Drug Tests/Welfare

[yeat182]

I heard that some states want to require random drug testing for Welfare recipients?

personally i think we would be wise to change the whole welfare program, but i think that this is a good idea IF, those who test positive cannot recieve welfare again.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
I heard that some states want to require random drug testing for Welfare recipients?

personally i think we would be wise to change the whole welfare program, but i think that this is a good idea IF, those who test positive cannot recieve welfare again.
Personally I think we should abolish welfare completely, but since the world will always be full of lazy liberals, I doubt that will ever happen. So I guess this is a step in the right direction

[WithStamin]

Great idea! This would take out much of what people dispise about welfare: wasting taxpayer money. This would be a great step in the direction of possibly making welfare useful (weird, huh?), although I still doubt that it ever will actually be useful.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Great idea! This would take out much of what people dispise about welfare: wasting taxpayer money. This would be a great step in the direction of possibly making welfare useful (weird, huh?), although I still doubt that it ever will actually be useful.
Where did you find your sig again?

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by yeat182
I heard that some states want to require random drug testing for Welfare recipients?

personally i think we would be wise to change the whole welfare program, but i think that this is a good idea IF, those who test positive cannot recieve welfare again.




this is an awesome idea. i dont want to be giving my taxes to some dumbass who smokes crack with it and doesnt attempt to improve themselves..


________________WAIT!!_____________ ______

ill do it the new smart brandnewrock05 way:


I think that is a good idea. It would mean that people who aren't using drugs and purchasing them with the welfare money would be rewarded, while the people who are hurting the economy will have to fix their own mistakes.











FUCK YEAH!

[Stompemplay]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
this is an awesome idea. i dont want to be giving my taxes to some dumbass who smokes crack with it and doesnt attempt to improve themselves..


Well dont u feel superior?

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by cal1082
It's the logical thing to do. If you have to take a drug test when you have a job that you get paid for, the least you can do is take a drug test if you get paid for a job you don't have.

Holy cshit, well put man

[therealhebm]

Originally posted by Stompemplay
Well dont u feel superior?

saying youre superior to a crackhaed isnt all that narcisistic.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Personally I think we should abolish welfare completely, but since the world will always be full of lazy liberals, I doubt that will ever happen. So I guess this is a step in the right direction

You dumbass. You want to abolish welfare? Ok. Well, you call up the government and tell them to get their asses into the the inner city and start to clean up. I don't know how people can honestly assume that those kids in there can get themselves out of that situation! Look at whats against them:

1.) Most likely, they are a minority, and whether we like or not, discrimination still exists.
2.) Their parents are probably crack addicts, alcoholics, in jail or whatever. These kids shouldn't be punished for their parents mistakes.
3.) Gangs are all around them- they don't have parents, or strong influences in their life, a gang would seem highly accepting to them.
4.) The schools in that area aren't good.
5.)The crime rate is high.

Overall, these kids are discouraged. The odds are stacked against them. They need our help- they need the governments help. By taking away welfare, we are not helping them. But, drug tests should happen. Its a good idea. It's just not a good idea to abolish the entire program. It should be made better, and greater leaps should be made to clean up the inner city. The people who live therre come from generations and generations of drug users/dealers/high school drop outs. They have no role models. They need our help. It's not fair to them that we can sit in our homes in the suburbs talking about how we should take away their money.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
It's not fair to them that we can sit in our homes in the suburbs talking about how we should take away their money.

Its actually OUR money not theirs.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
You dumbass. You want to abolish welfare? Ok. Well, you call up the government and tell them to get their asses into the the inner city and start to clean up. I don't know how people can honestly assume that those kids in there can get themselves out of that situation!


kids don't recieve welfare, adults do

[NOFXdesendents5]

welfare is nescasary, it helps people get back on their feet and help themselves. but it should not be given to people who have no intention of helping themselves.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
welfare is nescasary, it helps people get back on their feet and help themselves. but it should not be given to people who have no intention of helping themselves.

how do you differentiate the two?

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
how do you differentiate the two?

You dont need to. The abuses of the welfare system are minimal when compared to the good it has done. Conservatives have just built this ficticious image of the "average welfare recipient", portraying them as aimless leeches content to drain the economy. That image is false.

As necessary as it is, welfare DOES need reform though. The Drug Test is a good idea, and I also think it should be mandatory to submit to the governemnt proof that you have been applying for jobs.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
You dont need to. The abuses of the welfare system are minimal when compared to the good it has done. Conservatives have just built this ficticious image of the "average welfare recipient", portraying them as aimless leeches content to drain the economy. That image is false.

As necessary as it is, welfare DOES need reform though. The Drug Test is a good idea, and I also think it should be mandatory to submit to the governemnt proof that you have been applying for jobs.

How do you know the liberal image of them isn't wrong.
Europes already proven that unreformed welfare systems, with no limits, are a drain of the economy.

[yeat182]

all that is well and good, but it will only create more beauracracy, more paperwork, and more loopholes. they should be given public works jobs or something, so they are earning the money the government pays them, they can repave roads, clean up parks, and stuff like that, so not only will it save cities and towns money, it will also give put welfare recipients to work.

[yeat182]

why should ODB make millions of dollars and still get a welfare check?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
all that is well and good, but it will only create more beauracracy, more paperwork, and more loopholes. they should be given public works jobs or something, so they are earning the money the government pays them, they can repave roads, clean up parks, and stuff like that, so not only will it save cities and towns money, it will also give put welfare recipients to work.

that will also cost jobs, putting more people on welfare,

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
that will also cost jobs, putting more people on welfare,

Yeah, by making jobs, you would be taking jobs away from people....you're a genious.:rolleyes:

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Yeah, by making jobs, you would be taking jobs away from people....you're a genious.:rolleyes:


Your point.

[yeat182]

it wouldn't be taking away jobs, because they would be doing the things for cities and towns that they can't afford to do, like pave roads, and clean up parks and shit. i don't know about where you live, but around here, the roads are in terrible condition, especially after the winter we've had, and the cities and towns have no money to fix them, if you had welfare workers doing it, you wouldn't be paying them out of the city budget, which would save them money, allowing them to improve schools, hire teachers, more police or firemen, or whatever else...it would actually make more jobs.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
it wouldn't be taking away jobs, because they would be doing the things for cities and towns that they can't afford to do, like pave roads, and clean up parks and shit. i don't know about where you live, but around here, the roads are in terrible condition, especially after the winter we've had, and the cities and towns have no money to fix them, if you had welfare workers doing it, you wouldn't be paying them out of the city budget, which would save them money, allowing them to improve schools, hire teachers, more police or firemen, or whatever else...it would actually make more jobs.

well, here in kansas we have road crews that would lose there jobs if we gave them to wel-fare members, which is what i ment: But the park cleaning is a good idea, although there really arent enough parks outthere to supply a full time staff.

And i think your bad roads have more to do with lack of funds or corrupt spending habbits rather then lack of workers.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#

And i think your bad roads have more to do with lack of funds or corrupt spending habbits rather then lack of workers.


true, but part of that has to do what it cost to pay the workers to pave roads on top of their other duties...

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
true, but part of that has to do what it cost to pay the workers to pave roads on top of their other duties...

agreed, damn unions.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
agreed, damn unions.

yeah, fuck not having 18 hour days in hazardous, unsanitary working conditions.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
yeah, fuck not having 18 hour days in hazardous, unsanitary working conditions.

it was more sarcasim to what he said about paying employee's, then the history of unions.

But yes there was a time and a place when unions were needed, but that time has past.

[evil zach]

I havn't read this hole thread so if this is irelevent, please bare with me. I have no problem with requireing drug tests for welfare, but if sombody test positive, cutting them off is not the solution. I'd rather have sombody purchaseing drugs with my tax dollars, then money that they earned through prostitution. Maybe instead of cutting them off completly, some a portion o fthe welfare check could be used for drug councelling. Instead of giveing them the check, it could be given to a third party who would purchas nessesary items items with it, then deliver them to the wekfare recipiant.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
I havn't read this hole thread so if this is irelevent, please bare with me. I have no problem with requireing drug tests for welfare, but if sombody test positive, cutting them off is not the solution. I'd rather have sombody purchaseing drugs with my tax dollars, then money that they earned through prostitution. Maybe instead of cutting them off completly, some a portion o fthe welfare check could be used for drug councelling. Instead of giveing them the check, it could be given to a third party who would purchas nessesary items items with it, then deliver them to the wekfare recipiant.

whos going to pay for the third party?

[evil zach]

taxes, I konw helping others may be dificult for the cappies to handle, but in the long run it will be worth it.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
taxes, I konw helping others may be dificult for the cappies to handle, but in the long run it will be worth it.

so more taxes? so these people will get to continue there chosen drug habits at our dime, and will have to pay even more so that they don't use there hole check on drugs.

[evil zach]

uh no. Generally drug councelling is used to help people get over their drug habits.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
uh no. Generally drug councelling is used to help people get over their drug habits.

but you said we couldn't cut back on there checks and that we would have to pay for a third party to try and keep track of there spending. So that would only raise our tax burden.
Also counceling isn't free either.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
So more taxes? So these people will get to continue their chosen drug habits at our dime, and we'll have to pay even more so that they don't use their whole check on drugs.

First of all, taxes dont have to skyrocket. The gov't spends a lot of money on unnecesary things, like spending $6,000 for new furniture in each of over 435 work stations in the House of Representatives.

Secondly, if the drug counseling works, they get off their habit. Off their habit makes a job easier to get. A job gets them off your dime. And i know that thats importantt to you.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
but you said we couldn't cut back on there checks and that we would have to pay for a third party to try and keep track of there spending. So that would only raise our tax burden.
Also counceling isn't free either.

Ok, are you illiterate or just stupid?

He said we take some money OUT of the welfare check. That means the guy doesnt get as much. The money taken out goes to the counseling.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
First of all, taxes dont have to skyrocket. The gov't spends a lot of money on unnecesary things, like spending $6,000 for new furniture in each of over 435 work stations in the House of Representatives.

Secondly, if the drug counseling works, they get off their habit. Off their habit makes a job easier to get. A job gets them off your dime. And i know that thats importantt to you.

And getting them jobs isn't important to you?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
Ok, are you illiterate or just stupid?

He said we take some money OUT of the welfare check. That means the guy doesnt get as much. The money taken out goes to the counseling.

Ya im stupid, do you really think theres one democrat out there that will allow us to take a dime away from welfare checks or vision cards.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Ya im stupid, do you really think theres one democrat out there that will allow us to take a dime away from welfare checks or vision cards.

Regardless, that was the proposed plan. You should have said that from the start. And I want to get these people jobs, but my focus isnt so heavy on where "my dime" goes. You seem to invest a lot of interest in that.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
maybe in a perfect world.

yeah you're right. trying to help people is WAY too idealistic. we should never try to make things better.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
Funny how i never said anything like that.
Also funny how welfare is suppose to help and it needs so many reforms. No doubt it helps some, but it just doesnt work well. You're idea would go the same. It sounds good but when put through government control things get screwed up.

it was actually evil zachs idea.

and funny that you thump your bible but have such a problem administering aid to the poor if it comes out of your wallet. its a lot cheaper just to pray for them right?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
kids don't recieve welfare, adults do

kids grow up. They become adults, but since they have no strong, positive influences, they don't change. Welfare won't be there for them when they eventually need it.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
where "my dime" goes. You seem to invest a lot of interest in that.

again cause its my dime, and dem/rep have already shown that they can't spend it effectively to help the poor, so why give them more to waste? Why not make them more accountable or give it out to the private sector to dispense.

[evil zach]

but who decides who really needs it? how do they deicide? their are all ready enough problems with that. If it was put in controll of the private sector I can't see it improving.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
but who decides who really needs it? how do they deicide? their are all ready enough problems with that. If it was put in controll of the private sector I can't see it improving.

but things have improved when placed into the hands of private sector.

Prisons, education, ect. Just think how much more efficiant the postal service would be if it wasn't controled by the gov.

so why wouldn't it work with welfare?

[evil zach]

The private sector is capitalistic. If they were put in charge of welfare, that would mean that it would be possible to manipulate the system so that they benifet directly from it (hell, thats the only way it would happen) even if that ment denying it to people who truly needed it. They could also use it to turnit into a welfare to work program, whic sounds good in theory, but takes parents out of the home, and often dosn't supply child care.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
The private sector is capitalistic. If they were put in charge of welfare, that would mean that it would be possible to manipulate the system so that they benifet directly from it (hell, thats the only way it would happen) even if that ment denying it to people who truly needed it. They could also use it to turnit into a welfare to work program, whic sounds good in theory, but takes parents out of the home, and often dosn't supply child care.

Im sorry man but you put to much trust in the government for your social issues.
And i think your more out to just discredit something cause it might be Capitalistic, which isn't a bad thing, then to actually see that it might work better or at least couldn't be any worse.


Welfare as we know it isn't working and wont last, so why are you against trying something new, because its not welfare its self the failed but the goverment agenciesthat ran it.

[evil zach]

I'm not agianst trying anything new, but I know form expireince that alot of thetimes privatization dosn't work. In ontario the government is trying to privatize just about evrything, and now were fucked beyond belief

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
I'm not agianst trying anything new, but I know form expireince that alot of thetimes privatization dosn't work. In ontario the government is trying to privatize just about evrything, and now were fucked beyond belief

Ya but the problem may have been that they were doing buiness in areas they didn't belong in the first place.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
but who decides who really needs it? how do they deicide? their are all ready enough problems with that. If it was put in controll of the private sector I can't see it improving.


it would improve because by placing it in the hands of the private sector, private companies would compete for the contract, which drives the cost down. they would have to prove they can do it cheaply, effectively and efficiently, or else they would lose the contract. if it is state run, then there is no competition, and no reason to keep costs down, or to work effieciently, that why there is so much government waste. have you ever heard the saying "its good enough for government work?", it refers to how state agencies can do a half assed job because they are in no danger of losing their job, private companies can be fired if they don't live up to expectations.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
it would improve because by placing it in the hands of the private sector, private companies would compete for the contract, which drives the cost down. they would have to prove they can do it cheaply, effectively and efficiently, or else they would lose the contract. if it is state run, then there is no competition, and no reason to keep costs down, or to work effieciently, that why there is so much government waste. have you ever heard the saying "its good enough for government work?", it refers to how state agencies can do a half assed job because they are in no danger of losing their job, private companies can be fired if they don't live up to expectations.
that should work

[amishman]

OK, I tried to read all the posts, if this makes no sense, I apologize. I know someone who works in a welfare office and she always tells stories of her clients. On average, most of them are the stereotypical welfare-queen.

People in America are spoiled. We see things on TV and want them, and we think we need them. That is where the problem lies, confusing needs with wants. Sure they use welfare to buy food, and then use their earned money on lottery tickets or other frivolous things. Here is the harsh reality, if you don't earn enough money, you don't deserve the treats of life. They need to scrape by and work hard, which many don't do. Why work when you get money for free?

I also must tell you that I am from KY (Western KY needs to be stressed, because Eastern KY is like Deliverance, it's bad)

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by amishman


Here is the harsh reality, if you don't earn enough money, you don't deserve the treats of life. They need to scrape by and work hard, which many don't do. Why work when you get money for free?



im not saying i agree or disagree, but that is a horrible thing to say...sure there is a good majority that does abuse welfare, but people are born into poverty, and they cant do much about it, they can work their ass off, but they just aren't exposed to the benefits of middle-class america, we need to try and give them some sort of help so that they try and brake the cycle

[amishman]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
im not saying i agree or disagree, but that is a horrible thing to say...sure there is a good majority that does abuse welfare, but people are born into poverty, and they cant do much about it, they can work their ass off, but they just aren't exposed to the benefits of middle-class america, we need to try and give them some sort of help so that they try and brake the cycle

I agree completely with you. You said "work their ass off", welfare should work for those kind of people (it should and it can). The problem lies with people abusing the system (as you also said). People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work (unless they are handicapped, but then that falls into a different category). I may have came across like a heartless dick, but that wasn't intentional or meant.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by amishman
I agree completely with you. You said "work their ass off", welfare should work for those kind of people (it should and it can). The problem lies with people abusing the system (as you also said). People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work (unless they are handicapped, but then that falls into a different category). I may have came across like a heartless dick, but that wasn't intentional or meant.

i see...i agree

[evil zach]

Originally posted by amishman
I agree completely with you. You said "work their ass off", welfare should work for those kind of people (it should and it can). The problem lies with people abusing the system (as you also said). People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work (unless they are handicapped, but then that falls into a different category). I may have came across like a heartless dick, but that wasn't intentional or meant.
If you support a welfare to work program, wold you also be will to support childcare for thos who need it?

[amishman]

Originally posted by evil zach
If you support a welfare to work program, wold you also be will to support childcare for thos who need it?

I'm not sure what you mean...

[evil zach]

People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work
I agree with that. "he who can work but dose not shall not eat." I'm assuming you mean that they should go into some type of work place enviroment and earn their welfare check their. But if that took them away from thier children, would you be willing to support a program which als provided childcare for people on welfare who neede sombody to look after their children whil they were gone?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work
I agree with that. "he who can work but dose not shall not eat." I'm assuming you mean that they should go into some type of work place enviroment and earn their welfare check their. But if that took them away from thier children, would you be willing to support a program which als provided childcare for people on welfare who neede sombody to look after their children whil they were gone?

But should there be a limit to the number of children the state should support through daycare?

[amishman]

Originally posted by evil zach
People shouldn't get a welfare check and not work
I agree with that. "he who can work but dose not shall not eat." I'm assuming you mean that they should go into some type of work place enviroment and earn their welfare check their. But if that took them away from thier children, would you be willing to support a program which als provided childcare for people on welfare who neede sombody to look after their children whil they were gone?

Oh, OK, I didn't understand the child support program at first. Gotch now. Anyway, many kids would be in school. If they are younger, that could be a problem. Friends and family could offer help. As to child support programs for working parents, I know of none (rural area) but yeah, I support those. If those exist for children of working parents, then their parents are working and trying to get ahead in life. I just have problems with people doing nothing and getting something.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
But should there be a limit to the number of children the state should support through daycare?

completly agree, this would prevent people from abusing the welfare, maybe support a birth control awarness program....although that may be incredibly ineffictive

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
completly agree, this would prevent people from abusing the welfare, maybe support a birth control awarness program....although that may be incredibly ineffictive

ya i'd be willing to bet every one knows of birth control, but would you care if you didn't have fund these children or got more based on the amount of children you have?

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
ya i'd be willing to bet every one knows of birth control, but would you care if you didn't have fund these children or got more based on the amount of children you have?

urrrrgggggggggg....i can see both sides of this one....urgggg......i can see if the program makes is perfectly clear on the amount of children that can be supported, but that it is ridiculus to say we will help you support your first 3 children, but that fourth one is not our responsibilty

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
urrrrgggggggggg....i can see both sides of this one....urgggg......i can see if the program makes is perfectly clear on the amount of children that can be supported, but that it is ridiculus to say we will help you support your first 3 children, but that fourth one is not our responsibilty

ya i know i was just wanting to see what you'd say.

But how should we help/stop people on welfare from continueing to have children while there on welfare.

[amishman]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
urrrrgggggggggg....i can see both sides of this one....urgggg......i can see if the program makes is perfectly clear on the amount of children that can be supported, but that it is ridiculus to say we will help you support your first 3 children, but that fourth one is not our responsibilty

I agree. I can see it working sometimes and not others.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
ya i know i was just wanting to see what you'd say.

But how should we help/stop people on welfare from continueing to have children while there on welfare.

this is how i feel, this is the future teacher in me, it all comes down to education, this children have almost zero oppurtunity to advacne in life, if we can focus more on building up inner city schools, provide elaborate after school programs, and try and give this children a chance, (this sounds kinda cheesy)

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
this is how i feel, this is the future teacher in me, it all comes down to education, this children have almost zero oppurtunity to advacne in life, if we can focus more on building up inner city schools, provide elaborate after school programs, and try and give this children a chance, (this sounds kinda cheesy)


this was kinda an off way of answering your question

[evil zach]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
But should there be a limit to the number of children the state should support through daycare?
I would say that they should provide day care to any child under the age of 12
Anyway, many kids would be in school.
school ends at 3, the work day ends at 5, sometimes later, especaly in the servis industry.

[amishman]

Originally posted by evil zach
I would say that they should provide day care to any child under the age of 12
Anyway, many kids would be in school.
school ends at 3, the work day ends at 5, sometimes later, especaly in the servis industry.

Good point, didn't think of that. Some schools I know of have after school programs designed for children of working parents.

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by amishman
Good point, didn't think of that. Some schools I know of have after school programs designed for children of working parents.

im sure you find most of those programs in the suberbs, not inner city where you really need it

[xTSTLx]

Originally posted by cal1082
yeah, but schools shouldnt be a baby sitting service after it's over. A lot of churches provide daycare for free to.


why not?

[amishman]

Originally posted by cal1082
yeah, but schools shouldnt be a baby sitting service after it's over. A lot of churches provide daycare for free to.

That's a problem with our school system. It tries to be the teacher, baby sitter, doctor, etc.

[evil zach]

yeah, If teachers are willing to volunteer tehir time, or the school board is willing to pay them for it, whats the problem?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by xTSTLx
this is how i feel, this is the future teacher in me, it all comes down to education, this children have almost zero oppurtunity to advacne in life, if we can focus more on building up inner city schools, provide elaborate after school programs, and try and give this children a chance, (this sounds kinda cheesy)


its not cheesy. but maybe hopeless.

most inner city school districts get more funding federally per student then suburban schools, and spend more per student. So the problem is more with those elected to run the schools and what they chioce to do with the money, and we cant control voting.

[yeat182]

people need to understand that welfare is a privalege not a right.....you are not entitled to a check from the government, it is given to you with the hope that you will use that money to help yourself. i agree that there probably does need to be some sort of welfare program, and for sure, the current one needs a major overhaul, but simply because you are poor/lazy/uneducated/whatever doesn't mean the government owes you a check...

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
we have enough problems funding our schools for education, thats not adding a after school babysitting. And i'm sure teachers dont want to hang around and watch the kids another 2 hrs.
Obviously text books should come before daycares, but if the budget allows for it, and the teachers want to, whats the problem?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
yeah, If teachers are willing to volunteer tehir time, or the school board is willing to pay them for it, whats the problem?

ya but in the real world no ones going to work for free, and what about the teachers families should they suffer because a person can't raise there own children?

[amishman]

Originally posted by yeat182
people need to understand that welfare is a privalege not a right.....you are not entitled to a check from the government, it is given to you with the hope that you will use that money to help yourself. i agree that there probably does need to be some sort of welfare program, and for sure, the current one needs a major overhaul, but simply because you are poor/lazy/uneducated/whatever doesn't mean the government owes you a check...

Excellent point, people confuse needs with wants.

Originally posted by evil zach
Obviously text books should come before daycares, but if the budget allows for it, and the teachers want to, whats the problem?

Teachers I know hate their job and are glad when school is over just as much as the students. They hate their job and are miserable. And the budget here is so tight that all extra-curricular activities are being cut, AND we currently have a child care program.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by amishman
Excellent point, people confuse needs with wants.



Teachers I know hate their job and are glad when school is over just as much as the students. They hate their job and are miserable. And the budget here is so tight that all extra-curricular activities are being cut, AND we currently have a child care program.

i dont think most teachers hate there jobs, cause they could always do something else with that education, that probably pays better.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
i dont think most teachers hate there jobs, cause they could always do something else with that education, that probably pays better. Teachers get paid plenty. Sure, the number they get, say, $45,000 max, is not too high. Now let's take into account how much they work. The majority of teachers in my school leave no later that 4:00 and arrive at 7:30. Plus there is a ton of vacation time (Spring Break, long Christmas break, Summer vacation, numerous other days off). So if you take that $45,000 and add 40% on top of that ( to make up for how much they don't work), it comes out to $63,000, which isn't half bad.

[evil zach]

Damnit! I think I agree with you!

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
Damnit! I think I agree with you! Strange... this is the first time we have agreed on an issue. I am very worried...

[evil zach]

I think this is one of the the signs of the apocolyps!:eek:

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
I think this is one of the the signs of the apocolyps!:eek:
it is a little strange, i have actually agreed with you on the occasional subject, such as revoking veto power

[evil zach]

But your only conservative. He's right wing.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
But your only conservative. He's right wing.
man i am dissapointed in myself enough already, stop bringing it up!

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
But your only conservative. He's right wing. We were really only 2 points apart. I'm right on the edge of right wing, he's right on the edge of conservative. I could have gone five or six points to the left, also. I was really on the edge for some of those questions.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
But your only conservative. He's right wing.


it could have been worse, he could have got a score of a 90 or a hundred, that would have been really scary.