California welfare cards can be used in many casino ATMs

Im not a fan of welfare either,but im also not a fan of letting helpless people go under,specially not starve.

Im thinking we are on the same page when it comes to abuse of welfare by able bodied people,or females who have 10 kids with 10 different dads.

But no way would i agree to let older americans go without,or poor people who just need a helping hand go without.
And starve kids???
American kids at that???
ummmm no.
Ya lost me on that one.what did a child do to deserve starvation??
Are you kidding me??

Im all for stopping this farse of sending money to feed africans and 3rd world kids,we have AMERICAN kids going to bed hungry.
Im all for revamping the welfare system and stopping the abuses of it.
But no way would i ever agree to do away with welfare for the people who actually need it.
To even suggest an American baby go hungry,for any reason, is ## imo.

 

http://www.nypirg.org/homeless/facts.html


http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-invisible-homeless-and-hungry.html
http://www.squid

http://www.squidoo.com/hungryinamerica

Please donate.
this is for American children, and their families, who are in dire need of help. NOT because of drugs, or anything else.
Simply, hard-working families who have fallen because of this recent economy.

My family are in the midst of some financial troubles, ourselves.
But we can spare a few bucks to feed children in our own country.

Thank you!
Judi

 

You have no idea the degree of harsh I can be. Someone once said that if you give a person a handout, their hand only grows bigger. I believe that is true.

Community, friends and family will not let someone starve who truly needs help. The government and our tax money should NOT be involved in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I believe in survival of the fittest and probably a good majority of people would not agree with my radical beliefs.

I believe...

...the world would be better off if there were no doctors, hospitals, or medical profession of any kind. Left to its' own device, nature is quite capable of ensuring only the strong survive and that the weak do not pass on their genes.

...that a pandemic disease that wiped out half the population of earth would be a good thing.

...that people should strive to raise or grow as much of their own food as possible.

...that insurance of any kind should be illegal.

...that ugly people shouldn't breed.

...that any special interest group that asks for taxpayer money to study how snails take a crap under water, should be lined up against a wall and shot in the head just for asking.

Yeah... I'm harsh.

 

I pray that you, your family, and anyone else you care about never have to be on the blunt end of what you've stated are your beliefs.

Judi Kay

 

It's only a matter of time and the second item will happen. And as for the first... how many people do you know right this minute, that would die if the drugs they need to survive were all of a sudden cut off? More than a few I would suspect.

So which scenario is better?

1. Medical technology was never invented. A few people die here and there of various diseases. But for the most part, the population is healthy because genetic defects are stifled by natural selection.

2. Medical advancements abound. Treatments are available for just about any disease imaginable. But then a severe economic collapse places these treatments and drugs beyond the reach of those who depend on them. The death toll is sudden and massive.

Or yet another scenario that I've thought of... What if doctors and researchers find a way to cure death--make people live forever. Scary thought, eh? Then what?

I imagined a science fiction story line where people would be scheduled for death based on their worth (or lack of) to society. You'd receive a notice in the mail that your "fountain of youth" drugs were being discontinued because your value to society was deemed to be too low.

As for me and my family in today's world, if any of us were to be injured and required medical attention in order to live, you can bet your ash I'd be shelling out the cash to have Humpty Dumpty put back together again.

BUT, if I were to come down with some form of cancer or disease, and there was a 50/50 chance that an ultra expensive medical treatment might cure it, well then bye-bye world. I'm not one to throw money down a hole... "Sorry Mrs. Barcode. We gave him the six zillion dollar Super Zimbabwean chemo treatment, but he croaked anyway. Will that be cash, check or credit card?"

My wife and kids, however, can make their own decision as to what they want.

 

In a brazen attempt to get this thread back to the original topic..


http://www.compatiblepoker.com/poker-rumors/welfare-cards-being-used-at-california-casino-atms/3895

 

As Far as I am concerned, while I do see a need, in some cases FOR welfare, it needs to NOT be a cash item. These people should have to submit bills for reimbursement. And the foodstamp program should be limited to ONLY GOOD nessacry food, not candy, soda, and so on.

It is my opinion that people who get welfare or food stamps should be required to commit to some amount of community service to receive the benefits. Unless they are actively and CURRENTLY WORKING to better themselves or have a job that will eventually meet their needs.

 

lilillill
you and I share very similar beliefs.
People call me evil or heartless, thats not it, but I see where this is heading, a world where everyone needs cancer treatment, has diabetes, wears glasses, and has heart issues. And every child has a 50/50 chance of being born disabled.

Its not a pretty world.

And the idea of everyone living forever is downright terrifying unless we somehow instituted a way to control population. Which will never happen.

 

I knew someone would get it. And I'll bet other people do too... they just wouldn't say it out loud.

 

Ya know, back years ago, when "welfare" first began, you DID need to produce all bills, (rent/house payment, electric, gas, water/sewer, and grocery, and proof of residency), along with birth certificates and SS cards for each and every member living in the household.
If you could not produce any and all of these things, you did not receive "welfare".

When did this stop?
When did anyone, for any reason, become able to receive "welfare"?

Mind you, I myself was homeless, at one point. I had three young children. We were fortunate to live in an area that had a true "home" (read NOT SHELTER) for us to live in, until I was able to get on my feet, and provide, once again, for my children and myself. WITH the temporary assistance of "welfare", and food stamps.
Yes, with my food stamps, I bought the occasional soda, and "sugary snacks", as a treat for my kids and myself. Just because I had it in my cart, doesn't mean that we "lived" on these things. They were just that....a seldom enjoyed "treat".

Do I like the fact that my tax dollars go to folks who gamble it away in the casino? NO, absolutely NOT.(and yes, my home-base is in northern Cali)

Do I want to deny the truly needing people because of the one's who abuse the "system"? NO.

I just wish that it would go back to the old way of determining that a family was allowed "welfare" benefits.....(read:LEGAL)

Judi Kay