4 MORE YEARS!

[Langston Hughes]

Re-read these sentences and consider that one of the advantages of paying the IRS to take care of the poor, is you never have to come in contact with them.

 

Perhaps more intimate human contact with the down-and-out would do our society some good.

 

Your correct about that. Perhaps we should make a point to be more involved in our society and to meet and get to know more people that are not like us. However i don't think that it takes away from governments role. No matter how much charity work I do or don't do, there is still a need. Besides charity is spotty at best anymore, as there are so many things that people give to that while increasing someone's quality of life they don't make sure that a large majority of people have a minimum of life. Not to knock any particular charity, but how do non-profits that take people hunting or fishing make sure everyone who can't work has food to eat, money to pay bills and a home to live in. The people who give their money to Peta.

 

Perhaps if we took away government funding for disability there would be a take over by charity, but that wasn't always the case before the government got involved so i don't expect it to be the case now. I'm not one for suggesting that we try some radical experiment to see if it would happen.

[xr7g428]

Langston, where do you find these people that are starving? Have you ever tried to hire a single mother with 1 kid? They get so much support that they lose out for less than about $36K a year, and many of them don't have the skills to justify that kind of income. (Forget for a moment that you work in the bubble that is FORD / UAW, in the real world $36 is a better than decent job.)

[Langston Hughes]

Langston, where do you find these people that are starving? Have you ever tried to hire a single mother with 1 kid? They get so much support that they lose out for less than about $36K a year, and many of them don't have the skills to justify that kind of income. (Forget for a moment that you work in the bubble that is FORD / UAW, in the real world $36 is a better than decent job.)

 

In all seriousness i wasn't talking a single mother with kid receiving ADC. I'm talking people receiving SSI early, like people who have low IQ's or Down's syndrome, injuries that keep them bedridden, people who are blind that sort of thing. Things that would keep you from maintaining the type of 40 hour week that most adults are expected to work. And i'm not suggesting that all blind people can't work, but that some may struggle to find full-time jobs or are unqualified to get a job that would allow them to survive on their own.

[FiredMotorCompany]

In all seriousness i wasn't talking a single mother with kid receiving ADC. I'm talking people receiving SSI early, like people who have low IQ's or Down's syndrome, injuries that keep them bedridden, people who are blind that sort of thing. Things that would keep you from maintaining the type of 40 hour week that most adults are expected to work. And i'm not suggesting that all blind people can't work, but that some may struggle to find full-time jobs or are unqualified to get a job that would allow them to survive on their own.

In all seriousness i wasn't talking a single mother with kid receiving ADC. I'm talking people receiving SSI early, like people who have low IQ's or Down's syndrome, injuries that keep them bedridden, people who are blind that sort of thing. Things that would keep you from maintaining the type of 40 hour week that most adults are expected to work. And i'm not suggesting that all blind people can't work, but that some may struggle to find full-time jobs or are unqualified to get a job that would allow them to survive on their own.

 

And the point I was making is the government as middleman distances the recipient from the donor. And the humane act of charity being bastardized by the threat of prosecution and confinement or seizure of property if one refuses to comply. THAT is where I get riled up.

 

You may not have read my story about the Salvation Army Kettle. Back many years ago when my daughter was only 5-6 years old, I took her to the mall to buy herself a present with money a relative had sent her for Christmas. The Salvation Army workers were by the entrance with the kettle. I reached into my wallet and pulled a few bills out and stuffed them in. My daughter says, "Daddy, give me some money to put in the kettle, too." I told her she had her own money with her. I said, "Since I was giving my own money to the charity, I get to have that special feeling one gets from giving to those in need. If she wanted to get that feeling, she would have to sacrifice her own benefit by giving away what she could have had for herself."

 

I think liberals believe it feels good to give away money to the needy. Especially when they didn't have to take it out of their OWN pockets. Anyone can be generous with another's wallet. But, I think they should have to look the man in his eyes and say, "I need your money more than you do and I will use the power of MOB RULE to take it from you and the needs of your family for my own."

 

Might as well rob him on the street at gunpoint.

[RangerM]

Your correct about that. Perhaps we should make a point to be more involved in our society and to meet and get to know more people that are not like us. However i don't think that it takes away from governments role. No matter how much charity work I do or don't do, there is still a need. Besides charity is spotty at best anymore, as there are so many things that people give to that while increasing someone's quality of life they don't make sure that a large majority of people have a minimum of life. Not to knock any particular charity, but how do non-profits that take people hunting or fishing make sure everyone who can't work has food to eat, money to pay bills and a home to live in. The people who give their money to Peta.

 

Perhaps if we took away government funding for disability there would be a take over by charity, but that wasn't always the case before the government got involved so i don't expect it to be the case now. I'm not one for suggesting that we try some radical experiment to see if it would happen.

I think everyone (conservatives like me included) do not object to a basic safety net. The disagreement seems to come regarding what "basic" means.

 

If you live in Cary, NC (as I did), it means that an apartment owner must make a portion of his property available to low-income (aka Section 8) recipients. I can only imagine the idea behind this is if you insert poor people where rich(er) people live, you will bring up the poor people. The reality was it drove away the rich(er) people. The poor not only did NOT change, they brought in more poor people; bringing down the neighborhood. What was originally a noble intent, wound up with an unintended outcome.

 

Consider the "faith-based initiative". What better source of dedication and already-in-place distribution system does the country have other than its churches? But many go berserk because someone might say "Jesus" (or Allah) in a recipient's presence. So, we get the ACLU suing under the auspices of "Separation of Church and State"; suggesting that food, shelter or instruction that comes from a church must mean support of the church itself. Worse, you get the same ACLU spewing such absurdity as....

 

"

While touted as a compassionate program, the faith-based initiative has its roots in this country's abandonment of collective responsibility for the poor.

"

 

Abandonment? Perhaps you can explain this to me, because I don't recall this country's history of "collective responsibility for the poor" prior to about 1930, and private charities have been operating a whole lot longer than that.

 

Regardless, it seems that helping the poor is only worthy of consideration unless the Government pays people to do it (intentionally) outside of their own volition. This goes hand-in-hand with your lament toward non-poor-related charity (PETA) comment. Perhaps the same people who give to those charities (like PETA), have the attitude that "the government will take care of it, so I don't have to", or "I gave at the office". If you really think about what you see in the people (especially the Liberals) around you, you may come to see this as more prevalent than you'd like to admit.

 

But, if the goal is to get the government to force people to fund social programs (for the poor or otherwise), I don't see why anyone would be surprised that a consequence is people choose to donate their time/money to causes that benefit themselves.

Edited November 9, 2012 by RangerM

[sprinter]

And the point I was making is the government as middleman distances the recipient from the donor. And the humane act of charity being bastardized by the threat of prosecution and confinement or seizure of property if one refuses to comply. THAT is where I get riled up.

 

You may not have read my story about the Salvation Army Kettle. Back many years ago when my daughter was only 5-6 years old, I took her to the mall to buy herself a present with money a relative had sent her for Christmas. The Salvation Army workers were by the entrance with the kettle. I reached into my wallet and pulled a few bills out and stuffed them in. My daughter says, "Daddy, give me some money to put in the kettle, too." I told her she had her own money with her. I said, "Since I was giving my own money to the charity, I get to have that special feeling one gets from giving to those in need. If she wanted to get that feeling, she would have to sacrifice her own benefit by giving away what she could have had for herself."

 

I think liberals believe it feels good to give away money to the needy. Especially when they didn't have to take it out of their OWN pockets. Anyone can be generous with another's wallet. But, I think they should have to look the man in his eyes and say, "I need your money more than you do and I will use the power of MOB RULE to take it from you and the needs of your family for my own."

 

Might as well rob him on the street at gunpoint.

 

Amen to that!

[Langston Hughes]

And the point I was making is the government as middleman distances the recipient from the donor. And the humane act of charity being bastardized by the threat of prosecution and confinement or seizure of property if one refuses to comply. THAT is where I get riled up.

 

You may not have read my story about the Salvation Army Kettle. Back many years ago when my daughter was only 5-6 years old, I took her to the mall to buy herself a present with money a relative had sent her for Christmas. The Salvation Army workers were by the entrance with the kettle. I reached into my wallet and pulled a few bills out and stuffed them in. My daughter says, "Daddy, give me some money to put in the kettle, too." I told her she had her own money with her. I said, "Since I was giving my own money to the charity, I get to have that special feeling one gets from giving to those in need. If she wanted to get that feeling, she would have to sacrifice her own benefit by giving away what she could have had for herself."

 

I think liberals believe it feels good to give away money to the needy. Especially when they didn't have to take it out of their OWN pockets. Anyone can be generous with another's wallet. But, I think they should have to look the man in his eyes and say, "I need your money more than you do and I will use the power of MOB RULE to take it from you and the needs of your family for my own."

 

Might as well rob him on the street at gunpoint.

 

I think you take it to an extreme. I'm not walking around feeling good that we have a safety net that uses all of our money. Nothing about poor people makes me feel proud. I wish you could see that. We are not out here thumping our chests and telling our kids we did a good thing to our kids, we forced everyone to help someone out. The sooner we get past that issue the sooner we can work on entitlement reforms as to make the issue less costly and get better results.

 

Can we get past these stereotypes and start looking at us as individuals and people again. I'm not just a liberal, your just not a conservative.

[FiredMotorCompany]

To me, it is a matter of the direction our current policies and regulations are taking us.

 

We may NOT be going to Mecca, but we ARE heading east. (Visualize an Indiana Jones scene. We are standing in quick sand with both arms full of "gold" and trying to hold on to all we can, ignoring the fact we are drowning and making it worse by the weight we carry. We must wake up to face the facts that we cannot hold on to everything and survive. We must prioritize. And is it any wiser to borrow money from China so we can carry more gold to pay China back? Is it wise to expand the "services" we offer to those who are suffering due to governmental meddling that ultimately is responsible for the plight they are suffering?

(Not an attack on Muslim faith. Just a cardinal heading.)

 

Few people look beyond the immediate. I often refer to this analogy. If you stub your toe on the foot of your bed at night, it hurts immediately and you learn quickly to avoid a repeat. But what if the nervous system required 3, 5 or 20 years to transmit the pain message? You would completely disassociate the night you stubbed your toe from the pain you felt. You would blame something you recently had done. "Wow, I am eating popcorn and now my toe hurts." Yes, it could be gout, but in this instance we know the truth.

 

Why did Obama make such an issue of getting Obamacare pushed through early in his first term? Because if he had riled both sides up in the weeks leading up to the election, he would have lost. And it is not just Obama, or democrats. It is human nature and ALL politicians play the system to their advantage.

 

In 2012, Obama would have never been elected if he had said the Cambridge police were idiots, his bowling score was like Special Olympics, refusing to pass the Keystone pipeline, telling the republicans "I won", etc........NO! He knew to carefully tread for the closing months of his term and avoid major negative faux pas. Just as he waits until after he is re-elected to have major EPA regulations take effect.

 

It is not a simple matter of what we are doing today, it is what we have been doing for YEARS. But what we are doing today IS keeping the needle pointed in the same direction. WE MUST NOT KEEP DOING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. It's insanity.

[Langston Hughes]

Fired, I'm not going to say that you don't have reasons to doubt Obama and some of the progressive movement. There are those that would take things too far. I guess what i'm starting to realize is that we have to stop pushing our moderate center towards those that would take things too far.

 

I now expect you to defend those on the right's extreme because attacking them means i'm attacking you partially. I didn't always really understand that. And when you or anyone else goes after those further to the left i often feel i have to defend them because I many things in common.

 

I guess it's time to talk about why we believe things not if the things we believe are right and if the other persons beliefs are wrong.

[FiredMotorCompany]

General distrust of those in power. I expect that to be a better stance than fawning over them.

 

The press should be the "FBI" of the people. Finding the facts the people need to know, not acting as the whore spokesmen for the administration.

[FordBuyer]

General distrust of those in power. I expect that to be a better stance than fawning over them.

 

The press should be the "FBI" of the people. Finding the facts the people need to know, not acting as the whore spokesmen for the administration.

 

The "press" as we used to know it is about dead or already died in many cities. Investigative journalism is almost extinct. If there were a new Watergate, it would probably be a short term story in today's news environment. Most of the "investigative journalism" done now is by TV reporters looking for sensationalism and embarassing someone on camera. So many children go to bed hungry, are abused by absentee parents, political corruption goes on, Washington can go into complete gridlock over partisanship issues, and no is there to really hold their feet to the fire and/or expose the conditions that many children live under. No one is there to really get the story out in many instances. More stories than ever with the internet, but not many with much substance or legs.

[Bored of Pisteon]

The "press" as we used to know it is about dead or already died in many cities. Investigative journalism is almost extinct. If there were a new Watergate, it would probably be a short term story in today's news environment. Most of the "investigative journalism" done now is by TV reporters looking for sensationalism and embarassing someone on camera. So many children go to bed hungry, are abused by absentee parents, political corruption goes on, Washington can go into complete gridlock over partisanship issues, and no is there to really hold their feet to the fire and/or expose the conditions that many children live under. No one is there to really get the story out in many instances. More stories than ever with the internet, but not many with much substance or legs.

 

The information is out there but it's up to people on their own to go out and find it and make a conclusion. Yes, there are still some people in the media (TV, radio, and now internet) that will still go out and spend the time to involve themselves to that realm of investigative journalism which should be fair, unbiased and objective. However you got a bunch of stupid idiots in this country more now than you did 40 years ago with the Watergate saga... But then again maybe there is a glimmer of hope left.

 

As far as network news covering this Benghazi scandal...They'll do it only if they have to. But that's just a matter of time. Time will tell but like I said in another thread. I'll be waiting for the hearings to start.

 

The comparisons between this and Watergate are so similar it's frightening to say the least.

[FordBuyer]

The information is out there but it's up to people on their own to go out and find it and make a conclusion. Yes, there are still some people in the media (TV, radio, and now internet) that will still go out and spend the time to involve themselves to that realm of investigative journalism which should be fair, unbiased and objective. However you got a bunch of stupid idiots in this country more now than you did 40 years ago with the Watergate saga... But then again maybe there is a glimmer of hope left.

 

As far as network news covering this Benghazi scandal...They'll do it only if they have to. But that's just a matter of time. Time will tell but like I said in another thread. I'll be waiting for the hearings to start.

 

The comparisons between this and Watergate are so similar it's frightening to say the least.

 

So you believe Obama went out of his way to get American diplomats killed, and then covered his actions up? And you believe Obama has an enemies list like Nixon and is out to get them? Now Obama Administration could be trying to cover up ineptness at protecting that embassy, but then again there are American embassies all over the world, and it would be hard to have potent force nearby to move immediately if attacked. Panetta just said that there were no aircraft nearby that could have gotten there in time. I'm willing to give Obama Ad. benefit of doubt on this one, although politicians never seem to learn that telling the truth is better than covering up ineptness.

 

And let's hope that now that Obama won re-election we will not see four years of figuring out how to impeach him on something. Not with America in crisis on so many fronts. We need leadership right now from White House, and Congress. The last thing we need is a bunch of politically raised distractions that go on and on for years at the expense of dealing with much more urgent problems that affect millions of people. It seems like every two term President in my lifetime other than Dwight had to face some long term controversy that either brought or almost brought him down. No wonder it's hard to find good people to run.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Well like I mentioned before in another thread. The more evidence of multiple cover-ups that show up regardless of what or where the scandal started. The more it's smells like "mulemuffins"

 

Where is the leadership when you have someone pointing fingers, blaming a previous administration for everything. Looking down on people and acting like arrogant snobs? You call that leadership? I call it NOTHING.

 

11 YEARS AGO IT WAS "UNITED WE STAND" HERE WE ARE 11 YEARS LATER AND IT'S "DIVIDED WE FALL"

If that's what you guys who voted "Hope and Change" "Forward" blah blah blah... You wanted it, you got it.

[Trimdingman]

Since you tied disabled people asking for charity and your income tax together, am i to believe that you would rather have a disabled person have to ask for charity than pay taxes? Is that the point of it? Would you feel better with the infirm crowding our churches and streets begging for Alms or waiting at your door for the scraps? I realize that's an extreme but that's where we came from.

 

To me a just, moral society takes care of it's own. The government is merely a apparatus of society, something to which the members of society can use to make life better for all. We use it to take care of those people who can't. I realize that it does get cheated and people do take advantage of it, but if we were to get rid of everything that people take advantage of there would be nothing.

 

The government doesn't care one iota about people, only power. They use "morality" the same way religions use it, to rope people in. Government may have started out as an "apparatus of society", but it isn't any more. It now has total power and control over us. If the money spent "helping the poor" were left in the pockets of the people to grow the economy, there wouldn't be any poor people to help. The government is taxing people to the max, but it is still a trillion dollars short every year. They can't tax any more because revenues would fall if they did. They are already in that situation now. Lower taxes would mean increased revenue. Power is more important to the government than the welfare of the people. They are the ones that are creating poverty and suffering, all the while pretending to care so they can grab more power. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

Rush made an observation the other day concerning the proposed amnesty for illegals. He said that he would be all in favor of it if they wouldn't be allowed to vote for 25 years. If the Republicans offered that caveat in return for support of the bill, would the Democrats go for it? The only reason they want illegals to be granted citizenship is for the votes, not to help them.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Langston Hughes]

The government doesn't care one iota about people, only power. They use "morality" the same way religions use it, to rope people in. Government may have started out as an "apparatus of society", but it isn't any more. It now has total power and control over us. If the money spent "helping the poor" were left in the pockets of the people to grow the economy, there wouldn't be any poor people to help. The government is taxing people to the max, but it is still a trillion dollars short every year. They can't tax any more because revenues would fall if they did. They are already in that situation now. Lower taxes would mean increased revenue. Power is more important to the government than the welfare of the people. They are the ones that are creating poverty and suffering, all the while pretending to care so they can grab more power. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

Rush made an observation the other day concerning the proposed amnesty for illegals. He said that he would be all in favor of it if they wouldn't be allowed to vote for 25 years. If the Republicans offered that caveat in return for support of the bill, would the Democrats go for it? The only reason they want illegals to be granted citizenship is for the votes, not to help them.

Her'e my feelings on it.

 

Dear Rush,

Please convince the Republican party to sponsor bills in the House and Senate offering a pathway to citizenship without sufferage for 25 years. Do this instantly as a return to what looks like Jim Crow would be a huge winner for the Republican party.

 

Sincerely,

Liberals

[Cocheese]

The American people spoke loud and clear. THey like the direction in which were headed. The right wing tea party had to settle for a less than qualified candidate. Not one of those tea party candidates would have beaten the Big O. Wake up extreme right wing party the world is leaving you behind! Maybe now you will start paying attention to women and minorities. Not just white men. Republicans get thee behind our leader and lets move this country foward.

 

 

Umm, what has changed? You might not be smart enough to notice, but the US Government has essentially stayed the same. Sure, call that a win, but the fact of the matter, it was a close race for the White House (something that is rare with an incumbent President), and the country is in all likelihood even more divided than they were 4 years ago. And with Obama telling voters to get “revenge” on Republicans in this election, I don’t see it softening up. Obama has no re-election to worry about. If he couldn’t compromise and work with both sides before, I doubt he’ll do it now.

 

The question remains, how much does America have to fall before you realize you made a mistake?

 

Furthermore, how does posts like this help get the nation out of the trouble it’s in? If you, and the rest of your ilk, not only on here, but across the interweb along with the MSM, have walked around gloating, while rubbing it in our faces. We are not the party of quit. We are not the party of feeling sorry for ourselves. We are not the party who stands down when we get pushed. You and those like you could have done a lot to bring the country back together, but instead you are trying to push it apart. The election on Tuesday did not solve anything. In fact, when you look at the numbers from the 2008, Obama lost ground. And hearing people say that he has no more elections to worry about, so he should just ram everything he wants through, scares me. His polices haven’t worked. Unemployment is greater now than it was when he started. And the debt. Dear Lord look at the debt. I don’t care who you try blaming it on. He wanted it, he’s got it. Now he has to fix it. But he has no plan on fixing it.

 

The Liberal Media wants you to think Tuesday was a great day; it wasn’t. And unlike George Zimmerman or Libya, this is a story they will not be able to sweep under the rug when things start to go bad.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Umm, what has changed? You might not be smart enough to notice, but the US Government has essentially stayed the same. Sure, call that a win, but the fact of the matter, it was a close race for the White House (something that is rare with an incumbent President), and the country is in all likelihood even more divided than they were 4 years ago. And with Obama telling voters to get “revenge” on Republicans in this election, I don’t see it softening up. Obama has no re-election to worry about. If he couldn’t compromise and work with both sides before, I doubt he’ll do it now.

 

The question remains, how much does America have to fall before you realize you made a mistake?

 

Furthermore, how does posts like this help get the nation out of the trouble it’s in? If you, and the rest of your ilk, not only on here, but across the interweb along with the MSM, have walked around gloating, while rubbing it in our faces. We are not the party of quit. We are not the party of feeling sorry for ourselves. We are not the party who stands down when we get pushed. You and those like you could have done a lot to bring the country back together, but instead you are trying to push it apart. The election on Tuesday did not solve anything. In fact, when you look at the numbers from the 2008, Obama lost ground. And hearing people say that he has no more elections to worry about, so he should just ram everything he wants through, scares me. His polices haven’t worked. Unemployment is greater now than it was when he started. And the debt. Dear Lord look at the debt. I don’t care who you try blaming it on. He wanted it, he’s got it. Now he has to fix it. But he has no plan on fixing it.

 

The Liberal Media wants you to think Tuesday was a great day; it wasn’t. And unlike George Zimmerman or Libya, this is a story they will not be able to sweep under the rug when things start to go bad.

 

Saying the country supports what Obama proposes is like a golfer putting and the ball stopping on the lip of the cup. One blade of grass supporting the ball. The golfer casts his shadow on the blade whose reduced sunlight supply sets in motion a chain of chemical reactions that must lead to the blade eventually fatiguing and bending enough for gravity to take over and pull it into the cup.

 

A far cry from another golfer teeing off and aceing it. Nothin' but cup. THAT would be evidence of the country agreeing with his policies.

 

The final score is the same. The message is very different.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 11, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany