Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (111156)	8/23/2011 4:56:21 AM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

The drama starts as soon as potential cuts are discussed. Questions should be asked first...not approach it as a horrendous negative event. For example, the National Guard example...how many are available in that region? What plans can be drawn up to consolidate bases to reduce costs yet provide service on those rare cases when they are needed. Do you maintain certain supplies and equipment in state but have one base feed to those sites? What have we done elsewhere and what are the results?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (111156)	8/23/2011 3:28:55 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Jorj, so basically what we are talking about is paying people off to behave? is that correct? Yes, you are correct to some extent. We are afraid of cutting people off from their "paycheck" (go into the hood and that's what they call their welfare checks) because they will start breaking the law and threatening our cushy way of life. Does that sit well with you? NO!!! However, it appears that we will pick up individuals one of four ways: (1) educate/re-educate/retrain for them to have the skill sets for current jobs, (2) provide jobs for the unemployed, (3) require individuals to do community service or other jobs for their unemployment checks, (4) prison those who commit crimes necessary for their survival (three meals, shelter, medical services, and a relatively safe place to live). Naturally, they give up their freedoms but cost the tax payers around $25,000 +/- annually. It appears that we lose out either way. And, that does not even including those who are disabled. I just read an article, "Long-term jobless: How to get Hired," page 16, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, "the long-term unemployed (officially defined as those without a job for 27 weeks or more), who struggle to rise to the top of the candidate pools as their skill degrade or fail to match todays demand," . . . who are not currently working, are blatantly excluded from considered for a job. The EEOC is examining the practice as possible job discrimination. Should the we have such Federal EECO regulations or allow the "free markets" set the standards who get employed even though there may appear to be discrimination?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (111156)	8/23/2011 4:04:25 PM
From: tonto	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Some people should not be receiving any assistance. A woman in Wisconsin was receiving $150,000 worth of food stamp (card) money annually. She was busted because she used the card to buy lobster, steak, and you get the picture while at last years Super Bowl...turns out the Doyle administration was sloppy with taxpayers money. She I believe will be going to prison as will the state employee who was selling units for $50 per unit...that is how this woman was receiving so much. Too bad private industry was not contracted to run this program...