Help for the handicapped?

As a conservative Republican I (and the majority of the nation) support helping those who NEED it. We are OPPOSED to giving our tax money to those that are completely capable but are too lazy to earn an honest living. If all of the loopholes were closed and those not deserving of assistance were cut off there would be a wealth of funds to help those that are in need. Whether they ae "home" town people or not makes no difference.

Rocky,

Once again trying to start something on the internet, tough guy. The problem is not with the intent of the welfare programs, but rather how they are run. These programs should be used to help people in similar situations to Hayley and to help people when they are in need. They are not meant to be lifetime handouts for those who refuse to get off their a** and work. If the government would run medicaid and other welfare programs like they were intended, there would be more than enough revenue to take care of those who really need it ten times over.

Very well put Shoals&Fighting if law makers and others could understand simple reasoning.

Unless something has changed that I am unaware of, Alabama has these group homes.


Group Homes for Disabled Teens
By Mike Broemmel, eHow Contributor .

During the 1980s federal and state statutes were enacted with the promise of "deinstitutionalizing" disabled individuals, including teens. Community-based treatment and support became the objective of this legislation.

To provide for teenagers who moved from institutional to community settings, group homes for disabled teens are established in cities and towns across the United States.


•The amount of time that a disabled youth can reside in a group home for teens normally is open-ended. These types of homes are not transitional facilities in most cases. They are designed to provide long-term, stable living environments for teens with physical or mental disabilities or who are developmentally disabled.


Read more: Group Homes for Disabled Teens | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5558...s.html#ixzz19bkoZGp5



Read more: Group Homes for Disabled Teens | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5558...s.html#ixzz19bkOq3Wr

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
I am all for this as a liberal Democrat who believes it is the duty of government to support the helpless and applaud Tammy Irons for introducing this bill, but it makes me wonder where all the Republicans and tea party members who are so vehemently opposed to spending on welfare and have expressed there displeasure with government run healthcare programs like Medicaid are on this when confronted with a handicapped girl from their "home" town????
HMMMMMMMMMM????????

http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...ult-care-legislation

This statement from someone that dares call others "gravy bowls". You can't understand the difference in wanting to help the handicapped and wanting to toss welfare leeches? Really? I mean seriously?

I am definitely 100% for helping/caring for the helpless and NOBODY else.

Tammy or Roger?

They don't want group homes.

BTW, Jennifer, its only when they reach 18 or 21 that care stops if they're of sound mind. So group homes for teens wouldn't help Hayley even if she could find one that had a place for her.

Where did you go rocky? I'm with the majority. Haley is a perfect example of someone who actually "needs" our help and I'm 100% for helping those in need. Go spend a few days in the ER and see the ones we are paying for their "needs". Most come in nicer vehicles than I drive and most have cell phones with them. I'm willing to bet that most of them have internet and cable tv at home. These people are NOT needy, they're lazy.

Thank you Trutooit II (although you probably weren't meaning to help prove my point) Jennifer has the intelligence level of a gravy bowl and is the new darling of the rabid right wing on the politics side of the forum!!!!!!!

Well, ferrellj you can't have it both ways. If laws are passed that will provide government assistance to adults with disabilities what perameters will be established to determine who qualify? As for the old line that there are "cheats", there will always be those who try to take advantage of the system.
This fact does not negate the position taken by some Republicans and the tea party activist against ANY government sponsered healthcare .
Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

If rockhead even had one rational thought it would die of loneliness.

It would make more sense to support group homes for the handicapped than putting people in nursing homes. Below is the group home I was thinking of. By the description it is for the mentally, not physically, handicapped. Odd that one would be offered and the other wouldn't.

D D Group Homes, Arc Of The Shoals, Inc, Great Hall Group Home
901 Keller Lane # F5
Tuscumbia, AL 35674-1157 map
Florence, AL Metro Area


About D D Group Homes D D Group Homes is a private company categorized under Homes for the Mentally Disabled and located in Tuscumbia, AL. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of unknown and employs a staff of approximately 10 to 19.

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:
It would make more sense to support group homes for the handicapped than putting people in nursing homes. Below is the group home I was thinking of. By the description it is for the mentally, not physically, handicapped. Odd that one would be offered and the other wouldn't.

D D Group Homes, Arc Of The Shoals, Inc, Great Hall Group Home
901 Keller Lane # F5
Tuscumbia, AL 35674-1157 map
Florence, AL Metro Area


About D D Group Homes D D Group Homes is a private company categorized under Homes for the Mentally Disabled and located in Tuscumbia, AL. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of unknown and employs a staff of approximately 10 to 19.

For a small fee gravy bowl I will enroll you in my online course for copying and pasting when replying with a rebuttal You were supposed to delete the last paragraph and tag!!!!!!

The point was if Hayley had some Medicaid nursing care she could have lived with her grandfather. Did you read the SS article on the guy in Montevallo that wanted a nurse to come to an apt. close to campus. He was still in a nursing home and going to college. All he needed was help in and out of bed, dressing, etc.

Right now Medicaid will not pay anything to anyone who is of sound mind after they're 18 or 21, will have to look that up. They will pay for a room in a nursing home and that's a shame.

quote:

For a small fee gravy bowl I will enroll you in my online course for copying and pasting when replying with a rebuttal You were supposed to delete the last paragraph and tag

Rockhead, you have nothing to offer in the way of advice. Why delete it? Can't you read that far? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

quote:

Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
The point was if Hayley had some Medicaid nursing care she could have lived with her grandfather. Did you read the SS article on the guy in Montevallo that wanted a nurse to come to an apt. close to campus. He was still in a nursing home and going to college. All he needed was help in and out of bed, dressing, etc.

Right now Medicaid will not pay anything to anyone who is of sound mind after they're 18 or 21, will have to look that up. They will pay for a room in a nursing home and that's a shame.

That's my point too. Why support the mentally handicapped, which I have no problem doing, with assisted living, but not the physically handicapped. Yes, it needs researching because there are so many programs out there that it's a shame to have some that need help "falling through the cracks" so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
The point was if Hayley had some Medicaid nursing care she could have lived with her grandfather. Did you read the SS article on the guy in Montevallo that wanted a nurse to come to an apt. close to campus. He was still in a nursing home and going to college. All he needed was help in and out of bed, dressing, etc.

Right now Medicaid will not pay anything to anyone who is of sound mind after they're 18 or 21, will have to look that up. They will pay for a room in a nursing home and that's a shame.

That's my point too. Why support the mentally handicapped, which I have no problem doing, with assisted living, but not the physically handicapped. Yes, it needs researching because there are so many programs out there that it's a shame to have some that need help "falling through the cracks" so to speak.

Let me save you some time folks, THE INTELLIGENCE OF A GRAVY BOWL!!!! Trust me when this first started posting on the politics side I attempted to debate with it. You can't. Just walk away from the keyboard.

Rocky is one of the poor misguided souls who libs have hidden the forest from while only showing them the trees.

It's not that constitutional conservatives are against helping those less fortunate. No... we are against GIVING OUR MONEY TO CORRUPT GOV'T OFFICIALS AND IN TURN BEING LEFT TO HOPE THEY ACTUALLY USE THE MONEY FOR IT'S INTENDED PURPOSE. That is the issue...It's not a "help for the handicapped" issue. It's WE DO NOT TRUST GOV'T OFFICIALS TO SPEND OUR HARD EARNED MONEY WISELY. If giving money to the gov't for good causes was such a fantastic concept, then public schools wouldnt be the disaster they are. There would be NO homeless. There would be NO hungry. Face it, the gov't gets plenty of our money and they WASTE it. Charity should be a moral obligation NOT a government mandate. That comes from those pesky guys that wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
Well, ferrellj you can't have it both ways. If laws are passed that will provide government assistance to adults with disabilities what perameters will be established to determine who qualify? As for the old line that there are "cheats", there will always be those who try to take advantage of the system.
This fact does not negate the position taken by some Republicans and the tea party activist against ANY government sponsered healthcare .
Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

How am I trying to have it both ways? I don't think Republicans or TEA party people are against all assistance. The corruption and misuse of assistance can be corrected if politicians aren't afraid of offending voters. There's no myth rocky, there are lots of people who have been getting government assistance their whole lives. The welfare to work initiative is working about as well as Barry's bailouts.

quote:

Just walk away from the keyboard.

It's a shame you can't just walk away from the keyboard. You might actually have a life if you could. Come on rockhead, give us something of substance to debate. When you stop copying and pasting the leftists sites and have something of your own to offer, maybe there can be debate.

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

Well, then are you supporting federally funded abortion to curb procreation in regards to the poor?

Nice try, Rock. Instead of killing a baby, I would neuter the irresponsible parents who continue to be a drain on society by refusing to work to support the children they brought into this world. Why punish the children? Heaven forbid we hold people accountable for their actions.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

Well, then are you supporting federally funded abortion to curb procreation in regards to the poor?

No... not to speak for this person, but I'm sure like me and unlike you, they are speaking to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! It is the responsibility of adult individuals to avoid putting themselves in bad situations. If a couple can't afford to provide for a child, then they should do what is neccessary to avoid getting pregnant. See how simple that is?

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Nice try, Rock. Instead of killing a baby, I would neuter the irresponsible parents who continue to be a drain on society by refusing to work to support the children they brought into this world. Why punish the children? Heaven forbid we hold people accountable for their actions.

So you are advocating the Nazi party idea of castration. Really? THIS is the stance of the tea party and the rethugliteacons? Castration?
Just how far off this slope do you want to go to the right? Selective breeding? Master race?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

Well, then are you supporting federally funded abortion to curb procreation in regards to the poor?

No... not to speak for this person, but I'm sure like me and unlike you, they are speaking to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! It is the responsibility of adult individuals to avoid putting themselves in bad situations. If a couple can't afford to provide for a child, then they should do what is neccessary to avoid getting pregnant. See how simple that is?

WELL, then you advocate sex education in public schools???????

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

Well, then are you supporting federally funded abortion to curb procreation in regards to the poor?

No... not to speak for this person, but I'm sure like me and unlike you, they are speaking to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! It is the responsibility of adult individuals to avoid putting themselves in bad situations. If a couple can't afford to provide for a child, then they should do what is neccessary to avoid getting pregnant. See how simple that is?

WELL, then you advocate sex education in public schools???????

Once again, if we get back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY then public schools wouldnt be the place for that because parents would be doing their job on that issue. See, we are worlds apart on all of this issues because you incorrectly believe it is the job of the federal government to take care of every aspect of our lives. However, defense is the only constitutional job of the government. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES...not put off on the gov't the things we don't want to do or are too stupid to do or are too lazy to do. What a pathetic world to desire? Why do you want that kind of country? Why do you want to go back in time and take away our personal responsibility and put it on the gov't? Makes ZERO sense to live in a free society and desire for those freedoms to be stripped away so the gov't can take care of your every need and desire.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

Well, then are you supporting federally funded abortion to curb procreation in regards to the poor?

No... not to speak for this person, but I'm sure like me and unlike you, they are speaking to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! It is the responsibility of adult individuals to avoid putting themselves in bad situations. If a couple can't afford to provide for a child, then they should do what is neccessary to avoid getting pregnant. See how simple that is?

WELL, then you advocate sex education in public schools???????

Once again, if we get back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY then public schools wouldnt be the place for that because parents would be doing their job on that issue. See, we are worlds apart on all of this issues because you incorrectly believe it is the job of the federal government to take care of every aspect of our lives. However, defense is the only constitutional job of the government. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES...not put off on the gov't the things we don't want to do or are too stupid to do or are too lazy to do. What a pathetic world to desire? Why do you want that kind of country? Why do you want to go back in time and take away our personal responsibility and put it on the gov't? Makes ZERO sense to live in a free society and desire for those freedoms to be stripped away so the gov't can take care of your every need and desire.

So to follow your pattern of thought, and to get back to the topic of this thread, this girl is simply "on her own" and deserves no government assistance in regards to her disability.

Rocky, you just aren't gettin it buddy... I feel bad for you, I really do. Like when I'm trying to teach my little cousin how to throw a football and he just can't quite pull it off yet. lol

Now... if you REALLY followed my pattern of thought, this girl would not need government assistance because her family would take care of her. If no family, then her community(neighbors, churches, etc.) would take care of her. See... that's what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. That we as citizens take responsibility first for ourselves and our families, then, if we are able, we help those less fortunate around us. NEVER was it their intention for this beast to be created in which we as citizens think it is the job of the federal government to take care of ANY of us outside the scope of national defense. Are you understanding my point now? Read this on last time.... Where charity is concerned, our founding fathers left us the foundation of a society in place that states that CHARITY SHOULD BE A MORAL OBLIGATION BUT NEVER SHOULD IT BE A GOVERNMENT MANDATE. That means... we should not be FORCED to give our money to the gov't and hope they spend it wisely. If this worked, then why are public schools in the shape they are in? Why are there ANY homeless or hungry in this country?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
Rocky, you just aren't gettin it buddy... I feel bad for you, I really do. Like when I'm trying to teach my little cousin how to throw a football and he just can't quite pull it off yet. lol

Now... if you REALLY followed my pattern of thought, this girl would not need government assistance because her family would take care of her. If no family, then her community(neighbors, churches, etc.) would take care of her. See... that's what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. That we as citizens take responsibility first for ourselves and our families, then, if we are able, we help those less fortunate around us. NEVER was it their intention for this beast to be created in which we as citizens think it is the job of the federal government to take care of ANY of us outside the scope of national defense. Are you understanding my point now? Read this on last time.... Where charity is concerned, our founding fathers left us the foundation of a society in place that states that CHARITY SHOULD BE A MORAL OBLIGATION BUT NEVER SHOULD IT BE A GOVERNMENT MANDATE. That means... we should not be FORCED to give our money to the gov't and hope they spend it wisely. If this worked, then why are public schools in the shape they are in? Why are there ANY homeless or hungry in this country?

Peter, who the hell are you to judge who will and who will not receive help and from whom? Those who have no family, like this girl, are dependent upon charity. In this particular case I believe a couple have taken this girl in but there are probably thousands more just like her in the U.S. who aren't as lucky. In a perfect world we would be able to "rely on the kindness of strangers" but unfortunately this isn't the case. Look at all the mega million dollar church buildings right here in the Shoals area in neighborhoods where there are people who have no jobs and can't afford to eat. There needs to be a safety net provided by the government if only for the simple reason that it is the humane thing to do. There will be leeches, there will be liars, but there will also be those like this girl who may not be as fortunate and NEEDS some help. I want to live in a country that provides such.

Rocky.. YOU DO REALIZE THAT YOU LIVE IN THE MOST CHARITABLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ABOUT 100 TIMES OVER RIGHT?? lol

But I'll skip right over that and go to this. First off... where does all this money come from to help every person with their hand out in need?
Secondly.. Do you REALLY trust the government to spend yours and my hard earned money wisely? Do you really see a pattern where the federal government has ever proven that they could come close to getting this right? That's crazy! The only efficient aspect of the federal government is the military(when not impeded by politicians). That's not by accident. Think about someone who earns 20 million a year. They lose approximately half of that in taxes to the federal government(income, state, social security, property tax, sales tax). Now, say that person gives away 2.5 million in charitable donations, then keeps the rest for their family responsibilities. Think if the gov't didn't impose so many absurd taxes. This person, instead of only having about 10 mil of their 20 mil earned, they may have more like 15 or 17 million. Now instead of 2.5 mil, they would up their charitable donations to 5 or 6 million. And that would be GUARANTEED to go to folks in need. But as it is, the gov't gets that money and misuses it over and over and over again.

Which one of those do you think is better?

I'm not in the millions by any stretch, but just from looking at my tax losses I see so much potential to give more than I currently do. It's MY money and I don't trust the federal government with it...so I guess I should ask, why do you trust them with yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
Rocky, you just aren't gettin it buddy... I feel bad for you, I really do. Like when I'm trying to teach my little cousin how to throw a football and he just can't quite pull it off yet. lol

Now... if you REALLY followed my pattern of thought, this girl would not need government assistance because her family would take care of her. If no family, then her community(neighbors, churches, etc.) would take care of her. See... that's what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. That we as citizens take responsibility first for ourselves and our families, then, if we are able, we help those less fortunate around us. NEVER was it their intention for this beast to be created in which we as citizens think it is the job of the federal government to take care of ANY of us outside the scope of national defense. Are you understanding my point now? Read this on last time.... Where charity is concerned, our founding fathers left us the foundation of a society in place that states that CHARITY SHOULD BE A MORAL OBLIGATION BUT NEVER SHOULD IT BE A GOVERNMENT MANDATE. That means... we should not be FORCED to give our money to the gov't and hope they spend it wisely. If this worked, then why are public schools in the shape they are in? Why are there ANY homeless or hungry in this country?

This puzzles me. It doesn't say she has no family, it says she has no family to care for her.

"At the time, Haylee, who has cerebral palsy, was 21 years old and living in a Colbert County nursing home. She had no family able to care for her nor the means to pay for home care so she could live on her own."


"Unlike the thousands of others like Haylee statewide, her story has a happy ending. Judson and Donna Emens, of Tuscumbia, took her in.
Since then, Haylee has made dramatic physical improvements, traveled and, most recently, gotten engaged."

Where did this couple get the funds to take her in and pay for her care? Are they getting paid to "foster" her in some way? And if they are, why couldn't her family do the same?

I'd say the Emmons family gets a small ck from the govt for Hayley. In Hayley's name that is and that won't go far.

She had a sister on here who said Hayley wouldn't stay with her or mom/stepdad or dad/stepmom. Didn't say why.

quote:

Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
I'd say the Emmons family gets a small ck from the govt for Hayley. In Hayley's name that is and that won't go far.

She had a sister on here who said Hayley wouldn't stay with her or mom/stepdad or dad/stepmom. Didn't say why.

That's strange.

I have a twin with "CP" We are mid 40's and her physical abilities continue to decrease, tho her mental ability is fine. Elementary testing IQ perhaps, but common sence, quick witted and her only problem.....BAMA fan.( I went to Auburn, that's why God had to make a twin I tell her...but that's another story.)

She must have full assistance in/out of bed, in the bathroom, dressing, eating, moving about unless she is in an electric wheel chair. She lives with my father, who has adapted the home with roll in shower, overhead lift for the bath tub, cabinates that her chair fits under for sinks, wider doors and hallways, and the van she travels in has a lift. She must be lifted into and out of her chair, and helped with the all personal needs. It is very expensive mentally and financially to make the adaptions, have aids come help with baths etc.......wait...I am not saying love has a price. The rate of alcoholism is higher in parents with special needs children. The divorce rate even higher.

My father in in his 70's and won't be able to lift her much longer. The other 4 siblings have children, jobs, and 2 live out of town. But we will work together take care of her. Whose home gets adapted? Who changes the lifestyle? Who is physically, mentally, and financially able to handle it? She has a temper just like the rest of us and when we were little and she walked with crutches, she left me the scars to prove it. She is quite opininated and sometimes demanding asto her desires. Her right.

A nursing home....humh.. will she get to go out to eat, will she have privacy, will she be raped as we know does happen? What is the cost to her for the isolation from the World unless we go there get her and take her out any way. Better to have her at home. Assisted living facility. Yes, there are some, but are there enough for the people who really need them? Where do you draw the line in ability and what age group. She isn't a teen, but not an aged adult. And there are still many of the same fears. What is the waiting list like for either type care?

Her wish, if something happens to dad, she wants to stay in her home and have an aide live with her. I agree she should be able to. Need I list cost and fears, out of love but understanding her need for independence and freedom. She can't own anything (home/car)or any assistance she gets will be reduced or taken away. It is a planning nightmare!

If the family caring for Haley gets financial assistance, it won't compare to the time, and physical labor required to care for her 24/7. Love helps you do it, but it doesn't pay the bills and neither does medicare or medicaid.

My respect to politions trying to help, but they need to talk to families of these special needs folks. The political agenda hasn't lived this life to understand it. Quit deciding you know what is best for us, and ASK! No, I don't have the answers, but there will not be just one. OPTIONS will offer hope. Should it be government, or charity? It will take both. It will take neighbors and friends too.

Rocky, the republicans (including me) and the tea party members are US citizens. WE are a HUMANE society and not just for animal rights, but for the rights and abilities of people who aren't able to provide for themselves. (KEY WORDS AREN"T ABLE) Haley's story brought a need to the light, and if Irons/Bedford or anyone else wants to look at what their voters NEED, I commend and support them no matter the party. I also suggest you come live with my father and sister one day to find out who the "gravy bowl" belongs to.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Also, one of the oldest myths is that people live for generations off of welfare from the government when in actuality the federal govt. initiated welfare to work more than a decade ago.

Rocky,

You have no clue or you just don't get out of the basement much. Please go visit places like St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Florence, etc.(get the point) and you will see entitlement societies that eat up tax dollars and continue to rot as more and more tax dollars are poured in to support the welfare of those who procreate yet refuse to provide.

I agree completely. Have you ever noticed how many generations live in some of the gov't housing? Not in one unit, but multiple apartments. Seems like every couple of months there is someone being interviewed on TV (for some news story or another) that lives in govt housing (good example is a recent piece on utility bills). Too many times the person being interviewed mentions their mother / brother / sister / son / daughter / etc a few houses down (or even next door). I think we have created a society that does depend on the assistance, although they dont need it.

I hear minorities talk about conspiracy theories with the govt purposely introducing welfare and govt assistance to 'keep them down.' The longer I live, the more I believe this. If the govt creates a society within our country that is dependent on these programs (not out of actual need, but out of acceptance that they can live happily in that lifestyle), then it leads to 'job security' and ensures that those programs remain intact.

Seriously, if we could wean some folks off of the government ***, we could afford to pay for services for those that truly need them. And it is not an issue that results from the current economy, this has been going on for decades.....

Captain

And here is the other problem with our country right now:

quote:

One reason for that was the lobbying by the Montgomery-based Alabama Nursing Home Association. John Matson, spokesman for the association, said the opposition at the time came from the potential financial burden this method of having the money follow the person could place on the state’s Medicaid services.

John Matson has no interest in the burden on the Medicaid program. His interest is keeping people in nursing homes. What a joke!

Captain

Hey rocky, as a conservative I am not opposed to helping folks in need. I do resent paying for their cell phone, computers, spinners on escalades, and bigger houses. Many people forego the hospital insurance so that they can have theses things and then the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. To help people like the lady in the story is good. The helpless need help, not the lazy.