Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lots of people get government handouts: farmers, the elderly, corporations (ultimately, their shareholders). Why don't we put restrictions on them too?
Because they are actually being (or once were) productive members of society, not sucking us down the drain
If that is how you see the unemployed, you can expect that they will never become Republicans, ever.
The perpetually unemployed and the perpetually on welfare and the people who feel they should get free money if they don't want to work because hey its a free country are sucking us all down the drain.
Anonymous wrote:How are they going to enforce this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How are they going to enforce this?
Seems like four pages of posters missed this point.
This is completely unenforceable. This is nothing more than class warfare on the poor, Ronald Reagan's Cadillac driving Welfare Queen (who didn't actually exist) all over again.
Kansas GOP is driving that state into the ground fiscally...pay no attention, let's scapegoat the poors.
Anonymous wrote:Really mean! It's horrible to have to be forced onto welfare instead of working. And if that's not punishment enough, now people from fly-over country and imposing restrictions to punish people for being poor!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/06/kansas-wants-to-ban-welfare-recipients-from-seeing-movies-going-swimming-on-governments-dime/
Regular folks are allowed to get tattoos, take the family to the movies, and maybe have a little fun once in a while at the casino; why shouldn't people from lesser-resources communities have the same rights?
Anonymous wrote:Really mean! It's horrible to have to be forced onto welfare instead of working. And if that's not punishment enough, now people from fly-over country and imposing restrictions to punish people for being poor!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/06/kansas-wants-to-ban-welfare-recipients-from-seeing-movies-going-swimming-on-governments-dime/
Regular folks are allowed to get tattoos, take the family to the movies, and maybe have a little fun once in a while at the casino; why shouldn't people from lesser-resources communities have the same rights?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lots of people get government handouts: farmers, the elderly, corporations (ultimately, their shareholders). Why don't we put restrictions on them too?
Because they are actually being (or once were) productive members of society, not sucking us down the drain
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lots of people get government handouts: farmers, the elderly, corporations (ultimately, their shareholders). Why don't we put restrictions on them too?
Because they are actually being (or once were) productive members of society, not sucking us down the drain
If that is how you see the unemployed, you can expect that they will never become Republicans, ever.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lots of people get government handouts: farmers, the elderly, corporations (ultimately, their shareholders). Why don't we put restrictions on them too?
Because they are actually being (or once were) productive members of society, not sucking us down the drain
Anonymous wrote:Lots of people get government handouts: farmers, the elderly, corporations (ultimately, their shareholders). Why don't we put restrictions on them too?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone please explain to me why if someone chooses not to work because its a free country and they cannot pay for basic necessities because it is their choice not to work that I then have to be FORCED to pay for them to get a tattoo?
I'm a stupid republican after all, I need it spelled out for me.
An independent here (since everyone feels that they have to list their affiliation), I think you have posed the question in an inflammatory way the begs for an argument.
I think the more relevant question is whether and what type of restrictions should be placed on the use of these funds. One school of thought is that if a person gets a set amount per month, how they spend it is up to them as long as they understand that they cannot get more until next month. The other school of thought is that those funds should be restricted and certain uses should be prohibited.
I certainly see both sides. I guess I fall in the middle.