In the Now
Shawna Jones

Budget cuts should focus on Welfare Reform, not Social Security Elimination

Posted Wednesday, July 13, 2011, at 12:19 PM
View 29 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Well said!!

    I have seen too many people live their lives off of welfare and teach their children to do the same. Just recently I saw a woman in Wal-Mart buying junk food, clothing and a pool - paid using an EBT card. Her daughter, who looked to be a teen with a set of twins, purchased baby clothing and food using WIC and EBT. Buy clothing for your children and food, I don't have that much problem with. But if you cannot purchase your own food, you DO NOT NEED a pool, cigarettes, beer, big screen TVs,etc. The EBT card is set up to help you out to survive. Not so you can live a lavish lifestyle while you are stealing other people's tax money.

    An example for abusing SSI is a family member, that I no longer speak to, get SSI checks because she claims she cannot work because she is too overweight. But yet, she can go shopping to the malls, fishing, take 2-3 vacations a year and so on. The only time she has ever had a job, which was as a teenager. But she has been getting SSI and Medicaid since 1990. While her husband earns around 50k a year. She even signed her child up for SSI stating that she was a "slow learner" which classified her as handicap (which she wasn't; she could do math, write, spell, and everything everyone else could do but was a little slow to comprehend new stuff). After being approved she got checks for $800 a month. That doesn't sound like much, but for someone who never worked, didn't have any bills, and just sat around watching TV and playing video games all day it was a "shopping spree". I worked 2 jobs trying to support myself, my bills, and eventually my kids. I never had the internet or cable TV when I couldn't afford it. I didn't even get a cell phone until last year. But yet, they have 5 cars, everyone in their house has a cell phone, multiple PCs,etc. They are pretty much living rich on our tax money. I have called and tried to report them, but nothing was ever done about it.

    As for the welfare system - IT IS BROKEN! Why reward teens and others to have babies, claim they don't know the dads, and get fat checks for them. It doesn't make any sense. That is why the actions are repeated over and over again, aka "the cycle" as Shawna has stated. The worst part is that EVERY single illegal and refugee that comes here, gets welfare, foodstamps, and WIC. While everyone else has to struggle.

    Times are hard now, and people do need help with their bills, food, clothing, etc. Those are people that deserve help. But those who have not worked a day in their life or are simply too lazy or comfortable living off other's tax money, do not deserve the help.

    -- Posted by PrpleHze on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 2:46 PM
  • As long as these people can vote, will they not continue to support those handing out our money?

    Maybe those who are on the public support with no medical reason restricting them should lose their right to vote until they become self-supporting again.

    How long would the politicians stay with them? WOuld it matter to those on support?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 2:54 PM
  • We should eliminate both.

    Welfare encourages people not to work, have illegitimate children, and make other poor decisions.

    Social security should also go away. Consider the average working life is from age 20 to age 70, fifty years. If a person can't get their finances in order in that amount of time and prepare for the time the will be unable to work, I don't know what to say. Everyone knows that time will come, unless we die beforehand.

    Also SS has a horrible return on the investment, averaging about 3%. Private retirement accounts usually average 10-12%.

    The city of Galveston Texas opted out of Social Security in the 1980's and their workers collect much more from their plans than they would have from SS. Notably, there are no grannies in Galveston living under bridges eating Alpo as some politicians predict would happen if Social Security was privatized.

    There are SO MANY programs that could easily be cut, that listing them all would take the rest of the day.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 3:01 PM
  • Maybe those who are on the public support with no medical reason restricting them should lose their right to vote until they become self-supporting again.

    -- Posted by stevemills



    If you don't have "skin in the game" you shouldn't get to say how it's played.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 3:02 PM
  • PrpleHze

    I agree fully with you to a certain extent the part I am not sure of is how anyone could tell if these are the truly needy or if they are playing the system. I believe in a lot of ways the government has made the process of rewarding bad behavior to lavish. EXAMPLE: Pell Grants: with college tuition rising again this year more and more students are going further into debt but if you are a single mom then; Poof!! you get a Pell grant that not only pays 100% of your college education but your living expenses also not to mention food stamps and child care expenses that you would receive. Isn't that promoting these young girls to get out and have children. I had a young woman tell me once she was going back to college..(she had 2 or 3 children) I said Good for you what are you studying to be? She replied Oh I don't want a job I am just going to college.

    What the heck is wrong with this picture? We have students struggling to pay for their education so they can be productive citizens yet we are paying for this girl to be a professional student!!! You have to ask yourself How many more are we paying for that has no intention of ever getting a real job?

    The idea of a Pell Grant is a wonderful idea and I am all for every student getting the education they need to someday be self sufficient but the idea of making you automatic eligible if you are a single mom is the worse idea I have ever heard of.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 3:19 PM
  • Take a minute to educate yourselves folks. STATES determine what Medicaid benefits they will cover. Not the feds. The feds approve the plan the states send, which is called a State Plan, and the feds pay around 55% of the bill. If you have an issue about who is covered and what they get, call your Governor, because he or she makes the final decision.

    There is no fat check. ADC, as one commentor reported, is gone. Clinton eliminated all of that stuff in the 90's. Any benefits are based on household income...not the woman's income. If you know of someone who has an unreported roommate, call the Medicaid hotline and report it.

    Most programs, aside from disability programs, do not cover adults with no kids. Benefits are based on income, not marital status. Working parents who make minimum wage are getting benefits. Of course if Americans had access to affordable healthcare most Medicaid benefits could go away. I have seen big chain stores bring Medicaid case workers in to explain these "benefits" to their employees. These employers keep wages low so employees can access public healthcare (instead of company healthcare) and profits stay high.

    As a single laid off mom with three kids I got just enough unemployment to pay the mortgage. That was all it covered. Fortunately, I was able to get back to work without losing anything or requiring additional assistance. Typically, unemployment only lasts 6 months; but these aren't typical times.

    Yes...there are people who live really bad lives on the system, but for most it really is a temporary help, or simply covers medical care when no other medical care is available.

    And as a side note...Canada has fabulous medical coverage, and an incredible college tuition assistance program. Going there makes sense, coming here does not. The Mexican language is Spanish. It has been readily available as a course of study in most high schools for a very long time. However, there currently are not many jobs there. I don't recommend heading south just yet.

    -- Posted by Sherm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 9:19 PM
  • Sherm,

    Living off of unemployment benefits is different than abusing the welfare system. Those are benefits that you deserve and have worked for. But for someone who gets a SSI or welfare check and has never worked for it, then there is a problem.

    As for the "big fat checks" - yes people are still getting them. I have seen some of the checks that people would get when I worked as a cashier years ago. Sometimes the checks would be between hundreds to thousands of dollars a month. When I lived in Smyrna in 2004, my neighbor had 4 kids and didn't work. Her husband worked in construction. She claimed that none of the kids were his and she didn't know the father. So she received welfare for the 4 kids which totaled around $1000+ a month. Not including food stamps and the free health insurance. Our rent was $650 a month in a two story apartment. So her check a month covered pretty much all of her expenses. While we were working for everything that we were getting.

    I know that the federal government is not entirely at fault with the broken system. But they can mandate it. Stop rewarding people for making bad judgements, as someone has suggested. Why tell teens and others that it's okay to get pregnant, you'll get a check every month as well as help to go to college? And they can get section 8 or other help so they don't have to pay a dime and just live off of the system? Again, there are people who need help and I am all for that. But, there are some that are just lazy and don't want to work when they can get everything for free.

    -- Posted by PrpleHze on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 9:47 PM
  • Well said PrpleHze. I think a few commenters are missing the point...we are seeking the reform of the current welfare system as it stands, not the entire elimination of it. Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a permanent hand-out.

    True there are people who really need welfare, but the government has structured it in such a way as to make it enticing to live off someone else's dime rather than ever attempt to get off the system and make one's own living. As exampled above, my (ex)daughter-in-law is still living off the system after 18 years...and by the time the youngest of her four children turns 18 she will simply file for SSI based soley on the fact that she is "incapable of providing for herself, having never held a job in her entire life."

    And as for the elimination of those 'Fat Checks,' you might want to take a ride to the bankrupt state of California where the average welfare family is still drawing $800+ monthly, plus mediCal, foodstamps, WIC (if applicable), Section 8 [HUD] housing, etc. No offense Sherm but you are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of welfare recipients are only on welfare temporarily and because they have exhausted all other options.

    The truth is that the majority of welfare recipients are victims of a vicious cycle of poverty...babies having babies and turning to the welfare system for support because it is the only life they've known. I don't blame the poor, I blame the system. It's time we help them find another way to live. By providing them the tools to become self-sufficient we are not only offering a better way of life, but are encouraging self-worth, self-esteem, independance and a feeling of accomplishment...something many welfare/SSI recipients are lacking as a result of society's welfare labeling.

    I don't propose to have all, or even any of the answers, but I do know that we cannot continue on the way we are. While our country falls deeper into debt our economic state becomes more and more oppressed. It's time we make a "CHANGE" for the better.

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 10:48 PM
  • I'm just chiming in to point out that Pell Grants might have been like that years ago, but they've been getting cut more and more since the early '80s. I've never heard of anyone getting a Pell Grant that paid all of their tution and living expenses.

    -- Posted by cfrich on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 11:24 PM
  • Welfare should be the same as unemployment. If you aren't looking for a job and you aren't a US citizen, you shouldn't get it.

    If you are working, you should be paying back into the system like everyone else.

    -- Posted by tbdyer on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 6:48 AM
  • Excellent point tbdyer. And yes cfrich, I've never heard of a Pell Grant paying all of your expenses. I went to college in the 1990's and received a Pell Grant, and I can assure you even with more than $8,000 in scholarships that I was awarded on merit, I still had to hold a job and take out a student loan (of course I was raising 4 kids at the time too). On a side note, I've finally paid my student loan down to $900 after all these years...can't wait to be free of it.

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 11:29 AM
  • No you didn't understand what I was saying or maybe I didn't explain it well enough for you:

    For instance: A 18 year old girl graduates high school she lives at home with her parents and doesn't work she is a dependant student FASA uses her parents income to make her eligible for Financial aid. Say her parents make 70,000 a year she does not qualify for FASA = Zero Aid the best she can qualify for is the Hope.. But if this same girl has a baby still living at home she then becomes a Independent student because she has a child making her eligible for ALL the benefits of Financial aid.

    Pell Grant= 5500

    FSEOG =4000

    Hope Tnlottery= 4000

    Hope Access= 2750

    plus in house financial aid from a state university.

    Please do not get me wrong I believe a college education is important especially in this day and age and every child should have the opportunity to attend but as you can see there is a BIG difference in what is given in benefits for a girl with a child VS a girl without a child.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 1:31 PM
  • Thanks for the info dianatn...you just saved me a lot of research for my 16 year who's on track for college. Actually, she plans to start at Motlow in the Fall for dual credit during her junior and senior year.

    Maybe the best fix in your scenario above would be for said girl to move out of her parent's home and then be termed an independent student and eligible for all benefits of financial aid. She can use the "gray" areas here to her advantage by renovating her parent's garage and having them list it in the classified ads as a rental. She then "rents" it for herself and is no longer 'technically' living with her parents in their home, but is instead maintaining a separate residence and paying rent (and the amount of rent her parents set can be as little as $1.00). Tricks of the trade from my days working in a law firm....there's a loophole for everything. Pregnancy is definitely no answer to anything...take it from the woman who's had six children.

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 2:09 PM
  • Shawna

    Moving out of your parents home does not classify you as a Independent student,

    According to FAFSA to be declared a Independent student you must be one of the following:

    1.You are enrolled in a Masters program, Doctorate Degree, or graduate Certification program

    2.You have a child or children that are your legal dependent(s)

    3.You are married

    4.You are under the age of 24 and both of your parents are deceased

    5.You were a ward of your state until you were 18 years of age

    6.You are 24 years of age or older

    7.You are a Veteran of the United States Armed Force

    8.You were a foster child after the age of 13.

    9.You are an emancipated child as determined by a court judge.

    10.You are homeless or at risk of homelessness as determined by the director of a HUD approved homeless shelter, transitional program, or high school liaison.

    And this was just hypothetical as an example of the differences in aid someone can receive with a child vs someone without a child.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 2:35 PM
  • Sorry about that dianatn, I graduated college in 1999 and have not had to research it much since and do not have the time to spare now. Thanks for the clarification, it could prove useful someday. Evidently you've had some history here.

    I guess then, based on the info you supplied above (item #10) the correct loophole would be to stay in a homeless shelter for a few nights, or even weeks and then be deemed independent. Let's see, a few nights/weeks in a homeless shelter to gain, what hundreds/thousands in Pell Grant funding...seems worth it. And before anyone pops up regarding homeless shelters, I was forced by circumstance (and pride) to stay in one in Red Bluff, California with three children (the youngest just 2 months old) when I was 21. I do have personal history on that topic.

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 5:56 PM
  • Actually Shawna I do not know about this from first hand experiences. We had to actually pay for college: Didn't qualify for aid parents made to much money but I have researched it extensively trying to find loop holes for some other people.. none are there. You either qualify or you don't. It probably takes less time to research Pell Grants than it takes to write a blog but I guess it is all in what is important to you as to how you spend your time.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 7:02 PM
  • lol...

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 10:14 PM
  • I wrote the blog on welfare reform and researched for that topic in 2009, when I originally posted this...which took me maybe 10 minutes to reword and re-post. I did not write it on Pell Grants, and I assume it would take more than 10 minutes to research the subject, which I would eventually have needed to do, but since you've already done the research on that topic there is no need for me to do so and you've actually saved me some needless online searching, I'm sure...I do appreciate your input.

    You know I took a 9 month leave from blogging altogether not long ago, including commenting, because I also didn't have time for the ridiculous tit-for-tats that commenters seem to get into here. I do wish T-G would require users to supply a "real name" to identify themselves before allowing comments...it would save a lot of time and grief to those of us writing the blogs (btw, this was not directed at you dianatn, there are few commenters I've run across over the years who cower behind their anonymous user name in order to 'blast' our opinions, and they are simply that...opinions).

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Jul 14, 2011, at 10:31 PM
  • This is the welfare queens argument that folks are making, although I do respect the author and her account, using outdated and misleading 20 year old facts and information is wrong and misleading.

    Fact 1. AFDC has long been gone and inflation eats it

    , TANF is low, in Mississippi your welfare benefit

    hundreds of dollars a month, try $110 for the first person,$36 for the second person,$24 for each additional person see Mississippi Poor Leave Welfare, But For What?

    2. Food stamps cannot be given to able bodied adults although if you have kids you can get it,

    WIC is supported by conservatives and goes to little kids for its majority and only staple foods

    3. The majority of federal spending goes towards defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid 8%(however its matching funds and is not always considered welfare) which can be abused by the elderly who sell homes to get nursing home.

    Less than 1-2% of the federal budget goes towards tanf, as for food stamps those are on the choping block and that accounts for less than 3% of the federal budget, wic even less,

    4. Not every welfare recipient has subsidized housing, if they don't then they are in trouble which is usually the case, in case you do not have section 8 or nycha you have to pay rent out of pocket, and utility assistance is very low, in any case I welcome the author to see how long the wait list is 5-10 years for these programs and budget cuts mean that this programs account for less.

    So if tanf cost the feds $15-20 billion and food stamps $80 billion , and social security costs 700

    , who is to believe, and you will never here "conservatives" say this, instead they will say its all welfare and further cuts and then say its too much and further cuts, and then say its too much of the federal budget and so on.

    -- Posted by FactChecker on Fri, Jul 15, 2011, at 5:07 PM
  • Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates what the national poverty rate is and how many people are living in poverty. For 2008, the poverty rate was about $22,000 for a family of four. There were approximately 39 million people considered living at or below the poverty rate. According to the US Census conducted in 2010, those totals rose to about 45 million people, or more than 1 in 7 Americans were in poverty in 2009.

    Means-tested programs are limited to those at or below the poverty line. However, many welfare benefits go beyond this threshold to include persons who have incomes below 200 percent the poverty level, or about $44,000 per year for a family of four. Close to one-third of the U.S. population falls within this income range. A family of four at this income level would be ELIGIBLE for approximately $28,000 worth of federal and state welfare benefits per year!!!

    The Obama Blueprint to Spend More and Expand the Welfare State...

    Of the 70 different means-tested programs run by the federal government, almost all of them have received generous increases in their funding since President Obama took office. Some have also been expanded to include more people who would be eligible for the benefits. A good example of this is food stamps, officially known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance.

    The President's 2011 budget requests that food stamps spending rise from $39 billion (already a record level) to $75 billion. Obama's 2011 budget also requests these expansions be made permanent. In addition, eligibility for this program was expanded in the infamous "stimulus" package. Within President Obama's first year in office, food stamp rolls grew by over 5 million people--the single largest increase in a one-year period in over three decades.

    Obama's New and Expansive Poverty Measure...

    The Obama Administration announced that it is creating a new poverty measure to be unveiled in the fall of 2011 that would redefine who is considered "poor" in America. This new measure will dramatically increase the number of people considered to be living in poverty in the U.S.

    New York City recently adopted a similar poverty measure to the one being developed by the Obama Administration. Under the current federal measure of poverty, the city's poverty rate fell from 19.1 percent in 2005 to 17.76 percent in 2008. However, under the new poverty measure the 2008 rate rose to 22 percent. The translation of these numbers into federal dollars for benefits would be significant and very costly.

    Continuing the Failed War on Poverty...

    Unfortunately, only one of the 70 federal welfare programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, has work requirements for its recipients. The 69 others merely provide a basic need and allow families to stay on the welfare rolls indefinitely.

    The Obama Administration's expansion of the welfare state, in combination with its effort to define poverty up, does not bode well for economic freedom in the United States.




    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:40 AM
  • I would like to clarify that I do NOT oppose welfare in general, and I do believe that there are times when someone should have that 'crutch' available to help them through a rough patch...divorce leading to single parenting, unexpected job loss, injury/illness, etc. And anyone who says "oh, I would never accept a handout or go on welfare," has never experienced true hardship. You can't know what you would do in the face of extreme poverty or homelessness. Would you be so prideful and selfish as to let your child starve before signing up for temporary aid?

    I am merely pointing out the many flaws within the current system, and the continual "flood" of funding to entice more families to take advantage of the system. Welfare is meant to be temporary aid, not a permanent lifestyle. And I've seen too many cases first-hand--right here in Bedford county--where a single mom has a live-in boyfriend, relative, friend, etc. and is not reporting that portion of income. Not only is that unfair, it's illegal.

    I further think it is appalling that the president would aim his threats at the elderly or disabled, yet ask for more funding to support welfare programs. And what about the recent threat to military employees? I have a son serving in the US NAVY who is expecting his first child in four weeks, and instead of feeling the joy of impending fatherhood, he is worrying about whether or not he will receive a paycheck for risking his life in times of war.

    I do believe we need to spend money on defense...I, for one, do not wish to be oppressed by another country, do you? The only reason we are still a 'free' country is because those who wish to become our oppressors fear our strong military defense. Although I don't feel we need to spend quite as much on defense as we do...some of the satellite spending seems over-the-top...and the 'war' is long over, so why not bring our troops home and stop pouring billions upon billions to beat a dead horse? But hey, that's my opinion...nothing more.

    -- Posted by shawna.jones on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 1:18 AM
  • I am going to say this then I am done with this subject:

    Obama is not on my list of favorite people I did not vote for him nor did I support his policies.

    And certainly will not support his efforts to be re-elected BUT

    Obama has ask for the increase in Food Stamps and welfare because we now have 43.6 million people receiving Food Stamps as of Nov 2010 due to the fact that the employment rate is stagnant. Not to mention we have a true number of unemployed of about 20% the unemployment rate is calculated by those looking for work (or you might as well say those receiving benefits because that's how they know you are looking for work) there is a estimated 1 million more Americans who have run out of benefits completely and given up on the job market thus are not counted into the unemployment rate. For every new job opening there are 6 Americans looking for a job.

    Now experts say those who have lived on welfare their entire lives are not in the unemployment rate they never collected unemployment benefits to begin with...why you ask ?? Because they have never worked!!!!

    It is a known fact the longer you are out of work the harder it becomes to find a job... in fact many places (even here in Shelbyville) if you have been out of work for 6 months or more they will not even consider you for employment. That turns into a vicious cycle..

    I hate the fact the days of quitting a job on Friday and having another one just as good on Monday are long gone and probably will not be returning in our lifetime.

    Do we need welfare reform??? Most certainly but this is not the time for reform not when so many Americans depend on it for their families because of no fault of their own. It isn't like they can just run out and pick up a job when they lose their food stamps. People have been playing the system for years and years...the unemployed and underemployed are not part of that number and should not be punished for something that should have been corrected years ago.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 10:00 AM
  • My issue is not with welfare, but the issue of cutting SS to those of us who have been paying into it along with the taxes we also pay to the govt. to support those who are not paying any taxes. Whether they can find a job or not, they can continue to provide evidence that they are trying. I do not want anyone to suffer but we can all make better choices and be even more responsible for those choices when relying on someone else's hard work and income.

    -- Posted by tbdyer on Sat, Jul 16, 2011, at 12:13 PM
  • I want to add those comments...

    I was lay off and lay on unemployment and search the job with no lucks and I went on disability.

    I understand the different welfare and SSI. The retired or disability check aren't the same but out there I met some people can fake being disability because the agent or who case worker didn't verify annual report or so on.

    I want to say that I am not proud to use disability and I worked for 12 years until laid off from job. They are looking at my disability because I can't hear. I feel that disability is fine with me because somewhat those people who choose to not hiring me. I am fine because you guy are pay for it, I am not point you guy and I am saying who those decide not hire me and they are one who cause to made more debt on American Debt over the disability because my deafness prevent me to look job from low pay to top pay with no luck. Until I got job a month ago as I was on SSDI for 6 months and start job 1 month ago... I am very happy that the manager doesn't look at my disability but my skills. I accept with minimum pay. I met many Deaf people who are on SSI for LONG TIME and NO JOB. They are one have to go... image that all Deaf people have job and have all TAX done and all that we will be FINE without borrow CHINA money.

    I don't see how Obama promises to create job to improve for us as equal and respect and so on.

    I am not going to vote him because I don't want see us into crush and deal with debt and so on. I think that welfare and SSI went out of control. Such as I heard news from member family who work for SS and learn about client who use food stamp trading for drug. Is that a good thing to kept people going on Drug. Obama did is NOTHING

    and we are the people and we should march to those work for Obama out. OUT.. However I feel strange receiving from SSDI because the agent say that American is curse because they have to pay you and taken care of you due you are Deaf and they didn't want you work as you want work as equal.

    -- Posted by okreader on Sun, Jul 17, 2011, at 3:19 AM
  • I agree.

    If Obama is so concerned about passing the budget by Aug 2nd, then why party on that day? It's like when you are at work and your lead or boss tells you that everyone has to do overtime because the company is behind. And while you are slaving away, he/she is in their office with other department heads having a party. That doesn't make any sense.

    As for relocation, a saying that I have always remembered is "History always repeats itself." There have been so many relocations here in the US from the relocating of the Native Americans,etc. This actually wouldn't surprise me. I mean the government can walk up and take your property if they want because you may pay your house off....but you will NEVER own the land. You may think that you do, but you still have to pay property tax on it and abide by the laws in your area concerning what you can and cannot do to your property.

    My children and I were discussing about King Obama's re-election. And we have come to the conclusion that IF he wins re-election, then we will truly know that his win was fixed. Meaning that the voting system is broken, along with just almost every other system in the US.

    -- Posted by PrpleHze on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 8:57 AM
  • This is one of the best blogs I've read on here in awhile. When the ones on government assistance outnumber the one ones who work, we are in trouble. Like right about now. Entitlements are what's breaking the government. Why can't government contract like any other business in a down cycle does? Look at the layoffs GM( now Goverment Motors) did. Get by with what you have and drop the rest.

    -- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Mon, Jul 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM
  • CHef, Gm has put most of their workers back on the job. Springhill from what I understand is back up and running as normal.... When we give all the power and wealth to the top 2% of the country we the people are in trouble..... Those tax BREAKS are nothing more than wall street welfare, and have cost us over a trillion dollars - all in the so called name of job creation ummmm where are the jobs? since they were put in place the jobs have disappeared at an amazing rate. GM was a loan, and they brought back the jobs, and have repaid almost all of it- what have the wealthy done beside hoard the money?

    Ok folks the cry for smaller government -- Then want to put in a "SUPER CONGRESS" to cram through what they can not get in the normal one.. This is oh so very wrong. It will basically castrate the power of the Constitution. Who will decide WHO is chosen to be in it - You know darn well they will not be elected by the PEOPLE, since they are being put there to by pass those who already have been. They will be able to force through anything they want, no questions asked. How long do you think it would take them to completely take over the government and make it a dictatorship? The republicans have shown they have every intent to take over, and this would be the first step to achieve that agenda. Anything that calls for changes to the constitution MUST be stopped!!! Our rights are being stripped more and more with every bill they propose. They can not Get their way following the rules so they want to change them to suit their agenda. THEY HAVE TO BE STOPPED !!!!!!!

    -- Posted by wonderwhy on Sun, Jul 24, 2011, at 11:49 AM
  • Federal Trade Commission over its truth-in-advertising laws, which prohibit ads that are "likely to mislead consumers."

    How funny !!!!! If that law was indorsed - most of those writing commercials for political candidates would be in jail as we speak!!!

    -- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, Jul 27, 2011, at 10:15 AM
  • 'The Republican answer on how to preserve jobs was to block FAA funding, 4000 FAA workers furloughed and construction projects in all 50 states to upgrade safety, lighting, improve control towers halted affecting thousands of private sector jobs...just to bust the FAA unions."

    "4,000 Federal Aviation Administration employees were told not to report for work, the government lost $30 million in airline tax revenue and $2.5 billion worth of airport construction projects were left abandoned."

    ( Oh yea that is all about job creation and saving money!! 4000 jobs lost, lost tax revenue, and now the workers will have unemployment till that runs out and possible government assistance beyond that should they not be able to find another job......... All to prevent unions ------ WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!These are the actions that show us what fakes they are when they cry JOB CREATION AND SAVE MONEY!!! You don't do either by eliminating jobs and forcing folks to be unemployed --- now just listen as they call 4000 people and their families low life lazy entitlement abusers.........They did not quit their jobs - the jobs were ripped out from under them to promote a back stabbing republican agenda against unions - these are just the next wave of Americans being held hostage for the black male tactics of the back stabbing greedy tea-party/republicans who are he** bend on the destruction of this country for the greed of their rich buddies.)

    "Hatch responded by saying Senate Republicans were committed to passing a long-term funding bill like the one passed by the House, not another short-term extension." ( How funny when it is their advantage they want long term ---- HUmm )

    -- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, Jul 27, 2011, at 10:39 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: