I’ll give a nickel to each poster who puts carol and curol on ignore. It worked for Liberal!
I’m not “defending” anything because I have nothing I have to defend. Also, there is simply no comparison between SSI and welfare, no matter how many times you all try to pretend there is. Anyway…
It is never “okay” for someone to take welfare, as it should be something that one does as a last resort, and gets off of as soon as possible. It is supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice, so people should quit with the excuses as to why they can’t work/get an education or whatever the reason is they cannot do anything but take assistance.
No, I stopped working because I finally got to the point that simply couldn’t hold a full time job and there is no part time work that I can do. It was afterwards that we confirmed what we had suspected, that it is actually slightly cheaper for me to not work.
How about you read what that was a response to before you show how stupid you sound? Brown Eyed Girl said “I want affordable health care for every U.S. citizen. I want better healthcare outcomes for less money” , and that was my response. It had nothing to do with a UHC.
Also, you could do your own research and figure out just how much medical research countries with UHCs do. WRT to those drug companies - do you think they will continue to bother with research if they cannot get the money back in sales? They already don’t bother with drugs for things that won’t pay well.
Gonna say no again to that strawman this time too. I know that I am certainly not yet a net receiver since I’ve hardly had much yet but that’s all I’m going to bother with.
Why should I do that? Will you?
Snort. Nice try.
Ah! An answer! I’ve heard of these. Very important to starting discussions as I understand it. I shall proceed from here.
Do you think that everyone one welfare is treating it as a lifestyle choice? Majority? What’s your opinion?
Yes. I’d kind of like to be able to keep my retirement instead of it going to more taxes.
This is part of your problem - I am not “getting at” anything, I am simply asking a question. Insurance and vehicle maintenance - particularly older vehicle - are expensive, but you jump right past the obvious and go on a rant about selling your tools. You then go on to state that your husband uses one of the vehicles as well, which is far different from what you said earlier - that you use both for work.
You quoted:
You quoted it. Did you read it? Please try to keep up.
I thought this thread was about Bri1600BV troll.
:smack: Long night at work. I knew she was being inconsistent, but my brain was only picking up “Carol Stream berated”.
:rolleyes:
My opinion? Here in California, probably 20%
Um… what? As the vehicles have been well cared for and we keep up with their routine maintenance (mostly oil changes, though the truck needed some stuff replaced a couple years ago) they are actually LOW maintenance, no more than new vehicles, actually. Our insurance costs have actually gone down over the years, due in part to excellent driving records but also because we are careful not to buy more insurance than we need. As our state bases vehicle taxes on the worth the vehicle, the older the vehicle the less it’s worth and the less you pay in taxes on it.
And what you don’t seem to get is that the vehicles, like my work tools, ARE actually tools. They are assets, not liabilities, and their presence results in income that very much exceeds their costs. Just like my work tools. Just like my cell phone, which has been an integral and essential part of some of my recent employment. Not one of those things is a luxury, they are devices whereby I make the money which will take us back into the middle class.
Yes, I use both for work. He also drives them both. Why is this a cognitive problem for you? I can obviously only drive one vehicle at a time, he clearly takes the other if there is a need for him to go anywhere. We also have a handicap placard for both, as that maximizes the utility of them both in that my husband can use either without worrying whether or not there is a placard in them. I don’t see why you have a problem with the notion that a vehicle can serve multiple purposes.
You bitch that people are receiving assistance (even as you yourself are) yet you also insist they should sell/get rid of the very things that make them more employable and enable them to get off the “dole”.
I speak from experience to say that folks who make welfare their ‘lifestyle choice’ are people who have no choices in life at all…it’s welfare or nothing.
So, it’s not a lifestyle choice at all, really. Choices are made when one has alternative options available from which to choose. Many in our communities, whether through ill health or disability, through relationship breakdown or redundancy in the workplace find themselves with no other ‘choice’ but to adopt a welfare ‘lifestyle’.
And having been there, I can tell you that life is MUCH better when you are not living on a subsistence-level income. And if one has real choices, they don’t actually choose to scrounge out an existence on welfare.
Just sayin’. 
Don’t bother to give **curlcoat **any statistics about how long people are on welfare, guys. She’s just going to ignore them because they disagree with the Magical World of curlcoat, where everybody on welfare dines nightly on caviar and champagne, popping out babies with expensive birth defects as they scoff at the fools who actually work for a living.
I know this was multiple pages back, but what law exactly do you mean? The law about becoming a naturalized citizen or the law about being a citizen if born here. Because neither path to citizenship has been abolished thank God.
I believe her claim was that children who are illegal aliens are legally allowed to attend public schools. (I don’t know if they are or aren’t.)
That didn’t seem to make sense given her post. But of course, with the source material, expecting sense is a bit out there.
Got any cites to back that up? (Psst – opinions don’t count if you’re making claims like that, dearie)
Does it matter if they are? It’s not like they personally choose to come to America, it was their parents.
Regardless your position on the kid’s parents, crippling kid’s futures with lack of education is just cruel.
I didn’t read the post in question when I posted. Here it is:
It looks like I was remembering incorrectly. With the quote she’s quoting, it looks like she thought that the Constitution (‘law’, as she puts it) had been changed such that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not citizens. I have not hear that the 14th Amendment had been repealed.
So, events beyond your control are only your fault if… I can’t even come up with your logic here.
I wondered if it was that part or the whole naturalization thing that was under threat un her New World Order.
I’d be a little miffed if she was to think I shouldn’t be allowed to naturalize given I will wager I have paid in more to the tax bucket in my time here without taking a penny out (in individual benefits) than many people. Though I did get a Stafford loan, so I guess I am a drain on society.
I also (despite a BA, two MAs and a JD) incapable of filling out online forms correctly, so accoring to Carol Stream am unworthy of employment.
Won’t somebody think of the children? :rolleyes:
I can at least understand the opposition, assuming that the parents are not paying taxes. Why should we pay to educate children whose parents are not contributing to their education, right? Except…
Except that a good deal of the cost of education is payed for by property taxes. So what about all of those people who don’t own property? Well, somebody owns their dwellings. And those people pay property taxes out of the rent they receive. Assuming that most illegal aliens do not own property (some do), then they are paying rent. So they are indeed paying, indirectly like other renters, into the educational system. They also pay sales taxes, as they certainly buy things. Many illegal aliens have jobs under false SSNs, and they have payroll taxes withdrawn. The catch is that they cannot benefit from their contributions, since the SSNs don’t belong to them. For all I know someone is contributing to my Social Security, which will benefit me and not him. (Actually, I do read those statements that come every year or half-year or whatever, and nobody is making any payments for me.)
In any case, illegal aliens are, through rent at least, contributing to the education fund; so why shouldn’t their kids be taught?
Also, a child born in the U.S. is a citizen. All citizens should be educated so as to add value to [del]the collective[/del] society.