Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

That's just what I mean. If they have their own money to buy cigarettes, then what are they doing getting food stamps? Cigarettes are $75.00 a carton in CT. That's more than one person needs for food each week.

Once programs are put into place in the government, you can't seem to ever cancel them. That's alot of our problem with government. Even programs that aren't doing any good anymore are still finaced. God forbid someone should have to lose their job. As if people not in government jobs don't ever lose them.

The food stamp program as well as any welfare programs should make people pee in a cup, and if they are using drugs, they should not get them. The jobs some of us are in require drug testing to stay employed, so why shouldn't the people who are receiving part of our paychecks in assistance need to be drug tested as well. If we can't use drugs in order to keep our jobs, then welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to use them to receive the money we make.

As for the cigarette thing, I know that the government can't enforce that, it was a scenerio of how I feel about giving assistance to people who choose to buy cigarettes over food, or people who choose to buy expensive clothing rather than pay their rent and they get housing assistance, or people who choose to have an expensive car payment every month instead of using that payment for oil and they receive energy assistance. I'm sure you get the jist of what I'm saying here. People abuse the system, and the gov. allows it.

The government sets income levels, among other things to be eligible for government assistance. Many of those who receive it are the working poor. There is no way to monitor how someone spends their paychecks once they qualify for government aid. And it is mainly their incomes that make them eligible. And smoking is legal, so peeing in a cup would be unconstitutional to monitor for it.

You also didn't answer my question about why the republicans didn't eliminate all these government assistance programs when they had all the power (if indeed it is the democrats who promote them, as you claim)?

[pattygreen 5]

The government sets income levels, among other things to be eligible for government assistance. Many of those who receive it are the working poor. There is no way to monitor how someone spends their paychecks once they qualify for government aid. And it is mainly their incomes that make them eligible. And smoking is legal, so peeing in a cup would be unconstitutional to monitor for it.

You also didn't answer my question about why the republicans didn't eliminate all these government assistance programs when they had all the power (if indeed it is the democrats who promote them, as you claim)?

Yes I did. I wrote this:

Once programs are put into place in the government, you can't seem to ever cancel them. That's alot of our problem with government. Even programs that aren't doing any good anymore are still finaced. God forbid someone should have to lose their job. As if people not in government jobs don't ever lose them.

Another reason for not canceling them is because once you start supporting people and providing for them, you take on the responsibility for them, and to remove their assistance is an even harder hardship than the hardship they were in before they got it. They've become dependant. It needs to be done gradually. Notification needs to go out to all who get the handouts that by a certain date, they will no longer be getting something for nothing. The welfare in our state was once given to single moms and they would stay on it forever. Then they notified them that welfare was going to be for a maximum of 2 years and that's all. It worked. That was about 10 years ago. What happened to all those moms and kids that were only allowed 2 years of assistance? Hey! They survived without the governments help. No kidding! They couldn't do it before that new guideline was enacted. Those moms were on welfare for decades some of them. Now, with a strict guideline of assistance for only 2 years, these moms now DID something about their conditions because they knew their free ride was soon to end. They went to school and trained in a new field, they went to work and provided daycare for their children, they got on birth control, cause they knew the free ride was over. Let's start telling people that the government is cutting their free ride, and you will see how quickly they will think of a way to help themselves finacially.

[pattygreen 5]

And smoking is legal, so peeing in a cup would be unconstitutional to monitor for it.

Okay. But what about drugs and alcohol? Should they pee in a cup to be screened for these things?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

And smoking is legal, so peeing in a cup would be unconstitutional to monitor for it.

Okay. But what about drugs and alcohol? Should they pee in a cup to be screened for these things?

Alcohol is also legal, but I don't have a problem with people having to be off of drugs to receive benefits. You can't allow someone with a criminal record to live with you if you live in section 8 housing and I'm fine with that, too.

In Connecticut, and I'm sure other states as well, if a welfare recipient worked, the amount of money they made when they worked was subtracted from their welfare benefits. Now, why would anyone work? That doesn't make sense. So, when they changed the law, more people had an incentive to work. I support these common sense changes. But I don't support eliminating the programs because some abuse it.

And when the republicans were in power they could have set the wheels in motion to reduce these programs over time and they didn't. Yes, it would have been hard but that shouldn't have swayed them.

[BJean 16]

patty your thinking is skewed. No wonder you keep coming up with "analogies" that just don't work. It's like you want to make something support your argument so whether it makes sense or not is immaterial to you. You just use it anyway.

[pattygreen 5]

patty your thinking is skewed. No wonder you keep coming up with "analogies" that just don't work. It's like you want to make something support your argument so whether it makes sense or not is immaterial to you. You just use it anyway.

and you're rude.

[BJean 16]

Rude? Crude? Socially unacceptable?

Hey listen, if you really want to start the name-calling game, I have been thinkin' of some that I've been itchin' to use.

You've already started, but take another shot at it. Go girl! Have at it! Knock yourself out.

[tdslf1 0]

No one is going to introduce a bill to make welfare reciepients take drug test. No one. Get over that very quick. Dead subject.

Were was al this outrage when the Rethuglicans were in office. Did you strap it on this hard for them to do these things you harp on now? I think not. Never heard of a tea douche bagger with a gripe either until this year. Geez.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No one is going to introduce a bill to make welfare reciepients take drug test. No one. Get over that very quick. Dead subject.

Were was al this outrage when the Rethuglicans were in office. Did you strap it on this hard for them to do these things you harp on now? I think not. Never heard of a tea douche bagger with a gripe either until this year. Geez.

This is what I have been saying over and over again here and the only answer they have is it doesn't matter what happened then, this is now.

But it does matter because it shows that when these teabaggers weren't angry about the spending, deficits and lies under bush then it's just all about Obama now, and not these issues that they hide behind.

They didn't vote for Obama, they don't want him to be president, they don't believe he was born in the US, they think he's a muslim and they want him to fail so that they can get more republicans/ultra conservatives elected so as to push through their agenda (tax cuts for rich & corporation and anti everything else)

[pattygreen 5]

Rude? Crude? Socially unacceptable?

Hey listen, if you really want to start the name-calling game, I have been thinkin' of some that I've been itchin' to use.

You've already started, but take another shot at it. Go girl! Have at it! Knock yourself out.

patty your thinking is skewed.

If that wasn't rude, then I take it back. (But I feel justified in saying you were rude.)

[pattygreen 5]

No one is going to introduce a bill to make welfare reciepients take drug test. No one. Get over that very quick. Dead subject.

Were was al this outrage when the Rethuglicans were in office. Did you strap it on this hard for them to do these things you harp on now? I think not. Never heard of a tea douche bagger with a gripe either until this year. Geez.

I was right here. keeping my opinions to myself. But now that Obama campaigned on "Change", and hasn't fulfilled his promise but only brought us more of the same politics as usual, he pissed us off. He campaigned on 'changing' government control and government spending, and government waste, and government transparency, and so on, but is just as bad as all the others in the office before him, even WORSE! Even his own party doesn't deny he's a liar. (aka pelosi) He should have kept his mouth shut during his campaign if he really was going to be like all the rest in Washington and not be the "different" one. But no. He brought this bashing onto himself with his campain slogan of "Change". THERE WAS NO CHANGE!!!!!!! The people are sick of government interference in their lives, and the polls show it. I know that you liberalls like the security of government control on your lives, but us conservatives like to take care of ourselves and don't need it. We are secure in our ability to make decisions and come up with our own answers to our dilemmas. We feel that the government should be there for the things that it needs to do and resist the temptation to over-indulge us with their "we know what's best for you":rolleyes: attitudes. The government should be there for us with the military and its defenses and for roads and infrastructure, and for other things like police and firefighters, etc. Not to give money to states to put in rollerskating parks and to promote education giveaways, or to help someone get a home or a new car and that sort of thing. It's no wonder we are bankrupt and it will take each person living here over $34,000. to pay off our debt! That's each person. Every man, woman, and child. This doesn't bother you liberals at all does it? "So what. Let's keep spending and taxing!!!!", they say. "I don't care about the national debt. I LOVE Obama!, and that's all that matters." They say. "I don't want to say anything about the spending in government, it might make me look racist since we have a black president now." , they say. Come On!!! Who gives a crap if it's Obama or anyone else blowing us into oblivion with their spending of our money?! I could care less if he were purple. He's bringing us down fast financially because he just spends, and spends and spends and thinks of new ways to spend some more almost every day!

[tdslf1 0]

You hysteria is showing yet again, PG.

Lets liken this to a business(and I'll say it again for the stuck on stupid glued to dumb crowd) When you come up with a plan to carry the business in a different direction, you have to spend money. When you are selling typewriters and the new in thing is computers, you invest money in buying computers so you can compete. That is what my take is on what Obama is doing. So, no, he has not dissapointed me yet for what he is doing. I think I got where he might be going and the direction is fine. I don't need things to be so transparent then I would be just like every other backseat driver. Right now I am content to ride in the back and take in the direction I am going.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Pres. Obama has kept most of his promises. Did you hold bush accountable for his broken promises?

He has changed the way he views his role and that of our country. He has put more republicans in place in his administration than republicans presidents put democrats.

He has reached out to other countries in the world who were scorned, ridiculed or rejected by the bush administration. We don't operate in a vacuum. How other countries percieve us matters. bush was hated and it showed when he traveled abroad. Not so with Pres. Obama. This is a change.

He has shown a refreshing ability to admit mistakes and accept blame, something bush never did. DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHEN BUSH WAS ASKED WHAT MISTAKES HE MADE AS PRESIDENT AND HE COULDN'T THINK OF ONE? REALLY?? WHOLE books HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THEM.

That's a BIG change right there - from the arrogance of bush to the humility of Obama.

He changed the way we think about torture and is against it. Period. He want to close Gitmo and move those detainees to a federal prison. Gitmo has been used as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.

He has opened up white house visitor logs and declassified millions of documents. That's a change.

But he is criticized for tackling the tough problems that you claim you conservatives could have handled quite nicely by yourself. You republicans/conservatives had the power for many years and it was YOUR POLICIES THAT FAILED AND CAUSED ALMOST ALL OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS. So, don't tell me you know how to fix problems when all you can do is create them.

So, tackling tough problems is a change from bush who just kicked the can down the road.

Oh, I forgot, the one solution of conservatives/republicans: tax cuts for the rich & corporations and crumbs for everyone else.

These are changes I can believe in and I'm sure glad he's president.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think the people who criticize President Obama, our commander in chief, are unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists.

He is a war president, after all, and when people criticize him, especially when he is on foreign soil, it borders on treason.

These people need to get behind the president and support him so that he succeeds. To do otherwise is to give comfort to the enemy.

[Nancy6015 0]

I'm very happy that I voted a straight Democratic ballot.