“This idea only works when there are enough jobs to go around, and there aren't. Work requirements are under the assumption that there are enough jobs to go around and people simply "don't want to work". If you make more than $1000 (Gross, NOT net), as a single person, or $1650 (gross) as a family of two, you don't qualify for FS. Point being, you have to be very, very broke to qualify. I am also for the volunteering requirement, but what of those who can't find a program (they're not required to open a space for you), don't have cars, have children at home (childcare is more expensive than food), are disabled? There needs to be some common sense here.”
“Does that mean if a single mother can't find work within 3 months, her babies should then starve? I understand having work requirements and I am in favor of them, but it only works out when there are actually enough jobs to go around.”
“This surfer lives with his rich grandparents and is gaming the system by not indicating that his expenses are paid and he is a dependent. This story has nothing to do with the typical recipient of food stamps, and huffingtonpost and foxnews both know it.”
“Well alright, let's make a separate program for those who are a) "obese" (you know that based on BMI scales, a body builder is "obese" right?),b) drive new cars (Who says they didn't buy it last year, then lost their job? ) and c) dont know where their children are (I believe that's call "jail" for "child neglect"). That way, all fo the hard working. looking for work, disabled, children, elderly and working parents can get their needed assistance without the hate and vitriol of stereotypical, ignorant useless people such as yourself.”
Whatthehel on Nov 15, 2013 at 03:15:51
“I have no hate, people abuse the system I'm sure your probably one of them. As for ignorance I'm sure your one that voted for the current administration the has cause the job loss of millions. Now that ignorance!”
“Its a sport, that's why. A GAME that they choose to play, and for which they must train, study, and play. This applies to anyone studying dance, ballet, opera, gymnastics.. do you mean to say that someone should be given an (usually FREE - aka paid for by other students' athletic fees) education-free education? What is their degree in, football? In Finance, you gained an education in finance and can further yourself with that knowledge. This guy plays a sport that just so happens to take up all of his time, which is just simply too damn bad for him, because that was their choice... frankly, if that's the case, he should drop out and let someone else take his spot and work for a medical degree or something actually worth a subsidized education.”
mark schoeman on Oct 6, 2012 at 01:55:02
“You've conflated so many issues I don't even no where to start.
Athletes are recruited to play sports. You may not realize this but college football and basketball is big business and the scholarships are funded from this business. This money also funds a vast majority of non-revenue generating sports and facilities for the student body.
A person can go to school and get a degree in dance, but they get no scholarship (most of the time) because Dance does not generate millions of dollars to fund those scholarships. A dancer pursuing a dance degree works very hard...just like a football player who should also be allowed to pursue a football degree. That's the whole point!!!
Football is a bigger industry in America than philosophy, Latin, art history, etc...but according to you these are worthwhile pursuits, while athletics are not.
So prove it?
At Ohio State, the football staff outnumbers many academic departments, so why is pursuing a career in philosophy or art more worthwhile than pursuing a career in football when there are more job opportunities in football?”
“Are you seriously telling me that your MINIMUM wage per WEEK is $620?
I've worked 60 hours a week and never made that much in a week in my life (and that one was of my best jobs). Wow.”
Glenn Bell Jr on Nov 23, 2013 at 14:00:20
“Welcome to the United States, home of the free and the brave, where we all strive for The American Dream. It is a lie, what we are dealing with here is a term used by economists "Mobility" Up until about 15 years ago the US was competitive with most advanced nations, we are no longer. What that means is, here in the US, if you are born into poverty you have an 88-92% chance of living in poverty the rest of your life. There are many reasons for this, the biggest of which is the fact that there are no manufacturing jobs here any more. The rich (owners and share holders) decided to "Offshore" all of those jobs, we have lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs here, therefore it has devastated our middle class. This was the ladder we used for upward mobility, so in essence, the ladder has been kicked out from underneath us. We are now rated around 22nd in the world for opportunity to move up. The people in here talking about how weak this girl is are talking out there asses.”
grandmablue on Nov 23, 2013 at 12:42:05
“That is true. Spread the word. If Americans only understood that other industrialized countries don't let their employees who work full time end up in pverty and needing safety nets.
Americans are subsidizing the Waltons and McDonald's with billions a year so those companies don't have to pay their workers a living wage.”
NoMoreMythology on Nov 23, 2013 at 05:20:40
“The cost of living in Australia is only slightly higher than in the U.S., also. The most notable differences - if I understand correctly - are in housing costs...”
Res-Ipsa-Loquitur on Nov 23, 2013 at 03:27:03
“Yeah, although our dollar is a bit weaker than yours right now - it is worth USD0.92 right (but it was worth 1.10 a few months back and the minimum wage hasn't changed in awhile). I have no idea how you guys live on $7 an hour. We pay our teenage kids at more than that. What can I say, come on down :)”
bobnels on Nov 23, 2013 at 03:20:39
“I have read that is the minimum wage in Australia. And also that contrary to what employers say about how they would have to raise prices drastically, a McDonalds there costs only a bit more than here.”
“We're not technically a virus, but we do destroy the very land we need to survive, in massive numbers, destroy each other and any thing we can find, pretty much. The level of destruction and pollution to/of the earth solely due to humans is absolutely astounding and extremely sad. Anyone watching us from outside would think we were TRYING to destroy the planet.”
“If by "racists" you mean "White over-privileged British who mass-settled, drew their own country borders, controlled all minerals, exports and labor, and suppressed any pro-African or pro-freedom efforts"? Sure.. let's..bring them back. (Said no one, ever.)”
“Because we do not yet have the technology, responsibility transparency, or maturity to handle drilling in our waters. We shortcut safety measures to save money, fire the most knowledgeable people and replace them with low-paid incompetents, and the billionaire CEOS have enough money to defeat any lawsuit or problem set against them. Also, we can't seem to do a damn thing right yet without polluting everything all over the place.
Also, it would take 10 years for 6 months worth of oil to reach us from domestic drilling.”
Mar 22, 2011 at 13:33:42
“lol bullying? maybe you need to get shoved into a locker once or twice and know what bullying actually is. It was a snarky title, just because you're OMGZ OBSESSED!!?!!! with him doesn't make it mean.”
Cakey4814 on Mar 22, 2011 at 13:56:26
“Obviously you're the same age as the one that thought the original headline was funny. I'm a grown woman and not obsessed with anyone but I see no reason to try and embarrass this young man and woman with that misleading headline.. You need to grow up..”
Jun 18, 2010 at 15:52:20
“blah blah blah..screaming at every commenter about CHILD PORN CHILD PORN T3H PEDOFILEZZ ARE COMINGG! I mean really, chill, wtf. Again, a 17 year old is not a child in a lot of legal ways, and again, in 6 months or whatever when she turns 18 it doesn't suddenly mean she is a whole new person.”
mostlyharmless on Jun 18, 2010 at 18:23:10
“is this the "spazzing" you referred to in your other comment?”
Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49:36
“so, in 6 months or whatever when she turns 18, suddenly a magic wand is waved and she magically knows right from wrong, is so mature and can make excellent decisions? A 17 year old holds a lot of legal status in the courts as an adult, and even under most statutory laws a 17 year old may have sex with someone aged 18 and older as long as that person is under age 25 (or 21 in some places). so to spazz out left and right about pedophiles (which like *children* not almost-18 year olds) and child pornography is completely ridiculous.”
mostlyharmless on Jun 18, 2010 at 18:05:29
“an adult under 25 (or 21!) can legally have sex with miley . . . does that include adults who are having sex with her against her will, as this image is being viewed? and are all of perez hilton's readers under 25 (or 21!)?”
Jun 18, 2010 at 15:46:42
“a 17-year old is hardly going to interest a pedophile, who is someone interested in children. While I disagree with taking and posting the photo, it was not pedophillic in ANY way and nor will it entice anyone but drama wh**es and gossip hounds and a couple horny guys to look at it.”
mostlyharmless on Jun 18, 2010 at 18:08:59
“pedophiles use images such as this to condition and "educate" their young victims . . . in this case, they could use the picture to encourage a young hannah montana fan to "be like miley"”