JackC 0 #26 August 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteWould you spend tax payer money to take that joy ride? Yes, I would. For the record I have been one of 4 jumpers in a C-130 that was flown from VA to Ft.Bragg for the sole reason of flying me and my three buddies for ONE jump in the middle of nowhere (Laurenburg DZ.) with no one around. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? Quote Originally posted by Ron I like my idea better...On welfare? In the Army you go. Don't like that idea? Get a J-O-B. Does not have to be the military... You could be put to work cleaning up highways for the paycheck. But I would not just ship money out to you. You would have to do some kind of public service..Crossing guard, Paint the courthouse, dig a ditch, work for Meals on Wheels ect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 August 18, 2004 Because Republicans don't have a problem with welfare as long as it's benefitting the wealthy. It's those disgusting people without homes or food that shouldn't be getting handouts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #28 August 18, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you spend tax payer money to take that joy ride? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I would. For the record I have been one of 4 jumpers in a C-130 that was flown from VA to Ft.Bragg for the sole reason of flying me and my three buddies for ONE jump in the middle of nowhere (Laurenburg DZ.) with no one around. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ron I like my idea better...On welfare? In the Army you go. Don't like that idea? Get a J-O-B. Does not have to be the military... You could be put to work cleaning up highways for the paycheck. But I would not just ship money out to you. You would have to do some kind of public service..Crossing guard, Paint the courthouse, dig a ditch, work for Meals on Wheels ect. Easy...I was in the MILITARY on ORDERS when I did that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #29 August 18, 2004 PhillyKev: Would you spend tax payer money to take that joy ride? Ron: Yes, I would. joy ride NOUN: Slang 1. A ride taken for fun and often for the thrills provided by reckless driving. 2. A hazardous, reckless, often costly venture. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 August 18, 2004 QuotePhillyKev: Would you spend tax payer money to take that joy ride? Ron: Yes, I would. joy ride NOUN: Slang 1. A ride taken for fun and often for the thrills provided by reckless driving. 2. A hazardous, reckless, often costly venture. You didn't need to go to dictonary.com And if offerd a slot on the shuttle I would also take it.... Your point? I contribute to society, I pay taxes and if I can LEGALLY get a ride in something like that, I would take it. You seemed to glaze over the facts that: 1. Bush is the CiC and should have a few rights, just as Clinton, Bush, ect...All had rights 2. He was going to need to be transported out there anyway. The original distance was to far for the Helo he has. 3. He is a guy, and guys like cool things. Are you telling me that you would not accept a ride in the backseat of a fighter jet to land on a carrier?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 August 18, 2004 QuoteYou seemed to glaze over the facts that: And you're glazing over the fact that he did it as a publicity stunt in a manner try and show that he's a "military president". The reason I brought ii up was to point out that Bush has also tried to tout his alleged military career. And your comments about the press always following him around, etc. are ridiculous considering he went to that aircraf carrier in the middle of the ocean on a jet fighter for the express purpose of addressing the nation to declare the end of major combat operations in Iraq. (That thing in Najaf is really just a minor inconvenience, by the way). It was a deliberate, calculated PR move to try and show him as a CIC with a military background. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #32 August 18, 2004 >I contribute to society, I pay taxes and if I can LEGALLY get a ride >in something like that, I would take it. Surely if you do not mind using, say, $6,000 worth of taxpayer's money for a joyride, it's OK for society to use $3,000 of that same money to feed someone's kids, eh? I think even the most hardened conservative would consider feeding kids to be at least as important as a cool airplane ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #33 August 18, 2004 Quote You didn't need to go to dictonary.com Apparently I did since you still don't seem to understand the question. Quote I contribute to society, I pay taxes and if I can LEGALLY get a ride in something like that, I would take it. Many welfare recipients have also contributed to society and will do so again given the opportunity. Quote You seemed to glaze over the facts that: 1. Bush is the CiC and should have a few rights, just as Clinton, Bush, ect...All had rights 2. He was going to need to be transported out there anyway. The original distance was to far for the Helo he has. 3. He is a guy, and guys like cool things. I don't give a fuck about Bush. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? QuoteAre you telling me that you would not accept a ride in the backseat of a fighter jet to land on a carrier? I'm not the one who is opposed to welfare for those who need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 August 18, 2004 Quote I think even the most hardened conservative would consider feeding kids to be at least as important as a cool airplane ride. Let me be the first to welcome you to Speakers Corner. Apparently you've never been here before or read any of the views of the hardened conservatives that post here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 August 18, 2004 QuoteAnd you're glazing over the fact that he did it as a publicity stunt in a manner try and show that he's a "military president". The reason I brought ii up was to point out that Bush has also tried to tout his alleged military career. Huh....EVERTHING the President does is a "publicity stunt"...It's kinda his job. As for his service...Well he did serve and you have yet to prove he has not...As opposed to other past Presidents. I will grant you that Kerry did serve...I will also say that he did it to try and be popular, and when it was not popular he flopped to the anti-war side. QuoteAnd your comments about the press always following him around, etc. are ridiculous They follow him to the golf course...they follow him to meetings, they follow him on his ranch. Of couse they are going to be at a speach....What do you think they are gonna do? Ignore a speach? Like it or not he IS a "Military President"...He was in the Military and he is President. If sKerry wins he also will be a "Military President". Quotefor the express purpose of addressing the nation to declare the end of major combat operations in Iraq. (That thing in Najaf is really just a minor inconvenience, by the way). And the reason for going to war...SH was not in power and his forces were destroyed. Was finished. Najaf is rebels, not the Republican Guard. QuoteIt was a deliberate, calculated PR move to try and show him as a CIC with a military background And he is a CIC with a military background. And Kerry's home movies were also to try and make him look popular..Notice they were not played when he was bashing the war during Winter Soldier?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #36 August 18, 2004 Quote>I contribute to society, I pay taxes and if I can LEGALLY get a ride >in something like that, I would take it. Surely if you do not mind using, say, $6,000 worth of taxpayer's money for a joyride, it's OK for society to use $3,000 of that same money to feed someone's kids, eh? I think even the most hardened conservative would consider feeding kids to be at least as important as a cool airplane ride. Well I don't mind HELPING people who are trying to HELP themselves. I do mind providing them a living while they don't do squat in return."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 August 18, 2004 Well, you seemed to be disputing that he flew the jet in as a PR stunt. You tried to claim the press was there by circumstance. Now you say "Huh....EVERTHING the President does is a "publicity stunt"...It's kinda his job." Is that a FLIP or a FLOP??? And I thought his job was to protect and defend the constitution. Not be an advertising executive or actor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 August 18, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You didn't need to go to dictonary.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apparently I did since you still don't seem to understand the question. No you just are not understanding my answer. QuoteMany welfare recipients have also contributed to society and will do so again given the opportunity. True and there are many that don't. The ones that use welfare as a crutch...GREAT! The ones that use it instead of getting job I don't want getting a dime. QuoteI don't give a fuck about Bush. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? Its cause I CONTRIBUTE to society...did you not get that the first time I wrote that? I have NEVER used a social program, but I have paid for them for 16+ years. So if I was given the opportunity I would take a ride. Plus you seem to know nothing about the Military...Pilots have to get hours. They fly all by themselves all the time to get the numbers they need. QuoteI'm not the one who is opposed to welfare for those who need it. Hey stud find where I am opposed to it for those who need it, and WORK for it? I have said not to just GIVE it to them and make them WORK for it... That is a big difference."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 August 18, 2004 QuoteLet me be the first to welcome you to Speakers Corner. Apparently you've never been here before or read any of the views of the hardened conservatives that post here. Or the views of the give it all away left."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 August 18, 2004 QuoteTrue and there are many that don't. Bull shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #41 August 18, 2004 QuoteWell, you seemed to be disputing that he flew the jet in as a PR stunt. You tried to claim the press was there by circumstance. Now you say "Huh....EVERTHING the President does is a "publicity stunt"...It's kinda his job." Is that a FLIP or a FLOP??? find me saying the words it was not a PR stunt."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #42 August 18, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- True and there are many that don't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull shit. PROVE otherwise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #43 August 18, 2004 I did, in another thread I supplied all the numbers regarding the amounts of assistance, the number of children recipients have and how long they stay on assistance. The vast majority had 2 children or less and received assistance for less than 2 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #44 August 18, 2004 Quote No you just are not understanding my answer. You have answered many question. Except the one I asked. Quote Its cause I CONTRIBUTE to society...did you not get that the first time I wrote that? I have NEVER used a social program, but I have paid for them for 16+ years. So if I was given the opportunity I would take a ride. You contribute, therefore you are entitled to leech. Others contribute, but they should not be allowed to leech because they would rather eat than take a joy ride. Your hypocrisy is pathetic. Quote Plus you seem to know nothing about the Military...Pilots have to get hours. They fly all by themselves all the time to get the numbers they need. Changing the subject does not answer the question. QuoteHey stud find where I am opposed to it for those who need it, and WORK for it? I have said not to just GIVE it to them and make them WORK for it... When people WORK for money, it's called a job. You are opposed to welfare, the above quote is proof of this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #45 August 18, 2004 Jack, Ron, cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #46 August 18, 2004 QuoteThe vast majority had 2 children or less and received assistance for less than 2 years. It does not take two years to get a job."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #47 August 18, 2004 QuoteYou have answered many question. Except the one I asked. With all respect I answered it...you just don't like the answer. QuoteYou contribute, therefore you are entitled to leech. Others contribute, but they should not be allowed to leech because they would rather eat than take a joy ride. Your hypocrisy is pathetic. One last time....It is not "leeching" to use aid to get out of a bad spot. It is leeching to live on it. QuoteOthers contribute, but they should not be allowed to leech because they would rather eat than take a joy ride Again you glaze over what I say. I'll try it ONE last time. I am not opposed to helping people out who TRY. I am opposed to people being lazy and me paying for them to live while they do nothing. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey stud find where I am opposed to it for those who need it, and WORK for it? I have said not to just GIVE it to them and make them WORK for it... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When people WORK for money, it's called a job. You are opposed to welfare, the above quote is proof of this. My quote is nothing of the sort. That quote is saying that I will help those who try to help themselves. But I don't want to help those that are not willing to work. If a person is lazy I could not care if they starve. If a person is trying, I have no problem helping them. I don't know why you are so fired up about this, and I don't care. If you wish to talk about it, calm down...Keep blasting me and I will not answer. Feel like blasting me? Send a PM or Email."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #48 August 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe vast majority had 2 children or less and received assistance for less than 2 years. It does not take two years to get a job. Perhaps that's why they took "less than" two years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #49 August 18, 2004 QuoteIt does not take two years to get a job. The current unemployment rate is 5%. There are not enough jobs available for every able bodied adult in this country. 5% of the population could not get a job no matter how hard they try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #50 August 18, 2004 QuoteThe current unemployment rate is 5%. There are not enough jobs available for every able bodied adult in this country. 5% of the population could not get a job no matter how hard they try. OK QuotePitfalls Nevertheless, the potential impact of welfare reform has yet to be fully realized. Progress toward each of reform’s goals has been thwarted—in some instances by lax enforcement and implementation and, in other cases, by initiatives that, in the guise of reform, undermine its purpose. For example: More than half of the caseload of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Need Families) resides in states where recipients may routinely refuse to work or prepare for work and still receive the bulk of their benefits. More than 50 percent of TANF recipients are idle. Out of the more than $100 billion in federal TANF funds disbursed over the past seven years, only .02 percent has been spent on promoting marriage. Prospects Prescriptions to Keep Reform Alive To keep welfare reform viable and effective, action must be taken on three fronts: Work: Currently, approximately half of the 2 million mothers on the TANF rolls are idle. We must encourage productive activity that leads to self-sufficiency, rather than destructive activity that leads to dependency. To do this, it is not enough to simply increase required activity hours. Participation rates must be increased. The Senate should require that states have a minimum of 55 percent of adult-headed TANF households engaged in constructive activity by 2009. So ONE MILLION are not looking for work, but get full benefits."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
