Search results

Sorry, if it's a good policy for those who are paying for the benefits of others, it's good enough for those receiving the benefits. Besides, if you are spending money on illegal drugs obviously you are not destitute.

Why do feel the government is the only one allowed to care for the indigent? The US had plenty even before the Fed took over their care. Perhaps not so many, but they still existed.

12 weeks is roughly what is allowed for maternity leave for working mothers. After that most are cleared to return to work. Those on welfare should not be entitled to greater benefits than those footing the bill.

It should end completely as soon as the youngest current child in the household turns 3 months old or a weekly drug test is failed for the first time after being accepted into the welfare program. (And yes, I am counting children in utero.) It's a one time deal. Don't bother applying again.

oh is he giving credit to Bush on this one as well?

Sadly because so many are no longer considered to be in the workforce. I can't recal the percentage reduction the US workforce under obama, do you happen to have those figures around?

And the one about him being for the working family.

That is just fantastic. What a boon to workers who can now take home ALL of their take home pay and not be forced to hand over their hard earned cash to union thugs who spend it on themselves and in support of politicians whom they oppose. I only wish that I could vote for this corragious man...

Nearly half of Wall Street expects bigger bonuses, survey finds Small business hiring plans plunge to record low - latimes.com

newpaper and print magazine business models are not the same. Please do not inject dissimilar business models into the discussion which regards only print magazines. I recognize that all print media is encountering changes to their traditional business model, but if it were as dire as you are...

Assad has been wiping out entire towns for over a year now. Granted, it's been measured in days rather than hours, but the death toll is already just as high. Yet that is not reason to get involved. Using a different method of killing somehow now justifies/forces action by the US. WHy?

Why do you think I want us involved? I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of our policy that a leader can kill their citizens with conventional arms but face the strong words of Clinton's wife if they dare use WMD's. Your leap to my support for war missed the mark.

If your argument was 100% right then all print media would be shutting down. I haven't seen that happening so I guess your argument is not 100% accurate. Perhaps the other shortcoming of News Week should be considered.

not my problem. :wave:

Yes, they do contain language precluding any killing of non-combatants regardless of means or method. Syria is in violation of GC today even without the introduction of WMD's and we sit on our fannies doing nothing. Is that what you were trying to get out there?

If the US begins active participation in this war and it ls later determnied that the WMD scare was inaccurate, can I expect my left leaning comrades to demand impeachment and begin all sorts of protestations?

nope. :wave:

Are you proposing we go back to the Kennedy rates for all things? i.e. taxes, spending, entitlements, etc.? I could go for that.

Clinton's spending didn't bring us to $16T debt. Let's go back to that as well.

1 - headspinning reduction in debt 2 - wailing by many as their pet programs are dashed 3 - an upswing in personal responsibility as the government will be discontinuing all the butt wiping services many have grown addicted to. 4 - a return to fiscal responsibility