|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 29, 2015 10:57:14 GMT -5
When you pay people not to work, guess what? They don't work. Duh... I forget which one, but at one time one of the Scandinavian countries (I think) used to carry people for a number of years on unemployment, and when the unemployment benefitsd ran out, those people somehow found jobs. The gov't there recognized this and cut the unemployment benefits period shorter by a year. And, sure enough, those whose benefits ended earlier managed to find jobs for the most part, when their benefit payments stopped. No doubt, you are thinking of Denmark. The Economist has been covering there adventures with unemployment for years. economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/why-denmark-is-shrinking-its-social-safety-net/?_r=0Regarding US unemployment, some posters on this board may not understand that these "benefits" are State designed and managed. So one's anectdotal exparience in one State may not apply to all others.True Maryland is far more punitive than where ever Aboutwell is from and applying his families "experiances". The Drunk case proved that.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 29, 2015 10:59:30 GMT -5
I suspicion that YOU are up to some unusual activity that may be illegal... you think I should report you?... Uh, uh. You said you "knew" she lied. That means you had evidence thereof. Which means that you are willing to "overlook" criminal behavior, if it's inconvenient for you to report it. I know where George W Bush was when he was supposed to have been at that military base in Anniston too... And BTW... where in this comment did I say I knew she lied?.. "I had a neighbor not long ago who lied to keep getting her food stamps... and she's a die-hard Republican voter..."
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 29, 2015 11:05:04 GMT -5
Uh, uh. You said you "knew" she lied. That means you had evidence thereof. Which means that you are willing to "overlook" criminal behavior, if it's inconvenient for you to report it. Or, indeed celebrate it, if the criminal behavior is carried out by the Obama administration. If there's criminal behavior... it's not on the Obama administration... it's on the one doing the lying...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 29, 2015 11:10:39 GMT -5
True Maryland is far more punitive than where ever Aboutwell is from and applying his family's "experiences". The Drunk case proved that. Your "drunk case" would have gone down the same way here... although I have not mentioned such a drunk case in my family's experiences...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 29, 2015 11:41:22 GMT -5
Or, indeed celebrate it, if the criminal behavior is carried out by the Obama administration. If there's criminal behavior... it's not on the Obama administration... it's one the one doing the lying... So, Obama himself then? He's been doing lots of lying. Actually, the administration has repeatedly broken the law it claims as it's signature achievement. Really sort of effed up, that.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 29, 2015 12:09:28 GMT -5
If there's criminal behavior... it's not on the Obama administration... it's one the one doing the lying... So, Obama himself then? He's been doing lots of lying. Actually, the administration has repeatedly broken the law it claims as it's signature achievement. Really sort of effed up, that. Are the Obama's receiving SNAP benefits?... after all, that's what we're discussing here in the comments to which you responded... Re: "I had a neighbor not long ago who lied to keep getting her food stamps... and she's a die-hard Republican voter..."
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 29, 2015 12:17:09 GMT -5
True Maryland is far more punitive than where ever Aboutwell is from and applying his family's "experiences". The Drunk case proved that. A...Your "drunk case" would have gone down the same way here... B although I have not mentioned such a drunk case in my family's experiences... A then your state is as screwed up as MD is then. B Im surprised
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 30, 2015 16:33:10 GMT -5
Uh, uh. You said you "knew" she lied. That means you had evidence thereof. Which means that you are willing to "overlook" criminal behavior, if it's inconvenient for you to report it. I know where George W Bush was when he was supposed to have been at that military base in Anniston too... And BTW... where in this comment did I say I knew she lied?.. "I had a neighbor not long ago who lied to keep getting her food stamps... and she's a die-hard Republican voter..."You said "she lied". You didn't say "I think she lied", or "there is reason for me to believe she lied". That language indicates evidence, that you KNOW she lied. IOW, you have enough to tell authorities, so they could open an investigation. But you didn't. That means you are willing to accept criminal behavior on the part of your neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 30, 2015 18:37:10 GMT -5
I know where George W Bush was when he was supposed to have been at that military base in Anniston too... And BTW... where in this comment did I say I knew she lied?.. "I had a neighbor not long ago who lied to keep getting her food stamps... and she's a die-hard Republican voter..."You said "she lied". You didn't say "I think she lied", or "there is reason for me to believe she lied". That language indicates evidence, that you KNOW she lied. IOW, you have enough to tell authorities, so they could open an investigation. But you didn't. That means you are willing to accept criminal behavior on the part of your neighbor. Why weren't you so sure I knew where George W Bush was when he was supposed to have been in Anniston?... and I did know where "W" was... I only know what my neighbor told me... not whether it's true or not... not enough to report in either case... neither would have admitted it... I couldn't have proven it... and I'd have been just another Dan Rather...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 30, 2015 18:58:28 GMT -5
You said "she lied". You didn't say "I think she lied", or "there is reason for me to believe she lied". That language indicates evidence, that you KNOW she lied. IOW, you have enough to tell authorities, so they could open an investigation. But you didn't. That means you are willing to accept criminal behavior on the part of your neighbor. Why weren't you so sure I knew where George W Bush was when he was supposed to have been in Anniston?... and I did know where "W" was... I only know what my neighbor told me... not whether it's true or not... not enough to report in either case... neither would have admitted it... I couldn't have proven it... and I'd have been just another Dan Rather... If you "knew" something illegal was going on, you had a duty to report it. As I said, it wasn't up to you to "prove" anything. That's the authority's job. And Rather didn't "report" it, he simply put it all out there for the nation, as fact, exactly as you did here with your neighbor.
|
|