Put Me In Charge

Help Support CattleToday:

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
31,075
Reaction score
625
Location
Heart of Texas
Borrowed from Ranchers.net


"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM" WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE. Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

This was written by a 21 yr. old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations.Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22-inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

I love this one.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
 
I can be done and should be done. This is our country and we will get it back, but not without a fight.
She has my vote.
 
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.
 
MO_cows":3o50x2ms said:
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.
I'll bet you're a real barrel of monkeys to hang out with. Life of the party no doubt....
 
MO_cows":p2501uep said:
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.

Most folks in Florida are so old they have to find a walker to go out and meet their pusher - bet you it is not the same in every big city

The answers are as easy to find as it is hard to find people who truly WANT to solve the problems in today's society.

The US of A has around 45% of its population on some sort of social assistance. How long can the few who are actually working and not sucking the government T.I.T. actually afford to continue paying for those who do not generate taxes but instead - spend them?

Anyone here care to make a reasonable guess when taxation rates will decrease?

Canada is about the same.

Be afraid

Bez
 
The problem with the florida testing was they would tell the people , ok be here 3 months from today to take your drug test . Most drugs besides weed is out of your system in 3 or 4 days . Real easy to get around the test .
 
MO_cows":1zjdkkob said:
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.


I bet your a politician?
 
MO_cows":3af94s1s said:
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.


I personally would rather spend more tax money to make sure the people getting assistance are being tested. Its better than spending tax money on drugs-which, not in all cases, is where it would go.

I agree that welfare should be available, but not abused the way it is now. I like the idea of working for it, and housing inspections.
I used to have a job that dealt with government housing. I always found it frustrating that people in section 8 housing could afford the highest priced cable packages while I (who worked for the cable company) could only afford the basics....

I'm afraid all the government assistance programs and bailouts has caused this country's people to "expect" instead of "earn"
 
chippie":2fk3thrp said:
Why only the birth control for the woman? Why not neuter the males while you are at it?
Indeed. I think we should just put a ban on Sex altogether. That will end the entire Welfare debacle once and for all.
 
Isomade":3t9xfwtx said:
chippie":3t9xfwtx said:
Why only the birth control for the woman? Why not neuter the males while you are at it?
Indeed. I think we should just put a ban on Sex altogether. That will end the entire Welfare debacle once and for all.

But that wouldn't get this kid elected. We need her elected.
 
csutton":3d2gg13i said:
MO_cows":3d2gg13i said:
Well I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but Florida tried the "drug testing of assistance recipients". They found such a low percentage of positives, the cost of the testing more than outweighed the benefits revoked. It cost the taxpayers MORE MONEY to test.

We all find it easy to stereotype people who are getting govt. handouts but the reality doesn't always hold up.

But it's still a good piece and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. The answers just aren't quite as easy as she made them out to be.


I personally would rather spend more tax money to make sure the people getting assistance are being tested. Its better than spending tax money on drugs-which, not in all cases, is where it would go.

I agree that welfare should be available, but not abused the way it is now. I like the idea of working for it, and housing inspections.
I used to have a job that dealt with government housing. I always found it frustrating that people in section 8 housing could afford the highest priced cable packages while I (who worked for the cable company) could only afford the basics....

I'm afraid all the government assistance programs and bailouts has caused this country's people to "expect" instead of "earn"
I agree, if the government is just going waste our money by giving it to these people, I would just as soon they spend more money to not give it out. it's almost one place I would trade less spending to not see these lazy losers get my money.
 

Latest posts

Top