sooo
 

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they
are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in
military spending.

I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program
in the US.
That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart
about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every
powerful congressman in the country.
You certainly have plenty in your district

I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment
compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure
rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more
inclined to look for a job.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

sooo
 

On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they
are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in
military spending.

I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program
in the US.
That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart
about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every
powerful congressman in the country.
You certainly have plenty in your district

I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment
compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure
rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more
inclined to look for a job.


Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare.
Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's
base.

sooo
 

On 9/28/2013 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:06:02 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:


The American economy is strong,


If you believe that....you are ****ed in the head, and a dreamer.


I didn't say that well.
I agree the American economy is in big trouble, over regulated, over
taxed, and has many legacy issues to be resolved.
We still have a strong entrepreneurial spirit and if the government
would get out of the way, the country IS STRONG and we could employe
more people and have good growth.
I'm self employed and watched my income slide downhill in 2008, 2009,
and 2010. We had another business open near us in 2011 and that
generated a lot of traffic and helped our sales, even with the bad economy.
Mikek

sooo
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they
are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in
military spending.

I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program
in the US.
That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart
about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every
powerful congressman in the country.
You certainly have plenty in your district

I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment
compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure
rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more
inclined to look for a job.

What jobs? You conservatives claim there are none.....

sooo
 

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they
are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in
military spending.

I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program
in the US.
That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart
about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every
powerful congressman in the country.
You certainly have plenty in your district

I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment
compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure
rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more
inclined to look for a job.


Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare.
Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's
base.

That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not
really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food
stamps.

Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID
card.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

sooo
 

On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they
are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in
military spending.

I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program
in the US.
That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart
about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every
powerful congressman in the country.
You certainly have plenty in your district

I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment
compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure
rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more
inclined to look for a job.


Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare.
Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's
base.

That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not
really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food
stamps.

Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID
card.

Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance
groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep.

sooo
 

On 9/29/13 1:12 PM, amdx wrote:

Which entitlements would you cut, and by how much?

First we need to reduce the fraud in all the programs.
The disability program needs changing, I personally know
a hand full of people on disability that could work. Many
of those do work, for cash.

No argument from me, but not a big deal.

If you get a welfare check, your time should be devoted to
some type of work to help the country. You got 45 hrs every
week that other workers (supplying your check) don't. Let's
put them to work. Even forcing them to sit in a room 40 hrs a
week would help their work incentive.

You planning to provide quality child care to moms receiving welfare so
they can do your make work stuff?

A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential
recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter
into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain
timeframe.

And what if there are no jobs that pay enough to support the family.
Should self-sufficiency include robbing convenience stores?



All monetary resources must be divulged. This includes cash within the
home, in checking or savings accounts and items of value in possession
such as jewelry or electronics.

Pretty much done already.

sooo
 

On Sunday, 29 September 2013 14:16:26 UTC-3, Hank© wrote:
On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote:



On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank©

wrote:



On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote:



On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they

are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in

military spending.



I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program

in the US.

That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart

about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every

powerful congressman in the country.

You certainly have plenty in your district



I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment

compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure

rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more

inclined to look for a job.





Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare.

Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's

base.



That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not

really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food

stamps.



Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID

card.



Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance

groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep.

Quit picking on your little buddy from CT.
If too many of us do it, he'll get his dander up and not be receptive to the message.

sooo
 

On 9/29/13 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:28:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


If you get a welfare check, your time should be devoted to
some type of work to help the country. You got 45 hrs every
week that other workers (supplying your check) don't. Let's
put them to work. Even forcing them to sit in a room 40 hrs a
week would help their work incentive.

You planning to provide quality child care to moms receiving welfare so
they can do your make work stuff?

The food stamp bill says the work requirement is contingent on child
care being available but they consider the time kids are in school to
be "child care".


A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential
recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter
into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain
timeframe.

And what if there are no jobs that pay enough to support the family.
Should self-sufficiency include robbing convenience stores?

Work fare is designed to assist low skill low wage people to do the
work they are qualified for and still end up with a subsidy that
allows a decent life. The intent is that they will actually learn a
skill and find a real job tho. Maybe job training should be part of
the deal.

Yes, I remember when that was done in some town in the midwest...the low
wage workers were bused two hours each way to clean a mall, because that
was the only work available. So, they had 12 hours days, and there was
no one around to watch their kids. And if a kid got sick or injured,
they had to find the mother and then figure out a way to transport her
back in the middle of the day. Great idea but only when it is practical.

I agree about the job training part, though. Train them to be banksters...

sooo
 

On 9/29/2013 3:12 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/29/13 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:28:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


If you get a welfare check, your time should be devoted to
some type of work to help the country. You got 45 hrs every
week that other workers (supplying your check) don't. Let's
put them to work. Even forcing them to sit in a room 40 hrs a
week would help their work incentive.

You planning to provide quality child care to moms receiving welfare so
they can do your make work stuff?

The food stamp bill says the work requirement is contingent on child
care being available but they consider the time kids are in school to
be "child care".


A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential
recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter
into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain
timeframe.

And what if there are no jobs that pay enough to support the family.
Should self-sufficiency include robbing convenience stores?

Work fare is designed to assist low skill low wage people to do the
work they are qualified for and still end up with a subsidy that
allows a decent life. The intent is that they will actually learn a
skill and find a real job tho. Maybe job training should be part of
the deal.

Yes, I remember when that was done in some town in the midwest...the low
wage workers were bused two hours each way to clean a mall, because that
was the only work available. So, they had 12 hours days, and there was
no one around to watch their kids. And if a kid got sick or injured,
they had to find the mother and then figure out a way to transport her
back in the middle of the day. Great idea but only when it is practical.

I agree about the job training part, though. Train them to be banksters...


I think it's about time for another **** you Harry Krause. ;-)