info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
$ Spending Welfare Money to Buy Presents $
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Just Visiting
Nov 22, 2011, 9:08:37 PM11/22/11
to
It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
unless these are some of the presents.
better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
unless these are some of the presents.
23/11/11
Nov 22, 2011, 10:24:19 PM11/22/11
to
In article <f9loc7pv9o36bc19j...@4ax.com>,
it doesn't seem right for congressmen/senators to spend taxpayer money on porn,
but they sure do
but they sure do
Gordon Burditt
Nov 23, 2011, 12:38:54 AM11/23/11
to
> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings, it's no
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they can use it the
way they want (subject to legality: *some* drugs, like insulin,
are legal). Some presents are probably things they need anyway,
like clothing or food.
It's a very bad idea to put so many strings on that the average
person can't use much of their payment: this much has to go for
peanuts (but they're allergic), this much has to go for diapers
(but nobody in the family needs them), this much has to go for
dresses (but nobody in the family is female, and if the men wear
them in public they may be arrested), and this much has to go for
rent (but they own their own home). Meanwhile, one family member
really needs medication that's not on the list, and can't get it.
Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
President Obama
Teachers
Congress
Mail carriers
The Military
Seniors on Social Security
Defense contractors
Police Officers
The Unemployed on Unemployment
People on Welfare
Mrs Irish Mike
Nov 23, 2011, 5:01:06 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, Just Visiting <nospam-webex...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Congressman and tell him your crumb is much too large. I work much too
hard to not see you get ricketts and scurvey.
And I noticed that even certain children are getting a half a crumb
when it fact their parents aren''t suppose to get any. The next time
the 1% buffet table cloth is shaken out, everyone should get a crumb
based on the merit system, not by luck or need.
wrote:
> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
Gee guys, your crumb is bigger than my crumb. I'm gonna write my
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
Congressman and tell him your crumb is much too large. I work much too
hard to not see you get ricketts and scurvey.
And I noticed that even certain children are getting a half a crumb
when it fact their parents aren''t suppose to get any. The next time
the 1% buffet table cloth is shaken out, everyone should get a crumb
based on the merit system, not by luck or need.
Just Visiting
Nov 23, 2011, 6:02:04 PM11/23/11
to
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:38:54 -0600, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings, it's no
>longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they can use it the
>way they want (subject to legality: *some* drugs, like insulin,
>are legal). Some presents are probably things they need anyway,
>like clothing or food.
Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job. So, even though
Burditt) wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings, it's no
>longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they can use it the
>way they want (subject to legality: *some* drugs, like insulin,
>are legal). Some presents are probably things they need anyway,
>like clothing or food.
they're given money to spend, it still comes from the taxpayer's
pocket. It should be spent responsibly and not carelessly. Welfare
was not intended to be a lifestyle for people that are physically and
mentally able to work.
>
>It's a very bad idea to put so many strings on that the average
>person can't use much of their payment: this much has to go for
>peanuts (but they're allergic), this much has to go for diapers
>(but nobody in the family needs them), this much has to go for
>dresses (but nobody in the family is female, and if the men wear
>them in public they may be arrested), and this much has to go for
>rent (but they own their own home). Meanwhile, one family member
>really needs medication that's not on the list, and can't get it.
>
>Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>
>President Obama
>Teachers
>Congress
>Mail carriers
>The Military
>Seniors on Social Security
>Defense contractors
>Police Officers
>The Unemployed on Unemployment
>People on Welfare
>
Unemployment spending. "Working" in the public sector doesn't require
the same restrictions as they are considered employment opportunities,
not a financial hardship. The private sector is getting sick of
freeloaders, wasteful spending and money disappearing in the public
sector! It's never ending.
Bob Cratchet
Nov 23, 2011, 9:27:42 PM11/23/11
to
can of spam.
If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then life
is not worth the living.
Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it. Now however
those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
Scourge the Cheats but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by
reducing America and Americans to a Globalist hell on earth of a "more
sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels Socialists that
think Americans have/had too much, and "Americans have to learn to pay a
lot more for a lot less."
Gordon Burditt
Nov 23, 2011, 10:22:40 PM11/23/11
to
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>>> unless these are some of the presents.
>>
>>Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings, it's no
>>longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they can use it the
>>way they want (subject to legality: *some* drugs, like insulin,
>>are legal). Some presents are probably things they need anyway,
>>like clothing or food.
>
> Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job.
Neither is money going to a retired President or Congressman, or a
>>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>>> unless these are some of the presents.
>>
>>Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings, it's no
>>longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they can use it the
>>way they want (subject to legality: *some* drugs, like insulin,
>>are legal). Some presents are probably things they need anyway,
>>like clothing or food.
>
> Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job.
retired Postal Worker. (However, perhaps it would be a good idea
to retire all Congressmen and Presidents not currently retired.)
> So, even though
> they're given money to spend, it still comes from the taxpayer's
> pocket.
don't think they will ever reduce it so much that these people don't
celebrate holidays - even if it's zero but they still have to pay
exhorbitant taxes on the cardboard box they are living in, they
still may give each other things like half a dead rat to supplement
the single cockroach in a meal to celebrate.
It's still not "taxpayer money" after they've received it. It's
the recipient's money. They are allowed to choose what to do with
it, and it's in their best interest to do something intelligent
with it.
> It should be spent responsibly and not carelessly.
careless? Yes, you can probably point at some idiot on welfare who
bought a gold Cadillac while his kids didn't have shoes, but I can
probably point to some idiot with a minimum-wage job who did the
same thing.
> Welfare
> was not intended to be a lifestyle for people that are physically and
> mentally able to work.
nor does it equate to making sure they have no discretionary spending
money.
Who says "presents" are an irresponsible use of money? Kids often
get presents that include food and clothing. It might not be the
most frugal, healthful food and practical clothing, but it is still
not wasted. And I don't think that toys that are educational or
encourage healthy exercise are a waste, either. Adults often end
up getting practical things for each other or themselves, like
replacing furniture, repairing or getting more efficient appliances
(which eventually would be needed anyway), or sometimes it's stuff
that doesn't cost money at all. When I was growing up, "present"
certainly wasn't a code word for "extravagant luxury", and I don't
see that being the case now.
"Presents" may concentrate a lot of spending into a couple of months
of "holiday season", but if the holidays didn't exist, a lot of that
spending would still happen, just spread out over more time.
>>Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>>taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>>
>>President Obama
>>Teachers
>>Congress
>>Mail carriers
>>The Military
>>Seniors on Social Security
>>Defense contractors
>>Police Officers
>>The Unemployed on Unemployment
>>People on Welfare
>>
required to finish the job (they sure didn't earn their pay) - lock
them in a room. No meal breaks. No bathroom breaks or diaper
changes. No trash collection. No medical care until they're done.
If they don't get anything done in 3 months, bury the room and start
over with a fresh set of Congresscritters.
> There has to be some responsibility and accountability for Welfare and
> Unemployment spending.
to work, they should be looking for work, or perhaps more of that money
should be used for training people for work. Or maybe they just need to
cut benefits.
The guy who blows his welfare check on hookers, and drugs, then complains
that he doesn't have enough to eat has no basis for complaint. (But the
hookers are able to feed their children and perhaps stay off welfare.)
> "Working" in the public sector doesn't require
> the same restrictions as they are considered employment opportunities,
> not a financial hardship. The private sector is getting sick of
> freeloaders, wasteful spending and money disappearing in the public
> sector! It's never ending.
spending decision people on welfare make is just going to make even
more money disappear faster.
Rod Speed
Nov 24, 2011, 1:35:28 PM11/24/11
to
Just Visiting wrote
the clowns have been allowed by the govt to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
>> It's a very bad idea to put so many strings on that the average
>> person can't use much of their payment: this much has to go for
>> peanuts (but they're allergic), this much has to go for diapers
>> (but nobody in the family needs them), this much has to go for
>> dresses (but nobody in the family is female, and if the men wear
>> them in public they may be arrested), and this much has to go for
>> rent (but they own their own home). Meanwhile, one family member
>> really needs medication that's not on the list, and can't get it.
>> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>> President Obama
>> Teachers
>> Congress
>> Mail carriers
>> The Military
>> Seniors on Social Security
>> Defense contractors
>> Police Officers
>> The Unemployed on Unemployment
>> People on Welfare
> There has to be some responsibility and accountability
> for Welfare and Unemployment spending.
It would cost even more of the taxpayers money to keep
a check on everything that the money is spent on and to
ensure that none of it ever gets spent on presents.
> "Working" in the public sector doesn't require the same restrictions
> as they are considered employment opportunities, not a financial
> hardship. The private sector is getting sick of freeloaders, wasteful
> spending and money disappearing in the public sector! It's never ending.
Pity no one has been able to work out how to avoid
it without pissing even more money against the wall.
And the voters wont support your line that no taxpayer money should
ever be spent on anything you dont approve of, particularly when some
of the recipients are incapable of working or cant find a job because
the govt has been stupid enough to allow the clowns to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
> gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money
>>> but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>> Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings,
>> it's no longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they
>> can use it the way they want (subject to legality: *some*
>> drugs, like insulin, are legal). Some presents are probably
>> things they need anyway, like clothing or food.
> Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job.
> So, even though they're given money to spend, it still comes
> from the taxpayer's pocket. It should be spent responsibly
> and not carelessly. Welfare was not intended to be a lifestyle
> for people that are physically and mentally able to work.
Its also provided to those who cant find any work because
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money
>>> but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>> Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings,
>> it's no longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they
>> can use it the way they want (subject to legality: *some*
>> drugs, like insulin, are legal). Some presents are probably
>> things they need anyway, like clothing or food.
> Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job.
> So, even though they're given money to spend, it still comes
> from the taxpayer's pocket. It should be spent responsibly
> and not carelessly. Welfare was not intended to be a lifestyle
> for people that are physically and mentally able to work.
the clowns have been allowed by the govt to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
>> It's a very bad idea to put so many strings on that the average
>> person can't use much of their payment: this much has to go for
>> peanuts (but they're allergic), this much has to go for diapers
>> (but nobody in the family needs them), this much has to go for
>> dresses (but nobody in the family is female, and if the men wear
>> them in public they may be arrested), and this much has to go for
>> rent (but they own their own home). Meanwhile, one family member
>> really needs medication that's not on the list, and can't get it.
>> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>> President Obama
>> Teachers
>> Congress
>> Mail carriers
>> The Military
>> Seniors on Social Security
>> Defense contractors
>> Police Officers
>> The Unemployed on Unemployment
>> People on Welfare
> There has to be some responsibility and accountability
> for Welfare and Unemployment spending.
a check on everything that the money is spent on and to
ensure that none of it ever gets spent on presents.
> "Working" in the public sector doesn't require the same restrictions
> as they are considered employment opportunities, not a financial
> hardship. The private sector is getting sick of freeloaders, wasteful
> spending and money disappearing in the public sector! It's never ending.
it without pissing even more money against the wall.
And the voters wont support your line that no taxpayer money should
ever be spent on anything you dont approve of, particularly when some
of the recipients are incapable of working or cant find a job because
the govt has been stupid enough to allow the clowns to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
Rod Speed
Nov 24, 2011, 1:52:49 PM11/24/11
to
Bob Cratchet wrote
> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then life is not worth the living.
Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with even half a clue.
> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment benefits where
the recipient could have made their own provision for time between jobs.
> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
> Scourge the Cheats
Easier said than done.
> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
No thanks on those out of work.
> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by
> reducing America and Americans to a Globalist hell on earth
You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and
> "Americans have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
> Just Visiting wrote
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread and a can of spam.
Presents are never a necessity.
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread and a can of spam.
> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then life is not worth the living.
> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
the recipient could have made their own provision for time between jobs.
> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
> Scourge the Cheats
Easier said than done.
> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by
> reducing America and Americans to a Globalist hell on earth
> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and
> "Americans have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
Bob Cratchet
Nov 24, 2011, 2:02:33 PM11/24/11
to
Rod Speed
Nov 24, 2011, 2:28:00 PM11/24/11
to
Bob Cratchet wrote
You wouldnt know what the real truth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
The US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and
illegal immigration rate and the participartion rate (percentage of the working
age group actually working) at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
THATS the problem, allowing the clowns to completely implode the entire
world financial system, again, not globalisation which has been going on
for centurys now and which has delivered you the magnificent improvement
in the real standard of living even you have seen since say 1900 or even 1950.
The US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and
illegal immigration rate and the participartion rate (percentage of the working
age group actually working) at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
THATS the problem, allowing the clowns to completely implode the entire
world financial system, again, not globalisation which has been going on
for centurys now and which has delivered you the magnificent improvement
in the real standard of living even you have seen since say 1900 or even 1950.
Bob Cratchet
Nov 24, 2011, 2:38:36 PM11/24/11
to
what little retirement they had early, or not filing because they
exhausted unemployment benefits.
You have and agenda not facts.
Rod Speed
Nov 24, 2011, 2:55:29 PM11/24/11
to
> You have and agenda
Corse you dont have anything like that yourself, eh ?
> not facts.
Thats certainly true of you.
The Real Bev
Nov 26, 2011, 1:15:43 AM11/26/11
to
On 11/22/2011 09:38 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>
> President Obama
> Teachers
> Congress
> Mail carriers
> The Military
> Seniors on Social Security
> Defense contractors
> Police Officers
These people are assumed to either be working for their money or to have
> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>
> President Obama
> Teachers
> Congress
> Mail carriers
> The Military
> Seniors on Social Security
> Defense contractors
> Police Officers
worked for it. They can do what they want with it. Whether they're
worth what they're paid is a different question, of course.
> The Unemployed on Unemployment
> People on Welfare
dead in the streets from starvation. Christmas gifts are NOT
subsistence, they're a luxury. Jewish taxpayers don't buy Christmas
gifts; why should they be required to give money to other people so
THEY can buy Christmas gifts?
I see a difference between unemployment and welfare; the unemployed
actually worked for a living at one time, unlike welfare recipients who
are no more essential to a functioning society than pet goldfish. Less,
in fact; goldfish are cheaper.
--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey
and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Gordon Burditt
Nov 26, 2011, 4:43:28 AM11/26/11
to
>> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>>
>> President Obama
>> Teachers
>> Congress
>> Mail carriers
>> The Military
>> Seniors on Social Security
>> Defense contractors
>> Police Officers
>
> These people are assumed to either be working for their money or to have
> worked for it.
That's certainly not the case with Congress.
>> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>>
>> President Obama
>> Teachers
>> Congress
>> Mail carriers
>> The Military
>> Seniors on Social Security
>> Defense contractors
>> Police Officers
>
> These people are assumed to either be working for their money or to have
> worked for it.
> They can do what they want with it. Whether they're
> worth what they're paid is a different question, of course.
>
>> The Unemployed on Unemployment
>> People on Welfare
>
> These are subsistence payments designed to keep people from dropping
> dead in the streets from starvation.
them from starving. Putting them in a Welfare Zoo would be a lot
cheaper (no need for clothes). So would processing some of them
into Solyent Green to feed the others. There is hope that people
will use some of that money to buy a good suit, maybe get some more
education, learn how to interview, and actually get a job and get
off welfare. In the current economy, that's difficult to do, but
some do that anyway. But to do that, the payments are larger than
"subsistence".
It is still the law that they can do what they want with this money.
There are some programs like food stamps which require that the
money be spent on specific things. Unemployment and Welfare in
general are not included in this. You don't want to add one auditor
per three welfare recipients to the cost of welfare.
> Christmas gifts are NOT
> subsistence, they're a luxury.
cost money.
Christmas gifts may be gifts of necessities. I don't know how it
was when you grew up, but when I did, Christmas gifts to kids usually
included clothes, school supplies, and other things reasonably
classed as necessities. The kids may not have appreciated this as
much as they should have. They also tended to include food (and
not just candy). And my family was not on welfare, and only briefly
on unemployment. (and by "clothes", I do *not* mean prom dresses,
$200 footwear, school uniforms, and other expensive fashions not
suitable for school).
If you didn't have someone around watching our family open presents,
you wouldn't know what was a "present" and what was a "necessity",
as there is a lot of overlap between the two. Is a new winter coat
to replace an old one that's worn out and too small a luxury if
it's a present and a necessity if it's not? No. Does it really
matter whether the husband pays to have the house exterminated and
the wife replaces a failing refrigerator, vs. the wife giving the
husband extermination as a present and the husband giving the wife
a refrigerator? Same $$$ spent, either way. I've seen two kids
give each other $100 as a Christmas present. They passed a quarter
back and forth until they had each given the other $100. Guess
what? After they did that, the one that had the quarter still had
it.
Granted, my family did give me some presents you'd probably classify
as "luxuries", including educational toys and books, which probably
contributed a lot to success in school and later in the job market.
Some churches give out presents to some of the needier families in
the area: bags of groceries, repairs to their homes, food baskets,
and sometimes clothing. Funny, it was some of these needier families
that went all-out contributing money to this project. Are you also
going to protest that church contributions by welfare recipients
are luxuries?
The fact that some welfare recipients may use the money for luxuries,
whether they are presents or not, such as HDTVs, expensive cars and
jewelry, beer, recreational drugs, etc. does not make the payments
any bigger.
> Jewish taxpayers don't buy Christmas
> gifts; why should they be required to give money to other people so
> THEY can buy Christmas gifts?
don't die in the streets? Congress seems to have decided that they
should. And the payments don't get any bigger because they give
Christmas gifts. Is there any group that doesn't give birthday
presents?
> I see a difference between unemployment and welfare; the unemployed
> actually worked for a living at one time, unlike welfare recipients who
> are no more essential to a functioning society than pet goldfish. Less,
> in fact; goldfish are cheaper.
them held good jobs until something happened like a serious medical
problem, which may or may not be fixable after some time. Some of them
may eventually get off of welfare eventually.
If you want to reduce the amount of money going down the public-sector
welfare rathole, get Congress to do a few things:
- Don't give welfare or unemployment to people who are not allowed
to work (illegal aliens).
- Insist that people on welfare who can work prove that they are looking
for a job (unemployment already does this).
- Don't encourage those on welfare to breed by increasing their benefits
a lot for more kids.
- Implement procedures so illegal aliens are not allowed to vote.
- Don't give welfare to people for life.
- Charge each Congresscritter a tax of one cent per million dollars of
National Debt per year.
- Stop bailing out large corporations and banks.
j
Nov 27, 2011, 7:03:14 AM11/27/11
to
On 11/22/2011 9:08 PM, Just Visiting wrote:
"Welfare" is widely misunderstood. There was a recent survey that Fox
News viewers know less than those who don't watch any news:
http://perezhilton.com/2011-11-22-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-non-news-viewers#.TtIk9FbhcqM
Are talking about SSI? I know someone disabled who is "living" on SSI.
There is enough money to keep from dropping dead, but certainly not more
than enough for luxuries, like nice presents.
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2011, 1:55:28 PM11/27/11
to
j wrote
> Just Visiting wrote
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
> Are talking about SSI? I know someone disabled who is "living" on SSI. There is enough money to keep from dropping
> dead, but certainly not more than enough for luxuries, like nice presents.
Thats just plain wrong. Plenty of nice presents cost nothing, just some thought.
> dead, but certainly not more than enough for luxuries, like nice presents.
M.L.
Nov 28, 2011, 12:41:07 AM11/28/11
to
>I see a difference between unemployment and welfare; the unemployed
>actually worked for a living at one time, unlike welfare recipients who
>are no more essential to a functioning society than pet goldfish. Less,
>in fact; goldfish are cheaper.
I never would have started reading your posts in the first place. I'm
going to rectify that mistake now.
Just Visiting
Nov 28, 2011, 7:56:48 PM11/28/11
to
lot. Multiple drug busts, newer fancy cars (ie. Cadillacs) coming and
going, lights left on during the night, rental entertainment systems
and furniture coming and going, etc, etc, etc.
Oh, and these people living on SSI. Yes, there are legit cases out
there but, also, not-so-legit cases. Someone we know lives by a guy
that collects SSI and he spends some of his money on booze and whores.
He plays his porn videos really loud when he has a whore with him. If
you can get away with it, who's going to stop it? It's not likely
that this is an isolated case.
Rod Speed
Nov 29, 2011, 4:04:23 AM11/29/11
to
Just Visiting wrote
> j <mun...@att.net> wrote
> and we saw a lot. Multiple drug busts, newer fancy cars (ie.
> Cadillacs) coming and going, lights left on during the night, rental
> entertainment systems and furniture coming and going, etc, etc, etc.
It would be a fucking sight more surprising if that
didnt happen with so many of you into illegal drugs.
> Oh, and these people living on SSI.
You have no way of knowing if they were or not.
> Yes, there are legit cases out there but, also, not-so-legit cases.
There will always be some who abuse any system.
> Someone we know lives by a guy that collects SSI and
> he spends some of his money on booze and whores.
Its just not possible to ensure that no one does that.
> He plays his porn videos really loud when he has a whore with him.
You have no way of knowing if he does or not.
> If you can get away with it, who's going to stop it?
> It's not likely that this is an isolated case.
Have fun actually proposing a way of making that impossible
without something like a good outside his door asking all visitors
for ID and costing vastly more than the SSI cost the state.
> j <mun...@att.net> wrote
>> Just Visiting wrote
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>>> unless these are some of the presents.
>> Exactly what "welfare" money are you talking about? What makes up
>> "Welfare" is widely misunderstood. There was a recent survey that Fox
>> News viewers know less than those who don't watch any news:
>> http://perezhilton.com/2011-11-22-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-non-news-viewers#.TtIk9FbhcqM
>> Are talking about SSI? I know someone disabled who is "living"
>> on SSI. There is enough money to keep from dropping dead,
>> but certainly not more than enough for luxuries, like nice presents.
> We used to live in a neighborhood with section 8 housing
No surprises there. You clearly dont have what it takes between the ears.
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>>> unless these are some of the presents.
>> Exactly what "welfare" money are you talking about? What makes up
>> "Welfare" is widely misunderstood. There was a recent survey that Fox
>> News viewers know less than those who don't watch any news:
>> http://perezhilton.com/2011-11-22-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-non-news-viewers#.TtIk9FbhcqM
>> Are talking about SSI? I know someone disabled who is "living"
>> on SSI. There is enough money to keep from dropping dead,
>> but certainly not more than enough for luxuries, like nice presents.
> We used to live in a neighborhood with section 8 housing
> and we saw a lot. Multiple drug busts, newer fancy cars (ie.
> Cadillacs) coming and going, lights left on during the night, rental
> entertainment systems and furniture coming and going, etc, etc, etc.
didnt happen with so many of you into illegal drugs.
> Oh, and these people living on SSI.
> Yes, there are legit cases out there but, also, not-so-legit cases.
> Someone we know lives by a guy that collects SSI and
> he spends some of his money on booze and whores.
> He plays his porn videos really loud when he has a whore with him.
> If you can get away with it, who's going to stop it?
> It's not likely that this is an isolated case.
without something like a good outside his door asking all visitors
for ID and costing vastly more than the SSI cost the state.
zeez
Nov 29, 2011, 4:11:10 PM11/29/11
to
> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
Yet corporate welfare with no strings attatched is A-Ok?
> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
> unless these are some of the presents.
--
The poor have more responsibilities than the rich
The All Knowing Shawn Hirn
Nov 30, 2011, 10:14:20 PM11/30/11
to
In article <bb98d7966l2p24ecu...@4ax.com>,
I have a close relative who lives on SSI due to a disability. He lives
pay-check-to-pay-check. There are some months where he doesn't even have
enough money to buy all the medications and food he needs and still pay
his rent. He wears clothes that he buys at Good Will or other thrift
stores and he will all but wear off the soles of his shoes before he
replaces them. Not a life of luxury by any means.
pay-check-to-pay-check. There are some months where he doesn't even have
enough money to buy all the medications and food he needs and still pay
his rent. He wears clothes that he buys at Good Will or other thrift
stores and he will all but wear off the soles of his shoes before he
replaces them. Not a life of luxury by any means.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Nov 30, 2011, 11:24:50 PM11/30/11
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:11:10 -0800 (PST), zeez <blinking...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, Just Visiting <nospam-webex...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Yet corporate welfare with no strings attatched is A-Ok?
You mean like Solyndra?
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, Just Visiting <nospam-webex...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Yet corporate welfare with no strings attatched is A-Ok?
Just Visiting
Dec 4, 2011, 7:38:42 PM12/4/11
to
because I've concluded that no matter what I say, you will always find
a way to criticize me and put down my statements. No matter what
issue that anybody stands on, there will ALWAYS be critics like you. I
know someone that's always criticizing people with his condescending
attitude just like you do but I know that you can't help it because
your personal demons help to drive you that way.
Just Visiting
Dec 4, 2011, 7:44:41 PM12/4/11
to
better than others on SSI. Also, there's monetary transactions under
the table, too.
Rod Speed
Dec 5, 2011, 11:23:51 AM12/5/11
to
Just Visiting wrote
Because all you ever do is spew mindless silly shit that anyone can piss on from a great height.
> No matter what issue that anybody stands on, there will ALWAYS be critics like you.
Wrong, as always. And you dont stand on a damned thing except the floor.
> I know someone that's always criticizing people with his condescending
> attitude just like you do but I know that you can't help it because
> your personal demons help to drive you that way.
You're projecting, again.
> No matter what issue that anybody stands on, there will ALWAYS be critics like you.
> I know someone that's always criticizing people with his condescending
> attitude just like you do but I know that you can't help it because
> your personal demons help to drive you that way.
Rod Speed
Dec 5, 2011, 11:26:53 AM12/5/11
to
Just Visiting wrote
>>> j <mun...@att.net> wrote
Just like with anything else, including CEO remuneration.
Wota surprise.
> Also, there's monetary transactions under the table, too.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> The All Knowing Shawn Hirn<sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Just Visiting <nospam-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>> j <mun...@att.net> wrote
Wota surprise.
> Also, there's monetary transactions under the table, too.
Just Visiting
Dec 6, 2011, 6:45:19 PM12/6/11
to
>On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, Just Visiting <nospam-webex...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Yet corporate welfare with no strings attatched is A-Ok?
Who said corporate welfare is A-OK? Of course not! That's a
>wrote:
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>Yet corporate welfare with no strings attatched is A-Ok?
different slice of the pie.
0 new messages