|
|
| Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! (574204) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (575307) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:45:26 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:16:17 2010. False.I'll say it again: There is undoubtedly a positive correlation because income and effective risk management. |
|
|
| (575310) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 11:48:09 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:38:18 2010. Exactly. It's amazing how the liberals always have an excuse for these people. |
|
|
| (575312) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:49:50 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:38:18 2010. Some people might have children because they think it would get them welfare. |
|
|
| (575317) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 11:54:00 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:45:26 2010. Yes, because responsible people know they will have to pay for their kids, and take responsibility for them, THUS they are more responsible about having kids they can afford. The lower income, know they will just get a bigger check if they have more kids, so they don't care. it has nothing to do with "how to use a condom". |
|
|
| (575320) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:56:32 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:49:50 2010. LOL. Nice. |
|
|
| (575322) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:57:42 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 11:54:00 2010. That's not it. A person with worse risk management skills is more likely to become or stay poor in the first place. And of course, people learn from their parents.Yeah, they all know how to use a condom, they just don't care. |
|
|
| (575323) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:58:25 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:56:32 2010. You disagree? It has to be true at least some of the time. |
|
|
| (575327) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:05:12 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:58:25 2010. I think it could be true.Remember last year, when NY State gave kids $200 for "back to school" expenses for supplies, and a Walmart in upstate NY reported huge sales and sold out of a bunch of electronics? I'll always remember that story when thinking about welfare and Benefit Cards. |
|
|
| (575331) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:14:23 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:05:12 2010. Personally I don't care what they spend it on because it costs the government the same thing either way.If I were dictator, before the free elections I would call would take place, I'd implement a guaranteed minimum income for every adult individual, per individual and not per household, without any obligation to work and without any additional money given for children. I would implement it as part of a negative income tax. |
|
|
| (575333) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:17:38 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:14:23 2010. It's fraud. These people have three or four kids in a family, so they pool $200 together, and buy a $600-$800 item in the electronics section at Walmart.That's total animal, savage, beast behavior. |
|
|
| (575336) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:20:20 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:17:38 2010. If they're entitled to the $200 per person, then it's not fraud. |
|
|
| (575338) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:23:13 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:57:42 2010. Correct, they don't care, it has nothing to do with "education", they know how to use a condom. The reason they don't care is because they don't have to worry about paying for too many kids, they will jujst get a bigger check in a system set up by bingbong types. |
|
|
| (575341) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:25:33 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:20:20 2010. It's for school supplies, not Game Boy. It's fraud if the money is not used for it's intended purpose. |
|
|
| (575342) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:26:05 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:23:13 2010. A system set up by Spider-pig types would not pay individuals more for having more children. |
|
|
| (575343) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:27:27 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:25:33 2010. If the card states explicitly that it can only be used for school supplies, like the DTV coupons were exclusively for converter boxes, then it would be fraud. It's not fraud if you can use it for anything without any kind of scheme. |
|
|
| (575347) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:30:19 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:27:27 2010. The way they state gave out the money, allowed people to use the money for things other than school supplies. They simply added $200 per kid to the Benefit Card. Walmart suspected fraud and reported it, but nothing could be done if people chose to be dishonest. This is why NY State IS BROKE. |
|
|
| (575349) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:33:05 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 11:49:50 2010. Before the 90s, that was the case. Having children was the only way to keep a roof over their heads for a woman with kids on welfare.The welfare reform in the 90s was a welcome relief from that, much more still needs to be done especially WRT childcare (including sick child care) to ensure mothers can remain in the workforce, in school, in activities that will lead to their families financial independence. That's something that needs to extend out to all families in need for same. Too many mothers don't have extended family for support. |
|
|
| (575350) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:35:13 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 12:30:19 2010. This is why NY State IS BROKE.Yes, too many people playing the system, and too many bingbong types allowing it. |
|
|
| (575351) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:38:33 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:33:05 2010. I don't disagree, but one of the things that has to stop is that many people on welfare have no insentive to even go for a job, even a low paying job. Why should they schlep out to McDonalds or some job like that, when they can sit home and do nothing, and get more from the government, which just extends the time. |
|
|
| (575352) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:38:56 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:26:05 2010. I would prefer to see welfare recipients in school, with available child care, including care for the colds and flus that keep parents home to care for a sick child.The system should be set up to *ensure* the parent gets out in a number of years, without having more children in the interim, capable of supporting their family. |
|
|
| (575354) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:52:18 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:38:56 2010. That is what responsible people do, only have as many kids as they can afford to have. You don't see responsible people running around with 3 or 4 kids, that they can't afford to keep, it's usually poor people that just get more of a check from the government. And they don't care because they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. |
|
|
| (575357) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:53:17 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:52:18 2010. ....not to mention the 4 or 5 kids are usually with different fathers. |
|
|
| (575377) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 13:26:50 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:38:33 2010. Why shouldn't they be able to actually afford rent, electric, heat, clothing?No McDonalds job will pay for that, aside from management. Welfare should provide immediate needs and the means to get OUT of the system. Working the line at McDonalds will NOT do that. An education WILL. |
|
|
| (575378) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 13:28:28 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 12:14:23 2010. The negative income tax rate for working people already exists. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit.The Making Work Pay Tax Credit can also go into the negatives. |
|
|
| (575380) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 13:32:15 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:38:33 2010. I don't disagree, but one of the things that has to stop is that many people on welfare have no insentive to even go for a job, even a low paying jobBecause one can only be on welfare for no more than two straight years and for five years maximum in their lifetime and have to use that time for job training, education, etc or they don't get a check. |
|
|
| (575381) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Mar 11 13:36:21 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:53:17 2010. LOL. Like Antonio Cromartie of the Jets. Seven kids by six different women in five states. At least he could get a half-mil advance on his 2010 salary to settle paternity issues. :) |
|
|
| (575383) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 13:42:25 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 13:26:50 2010. The problem is that people are not encouraged to work, and instead just stay in the system, as "the system" is better than getting a job. That is wrong. |
|
|
| (575384) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 13:43:29 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 13:28:28 2010. Yeah, $400. That will buy groceries for a family for a week or two. |
|
|
| (575385) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 13:44:18 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by f179dj on Thu Mar 11 13:36:21 2010. He can afford it. While I don't condone "7 kids by 6 different women", at least he can afford to have those 7 kids. |
|
|
| (575389) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 13:51:08 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 13:43:29 2010. So it's better to not have that $400? |
|
|
| (575436) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 15:57:29 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:33:05 2010. bingbong the baby machine? I think not. So why do you defend this stuff? |
|
|
| (575455) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:31:44 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 13:42:25 2010. I disagree. |
|
|
| (575457) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:33:55 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:31:44 2010. This reminds me of the Family Guy bit with the "drive-by arguments."Oh Carruthers: I DISAGREE! |
|
|
| (575458) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:33:56 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:31:44 2010. This reminds me of the Family Guy bit with the "drive-by arguments."Oh Carruthers: I DISAGREE! |
|
|
| (575465) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 16:49:52 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 11 12:35:13 2010. I don't see where you're coming off saying I would support something like that. Money provided for school supplies should be targeted same as food stamps or WIC, for supplies and clothing purchased Aug-Oct of that year.By the same token, an gift allowance should be provided for Christmas/Hannukah/Eid. This way the kids get something specifically from the parent, and have the same holiday experience as their peers. |
|
|
| (575468) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:55:00 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 13:28:28 2010. I would expand it to non-working people to replace welfare and make it enough to actually live on. |
|
|
| (575470) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:58:49 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 12:38:56 2010. I don't care if they go to school or not. |
|
|
| (575485) | |
Re: HCR (Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!) |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 17:48:21 2010, in response to Re: HCR (Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!), posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 11:39:17 2010. Which tells me that you're willing to believe anything Liebag or Glenn Wreck spews out, intstead of searching further into the nature of forged and slanted statistics. |
|
|
| (575487) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 11 17:49:14 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 11 11:07:52 2010. NO! |
|
|
| (575631) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 20:48:50 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Mar 11 16:55:00 2010. I would expand it to non-working people to replace welfare and make it enough to actually live on.That's just semantics and welfare by another name. Also welfare (TANF) is temporary and conditional. Your plan would essentially make it a lifetime entitlement without conditions and would reward idleness and unproductivity. Only rich people can get away with that. The whole idea behind the EITC and the MWP credit is that it rewards work. People unable to work due to disabilty or similar factors get SSD and SSI. The unemployed but willing to work and seeking work get UI. Old people get Social Security. |
|
|
| (575670) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 21:10:49 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 20:48:50 2010. Michael Moore is on Joy Behar. My friend says, "It's hard to tell them apart". LOL. |
|
|
| (575714) | |
Re: Bye bye Rush?!?! |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 11 21:39:13 2010, in response to Re: Bye bye Rush?!?!, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 11 21:10:49 2010. I don't watch TV. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||