I heard this the other day and had to laugh a bit. I don't really blame the woman that is happy about, what appears to be, some sort of handout. I doubt that many would turn down money handed to them. What is sad is this person seems to be oblivious to where this money comes from, so gives the impression of not being a contributor to the kitty (i.e. does not pay taxes). She is also right, that's exactly why she, and millions like her, voted for Obama, to get something for nothing. Most of us would be happy to just keep more of what we make, a handout is unnecessary.

It is much easier to sit back and wait for a handout than to make your own way. Does eating from the government feed trough only encourage more gluttony? Everyone has their own opinion on this. IMO in many cases it does. In these times when everyone is being asked to dig deeper, it seems irresponsible to try and pull the dead weight (they know who they are) while folks that need just a temporary helping hand are having trouble finding it because they don't know how to game the system or are too proud to ask for help.

This sound clip should play nationwide during the next election. Then the voter can decide if someone else's jubilation over a cash windfall justifies the taxes they pay or not. For now, it sounds like Detroit is firmly in Obama's hands. The problem here is he needs to keep feeding the beast, lest it bite him.

Don't be too quick to refuse help from Uncle. People make mistakes. If your intention is to get on your feet, that's what it's there for. When you're back up get off it. You have plenty of time to pay it all back (and then some) in taxes. Personally, I only have a problem with those that make a career out of it.

I second Nitro and Taltamir.

There is a difference between legitimate users of government programs and those that make a career out of it.

democrat1: You know that thing we tried several times and was a total failure? lets try it again but on a BIGGER SCALE this time...

democrat2: *puffs some more weed* duuuuude, thats like, an awesome idea.

[/sarcasm]

Did you know that they had universal health insurance in two states already and it went bankrupt in both?

It makes sense, the only difference between a family making under X a year who insures it kids and one that doesn't, is that the latter doesn't care for their children's well being as much and would rather blow it on drugs, cigs, and booze.

The vast majority fall into the first type... they eschew their own spending to insure their kids. This made the democrats feel sorry for the other kids and institute such a program...

They actually expected people who qualified to pay twice (for themselves and those who didn't insure their kids) and receive once despite being qualified as poor enough to need the help.

If two people both qualify for the program, aka both make the same amount, and one of them insures their kids and one doesn't, then the one who doesn't has higher priorities. Or do you think that the reason some of the people making the SAME AMOUNT who chose to insure their kids are taking insurance over food and housing?