1 - 10 Next
If they are banning Christian authors, then anything written by J. R. R. Tolkien would have to go. In fact, a great deal of classical literature would have to be banned also. Milton, Pope, Tennyson, Samuel Johnson, John Donne...all of these writers would be verboten. Oh, and don't forget Dante. I guess The Divine Comedy just won't do.
In response to:

Almost Half of America on Welfare

TooTired Wrote: Aug 24, 2014 9:29 PM
That is incorrect. SSI is not the same as RSDI (Retirement, Survivors, Disability Income). If a person is assessed as disabled by the Social Security Administration, but that person does not have the 40 quarters of earned income required to collect a Social Security benefit, he or she will get SSI. I think that the current amount is about $700/mo. for most people. If a worker has worked the required 40 quarters, he or she will be eligible for Social Security benefits if adjudged to be disabled, and the amount will be based on the worker's average wages. If the amount earned in Social Security income is less than the amount that would be received by getting SSI, then the Social Security amount will be augmented by SSI to bring that person's monthly income up to the current SSI figure plus a small bonus (I think it's about $10/month). Survivors' benefits are also based on the worker's average income and go to the spouse and/or children of either a disabled or a deceased worker. In short...SSI benefits are not paid into by the recipient. The disabled person gets the same amount regardless of whether he or she has worked at all.
Once again the debate about welfare is being derailed from the main issue about benefits. The worst abuse is not people selling their benefits; it is the fact that they are collecting them fraudulently. In nearly a decade of doing this job, I found dozens, literally dozens, of cases where the client was lying about his or her circumstances in order to collect. In spite of the fact that I was "too tired" every day when I left the office from an out-of-control caseload, I tried my best to send every suspicious case to the investigators when I had any clue to what the lie was. Usually it was the children's father in the home who made the lion's share of the income. Occasionally it was someone who was failing to report a successful business. And as many people as I caught, it was like emptying the ocean with a paper cup. Many of these people I cut off just reapplied further down the line and the caseworkers didn't bother checking the notes to see why they had been terminated from benefits. And management loved stories about people that the office made happy...and cared not one whit about the people we made "unhappy" by exposing their lies. Trust me, the big story that has never and probably never will be reported is how many people are willing to lie for the sake of some extra money every month. Every one of them should do at least a small amount of mandatory jail time.
Take it from an ex-caseworker. I've found welfare cheats from all races. Since there are many people who are of the (fill in the blank) race who are not guilty of welfare fraud, why even bring it up?
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

TooTired Wrote: May 14, 2014 12:57 PM
"And despite the data showing that children do better if their parents are married, we shouldn't assume we know what works best." Mr. Stossel just contradicted himself. As someone who works in the welfare system, I get to see on a daily basis the results of the new model of mother with some number of children who leans on the government for the majority of her needs. A huge number of these single mothers don't even bother to file for child support. While the stigmatization of children for their parents's failings was wrong, the de-stigmatization has led to the unhooking of establishing a satisfactory "nest" with reproduction, to the detriment of both chlidren and our economy, which must support an increasingly dependant population of single-parent households. I sometimes wonder if Mr. Stossel ever thinks of the consequences of his suggestions with regard to how it affects our welfare state--which we are stuck with, regardless of whether we like it.
A.D. means Anno Domini--in th year of the Lord--not "after death." Years in the A.D. period start during Christ's lifetime.
In response to:

For First Lady, Too Much Is Not Enough

TooTired Wrote: Mar 25, 2014 7:22 AM
The obvious reason that the birth announcement would have been placed would be so that the child could claim American citizenship, which has certain advantages. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but you're missing the point.
I don't get it. Why it is OK for a woman to say it, but not a man? How about responding to what sparcboy said instead of just insulting him? Your response seems juvenile to me.
Follow me carefully. The kids weren't starving. If the dad wasn't making money, sometimes quite a lot, it would increase their food stamps to include him on the application, because the FS allotment is partially based on the size of the household. I most definitely was a caseworker...for something like 8 years. The worst job I ever had. You're the **** when you don't know what you're talking about.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the real outrage is that welfare fraud is rampant. I was a caseworker until recently, and I closed probably close to 100 cases for this. Usually it's a case of a single mother living with her kid(s)' father, and he's making most of the money. Sometimes it's someone claiming to have no money, and in reality they have their own business. If someone is not entitled to SNAP benefits in the first place, then it hardly matters what they're spending it on...they're cheating the government and the taxpayers. Furthermore we're losing even more money on Medicaid from the same lying cheats who get SNAP. The per capita payment for each child on Medicaid is about $900/mo., last I heard. That dwarfs the funds being spent on SNAP/food stamps.
1 - 10 Next