Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

O's plan is WELFARE, figures you dems want that

Posted By: another handout to those paying NO taxes.nm on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Under O's plan, you will keep more of it. - MTs in the 95% who get tax cut. nm

nm


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

O's plan is actually welfare. People who pay NO
nm
That figures. (sm)

So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as:  “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board?  Figures.  Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.


I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay.  The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.


Do I advocate racial profiling?  I advocate historical profiling.  Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again. 


In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.


You may consider the below too long to read.  I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words.  I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this.  Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.


Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006


The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
    But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
    
During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
    They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
    It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
    
The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
    During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
    
In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
    According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
    In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
    
According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
    Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.


  The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
    Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
    Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
    Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
    The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.


Figures, please? Thanks. nm
nm
Figures....nm





Figures.
x
sorry where did you get those figures?
It cost 43.5 million for Bush's inauguration
reported yesterday in new stories
i will find the link if I must
Here's some figures
It doesn't take away from what you said of people voting for him because of his skin color and not qualifications, but doing some research I found these facts interesting and now I don't feel so bad (of course this is not down to the exact number but only what is on the statistics through the internet).

Population in USA 303,824,640
# people who voted for President Obama - 69,456,897
# people who voted for Sen. McCain - 59,934,814
# of people under the voting ages - 60,764,928

That means that 113,668,001 did not vote at all. So if you put the people who didn't vote, and the people who voted for McCain together that means that

# people who voted for Obama - 69,456,897
# of people who did not vote for Obama - 173,602,815

Kind of puts things in a better perspective.
With all due respect....way off on figures...
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.

The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.

There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.

For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.

There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)

In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.

A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.

An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.

At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.

Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.

(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)

It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.

The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.

What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.

Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.


Figures the people who are for Ono are for this
I received a message from an Obama supporter who tried to justify why its a good thing to vote early. Makes me wonder if it was going in favor of McCain would you all be in favor of this? No. This is an outrage to be able to register and vote at the same time. So if I want to do that, lets see, I'll go to my county and do that, then I'll drive to the next county, and the next and next and next and keep doing this so I can keep voting for McCain like some of the democrats will be doing. Oh no, that's not fair. Truth be known this has been the democrats operandi in the past. I have never seen such a big bunch of cheaters ever. They don't care if they cheat as long as their guy wins.

This is not right. If you can't vote in your state then you do an absentee ballot. Or will you be doing one of those also. America's election day is November 4th.

If you feel so strongly about voting you would find a way to legitimately vote on 11/4. Wonder how many other fraudulent votes will they find. At least the rupublicans are smart and are trying to verify how many of those new voter registers names and addresses are linked to the local cemeteries.


I was just giving figures from what they said.
Dont' burn me for that.
I agree! Here are some figures.

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR


14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:


1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.


3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.


4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!


5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.


6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.


7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.


8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.


9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.


10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.


11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.


12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”


13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.


14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”


It figures - a liberal station

Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.

Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]

[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Figures McCain would pull something like this

Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman).  Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything.  Talk about calling the kettle black.  He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her?  She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever.  He's going to have a hard time explaining that one. 


Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people.  He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women.  I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.     


She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything.  Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him.  His ego is taking over and its going to sink him.  He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water.  Never mind her radical christian viewpoints.  Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that.  How could he have gotten it so wrong?  Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick. 


Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate.  Hello President Obama.


All you have to do is look at the figures and when they started declining....
and 20 months is about right. This democratically controlled congress sat on their hands even when Greenspan was telling them they needed to tighten up on Freddie and fannie. Instead they made their hold on the housing market even bigger.
They failed to act to do anything about rising cost of fuel, went on freaking vacation rather than vote on energy bill. Not only do we need to vote in McCain/Palin, we need to clean up that viper pit that is Congress and finally start acting like adults and work together to clean up that viper pit. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it isn't yours.
If you don't have any figures to back up your statement....
just say so. Of all the catholic priests in this country, I have no idea what percentage have turned out to be sexual predators, but I am unwilling, without figures, to say it is disproporinately high.

Now in this post you have amended your position from disproproportinately high to a "little bit fishy."

Big difference in disproportionately high and "a little bit fishy." I think blindness refers more to an attitude which wants to ssume "disproportionately high" without some proof of that statement.

That is all I am saying.
The figures taken were from the US Treasury's website
Whether you want to believe it or not this info comes directly from the US Treasury website. You can't make up the figures no matter what political party you belong to.

I know lots of people were in love with Clinton and thought him to be a good president. I too voted for him the first time (after 2 months realized his agenda and got the heck out of the democrat party), but figures don't lie. I guess you didn't finish reading it because you didn't like that it favored the Clinton.

I just go by the facts and I don't care who it favors. I am one of the very few who want to know truth and would like some decent politicians.

Unfortunately we don't have any decent politicians - not one, nada.

They are all liars and crooks and thieves. It's just how they all spin everything.

As for Global warming? If you believe in that I guess you still believe the world is flat. That has been debunked by top scientist. Don't people get that. Scientists...people who have degrees. People who have studied climatology. People who are educated. They all say the earth is in a cooling trend, not warming. AL Gore has not studied this. He wrote a book filled with lies and misinformation and everyone who felt he was cheated out of the president (which even though I was against Bush know this isn't true), but feel sorry for the guy fine, but don't buy into his fantasies (just like he invented the internet and he and Tipper were the role models for the guy who wrote Love Story). Al Gore is a megalomaniac. You know, just cos your ice cube melts faster in your drink doesn't mean this is global warming. If it's global warming tell me then can you dispute these news articles:

Headline: Arab world shivers in unusual cold snap
Jordan's airport shut down by ice, other nations shiver as well - see link below
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782918/

Headline: Anectodotal cold weather news from around the world - There continues to be a number of reports of colder than normal weather and seasons from around the globe. Here are a few. - see link below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/16/anecdotal-cold-weather-news-from-around-the-world/

Headline: Brrr! State braces for unusual cold - see link below
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/doc4808db9f73005670297734.txt

Headline: Unusual cold weather strains Argentina’s energy grid - see link below

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/12-07-2007/94848-cold_weather_argentina-0

Headline - Karachi shivers in unusual cold snap - see link below
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/970965-pakistan-degrees

Those are just a few. You have got to open your eyes and look at things objectively. Al Gore knows absolutely crapola about global warming. He has an agenda. He's becoming richer and richer off of the whole thing. He is benefitting from people buying "carbon credits". He invested big time in the company and gets kickbacks from all the suckers who believe it.

P.S. - I am certainly not going to take any advice telling me I have to cut back on energy when their driving around in SUVs, limos, fuel eating buses, and who knows how many planes.
All public figures are scrutinized, especially

presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.


Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..
and again, if you will actually read my posts before attacking, I said we had more social programs than others...I would also like to know if they are comparing apples to apples...meaning countries the same size as ours with the same population as ours. You also quoted from 2001. I am sure the number of people in worst-off houses increased...they probably had more children. Does not make sense to me to have more children when you are already struggling to feed those you have. But that is what the welfare system in this country encourages. When you have second and third generation families on welfare, there is something WRONG with the system. Again...read what I actually post and then come with your rebuttal, and come with a rebuttal that has substance and not cut and paste from some old statistics (probably Wikipedia, right?).
Moores facts/figures from US info

This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show.  In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling.  Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts.  He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.


I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.


I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine?  What the Congress has?  Then give it to me.  I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all.  To me it is a no brainer.  I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.


 


Your figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below."  Your figures support that statement.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Figures....sm
That's why I usually use non-Fox links, so the demmies will "try" to read with open mind....lol....or maybe not.....whatever.....ciao
Figures. Eventually, there's name calling from you. Twice. You must be proud. nm

Yeah, figures that Hollywood is almost all democrat
nm
Figures....if you can't address the problem...deflect.
What possible difference does what Bush did make? That was then, this is now. We are in a huge financial crisis (largely brought on by Democrats in congress blissfully ignoring the looming housing crisis and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle...yet you want to trust them now that we are up to our eyeballs drowning in debt with more on the way). Bush did not spend a much in 8 years as Obama has spent in...oh wait...how many WEEKS? Good grief!!!!! Don't you even WONDER how he possibly hopes to recoup all this?

Gracious enough to grant him more time? To do WHAT? Triple my taxes about the time the economy straightens out? If you think taxing the "rich" will fix this...get out your calculator and try again.

Look...I don't want to fight with anyone, but I do not understand the total blindless being exhibited here, when the microscope was used to examine Bush. Take that same microscope and start examining Obama...if you can.
Well, I guess she figures if whichever cheating...
husband Republican used state funds to meet his mistress she could use federal funds to shop. I'm sure in the world of politics that seems fair tit for tat. LOL!! Sigh.

If we are going to investigate everybody why aren't we investigating John Edwards to see if he used campaign funds to meet his mistress? How do we know for sure Bill wasn't using tax funds...well heck, he WAS. We were paying him to run the country, not have leave stains on Monica's dress. Geeez!! lol.
Stomp and whine then stick your hand out.........figures.........nm
x
Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm
nm
Not true. This is the latest poll, figures submitted just today. nm
.
MT on welfare.

I took my first MT job in 1974 when we were still respected hospital employees with benefits.  In 1976 I had my first child and in 1980 I became a singe parent.  Between 1974 and 1992, I worked between 40 and 50 hours every single week of my life, worked all holidays because I needed the extra pay and had an interval between 1986 and 1993 where I did not take one single vacation day because I bought a home to get my son away from the gang problems that became concentrated in apartment complexes.  During those years, I developed hypertension at age 34 and progressive, unrelenting back pain in 1987.  With the help of ibuprofen and regular exercise, I worked through it and never skipped a beat.  For those who may not remember, 1986 was when outsourcing happened and in the years to follow, not one single start-up MTSO offered medical benefits.    


 


In 1992 I began to develop significant insomnia due to the chronic pain.  One morning, after tossing and turning through the night, I got out of bed and found myself unable to stand erect because of the pain.  For the next week or so, I had to crawl around on my hands and knees and was unable to work.  I got behind in my bills, depressed and was utterly exhausted.  I had a physical and "nervous" breakdown that landed me in a psychiatric facility where I received much needed rest and treatment.  I couldn't afford to pay that bill.    


 


I lost my car, my job and my house.  My son had to go to live with his father since I could not feed him and at age 40 I had to move back in with my aging mother.  I tried to apply for social security disability just long enough to get job retraining and get back on my feet again.  I was denied those benefits.  I applied for unemployment and food stamps and entered the county medical health care system.  I was not able to achieve rehabilitation and recovery sufficient to enable me to return to transcription.  I ended up out of work for 7 years while I figured out my own rehabilitation and lived with my elderly mother who could not really afford to support the extra expense of feeding me on a fixed social security/retirement income.  My unemployment benefits ran out, but I stayed on food stamps for 3 of those years for her sake until I returned to school on a student loan and later on scholarship.  When mhy mother's health deteriorated, I became her terminal care attendant and had to leave school.   


 


I am no slacker.  It took me 7 years to recover from the disability I sustained from medical transcription and single parenthood.  When I was able to return to work, I did.  I still transcribe and at age 59, have developed the same back problems I had that disabled me in 1993.  I am simply trying to scratch my way to retirement, which probable will commence for me one I drop dead in front of the computer.  I would not wish this fate on anyone, but if any of you, your family or your friends ever do encounter such circumstances for whatever reason, (i.e., death of a spouse, for example) and need assistance, you will come to understand the importance of welfare and will never view it with the cold-blooded, icy, self-righteous indignation that some on this board have expressed. 


 

Before you come back with "that's the exception, not the rule," don't bother.  I saw plenty of others in my situation along the way, especially during the 6-8 hours I spent in the waiting rooms at the county hospital before MD appointments.  I am no better and no worse than any of them.  Same human beings, facing the same struggles, each with their own special needs going unaddressed for the most part.  Poverty is a cycle that is destructive, not only to the welfare recipients and their families, but to the society at large.  Outrage is not going to solve it.  Insight will. 
Welfare in Florida
Welfare in Florida can add up to about $900-1000 a month! Add reduced rent to that, food stamps, reduced utility bills, and why would you want to work?

I am so sick and tired of driving by low-income apartments with satellite dishes in the front, high-end SUVs in the parking lot and big-screen TVs visible through the screen door.

So yes, welfare does pay!
Isn't the poor the ones that get the welfare now?
So what's your complaint? You think they need more? Fine, give them everything you have and we'll call it a day!


Welfare was initiated for those that

needed a little bit of help at a rough time in their lives. It was not intended to cover those who have teeny excuses as to why they can't (won't) work. I see it in our community. Projects with gas guzzler newer cars than mine.


I drive a ྙ Buick LeSabre when hubby doesn't work.  We bought that car for "free"; i.e., a friend gave us a calender for Christmas with daily numbers on it. On December 29, 2 days after my car died, our number came up and we won $100. The car cost exactly $100, blown engine, so we took the engine from my car that would not pass inspection and placed it in the $100 (free) car. We made a profit because I found $.03 cents when cleaning out the car. LOL


If I can live with a car like this, why can't they?  They buy brand new or next to new. My car has 150,000 miles on it and still going strong. The engine only had 84,000 miles on it, so it will live a little longer. In the meantime, we're looking for another decent deal just in case. Do they? No, they get a new car every couple years.


What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be in government-subsided housing if they can afford a new car or a car that is only a couple years old. You didn't see that years ago. They drove what I'm driving now. 


I think people on welfare should
Same with any unemployed person receiving government assistance.
There is welfare and wick.

.


No fair for the welfare
well, my husband was laid off the 1st of the year. We lost our insurance. I am in between chemo treatments (last one in October) and his unemployment will not cover the mortgage and COBRA. So, a major hospital is pulling strings to try to get me treatment. Am I going to refuse it? No. Call it welfare, call me lazy. I don't give a rats. You need to research all this welfare crap before you spout off about it. A very, very small portion of your tax dollars go to pay for the indigent (lazy). I know. I went into social work. It is political propaganda to get people riled up. So easily manipulated...........sigh
They HAVE to supplement that welfare with something.....
I had to go on welfare when my kids were little (husband took off after he was arrested for pounding on me) and it was HORRIBLE. That was in the late 80s. I sure would like to know what their secret is, because it was a death scrabble for me and that's BEFORE welfare reform was implemented (now it's even harder). It's called temporary for a reason - you get cut off for at least 3 months out of the year - how do they manage? They must have a meth lab in the basement......
You need to research Welfare a little bit better......
It was W who gave the banks all those billions with no oversight. It is the same old song and dance about welfare recipients - which the numbers on the roles had dropped by more than half since Clinton instituted the welfare reform. Just about 12% of our tax dollars goes to welfare programs - not very much in the big scheme of things. The recipients have to work for that money (didja know that?). For a family of 3 they get $445 per month and the adults have to work 40 hours for that money. Then, they are cut off for 3 months out of the year (an incentive to go to school or get a job which is MANDATORY). So, keep crying about all those sucking off the titt of America. I think they should end the earned income credit on our tax returns - that's Welfare for the working. If they don't make enough money, too bad. Right?
How did you get anti-welfare out of any of this?
nm
Welfare and the near death experience

I studied social work and worked at children services. Welfare amounts to $115 a month for an adult which said adult has to work 40 hours for (at least in my state - Ohio). If you have small children - you do not have to work the 40 hours until they are in school. You do get food stamps. Some live in "projects" with reduced rent. You might qualify for home heating assistance in the winter (most times it will not cover the entire bill). If you get on a percentage of income plan on your electric - you still have to pay the whole bill at some point in time - it just keeps adding up. Welfare accounts for less than 15% of the income taxes we pay, politicians would like you to think it is a lot more. Welfare is no picnic - it sux. The mentally ill who are homeless cannot collect any type of benefits as they have no address (smart guy, that Reagan). If we wish to be a "community" then we must extend a helping hand to those who are less unfortunate than the rest of us.


A high-profile, corporate take-over attorney had the good life and was ruthless in his job and did it very well. Every day he had to step over this wino lying on a heat vent on the sidewalk when he walked to his office. He despised that wino. Freakin' bum. One day that attorney had a massive heart attack. He almost didn't make it. He claimed to have had a near death experience in which he was told by Jesus that the bum he stepped over every day had chosen that as his lot in life before birth so as to teach the attorney some humility and compassion. The attorney never forgot this "dream" when he recovered from his heart attack. He devoted the rest of his life advocating for the poor and walked away from all the trappings of his "elitist" life. True story - cannot validate it at this moment.


Maybe this will help - From Capitalism to a Welfare State
COMMUNIST: A person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.

CAPITALISM: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. (This is one of the 'foundations of our economy' that McCain refers to and Obama mocks.)

SOCIALISM: The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

COLLECTIVISM: The political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.

COMMUNISM: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. (Such as global redistribution of weath, and socialized medicine.)

WELFARE STATE: A state in which the welfare of the people in such matters as social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions is the responsibility of the government.

MARXISM: The system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

PROLETARIAT: The working class; the class of workers, esp. industrial wage earners, who do not possess capital or property and must sell their labor to survive.
That's the kind of welfare the pubs
fu
So those corporate welfare deadbeats
don't count as socialism? Wait...this bulletin just in. Nobody cares about your e-mail.
so if you don't have voicemail, you are a democrat and on welfare?
x
I have never seen welfare based on your color -
Where would you live that welfare would be based on your color? That seems like a crock to me!


Eeew! I'd rather go on welfare and stay

Welfare won't pay for abortion but will pay for invitro? No way!
I want to know where she got the money for this procedure (and for the 6 children prior to this litter). There are many, many people who cannot have children who would make great parents for those 8 newborns.........If she TRULY loved them, she would do what is right for them and not expose them to poverty and neglect.
The same people who are complaining about welfare...
are the ones looking for a government handout to pay their mortgages so they can purchase big-screen televisions for their bedrooms and build decks on the back of their government-paid houses. I guess welfare is okay as long as they get their house paid off.
Welfare Reform is a Success

Welfare Reform Reauthorized


Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened


Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).


"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."


The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.


Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.


"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."


Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.


"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."


The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.


The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.


For more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, view: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/.


what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
nm
I did not say welfare people - I said the poor -
I am sorry, but I consider most single parents poor - myself included. I do not think that 25,000-30,000 makes me middle class - I call that poor in this day and time. It sure as heck ain't getting my any frills in this life...

I am saying that the more money people have right now though, the more they are saving because they are worrying. The poor people with the lower paying jobs have nothing to lose anyway, so why save what they get? I am not saying it is right, but at this point, they are the ones that are out buying the big screen TVs, the cars, the stereos, the game systems, because they are the ones getting the big fat checks back...

those of us who are the working poor are spending our money on bills and necessities and saving just in case and therefore we are not stimulating the economy as much...

That is what I am saying!