I didnt miss the point. so you know somoene who made poor choices with the budget they had, thats not exclusive to any class of people, welfare or not.

but that also is no excuse for people to be left with NO budget to work with at all, especially when children are involved, which is the PRIMARY recipients of those programs.

I dont think government should 'waste taxpayer money' trying to figure out what individual recipients do with their assistance. They should be permitted to budget it at their discretion like anyone else. I dont want government telling anyone what they can or cannot purchase, unless its for security.

They shouldn't be allowed to buy 4-wheeler and go on cruises with tax payers money. People should only have rights to money they earn. Too many people never doing any better. It's time to stop throwing money out the window. The system isn't working. There needs to be a change. I believe making people work for welfare would make a huge difference.

While April was on her cruise, I was at work. My vacation days went to taking my kids to the Dr and parents day at school. I really can't blame her from enjoying what the govt gift wrapped for her.

I Cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Look, all poor people have a wish to get out of poverty,but wishes and desire are two different things.

Which is why many of them buy lottery tickets and hope for the best, and if they are lucky and win the jackpot, most of them I think I read it was 70% go broke within 5 years of winning it.

Many dont have the skill set, education etc.

Sure geography plays a part but the difference between those who succeed and dont and you call it a outlier is that they dont accept the trends, they have an unbelievable desire to get out,whether its sports, music, education, learning new skills etc.

And who said life was fair?

Many people work hard and have a desire to succeed but dont succeed but at least they tried and some falls back on a secondary plan, meanwhile other give up or dont try at all.

And who said life was fair?

Many people work hard and have a desire to succeed but dont succeed but at least they tried and some falls back on a secondary plan, meanwhile other give up or dont try at all.

no the purpose of welfare was to provide temporarily relief, not to Lift people up.

Somehow FDR convinced the Americans that welfare is there to help you live,calling for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons.

and when you have bureaucrats who are trained at missing the points because they are too stupid or inept to know any better, hence why you have all this fraud in the welfare system.

And why people dont want to get off of welfare, I mean what is the incentive?

who says people dont want to get off of welfare, but they want to starve or be without shelter even more ...

and again, there is the issue of other RESOURCES and networks to assist like family, acquaintances, friends that some have and many do not...

I think his point is that welfare was never meant to be a long term source of income, not that I'm trying to speak for him, but the democrats learned that to use welfare as a tool to gain support and votes...people are inherently lazy, if there's no reason to get dressed and go look for a job, they won't...and in turn, the democrats bring in migrants to fill these empty jobs positions that the people on welfare refuse to take...

April paid for her cruise and 4-wheelers with eic. It does hurt tax payers because then she was back again for another handout. Like I've said before, I see poor people living better than middle class. I have friends who can't afford to go to the Dr even though they have a middle class income. People voted in Trump because our country is in desperate need of a change.

I dont think democrats have 'used' welfare any more than republicans have, when they speak of it, it is in support, and when republicans have it is against

in fact, 'welfare' has not been much of a political point in decades, since the issues of terrorism or immigrants or English as required language, or religious liberty took the spotlight ..

there is reason to look for a job, IF it is going to meet the basic needs and IF the resources are there to PERFORM the job while making sure dependents have safe and reliable support systems during those hours.

But if one is gonna spend 50 hours away from their family and home every week, a couple hundred on gas, a few hundred on car notes, a hundred on insurance, money for work clothes and childcare, ON TOP of the expenses for rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and connection costs(internet, telephone)

Then wages are gonna factor into the 'motivation' , compared to if one can be home WITH Their children, foregoing transportation, work, and childcare costs and not have to choose between homelessness and starving kids or wages that don't improve their situation and only continue to leave their kids without.

or ... whats the point of getting a job that's not gonna pay you what you need to maintain a job and basic needs ? It helps the employer's bottom line but does next to squat for you.

or ... whats the point of getting a job that's not gonna pay you what you need to maintain a job and basic needs ? It helps the employer's bottom line but does next to squat for you.

I think his point is that welfare was never meant to be a long term source of income, not that I'm trying to speak for him, but the democrats learned that to use welfare as a tool to gain support and votes...people are inherently lazy, if there's no reason to get dressed and go look for a job, they won't...and in turn, the democrats bring in migrants to fill these empty jobs positions that the people on welfare refuse to take...