Great Question, i'm a former Australian Soldier 3RAR - Airbourne, honourably discharged after serving my time in Afghanistan. Recently returned home from a trip to the US, i was amazed at how bad you'r homeless problem is, particularly in SanFrancisco. Seems to me you gave every homeless man between the ages of 25-55 a one-way Grayhound ticket to the West Coast! Most Western civilizations have a welfare system to ensure no citizen need live in abject poverty, so what went wrong over there? SanFrancisco is beautiful BUT oh my God, you'r losing tourist by the thousands! Any returned serviceman here can look forward to a comfortable living for yourself and your family for the rest of your life! It's disgusting that ANY Returned Serviceman THERE should EVER be on the street!
2007-02-02 20:42:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Welfare needs reformed !!!!!! I am not for the war at all, However there are so many on the welfare programs that it needs to be reformed. It should have a 2 years and your off rule. We have far too many LIFE welfare people.
It should be used for Temp help not a way of life. If you cant afford your child let it be raised by someone that can. So many COULD work but wont.
They say " oh i cant work or they will cut my Food stamps" Hello , thats what should happen. We have women having babies and staying on welfare and raising 3-7 kids and never working , or not more then part time during that whole time. Because it would lower my FREE bennifits.
If they dont work they need to do free work in the county they are getting taken care of from. Fix a woman after 2 kids, Track how the food stamps are being used. Limit the amount of junk food and soda that can be bought with them.
And they should not get a tax return. If they get money it should go to the state for taking care of them. They blow the money anyway.
And the ones that get child support need to have it put on a debt card so it can be tracked how they spend it. I know alot of women that get support but never buy the kids anything that the state doesnt supply for them
, And we wonder why dads dont wanna pay their child support. If they got a print out of how it was spent and where then maybe they would
2007-02-03 00:19:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by tammer 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ha ha - The plan from Gen Tommy Franks grow to be that u . s . a . should be in Iraq for 6-9 months after the autumn of Iraq. So for the previous 5 years u . s . a . has been contained in the quagmire - and it has brought about u . s . a . a huge monetary disaster. by the way - did you understand Donald Rumsfeld advised Bush /Cheney that it ought to value round $60 billion to defeat Saddam Hussein. thus far that is envisioned to have value $2800 billion. not far out Donald. What a comic book tale.
2016-12-03 09:38:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
California alone spends over $10 billion yearly on illegal aliens while homeless U.S. veterans sleep in the streets.
Welfare costs more Iraq. Even the guest worker program for illegal aliens is expected to cost more than the Iraq war says scientific experts(National Academy of Sciences). (The guest worker program is also expected to do a lot of environmental damage. And it will increase CO2 levels since illegal aliens have been proven to have more children in the U.S. than in Mexico. They also will be driving which most were not doing in Mexico.)
Illegal Immigration Could Cost Taxpayers Trillions
http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html
2007-02-02 20:12:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by a bush family member 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
You obviously have not been on the Fed. Gov. Grant web site.
Why don't you shut your pie hole long enough to see exactly how many grants are out there for people. All they have to do is use their limp brain cells to read and fill out the forms.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple...'nuff said.
2007-02-02 20:23:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by chole_24 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Time spent driving may up cancer risk: study
Drivers who spend a significant amount of time behind the wheel face a greater risk of developing skin cancer on the left side of the body, according to new U.S. research.
Dermatologist Dr. Scott Fosko, chairman of dermatology at Saint Louis University School of Medicine in St. Louis , Missouri , led a study examining the incidence of left-side skin cancers in U.S. patients and driving trends of adults.
"Our initial findings confirm that there is a correlation between more time spent driving and a higher incidence of left-sided skin cancers, especially on sun-exposed areas in men," Fosko said in a statement.
In a presentation to the 65th annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Fosko said the study involved 898 patients -- 559 men and 339 women.
Nearly two-thirds, or 64 percent, of left-side cancers were found in men compared with about one-third, or 36 percent, in women.
Fosko noted that his team also found a statistically significant number of left-side skin cancers on sun-exposed areas such as the head, neck, arms and hands in men, but not in women.
"This incidence directly correlates to the areas of the body most often exposed to UV radiation while driving," he said,
He said initial data showed that people under age 70 who consistently spent the most time per week driving a car were more likely to develop skin cancers on their left sides.
"We're also finding that all drivers who occasionally drive with the windows open had a higher incidence of left-sided skin cancers. Light skin complexion and more driving time also increased the risk for forming skin cancers on the left side," he said.
Fosko said he expected this trend to become more pronounced with more cars on the road and more women driving to work and family activities.
"I wouldn't be surprised if we see higher reports of left-sided skin cancers in women in the future -- gradually closing the gender gap that now exists," he said.
2007-02-02 20:12:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by canadians_are_imbeciles1 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
You sound like a stupid leftist. The only quagmire is the left's anti-freedom traitorousness. The left don't care about sh!t. They would have supported Clinton if he killed everybody in Iraq. Clinton and the rest of his regime said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Over and over again.
2007-02-02 20:14:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
That's because people don't have human rights after they are born, just in utero - at least women don't. I mean, we gave women the right to vote. Isn't that good enough for them? They actually want a say about what happens to their bodies as well? Ingrates.
2007-02-02 20:15:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by na n 3
·
0⤊
4⤋