Welfare is keeping the workers from the farms: hence the need for "agricultural worker programs" where we import Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans will not do. If you're living in some city and can't feed yourself, there should be an office where you can sign up to get transportation to a farm where they will work and feed you and your kids.
C'mon! The plantation needs its workers back!
Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?
There is little incentive to better yourself when you can net more from welfare than working.
I agree. Those that need help (food, shelter, clothing. retraining) should get all of those things. They should NOT BE GETTING A FRICKEN' EBT CREDIT CARD (AKA 'CASH') to spend tax payers $$ as they see fit (nail salons, booze, hookers, strip joints, bail)....
Apparently, most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH. They should be entitled to food/shelter/clothing/training that they should some how 'show up' and confirm their identity, and intentions. It's been proven that the democrat-run state of Mass has NO INTENTION whatsoever of confirming who is getting EBT $$, where it's going, and doesn't care how it's being spent...
zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.
When did i ever mention 'zero tolerance'?? What's asinine is giving people on welfare CASH to do whatever they want with it. What they should be given is food/clothing/shelter/retraining. Make them show up for it, confirm their identity for it. Give them enough to get back on their feet, but not too much to enjoy or sustain a free/easy lifestyle. (Obama's Antie Zetiuni comes to mind)....An EBT card isn't needed for these things.
most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH.
Fine. I think YOU shouldn't be entitled to CASH either. Let's have someone else determine what you NEED. You think you need money for soy-based infant formula? No, what you need is Cheerios and milk. I don't care that your whole family is lactose-intolerant, that's what you're getting!
Plain and simple cash is a lot simpler to distribute, than managing inventories of surplus cheese and butter or whatever. Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.
Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone
abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating
them? Generalities are fun.
PDH, why do you pull shit out of thin air, and accuse me of things i never said. When did I ever say that I or conservatives ever wanted to get rid of social programs? I'm talking about my democrat-run state refusing to acknowledge and fix welfare fraud and waste. You counter w/ generalities. Nice try.
Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly
Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.
HAHAHAAA!!!! "Efficient" being used to describe a gov't social program. HAHAHAAA!! That's fuckin' priceless. ooh boy, you made my day.
Yeah, let's continue to 'efficiently' give our tax dollars to fuckin' idiots (oh, my bad, the 'victims' of society that don't know better') blow $200 at a liquor store on Petrone, or take that EBT card, get cash for the next 8-ball... Efficiency indeed! Yes, this argument is settled. Everything is perfectly fine. No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.
No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.
We have changed the system for you frigging whiners to the tune of that there $28 Billiion.
Going back to Reagan, who turned the mentally ill out on the street to save a few bucks, and Clinton, with his Welfare to Work government employment program, we have done nothing to make the system better, just more costly.
Hookers, and liquor? No, the vast majority of these people are barely surviving.
The reason we have waste is because the system is so complicated that, yes, really bad people can play it.
Welfare works, and could stand to cut the budget on oversight so that more money can reach the poor.
One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work. If we gave poor people food, a place to sleep, medical care, training, and counseling, maybe they could work their way out of poverty.
You can give the poor money to feed, house, and care for them, Or you can teach the poor how to make money, and they can take care of themselves. And the ones that can't take care of themselves will employ others in their care.
Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.
Most conservatives hold to an ideology that believes that social programs are bad, without exception. They do not care if they are efficient, if they help the people they are meant to help, if other human beings will suffer or even die without them, etc. What matters is that their ideology must be upheld at all costs. Too much reliance on any ideology is inherently irrational, and unfortunately idealogues cling tighter and tighter to their ideology whenever it's challenged in serious debate.
Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow reform to uncover waste.
Bull-fucking-shit. I am the most liberal person on Patrick.net. I am all for uncovering and prosecuting welfare fraud. Although I do suspect that banking fraud costs us taxpayers about a thousand times as much. The Federal Reserve lent big banks $16 trillion at 0% so those banks could lend money to our government and collect interest off of it. That's a $16 trillion fraud right there. Welfare fraud is small potatoes compared to that.
However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen. So much for your theory that liberals approve of welfare fraud or tacitly accept it. Perhaps you are confusing liberal with leftist or socialist. Totally different things.
Liberals believe in liberty, hence the term "liberal". We believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. We don't believe in victimless crimes because by definition, if there is no victim, there is no crime. That's what separates liberals from their opposites, fascists.
One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work.
Those days are long past with the Welfare to Work program, insisted on by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton. It adds cost to Welfare.
It's another cog in the wheel to appease whiners who insist welfare is riddled with fraud.
The truth is Welfare is a good system. What you are saying is that the people on Welfare are so stupid they would rather spend the money they get on hookers, and booze, than food, and their children.
You want repsonsibility? Give people money to do what they want. You want a nanny state, set up one agency, and another, and another, and a watch dog group to be sure that money is spent they way you say it should.
What AverageBear wants is more government to do his, or her bidding.
Poverty has gotten to be a much bigger issue than when we were kids. Look at the Census. We need more money pumped into poverty, and less into government agencies that over see it.
You want to get rid of waste? Let's talk about oil, transportation, sugar, chocolate, farming, autos, housing, and the all powerful medical industry.
You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.
CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.
Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor. On the other hand any fraud in conservo-favored areas is just a "few bad apples".
Dormitories, kitchens, and clincs paid for by eliminating section 8, food stamps, and medical insurance.
I used to live right next to one of the "industrial scale" attempts to end poverty that way. It was a New Deal effort, the first large public housing effort and it was named Techwood Homes. The problem with cramming a bunch of marginal people together in cheapest-possible housing, is you breed a subculture. The kids start to see the only better-off people they know are drug dealers, and things spiral down over decades. Eventually they bulldozed it and had better success after rebuilding the remaining units nicer and lower density and scattering poor people more in the community. Sorry it sounds good but it didn't work.
What I said was there is no incentive to work if someone sends you a check every month for NOT working.
and what I said is they don't send you a check for not working, any more. We have Welfare to Work which, to me is a fiasco.
I've worked with Welfare to Work as an employer, and no longer consider our Employment Security Department as a resource for labor. The people in the system are a mixed bag of Unemployment Benefits, and Welfare to Work.
It is ridiculous to take people who are questionable at the ability to cope, and try to fit them into a work enviorment.
It would be better just to give them money, and work on skill sets, rather than forcing employers to take on the social problems that go along with a segment of our society.
If we could get to full employment that would be different, but we can't. That is a discussion for another time, but the fact is some people don't have the social skill set to be working.
You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering
that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up
to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.
Although your comments about Afghanistan sound good on the surface, this comment has less than no worth on my thread. My thread's topic is about my state's refusal to acknowledge EBT waste and fraud. If you feel that strongly about Afghanistan, knock 'yerself out and start your own thread.... Get out of your 'WHHAAAA-mbulance', and stop crying that I deleted your post that has NOTHING to do with my topic. I offer some options:
- Don't reply to my thread
- Ignore me and my threads
- Start your own thread on whatever makes your socks go up and down.
As of now, Patrick has given a thread's owner the ability to delete comments. I exercised that feature. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I'll wait a few days so you get to read this before I delete it again. (if I remember or care)...
SACRAMENTO — California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.
The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.
However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said
anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen.
Dan, you are right. I never said YOU didn't acknowledge welfare fraud, because you aren't living in Mass... I'm glad you are for prosecuting welfare fraud; you'd have plenty of people to educate here in Mass.
Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which
has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why
bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and
untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor.
Or....change the subject, by expanding the argument beyond the scope I presented: ie, my liberally-run state gov't refusing to acknowledge EBT waste/fraud. Between you and Corriacci, you are shouting at your rice-crispies about Afghanistan and agricultural subsidies because why??...
I'm sure projecting your "Conservo-Rage" is a masturbatory habit of yours, but it reeeealy doesn't address the argument of my state wanting to deal w/ EBT fraud. Taking my parochial argument w/ nebulous nation-wide accusations may make you feel good, but doesn't really add to the discussion of why democrats in my state are OK w/ EBT $$ going to lap dances out of state in Providence. Becuase this is what's happening. Many on this site accuse me of wanting to eliminate welfare (not true), hate poor people (not true). I'm just asking for common sense in my state gov't, and I get Afghanistan, agricultural subsidies. Is this all you got? Whatever. "A" for effort, though.