(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

(09-25-2014 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I don't see that. All I see is that in Virginia, for instance, if you make less than $12 per hour you are better off not working and going on welfare. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

(09-25-2014 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I see 46% receiving AFCD over 2 years. 20% over 5. Doesn't really prove your stat though. Nor does it fit your 'Help Everyone' motto for govt programs.
But I am glad you for once made an effort to try and back up your stats.

(09-25-2014 01:38 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I see 46% receiving AFCD over 2 years. 20% over 5. Doesn't really prove your stat though. Nor does it fit your 'Help Everyone' motto for govt programs.
But I am glad you for once made an effort to try and back up your stats.

2 and 5 years aren't a lot when you consider that once established, they likely become tax payers for then next 20 to 30 years.

(09-25-2014 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:38 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I see 46% receiving AFCD over 2 years. 20% over 5. Doesn't really prove your stat though. Nor does it fit your 'Help Everyone' motto for govt programs.
But I am glad you for once made an effort to try and back up your stats.

2 and 5 years aren't a lot when you consider that once established, they likely become tax payers for then next 20 to 30 years.

Anecdotally recidivism is pretty high.

(09-25-2014 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:38 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:09 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How can you say that welfare doesn't work for anyone when statistics prove that most people only use it for a while and eventually become productive, tax paying citizens.

Where's your source for that?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

I see 46% receiving AFCD over 2 years. 20% over 5. Doesn't really prove your stat though. Nor does it fit your 'Help Everyone' motto for govt programs.
But I am glad you for once made an effort to try and back up your stats.

2 and 5 years aren't a lot when you consider that once established, they likely become tax payers for then next 20 to 30 years.

Any support for that? And what is the recidivism rate?

(09-24-2014 09:16 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 07:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Republicans get what they deserve.

We didn't vote for the gay racist black guy.

When was Ru Paul elected? I must have missed that...

Fit is arguing how well mean tested walfare is working, yet generations after its creation, a full third of the population is now receiving means tested welfare.

That is nearly double the entire population of the United Kingdom. Its also more than the combined population of California, Texas, Florida and New York.

How fuggin stupid is that?

And THIS is your idea of a successful government program? Putting a third of our entire population on government handouts????


http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-...00-welfare

(09-23-2014 09:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Christie- TBH I think the damage has already been done, he will never be what he once was before bridgegate.

Romney- Has history working against him. His stock certainly has risen but after two presidential runs does he really have a chance?

Bush- Probably the best of the three, but is the bush name gonna do more bad than good.

I think the OP is correct that these are the three front runners for the GOP, however none of these candidates really make me worry heading into 2016. None of them fit the "rising star" profile that is the clear cut undisputed "this person will be a big factor" type role. I still think the two candidates will be either a dark horse and/or an established candidates who significantly raises his profile in the next couple of months.

Hilliary is going to be a terrible candidate imo.

Her best shot was in 2008. She's too old, fat and ugly now.

And she's not 1/10th of the politician Bill was. Shes not very smooth, not very good off the cuff and generally comes of as angry and bitter when she is in full campaign mode.

Dems are going to be incredibly disappointed in her imo.

dems are never (openly) disappointed in whoever they elect.