because its not a competition. If people want to take some time down, they have to find it in their resources to do so, working or not. Working people cant 'afford' things only if they arent resourceful enough to figure out how to get them .. at least thats the logic of how simple it is for people on welfare with kids to find work and take care of their children by themself without assistance.

take responsibility and make it happen with what you have.

I will never begrudge another person taking time down, even if I have decided to spend my budget in other places.

Not a competition, nope.
Depends if you mean being resourceful means claiming benefits is more resourceful than getting a job?
And I can't see what they need down time from?
Must be hard sitting back waiting for others to pay taxes so it can be sent to them!

Ive often wondered that too mikey, what do they need downtime from?
is sitting on your azz hard work?
She says some volunteers,I like to see the numbers on that and really how long do they volunteer for?

I remember you as Mr testsignup from DH, anyways to answer your question, let say I accept your number of less than 1% other reports says its closer to less than 1.5% but lets not argue over numbers

Nowhere have I said and you can re read my posts that Ive ever advocated not helping those who actually needs it.

my concern is to eliminate the fraud that goes on, whether its less than 1%, .5% or 1.5%, that is a lot of people, and it needs to get to the people who actually needs it.

Before you say yeah yeah Mr right winger what about corporate subsidies and corporate welfare?

My answer : no corporations needs subsidies,corporate welfare, tax breaks today, the days of Alexander Hamilton are long gone.

No more bailouts, corporate welfare, tax breaks etc.

Although I did say if a company/corporation employs a minimum of 50 people paying them a living wage they should get a tax break, that is the exception but its only a pipe dream I'm afraid.

I was watching a program where they interviewed a guy working minimum wage and claims he cannot get by on it.

Well he made the mistake of being interviewed at his apartment, which showed a ton of video games, flat screen TV, and a kick *** computer system

If he is that poor why all the modern toys?

I know Miss Harmony will say its an outlier blah blah blah and he deserves to have the latest toys because its a human right.

and if he was earning a living wage things would be fine , except that he made the choices in life and like all responsible adults he has to live by his decision and not burden the rest of us.

Okay, practical business question then: most businesses who have high direct customer interactions, have to set a PRACTICAL level of acceptance of "bad customers." In many businesses, this is called an acceptable "shrinkage" level, below which, the cost of reducing it further, exceeds the cost of putting up with it.

One of my strong annoyances with the current Republican Party leadership, is that they pretend that there IS an acceptable level of corruption and abuse in business, but that there should be none at all, in areas such as social safety nets.

Where do you stand on that?

As long as the libs stay all nutted up
over Trump being president,
he'll have an excellent shot at being reelected.

How complete was the presented research into what you think you saw? Did the people involved determine where he got the stuff he had and when? Did they explain whether or not he was paying the full cost of the apartment? Did they even say that it WAS "his" apartment?

Or did you just assume that you knew what did and didn't belong to him, and how he came yo have access to it?


If you are going to cite a thing as proof, you need to know that it actually does prove what you claim it does.

How complete was the presented research into what you think you saw? Did the people involved determine where he got the stuff he had and when? Did they explain whether or not he was paying the full cost of the apartment? Did they even say that it WAS "his" apartment?

Or did you just assume that you knew what did and didn't belong to him, and how he came yo have access to it?


If you are going to cite a thing as proof, you need to know that it actually does prove what you claim it does.

Not a competition, nope.
Depends if you mean being resourceful means claiming benefits is more resourceful than getting a job?
And I can't see what they need down time from?
Must be hard sitting back waiting for others to pay taxes so it can be sent to them!

I was watching a program where they interviewed a guy working minimum wage and claims he cannot get by on it.

Well he made the mistake of being interviewed at his apartment, which showed a ton of video games, flat screen TV, and a kick *** computer system

If he is that poor why all the modern toys?

I know Miss Harmony will say its an outlier blah blah blah and he deserves to have the latest toys because its a human right.

and if he was earning a living wage things would be fine , except that he made the choices in life and like all responsible adults he has to live by his decision and not burden the rest of us.

It's the same here, we have a "poverty line" well year's ago that would have been defined by being able to feed the family but now if they don't have the latest gadgets they are in poverty. trouble is the word "poverty "
A gem in the dictionary of the left

I think we in the west need to grow a pair and look around the world and see what poverty really is instead of complaining about not getting enough for nothing!