- Sep 30, 2005
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
"For too long, the success of our welfare system has been judged by the number of people who are on benefits," said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. "Our welfare system should be judged by the number of people who are off benefits and into work."
no problem, we have Oklahoma surrounded....all we need do is deport all fraudulent welfare recipients to Tulsa, and the state will soon decide to join the ranks.Sorry cant, it is illegal in Oklahoma to use international law as a basis for US law. So at best it can only happen in 49 states
As for "getting tough on welfare"... the UK needs too. From what I have seen of UK welfare laws, many of them are not only very generous but do not do anything to get people off welfare. On top of that, the amount of fraud is horrible. I have met British people here in Spain that have lived here for years, and worked, but collected welfare from the UK. All they have had to do was go home once in a while to meet their case officer.
you mean TANF, right?I bet you have absolutely no idea how TANIF works.
"There is a fatal flaw at the heart of these proposals — without work they won't work," said Labour lawmaker Douglas Alexander.
you mean TANF, right?
I have never been on any kind of assistance, not even when I was eligible as a young married sailor drawing pathetic wages.
So I am not familiar with it, as you say.
BUT, I do have close relatives who have spent most of their adult lives getting some kind of assistance.
IMO, after buying groceries, paying rent and utilities, and other essential needs, they shouldn't have money left over to buy beer, smokes, etc.
We shouldn't make welfare pay so well that there is no incentive to look for work.
The same goes for corporate welfare. If a business can't make it without govt help, maybe the business should find a better product to sell.
Yes, Obama is a lightweight, but he won the WH. Why is that? Stupid voters? or pathetic GOP candidates?Agreed, and if anything, I recommended this years ago, even wrote my senator, "Hillary" of all people. Basically it goes liek this. Hire more case workers, and administration people. The cost of their salaries is directly offset by the savings by many means, they are:
1. More workers means more scrutiny.
2. Design a law where rent, food, and all necessary bills are paid directly by the State, No checks, no nothing.
3. Make food stamps valid for no name, or none brand name foods where applicable. (Watch that market boom)
Three minor changes, that take political courage.
Interestingly, I did receive a "form" letter back from Hillary, and I wasn't expecting one, but at least they wrote back.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, the same economic logic works with cracking down on illegal immigration. Far less expensive to hire more administration, police, buying buses, you get the picture. Just ask California, how much it costs them each year to feed the illegal problem, and tell me it wouldn't be cheaper to clean it up. Not to mention, talk about jobs, jobs, jobs..
This Obama clown is a community organizer, let's face it. The guy is a lightweight.
I applaud the effort, now they need to look at the other end of the wealth issue. Tax cheats should be fined 3 times the amount they shorted their govt....
I can agree with that....
The GOP is fractured, much like the DEMS used to be. We don't need a Tea party, or far right extremism to define the GOP. Sarah Palin isn't the answer to anything. If all the GOP is going to offer is a gilded copy of old ideas, we might as well keep Obama. That being said, I doubt any politician cares what the people want. Certainly we the people didn't want a war with Iraq and a tax cut at the same time. Even the simplest among us know that war must be paid for. And certainly we the people didn't want Wall Street financiers to benefit from our attempt at saving what was left of the economy after these same financiers did their best to destroy it. That last part alone is reason to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then RAISE taxes to 45% on earnings over a million a year.Not to mention, but the GOP had a lot going wrong for it, in both 2006, and in 08. They "lost their way", for whatever that might mean to you. To me, it means that the Republicans were always the party of less government, taxes, conservative on social issues, and strong on defense, among other things. Although they remained strong on defense, they lost on almost every other identifiable issue. They didn't appear to legislate for less government, the opposite actually, although, MUCH slower than the Dems. But all in all, they seemed weak to me. Not able to stand up for anything, and it wasn't until Obama that they managed to get a pair.
Lets hope they organize as a voice of the people, and act like republicans. Govern for the whole nation, not just a select few that you think might vote for you, or that you'd like for them to vote for you. I think the people spoke pretty loudly November 2nd, the message was clear. Now, go and fix it.
If they don't, then the people will demand even better. Whoever steps up in that role, essentially wins.