And so it begins in missouri....

Grumpy Ol' Man said:
We are in awe that we've been "dressed down" by a 'one-percenter'. We are humbled that a 'one-percenter' makes sure we know he supports his church. Oh, as far as we "who are b...g", we do pay taxes. The Good Lord has blessed my wife and I with gainful employment for all of our married life. Raising three children, all now married, we were fortunate enough to never need to apply for any assistance. There are many of our fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times and need a hand up. I do not have any angst about paying my fair share to help those who are truly in need. What does bother me are politicians who sacrifice the well-being of their fellow man to placate the one-percenters who enjoy the privilege of living the good life and don't want "bothered" by the riff-raff. After all, the one-percenters buy elected officials every day and those huge campaign donations deserve more tax breaks, even if those favors are at the expense of the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

I truly agree with you about helping our fellow man and there have always been those that needed it. Quite a number of years ago families and the church helped those in need. Now the democrats over the years have started welfare and dependency on the government costing taxpayers billions of dollars for those who will not work. Granted there are a small percent that cannot work and certainly deserve all they get. That is a small percent but is certainly growing. Now the government is trillions in debt because of welfare and wars.

Perhaps this person was trying to help the state by making sure they used the money for the right reasons. What is wrong with their families helping if possible. If not there are all kinds of shelters in most states where one can stay to get on their feet. Now I know this is not the American dream money but do we(taxpayer) owe every one residing in the USA the American dream. Obviously if one does not pay any taxes they could care less where the money goes. Those that do not pay any federal or state taxes exceeds 50 percent.
 

QuickSilver said:
To be fair... there are some folks in the higher percentiles who are staunch Democrats and DO care about the poor... Just sayin' But I know what you are saying.. most are selfish prigs wanting more and more and always at the expense of others.


notice I said "prigs" and not what I was thinking.. hahahaha
Click to expand...

I'm going to throw in a "to be fair" among the constant republican bashing that goes on in this forum, This article is by a liberal, so it has to be correct, and there are many more articles by other data showing the same findings.



[h=1]Opinion[/h]


​

[h=1]Bleeding Heart Tightwad[/h]Published: December 20, 2008
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
ts-kristof-190.jpg
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

[h=5]On the Ground[/h]



Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.

A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.


Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0
 
There are two very different conditions of recipients. The largest segment of those receiving assistance are folks who have had medical issues and need financial help to dig out of a hole... have lost their employment and need help until they can find gainful employment... are stuck in minimum wage jobs and, even though they work hard, cannot make enough to cover the costs of raising a family... a single parent that has childcare costs and food/clothing costs that his/her job does not pay enough to cover... persons whose mental abilities handicap them such they cannot hold a job that pays a living wage... truly disabled people whose medical issues restrict what employment they can find... and a plethora of other situations, most not avoidable or immediately correctable.

Then, there are the generational welfare cases and the outright fraud that steals money meant for the less fortunate. There are so many supposedly "disabled" who feel they are more entitled to someone else paying their way than working to pay their own way. There are entirely too many of these in the system. The legislation imposed by this latest Brownback will have little effect on curbing the fraud and generational welfare issues. It will, however, impose additional burdens on those who dearly depend on the benefit programs to maintain food and shelter for families. Yes, as you say, there are shelters. I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters". The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors. That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars.
 

I personally would rather have my tax dollar go to the occasional fraud... than to cut benefits or cause hardship for the truely needy and disabled.
 
QuickSilver said:
I personally would rather have my tax dollar go to the occasional fraud... than to cut benefits or cause hardship for the truely needy and disabled.
Click to expand...

I personally would rather have a very few votes cast by those not properly registered... than to impose restrictions that cause citizens to lose their right to vote.

I personally would rather have medical doctors make decisions as to when termination of a pregnancy is in the best interest of an expectant mother... than have politicians legislate such that the health and welfare of all are at risk.

I personally would rather see a child educated as to the correct history of the world... than to have religous fundamentalism edit our textbooks so the words agree with specific beliefs.

I personally would rather see our elected officials elected on name only... than to have them elected by millions of dollars infused into campaign chest by large corporations.
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ure_limits_tanf_money_no_cruises_for_you.html

Here in Brownbackistan, we also just passed legislation to put substantial restraint on those receiving assistance through State issued debit cards. A mother of two can receive a maximum of $430/month to assist in feeding and clothing her children... or paying rent... or making payments for a vehicle to get back and forth to work... or....
Brownback signed the bill that will now limit daily withdrawls on the debits cards to $25. The cards are issued through Chase Bank. Chase imposes an 85 cent fee for each transaction, after the first one each month. Then, if the card-holder doesn't have a bank account where they can use an ATM without cost, they pay an additional 50 cents per transaction. That uses up $20/month just in fees. Then, consider that most ATM's won't dispense cash in less than $10 increments. So, in most cases, the card-holder can only access $20/day.

Okay, let's tell our landlord we can't pay our full rent this month. We will pay $20/day because that's all we can access. Or, we need to go to the grocery store. Instead of being able to purchase groceries for a week or two, now we can only buy $20/day because that's all we can access.

Brownback sold this plan as a means to keep card-holders from spending their money on "sinful" things like tattoos or gambling or in sex shops. Most recipients are only trying to put food on the table, not ink on their arms. Most are busy trying to juggle one or two minimum wage jobs with the resonsibility of raising kids. Take more time away, now, so they can make daily runs to the grocery store to spend their $20.
Click to expand...

One apple can spoil a barrel I think. Something has to be done about those abusing benefits we all can get from the gov if needed. It's like that "guy" that stands and begs for money on the corner. He may be legit, but we don't want to give to him because some of those "guys" bring in 60,000 a year. I don't know the answer. Some women use abortion like birth control which is wrong imo. Some use abortion for more legit reasons. How do you separate them (not talking to those that believe abortion is aok for any reason).
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
There are two very different conditions of recipients. The largest segment of those receiving assistance are folks who have had medical issues and need financial help to dig out of a hole... have lost their employment and need help until they can find gainful employment... are stuck in minimum wage jobs and, even though they work hard, cannot make enough to cover the costs of raising a family... a single parent that has childcare costs and food/clothing costs that his/her job does not pay enough to cover... persons whose mental abilities handicap them such they cannot hold a job that pays a living wage... truly disabled people whose medical issues restrict what employment they can find... and a plethora of other situations, most not avoidable or immediately correctable.

Then, there are the generational welfare cases and the outright fraud that steals money meant for the less fortunate. There are so many supposedly "disabled" who feel they are more entitled to someone else paying their way than working to pay their own way. There are entirely too many of these in the system. The legislation imposed by this latest Brownback will have little effect on curbing the fraud and generational welfare issues. It will, however, impose additional burdens on those who dearly depend on the benefit programs to maintain food and shelter for families. Yes, as you say, there are shelters. I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters". The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors. That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars.
Click to expand...

You say this as it were fact which you gather by watching and reading liberal media. It is your opinion not fact. You do not know. You can get by with this on this forum because it has many more liberals. That is fine by me. But lets not make fun of one another because we disagree on left and right issues, religion, etc.

Now I talked about families and churches use to help and shelters available in most sates and you turn it around; '"Yes, as you say, there are shelters. I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters". The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors. That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars." NOW THEN THAT IS YOUR IDEA NOT MINE.

So please do not be ridiculous with me.

My daughters best friend's son has a rare kind of leukemia and has a very slim chance of living. Because it cost 30K for radiation treatment and 10k for a pint of blood. No welfare will touch that. So what does she do she works and tries to raise the money thru contributions from the community or sit and watch her son die sooner. Lots of people like that in the USA. But what do you do. If I were a one percenter, I would give her the money in a heartbeat. Do not disgrace me by calling me that again, please.
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
I personally would rather have a very few votes cast by those not properly registered... than to impose restrictions that cause citizens to lose their right to vote.

I personally would rather have medical doctors make decisions as to when termination of a pregnancy is in the best interest of an expectant mother... than have politicians legislate such that the health and welfare of all are at risk.

I personally would rather see a child educated as to the correct history of the world... than to have religous fundamentalism edit our textbooks so the words agree with specific beliefs.

I personally would rather see our elected officials elected on name only... than to have them elected by millions of dollars infused into campaign chest by large corporations.
Click to expand...

Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.
 Letterman's TopTen Reasons to Vote Democrat

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can nowmarry whatever Iwant. I've decided to marry my German Shephered.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of4% on a gallonof gas are obscene, but the government taxing the samegallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do abetter job ofspending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long asnobody isoffended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own agun, and I knowthat my local police are all I need to protect me frommurderers and thieves. Iam also thankful that we have a 911 service thatgets police to your home inorder to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions ofbabies beingaborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive andcomfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a rightto free healthcare, education, and Social Security benefits, and weshould take away SocialSecurity from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not beallowed tomake profits for themselves. They need to break even and givethe rest away tothe government for redistribution as the Democrat Party seesfit

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need torewrite theConstitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would neverget theiragendas past the voters.

… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better topay$billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because itmightupset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. Wedon't careabout the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.



"Thedifference between genius and stupidity is that genius hasits limits"…Albert Einstein. AMEN!!!>
I know you all will appreciate this definition. The bestdescription ofObamacare so far:

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said:

“We have to pass it, to find out what's in it."
A physician called into a radio show and said
"That's the definition of a stool sample."
 
nwlady said:
One apple can spoil a barrel I think. Something has to be done about those abusing benefits we all can get from the gov if needed. It's like that "guy" that stands and begs for money on the corner. He may be legit, but we don't want to give to him because some of those "guys" bring in 60,000 a year. I don't know the answer. Some women use abortion like birth control which is wrong imo. Some use abortion for more legit reasons. How do you separate them (not talking to those that believe abortion is aok for any reason).
Click to expand...

While I agree wholeheartedly that the frauds and abusers need to be weeded out... Cutting benefits and making it extremely difficult and degrading for those who are truely needy or disabled is NOT the way to do it. I don't care how much a "fraud" supposedly makes... or WHO saw someone buy lobster and a bottle of vodka with food stamps.. Starving a hungrey child is NOT the solution. To do so is not what we should be as a society.
 
rickary said:
Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.
Letterman's TopTen Reasons to Vote Democrat

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can nowmarry whatever Iwant. I've decided to marry my German Shephered.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of4% on a gallonof gas are obscene, but the government taxing the samegallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do abetter job ofspending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long asnobody isoffended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own agun, and I knowthat my local police are all I need to protect me frommurderers and thieves. Iam also thankful that we have a 911 service thatgets police to your home inorder to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions ofbabies beingaborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive andcomfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a rightto free healthcare, education, and Social Security benefits, and weshould take away SocialSecurity from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not beallowed tomake profits for themselves. They need to break even and givethe rest away tothe government for redistribution as the Democrat Party seesfit

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need torewrite theConstitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would neverget theiragendas past the voters.

… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better topay$billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because itmightupset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. Wedon't careabout the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.
Click to expand...

Snopes calls BS!



image: http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif
red.gif
FALSE



Example:[Collected via e-mail, October 2014]

I've just rec'd several e-mails with the Title: Letterman's Top reasons to Vote Democrat. We are all wondering if this is actually his Top 10. Most of us doubt it is.

Thanks so much for your help.


Origins: As early as 2013, an e-mail forward including a list of popular talk show host David Letterman's "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat" (alternately titled "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Straight Democratic") began to circulate. In the missive, a number of political points were sarcastically framed, each criticizing Democrats under the guise of praising the party.

As the midterm elections of 2014 approached, the Letterman Top Ten e-mail surged in popularity, and many questioned whether that list was genuinely a comedic commentary delivered by David Letterman:David Letterman's Top 10 Reasons to vote Democrat

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

#1. And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.


This list is not something that was penned by David Letterman or ever presented on his Late Night show; it's a spoof written by someone using Letterman's familiar "Top Ten" shtick to make a political point. Most of the list's points aren't even delivered in joke format and are just political criticisms commonly lobbed at the Democrats by their opponents."


 
QuickSilver said:
While I agree wholeheartedly that the frauds and abusers need to be weeded out... Cutting benefits and making it extremely difficult and degrading for those who are truely needy or disabled is NOT the way to do it. I don't care how much a "fraud" supposedly makes... or WHO saw someone buy lobster and a bottle of vodka with food stamps.. Starving a hungrey child is NOT the solution. To do so is not what we should be as a society.
Click to expand...

It is the very poor, handicapped or addicted that get food stamps. So if you see one buying other than food or cleaning supplies of personal hygene items with food stamps, there is most likely a child doing without. Do you sacrifice the needs and goods of the many to serve the one. The government cannot legislate no starving children, so it is we in our communities have to make sure that don't happen. The left now a days think the government should take care of all problems leaving no responsibility to themselves. Most post you make indicate that.

I will admit I peaked but I am interested in this thread.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Snopes calls BS!


image: http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif
red.gif

FALSE



Example:[Collected via e-mail, October 2014]

I've just rec'd several e-mails with the Title: Letterman's Top reasons to Vote Democrat. We are all wondering if this is actually his Top 10. Most of us doubt it is.

Thanks so much for your help.


Origins: As early as 2013, an e-mail forward including a list of popular talk show host David Letterman's "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat" (alternately titled "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Straight Democratic") began to circulate. In the missive, a number of political points were sarcastically framed, each criticizing Democrats under the guise of praising the party.

As the midterm elections of 2014 approached, the Letterman Top Ten e-mail surged in popularity, and many questioned whether that list was genuinely a comedic commentary delivered by David Letterman:David Letterman's Top 10 Reasons to vote Democrat

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

#1. And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.


This list is not something that was penned by David Letterman or ever presented on his Late Night show; it's a spoof written by someone using Letterman's familiar "Top Ten" shtick to make a political point. Most of the list's points aren't even delivered in joke format and are just political criticisms commonly lobbed at the Democrats by their opponents."
Click to expand...

Who cares who wrote it. No one said it is the absolute truth, it is an opinion of the right just like the left has their opinions.
 
AZ Jim said:
I also had to peek, my reference of tenure had to do with your participation, not time as a member.
Click to expand...

Tenure means time not number of posts. But why should you care about tenure, we in the USA believe all men/women are created equal. Newbie:D
 
rickary said:
Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.
Click to expand...

rickary said:
Who cares who wrote it. No one said it is the absolute truth, it is an opinion of the right just like the left has their opinions.
Click to expand...

Well, you first said it was written by David Letterman. Then you posted to bear in mind that this is not the logic of the right, but the opinion of the liberal media...now you say that it is an opinion of the right?? Nobody really cares who wrote it Rickary, it's just a cheap spoof written to criticize a political party and no more.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top