AN APPLICATION PROCESS. I had to provide my WHOLE LIFE STORY WITH REAMS OF PAPERWORK. Which if I did not give them what they wanted to know or did not meet their requirements then GASP I would not get the loan. OHHHH THE MORALITY, THE MAZE (ok sarcasm done).

My job REQUIRES DRUG TESTING FOR HIRE, RANDOM DURING AND FOR EVERY ACCIDENT. Again I need a JOB TO FEED MY FAMILY so if this is the REQUIREMENT I followed it. THEY DON'T OWE ME A JOB.

My child has special needs and I needed some assistance for therapists to help her get to where she is a productive member of society. I had to submit to forms/background checks/ect that made the last to examples seem like a day at disneyworld. BUT MY KID NEEDED THE HELP SO I DID IT. I also had the same people PUSH ME to get food stamps and WIC (which I did qualify for) but I REFUSED SINCE I COULD PAY FOR THAT.
Now she is off all that aid and doing well.

So if I feel I needed a job, home loan and aid for my kid and XX was required THEN I DID WHAT I NEEDED TO DO.

WHAT MAKES A WELFARE PERSON BETTER OR MORE ENTITLED TO MONEY THATS NOT THEIRS WITHOUT REQUIREMENTS/RESTRICTIONS/PROCEDURES THAN I AM?

3. Please save the "its only XX dollars" argument.
Again ITS MY MONEY be it $10. $50, $100. I could do alot with a little, especially when I was not making that much.
This money was taken when I was working two jobs, paying student loans and living off mac and cheese as well as now where I am not rich (by any means) but paying for my family.
Why should I watch my spending and live within my means just so (for example) a teenage mother can have her kid? Or so someone can live in subsided housing having 3 or more kids they cannot afford (maybe I could use that cash you DEMAND to have another little one I want to afford), ect?


So in conclusion

So if you NEED welfare THEN HECK YES
YOU SHOULD TAKE THE DRUG TEST.

If you refuse then you must not need the money that bad. If you are OFFENDED THEN PRINCESS DON'T TAKE THE MONEY.

Again I am more than willing to help someone who needs it and give the shirt off my back. BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT MUCH LESS WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



First YES IT IS MY MONEY NOT YOURS, SOCIETIES OR THE GOVERNMENTS.
For you to claim it is "for society" is no different than me coming to your house and taking money out of your wallet because "for the good of society" I should own a home. That sir is STEALING. No different than telling anyone I HAVE TO GIVE MONEY TO a welfare mom (for example) who has 2 kids and another one on the way she cannot affoard for the "benifit of society".

This "society owes it to them" mentality has been the MAIN REASON ANY ATTEMPT TO FIX, CONTROL, LIMIT, OR CORRECT THE WASTE/FRAUD/ABUSE has been so hard. Some NIT WIT (or many) comes out telling us this BS and how "you can't do xx" because you "cannot judge them".

If you do not face the problem you cannot fix it.

Second and more importantly drug and alcohol addiction IS NOT A DISEASE. THIS DESIGNATION TICKS ME OFF EVERY TIME I HEAR SOME SELF RIGHTOUS PEON SAY IT.

It would be the only "disease" WHERE YOU CONTROL IF IT HURTS YOU, CONTINUES OR NOT.
It may be hard to stop BUT YOU MAKE THE CHOICE TO DRINK THAT ALCOHOL, SNORT THAT POWDER, SMOKE THAT PLANT, INJECT THAT SUBSTANCE, ECT.

Why don't you as a (for an example) a BREAST CANCER PATIIENT if they would be willing to STOP THEIR DISEASE if all they had to do was (for example) STOP DRINKING SOMETHING?
Even if they REALLY REALLY WANTED IT, It was HARD to give up, HAD TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE PEOPLE/PLACES THAT have it, or had to go though withdrawls? Note the side effects of chemo makes some withdrawls look like a walk in the park.

How many women with breast cancer would JUMP AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE THE CANCER GO INTO REMISSION AND KEEP IT AWAY.

Now think of all those with other life changing and fatal diseases? Cancer, AIDS, and others I have not mentioned?

I am sorry to my fellow ATS for getting off topic but when I hear the pure BS (I would say stronger but decorum stops me) about alcohol and drug addicts saying they "have a disease" BUT I CANNOT STAND BY AND LET THAT GO UNCHALLENGED.

Note I have had (and lost) family, and friends due to cancer. I watched their suffering and pain.
I have had family, friends, people I see at work every day and on the street with addictions of all types as well.

So PLEASE save me the 'you don't know what your talking about" crapola.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by artfuldodger

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


The intent is not to demonize the poor but to make sure that we are not paying folks to be on welfare while possibly spending the money on drugs...it's that simple...and the idea to drug test people on failure was a flop...that's great too...perhaps they can nix it before we spend more money on it....there are plenty of good intentioned ideas that are a bust..bottom line this is what it all comes down to...who's right and who's wrong this time...you perpertuate this momentum of division...I don't like Obama but I don't want to see him fail...if he fails we fail..


Drug tests at such a massive level are just warrantless searches. Why not drug test everyone who is eligible for tax refund from the IRS? Why not drug test everyone who has a driver's license? Drug test everyone who walks down a sidewalk paid for by the city or state. Drug test anyone who gets interest payments off a US Treasury bill or bond. If you don't pass, then government keeps the interest and cancels its indebtedness to you. Eventually the drug test could be used to deprive everyone of liberty and property if the user has any remote relationship to government. Are your brokerage accounts guaranteed by the SIPC. Not anymore if you can't pass the drug test.



O PLEASE, warrentless searches, drug tests for getting YOUR MONEY BACK from the IRS.

Is this the best examples you can come up with for your argument?

You trying convince us a turd and is a rose because it has perfume on it from a rose.

As silly and unconvincing as your examples sir.

In each and all of your "examples" are in NO WAY related to WELFARE by any stretch of the imagination.

Just taking your tax return as one example.

You OBEYED THE LAW/FOLLOWED THE REQUIRMENTS by filling out your tax forms and paying more to the government then you had to. Thus a refund.

In all of your examples you deliberately ignore one BASIC FACT........ITS YOUR MONEY.

Welfare sir is someone GETTING MONEY THATS NOT THEIRS, THERE NOT ENTITLED TO, OR OWED,
It is money that (LIKE A MORTGAGE) IS OFFERED BUT WITH REQUIREMENTS.

If you have better arguments please bring them I love a good ADULT discussion and debate.

Other than that you just strung some rant and buzz words hopping no one would see though the lack of facts.

In the words of my kid

EPIC FAIL



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


In actuality the number, this year, is more like four hunded fifty one billion.

But let's make it more abstract and use visual tools - as they are much simpler to work with:



If I'm going to get outraged or curious - then I want to know what that 15% big red X is. And I'd love to see due diligence about that "Pentagon" section... they do have a history with handling money poorly.

Heck, even "administration" outweighs social programs.

~Heff


There is a saying from a political rep (I cannot remember his name) that stated

"a million here, a million there, add it up now we are talking real money".

In other words the argument given here that its "such a small amount compared to X" as justification for keeping it status quo is just a cop out.

The government IS SPENDING MORE THAN IT IS BRINGING IN, BUILDING DEBT, AND NEEDS TO MAKE CUTS.

Lets put this into an example of a american household who is spending more than is comming in (be that loss of a job, cutback in salary, increased expenses and/or all of the above).

Now the dad says to everyone we need to cut back on some extras and reduce some spending.

Mom says "I cant give up my starbucks, its only a few dollars a day compared to the rest of the budget".
Daughter say the same thing over her cell phone use.
The son says the same thing over all his sports costs.
Mother, son and daughter says the same thing about condensing down to one car or limiting multiple trips.
Same for cable, clothes, trips, eating out, ect.

Now as nothing is done claiming that each item "is not that much compared to XX or that much" the credit cards debt gets bigger, the minimal payments get bigger, and the income gets smaller and smaller.

Because everyone REFUSED to cut sooner, reduce spending little here and there, refused to face discomfort now and lastly realise to reduce the debt you NEED TO SPEND LESS THAN YOU BRING IN.

Then (as many many have had happen) you are FORCED (be it bankrupcy, forclosure, ect) to make drastic cuts in areas that may have been saved (housing, food, ect) or avoided by a little pain and those "few dollars compared to xx".

The government is no different EXCEPT NOT ONLY ARE YOU CUTTING YOUR EXPENSES, BUT YOUR LOOSING MORE MONEY TO PAYING THE GOVERNMENTS DEBT.

Yes the pentagon (for your example) is wasting money. BUT that is NO EXCUSE for saying your "area/department/pet project/ect" should not have to be cut.

You are telling me with all the waste, fraud, mis-management, illegals, and just making it back to the basic premise its TEMPORARY NOT A LIFESTYLE you could not cut 40% (or more) out of welfare?

Here's the COLD HARD TRUTH if some cuts along with returning it to a limited time help (people responcible for their decisions/actions/themselves) you will find that YOU WILL HAVE NO MORE TIME and the whole welfare system WILL BE ELIMINATED NO MATTER WHAT YOU FEE./SAY/PROTEST?

Think it cant happen, why don't you talk to greece, or italy, or even look back at the great depression.

When the money runs out, guess what.....your done.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


In my experience, colleges in many cases are as corrupt as the government. Even worse when they're working together on research projects.

You can get through cheap colleges on just a few thousand dollars, and that can be covered through hiring them on infrastructure projects like railways and cargo-only roads and rails.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Sorry to get off topic but when it comes to colleges and costs its not "rocket science" (please excuse the pun).

Why do you think HDTV are not the 3,000 dolalr monsters they used to be when they first came out? Because the market (aka people) overall said if you want to sell alot the price has to come down.
The companies knowing only a few (there always are some) die hards would pay that price found ways to keep dropping the price.
They kept at it untill the majority could afford it (hence you can get a good one for under 300 if you look) and the company sales soared as well as profits.

Now colleges due to the abundance of loans/grants/ect don't follow this model. As long as the government and private sources continue to tolerate and make funds available for the outragious increases in tuition, books, ect then they will continue to raise the college costs behond all justifications.

If the government (and other sources) would say "xx amount of cash is available PERIOD" the colleges would have 2 choices.

1. Keep living in your self important delusion of superiority and go out of business (hey tenured prof hows unemployment working for you).

2. Reduce costs (both to the student and to overall pay) untill you EARN STUDENTS BACK AND KEEP THEM.

Yes there will still be schools like harvard (just like there are very upper end HDTV's).

But overall the schools will be forced to become more affoardable and to keep their market share be a prime product for the limited dollars.

Win win.

If you think it can't be done ask yourself why something as simple as TV's have become 10-100x better than even 15 years ago at less cost?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
So what? So what if it costs more money to keep people on welfare from abusing the system? Money well spent imho.

I work for a federal agency. I have to get drug tested.

I ***WORK*** for my money, and I have to be drug tested. Yet people who pretend to find work, receive chunks of MY TAXPAYER MONEY are allowed to sit around and get high?

I don't bleeping think-so. It's a matter of principle, not a matter of money.





Sounds like you do not really enjoy your work and somehow envy the people who sit around all day. Does your superior know about this situation? How about he puts you out of work, so you can sit around on wellfare and somebody who does not think being unemployed on welfare is such a sweet deal, maybe somebody unemployed on welfare who wants to get out of that situation, gets your job?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger

Please CRY ME A RIVER.

First lets be clear and honest with ourselves.

...(snip) I OWE THEM. GO POUND SAND


Your plea to emotion has nothing to do with my argument. The person with three kids by different fathers is a stereotype (one that we all have seen) that really has no place in this discussion.

I agree, welfare is not a right. I have actually said in this thread many times I would rather see welfare go away, and charity run through the untaxed entities like Churches (that is why they aren't taxed, afterall....so they can provide charity).

BUT, if we are to give welfare, then it should maintain human dignity. If we cannot give welfre without maintaining human dignity, then we absolutely should not do it.

Tax money is not YOUR money. It is OUR money. When I say OUR, i refer also to the welfare recipient who has at one time, presumably, also been a taxpayer. And, if they have not ever paid taxes, morally speaking, it should still not change their ability to recieve aid with dignity. That is, IF we are to provide such aid (which i already stated I disagree with).


Guess what princess this is common ALL THOUGH THE REAL WORLD....(snip).... OHHHH THE MORALITY, THE MAZE (ok sarcasm done).


Did you call me princess?

At this point I am unsure if you are of a stable nature, or if you just employ strange verbage while talking with other men. Regardless....

Your home loan is not welfare You are comparing apples to bumper brackets. If you want to borrow money from a bank to extend your own wealth through a real estate investment, then you are subject to the terms of that entitiy.



My job REQUIRES DRUG TESTING FOR HIRE, RANDOM DURING AND FOR EVERY ACCIDENT. Again I need a JOB TO FEED MY FAMILY so if this is the REQUIREMENT I followed it. THEY DON'T OWE ME A JOB.


I have already addressed this multiple times in this thread. Please reread my prior posts so as to keep me from hving to repeat myself (again) on this point.



My child has special needs and I needed some assistance for therapists to help her get to where she is a productive member of society. I had to submit to forms/background checks/ect that made the last to examples seem like a day at disneyworld. BUT MY KID NEEDED THE HELP SO I DID IT. I also had the same people PUSH ME to get food stamps and WIC (which I did qualify for) but I REFUSED SINCE I COULD PAY FOR THAT.
Now she is off all that aid and doing well.


Your experience with your child has little to do with our discussion. Turning down WIC was silly. you pay taxes for it, and it is for all residents. Including you and the wealthiest person in the state. There is no moral high ground in turning down a benefit of citizenship.



So if I feel I needed a job, home loan and aid for my kid and XX was required THEN I DID WHAT I NEEDED TO DO.

WHAT MAKES A WELFARE PERSON BETTER OR MORE ENTITLED TO MONEY THATS NOT THEIRS WITHOUT REQUIREMENTS/RESTRICTIONS/PROCEDURES THAN I AM?


Nothing. But just because you buckled to a corporate power doesn't mean everyone else should have to jump through the same hoops as you. Drug testing as a prerequisite for employment, or welfare, is immoral and denigrating. Even if you are happy to do it....there are always a few sheep that will happily walk to the slaughter.



3. Please save the "its only XX dollars" argument. ....(snip)..


Ok...but i have not tried to use this fallacy of an argument. Your pre-emptive action noted....but it only makes me think you are referring to another member besides me....perhaps this is Princess?



So in conclusion

So if you NEED welfare THEN HECK YES
YOU SHOULD TAKE THE DRUG TEST.

If you refuse then you must not need the money that bad. If you are OFFENDED THEN PRINCESS DON'T TAKE THE MONEY.

Again I am more than willing to help someone who needs it and give the shirt off my back. BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT MUCH LESS WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.




Then you are not willing to help. What you are willing to do is humiliate other humans before you will allow them to receive your help. Either give the money, or don't.

the only reason you have given to thinking welfare recipients should be drug tested are:

- that you have given up your right to privacy, and feel that they should have to also
- that you are sick of women having so many children by so many fathers

On a side note, you also mention denying your daughter the nutiritional content she needed via WIC because you are too proud to accept a public benefit. Of course, everything turned out ok....luckily.

And you called me princess. Twice.
edit on 16-8-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by scrounger
 


So your saying expand the testing program to more for a longer period. How about random drug testing like they do in sports? Maybe set up cameras in the homes of those on welfare so we can keep an eye on them, just to make sure.


Why not make them turn in receipts for what they bought, like a corporate expense report? I mean, that is MY money (or, so other posters will tell us)

Last thing I want is for someone on welfare to use the money I am giving them to buy things like pinwheels, or lacey underwear. They should be required to only buy only raw staples and live in a cave if they are getting my money.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


My only argument would be this though....that is $60,000 a year, but those people will never receive benefits again so it is really $60,000 every year. If more are found next year that may be another $60,000 they save a year. I am assuming once you are caught with drugs you will never be able to have welfare benefits. So you are essentially weeding out that bad ones permanently. Maybe I am misunderstanding it but I would imagine in the long run you would be saving mass amounts of money.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   


I remember that debate well. All those in favor of the drug test gave corporate welfare recipients a free pass.

What no drug test for the banksters that get bailouts?

hypocrites!!

And now this!



actually just costs money and invaded the privacy of people - who didn't see that one coming?
edit on 16-8-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by corvuscorrax

Originally posted by BobNoxious
The lack of empathy displayed by posters is disturbing, considering how much America has been raped and robbed by the selfish, politicians, and their corporate & military buddies... if you stack up the money lost to the insanity that is "our" corporate/military dominate oligarchy V.S. the moneys given to feed and clothe poor people and their kids, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We probably spent more on 1 war(pick one) than we will ever spend on feeding and clothing people in the U.S.

Here's to never being hungry.


I was thinking the same thing. It's a scary trend I've noticed as well. People are more than happy to ignore and even justify the suffering of others if they can at least be partially blamed for it. The lack of humanity displayed by such behavior never has and never will make sense to me but then again according to some posters I'm just a weak minded fool unwilling to work hard enough to live comfortably in the monetary system.


Agreed with both of you. Let's not forget the rich elite who globally hold $32 TRILLION in offshore banks www.huffingtonpost.com... Of course that's a global figure, but there's no denying that many in this country are playing the same game... where's the outrage about this kind of entitlement?

It makes me wary of the future when I see how people justify punishing those less fortunate than them... is that not precisely what TPTB do to us?? I feel like these "awakened" people would quickly join their elite club if awarded the opportunity.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Government aid is making the U.S. go broke. I am not just talking about aid to individuals, but aid to companies and businesses as well. Our government is too big for its shoes, simply put and our children and they're children are going to pay for it for the rest of their lives.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Not helping people to help themselves is a crime, the rich elite will always be there, have you ever thought they want to keep people down, teach people a skill, teach them how to survive, the middle class is dwindling,

I don't understand why some believe helping people out of poverty is a crime, and wish to keeping them dependent on others, and the crooked government.

If and when TSHTF, the poor will just be poorer with no survival skills,

This is a site that investigates the corrupt government,yet some seem to be missing the corruption when it comes to this issue.


Dear god save us from the governments intrusion in our lives.

edit on 083131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by zeeon
So what? So what if it costs more money to keep people on welfare from abusing the system? Money well spent imho.

I work for a federal agency. I have to get drug tested.

I ***WORK*** for my money, and I have to be drug tested. Yet people who pretend to find work, receive chunks of MY TAXPAYER MONEY are allowed to sit around and get high?

I don't bleeping think-so. It's a matter of principle, not a matter of money.





Sounds like you do not really enjoy your work and somehow envy the people who sit around all day. Does your superior know about this situation? How about he puts you out of work, so you can sit around on wellfare and somebody who does not think being unemployed on welfare is such a sweet deal, maybe somebody unemployed on welfare who wants to get out of that situation, gets your job?


A star for originality my friend. I haven't heard that one yet.
Actually, I loathed my last job, I just started this one (on my third week) and I love it. I make damn good money, and I enjoy what I do. I even have good co-workers!

No friend I think you just missed the point of my post, which was to show the hypocrisy of it all.
Am I saying ALL people on welfare use drugs? Not at all man. Not at all. Hell my sister used it when she needed help during the college years (as a single mother).

I'm all about providing for those who need it. Who truly NEED it. That's the key word here man. If some of these people abuse that by buying booze, illegal drugs and all sorts of WANTS and not NEEDS then yes, I'm going to be upset about that.

Drug testing is a way of enforcing welfare reciepents to spend the money on NEEDS and not WANTS. And I support that.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by solarjetman
 


Not helping people to help themselves is a crime, the rich elite will always be there, have you ever thought they want to keep people down, teach people a skill, teach them how to survive, the middle class is dwindling,

I don't understand why some believe helping people out of poverty is a crime, and wish to keeping them dependent on others, and the crooked government.

If and when TSHTF, the poor will just be poorer with no survival skills,

This is a site that investigates the corrupt government,yet some seem to be missing the corruption when it comes to this issue.


Dear god save us from the governments intrusion in our lives.

edit on 083131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)


I agree with you about Government. I was a little confused by your other point about people believing helping others out of poverty is a crime.

Benevolence is a great thing, but individualism is what made America strong. Have you read Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged"? It's a great book and really changed my thinking about collectivism.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


No, I haven't read that book, but I know of it,

Yes of course many times in our lives we all need a helping hand, but it seems to me that some posters find it offensive to suggest a welfare recipient should be in school, or actively looking for work.

Requiring them to do that is not being mean, it is a better gift then a future being dependent on the welfare system and barely scrapping by..

Yet we live paycheck to paycheck, I have to make sacrifices to get by, I am low income and live in the inner city, I see what is happening everyday, like I said earlier in the topic I have had do do many odd jobs to put food on the table,

Gonna go do an odd job in a few minutes,
yippie

Things I have done back in the day, dug through dumpsters for cans.

Ha, that reminded me of my oldest daughter, that's where she used to get all her make up, the dumpsters behind stores,her and her friends also ate snacks out of dumpsters, we never had many snacks around the house.

These are fond memories believe it our not.

Gotta go scrub a toilet, for a few bucks, talk at ya later.
edit on 093131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: have to go work crap job to make ends meet



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Maybe years of hardships and having to make my own way have made me a little intolerant, yes, come to my house I will feed you, but you better do the dishes,

You know that old saying when the going gets tough the tough get going.

There comes a time in ones life that they have to help themselves, if they are capable.
edit on 093131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Sh**t, I say give everyone on welfare; if there is such a thing, I'm not so sure we really have welfare programs any more, all the drugs they can use. Keep em stoned. They would be happier, and probably cost less in the long run. I say the same thing about old people, Put a little bag of pot in with that social security check. They would spend less time at the doctor, have more fun and probably be more productive. We've got to stop fighting people who don't seem to be contributing enough to the system. Not everybody is a go get her. some people are just not built that way. some are just too old and tired. Marijuana's cheap. get em stone get em happy.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


People who smoke pot aren't good consumers. They are a threat to capitalism. They spend very little on things other than music and are more nature driven. Why do you think the hippies were disliked so much in the sixties. They weren't hurting people that much but weren't stimulating the economy.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by okyouwin
 


People who smoke pot aren't good consumers. They are a threat to capitalism. They spend very little on things other than music and are more nature driven. Why do you think the hippies were disliked so much in the sixties. They weren't hurting people that much but weren't stimulating the economy.


That is very wrong minded.

Pot heads are consumers. They consume that which you identify them by: pot.

It seems to me that the real travesty here was that they were marginalized for what they consumed, rather than capitalized upon. The real threat to the economy are the people who make arbitrary laws hampering the ability of the market to determine what is and is not viable.

The lack of stimulus to the economy was a policy blunder, not an artifact of pothead behavior.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join