If someone offered you a million dollars would you take it!

[700UW]

Is there a didferent standard for other citizens with their jobs?

If any airline employee, law enforcement employee was arrested for drugs, they would be terminated immediately.

 

[Ms Tree]

If any airline employee, law enforcement employee was arrested for drugs, they would be terminated immediately.

Not all jobs are the same. Those tbat are incolved with public safety are held to a different standard. Qite a differnt scenario if a bus driver is loaded as opposed to a data entry clerk.

 

[Ms Tree]

For what its worth I think a strong argument could be made that someone employed by a body that enacts laws should be held to a standard that if you wilfully violate a law that is treated as a felony you should lose your job.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Make them report somewhere daily to pick up trash along the highway to receive their check and they'll find a job within a week. 

Exactly.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Test a few and thousands will quickly opt out. Make them report somewhere daily to pick up trash along the highway to receive their check and they'll find a job within a week.

Straight from La La Land.

 

[usa1]

Straight from La La Land.

 
Are you Lucy's husband .... 

 

[Force Majeure]

Test a few and thousands will quickly opt out. Make them report somewhere daily to pick up trash along the highway to receive their check and they'll find a job within a week.

Who do you want to test?

Also, please explain how this trash pickup program to collect the check would work.

Take a look at this:

"In 2010, 91 percent of the benefits provided through entitlement programs went to people who were elderly (65 or older), disabled (receiving Social Security disability benefits, SSI disability benefits, or Medicare on the basis of a disability — all three programs use essentially the same disability standard, which limits eligibility to people with medically certified disabilities that leave them substantially unable to work), or members of a household in which an individual worked at least 1,000 hours during the year. As noted, the 91 percent figure is unchanged if one includes veterans’ and federal retirement programs.

This analysis defines working households as those in which someone has worked at least 1,000 hours a year. This is a conservative definition. If two household members work more than 1,000 hours between them but no single individual works at least 1,000 hours, we do not classify the unit as a working household.

We also do not count people receiving unemployment insurance benefits as workers, although such individuals must have amassed a significant work record to qualify for UI. If we include people receiving UI as workers — in other words, if we ask what share of entitlement benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled or receive UI, or are members of households in which an individual works at least 1,000 hours — the share rises from 91 percent to 94 percent. The percentage edges down to 92 percent if we count UI recipients but raise the “hours-of-work threshold” from 1,000 hours of work to 1,500 hours. If we define working households as those in which an individual worked at least 1,500 hours but do not count UI beneficiaries as workers, the percentage declines slightly to 88 percent.[10]

If we add in the principal discretionary programs that help people meet basic needs (low-income housing, WIC, and LIHEAP) and examine both them and the entitlement and other mandatory programs, the 91 percent figure drops to 90 percent.

This analysis uses a narrow definition of disability that misses individuals who become disabled so young that they haven’t amassed enough work history to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance or Medicare, and whose countable household income or assets are over the very low SSI eligibility limits, which are below the poverty line. If we broaden the definition to include other adults who report work-limiting disabilities in the Census survey data, the percentage of benefits going to people who are elderly or disabled or members of working households rises from 91 percent to 92 percent.

If we look only at means-tested entitlement and other mandatory programs — that is, programs limited to low-income people — the percentage of benefits going to the elderly, the disabled, or working households remains high at 83 percent, a robust percentage for programs that are limited to people with low incomes. This high percentage reflects policy changes in recent decades that have substantially restricted benefits for poor people who lack earnings (other than the elderly and disabled), while increasing assistance for low-income working families with children, especially in the form of tax credits.

The 83 percent figure edges down to 82 percent if low-income housing programs, WIC, and LIHEAP are included.
More than half (53 percent) of entitlement benefits go to seniors.[11] Some 73 percent of the benefits go to people who are elderly or disabled; most of the rest goes to working households.

The data contradict beliefs that entitlements take heavily from the middle class to give to people at the bottom or that they shower benefits on the very wealthy. The middle 60 percent of the population receives close to 60 percent of the benefits. The top 5 percent of the population receives about 3 percent of the benefits."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

 

[usa1]

Who do you want to test?
 

 
Lucy!
 
I noticed one of your favorite charities is Toys for Tots. Are you the one that dropped the Christmas toys off at Lucy's house. I'm glad you did, I support "voluntary" charity BIG TIME!! But not the "involuntary" redistribution of my hard earned, slightly less than middle class pay check, via taxes to the Lucy's of the world?
 
A safety net for seniors and those with disabilities is a great thing, but the Lucy's of the world are taking over the system. And unfortunate they are eating up the Social Security and Medicare benefits we thought were "EARNING WHILE WE WORK" 

 

[Dog Wonder]

Are you Lucy's husband

Do you believe in welfare Cadillacs?

 

[Force Majeure]

 But not the "involuntary" redistribution of my hard earned, slightly less than middle class pay check, via taxes to the Lucy's of the world?
 
A safety net for seniors and those with disabilities is a great thing, but the Lucy's of the world are taking over the system. And unfortunate they are eating up the Social Security and Medicare benefits we thought were "EARNING WHILE WE WORK"

It is quite obvious you did not read the quoted portion of the article I linked in my post. If you had, or bothered to read the entire article, you would know that your premise is not supported by fact.

 

[usa1]

Surfs up MAN!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__cahZprhFE

 

[Ms Tree]

Lucy!
 
I noticed one of your favorite charities is Toys for Tots. Are you the one that dropped the Christmas toys off at Lucy's house. I'm glad you did, I support "voluntary" charity BIG TIME!! But not the "involuntary" redistribution of my hard earned, slightly less than middle class pay check, via taxes to the Lucy's of the world?
 
A safety net for seniors and those with disabilities is a great thing, but the Lucy's of the world are taking over the system. And unfortunate they are eating up the Social Security and Medicare benefits we thought were "EARNING WHILE WE WORK"

What is your position on the $92 billion spent on corporate subsidies? Which by the way is nearly 2:1 on individual aid.

 

[usa1]

What is your position on the $92 billion spent on corporate subsidies? 

 
Does it help create good jobs?
 
I disagree with those that think welfare and food stamps are our way out of the Bush rescission.

 

[Ms Tree]

They usually do not. How many jobs did we get for the $25 billion to the agriculture? How about the $17 billion for the DoE?

You can help start all the business you want, if no one has money to by the product or service then the business goes toes up.

Besides, I thought conservatives were all about capitalism? You know, survival of the of the fittest. I guess that's only a nice slogan when it's convenient.

Who said they were a way out of the recession? They are in place to help those who were affected by the recession and the funds usually go right back into the economy. Same can't be said for the corporate welfare.

 

[Ms Tree]

Oh, and since when do oil companies making about 10% returns need government assistance?