for those who think being on welfare is easy.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? If the CEO made less money would Slyhunter's sister get more foodstamps money? No, since that foodstamp money is tax money, if the CEO made less, he'd pay less in taxes and there would be less money to fund foodstamps programs.

 

People tend to think anything is easy until they have to experience it firsthand.

 

If she was an illegal immigrant she wouldn't have that much problems. Sadly they don't have to provide all that documentation, no papers, no SSN. Isn't it sad citizens have to work so hard for those benefits given easily to illegals!

 

she can afford to have internet access and computers but she is crying for more government aid? if that was my sister i would straighten her out really quickly..sounds like a spoiled brat....

 

No, but I have a full time job.

If I didn't have a job I'd be spending all that time drumming up business for my website just as I suggested. I know people that make pretty good money on the web and two of my sisters substantially supplement their incomes selling stuff on ebay and other sales websites. I have made a little extra money in the past, selling used books on half.com.

 

I am continually amazed at people that support government welfare programs such as the food stamp program when the private sector does a much better job of it. This last week was an annually charity drive by Northwest Harvest here in Washington. It is one of the three major charities that I support annually. The following basically explains why:

http://www.northwestharvest.org/About_Us/About_Us.htm

No paperwork, no questions asked and no wait. If a person is hungry enough to walk into a Northwest Harvest food bank they will be given food. Of interest is that Northwest Harvest can provide four meals for every dollar donated. Someone on food stamps can purchase a single Banquet frozen dinner for a dollar if it's on sale!

 

He said he "was on unemployment for six weeks between......"

That implies to me that he is no longer on unemployment.

 

let me see if i have this straight..grandma is in her 60's and works..good for her..daughter has 2 kids gets no support from the fathers for the kids, does she know who the fathers are?..she doesnt work..kids dont work..and she needs more government aid...and brother doesnt try to help anyone of them..
you should move to detroit are chicago where you would fit in with the rest of
people like them...

 

How well did charity handle the burden of need in the 1910s?

 

of course they should be coaxed into getting a job, the private sector makes people not want to work with how the system is set up forcing them to work two full time minimum wage jobs to provide for a living

government should provide generous welfare benefits which will force employers to compete with them to provide a better standard of living to the people.

that way the people will have a choice as to which lifestyle suits them better, welfare or work

 

charity cannot meet the needs of everyone because not everyone is charitable, government must force them to be chartiable through taxation to feed the hungry

it may work on a local level as above, but not practical on a national level

 

He's family and he shouldn't have to support her? And I'm not family, don't know her, don't want to know her, and I should support her instead? The REASON for welfare is the FAILURE of family support.

 

Move your cursor to the lower right corner of your screen. There you might find a number like 4:00. Place your cursor on that number. See if the year 2011 comes up.

 

Your sister must be white!!! Everyone one else on welfare has been on it for multiple generations so I guess their names and info are already in the system.

 

It's hilarious how right wing nuts get angry for someone getting help to eat via a few piddlins every month, but don't have a problem with CEO's swallowing money that could feed a nation on a days pay. When you have fat cat greedsters bursting with cash like a broken water main, and the same folks that support these corporate pigs have a problem with somebody getting help to be able to eat (and wow...a WHOLE $250 A MONTH!!!!), you know society is really so, so screwed.

 

I chose the 1910s because that was before we had much of a government system for the poor.

If we ever actually get rid of welfare and let charities assume all of the burden of poverty, then I sincerely hope you never lose your job at that point.

 

Being a liberal and therefore a communist, you fail to realize that the CEO's money BELONGS to him. It is his private property. PRIVATE PROPERTY is something we have in a free society. Something that libro/communist rule cannot allow to exist.

 

​

(a) No one has to be, welfare is not mandatory.
(b) If you're receiving welfare, you are not getting anything done.

 

Retired, no worry about losing job. Big worry about losing investments and the nation itself.

 

What a CEO makes isn't germane to this question of a person getting food stamps. Whether the CEO makes more or less won't change the red tape and bureaucracy involved in getting approved for the food stamps and it won't change the amount of funds provided.

 

I have concern about how my money is being spent in either case. In both situations, my opinion is weighted by my share in the company or government managing my assets -- I don't get to make the decision for all my partners.

As a stockholder, I vote for representatives that will get me the best return on my dollar by recruiting an effective CEO and paying only what is required to keep my interests in the company healthy.

As a taxpayer, I vote for representatives that will get me the best return on my dollar by issuing charity to the millions of Americans who claim to need it and paying only what is required to keep my interests in the country healthy.

I encourage you to do the same and accept that your opinion in either situation is only one of many, and will carry weight according to your share in the enterprise.

 

Which would force businesses to offer wages far higher than the welfare payments in order to coax people actually work for a living. This will drive the prices for those goods and services up significantly, lowering everyone's standard of living. Then the people on welfare would insist that they need increases to keep up their quality of life. This would increase the amount that businesses have to pay to get workers, which would drive up the cost of living and keep the circle going.

 

not everyone is a stockholder and 50 percent of the country does not pay taxes so people should vote in their own interests

maybe more democrats would get elected then

 

many businesses can afford to absorb these expenses from government regulations as bank of america was forced to do recently

if they try to pass those costs on to the consumer in the future government can make it harder for them to do business and pick other banks as the winners

one way to do this is to raise taxes on all businesses and offer tax breaks to the businesses that absorb the increased costs of government regulations

 

So get a job. College alone is NOT an excuse to not get a job.