I received this from a freind......................
I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."
I asked him what an "Obama phone" was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month.
I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES.
This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it's sinking fast.
The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with "Hope and Change" and "Change we can believe in." You can click on the link below to read more about the "Obama phone"...just have a barf bag ready.
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
It's a state program, not federal. Not sure how this gets called the Obama phone. The article i read says its not available in Kansas and i know we don't have this in california.
I believe it was intended for the purpose the guy was using it for...as a job finding help to get people OFF welfare.
I'd rather spend tax money on that than paying Taliban to "switch sides" and "fight for the US". They'll switch sides just long enough to get the ink dry and the check cashed.
As if giving these freeloaders a check for not working wasn't enough, now we have to give them a freakin phone too?
Heres an idea, these people need a job, right? Our military needs people. Why not place these folks in non-combat roles and free up more of our military personnel to serve in combat positions. Help lower the numbers on welfare and grow our military.
As a side note, I would rather see tax dollars being spent not to intice our enemies, but to destroy them. Not just them but their homes, families, crops, dogs, cats, farm animals, everything. They want to take that stance against us, lets take the same stance against them. The difference being that we have not only the technology to do it but the means to deploy it.
Aw come on Varmit, not the dogs. I like dogs !!! Glad to see you're finally back. I need my "Varmit Fix" once in awhile to keep my sanity. :)
R.A.M.B.O. says definitely not the dogs, and maybe not even some cats as he has lots of friends around the neighborhood who are cats and he lives with one who tolerates him.
Larryj (and R.A.M.B.O.)
Sorry, but the dogs gotta go to. I have no use for a canine that would serve a master who thinks the towel on his head is an accessory for the dress he is wearing.
The cats we can keep. My dog likes cats.... usually as a side dish ;D
I like cats too---when they are on a stick on a Chinese food buffet. :)
You guys are horrible. ( cat on a stick~~ LOL)
Leave the animals alone.. :police:
If there really are enough "appropriate" people to grow the military from welfare roles, I'd be all for it. But are there really enough mentally stable and physically able people? I'ts still tax money being spent. Would they have a "term" of duty and then be dumped out? How many jobless are already Vets looking for work? Take them First?
So what are you saying? That most people on welfare are mentally or physically hampered?
As for it still being tax money you're right. However, at least this way they would be earning the way. The term (aka tour) would be dependent upon how long they wanted to stay on the welfare roles. For example, if a person left the military and returned to welfare then they would be required to rejoin.
As for vets, I would exclude them from this. The difference being that the vets made a choice to serve, those currently on welfare without prior military service did not.
If you start with one of the skinless varieties you could slow roast it with vegetables and then braise it in butter. You would have to impact the skull at least eight times to keep it down.
If you start with the ones that can work but choose not to because they make more money on the system I would be all for it. There is one group that I have a real problem with. That is the Vets that are on welfare now. What kind of a system to we have that can't pay a tour of duty with a decent quality of life. It is kind of ironic that service given has to be repaid by the 3rd of every month. I really think we could do more. Again sometimes it is a lifestyle choice. If you can still get paid to do nothing and you only have that ambition you are still going to do nothing with tour of duty. The only thing negative I see is they would be part of the veteran affairs dept instead of Medicaid.
I was reading something the other day that if you recieve welfare you can get a sliding fee for a cell phone (lifeline). Unfortunately I make to much money and have to pay full rate for my phone
Quote from: Varmit on October 29, 2009, 09:21:09 AM
Heres an idea, these people need a job, right? Our military needs people. Why not place these folks in non-combat roles and free up more of our military personnel to serve in combat positions. Help lower the numbers on welfare and grow our military.
Uhm, wouldn't that be conscription? Can't be a Constitutionist if you favor conscription. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
From http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)
Conscription
US Constitution, 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Conscription deprives a person of liberty without due process of law. This is clearly prohibited by the 5th amendment. Conscription is an involuntary taking of a person's labor-which is a form of property-without just compensation as provided by the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment.
Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.
We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.
A few things wrong with that one flint. First, serving in the military is not a deprivation of liberty. Secondly, they would not be without due process. Put a time limit on it. Say, 90 days to get off welfare or join military. Thirdly, they would be given "just compensation" in the form of a paycheck that they actually earned.
However, using your logic then the whole argument is made a moot point, being that the gov't has no power to create a welfare program in the first place. Where is the just compensation in the gov't taking my property (in the form of tax dollars) and giving it to someone else? Couldn't my mandatory donation to this government run program be considered compulsory government service?
It that is why you are not taxed on the money (manadatory donation)you pay in taxes from the previous year.