Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott
Forums › General Discussion › Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott-
Cazzo wrote:
You don't know everyone in the world that receives welfare do you? Therefore this statement is ignorant and stupid to boot.Welfare rewards people for being lazy. That's why you have people on it from cradle to grave and multiple generations. Soon there will be more people on welfare than are working.
-
Cazzo wrote:
Misinformed and ignorant too.💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
you calling me a liar?That didn't happen. It is crazy hard to get SSI, even if you need it. No one is getting SSI simply because they can't read.
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
Just like a liberal to start the name calling. Sad we can't have an open debate without name calling.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Oh now...there can't possibly be ways to cheat the system! LOL!Well, I know my own father was on welfare for 25 years before he died. We received every benefit he could sign us up for. He was suppose to be disabled, but he would go work on rigs and use my SSN so he didn't get caught. We owned a 180 acre ranch with my grandmother who was on SSI as well. I bet 1000 cows were sold under my name before I was 10. My little sister has received every form of welfare for the last 15 years. She doesn't get cash, but just traded food she gets with SNAP for them.
-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
50 years of welfare and poverty is unchanged and more people dependent on the government than ever before. Facts brother!Cazzo wrote:
You don't know everyone in the world that receives welfare do you? Therefore this statement is ignorant and stupid to boot.Welfare rewards people for being lazy. That's why you have people on it from cradle to grave and multiple generations. Soon there will be more people on welfare than are working.
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Are you this passionate about everything you believe in? Or just nervous about possibly losing your welfare benefits?Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
-
I would just like to see some legit research to back up the claim from the right. Knowing a few people on welfare does not qualify.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Generalizing poor people as lazy and entitled is also an insult. I've been there before, and I am neither of those things.💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
Just like a liberal to start the name calling. Sad we can't have an open debate without name calling.
-
This sounds like Cliven Bundy's little rant.
-
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/welfare_timelimits.pdf
-
Cazzo wrote:
You have the whole wide world in the palm of your hands. If your claim is true, then it won't be hard for you to prove it.༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
50 years of welfare and poverty is unchanged and more people dependent on the government than ever before. Facts brother!Cazzo wrote:
You don't know everyone in the world that receives welfare do you? Therefore this statement is ignorant and stupid to boot.Welfare rewards people for being lazy. That's why you have people on it from cradle to grave and multiple generations. Soon there will be more people on welfare than are working.
-
I've been there as well hillbilly. But, asking someone to not take drugs while they spend my tax dollars isn't too much to ask IMO. And I've yet to hear anybody explain why it's a bad idea. Testing costs more than the benefits? Not if they aren't able to keep getting those benefits for another 10 years now. Even if the tests cost $3000 each, the money will be saved in the long run by stopping ALL benefits.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's unconstitutional. The government isn't allowed to search people's bodies without a warrant.I've been there as well hillbilly. But, asking someone to not take drugs while they spend my tax dollars isn't too much to ask IMO. And I've yet to hear anybody explain why it's a bad idea. Testing costs more than the benefits? Not if they aren't able to keep getting those benefits for another 10 years now. Even if the tests cost $3000 each, the money will be saved in the long run by stopping ALL benefits.
-
Public assistance is chump change compared to corporate welfare. A lot of corporations dodged their taxes, and even got a refund. That's where the problem is.
-
Poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. 2014 it's 15.1%. So in 50 years, poverty has gone down 4.9%. How many trillions did that cost?
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's unconstitutional. The government isn't allowed to search people's bodies without a warrant.I've been there as well hillbilly. But, asking someone to not take drugs while they spend my tax dollars isn't too much to ask IMO. And I've yet to hear anybody explain why it's a bad idea. Testing costs more than the benefits? Not if they aren't able to keep getting those benefits for another 10 years now. Even if the tests cost $3000 each, the money will be saved in the long run by stopping ALL benefits.
So if a judge starts cranking out warrants for the tests, then you'll be on my side?
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Public assistance is chump change compared to corporate welfare. A lot of corporations dodged their taxes, and even got a refund. That's where the problem is.
And what percentage of Americans pay no tax and get a refund? The tax system is a great debate, but probably needs to be in a diff topic. Just my opinion.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Yes, I would.☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's unconstitutional. The government isn't allowed to search people's bodies without a warrant.I've been there as well hillbilly. But, asking someone to not take drugs while they spend my tax dollars isn't too much to ask IMO. And I've yet to hear anybody explain why it's a bad idea. Testing costs more than the benefits? Not if they aren't able to keep getting those benefits for another 10 years now. Even if the tests cost $3000 each, the money will be saved in the long run by stopping ALL benefits.
So if a judge starts cranking out warrants for the tests, then you'll be on my side?
-
But no judge would ever do that. Like alluvion said, it cost a ridiculous amount of money and it is pointless.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
Just like a liberal to start the name calling. Sad we can't have an open debate without name calling.
Tell you what. You take off the tinfoil hat, meet my data with data, and I'll have a debate with you. What we are having now is a session of me providing fact, and you matching it with "I know people that don't fit your statistics."
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
Just like a liberal to start the name calling. Sad we can't have an open debate without name calling.
Tell you what. You take off the tinfoil hat, meet my data with data, and I'll have a debate with you. What we are having now is a session of me providing fact, and you matching it with "I know people that don't fit your statistics."
Did you even read where I showed you that the company in charge of your memo has been fudging numbers on other studies???
-
And my previous point on cost still stands. If the tests cost 30k they would pay for themselves eventually if you kicked the people found to be using drugs off welfare. Also, make the tests random. Don't ask questions. What were the questions? "Do u take drugs?" How many people would answer yes? Make it completely random or make it 100% tested.
-
☠ðůﾅ⌖ʟḁẘ☠ wrote:
When did I say I was against the second amendment? I love my guns, and I hate the NSA. You are right about me not being worried, but that doesn't mean I approve.YOU wrote:
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Funny how you're pro constitution in this situation but when it's about the second amendment you don't know what the constitution is.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It's unconstitutional. The government isn't allowed to search people's bodies without a warrant.
Either way it is Not unconstitutional to require a test for welfare. If they don't want to take one they can get off welfare. it's like you said about your argument about the NSA "i ain't got nothing to hide so I ain't worried" lmao.Less govt more personal responsibility IMO. -
Mickey Duͣnͩnͩ wrote:
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Are you this passionate about everything you believe in? Or just nervous about possibly losing your welfare benefits?Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
I don't receive welfare, so it's obviously not that one. Thanks, though. Yes, I suppose I do get very passionate about certain issues; some more than others.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Switch out the word welfare recipient with congressman. It works all throughout your little rant. So, as soon as we start drug testing the assbags that run this country and that hold the strings to the pocketbook THEN we can talk about the least amongst us. You know the ones that have zero effect on the welfare of this country. 👍Idk I think drug testing people on welfare, while it may be unconstitutional, would be extremely beneficial. I'm sorry but I just can't see how you're going to act like you're so dependent on others and yet here you are frivolously spending money. Right call by the Supreme Court, also an unfortunate one.
-
I completely agree on drug testing congressmen and ALL government employees. I think you actually agree with us Addi :-)
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
What's this? Liberal fact checking again? Bah! Emotions make facts not erm...facts!🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Idk I think drug testing people on welfare, while it may be unconstitutional, would be extremely beneficial. I'm sorry but I just can't see how you're going to act like you're so dependent o.
I love when people talk about "frivolously spending money" but have clearly done No Research. They've tried this in a little state called Florida and guess what? Over ninety percent of welfare recipients PASSED and the testing ended up costing the state more money. It didn't save them a penny and they lost several hundred thousand dollars a year while doing it. Guess what that sounds like? That sounds like frivolously spending taxpayer money.
But let me guess.... That's only bad when poor people do it, yeah?
😂
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Kind of. Started well before then in another form. Eisenhower I believe.Cazzo wrote:
George Bush started that, not Obama.They all have their Obama phones though.
-
Mickey Duͣnͩnͩ wrote:
Oh nice move, Mickey Dunn. Intelligent and informed response you gave here.💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Are you this passionate about everything you believe in? Or just nervous about possibly losing your welfare benefits?Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Mickey Duͣnͩnͩ wrote:
Oh nice move, Mickey Dunn. Intelligent and informed response you gave here.💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Are you this passionate about everything you believe in? Or just nervous about possibly losing your welfare benefits?Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
As nice and informed as Brizz response?
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC