How many? Really. How many? And giving rich people and corporations huge tax breaks and billion-dollar tax credits so that they pay no taxes means buying their votes, too. Where the hell have you been? Welfare was reformed under Clinton in the 1990's. Almost no one gets a check anymore unless they have dependent children to support. They must take training and look for work because social workers are all over their case. No one stays on for more than three years anymore. The idea that you can take away their rights to vote is completely unconstitutional. They are not criminals. One could use that logic to say that anyone who gets a tax credit should be denied the right to vote. The lazy bums that we see are mostly homeless people, druggies, and gangsters and are not drawing welfare checks. Subsidized public housing could stand some more reform, but its not breaking the budget--social security and medicare are doing that. Who has placed an arbitrary cap on what one can earn? :huh: This is exactly the reason that welfare reforn was enacted in the 1990's. You are absolutely right on this one, but 15 years behind the curve, amigo. Are they? It an't much of a life, a bare subsistence income for three years. The incentive for unwed mothers to keep reproducing has been taken away. I don't think there are too many people crowing about the good life on welfare. They have seen the Huxtables on TV and they have ambition, too, just not a lot of hope an opportunity.
I know where you stand but you didn't really address my questions. Do you not take into consideration what I stated?
You need to visit New Orleans more often or tune into more local coverage here. People were actually breaking into condemned projects because they believed they were "entitled" to live there because they were 4th, 5th, 6th generation in the housing complex. WOW!!! Is it a life you or I would want? Absolutely not...but many would prefer this over ever lifting a finger to be a contributing member of society. I don't believe Democrats even slightly care about these people other than their vote. You were here for Hurricane Katrina. You saw how white, rich, Democrats from the northeast critized the Bush administration for not doing enough for the residents. Did you ever see these politicians offer for our residents to reside in their neighborhoods...or schools, or communities? Hell NO! Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Atlanta, Nashville, Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix...and many others all said "Come" but we surely didn't hear that from New England. People are being used for their votes...plain and simple. Regarding public assistance and housing...do you remember how nice New Orleans East was back in the 70s? The best mall in the region...nice homes...schools...Mardi Gras parades, etc. It wasn't Katrina that ruined it. It was HUD...mandatory housing...vouchers...government assistance, etc. These programs don't bring people up. They destroy communities as people continue to vacate when it all goes to hell. Slidell has been nice for decades and has some of the best schools in the state. Post-Katrina has brought many with the entitlement mentality who don't want to vote and/or pay for schools, police, fire, etc. It's the beginning of the end when this occurs. Personally I would rather see a cap on what you can earn than have greedy goverment officials feel entitled to take your earnings and redistribute them without you having and influence over how they spend your money. People (especially politicians) need to learn to live within their means and stop expecting others to bail them out!
That includes Shanes VA benefits, your pappy's social security, your daughters scholarship, and mom's medicare. The Dept. of Health and Human Resources reports that about 2 million people receive temporary benefits. 7 figure annual incomes. But you evaded the question. Why is government assistance to the poor "buying votes" while government assistance to the rich is not? And I've never described the rich as evil. But my point, that you missed, is that all four of the welfare reforms that you say we need were implemented in the 1990's. I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain to me how Obama is limiting how much a person can make. Be specific. Hey there are homeless people out there with strange notions, but the government ordered them out of those buildings. They have no case. Most people on welfare are not registered to vote. This notion has no legs. What do you propose? Those people are not going to go away. If welfare disappeared they would all soon be supporting themselves with crime--selling drugs, burglarizing your house, carjacking your wife, prostitution . . . how else could they survive? There have always been and always will be poor unemployed and unemployable people. The thing to do is to get them educated, trained, and back into the work force by offering them help in return for getting with the program. All we can do is try to minimize the poor.
Sounds great in a campaign speech but never comes to fruition. You will never minimize the poor if you make the program too comfortable. Give enough to sustain people but limit the amount to encourage them to get back on their own feet. That's a true STIMULUS PROGRAM! I've got to go solve the world's problems...I'll catch up later.
But in the months before the election they will get registered and will enjoy a nice bottle of Mogen David for their trouble.
