|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Michigan sets new tone on welfare started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Sep. 07 2011,06:24
< 4 year lifetime limit. >QUOTE "We are returning cash assistance to its original intent as a transitional program to help families while they work toward self-sufficiency," Snyder said in a statement. Fucking amen! End the handouts. This country will never get on the right track as long as people can sit at home and get a free check indefinitely. I will grant opponents that some people caught in this will be tragic cases, but let's be honest, they're NOT the norm. They are the exception. After Katrina, we didn't see tragic cases everywhere, we saw countless families who had generations of family members who never worked a day in their lives all living off the government tit. Even when handed money to get back on their feet, they instead went shopping for handbags, TVs, and other unimportant shit. It's great to want to help people, and please note that most programs are still continuing, but at some point you have to stop before you drag everyone else down. That's what's been happening in this country. We're pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of supporting and pursuing our best and brightest. I did find it interesting that they didn't quote a single Democrat in the article, just bleeding hearts and churches. Based on what the previous governor did, I'd say this is a pretty bi-partisan move. Considering I just moved to Michigan, I'm thinking this was the state's way of thanking me for bringing my talents north. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2011,06:39
Here's a question, what does more damage, perpetual welfare recipients, or unions?I submit unions. Welfare recipients will probably not ever do much of anything. Most of them aren't dumb because they are poor, they are poor because they are dumb. Fact of life. "The poor will always be with us." Unions, on the other hand, have the ability to strong-arm entire industries into the dirt, even the successful ones. This can take out tens of thousands of jobs and depress entire regions of the country, and make it cheaper to build entirely new plants in far away countries and ship the stuff back across an ocean, rather than deal with unions. Detroit used to be thriving, now it is a ghost town and the ripple effect has affected communities a hundred miles away. The US Post Office used to be self sufficient, now its union labor costs account for 80% of its budget, and if I recall correctly from bidness class 20 years ago, most bidnesses shoot for 20% labor costs. I'd like to see drug testing for welfare recipients..... but besides that, I don't think at least half of them can possibly take care of themselves, and the alternative is letting them starve in the streets. They don't produce, and they are relatively cheap to maintain, and honestly they have all the o opportunity in the world in this country to better their situations. Unions actively destroy the creation of wealth. Also don't let welfare recipients smoke. If they want to drink, learn a useful skill like beer brewing or something. Stimulate the intellect, learn a new skill, have fun, and get drunk all at the same time. It's win/win/win/win. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2011,06:54
Maybe we can combine both of those into one: when hitting the limit after four years on welfare, they automatically get a union job where they can be worthless and drive an industry into the ground. Then after all the union shops have closed, we cancel welfare and move on with our lives.QUOTE I'd like to see drug testing for welfare recipients..... Also don't let welfare recipients smoke. On the contrary, we should be encouraging them to smoke and do drugs and whatnot. They'll be happier and they're much more likely to get off welfare sooner which would make me happier. Posted by Leisher on Sep. 07 2011,07:14
QUOTE Here's a question, what does more damage, perpetual welfare recipients, or unions? That is an interesting question, and your answer sold me for a minute, but I realized you only focused on finances. Unions have fucked this country over in a big way, but let's be honest, it wasn't the millions of union members who did it, it was those who led them, and the "the rich man is trying to keep you down" mentality that union leaders purposely promoted. Want to see the same thing in action today outside of unions? Look at Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright, etc. all telling the people stupid enough to listen to them that whitey is keeping them down. Same trick, different asshole magician. All it does it whip up that mob mentality, and helps to keep the person performing the trick in power. The problem is that union members didn't keep their leaders in check. Their leaders got greedy, so they got greedy. They fell right into the trap and bitched their way out of jobs. There are so many examples of companies telling a union that they have to take a pay cut or the company is folding up or moving to a new state, and the union stands firm, and everyone loses their job. It's insanity. Unions were a great tool for the common worker at one time, but that day is gone. Now they're just a tool for people to be greedy. They helped the stupid, incompetent, and lazy keep their jobs, while actually holding back their more exception members from achieving more. As for welfare recipients, I would argue that they help to promote a culture of "me" in this country, which has definitely hurt us all. 5 generations of families living off the government has completely flipped the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech, which is ironic considering these welfare people generally vote Democrat. At least union members are working, and generally live the "normal American life" with the home and family. Welfare recipients don't work, I would bet are typically from and live within a broken home. What exactly do they provide to our society? A consumer? Really? We're talking about people who shouldn't have extra cash for luxuries. That means, if they're buying anything outside of their means, then they're making ends meet in illegal ways. Now you're talking crime, drugs, etc. In my humble opinion, I think the next step is to put welfare recipients to work: -Daycare providers for other welfare recipients when they work. (Daycare would be free of charge.) -Park rangers. -Trash pick up crews. -Crosswalk guards for school kids. -Etc. Here's the best part: They're already being paid! Once they hit a certain point, and prove they're good workers, they get hired on full time. You could also work out deals with companies. A company can train welfare recipients for specific jobs, and pay them nothing or a small amount because the government is still paying them. Once the training is over, they start working for a probation period. Once that probation period ends, they company takes them on full time with benefits and the welfare payments end. I agree with the drug testing too. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2011,07:22
Drug testing, and mandatory birth control. Why have free day care... just keep them from having babies until they can pay for them, themselves. You can't take care of yourself when you have children underfoot.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 07 2011,07:45
Mandatory birth control would be interesting. The daycare is necessary. One of the biggest excuses I hear about people "stuck" on welfare is that they're single parents and can't afford child care so they can work. In my idea, they're given free daycare AND a job. No more excuses. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2011,08:02
Perhaps a more practical solution would be that in order to get on welfare they have to first give up their children for adoption. Solves the daycare problem and also makes it so that they are less likely to want to have more kids they'd just have to give up. Also good for the kids, because it removes them from the tutelage of someone who has clearly failed to develop into a useful member of society.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 07 2011,08:40
Ever see Precious? Poor people are fucked.
|