You people do realize that after the Clinton welfare reforms went into effect people can only be on welfare for two years at a time , five years total. With few and hard to get exceptions .

Do some research it true .

So your claiming crap that is not true .

And third , fourth , fifth generations on welfare . Come on people the program in its modern form, where they get money, started in the late sixties . I guess its possible that people were having kids at 11 or 12 years old to get to 5 generations of welfare people in 40 plus years . But I doubt the people that did that would even be a blip on the radar screen of statistics.

I can't stand people ranting on and on when they do not have a clue what they are talking about.

Welfare is not the problem people. Social Security disability is the problem. We have a lot of bums sitting around on social security disability that could work but won't . But you won't normally hear people on forums like these complaining about that.Because the majority of the people who are all wet about welfare and want it ended are the ones sitting around on the tax payer dole sucking up social security disability, when they should be working ,hypocrites is what they are called.

Preach--I want welfare ended--and I collect nothing from the government. If you collect money from the democrat provided social tit--you surely dont want that "free" check eliminated. There are thousands of Paid Democrat Voters--who suck on and are reliant on the democrat provided social tit--how can you possibly think these people want that tit removed from their mouth. They dont--they love the tit--they will vote democrat to keep the tit in their mouth--and by no means do they want anyone to cut off the conservative milk.

Social spending is the problem--it consumes the majority of our budget--and its going to bankrupt this country

Certainly it is. It couldn't be the Iraq War, the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% in the country, the people in government who say "government doesn't work" and then go on to prove it (i.e. New Orleans).

What a crock of $hit.

If the Shrub and his cronies were held accountable; and the money flowing away from 99% percent of American citizens was put back into our country for social programs, healthcare, etc. we'd see huge improvements to our budget, economy and environment.

Yes...I also realize that they were not Clinton's welfare reforms...he gritted his teeth and signed, because the Rs in Congress were prepared to overide his veto and make him look like an even bigger fool.

The Dems have been desperate to roll those reforms back ever since, even more so after their (your) scenarios, shrieked from your media, that babies would be starving in the street and old people would be turned into soylent green did not come to pass, and that in fact, folks who HAD been on welfare unto the 3rd generation (hey, I used to work in "the projects" and would see the same young, able-bodied men standing around drinking all day long, day after day...), went out and found jobs that did not exist (according to you) and made themselves productive.

Go break open your piggy bank, Peach. Let's put some $$ on it: if a socialist gets the White House (very likely) and the socialists have a clear majority in Congress (less likely, but it 'could happen) the 1994 welfare reforms will be as dust in the wind.

You up for it? $5K?

I don't, by the way, have a problem with welfare the way it is today. In a large economy such as ours (I am not satv....I don't believe we can screw the canlendar back to 1785) we need to have in place SOME government/backed programs to help those who truly need it.

Should we be giving welfare to 20 year old, able-bodied/minded men? Um..no, if they can't find a job in our economy today, they deserve to starve and die.

Should we give it to the disabled, the elderly, the mentally handicapped? Yep. Drunks and druggies who choose to love on the street? Um...no. Welfare mothers who can't read the directions on a condom packet? Um..not so much, no. Their kids? Yeah. Take them away, to foster care and they can be cared for there if "Mom" can't either keep her knees together or figure out how to apply the free "patch" she got from the clinic.

As a lefty, you of course believe all the nonsense you are fed by your media: "the poor" are all down on their luck abused women with their three kids living in their car after being chased out of their house by their abusive, drunken chronically unemployed husbands.

Right...in maybe, .000003% of the cases.

Most people who are on welfare are deadbeats who know how to work the system--and illegal aliens. I would imagine you have no problem at all with your husband's taxes going up to make sure our "brothers and sisters" from south of the border get free schooling (and free breakfast and lunch), free medical care, energy assistance in the winter and of course foodstamps,etc.

It's only right, huh?

Tokie

Tokie

You understand that even now, engaged as we are in fully-fledges world war, military expenditures are a fraction of total social expenditures...right?

Right?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Tokie

The crux of the problem from both sides.

From the correct side, we view this with alarm: the more people who are net taxfund beneficiaries, the less likely are we to see cuts in the tax rates.

From the socialist side, they see it exactly oppositly for powermongering purposes: the fewer people who are net taxfund beneficiaries, the more likely are people to demand cuts in taxes.

Socialists like taxes. The more the better. That's because they can always (until bankrupting a nation...the ultimate goal here) promise recipients of such largesse more and more by shrieking "tax the rich!!!!"

Clearly, the end game (we saw it in Russia, in Europe, in Africa, in Cuber, in Nicaragua, etc., etc.) is that the rich no longer exist, and then who do we tax?

Dun't matter to such as Peach and others in here. All that matters is punishing "the rich." Ask a lib to define "the rich," and they are unable. Often, they themselves fall into that category, and they don't know what to do with people like Algore, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, their leftist heroes, all rich by hook or by crook.

Tokie

WHAT DO ...YOU...SAY TO TAKING CHANCES :-O

Keep the public diverted away from "the real social issues and captivated by matters of no importance." "Sabotage their mental activities" by a "constant barrage of sex, violence and wars in the media" i.e. "mental and emotional rape."


Doctors Kill More People than Guns & Traffic Accidents combined

ONCE ALL THE SECRETS ARE TOLD YOU FAGGOT PUSHING DOCTOR PUSHING LIBERAL FEMINIST CUNTS ARE HISTORY :-)

Live Search: FEMINISM ANTI-WAR and the NWO AGENDA

THE NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE IS HERE :-)

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CIA/MEDIA VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT-RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS Petition

WHAT IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN :-O

?????????????????????????????????????????????

or are you :-I

^I^

__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

No, I don't think you're tuned in at all. If you can so easily look away from the cost this war has on America. The money is huge! (unfortunately I can't post the URL because I'm a new member....Google it yourself)

The neglect of basic needs of Americans, not to mention our returning vets is shameful.

I will never understand how anyone can rationalize the rape that Shrub & Co has done to this country.

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006.

You want to stop that too? Or are you like most Republicans and think that's just fine?

Jkay--welcome to you--but prepare your liberal ideology for punishment. Whats the Iraq war cost at?--600 Billion I believe. The costs for a SIX year war for freedom--is about the same amont we spend EVERY YEAR in this country on the democrat provided social tit.

George Bush cut taxes for the evil rich--and the government still brought in RECORD HIGH TAX REVENUES! Government cut taxes--and yet the government was still able to collect more taxes--I know this is hard for libs to understand.

Jkay--if you live in a bowl--and I tell you your going to drown if you stay in this bowl--and you still freely decide to remain in the bowl--are you going to blame me when the water reaches your neck? The people of New Orleans are morons--who decided to stay in the bowl. And those who were helpless to get themselves out of the bowl (questionable place to live for handicapped or elderly maybe?)--were left behind by Democrat mayor School Bus Nagin (D) as well as Democrat William Jefferson (D) who decided the bribe money stashed in his freezer was worth saving--while his fellow human beings were not. And to top it off--NAGIN WAS RE-ELECTED--truely a city of liberal morons--next time let them stay in the bowl--the average IQ of Americans will rise along with the water level.