user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
No. That would be creating a two-tiered system feeding military ranks off the misery/ poverty of others.
I find the idea morally repugnant.
Most welfare recipents are mothers with young children. Now, if we could start running daycare centers in war zones, we could put these women up on the front lines to kill enemies.
More seriously, no one can now make a career out of daycare. Under the Clinton Administration, no one can be on welfare more than two years.
Aren't we a compassionate society?
^Does that include people who cant work because of disabilities?
No because the government would give more and more people welfare and do as much as it can to prevent them from getting a job. That way in the long run, the country would have a massive army.
I think you have some inaccurate stereotypes of people on welfare. Contrary to what many people think, people don't stay on welfare forever - usually less than a year. The amount of income they receive is far less than what you think. No one is getting rich off of welfare. If they are driving some nice car it is because they are defrauding the system or a side illegal business.
I really can't see the wisdom in sending a 55 year old laid off factory worker into the military. I also can't see the wisdom in sending a mother with children into the military.
What would be better is an enhanced welfare system that provides child care services, job training for the recipient and some compassion for people going through a difficult time.
griffon is right, under the "liberal" Clinton, welfare was dramatically restricted. I think you have bought way too much into the Republican propaganda on this issue.
To add to the point cathexis made, the military is already disproportionately composed of people from lower income brackets. This would only make it worse.
Your idea makes harshly negative judgment on people already experiencing difficult times.
lilape... that is taken care of with Social Security.
Interesting how the heartless won't comment.
no you should
and no. you are not a liberal.
I know it pisses you off... but you should know better than to ask a question like this : (
Why not support economic growth (college based programs for welfare recipiants) instead?
Believe it or not, but MOST of us don't want to live in a military dictatorship.
no
Military....that's stupid, but maybe require some community service(babysit some other welfare's recipient's kids while go to job interviews, or help out at the local soup kitchen, but here is a better idea...The unemployment rate is very low in most area's of the country. So for those that are physically and mentally able and willing to work there must be a lack of job skills on their part, or there are just no high paying jobs in their area that they can perform. If the tax payers are going to give them money, food stamps, health care and whatever else, why not spend a little more and require them to either A)Go to a community college or technical school and be trained for a new job that pays well, or B)Move to an area where their current job skills will provide them with good living wage.
Plus it's just wrong.
Voted : Yes
Good idea!
|
|
