Amen! Alleluia!
It is only extreme in its delivery. Change how it is presented, and bam, it is almost a mirror image of FDRs Civilian Conservation Corps. Even that bastion of liberalism didn't just hand out money. Just say we are returning to FDRs programs to deal with welfare and see if the Dems can argue against it.
If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
There was a time that the goal of the "Progressive" movement was to teach people how to better themselves.
Of course, that was back when Progressives were more interested in improving society than in getting the government to pay for it. It's so much easier to buy votes once you give up on trying to convince people to change, and spend your time on explaining why every problem is someone else's fault.
Require all welfare or other recipients of public assistance to use E-Verify to establish their bonafides. This will be especially hard on illegals.
Lot of good things going on in Waco these days including Ted Nugent’s ranch is nearby.
Excellent. I’d like to see it implemented today.
Aside from the ‘reproduction line’, agree with you wholeheartedly. The government should not be paying for sterlization or contraceptives.
In San Antonio yesterday it was announced that after January 1st, 2012, no smoking will be allowed inside Public Housing, nor within 20 feet of the buildings.
Some people in Public Housing liked the new rule.
Some people were complaining on the news last night that it was a violation of their rights for the Housing Authority to implement this. Also, one guy said that the government will have to build gazebos, or structures for Public Housing recipients to smoke in so that in inclement weather, they can smoke.
It will be interesting to see how it is enforced.
b
Rather than norplant, I think we can achieve the desired result by simply cutting welfare for each added child. Get $100 total for one child, $80 total for two children, and so on. Make an extra mouth to feed a burden again and people will stop having kids they can’t afford.
good to go with this one
operating manual should be about one page
Then the crybabies hammered on about how mean it was for "us" to make these poor people's decisions about their foods, let's just give them a way to go to the store and pick out their own - the Feminazis screamed about "making women cook!!!"
As to getting women on pills or devices to prevent pregnancy, that's the Eugenists old saw like PP founder and other Fascists were demanding, China's one child only policy and forced abortions resulted. The government has shown us the way on this: if you want more of it - give it away; if you want less - don't subsidize. Quit offering women and girls money for making babies, force families to support them - or not, but no more money for a baby and you'll get less.
NJ proved it under the '96 Welfare Reform Act, they were giving moms more money per child up to that point, then said "you'll get $$ for one child, no more - period." Birth rates among welfare moms dropped significantly once they learned that they'd be making do for all children on the $$ they got for one. Even welfare moms can add - more babies, more money; more babies, less money. NJ welfare rolls dropped! (0f course, today, gov't food stamps advertises with our money for more "clients!")
But then again, I'm not - nor have I ever been - dependent on the taxpayer's dime.
a tad extreme?
nah... they might not go far enough.
being dependent on government needs to be uncomfortable.
Sounds reasonable to me...what about illegals
Your link has nothing to do with this story.
WEre you aware that California welfare credit cards (I think 2009) $11.9 million dollars were spent at Casinos and cruises? $69 million was spent in 40 states other than California.
Sickening.