Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service


posts

Member Deleted Post


This post has been deleted by

MrsJoe 76F
17382 posts
8/1/2016 2:08 pm

    Quoting  :

That last statement is so TOTALLY TRUE............ I remember YEARS ago, there were reports and articles about social workers helping keep families on welfare to protect their own jobs. When their caseloads dwindled down, fewer social workers were needed in a district, so they purposely helped keep families on welfare!
With all that money being spent, wouldn't it have been more advantageous to just give the people a lump sum, tell them they had x amount of time to get some schooling and a job, and then cut them off the welfare system?
When Clinton passed some restrictions on welfare for mothers, including having to work when a child reached a certain age or some kind of requirement similar to that, we had an influx of people looking for work pretty quick at the nursing homes and factories in our town.
Personally, I cannot understand anyone wanting to let the government take care of them indefinitely........... where is the pride in doing something for yourself? But I hear people talk proudly of the free stuff they can get, and still sit on their butts......... and many live better than the working folks!


Be a prism, spreading God's light and love, not a mirror reflecting the world's hatred.