Yes, every bit of what you say is entirely true
What really galls me though, is when they are loading their (paid-for with food stamps) groceries into a brand new pimped-out Cadillac.
2007-04-30 23:50:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
9⤋
Your "question" is a blatant lie and typical Republican stupidity. More whites are on welfare than blacks. I know a white Republican on welfare right now. All he talks about are food stamps, taxes and wealth redistribution. As he holds out his hand and benefits from "wealth redistribution" And then in the same breath you guys all claim "affirmative action" which means minorities are working. Obviously what you claim can't be true. Merck, McDonald's, American Express and Xerox all have black CEO's. Do you think they're on food stamps? Or was that "affirmative action"? Unemployment is over 8%. As a hiring manager 2 blacks accountants recently left my company for other companies with better pay. So minorities are working and with unemployment at 8% a lot of whites are not. How many of those are on food stamps? Tell your white welfare recipients they should apply at Merck, McDonald's, American Express and Xerox. Maybe they're hiring.
2016-05-17 22:56:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I thought only certain items qualified for food stamps, which is why I see people with two trolleys in the supermarket - one for the stuff we buy and one for the stuff they have to use their welfare check (or wages earned on the side) to buy.
To broaden it a bit, it seems that rules in the USA are stricter than the UK (I'm an immigrant from there) if you are out of work. They really keep tabs on you here, from what I gather, which is a good thing.
The problem is that children are used as an excuse for not working. Perhaps the government should restrict the length of time you can get welfare without making any effort to find work. After that short period is up, we should have programs which help people get back into work - good stuff like helping them set up interviews, advice on resumes and day care for when they go on interviews. The day care should, of course, continue for a period after they get a job to help them get on their feet. Perhaps all this would cost as much as providing welfare but at least we would be doing something productive. I can proudly say that the only government assistance I have accepted is subsidized student loans. I think that is an investment and a good use of tax dollars (which I contribute to as well). The old adage is true - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Why should welfare be any different?
Of course, for all this to work, we need a government which will foster a culture of excellence so that companies will see the benefits of keeping jobs in the USA rather than shipping them overseas. Without the jobs to put the unemployed into, we are stuck with the current situation.
2007-04-30 23:41:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by skip 6
·
7⤊
3⤋
I don't know what state your from but I know in Msaryland now they have all the food stamp items marked...and there is a card now like a debit card that you pay with, and if the person rings an item that is not marked as being able to purchase with food stamps it won't ring up at all...
But I must agree with you that there are a lot of people that take advantage of a system that is only supposed to help you until you can help yourself...
2007-04-30 23:42:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Just breathe . . . and take solace in knowing that our country wants to care for its citizens. . . .
I recall a time when my husband worked one full time job and had two part time jobs, and we still qualified for assistance.
I don't think we should make FS the final product though. I believe in "teach a man to fish."
My biggest gripe is over the elderly and veterans. They should not suffer the poverty of hunger, yet they do . . . which speaks very ill of our nation, when we don't grant the dues these people have paid for.
Wow, I almost forgot:
You don't want to open the door to personal regulation of food choice; if you allow the government to dictate some people's choices, you are inviting them to do the same for all people.
I could get behind nutrition classes for FS users though.
2007-05-01 05:00:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Moneta_Lucina 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes, I do, It will only change, when we can require people,
to work for their Benefits, Some short term Help, is sometimes needed, but the system, has become a way of life. I was in line, the guy in front an illegal was yapping on his cell phone buying only meat for a cookout. He was complaining, what his wife had to buy the beer at a different line.
2007-05-01 04:34:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
When I stretch my hundred dollars for twenty days (try it your self) it makes me proud to look back on the line I stood in last year when I was able to work and think that all these idiots are following me down the path of poverty because there is no way to break even in this corrupt world without being corrupt.I am proud to be honest.I still work every day.And I still am rooted in a system that is rapidly pressing poverty as the stabilizing feature of an economy based on emergency.Enjoy your hatred.It is like killing ants.When you realize your college educated are making their money from the indigent and it is the most reliable income source available,you will also realize part of a profit.Try to live for the rich or try to live for the poor.Candy for the dentist,beef for the cardiologist.
2007-05-01 00:48:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by stratoframe 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
Well, first I'd caution you to be careful not to lump everyone together. Just because someone doesn't appear disabled to you, doesn't mean they don't have problems.
But, in theory, I certainly agree with you.
Let me tell you why it will never work. In order to qualify for assistance (let's use SSI for an example), the person has to be physically or mentally unable to perform any kind of work for at least 1 year. If the government made it necessary to perform some sort of community service to offset the cost of their aid, such as food stamps, then the disability does not apply. Soooo...the entire system would have to be revamped to make it more equitable for everyone.
Having said that, it sure does p!ss me off!!
Sandy
2007-04-30 23:28:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sandy M 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
I strongly believe in a hand up and not a hand out. In many ways a mandatory 2 year term in the military would cure this ill in our country. Not to mention lower the crime rate. After a 2 year mandatory commitment the option to belong to the honorable volunteer armed forces should be offered if service has faithfully served. Core values amongst young American men could be established and emboldened thus making our country even stronger and united in a way never seen before. Even the war on drugs would be curbed to the extreme that billions would be saved. Even more money would be saved by adding these principles to our young men's lives to care for their children instead of the government spending billions on welfare. Of course as far as going to war goes only those whom volunteer to serve their country should go lest their be a more involved conflict encroaches upon us to our very shores.
2007-04-30 23:41:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Yes. Everyone around here knows never to go into a Walmart on the 15th and the 30th of the month. Welfare and foodstamp days! Sometimes I forget and, thinking I'm going to pop in for some hair products or contact cleaner, end up in a quagmire of single moms, lot's of homeless and illegals filling up their carts with snack cakes and coke.
2007-05-01 03:12:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Princess of the Realm 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
We need community works programs. Building reservoirs and electrical right of ways. Road repair and any other low or non skilled jobs that are required for the able bodied. A little work and they might decide that a real job is a better route.
2007-05-01 00:32:19
·
answer #11
·
answered by ? 6
·
4⤊
2⤋