[QUOTE=Rocketman;1062139892]Attachment 67151482[QUOTE] I admit, I deserve that one. Sort of.
But I'm not sure how that changes the fact that you just spent 6 pages ranting about things that have no relation to the proposed legislation.
I am always amazed at seemingly how proud you are of your ignorance: raising some red herring based on what you assume my position is doesn't address the fact that you had absolutely no idea what you were ranting about. Secondly, my views on healthcare reform likely don't reflect from the mentally-stunted caricature that you were able to work up in your headDoes that include federal funds for health care?
2)which isn't exactly a bad thing. twenty hours out of a week is hardly a demanding schedule, even for someone with a kid
And it's not that I even agree with any policy outlined in the OP< it's just your objections up to this point seem based on nothing more than ignorance and hysterics
I'm not the biggest fan of food stamps but I think i'm opposing this cut just because Eric Cantor is pioneering it. Can't stand that guy.
Run your own nation, play Cybernations."Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
- Mark Twain
from the article:
the article cited in the OP isn't exactly clear on details, but the above seems to suggest supplementation for already existing training programs would be cut, if single mothers were not required to engage in such to receive assistance.Currently Washington provides a 50 percent match for states that spend their own funds for employment and training programs for food stamp recipients. As proposed now, the bill would only provide this aid if the state is willing to operate welfare reform-like work activities for mothers with children over 1- years-old.
From what's in the OP, I really find it hard to take real issue with either policy, but certainly leave open the possibility that the actual language of the legislation is more problematic