Forums Register login What's New?
Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year
Page 4 of 15
  1. "Crazy checks"..."Mail box money"..."My check"...

    I don't know what you're talking about red. Most of them get their checks until the kid is at least 18, if not longer. They work for cash, get three or four $1000 plus checks per month, and contribute nothing to society.

    They force their kids to fail in school. They work the system to get the smallest ailment rated on an IEP to qualify. They were raised this way and they're raising their young this way. It's a never ending cycle and we encourage it by mailing their checks every month like clock work. And then, if they qualify to file, the scum buy their niece's and nephew's SSN from their sister or brother so they can claim them on their tax return.

    And before someone says something stupid, this isn't a black or white thing.

    Why should they work? They dropped out of school and probably have felony records. They can make a lot more by sitting at home watching Dr. Phil and oprah than they could working...so why bother?

    I say it would only take a couple of generations to weed out the scum if we cut them off. No more hand outs. Work or starve. It's their choice. No one should rate a check for just breathing and breeding.

    And red, if they're locked up, then their not stealing or breeding.
  2. had to read up on it. but its for elderly, disabled or blind. do people here have a problem with that?
  3. is this still about social security? or welfare?

    with ssi there is a limit a family can get, they cant get 4 $1000 checks/month. and, again, this cant go to just anyone, they have to qualify---for children, basically be a dependent of someone that qualifies for ssi.

    im sure there are ways they manipulate the system, but that just means the system needs to be tightened, not that the idea of helping the elderly, disabled and blind is bad.
  4. No, but there are alleged "poor" who manage to cash in and I do have a problem with that.

  5. So they are stealing to cash in to get food to not starve.

    Why not just steal food.

    I found this also. Neat: http://www.documentingexcellence.com/modeling/unemployment_crime.htm

  6. You can't snort food.
  7. tell that to the millions of starving children around the world who have no food, no clean water to drink, living in slums. The World Bank reported that there are 80 countries have water shortages, while 40 % of this planet, more than 2 billion people, have no access to clean water or sanitation.
  8. Well, as far as saving us money, it is far cheaper to give them commodity cheese and food stamps for three years than to incarcerate them for 8 to 12. They are not going to just go away and they won't starve if there is something to steal.

    Doing time in a low-security prison for burglary is free room and board during hard times to some of these slackers. Citizens paying for them to have three squares, free clothing, free utilities and a warm bed for years upsets me more than giving them enough food stamps to get by. Costs more too. Lots more.
  9. I think it is an outdated stereotype based on outdated perceptions from decades ago. One can't stay on welfare forever anymore, she must participate in employment training, and must jump through many more hoops to qualify for benefits. It's mostly unemployed women and children. The shiftless alcoholic, druggy types (and we've all seen them) are mostly unemployed street people, not supporting dependent children and not on welfare.

    The old "welfare" was the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, created as part of the New Deal in 1935. Most of the single-mother beneficiaries of welfare were then widows; by 1988, most of these women with children were either unmarried or divorced. The program tended to discourage fathers from being present and encourage having more babies and a single-parent family could stay on welfare for decades.

    In 1996, Bill Clinton worked with the Republican Congress to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which completely remade the program. Among other changes, a lifetime limit of five years was imposed for the receipt of benefits, and the limited nature of the new program was emphasized by calling it Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

    Hopefully so, and that's happening right now. Welfare expenditures are down. Qualifying for it is lots more difficult. There is no more incentive to have more children you can't afford or absentee fathers. Fit men unwilling to work are simply homeless bums reliant on shelters like St. Vincent de Paul or handouts from their poor working family members.

    But then they are costing us even more of our money, Salty! We just need to find the right balance point. One that keeps the absolute minimum number of people on the dole while it encourages personal responsibility and neither allows people to work the system for personal benefit nor starve in a cardboard box under the bridge while their kids go into expensive foster care.
  10. There's always this:
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 4 of 15