"John Kane" > wrote

On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>> needed it.
>
>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.

>Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
>this idea?

>Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
>something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
>response to a complex socio-economic problem.

You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.

>It really sound like a good idea until you start to think of what
>happens when people get tosssed off welfare.

>Of course, a lot just die so that helps solve the problem. This is
>what happens when you just cut welfare payments not stop them
>completely.

I said it was a simple overview. The plan is not a simplistic
as you have latched onto.

>Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
>combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.

You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

nancy

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>
> nancy

<lol> Good insight Nancy!
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>
>> nancy
>
> <lol> Good insight Nancy!

Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
for getting wasted.

Dave Smith > fnord news:48cd9b28$0$7408
:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have
time
> for getting wasted.
>
>

What, you forgot the fourth crack commandment?

--
Saerah (never get high on your own supply...)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Dave Smith wrote:
> Omelet wrote:

>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have
> time for getting wasted.

I was being sarcastic, in case it wasn't clear.

nancy

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
> wasted.
>

Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
legitimate job and have kids to think of.

Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
.... there but for the grace of God go I ..."

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
news
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
>> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
>> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
>> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
>> for getting wasted.
>>
>
> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
> disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
> ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
> resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
> pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
> I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
> ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word
> "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in
> unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health
> care through a legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
> choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help
> them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>

There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!

cybercat wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> news
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find
>>> that most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them
>>> because they already had too much spare time on their hands. Most
>>> people who are gainfully employed and have other activities on the
>>> side don't have time for getting wasted.
>>>
>>
>> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of
>> what is disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are
>> the fortunate ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal
>> or sell drugs or resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did
>> at one time but have pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're
>> angry at those still taking. I prefer to think of it as a loan. No,
>> they might not pay it back. The ones who abuse the system are the
>> ones you think of when the word "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is
>> abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate circumstances beyond
>> their control. Some can't get health care through a legitimate job
>> and have kids to think of. Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some
>> of the posts in this
>> thread where most of you posting think people who are poor are that
>> way by choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE
>> supposed to help them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I
>> ..."
>
> There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!

I'm reading all this and I'm feeling a little sad and ashamed at what some
folks are saying because I'm on disability. I don't get much a month, but
if I don't receive my monthly disability allowance, I don't get Medicaid -
that's the rule. I can tell Social Security that I don't want their money,
but if I don't take it I can't receive Medicaid. It's kind of silly.

Medicaid is *state*-funded free health care, not *federally*- funded free
health care. It takes a lot of phone calls, paperwork, leg work and time to
finally qualify for it. You've got to get all your doctor records together,
take a psychiatric evaluation, get all your financial statements in order,
taxes, gosh. It was a full-time job to become eligible. I guess they make
it that difficult to weed out the lazy folks and the ones who are out to
abuse the system.

Well, do to the diagnosis of cancer and the radical surgeries I went through
to remove the aggressive tumor, and a more recent emergency surgery a few
weeks ago, I can say thank you to Medicaid because I am still here,
breathing. If I had not qualified for Medicaid, I would definitely have
died by now. I came really close.

So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the system. I'm
grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want to stay around for a
few more years at least, to continue to irk my husband. :~)

kili

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the system. I'm
> grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want to stay around for a
> few more years at least, to continue to irk my husband. :~)
>
> kili

You are not abusing the system babe. :-)
Even with health insurance thru my employer, I still can't really afford
health care due to the high deductibles and co-pays!

Health care is another really tough subject for everyone sheerly due to
it's high cost.

I'm glad you were able to qualify. <hugs>

Health care due to my current issues are driving my budget into the
ground...
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

"kilikini" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat wrote:
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find
>>>> that most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them
>>>> because they already had too much spare time on their hands. Most
>>>> people who are gainfully employed and have other activities on the
>>>> side don't have time for getting wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of
>>> what is disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are
>>> the fortunate ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal
>>> or sell drugs or resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did
>>> at one time but have pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're
>>> angry at those still taking. I prefer to think of it as a loan. No,
>>> they might not pay it back. The ones who abuse the system are the
>>> ones you think of when the word "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is
>>> abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate circumstances beyond
>>> their control. Some can't get health care through a legitimate job
>>> and have kids to think of. Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some
>>> of the posts in this
>>> thread where most of you posting think people who are poor are that
>>> way by choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE
>>> supposed to help them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I
>>> ..."
>>
>> There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!
>
> I'm reading all this and I'm feeling a little sad and ashamed at what some
> folks are saying because I'm on disability. I don't get much a month, but
> if I don't receive my monthly disability allowance, I don't get Medicaid -
> that's the rule. I can tell Social Security that I don't want their
> money, but if I don't take it I can't receive Medicaid. It's kind of
> silly.

Kili, do not let these bitches bother you. All this petty, mean-spirited,
unkind and ungenerous crap will come back on each and every one of them.
I've never taken any kind of help because I've never needed it, thank God.
No catastrophic illnesses, accidents, etc. I could be as arrogant and
unfeeling as all these *other* assholes (hahaha!) but for some reason I am
not. I've never had anything handed to me, had to work hard for everything
and am still working hard, and yet I begrudge the poor not one cent of my
tax money. I begrudge the ****ing Pentagon a whole bunch, but not the poor,
the addicted, the mentally ill, the old, and the very young.


[snips]

>I can say thank you to Medicaid because I am still here, breathing.

That is what it is there for.

>If I had not qualified for Medicaid, I would definitely have died by now.
>I came really close.
>
> So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the system.
> I'm grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want to stay around
> for a few more years at least, to continue to irk my husband. :~)
>

Oh yessss, let's hear it for that. Look him in the eye and say, "I have not
borne any children." (The unspoken part is, "so why am I picking up somebody
else's underwear?)

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:44:49 -0400, kilikini wrote:

> cybercat wrote:
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find
>>>> that most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them
>>>> because they already had too much spare time on their hands. Most
>>>> people who are gainfully employed and have other activities on the
>>>> side don't have time for getting wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of
>>> what is disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are
>>> the fortunate ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal
>>> or sell drugs or resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did
>>> at one time but have pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're
>>> angry at those still taking. I prefer to think of it as a loan. No,
>>> they might not pay it back. The ones who abuse the system are the
>>> ones you think of when the word "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is
>>> abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate circumstances beyond
>>> their control. Some can't get health care through a legitimate job
>>> and have kids to think of. Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some
>>> of the posts in this
>>> thread where most of you posting think people who are poor are that
>>> way by choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE
>>> supposed to help them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I
>>> ..."
>>
>> There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!
>
> I'm reading all this and I'm feeling a little sad and ashamed at what some
> folks are saying because I'm on disability. I don't get much a month, but
> if I don't receive my monthly disability allowance, I don't get Medicaid -
> that's the rule. I can tell Social Security that I don't want their money,
> but if I don't take it I can't receive Medicaid. It's kind of silly.
>
> Medicaid is *state*-funded free health care, not *federally*- funded free
> health care. It takes a lot of phone calls, paperwork, leg work and time to
> finally qualify for it. You've got to get all your doctor records together,
> take a psychiatric evaluation, get all your financial statements in order,
> taxes, gosh. It was a full-time job to become eligible. I guess they make
> it that difficult to weed out the lazy folks and the ones who are out to
> abuse the system.
>

really, being poor is a lot of work. it's not surprising these folks don't
have time to hold down a job.

your pal,
blake

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "kilikini" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> So, I don't feel that my receiving medical help is abusing the
>> system. I'm grateful, very grateful for the help. Besides, I want
>> to stay around for a few more years at least, to continue to irk my
>> husband. :~)
>
> I've been lurking in the thread. You had an extremely rough time of
> it. At least you were sent in the right direction when you thought
> all doors had finally been closed to you. So many people just give
> up. There *is* decent, free (or very little cost to the patient)
> health care for patients out there. Finding it is the big issue.
> Someone in the "know" is generally the way to find the open door.
> You were shown a door that might be open to you and you walked
> through it, thankfully. How many people out there can't find, or,
> can't find anyone to help them find that door... I think people with
> chronic illness and children should all have access to health care,
> regardless of the financial status of their family. I'm not saying
> that I am a socialized medicine advocate. I don't know enough about
> socialized medicine to be able to discuss it intelligently. I do
> think something needs to be done. It needs to be done during the
> next presidential term.
>
> Michael

I agree with you, Michael. :~)

kili

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> wrote:

>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
>> wasted.
>>
>
>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
>legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."


Thank you, Cheryl.

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
>>> most
>>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
>>> already
>>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for
>>> getting
>>> wasted.
>>>
>>
>>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
>>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
>>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
>>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
>>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
>>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
>>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word
>>"welfare"
>>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
>>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
>>legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>>
>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
>>choice.
>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them.
>>"
>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
>
> Thank you, Cheryl.
>
> Boron

oNe more thing while I'm up here on my soapbox. If we are all out for only
our own welfare, we are not evolved from the animals we once were. Only
humans can feel something for others, whether fellow humans or animals or
the earth we live on.

DONE.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
>>>> most
>>>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
>>>> already
>>>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>>>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for
>>>> getting
>>>> wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what
>>>is
>>>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
>>>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
>>>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
>>>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still
>>>taking.
>>>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
>>>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word
>>>"welfare"
>>>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
>>>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
>>>legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>>>
>>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
>>>choice.
>>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them.
>>>"
>>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Cheryl.
>>
>> Boron
>
> oNe more thing while I'm up here on my soapbox. If we are all out for only
> our own welfare, we are not evolved from the animals we once were. Only
> humans can feel something for others, whether fellow humans or animals or
> the earth we live on.
>

The measure of any culture depends largely on how it treats its elderly,
poor, and otherwise needy/helpless. I cannot believe these spiteful
mother****ers.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:44:42 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
>
> Thank you, Cheryl.
>
> Boron

as an atheist it almost pains me to say this, but we could do with a more
christian attitude around here.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
"Cheryl" > wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
> > people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
> > had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
> > employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
> > wasted.
> >
>
> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
> disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
> ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
> resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
> pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
> I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
> ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
> comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
> circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
> legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."

Cheryl, I have no issues with helping people. The issues I have are with
those that don't try... Those that are on 3rd generation or more of
moochers!

I know that not all welfare recipients are like that, but the few tend
to ruin a good system for the many. :-(

I give away a good 10% of my net income to help both family members and
the family of a good friend that I pay to do housecleaning I could do
myself.

I'm not without compassion.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:33:57 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Cheryl" > wrote:

>> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
> Cheryl, I have no issues with helping people. The issues I have are with
> those that don't try... Those that are on 3rd generation or more of
> moochers!
>
> I know that not all welfare recipients are like that, but the few tend
> to ruin a good system for the many. :-(
>
> I give away a good 10% of my net income to help both family members and
> the family of a good friend that I pay to do housecleaning I could do
> myself.
>
> I'm not without compassion.

if you're so ****ing compassionate, you shouldn't begrudge the one percent
of your taxes that go to welfare, even if part of that goes to the 'few'
'bad ones.'

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:33:57 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Cheryl" > wrote:
>
> >> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> >> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
> >> choice.
> >> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them.
> >> "
> >> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
> >
> > Cheryl, I have no issues with helping people. The issues I have are with
> > those that don't try... Those that are on 3rd generation or more of
> > moochers!
> >
> > I know that not all welfare recipients are like that, but the few tend
> > to ruin a good system for the many. :-(
> >
> > I give away a good 10% of my net income to help both family members and
> > the family of a good friend that I pay to do housecleaning I could do
> > myself.
> >
> > I'm not without compassion.
>
> if you're so ****ing compassionate, you shouldn't begrudge the one percent
> of your taxes that go to welfare, even if part of that goes to the 'few'
> 'bad ones.'
>
> your pal,
> blake

The thread has been enlightening.
I'm always up for an education.

Unlike some people around here, I'm willing to change my mind and admit
I may have been in error.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, Cheryl wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
>> wasted.
>>
>
> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
> disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
> ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
> resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
> pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
> I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
> ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
> comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
> circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
> legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
> And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
> ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."

what kills me is how many people seem to be *jealous* of the poor *******s.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:11:08 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
> for getting wasted.

you seriously need to get out mo

Drug Rehab Need By Employment

* Current employment status also correlated with addiction treatment
need in 2000. An estimated 7.7 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or
older needed addiction treatment for illicit drugs, while only 1.6 percent
of full-time employed adults needed addiction treatment for an illicit drug
problem.
* Most of the adult population needing addiction treatment for an
illicit drug problem in 2000 was employed. Of the estimated 3.6 million
persons aged 18 or older who needed addiction treatment, 1.9 million were
employed full time and 0.6 million were employed part time. Thus, an
estimated 70 percent of adults needing addiction treatment were employed.
An estimated 359,000 unemployed adults needed addiction treatment.

<http://www.drug-rehab-referral.org/drug_rehab_addiction_treatment.html>

your pal,
blake

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Drug Rehab Need By Employment
> >
> > * Current employment status also correlated with addiction
> > treatment
> > need in 2000. An estimated 7.7 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or
> > older needed addiction treatment for illicit drugs, while only 1.6
> > percent of full-time employed adults needed addiction treatment for an
> > illicit drug problem.
> > * Most of the adult population needing addiction treatment for an
> > illicit drug problem in 2000 was employed. Of the estimated 3.6
> > million persons aged 18 or older who needed addiction treatment, 1.9
> > million were employed full time and 0.6 million were employed part
> > time. Thus, an estimated 70 percent of adults needing addiction
> > treatment were employed. An estimated 359,000 unemployed adults needed
> > addiction treatment.
> >
> > <http://www.drug-rehab-referral.org/d...treatment.html
>
> It has been my understanding that the vast majority of people addiction
> issues, be it alcohol, pharmaceuticals or both, are functioning addicts.
> Most are employed as you've pointed out above. I don't know where people
> get the stereotypical idea that an alcoholic/addict is a homeless person
> laying in the gutter clutching a bottle or a needle. That is simply not
> the truth. Sure, many, many homeless and unemployed people have
> addiction issues but the surest way to find one is most likely next door
> (so to speak).
>
> Michael

Seconded.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On 16 Sep 2008 00:42:42 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> Drug Rehab Need By Employment
>>
>> * Current employment status also correlated with addiction
>> treatment
>> need in 2000. An estimated 7.7 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or
>> older needed addiction treatment for illicit drugs, while only 1.6
>> percent of full-time employed adults needed addiction treatment for an
>> illicit drug problem.
>> * Most of the adult population needing addiction treatment for an
>> illicit drug problem in 2000 was employed. Of the estimated 3.6
>> million persons aged 18 or older who needed addiction treatment, 1.9
>> million were employed full time and 0.6 million were employed part
>> time. Thus, an estimated 70 percent of adults needing addiction
>> treatment were employed. An estimated 359,000 unemployed adults needed
>> addiction treatment.
>>
>> <http://www.drug-rehab-referral.org/d...treatment.html
>
> It has been my understanding that the vast majority of people addiction
> issues, be it alcohol, pharmaceuticals or both, are functioning addicts.
> Most are employed as you've pointed out above. I don't know where people
> get the stereotypical idea that an alcoholic/addict is a homeless person
> laying in the gutter clutching a bottle or a needle. That is simply not
> the truth. Sure, many, many homeless and unemployed people have
> addiction issues but the surest way to find one is most likely next door
> (so to speak).
>
> Michael

let's just put it this way: betty ford and cindy mccain weren't living on
the streets when they were addicts. and if you throw in people habituated
to alcohol, well...

i knew a guy who had a heroin addiction while working at a bank. he would
take a 'maintenance' dose before work (and possibly at lunchtime), and
waited until evening to get high. they're out there.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:13:21 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> "John Kane" > wrote
>
> On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
>>> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
>>> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
>>> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
>>> needed it.
>>
>>> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
>>> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>
>>Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
>>this idea?
>
>>Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
>>something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
>>response to a complex socio-economic problem.
>
> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>

as someone upthread pointed out, welfare payments don't amount to much of
your tax bill:

Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each
take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to
expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will
inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student
loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the
economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most
vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and
have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined
federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both
programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined
federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm>

....so why not think of it as a 'spite tip' for a really cruddy waiter?

your pal,
blake

On Sep 14, 4:13*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "John Kane" > wrote
>
> On Sep 14, 1:46 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
> >> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
> >> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
> >> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
> >> needed it.
>
> >> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
> >> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
> >Where do you live and has anyone actually looked at the results of
> >this idea?
> >Every once in a while some state or province or country tries
> >something this dumb and it flops because it is a stupid political
> >response to a complex socio-economic problem.
>
> You really seem to like the welfare solution. *I wonder why.

I don't but even less do I like the simplistic "cut them off'" ideas
etc.

I have actually seen some of these people in real life. A lot of
them have minor little problems like serious physical disabilities
that the provinical government won't acknowledge so they cannot get a
disbility pension, instead they are on welfare.

Others are not mentally stable enought to work regularly or suffer
from serioius learning disabilities that make holding a job
difficult.

Others are too old, or too young.

So far every idiotic cut off the welfare idea that I have seen does a
lot more damage than good both to those who are cut off and to others
in the society.

>
> >It really sound like a good idea until you start to think of what
> >happens when people get tosssed off welfare.
> >Of course, a lot just die so that helps solve the problem. *This is
> >what happens when you just cut welfare payments not stop them
> >completely.
>
> I said it was a simple overview. *The plan is not a simplistic
> as you have latched onto.

Well it certainly sounded that way.
>
> >Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
> >combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.
>
> You're right. *Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>
> nancy

Well, it may not cure it but it cuts down on the desperate competition
that leads to drive-by shooting etc. No welfare, no poor kid
graduates from Gr. 8 let alone high school. It builds a permanent
underclass, which I guess the USA has already admitted that it has.


John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:13 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> You really seem to like the welfare solution. I wonder why.
>
> I don't but even less do I like the simplistic "cut them off'" ideas
> etc.

As I've said, there is more to it than just cut them off.
Training, exemptions for some, etc. Other benefits that
are not cut off, for lack of a better term.

> I have actually seen some of these people in real life. A lot of
> them have minor little problems like serious physical disabilities
> that the provinical government won't acknowledge so they cannot get a
> disbility pension, instead they are on welfare.

I understand. Despite what you or others might think, I am not
against welfare and I do understand that there are people who
cannot support themselves for one reason or another.

> Others are not mentally stable enought to work regularly or suffer
> from serioius learning disabilities that make holding a job
> difficult.
>
> Others are too old, or too young.

I understand more than you know.

>> I said it was a simple overview. The plan is not a simplistic
>> as you have latched onto.
>
> Well it certainly sounded that way.

I said it was a simple overview, in those exact words. Meaning
there is more to it than my little blurb to Wayne about how they
are trying to stop the cycle of welfare dependence that runs in
families.

>>> Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
>>> combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.
>>
>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

> Well, it may not cure it but it cuts down on the desperate competition
> that leads to drive-by shooting etc.

This is why I was sarcastic, because there is welfare and there
has been drug dealing, drive bys, gang violence for *years* ...
so when there is welfare, there is that activity, but take away
welfare, we'll have that activity. That argument makes no sense
to me.

> No welfare, no poor kid
> graduates from Gr. 8 let alone high school. It builds a permanent
> underclass, which I guess the USA has already admitted that it has.

Again, welfare has built a permanent underclass? I happen to
think that has a grain of truth. And welfare or no, people are
required to send their children to school through a certain age.
Or school them, themselves. School is the part everyone pays
for, welfare or not. Separate from welfare is what I'm getting at.

Regardless, this subject has been beaten to death here, and
nothing has been solved. Surprising!

nancy