- This topic has 1 reply, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
WOW!!!!
the elections in the USA happened 6 Nov on a Tuesday
and there was a CLEAR winnertoday is the 12th and we are talking about politics and percentages
don’t forget 70% of the black vote
68% of the Hispnics
66% of the Jewish
55% of the white women
45% of the white malesvoted to re-elect Mr. O
on another NOTE; listen carefully, the Hispanic vote will be 20% of the total USA population and Texas will be a BLUE state by 2012
I listen to all sides but understand where this Country is headead
If the Republicans think that another boat of white Protestants are going to land in Plymouth Rock in another Mayflower ship then they are in for a BIG surprise
If you think this is about race, you are way off base. To me, Obama is just another white-tax-and-spend liberal. This is about personal responsibility and the Constitution.
RACE, I posted about different races, different religions, different genders
and a correction is in order: Obama is half white
the Constitution is dated September 17, 1787, today it is November 12, 2012
and about personal responsibility: the 1% is better of the 99% don’t ask me WHY the Koch brothers, Mitt, Karl Rowe the Donald, Cheney (Halliburton) and many others have much more $$$ than they deserve
the worst Recession in 40 years created by 2 unfunded wars and close to 20 millions out of work while they (HINT) they outsource jobs to CHINA???
all those people against entitlements in the East coast because of Sandy are SCREAMING for FREE help from the Goverment
what is it going to be; NO MORE FREE $$$ from the Goverment or WAIT A MINUTE, now I need it because it is an emergency
does that not make the same for the 47%
waiting for your reply, make it a good one next time and make it from the USA not from a far away country where you live comfortably
I myself would GLADLY settle for [b]ZERO[/b] entitlement. Please just cut me a check, [b]WITH INTEREST[/b], for every nickel I have paid to the the Federal Government which was [b]targeted to either Social Security and Medicare benefits[/b] and I will [b]GLADLY[/b] settle fpr ZERO entitlement and be on my way. Fair?
I agree. We paid in, we need to have the refund. For those who never paid in and still get a check? Just stop the checks.
Yes that is fair but answer me one question.
Do you live in CR as a legal resident??
if you do then you have to pay La Caja
ask the CR goverment for a refund on your money
think again before you post
we have obamacare here. jajajaja and this is a socialist country (of sorts!) — all the things they gripe about they embrace here because it’s CHEAPER!!!!
Victoria:
I understand your principles and will give you an example on why you are HALF right.
My oldest son who by the way was born in CR came to the USA with a tica and 3 years latter had 2 girls, the first one was born blind (septo optic displacia).
WELL!!!! he gets $800.00 from SSA for her blind daughters disability, free Medicare (priceless), $600.00 for section 8 for housing and $500.00 in food stamps.
$1,900.00 a month for FREE and it is TAX deductible
then the “IDIOT” decided to send his wife to CR and keep the girls and found another woman and got her pregnant.
Should I continue??
guess who pays for all his entitlements??
the Tax payers
don’t get me wrong, I just gave you an example were you are right but does that mean ALL of them do not deserve a helping hand
I used to work in social services but for the Catholic Church. I met a lot of people on welfare and other entitlements. Since everything was confidential, they told me things they would never reveal to employees of state or federal agencies. Among those confidences (and this was in the 90s – don’t even remember names):
“I got pregnant because “Jeremy” is going to be 18 and off the welfare. I picked the father because he gets veterans benefits.”
“I get benefits for me and my seven kids under my maiden name. My husband makes too much for us to get the welfare.”I could go on, but you get the picture.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]I used to work in social services but for the Catholic Church. I met a lot of people on welfare and other entitlements. Since everything was confidential, they told me things they would never reveal to employees of state or federal agencies. Among those confidences (and this was in the 90s – don’t even remember names):
“I got pregnant because “Jeremy” is going to be 18 and off the welfare. I picked the father because he gets veterans benefits.”
“I get benefits for me and my seven kids under my maiden name. My husband makes too much for us to get the welfare.”I could go on, but you get the picture.[/quote]
This doesn’t surprise me one bit. My most astounding experience was when I was at a market in Los Angeles frequented mainly by Middle Easterners (I buy my parrot’s food there…seeds…etc). There was a woman in front of me at the cash register with a basket full of groceries which was all paid for with [b]Food Stamps[/b]. I was directly behind her in line. After I paid for my items and was walking towards my car in the parking lot I passed by this very same lady still loading her groceries into her [b]LATE MODEL MERCEDES[/b].
The question none of you has addressed is whether (worst case scenario) the Mercedes which this woman was driving would have disqualified her from Food Stamp participation had the issuing agency known she was driving it.
The Food Stamp program, WIC, housing subsidies, etc do not and never have required that their recipients be totally destitute to be eligible.
When I was a welfare caseworker in Michigan in the early 1970s, clients could have as much as $1,500 in the bank plus a virtually unlimited value of personal possessions [u]excluding automobiles, farm equipment, livestock, etc[/u]. The equity they had in vehicles counted against the $1,500, but it’s possible that the Mercedes in question was “under water” relative to what was owed on it. Or it may have been leased.
And if those limits have kept up with inflation since 1970 then the allowable “wealth” may be much higher. You cannot fault people for taking legal advantage of programs the government has put in place for their benefit. And you should not automatically assume that someone is cheating until you know the facts.
Things are not always as they seem.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]The question none of you has addressed is whether (worst case scenario) the Mercedes which this woman was driving would have disqualified her from Food Stamp participation had the issuing agency known she was driving it.
The Food Stamp program, WIC, housing subsidies, etc do not and never have required that their recipients be totally destitute to be eligible.
When I was a welfare caseworker in Michigan in the early 1970s, clients could have as much as $1,500 in the bank plus a virtually unlimited value of personal possessions [u]excluding automobiles, farm equipment, livestock, etc[/u]. The equity they had in vehicles counted against the $1,500, but it’s possible that the Mercedes in question was “under water” relative to what was owed on it. Or it may have been leased.
And if those limits have kept up with inflation since 1970 then the allowable “wealth” may be much higher. You cannot fault people for taking legal advantage of programs the government has put in place for their benefit. And you should not automatically assume that someone is cheating until you know the facts.
Things are not always as they seem.
[/quote]If it [b]LOOKS[/b] like a Duck and it [b]QUACKS[/b] like a Duck then guess what: It [b]IS[/b] a Duck!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
