You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
How are the democrats going to buy votes if they can't give out more welfare to sit at home.
And the beat goes on.....
It just reinforces the disarray in the republican party. Countless republican governors have been pushing for waivers.. including governor Rick Perry, and former governors Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Bush, Huntsman, Daniels and Barbour -- a who's who of former or current republican candidates for president. But when you consider how often republicans vote against their own legistlation... disarray is almost an improvement
They both cann't be telling the truth. One side has to be lying and this kind activity has to stop.
There is waaay more to this story than is written. MN has a high work participation rate- and guess what, these people stay on welfare. It doesn't MOVE people off it! If we can tie waiver money to another index (I think it might be the self-support index?) we can actually MOVE people OFF welfare, and track it. That's the goal of welfare, isn't it-- to help when you're down and move off it by finding a job and no longer needing it? Work participation includes volunteering and unpaid work. I, for one, would rather we get a waiver, tie the money to a better state program/measuring index and help these families move off welfare!
All I know is what I have seen working the street as a cop for 24 years and from what I have seen things have gotten even worse in recent years. In my opinion, based on what I have seen over and over again, welfare of all forms, from section 8 housing, to Obama phones, to free health care, to EBT cards, has created a large segment of our society that has become dependent on government. Worse, many of these people pass down this dependence on taxpayer money from generation to generation. There is no stigma attached to living off government charity and no ambition to get off it. If I were to document the individual examples of people I have personally encountered taking advantage of government aid programs I would, as Roy Scheider said in the movie Jaws, "Need a bigger boat." The system badly needs to be reformed and the money needs to go to the "Deserving Poor", not those who have learned to game the system.
"Obama phones" - a textbook example of a tell -- disparaging a program and using it to demean someone you don't like.. which is especially ironic, considering it was Reagan who forwarded the idea, and Bush Jr who started the program.
Eliminate welfare. This is communism at its finest. The government steals money from the productive to pay people to sit at home and do nothing. The goverment is subsidizing failure, it's subsidizing laziness. Eliminate welfare, and 99% of those people would be working within a few weeks. The elimination of these populist bribes would be the best thing to happen to "recipients". They would finally have to work, and in the process, would learn a work ethic and some self-respect.
Dogman-I do not remember cell phones being available in Reagan's era but please, if you must call them "Bush phones", in order not to insult your ideology, go ahead. The problem I have is when I work very hard for a living and see a "Bush phone" in the hands of someone who doesn't work, and its a better phone (more bells & whistles), then I can afford, I think it is wrong. You know what wrong is, right?
lordhawhaw1: so "cop of 24 years" what would you have us do about the "undeserving poor?" btw, the phones have very limited plans/features and they are a critical lifeline for people in need. spare us the tired talk radio talking-points. oh, and let's also review the exceptionally generous pensions, OT pay, early retirement options, health bennies and vacation enjoyed by cops and firefighters in too many jurisdictions. boondoggle!
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks