As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-19
In Reply to: Kids from families making as much as $83,000 - were not covered by this bill (kam) sm
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
you pointed something out...
We *MUST* have auto insurance or we are prohibited from driving our cars.
We *MUST* have homeowners insurance on our homes or we are disallowed having a mortgage.
*BUT* it's fine for an American citizen to go without insurance, even forced to go without when it's impossible to afford, yet we are still "citizens" of America and are forced to pay taxes...
...hmmmmmm....
They were also pointed out....(sm)
by other citizens as the US was offering rewards for ANYONE. Think about what kind of incentive that is to someone in that region with no money who's trying to feed their family.
As has been pointed out before,
having a 135 IQ, and obviously thinks it's pretty special. The rest of us realize that it is no more worthy of praise than the eye color or height we happen to have inherited. Much better to take credit for something we have actually accomplished, rather than what's in our DNA.
Most of us were IQ tested somewhere back in our school years, and yet do not have the score printed on our business cards. How many actually feel it necessary to share that number at the drop of a hat? Me neither.
I will do so when you do so. You pointed a barb at me....
"sometimes I think..." and when I fed it back to you, you complain. YOU stick to the issues and keep the barbs out, and I will do the same. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.
Have a nice day, now. :)
there should be FINGERS POINTED
x
Like Kendra pointed out............sm
it is foolish to enlist in the military and think you won't be sent into war. They are full aware of this when they enlist. That is like taking a job as a baker and thinking that, at some point, you won't burn your hand on the hot stove.
Yes and it must be pointed out that McCain
McCain's speech, while gracious, was given to a smallish "invite only" crowd, made of up largely white people, mostly white males. Obama had half a million people from all walks of life. That speaks volumes.
I did not see the *real* America represented in the crowd of McCain's supporters... that is NOT the same thing as saying those people are not real Americans - only that HIS crowd did not reflect the truth about our diverse American citizenry.
Because, as has been pointed out, several times here....
he is still in charge. Obama isn't even in the White House yet, but you seem to think it's fine and dandy to talk about him. I can see Russia from my house, also.
Sarah was pointed out....(sm)
because a) it was funny; b) she is a female; and c) she herself just got a raise (by a committee she formed for just that purpose) just since the election while Alaska is taking a big hit financially because the price of oil went down.
Because I pointed out the TRUTH, that...
...the majority of African-Americans voted for Obama? That "majority" was actually 97%. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/2008/November/Obama-Victory-Sealed-by-Minorities--Women.html
Because I pointed out that the largely hyped "tea parties," estimated to bring in millions of people, only actually brought in a couple hundred thousand? Because I pointed out that these tea parties don't have much to offer Democrats (including African-Americans, other than the resurgence of hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, etc.)? Or because I pointed out that Michael Steele was rejected by his OWN PARTY to speak at the Chicago tea party?
I did provide corroborative links for each statement I made, unlike some on this board who just throw out names, invent fiction and pretend it's true.
I wasn't being racist. If anything, I was being "classist" because I was referring to an entire class of people, including white people, as well, that has been hurt over the last eight years by corporate welfare. In case nobody has noticed, under the Bush administration, the middle class almost became extinct, so our society now mostly consists of rich and poor, regardless of race.
Please tell me SPECIFICALLY what was racist in my post, and then we can have a discussion. Of course, if a discussion really isn't within your realm of interest, then, please, by all means, just continue the juvenile name calling.
And when things are pointed out, people are bashed.
What's the use? Anyone who doesn't believe the O will do what he states is bashed. It was a joke (maybe), but jeez. Get a life.
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
Can I be honest here? sm
I keep hearing here and there that O will be assassinated, won't live out his term, etc. That grieves me. I am a registered Republican, live in the south, in a small, rural town FULL of white, racist people. I don't know who they voted for, but I honestly don't think that "white" America is ready for a black president. There are too many racist people (I know tons of them) who refer to O as the N word (yes, you heard me right) and this is in small, rural America. I truly believe he probably won't last.
It wasn't that long ago that Rosa Parks sat on that bus and it wasn't that long ago when those precious girls from that black Montgomery church were blown up (during church) and remember Jenna 6 and all of the white people who stood up for the boys.
It's hateful and sickening, yes, but America is still prejudiced as sad as it is to say that. Too many white hate groups. I am in my mid 30s and when I was in college there were very large sects of "skinheads." They are everywhere. They are very prideful. They hate blacks. I am half Hispanic and my family doesn't look white. I've been the subject of racism in the past. People are awful.
Whether you believe in God or not as a liberal, pray for O's safety because I think he is going to need it.
I have to be honest, DW....
when we were debating it I honestly did not realize that some states already provided coverage for all kids no matter what the income level, which seemed to be the sticking point for most of the debaters. The fact that MA and PA could do it, even on the unexpanded program, leads me to believe other states could do it too, if their priorities were in place. Washington is such a goofy place, really...if the Democrats had prefaced it differently and had not used the implicit words to extend it "higher up the income ladder" and just stated they wanted to dole more out to the states so it would be easier for them to insure all the state's kids...I don't think there would have been such an issue. They purposely sent a bill they knew Bush would veto, which is a ridiculous exercise...I think it was purely political election time posturing and misleading to both Democrat and Republican voters. It did what it was intended to do, and that is make a headline that Bush did not want to insure kids, when that is not at all a true statement. That being said...PA and MA DO show that it is possible under current funding, and I am entirely FOR putting it at the discretion of the states how to use the money for their CHIP programs without the interference of the feds other than funding. Now if the states want to impose some kind of taxes to support it, like a penny sales tax or something, to supplement the program in order to do so, I am all in favor of that, if they tailor it to the needs of their state...and who knows better than the state government what that would take? They know their populations, they know their income levels...and they can come up with a better plan. I am 100% on board for that!! It would be interesting to know how MA and PA funded those programs at the current level...because they did. PA's has been around for quite awhile. :-)
Just being honest...
Certainly this poster is entitled to his/her point of view, even if he/she is completely intolerant of anyone else's point of view. The poster speaks of an open mind, yet has a very closed mind himself/herself.
For all the talk that liberals make about freedoms, apparently that only extends to those who agree with them. Sounds more like a fascist state than America.
Condescencion, intolerance...are these the hallmarks of liberalism?
come on, be honest
you laughed at the mental image that statement conjured up also.
Look....if you are going to be honest about this...
just read up on it from start to finish. It was not a big deal, the same guy who is screaming for her head now was saying the governor's office is fully cooperating and subpoenas will not be necessary...and she was, and that was the truth. Now that the Obama lawyers descended it is a whole new ballgame, has been politicized when it should not have been. It should be stopped, it has become a 3-ring circus. THere are pictures now of the two Dems yelling the loudest with Obama yucking it up at a support rally. The investigation is tainted now. The investigator they hired is personal friends with the guy who was fired. Come on now....hatchet job. They need to put in the hands of someone truly independent, don't you think that is fair? Or no?
to be honest...
I'm just going to be honest with you - there is not a whole lot of incentive for those that are on the welfare rolls to get off. Unless you are educated anymore then those low paying minimum wage jobs do not pay what has to be paid for someone to live - even at 2 and 3 jobs.
And most people cannot afford to go to college - even if they have the aptitude for it. Not everybody in this world is cut out for school. It is not just because they are dumb. I have a son who is above average smart, but just cannot handle school - does that make him dumb? No, it means he is going to have to work his butt off though to even barely get by.
And yes, I do think that the richer people of this world should pay more taxes. I don't necessarily know about a higher percentage, but I know that the darn loop holes that exist that keep them from paying as much as I do should be done away with...
I don't want anybody to give me anything, I am doing it all by myself however I have to, and I am luckier than most that I can make a good living, but I can see that some people need help to survive now.
It is not like it used to be - prices have gone up, up, and up, but wages are staying the same and ya'll all know that. You talk about how you did this, or you did that to get by, and you know what, I did too 20 years ago, but 20 years ago I was not paying $5.00 a gallon for milk and $2.69 for a loaf of bread and making $7.50 or $8.00 an hour. I was not paying $3-4 a gallon for gasoline to get to my $7.50 or $8.00 an hour job. I was not paying $600 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment that legally I was not supposed to have my children living in together...
I feel sorry for the young people today that are starting out on their own and I feel sorry for the people that ya'll are all calling stupid and lazy and worthless just because they are not up to your standards. I am so glad that I am not that judgmental of people that I cannot see that people right now need help... and it is getting worse right in front of our eyes.
I sincerely hope that not a one of you who are so down on people that need help in putting their lives together find yourselves in the position of needing help in the future.
He was not honest.
Obama is a socialist. His record and ideals are proof enough of that. All of you lemmings are convinced he handled himself well and are crying out about how unfair he was treated in that interview.....yet if this were Palin....you would be crying how dumb she is and didn't handle things well. Talk about double standards. You people sicken me. I'm so tired of this crap. I will be glad when this election is over and McCain kicks Obama's @ss. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Change......that is ALL you people friggin hear!.
Well.....you better be prepared because God help us if Obama wins.....that is all we will have left in our banks accounts......some change. Get a clue!
Actually no....not get better ones...just be HONEST...
about the ones he HAS. That would be a terrific start. The truth is always a good place to start.
Sam, to be honest, I don't think about it much at all either -
I do not think about abortion because in my life it was/is not an option. That being said, I think it is something that people should have the right to choose if they want to.
Why do you think government should get to meddle in one part of a woman's life and not be able to meddle in every part of a person's life? That is the underlying question here...
I just wish they ALL could be honest
without worrying about offending SOMEONE. It's ridiculous.
To be quite honest
even though I am against gay marriage due to my faith, I understand the fact that not everyone goes by the rules of God. Although it is unfortunate given the eternal consequences.
However, I feel that opening the door for gay marriage does in the end open the door for ANY marriage. The argument will still be "if traditional marriage and gay marriage are okay, why not polygamy?" I think that is the next step in the progression. Maybe I am wrong, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
Guys, I'm going to be honest...sm
I don't see what the major deal is about the wire tapping. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but as a child I've always been told that the government tapped phone lines warrantlessly (seeing as how they could probably get a warrant anyway).
So tell me in laymen's terms, what is the big problem with this for the average law abiding citizen?
Nope, just honest...get over it!
Thanks for being honest, Kaydie. :)
It is fine to support whoever you want to support, and it is fine to change your mind about who you support. It should be who YOU want and feel will do the best for the country, whoever that is. And to have the guts to say so. Good for you, Kaydie!
I just got back from Gettysburg, and read the words "so that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE shall not perish from this earth." It does not say government of the PARTY, by the PARTY, and for the PARTY, shall not perish from this earth. It is about us, as individuals, and I wish every individual this election cycle would vote their individual conscience, what they really feel is right for the country, not what the DNC or RNC tells them they should.
THAT is what I like about Sarah Palin. She has bucked her party, she has faced down good ol' boy politics in her own party and cleaned them out...and most of all...she says that elected officials should serve with a servant's heart. GOOD FOR HER!! What a breath of FRESH AIR and how much further could you get from Washington politics as usual than that?? GO MCCAIN-PALIN!!
Now that would be an honest Democrat...lol
nm
No, I will be honest, I waffled between he and two others at first...
as I researched it and the debates started, it came down to he and one other, and by the end of the primaries I was hoping he would be the candidate. Reader's Digest, it was not him alone at the start.
And I have no buyer's remorse. I still feel he is the guy for the job.
Honest answer
I'm sorry I can't answer your question with any first hand knowledge but IF the not so friendly countries support Obama and I don't know that they do......that's what the McCain campaign says...maybe it's because they are sick and tired of George W. Bush and his saber rattling. Can't wait to get some of those Indian mangoes he traded nuclear technology for.
Well, to be honest poster really has no
Always wants facts but when you give them, all you get is a bunch of junk back!
Argument would be if they had something substantial to say in the first place.
And you think republicans are all honest?
Oops - yes I am one in the same - just want to be honest
I used grim reaper above cos that's what I thought of when I read the article I posted. Guess I should have put Grim Reaper/Just me as my name so there wouldn't have been any confusion.
At least be honest about your source
"...those who have contacts on Capitol Hill..."
Your post is taken virtually verbatim from a blog comment at freerepublic.com, from an email from Roy Beck, not from "those who have contacts on Capitol Hill."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2173288/posts
Do you even know what E-Verify is and what it entails?
And I resent your implication that if I disagree with you, I'm not loyal to my country and don't "care anything about this country or [our] jobs."
So, you weren't exactly being honest.
If your husband is sitting at home buying and selling stocks for your own portfolio, he does not "work" in stocks/trading. I am not assuming anything, I am just going by what you say, which apparently is not true.
It seems that you are the one who is assuming much more about what I am thinking than I have actually said. I thin it's time you visit the "real world."
to be honest, I liked a lot of his answers -
I do not want all the illegals here - they should be sent home, but if it is going to be as expensive as they say, then the plan Obama put forth of fining them for being here illegally and making them then go back to the process of trying to be come legal is a good one. They are not going to send them home whoever is President, so why not fine them? His plan is as good as any I have seen. When he is talking about helping, my thoughts are that he is talking about the legal immigrants.
The one time Bush was probably actually HONEST!!
Bob Woodward asked him how history would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
That pretty much sums up the depth of this man.
If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition..
as you are in postings to those who agree with you, and post in a civil manner the same way you post to Lurker...i.e., you state above (I know we TRY to take care of our poor)...but you certainly did not say that to me. You made it sound like we do nothing to take care of our poor. I personally think it should the be responsibility of individual Americans through private donations to take care of our poor, not the responsibility of the government through taxation. The reason that does not work is that while many pay lip service to the poor, they are not willing unless forced to do just that. And that happens on both sides of the aisle. It is not a political party thing. It is a human nature thing. In a perfect world, if you could trust exactly what people say is what they would do, then the Democrats in this country alone could take care of the poor through personal donations. I do not mean they should do it alone...I am trying to make a point here. It should not be necessary to tax people in order to take care of the less fortunate. We should also not put in place, in my opinion, a welfare system that keeps people impoverished and beholden to the government for everything. I believe every program ought to have a job and responsibility attached to it...in other words, no freebies. If there is no incentive to better yourself, why should you? That is in full obvious view to anyone in this country who cares to actually go visit the poor neighborhoods and actually talk to those involved. If you want some real enlightenment, you should work in the welfare offices for awhile. You would get a much better picture of the real story out there.
I do not say this to be hateful, but I think it would behoove you to, along with reading your books and doing your research, that you try to talk to someone other than me, because obviously you think I am a demon from the nether world, but perhaps someone without a political agenda who has worked for years in welfare (as I have) and get a real picture of how it works. To use your words, it is a great disservice to people to keep them in poverty through programs instead of trying to help them to a better life off a check. The problem is Teddy...there are thousands if not millions who prefer the life on the check. And that is no one's fault but yours and mine and everyone else's who has not sought to really help them...to provide the checks and balances you described.
|
