HAPPY LABOR-DAY!. Muh Chikun n, wuffowl friz BIX NOOD NIQQU!!!112.. Some people on welfare can`t work. HAPPY LABOR-DAY! Muh Chikun n wuffowl friz BIX NOOD NIQQU!!!112 Some people on welfare can`t work
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (56)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - turtletroll
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Some people on welfare can`t work.
User avatar #56 to #1 - psydoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
That's true, and we should focus on helping those people. However, my wife is handicapped, in pain every day, can barely walk, can barely use her hands, and can't work in the field she got her degree in, yet she manages to work a full-time job.

User avatar #2 to #1 - Mortuus
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There are too many people who are on welfare due to their unwillingness to work.

It's an issue that needs some ******* attention.
#11 to #2 - reiconex
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Welfare makes up such a tiny fraction of the government's budget, and the amount provided by welfare is BARELY enough to live off of, let alone thrive on. If you want to get mad about mindless government spending, think about the military budget, which is absurdly larger than the next several countries combined.
User avatar #28 to #11 - benjaminbutton
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Connecticut some fellow workers and I did out some math on the income with people who abuse welfare. Their pay came out to a whopping $22/hour. It's no six figure salary, but it is rather high. Meanwhile the people who are working are getting less that that. I'm not saying this is everywhere, but it deserves at least a little more attention than it gets. Furthermore, I agree with your military statement. That certainly deserves quite a bit of attention.
User avatar #49 to #28 - ThatsSoFunnyHeHe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I have family who are on welfare, or who were on welfare.
They only got about 8k a year.
User avatar #58 to #49 - benjaminbutton
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Like I said, it is extremely unbalanced. I never said everyone made this.
#26 to #11 - psydoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #35 to #26 - angelusprimus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
this includes social security, AKA pensions for people who worked their whole life and paid taxes. Also, medicaid for elderly.
Oh and btw, do you know what's the largest part of sudden jump in the spending? Veteran "benefits" for the iraq and aghan vets. Largly medical.
User avatar #24 to #11 - ricketyrackety
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
or the money that goes towards buying politicians (who already make more than the average tax payer) lunches, bottled waters, vacations... **** like that. but hardly anyone ever complains about that... we only complain about the people who need the help.
User avatar #3 to #2 - turtletroll
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yeah but i`m saying that not everybody on welfare is lazy. Some cannot work
User avatar #4 to #3 - Mortuus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I understand that completely, but I'm simply bringing-up one of the issues that welfare systems face.
User avatar #5 to #4 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
The number is really lower then most think. A lot of people cant get jobs because they lack qualifications.
#6 to #5 - anon id: 58d7be02
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
There are still many who would rather collect welfare then work and they are quite unpleasant people, the state of Florida is now requiring drug tests be done at random times for those able bodied people who collect welfare
User avatar #7 to #6 - turtletroll
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yeah I understand that. I deal with some of those people in my area but more people legitimately cant work or are unqualified.
#13 to #7 - gjah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
If they are unqualified why the hell dont they qualify?
A succesful person will find a way to get qualified, even if he don't have any money...
User avatar #8 to #3 - ilovemyguns
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
If they can't work they are supposed to be on disability, not welfare. Welfare is for those who are not willing to work.
User avatar #9 to #2 - reaperriley
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
There are people out there who genuinely need welfare, and the sad thing is there will always be people who abuse things.

I guess the thing is, do we want to ignore or make it harder for people to get help they need because we have douche bag abusing the system? Its a sad thing really.
#10 - stupidsexybraeburn **User deleted account**
+10 123456789123345869
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#12 to #10 - anon id: 6a902590
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
>Implying you aren't 40 years old **** stuck on welfare
User avatar #15 - captainfuckitall
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I think a few new rules would clear up a lot of problems with Welfare

1(a). You have to be working or looking for a job to be able to apply
1(b). The only exception to this is if you are literally unable to work for whatever reason

2. You are to hand in all your receipts to your nearest government office, if the recipes do not match up to how much money you were given (and you do not have an explanation as to why with evidence of the fact), or your worker believes you are spending it unwisely (spending it on your nails rather than feeding your children), you will be cut off and taxed to repay whatever amount you spent

3. You are to be subjected to random drug tests throughout the month at any given time, if you are unable to come in to give a sample and unable to provide a good reason, you will be cut off. If you test positive for non-medicinal drugs, you will be cut off

4. You will be cut off when it becomes evident you can provide for yourself and your family

Through these rules we will not only be able to lower taxes (as we won't have to pay as much for people to sit on their ass), but only those deserving and TRYING to make a better life for themselves will be given the opportunity to do so. I don't give a **** if these rules are an invasion of privacy, if you are using my tax money to feed yourself, I have a right to know where my money is going
#17 to #15 - anon id: 01655973
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
You don't always get reipdt f poeple try buying fruit and veg from the market place they don't give one some do it become hard to prove but of course you should at least limit it I agree with you on that just saying not ever place you buy things give you proof of purchase they tend be quite cheap sorry that my experience
User avatar #20 to #15 - farn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
would be an enornous cost for the drugtests alone
User avatar #21 to #20 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
That's true, isn't it. Than again, I suppose it's also quite easy to tell when someone is high on something, so we'll just let experts judge and leave taxpayer dollars out of it
#22 to #15 - anon id: 247c2721
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
One, you can't just revoke a families source of income just because the parent fails. It sucks, but when it comes to families on welfare there are no easy solutions. I personally think the failure of any government assistance is the fact that it does not offer incentives for people to work, and also receive welfare. If the amount of welfare dropped by a dollar with every dollar you made instead of simply being cut when you make a certain dollar amount every month, I think a lot more welfare precipitants would be trying to find work. Unfortunately, they have to balance how much they make with the risk of getting their assistance taken away, if they work a job where they can't make up for that lost income, they would be better off working less hours and taking the welfare check.
tl:dr you always have to keep families with kids in mind.



User avatar #25 to #22 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
If the parent cannot take care of the child, the child should go up for adoption or to a different family, or even just receive a guardian until they become old enough to live on their own. Yes, it's wrong to take away a childs money because the parent is spending it unwisely, but if the child gets so little of it anyways it's better to take them away from the parent in the first place

Nope, that's what it's like here in Canada and people just choose not to work; the welfare should be added onto the money the job gives you for a limited amount of time before it cuts off again, so you cannot maintain a crappy job just to get more money, you have to actively work to get higher and higher positions

Indeed; see, if I was Prime Minister of Canada, I would honestly just adopt those children myself. Sure, I couldn't be much of a father to them, but at least I could make sure they are constantly well cared for, supervised, and get good education
User avatar #31 to #25 - timmywankenobi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
1. walfare workers call people for random interviews and random times to make sure
a. your not on drugs
b.you are looking for a job

2. if you are on walfare they moniter you bank accounts and can request recipts at anytime.

3. if you don't look for work the amout you're given is reduced .

4. if you have kids they will send inspectors around for suprise inspections at any time.if you fail you may lose your kids.

6. most of the people who abuse welfare are native americns on reserves and new immagrants. so perhaps more intergation programs might work to get them
moving ?
7.welfare only gives a person between 400-580 + 85 per kid a month. so it is not high class living mate.
User avatar #41 to #31 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
all of these things are currently in place here in Canada.
User avatar #43 to #41 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Not from what I've seen. You don't have to be seeking help or a job to apply, the amount you're given is not reduced (although it is if you work, it's deducted). They do not send inspectors around. And you get a lot more welfare money than what you stated.

I know all of these things because my mother was on welfare (and so was I) before I decided I didn't want to be scum, and so I got myself a job and began contributing to the world around me
User avatar #46 to #43 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
well things must be more lax in your province then.
User avatar #33 to #31 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Yes. If you were lending a friend money because he didn't have money to pay for food, wouldn't you be mad if you found out he was buying weed with it? Or not even TRYING to become independent and depending upon you as his safety net?

Yes, because the money is not your own, thus those giving it to you have a right to know what you're spending it on

No, the amount you're given is cut off completely. If you are unwilling to try and support yourself, nobody else should do it for you; then you're just a leech holding back the rest of society and it would be better for such leeches to die in a salt pit

No, you will be deemed an unfit parent if you are given money to buy your children food and instead spend it on luxury's for yourself. If you do so, you are not a responsible parent or even a responsible adult, you are no better than a child and thus do not deserve the blessing of having them

Integration does nothing. 1, many Indians do not want to lose their culture or join another's. 2, you can give a man everything in the world, but if he does not want it, it is worthless. If they do not WANT to be a part of the process, no amount of prodding is going to make them; the only way to get them up and moving is by telling them that if they don't move, they will be left behind to die; simple

And this will change due to the fact many freeloaders will be getting cut off. I will be able to give more money to well deserving families, and they will not have any reduction if they have a job (so they have the welfare plus whatever they make at work).
User avatar #39 to #33 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
well if he didn't buy food he would be dead so problem solved there. but yes people who abuse the system are a problem but many of them can't be caught because they have native american imunity or there just isn't enough man power to track them down. Also all the rules I listed above are already in place.
User avatar #44 to #39 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Ah yes, that immunity should be removed as well. Just as well, manpower is not the issue, as they have to come to YOU to get more, you are free to review all of their processes right there
User avatar #48 to #44 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I mean man power to go through all the files and records and recipts ect.
User avatar #50 to #48 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Perhaps not, so we will have to let some slide, but surely the majority will be caught and things will improve (and if not, at least hearing these policies they will be scared into acting straight)
User avatar #53 to #50 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I guess so.
User avatar #54 to #15 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Better rules:
1. Everyone gets a free gas mask along with filters for their entire family if they so much as attempt to get a job
2. Once a year, poison gas is pumped into the streets for an hour
User avatar #57 to #54 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Too expensive, not to mention harmful to the environment
User avatar #30 to #15 - timmywankenobi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
it all makes sense execpt the "forcing drug tests as many times as the government wants per month at anytime .So they could call you down to take a drug test while your eating dinner or at a job interview or a doctor appointment or taking a shower or sleeping at night. next you'll be telling me any woman on welfare will have to take manditory birth control or have their tubes tied because they don't have the money to suport any more children. You are moving down a very silpery slope that leads to the state deciding every moment of everyone lives.
User avatar #32 to #30 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
They could call you down at any time, but you obviously missed the part where they could offer a sound explanation as to why they couldn't show up and it would be fine.

And why is mandatory birth control a bad thing? If they can barely take care of themselves, why SHOULD they be having children? If the common person is not capable of making rational decisions as an adult should, then they will be treated like children; end of story.

I'm not the one going down the slippery slope here, you're the one who jumped from random drug checks to government deciding what you do in your free time; but even so, no, the government wouldn't decide what you do with your time; HOWEVER, the money you gain from welfare is not your own, it is other peoples money, tax-payers who are giving it to you so you can live, thus the government has a right to know exactly what you're doing with it so as to be able to spare other tax payers more money than they have to give
User avatar #34 to #32 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
unfortunate the bil of rights forbids the government from doing certian things like deciding what people are aloud to eat or read or think or wear or who can have kids or what city or town you may live in or who can be educated or what you can see on the internet (barring obvious execptions) how you spend your time, or mutilating people for your religious reasons.
User avatar #36 to #34 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Again, you're the one doing the slippery slope here, not me. I suggested that people who are unable to take care of themselves should not have children, which is very rational and logical thinking; and suddenly that becomes me wanting to decide every action of a person including their thoughts.
User avatar #37 to #36 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
you just said if you're lending money to someone you deserve to control their lives to make sure they are making good choices (according to you) .thats called salvery guy.
User avatar #38 to #37 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
No, what I said, quite literally, was that if I am giving you money, I have a right to know what you are spending it on to decide whether you should keep receiving it or not. I honestly do not see how someone could disagree to that (the same way that a parent has a right to know what their child wants to buy with money when the child asks for it), but hey, I'm trying desperately to reassert my comments and words so they are not misunderstood
User avatar #40 to #38 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I agree you have the right to ask and the government does ask for recipts and checks bank accounts . if he spends some of the money on lucky charms you don't have the right to say "**** no you're eating apple jacks my money isn't going to pay for no ******* lucky charms !"
User avatar #45 to #40 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
No, of course not. But I also don't want him spending money on junk-food (for his kids) when he should be getting nutritional meals. Now, I will not go out of my way to enforce that, but I will certainly remind them of it every visit
User avatar #47 to #45 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
well okay that makes more sense.
User avatar #27 to #15 - psydoc
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I don't know why "food stamps" don't work more like the WIC program. The WIC program picks out foods they're willing to pay for depending on the price, and nutritional value.

I don't mind paying for food so people don't starve, but I do mind overpaying for it, and paying to increase obesity.
User avatar #19 - ishalltroll
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Well congrats. You figured out how a sociopolitical state works you ******* retards.
User avatar #23 to #19 - caseh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I was about to thumb down until I saw your username
User avatar #52 to #19 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
I keep thinking this is a reply to my comment...
User avatar #18 - violetmistress **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Funnyjunk is just ******* /pol/ anymore, man.
#16 - anon id: 01655973
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
Thank you for paying ax like I did then my company failed so I had to go on well fare until I could get back on my feet of course there are those who abuse but don't lump all poeple ho use to help them out to be parasites since safty net not just or me but for you as well dumb ass needs **** think there those who need for actually peodse hat about thse unable to work like my aunt she has severe ms she has bout five years left **** you and **** anyone who thinks like you even cockroaches treat each other better thn you do go **** yeah self I hope suck big bobs fat dick
#42 to #16 - wheresmymarbles
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
that is what savings are for.
#14 - grimgrey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
"That ***** over there"