welfare - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

2wolves · 07-27-2003, 07:45 PM

There are two major welfare programs in the U.S., the individual and the corporate systems.

Given the funding for each which do you believe gives the greatest bang for the tax buck?

2Wolves

Phaenx · 07-27-2003, 07:49 PM

I don't like the whole concept.

Kadath · 07-27-2003, 08:43 PM

Maybe a qualifier should be that only people who support welfare should contribute to this discussion. If you don't contribute, we can assume you don't like it, yes?

ctembreull · 07-27-2003, 09:12 PM

I personally think that corporate welfare is in direct opposition to a free-market economy. I find it highly ironic that so many of the people who believe in unrestrained, unregulated capitalism are so very much in favor of corporate welfare.

I'm not all that fond of individual welfare, but I recognize the need for it. No country should permit its citizens to starve. Problem is, the money so often gets misused. There needs to be a better way to provide assistance to those who require it, but the system shouldn't go away entirely.

Phaenx · 07-27-2003, 09:32 PM

Bleeding heart "feed the homeless" charities and shelters are enough to keep people from starving and dying from the elements. I'm angry with the government for the whore I saw in the grocery store buying a good 200ish dollars worth of expensive meats and such with food stamps. Burns me up.

Rodney · 07-27-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Bleeding heart "feed the homeless" charities and shelters are enough to keep people from starving and dying from the elements. I'm angry with the government for the whore I saw in the grocery store buying a good 200ish dollars worth of expensive meats and such with food stamps. Burns me up.

From my point of view, the equivalent would be abolishing the paid armed forces, soliciting volunteers from the American Legion to do it for nothing, and using the money for something more useful.

hobo · 07-27-2003, 10:41 PM

Corporate welfare is stupid. It is capitalism, the company makes it on its own steam, or it doesn't. Why give them money?

Individual welfare is fine. The life of an unemployed single mom sucks. It is worse on her kids. If she doesn't get her free money, her kids are screwed and they did nothing wrong. Sure it isn't all spent wisely but it helps a lot of people. Helping some at the cost of wasting money on those who could otherwise help themselves is a small price to pay. What happens is the lazy guy lives off welfare until he dies, likely childless due to laziness and lack of appeal to women. The harder working but poor and unlucky unemployed guy lives off welfare for a while, maybe gets lucky one day and gets a job. Once he has a job, women will consider him for relationships and eventually they could become a low income family. He gets his kid the best education possible and the hard working kid becomes successful. This type of thing happens all the time. That is why welfare needs to stay.

The social net to help immigrants is also important. Immigrants contribute a lot to Canada (seeing how they are the only thing preventing negative population growth and total economic collapse). My parents were immigrants. When they first came to Canada, their families got their free money to help them out because they didn't speak English and therefore couldn't get work. As time passed, members of the families got jobs and others got educations then jobs. Now they pay lots of tax. I'm sure the money the government gets off of everyone it once supported in the two families is MUCH MUCH more than they payed out.

ice1982 · 07-27-2003, 10:57 PM

The basis behind corporate welfare is flawed in and of itself due to the reliance on a corporation for management. The primary responsibility of a corporation running a welfare program is still to the corporation first, and the well-being of the welfare recipients second. Government run individual welfare necessarily has to be the way to go, though there are admittedly lots of problems with how the system is administered now. One example of something of an extreme system of succcessful welfare is that in Switzerland, where a country with the highest per-capita income in the world and cost-of-living to follow suit is still able to provide welfare recipients with enough to survive and function in society. Granted, Switzerland has very high taxes and a direct-democracy government, making it a very uneven comparison, and this is less of an answer than it is an observation, but everyone deserves the support of their government if they need help. Now someone has to come up with a way to provide that support

Macheath · 07-27-2003, 11:07 PM

Corporate welfare should be designed to protect fledgling industries getting on their feet, willing to take that brave step into the free market when they're good and healthy.

Social welfare should be a safety net that is designed to help the willing and able get themselves through a difficult time and quickly back into the work force with little fuss.

Corporate welfare actually helps the bloated monopolies with the greatest capacity to fund political campaigns. It helps "farmers" who are really industrialists and entirely contradicts any political rhetoric about the free market.

Social welfare actually helps those who self-identify as welfare recipients. To use the system is to know the system and the system is so unnecessarily complicated, that knowing the system becomes a lifelong occupation. Meanwhile good folks in a bad patch are veritable rubes in the "welfare game" and will be spun around for months by underpaid and underqualified bureaucrats whilst achieving very little.

Pennington · 07-27-2003, 11:42 PM

A personal story about personal welfare:

In 1990, my father lost his job. America was in an economic slump and my father had to sell the stock that he owned for 1/3 their two year high and much less than what he bought them at to pay rent. They were raising six kids at the time. The youngest was born in 89. They could just barely scrape by when my father was laid off. After about two months of temporary jobs, he landed something perminent, but it paid nearly half what he was making and was 50 miles away. He left at six every morning and got back around eight. They couldn't support the family with just one income but my mom had to stay home with the kids and baby so they applied for welfare. For two and a half years they were on welfare until my youngest brother was old enough that my mom could go to work. We had no toys, a black and white TV given to us by an aunt, few books, third hand cloths and little food for those 2 1/2 years and for much longer after that. Had it not been for food stamps and welfare, one of two things would have happened, we would have been unable to pay for rent or food and have to live in a shelter or something similar or my parents would have put us up for adoption.

Now, I'd don't agree with welfare myself, but I fail to see an alternative. We need a safty net for those people in need but I don't think that the current system will work for much longer. If it wasn't for welfare, I wouldn't be here today, but there has to be a better system out there, one that doesn't take money from honest, hard workers and put it into the hands of those who can work but don't because they know that they can get by on others. This is one of my personal political issues that I have yet to find an answer to.

Xell101 · 07-28-2003, 01:41 AM

The US government should only do what your local government can't do and it should only do you for you what you literally can't do. That is the way I think. I also don't being forced to pay for someone else's kids. I support child welfare since I don't believe the kid should ahve to suffer since his mommy is useless, I still don't support using the government to be my personal moral enforcer. I don't believe it should enforce any system of moral beliefs. Like prostitution, if it wasn't for the church that would have been made legal, it was an issue of morality.

The Bolshevist · 08-01-2003, 12:48 PM

Hobo - well stated!!

One extra thing that welfare does is provide funds for people who cannot work due to disability, or help the disabled find work they can do. It allows these people to live and contribute on a level playing field.

Ace_of_Lobster · 08-01-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Corporate welfare should be designed to protect fledgling industries getting on their feet, willing to take that brave step into the free market when they're good and healthy.

Nope! By protecting certain industries, you are damaging other industries, because you are diverting away resources.

This means that the government has to start making decisions about which industries are likely to do well in the future, but there is no reason that the government would know that better than the free market.

smooth · 08-01-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace_of_Lobster
Nope! By protecting certain industries, you are damaging other industries, because you are diverting away resources.

This means that the government has to start making decisions about which industries are likely to do well in the future, but there is no reason that the government would know that better than the free market.

I believe Macheath is drawing a distinction between assisting fledgling corporations versus granting "wealthfare" to already established, wealthy corporations.

tinfoil · 08-01-2003, 04:03 PM

I had to live on welfare for a couple of months. I had just graduated but was unable to find a job that required I move into a large city (something I can't do and still keep my sanity.) It is a depressing and degrading thing, to live off of other people's money. I finally packed up and moved back home where I stumbled into a great job.

It is a valid system, but it is not without it's flaws. First of all, welfare has a tendancy to send people into a downward spiral. I know this for fact because I have lived it and seen it in others. The longer you are on welfare, the less self-esteem you have, the more depressed you get. That depression makes it difficult to get out there and find something else.

Yes, I know, the pitiful amount that one recieves when on welfare should be drive enough, but that will just as often hurt as it does help.

I also know about welfare cases. It disgusts me to see people abusing a system meant to help people. It happens far to often. They get their free hand-out and are content with that. Content with living on $20 a day for food, rent and other expenses. Often they resort to crime to add some extra cash. Workfare is one of the greatest ideas because it forces long-time welfare cases to work terrible jobs in harsh conditions to get their monthly allowance. What we need is a system in which people can report other people abusing the system. Give a reward as well, and we will have welfare cases turning in other welfare cases out of greed. We certainly can't cut off their welfare because that would only lead to other problems. I haven't thought of a punishment yet to help deter abuse.

When administered properly, welfare is a tool to help people who need help. If it weren't for the people abusing it, the stigma wouldn't necessarily be attached to it and it wouldn't lead to the downward spiral that causes many welfare cases. There would also be a bit more money available to those that truely need it. Welfare should be able to feed people a half-decent meal, not KD and tuna every night.

Workfare has helped weed out some of the welfare cases who would rather work in McDonalds than in the sun picking up garbage on the side of the road, but it hasn't done enough. We, unfortunatly, need to police the system, to check up on the people who have been on welfare for years and years. It needs to be inconvenient and degrading for those that abuse it.

Please note, I am speaking about the Canadian welfare system. I have no knowledge of the American system. My first hand experience of the system was roughly five years ago, second hand experience is current.

123dsa · 08-01-2003, 05:01 PM

I tend to agree with Xell101. Social programs should be administered primarily at the local level, then the federal government could pick up the slack. It would be best if people could first look to family, friends, local government, before holding out their hands to the "highly effecient" federal welfare program.

As for corporate welfare, basic economic principles apply; as with all protectionist policies the result is lower standard of living for the country as a whole.

ctembreull · 08-01-2003, 05:38 PM

123dsa:

The problem here is that local governments usually can't afford to cover the requirements of welfare programs on their own. They need assistance from the state and federal governments to provide adequately for those who need it.

As a related aside, did you know that the current administration has slashed aid payments to the states in order to reduce government expenditures? Meaning that an ever-increasing burden is being placed on states and municipalities, as the number of jobless steadily grows and the economy, if it doesn't spiral endlessly down into a black hole, just barely manages to remain functional.

The individual welfare system is being intentionally broken for ideological reasons. But corporate welfare? Alive and well, thanks.

Disgusting.

123dsa · 08-01-2003, 05:47 PM

Number of jobless steadily growing? Maybe you missed the new report from the Fed. Unemployment is down and the economy grew at more than 2% over the last quarter.(3% is the rate of growth at the natural rate of unemployment)

I understand what you're saying about the burden on the states. The problem I see is wasteful spending. "slashing spending" isn't quite accurate either. Spending was just increased by less than originally forecasted.

123dsa · 08-01-2003, 05:51 PM

Forgot about the original topic of the thread-welfare. The problem with the system is similar to that of zoos reintroducing animals into the wild. Once you've been fed by others for a while it is dificult for you to adapt to feeding yourself. Why not put welfare recipients to work at the local level? ( those that CAN work) Cleaning streests, maintaining parks, everybody wins...

tinfoil · 08-01-2003, 06:20 PM

They do that up here and it works well. Well, it works better than nothing.

smooth · 08-01-2003, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 123dsa
Number of jobless steadily growing? Maybe you missed the new report from the Fed. Unemployment is down and the economy grew at more than 2% over the last quarter.(3% is the rate of growth at the natural rate of unemployment)

I understand what you're saying about the burden on the states. The problem I see is wasteful spending. "slashing spending" isn't quite accurate either. Spending was just increased by less than originally forecasted.

You may have misread that. The mortgage sector grew--but rates are rising too high, too fast and the market is projected to become quickly saturated.

The unemployment drop you cited was due to people giving up on looking for work--not because the market grew. Here's a portion of an article explaining it further from today's LA Times:

Jobless Rate Drops to 6.2% in July

The nation's employers continued to cut payrolls in July and more people gave up looking for work and dropped out of the job market, leading the nation's unemployment rate to slip to 6.2%, the Labor Department said today.

Despite recent signs of an economic expansion, the July report showed that the job market remained weak, with payrolls dropping by 44,000 - the sixth monthly decline in a row. Meanwhile, the size of the labor force dropped by 556,000, erasing the previous month's gain as more out-of-work people stopped searching for jobs.

The jobs report surprised economists, many of whom were projecting an increase in payrolls, and disappointed Wall Street. The Dow Jones average ended the day at 9153.97, down 79.83. The Nasdaq dropped 19.43 to 1715.59, while the S&P 500 slipped 10.16 to 980.15.

The unemployment rolls shrank slightly to 9.1 million people as the unemployment rate dipped to 6.2% in July from 6.4% the previous month. But the decline was primarily the result of fewer people actively looking for work or giving up their job search entirely. Those people, described as either marginal or discouraged workers, are not included in unemployment statistics...

2wolves · 08-01-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 123dsa
Forgot about the original topic of the thread-welfare.

Why? I love reading folks who are anti-welfare try to justify the corp version while slandering the folks who use individual assistance. All the while claiming to be hard core capitalists.

Tickles my sense of humor.

2Wolves

ctembreull · 08-01-2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 123dsa
Number of jobless steadily growing? Maybe you missed the new report from the Fed. Unemployment is down

Incorrect. The only reason those numbers dropped was that half a million Americans officially gave up looking for jobs. The number that dropped was the number of new jobless claims. Did you know that more than two and a half million jobs have been lost since Bush took office?

Quote:

and the economy grew at more than 2% over the last quarter.(3% is the rate of growth at the natural rate of unemployment)

Actually, the number given was 2.4 percent. That's a misleading statistic. It's the percentage of economic growth over the quarter from the year before, extrapolated out over four quarters. The actual, real growth is something like 0.67 percent. Not to mention with the continuing increase in jobless claims (see above), this is what's called a "jobless recovery". If people aren't making money to put back into the economy, any supposed recovery will certainly be short-lived.

07-27-2003, 07:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	welfare There are two major welfare programs in the U.S., the individual and the corporate systems. Given the funding for each which do you believe gives the greatest bang for the tax buck? 2Wolves

07-27-2003, 07:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I don't like the whole concept. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

07-27-2003, 08:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Maybe a qualifier should be that only people who support welfare should contribute to this discussion. If you don't contribute, we can assume you don't like it, yes? __________________ it's quiet in here

07-27-2003, 09:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	I personally think that corporate welfare is in direct opposition to a free-market economy. I find it highly ironic that so many of the people who believe in unrestrained, unregulated capitalism are so very much in favor of corporate welfare. I'm not all that fond of individual welfare, but I recognize the need for it. No country should permit its citizens to starve. Problem is, the money so often gets misused. There needs to be a better way to provide assistance to those who require it, but the system shouldn't go away entirely. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

07-27-2003, 09:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Bleeding heart "feed the homeless" charities and shelters are enough to keep people from starving and dying from the elements. I'm angry with the government for the whore I saw in the grocery store buying a good 200ish dollars worth of expensive meats and such with food stamps. Burns me up. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

07-27-2003, 10:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
hobo Archangel of Change	Corporate welfare is stupid. It is capitalism, the company makes it on its own steam, or it doesn't. Why give them money? Individual welfare is fine. The life of an unemployed single mom sucks. It is worse on her kids. If she doesn't get her free money, her kids are screwed and they did nothing wrong. Sure it isn't all spent wisely but it helps a lot of people. Helping some at the cost of wasting money on those who could otherwise help themselves is a small price to pay. What happens is the lazy guy lives off welfare until he dies, likely childless due to laziness and lack of appeal to women. The harder working but poor and unlucky unemployed guy lives off welfare for a while, maybe gets lucky one day and gets a job. Once he has a job, women will consider him for relationships and eventually they could become a low income family. He gets his kid the best education possible and the hard working kid becomes successful. This type of thing happens all the time. That is why welfare needs to stay. The social net to help immigrants is also important. Immigrants contribute a lot to Canada (seeing how they are the only thing preventing negative population growth and total economic collapse). My parents were immigrants. When they first came to Canada, their families got their free money to help them out because they didn't speak English and therefore couldn't get work. As time passed, members of the families got jobs and others got educations then jobs. Now they pay lots of tax. I'm sure the money the government gets off of everyone it once supported in the two families is MUCH MUCH more than they payed out.

07-27-2003, 10:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
ice1982 Upright	The basis behind corporate welfare is flawed in and of itself due to the reliance on a corporation for management. The primary responsibility of a corporation running a welfare program is still to the corporation first, and the well-being of the welfare recipients second. Government run individual welfare necessarily has to be the way to go, though there are admittedly lots of problems with how the system is administered now. One example of something of an extreme system of succcessful welfare is that in Switzerland, where a country with the highest per-capita income in the world and cost-of-living to follow suit is still able to provide welfare recipients with enough to survive and function in society. Granted, Switzerland has very high taxes and a direct-democracy government, making it a very uneven comparison, and this is less of an answer than it is an observation, but everyone deserves the support of their government if they need help. Now someone has to come up with a way to provide that support

07-27-2003, 11:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Corporate welfare should be designed to protect fledgling industries getting on their feet, willing to take that brave step into the free market when they're good and healthy. Social welfare should be a safety net that is designed to help the willing and able get themselves through a difficult time and quickly back into the work force with little fuss. Corporate welfare actually helps the bloated monopolies with the greatest capacity to fund political campaigns. It helps "farmers" who are really industrialists and entirely contradicts any political rhetoric about the free market. Social welfare actually helps those who self-identify as welfare recipients. To use the system is to know the system and the system is so unnecessarily complicated, that knowing the system becomes a lifelong occupation. Meanwhile good folks in a bad patch are veritable rubes in the "welfare game" and will be spun around for months by underpaid and underqualified bureaucrats whilst achieving very little. Last edited by Macheath; 07-27-2003 at 11:18 PM..

07-27-2003, 11:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
Pennington Banned Location: Autonomous Zone	A personal story about personal welfare: In 1990, my father lost his job. America was in an economic slump and my father had to sell the stock that he owned for 1/3 their two year high and much less than what he bought them at to pay rent. They were raising six kids at the time. The youngest was born in 89. They could just barely scrape by when my father was laid off. After about two months of temporary jobs, he landed something perminent, but it paid nearly half what he was making and was 50 miles away. He left at six every morning and got back around eight. They couldn't support the family with just one income but my mom had to stay home with the kids and baby so they applied for welfare. For two and a half years they were on welfare until my youngest brother was old enough that my mom could go to work. We had no toys, a black and white TV given to us by an aunt, few books, third hand cloths and little food for those 2 1/2 years and for much longer after that. Had it not been for food stamps and welfare, one of two things would have happened, we would have been unable to pay for rent or food and have to live in a shelter or something similar or my parents would have put us up for adoption. Now, I'd don't agree with welfare myself, but I fail to see an alternative. We need a safty net for those people in need but I don't think that the current system will work for much longer. If it wasn't for welfare, I wouldn't be here today, but there has to be a better system out there, one that doesn't take money from honest, hard workers and put it into the hands of those who can work but don't because they know that they can get by on others. This is one of my personal political issues that I have yet to find an answer to.

07-28-2003, 01:41 AM	#11 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	The US government should only do what your local government can't do and it should only do you for you what you literally can't do. That is the way I think. I also don't being forced to pay for someone else's kids. I support child welfare since I don't believe the kid should ahve to suffer since his mommy is useless, I still don't support using the government to be my personal moral enforcer. I don't believe it should enforce any system of moral beliefs. Like prostitution, if it wasn't for the church that would have been made legal, it was an issue of morality.

08-01-2003, 12:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
The Bolshevist Insane Location: Vancouver, Canada	Hobo - well stated!! One extra thing that welfare does is provide funds for people who cannot work due to disability, or help the disabled find work they can do. It allows these people to live and contribute on a level playing field. __________________ Workers of the world, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your silly uniforms and paper hats!!

08-01-2003, 04:03 PM	#15 (permalink)
tinfoil Fucking Hostile Location: Springford, ON, Canada	I had to live on welfare for a couple of months. I had just graduated but was unable to find a job that required I move into a large city (something I can't do and still keep my sanity.) It is a depressing and degrading thing, to live off of other people's money. I finally packed up and moved back home where I stumbled into a great job. It is a valid system, but it is not without it's flaws. First of all, welfare has a tendancy to send people into a downward spiral. I know this for fact because I have lived it and seen it in others. The longer you are on welfare, the less self-esteem you have, the more depressed you get. That depression makes it difficult to get out there and find something else. Yes, I know, the pitiful amount that one recieves when on welfare should be drive enough, but that will just as often hurt as it does help. I also know about welfare cases. It disgusts me to see people abusing a system meant to help people. It happens far to often. They get their free hand-out and are content with that. Content with living on $20 a day for food, rent and other expenses. Often they resort to crime to add some extra cash. Workfare is one of the greatest ideas because it forces long-time welfare cases to work terrible jobs in harsh conditions to get their monthly allowance. What we need is a system in which people can report other people abusing the system. Give a reward as well, and we will have welfare cases turning in other welfare cases out of greed. We certainly can't cut off their welfare because that would only lead to other problems. I haven't thought of a punishment yet to help deter abuse. When administered properly, welfare is a tool to help people who need help. If it weren't for the people abusing it, the stigma wouldn't necessarily be attached to it and it wouldn't lead to the downward spiral that causes many welfare cases. There would also be a bit more money available to those that truely need it. Welfare should be able to feed people a half-decent meal, not KD and tuna every night. Workfare has helped weed out some of the welfare cases who would rather work in McDonalds than in the sun picking up garbage on the side of the road, but it hasn't done enough. We, unfortunatly, need to police the system, to check up on the people who have been on welfare for years and years. It needs to be inconvenient and degrading for those that abuse it. Please note, I am speaking about the Canadian welfare system. I have no knowledge of the American system. My first hand experience of the system was roughly five years ago, second hand experience is current. __________________ Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.

08-01-2003, 05:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
123dsa Crazy Location: KY	I tend to agree with Xell101. Social programs should be administered primarily at the local level, then the federal government could pick up the slack. It would be best if people could first look to family, friends, local government, before holding out their hands to the "highly effecient" federal welfare program. As for corporate welfare, basic economic principles apply; as with all protectionist policies the result is lower standard of living for the country as a whole.

08-01-2003, 05:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	123dsa: The problem here is that local governments usually can't afford to cover the requirements of welfare programs on their own. They need assistance from the state and federal governments to provide adequately for those who need it. As a related aside, did you know that the current administration has slashed aid payments to the states in order to reduce government expenditures? Meaning that an ever-increasing burden is being placed on states and municipalities, as the number of jobless steadily grows and the economy, if it doesn't spiral endlessly down into a black hole, just barely manages to remain functional. The individual welfare system is being intentionally broken for ideological reasons. But corporate welfare? Alive and well, thanks. Disgusting. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

08-01-2003, 05:47 PM	#18 (permalink)
123dsa Crazy Location: KY	Number of jobless steadily growing? Maybe you missed the new report from the Fed. Unemployment is down and the economy grew at more than 2% over the last quarter.(3% is the rate of growth at the natural rate of unemployment) I understand what you're saying about the burden on the states. The problem I see is wasteful spending. "slashing spending" isn't quite accurate either. Spending was just increased by less than originally forecasted.

08-01-2003, 05:51 PM	#19 (permalink)
123dsa Crazy Location: KY	Forgot about the original topic of the thread-welfare. The problem with the system is similar to that of zoos reintroducing animals into the wild. Once you've been fed by others for a while it is dificult for you to adapt to feeding yourself. Why not put welfare recipients to work at the local level? ( those that CAN work) Cleaning streests, maintaining parks, everybody wins...

08-01-2003, 06:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
tinfoil Fucking Hostile Location: Springford, ON, Canada	They do that up here and it works well. Well, it works better than nothing. __________________ Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.