.... and so on being.
"Set up meetings with our crack dealers" or for many who are gaming the system "set up meetings with our crack clients"
Ah well: see - I was never and still am not a crack dealer or a drug addict. Even back in my days of having a pager.
Oh snap
Lets hope you don't wake up one day with *nothing* due to circumstances out of your control and then have to swallow your pride and head to the Health Department to sign up for foodstamps. For me - it was unbelievably humiliating as it is for many.
Since we are doing personal stories of hardship, Boo hoo time, I was kicked out of my home when I got my girlfriend pregnant was 18 had to find myself into a place to live, get to paying for school, all while taking care of my new family. Looky I made it and I didn't have to use food stamps. Do I rule or what?
Good for you. . . so because you managed to make it then everyone else must be able to do exactly the same?
You were poor for a whlie - no doubt - does that mean you were a drug addict or just a loser? *shrug*
You're judging people who have found theirselves in your exact situation - whether they're even going to the government for aid or not.
Not a 'right' - but a useful tool which will enable people to find a job, care for their children and get to work.
If someone's going ot be living on welfare for a while they BETTER be going to school or getting a job. They BETTER take their kids to the dr's and dentist routinely - they BETTER strive ot improve things for theirselves. That is the purpose of support.
Ah well: see - I was never and still am not a crack dealer or a drug addict. Even back in my days of having a pager.
Oh snap
Lets hope you don't wake up one day with *nothing* due to circumstances out of your control and then have to swallow your pride and head to the Health Department to sign up for foodstamps. For me - it was unbelievably humiliating as it is for many.
Ok, this is a bit silly.
While I think the article is using slightly histrionic language, the guts of this are still baffling to me.
I believe having access to communications like the internet and phone service are a right, in the sense that the government should not have the ability to take them away. But that doesn't mean people are entitled to personally own them.
While it is true having a phone makes things easier, it is not a necessity for having a job. My dad doesn't have a cell phone, by choice. He uses Skype as his "landline," so to speak (which is WAY cheaper than either a cell phone or a standard land line, and can be used from any computer, or even a Skype phone). He has no trouble getting or holding a job.
This is a waste of taxpayer money. A cell phone is not necessary.
You can get unlimited Skype minutes in the US and a Skype phone number for people to call, for $9 per month. Less if you go with a long-term plan. With the tiniest bit of tech savvy, you can get a wifi-enabled phone from a charity like OV mentions and run Skype on it. It's not tough.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority have a friend with a phone. What if they have no car to get to the interview? No computer to put in an online application? (many places only take online apps now)
I recieved food stamps at one point. I don't have a problem with helping people out. The problem is after this the politician has to come up with another right to get the campaign cash from another source or additional promises to keep the votes for those he is giving things away to.
A free phone will only get you a vote for so long. As I pointed out earlier, many places now only take applications online. What if you don't have a computer or internet access? Do we upgrade the tracphone to an iphone? At what point does it get to where the government is simply giving you enough that you decide you are satified with that?
In some cases, cell phone service is actually cheaper than a landline. So depending on costs in Pennsylvania, the State may actually be saving taxpayer money by providing cell phones instead of a landline.
It's a great headline to get people's dander up, but in reality it may be a good thing. Unless you're suddenly against the government saving money, which I doubt.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority have a friend with a phone. What if they have no car to get to the interview? No computer to put in an online application? (many places only take online apps now)
There are systems in place (buses and libraries) to take care of that. The difference is that the public phone infrastructure is quickly going the way of the streetcar.
I'm not sure what I think about the cell phones to be completely honest. I dislike the knee-jerk conservatism that starts talking about "waste" in welfare programs because people are getting things that aren't technically necessary. Electricity and indoor plumbing aren't technically necessary. Should Section 8 housing have no electricity and an outhouse? Technically, you could survive if you only ate every other day. Etc.
There's real waste in the Pentagon that makes this look like nothing. You don't hear Conservatives mouthing off about that very much.
The majority of poor people don't even vote - Obama's election was unusual and not the norm and most certainly they aren't gathering to vote for local elections.
Because the government owes you all of that.
Not the government. The taxpayers.
Really...since they are seeking employment would it REALLY be that hard to give them the number of thier social services case manager?
Of course politicians are looking for the vote here.
If you're responsible, you're obviously living too well.
The government shouldn't be paying for someone's phone service, period.
Who said we shouldn't give them their number?
So, while you aren't sure that this is a good idea, you are going to argue for it because you dislike those argueing against it?
.
Yes, because it's reactionary BS. Either someone went trolling around looking for something to get outraged about, or they read about it on Con blog, or heard Rush talking about it. I'm calling out the reactionary crap.
If the ****ing government would get the **** outta the way with all that ****ing hope-n-change, things would improve.
I reckon that's not going to happen, since this economic downfall is by design of that same government.
I'm sorry, but that is utter BS. I understand giving these people money so that they can stay on welfare long enough to get the education or preparation they need for a job. That's it- maybe 4 years on welfare max. But giving them free cell phones..you might as well give them a Wii so they can get recreation, an iPod so they can listen to music, and some candy so they can have sugar. I just don't see where the line is. The government needs the people to decide what the government can and can't do, and right now the government is ignoring all the signs from the people and just plunging along with it's own plans. I agree it will be interesting to learn what politicians got this through, but I care much more about the extra dollars leaving my bank account. I make enough to live the lifestyle I desire, and not much more. If the poor keep getting things that raise my taxes, pretty soon I'm going to have to sacrifice the life style I've spent decades building up to so some slob can watch Netflix and eat popcorn, all of which I bought for him. Breaking news: it isn't Christmas, and the middle and upper-middle class aren't Santa Claus.[/QUOTE]
You sir are a classist. and probably a racist. And Im guessing a homophobe. And you are probably left handed too.
Yes, because it's reactionary BS. Either someone went trolling around looking for something to get outraged about, or they read about it on Con blog, or heard Rush talking about it. I'm calling out the reactionary crap.