stairman

Me...i'm 55...live in the peoples republic of kalifornia where there are signs at the beach entrances with 16 things you aren't allowed to do(balls of any type, frisbees ,fishing rods alcohol fires bbqs...need I go on),where traffic fines are higher then most middle class home mortgages across the country and accidentally going one fish over the limit when four of you can catch forty will cost you 1200$ and where the majority continues to v**e for more of the same.
I care about what will happen when we reach the tipping point where most people in the country either get a check for doing nothing or a check for figuring out how to get the money to the former,and /or enforcing the laws taking that money from those that earned it and giving it to both of the former two.
I don't care what you do in your personal life if it doesn't affect me...and by that I primarily mean financially.You go ahead and make your choices,which include being ignorant and happy you are but unable therefore to support yourself,just don't expect me to help pay for those choices.
I have the utmost compassion for those who through no fault of their own have had a tough life and need help.I have none for those that want me to support them and do nothing to help themselves.There are degrees to this from the totally faultless to the complete opposite...my compassion is proportionate.
My political stance is filtered with this in mind and hopefully here is a forum where that can be discussed with an open mind.I may refer people that don't understand me to this post....:0).

Attached file:
(Download)

tombrady

the problem with your stance is it cost more to find out who is legimate and who the f**es are. (increase adminstration cost social workers) it actually more econmical to just hand the money out to all the poor . mitt romney wrote in his book he would increase welfare cost because he would insist evryone of welfare have some job and as i pointed out this would be more costly than just handing out the money with minimal supervision

WhoIsJohnGalt

To your planet, welcome!

tombrady

thank you

stairman

if you look at just short term monetary costs yes it might be more expensive....your stance in the long term is far more costly with the destruction it does to society at large.
Would you rather that kids grow up in a family where they see mom and dad,haif their is one,sitting on their fat asses and compl,aining that the check has arrived yet so you'll have to go hungry or a home where the parent/s leaves the house everyday for a job.Kids watching welfare parents live is destructiive to what should be expected of them...pull there own weight.
You also discount that so people once working will actually benefit by liking the work they do ,becoming good at it because they see others in the company making better money then the entry level job and be permanantly off the welfare rolls.
we are reaping the results of the inexpensive option now.An army of social workers would iniatally be paid with the dollars saved by the c***ters and could be temporary workers.