| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a job? No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 5hrs 56mins ******************************************* Bungee Jumper? Catch you on the rebound. ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
T > fnord
. org: > In article >, > says... >> >> "hahabogus" > wrote >> >> > The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well >> > known cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet. >> >> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last >> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children >> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you >> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who >> needed it. >> >> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. >> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work. >> >> nancy >> >> > > Huh, RI is even stingier. You only get 2 years here but here's the > dirty little secret. While they won't pay the adults to stay on the > dole they sure as shit pay for the kids until they hit age 18. > Um, how do they "pay for the kids", without giving the funds to the parents? Do you think it is a child's responsibility to have parents who remain consistently employed? -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
T wrote:
> says... >> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last >> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children >> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you >> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who >> needed it. >> >> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. >> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work. > Huh, RI is even stingier. You only get 2 years here but here's the > dirty little secret. While they won't pay the adults to stay on the > dole they sure as shit pay for the kids until they hit age 18. That's true, and while I see no problem with expecting people to work if they need money, I know that children need to be housed and fed. They can't go to work and make a living. I also think they should see the adults in the home set the example that you go to work every day/whatever, to earn a living. I know, radical. nancy |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247: > On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... > >> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a >> job? > > No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for > adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for > them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams) foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be disallowed from having children? If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have family who would either help me out financially until I could find a comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ? -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
T > fnord
. org: > In article >, > says... >> In article >> >, >> John Kane > wrote: >> >> > On Sep 14, 12:32*pm, Omelet > wrote: >> > > >> > > The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity. >> > >> > Cite? >> >> Oh please! >> >> > >> > And if it does, why? Has society made it so difficult to excape that >> > it is not even worth trying? >> >> Yes. >> >> > >> > What is the breakdown of the people on welfare in your community? >> >> I live in South Texas. >> >> > >> > Just how much money do they get? >> >> Enough to survive, but I'm not happy about supporting freeloaders. Are >> you? >> >> > >> > John Kane Kingston ON Canada >> >> The USA is not as socialist as Canada is, yet. >> >> What is your income tax rate? > > Oh, about 40% when you add up state and federal plus the various dips > for SSI, etc. > > I need to buy property so I get the interest and tax write offs. > > > freeloader!  -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
> Wayne Boatwright > fnord > 5.247: > >> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... >> >>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a >>> job? >> >> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for >> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for >> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. > > Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams) > foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those > who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child is > born; are you insinuating that the working class should be disallowed > from having children? I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers* (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that the adult recipients should be limited from having further children. > If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another > with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have family > who would either help me out financially until I could find a comparable > job, or at least offer me a place to live with my daughter, but if not > fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. Yes, some people abuse > they system. But saying that there should be no safety net in a country > as well-to-do as ours is, and that people who find themselves in > unfortunate situations, often beyond their control, should have their > children taken from them, is horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A > Modest Proposal" ? I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary. When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care. I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare system is seriously ****ed up. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 4hrs 22mins ******************************************* A friend in need is someone to avoid. ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Furthermore, this is an absolutely pointless discussion, since the issues
will not be resolved here. The only barely relevancy to this group is food stamps. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 4hrs 4mins ******************************************* Never drink from your finger bowl, it contains only water ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247: > On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us... > >> Wayne Boatwright > fnord >> 5.247: >> >>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... >>> >>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get >>>> a job? >>> >>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for >>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for >>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. >> >> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams) >> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those >> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child >> is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be >> disallowed from having children? > > I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers* > (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no > benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the > children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that > the adult recipients should be limited from having further children. > You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because their parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in the home of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the government for their efforts, is better for that child. >> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another >> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have >> family who would either help me out financially until I could find a >> comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my >> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. >> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be >> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people >> who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their >> control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to >> say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ? > > I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many > conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls > for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These > are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while > they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on > with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any > conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected > way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a > damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should > most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about > having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits > for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary. > The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, what the hell are you supposed to do? How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system? > When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance > through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? > Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! > All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation than most. Give yourself a pat on the back there. > Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that > this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their > life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and > get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care. > They don't get "everything under the sun". I realize that people *do* abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person on welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare. Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is rather unfair. > I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare > system is seriously ****ed up. > You already said that you think a solution would be to take children away from their parents, and put them into the homes of strangers while their parents starve would be a solution. And I think that is rather sad, myself. -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:18:37p, Saerah Gray told us...
> Wayne Boatwright > fnord > 5.247: > >> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us... >> >>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord >>> 5.247: >>> >>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... >>>> >>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get >>>>> a job? >>>> >>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for >>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for >>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. >>> >>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams) >>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those >>> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child >>> is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be >>> disallowed from having children? >> >> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers* >> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no >> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the >> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that >> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children. >> > > You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think > that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because their > parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in the home > of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the government for > their efforts, is better for that child. Actually, I know quite a lot about the foster care system, as I work for a not-for-profit mental health agency and I see similar situations all the time. I would rather see foster parents receive the government benefits than the parents who *refuse* to work. They clearly do not deserve the beneefits. I have no further comment on that situation. >>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another >>> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have >>> family who would either help me out financially until I could find a >>> comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my >>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. >>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be >>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people >>> who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their >>> control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to >>> say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ? >> >> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many >> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls >> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These >> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while >> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on >> with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any >> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected >> way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a >> damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should >> most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about >> having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits >> for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary. >> > > The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, and > are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage jobs > available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford childcare > even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, what the hell > are you supposed to do? > > How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system? The difference is, if the parent(s) are working for wages that are inadequate, they deserve to receive benefits to supplement what they need. Those who *won't* work deserve nothing. There's a huge difference between trying and making absolutely no effort. I have no further comment on that situation. either. >> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance >> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? >> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! > > All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation than > most. Give yourself a pat on the back there. Bullshit! I desparately needed help and couldn't get it. Just because I had previously been working was of no benefit to me when I was no longer working. I have no further comment on that situation. either. >> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that >> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their >> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and >> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care. >> > > They don't get "everything under the sun". You'd be very surprised if you lived where I do. Given my place of employment, I know exactly what many people get. I realize that people *do* > abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person on > welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare. > Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is rather > unfair. I take that very personally, especially when you make the differentiation you do. When you're back is against the wall, you have no immediate propects for employment, and need medical attention but are refused by the system, it becomes very personal. **** on the system that refuses me and gives freely to others. No further comment. >> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare >> system is seriously ****ed up. >> > > You already said that you think a solution would be to take children > away from their parents, and put them into the homes of strangers while > their parents starve would be a solution. > > And I think that is rather sad, myself. Just because a situation/solution may be sad does not invalidate it. Debtors prison was sad, but the children of those people probably faired better because of it. You won't win me over. We definitely do not share the same values. I'm done. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 3hrs 34mins ******************************************* Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247: > When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance > through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? > Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! > > Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that > this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their > life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and > get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care. > > I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare > system is seriously ****ed up. > I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more money in the long run. It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home. I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided to me by my employer. -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247: > On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:18:37p, Saerah Gray told us... > >> Wayne Boatwright > fnord >> 5.247: >> >>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us... >>> >>>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord >>>> 5.247: >>>> >>>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... >>>>> >>>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't >>>>>> get a job? >>>>> >>>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for >>>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for >>>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them. >>>> >>>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams) >>>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to >>>> those who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their >>>> child is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be >>>> disallowed from having children? >>> >>> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers* >>> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no >>> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the >>> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that >>> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children. >>> >> >> You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think >> that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because >> their parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in >> the home of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the >> government for their efforts, is better for that child. > > Actually, I know quite a lot about the foster care system, as I work > for a not-for-profit mental health agency and I see similar situations > all the time. I would rather see foster parents receive the > government benefits than the parents who *refuse* to work. They > clearly do not deserve the beneefits. I have no further comment on > that situation. > Of course, you won't define "refuse to work". Are you aware of how expensive childcare is? If you're making a thousand dollars a month, and half or more goes to childcare, what are you supposed to live on? >>>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find >>>> another with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I >>>> have family who would either help me out financially until I could >>>> find a comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my >>>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid. >>>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be >>>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that >>>> people who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond >>>> their control, should have their children taken from them, is >>>> horrific, to say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ? >>> >>> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many >>> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls >>> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These >>> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while >>> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get >>> on with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any >>> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an >>> expected way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I >>> don't give a damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare >>> families" should most definitely have their kids removed. They >>> might think twice about having another eight kids, since they >>> wouldn't be receiving benefits for them. Sometimes horrific >>> measures are necessary. >>> >> >> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, >> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage >> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford >> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, >> what the hell are you supposed to do? >> >> How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system? > > The difference is, if the parent(s) are working for wages that are > inadequate, they deserve to receive benefits to supplement what they > need. Those who *won't* work deserve nothing. There's a huge > difference between trying and making absolutely no effort. I have no > further comment on that situation. either. > The catch 22 here is that a family can have both parents working, not be able to pay their bills, but be making "too much" money to qualify for assistance. >>> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance >>> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? >>> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! >> >> All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation >> than most. Give yourself a pat on the back there. > > Bullshit! I desparately needed help and couldn't get it. Just > because I had previously been working was of no benefit to me when I > was no longer working. I have no further comment on that situation. > either. > >>> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that >>> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their >>> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and >>> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical >>> care. >>> >> >> They don't get "everything under the sun". > > You'd be very surprised if you lived where I do. Given my place of > employment, I know exactly what many people get. > From what you have said, it would seem that you deal with people who have an even harder time finding and keeping employment than most. I find this a bit skewed. > I realize that people *do* >> abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person >> on welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare. >> Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is >> rather unfair. > > I take that very personally, especially when you make the > differentiation you do. When you're back is against the wall, you > have no immediate propects for employment, and need medical attention > but are refused by the system, it becomes very personal. **** on the > system that refuses me and gives freely to others. No further > comment. > If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance. They cannot refuse you treatment. <snip> > You won't win me over. We definitely do not share the same values. > I'm done. > I agree that people abuse the system. But saying someone "won't" work, when the only option is to take a minimum wage job that won't cover the costs of living, let alone childcare so that you can work that job, is somewhat unfair. Some states have programs that help cover the costs of childcare for low-income families, but the income threshold is such that one would not be able to live on it. -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:46:27p, Saerah Gray told us...
> Wayne Boatwright > fnord > 5.247: > >> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance >> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason? >> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car! >> >> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that >> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their >> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and >> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care. >> >> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare >> system is seriously ****ed up. >> > > I want to add here that I think *everyone* is deserving of basic > healthcare, if they need it, employed or not. I think it is a disgrace > that every citizen does not have access to a doctor for preventative > care, causing people to get sicker, as well as costing taxpayers more > money in the long run. You're absolutely right. > It's certainly no less reasonable then the government giving me a break > on my taxes because I decided to reproduce or finance a home. On that I totally agree, Saerah. > I feel very, very privileged to have low-cost health insurance provided > to me by my employer. Since many companies are eliminating health care benefits altogether, I also feel fortunate to have low-cost health insurance through my employer. My parter has better coverage through his employer, but mine is certainly adequate. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 2hrs 55mins ******************************************* An attacker must vanquish, a defender need only survive. ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us...
Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass. Let's get back to food. Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated garlic, and cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, onion slices, and lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola cake for dessert. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 2hrs 51mins ******************************************* If winning isn't important then why keep score? ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247: > On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us... > > Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass. > > Let's get back to food. > > Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated > garlic, and cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, > onion slices, and lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and > sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola cake for dessert. > I made a chicken stir-fry thing with broccoli and mushrooms and an orange-ginger sauce. I also made a chicken pot pie for tomorrow. Coca-cola cake sounds interesting  -- Saerah "Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!" - some hillbilly from FL |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
T > wrote: > I tend to agree, I'd like to see a WPA created again to replace our > crumbling infrastructure and maybe advance it a bit. Along those lines. The WPRA "Welfare People Recreating America". > Another thing I'd like to see is that upon graduation from high school > or attainment of the age of 18 you serve a year of national service. > Make it conditional on your right to vote. Nah. Many people don't care if they vote. Make service mandatory. One year of national service before entering the workforce, college or the welfare roles would help this nation immensely. It would help the individual in self worth as well. Service starts from the moment one drops out or graduates from high school and continues until they are nineteen. > While we're on a roll, lets make election days national holidays. The NFL would schedule a game and everybody would get drunk or high. Turnout would suffer. > And maybe cut the campaign season down to a month or two. Yeah, right. leo |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 09:19:40p, Saerah Gray told us...
> Wayne Boatwright > fnord > 5.247: > >> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 08:56:25p, Saerah Gray told us... >> >> Saerah, I refuse to discuss this further. We are at an impass. >> >> Let's get back to food. >> >> Tonight was burgers grilled with Worcestershire Sauce, granulated >> garlic, and cracked black pepper, topped with semi-melted blue cheese, >> onion slices, and lettuce. Served with fresh-cut french fries and >> sliced tomatoes. Coca Cola cake for dessert. >> > > I made a chicken stir-fry thing with broccoli and mushrooms and an > orange-ginger sauce. > > I also made a chicken pot pie for tomorrow. Both sound delicious! I'm particularly fond of pot pies! > Coca-cola cake sounds interesting It's rather sweet and rich, but overall a nice cake. It was popular in the South as early as the mid-1950s. * Exported from MasterCook * Cola Cake 1 Recipe By : Serving Size : 0 Preparation Time :0:00 Categories : Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method -------- ------------ -------------------------------- Cake: 2 cups sugar 2 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 cups mini marshmallows 1 cup unsalted butter 3 tablespoons cocoa 1 cup Coca-Cola® 1 teaspoon baking soda 1/2 cup buttermilk 2 eggs 1 teaspoon vanilla extract Frosting: 1/2 cup butter 3 tablespoons cocoa 6 tablespoons Coca-Cola 1 box confectioners' sugar -- (16 ounces) 1 teaspoon vanilla extract 1 cup chopped pecans Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a bowl, sift sugar and flour. Add marsh mallows. In saucepan, mix butter, oil, cocoa, and Coca-Cola. Bring to a boil and pour over dry ingredients; beat well, until marshmallows are dissolved. Dissolve baking soda in buttermilk just before adding to batter along with eggs and vanilla extract, mixing well. Pour into a well-greased 9-by-13-inch pan and bake 45 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted in center comes out dry. Remove from oven and frost immediately. To make frosting, combine butter, cocoa and Coca-Cola in a saucepan. Bring to a boil and pour over confectioners' sugar, blending well. Add vanilla extract and pecans. Spread over hot cake. When cool, cut into squares and serve. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 2hrs 6mins ******************************************* In politics stupidity is not a handicap. ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote: > If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the > emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance. > They cannot refuse you treatment. If you have nothing, what you have just said is true. If you've been struggling your whole life to build assets, you can go bankrupt in the blink of an eye without health insurance and even with it if it's not comprehensive (and it isn't nowadays). If you have nothing, you spend nothing. If you have assets and a work ethic, you lose everything. Then you are on equal footing to someone who has never worked. You have nothing. They never had anything. You're the same by government standards. leo |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
"aem" > wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 5:47 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT), aem > > wrote: > > >On Sep 14, 3:47 pm, Boron Elgar > wrote: > > >> There are a lot of media popularized myths about welfare and those who > >> receive it. You might want to read up on them here. This is from the > >> American Psychological Society. [snip the rest without reading] > > >I rarely participate in these threads, but I take occasional quick > >looks at them. This strikes me as one of the funniest things I've > >seen. You ask Wayne to set aside his ignorant, unthinking positions > >long enough to read something and (impliedly) learn something from a > >reputable source?! Wayne?! Too funny..... -aem > >> Who implied that Wayne was ignorant or unthinking? Are you insane as >> well as stupid? > >Wayne's posts, that you're replying to, demonstrate that he's ignorant >and unthinking. I was chortling at the futility of your trying to get >him to read and learn. -aem He really, really is. This dumb **** who just had to have someone give him charity to repair his AC. He's killfiled for good, now. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
"Cheryl" > wrote in message . .. > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message > ... >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl" >> > wrote: >> >>>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message . com... >>> >>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that >>>> most >>>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they >>>> already >>>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully >>>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for >>>> getting >>>> wasted. >>>> >>> >>>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what >>>is >>>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate >>>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or >>>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have >>>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still >>>taking. >>>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The >>>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word >>>"welfare" >>>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate >>>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a >>>legitimate job and have kids to think of. >>> >>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread >>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by >>>choice. >>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. >>>" >>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..." >> >> >> Thank you, Cheryl. >> >> Boron > > oNe more thing while I'm up here on my soapbox. If we are all out for only > our own welfare, we are not evolved from the animals we once were. Only > humans can feel something for others, whether fellow humans or animals or > the earth we live on. > The measure of any culture depends largely on how it treats its elderly, poor, and otherwise needy/helpless. I cannot believe these spiteful mother****ers. |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 10:39:28p, Leonard Blaisdell told us...
> In article > , > Saerah Gray > wrote: > >> If you needed medical attention that badly, you could have gone to the >> emergency room; that is the option for many without health insurance. >> They cannot refuse you treatment. > > If you have nothing, what you have just said is true. If you've been > struggling your whole life to build assets, you can go bankrupt in the > blink of an eye without health insurance and even with it if it's not > comprehensive (and it isn't nowadays). If you have nothing, you spend > nothing. If you have assets and a work ethic, you lose everything. Then > you are on equal footing to someone who has never worked. You have > nothing. They never had anything. You're the same by government > standards. > > leo > I had a 10 year old car that was paid for. I was living in a rented house. When I went for an interview to apply for AHCCCS (Arizona medical coverage) and, possibly, food stamps, (I didn't apply for any other types of assistance) I was told I didn't qualify. I was also told that I would have to sell my car and move to a "low rent" apartment, to *possibly* qualify. As far as I was concerned, that was an untenable and unacceptable solution. Giving up my own transportation would have made it virtually impossible to get to job interviews given the location where I lived. I didn't have enough money to either put down a security deposit on an apartment nor enough money to move my belongings. The end result was bankruptcy to preserve what few things I did have of any value, which could not be easily disposed of for monetary gain. -- Wayne Boatwright ******************************************* Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII) ******************************************* Countdown till Veteran's Day 8wks 1dys 1hrs 12mins ******************************************* A mind is a terrible thing to ... er ... hmmmm? ******************************************* |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies
|
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote: > "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote > > Reduce or eliminate welfare altogether. Let them fend for themselves. > > You're a pig. This is why awful things happen to you, in case you ever > wonder. Now we know your secret and why you are so disrespectful. You are a lazy welfare mooch living off our tax dollars! No self-respect. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote: > Wayne Boatwright > fnord > 5.247: > > > > > No more welfare. Work or starve. > > > > So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a job? > > I certainly have issues with they way AFDC and similar programs work, but > getting rid of all "welfare" entirely is not right, especially when many of > us benefit from programs with similar ideals (mainly in the form of tax > benefits for individuals and corporations, the bulk of "welfare" spending). > > Under the same logic you espouse, we should not have tax credits for having > a child, paying a mortgage, or programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social > Security. I don't have a problem with providing welfare for those that really need it, but when it becomes a generational thing, the system is broken. I'm not a far right conservative. ;-) I do have compassion for those that need help. I have no compassion for lazy sponges. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote: > > Don't have babies you cannot support. I know that sounds ruthless, but > > people need to grow the hell up. > > > > Sometimes not being able to support a child happens after that child is > born. A minimum wage job is barely enough to support one adult, let > alone an adult and a child. What do you propose for people who are laid > off from their jobs? > > Unemployment is at 6% right now. Are you proposing that 6% of the > population should starve? No babe I'm not. Support them but also help educate them so they can achieve a better paying job. Just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. I feel that _employing_ them is a better answer. Have them do something for the money they get from the govt. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
Saerah Gray > wrote: > Eliminating all aid to the people who rely on it does not solve the > problem. Again, unemployment is at 6%, and you can't feed a family on > minimum wage. I never suggested that. I have more compassion than that. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote: > Omelet wrote: > > In article > > >, > > John Kane > wrote: > > > >> Reform the education system, put a lot , and I mean a lot, of money > >> into neo-natal cre and early childhood education, change some of the > >> labour and welfare laws that usually work to make it better to stay on > >> welfare, institute a decent health care system that covers the working > >> poor. > >> > >> Try spending money on programs to rehabilitate prisonners, rather than > >> warehousing them. Include real vocational training. > > > > Wouldn't that be nice... :-) > > It sounds good in theory, except that you're often dealing with people > who dropped out because they were not interested in education. Motivate them. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article >,
Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote: > >Not everyone on welfare is a "lazy freeloader". You own a home. Are you > >telling me you don't take the tax breaks you are afforded because you > >have a mortgage? > > To the conservative mind, tax breaks assisting people who already work > are reinforcing the positive in our society: self sufficiency, hard > work, good fiscal planning and responsible procreation. > > Orlando I don't get a tax break for my morgage. The "standard deduction" is higher. I don't itemize. It's not worth it. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article >,
Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote: > wrote: > >Food stamps buy food > > Not always. They're often illegally exchanged for cash to buy tobacco, > alcohol, drugs and junk food. Also, given the high surpluses most farms > endure, why is produce so expensive and why do few food banks offer > plentiful produce to people whose diets so desperately need it? > > Orlando Because they are perishable. The food banks around here mostly pass out dry and canned goods. Fresh food is very rare. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article >,
"Cheryl" > wrote: > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message > ... > > > Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most > > people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already > > had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully > > employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting > > wasted. > > > > Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is > disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate > ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or > resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have > pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking. > I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The > ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare" > comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate > circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a > legitimate job and have kids to think of. > > Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread > where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice. > And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. " > ... there but for the grace of God go I ..." Cheryl, I have no issues with helping people. The issues I have are with those that don't try... Those that are on 3rd generation or more of moochers! I know that not all welfare recipients are like that, but the few tend to ruin a good system for the many. :-( I give away a good 10% of my net income to help both family members and the family of a good friend that I pay to do housecleaning I could do myself. I'm not without compassion. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
T > wrote: > In article >, > says... > > In article 7>, > > Wayne Boatwright > wrote: > > > > > > In other words...... your claim that most welfare recipients are > > > > actually single white males is absolutely false. > > > > > > > > http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html > > > > > > > > > > Whatever... Maybe it's time we imposed penalties on adult welfare > > > recipients and limited the number of children a welfare recipient could > > > have to 1, also limiting the benefits they could receive. What you can't > > > afford to have, you shouldn't have. It's no wonder there are so many > > > children on the welfare rolls. One of the things that irritates me most > > > is > > > seeing an indigent family or single mother marching into the welfare > > > office > > > with 8 kids in tow, because most of these people are unemployed by choice > > > or lack of even the most rudimentary skills, and have no desire to work. > > > With our present system they know they don't have to, yet they keep > > > popping > > > out kids like it ws a hobby, and they know they'll receive additional > > > benefits for each child they have. > > > > > > There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their > > > bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they > > > seem to be in the vast minority. > > > > > > -- > > > Wayne Boatwright > > > > The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity. > > > > It needs a serious overhaul. > > > > So tell me since you're the expert, what reforms would you make to the > welfare system? Government work programs. I already stated that. Give them the welfare they need, but make them work for it. It really is that simple... I believe in helping people, just not in giving them a totally free ride. I work hard for the money I make. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote: > On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us... > > > So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a job? > > No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for adoption. The > kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for them, and the parent(s) > shouldn't be allowed to keep them. <shudder> It used to be that way... My dad is a victim of that mentality. :-( Probably not a bad idea, but it's terribly harsh. -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
T > wrote: > Another thing I'd like to see is that upon graduation from high school > or attainment of the age of 18 you serve a year of national service. > Make it conditional on your right to vote. Like in Israel. If nothing else, it'd instill some discipline in kids that never got any. > > While we're on a roll, lets make election days national holidays. > > And maybe cut the campaign season down to a month or two. <lol> And save MILLIONS of wasted dollars in campaign funds! The amount of money wasted in campaigns sickens me! -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article > ,
T > wrote: > > What is your income tax rate? > > Oh, about 40% when you add up state and federal plus the various dips > for SSI, etc. > > I need to buy property so I get the interest and tax write offs. A 40% income tax rate would have me living in subsidized housing and eating top ramen. Mine is around 25% and that's bad enough. (That includes SSI tax). -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welfare babies,
In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote: > I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers* > (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no benefits > at all. Welfare ABUSERS are the problem and the issue. I'll say again, I have no problem with helping people that need help! It's those that go out of their way to earn a free living that are the entire problem! -- Peace! Om "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Aminal Welfare alert | General Cooking | |||
| Aminal Welfare alert | General Cooking | |||
| Welfare Cheat Lucas. | General Cooking | |||
| Bread for the welfare babies | General Cooking | |||
| Welfare Burgers | Recipes (moderated) | |||
![T[_5_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
