Calling Obama supporters

[ereks mom]

I also think that regardless of the Pres. the economy has cycles, lucky is the president who is in office when it cycles up instead of down! :D

 

The economy is not just the work of one person -- even the president. It is an evolving entity, if you will, and in any given period, it show the results of years & years of tweaking.

 

It's kind of like mixing paint by hand; you add different colors and it changes, sometimes more than you wanted and sometimes less. So you have to keep working at it to get it just right. And what's just right to you is not acceptable to someone else. So it has to be modified to accomodate everyone's desires -- which is not possible, so there has to be compromise. And once everyone finally agrees, and implements the plan, the needs change because life changes. Then there are more modifications and more compromises and it just never ends.

[Joanne]

Note: Reduced rate lunches will have no increase -- they will stay at 30 cents.

 

Why does the federal gov't get involved in city schools' lunches? Why not just create a cafeteria like any private enterprise would. The child could either bring a bagged lunch or buy the lunch in the cafeteria. Why are tax dollars going to this? I actually saw people complaining about the cost of the lunches!

 

Oh, BTW -- when our oldest was living with his mom, my husband found out that he was on the reduced price lunch program. He went in and tried to pay for his lunch program, but they would not allow it.

 

I can tell you that being a single, and now impoverished married mom has challenged the role I thought I wanted government to play.

 

I don't have answers; but I no longer have strong opinions on subjects relating to this.

 

When I owned my daycare business and when I worked at a local public school, I knew several kids where the only decent, hot meal they got was at my home or at breakfast/lunch at school. I don't think *government* should step in for parents, but that is where we have evolved, moving local, private enterprise and concern out of the picture.

[Melinda in VT]

Here's another example of unnecesary spending:

 

Why does the federal gov't get involved in city schools' lunches? Why not just create a cafeteria like any private enterprise would. The child could either bring a bagged lunch or buy the lunch in the cafeteria. Why are tax dollars going to this? I actually saw people complaining about the cost of the lunches!

 

Oh, BTW -- when our oldest was living with his mom, my husband found out that he was on the reduced price lunch program. He went in and tried to pay for his lunch program, but they would not allow it.

 

For many kids, sadly, school lunch is their only real meal of the day. I understand people who think the federal government should stay out of education (I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the argument), but it's hard for me to get up in arms about using federal money to feed hungry kids.

 

As for your husband's experience, I agree they should have let him pay for it. I know that in some districts (mine, for example), the federal government's reimbursement for the free and reduced lunches is actually more than cost, and they use that extra money to keep the cost lower for the students paying "full price." So it costs the school money when kids move from reduced lunch to full price. I don't agree with that, and in fact we paid for our kids' lunch even when we could have qualified (we look poorer on paper than we are). I can understand your husband's frustration.

[Nestof3]

You know, Joanne, we could go back and forth about the definition of "impoverished" -- and I don't know your situation, but I do know that $1.80 is a great price for a lunch, and this mother I mentioned spent that in cigarettes a day not to mention the junk food cluttering the house and the cable TV. So, while I agree that it's great these kids get a meal, it still irks me that the gov't is forking over money when a mother is depriving a child of food when she could afford it.

 

The price of cable can buy a few bags of groceries.

[Joanne]

but I do know that $1.80 is a great price for a lunch, and this mother I mentioned spent that in cigarettes a day not to mention the junk food cluttering the house and the cable TV.

 

 

I can't comment on the "mom you mentioned". I can comment that the issues around needing/qualifying for government help are not as simple and clear cut as *I* once imagined.

 

So, while I agree that it's great these kids get a meal, it still irks me that the gov't is forking over money when a mother is depriving a child of food when she could afford it.

 

Lots of things irk me about the choices the parents make. I ask myself, often, what role society and the government should play in minimizing the impact on the child.

 

The price of cable can buy a few bags of groceries.

 

I understand your frustration. I feel that way about a lot of things. I no longer feel it's as simple as "give up cable and feed your kids".

 

 

You know, Joanne, we could go back and forth about the definition of "impoverished" -- and I don't know your situation,

 

My xh succeeded in reducing child support to less than $500 a month for 3 kids. He allowed their health insurance to lapse, creating the reality that my dd's juvenille rhuematoid arthritis be excluded from care on my DH's insurance. The insurance we now carry on the kids and myself and my DH for my family takes more than 2/3 of my husband's paycheck. I'm getting less support, paying more money out and my dd's $1500 a month meds are.......I'm not able to pay.

 

*That* is my situation. I purchased a diet coke last night in the bar where I played free tournament poker. Anyone making a conclusion on that purchase would likely be wrong.

[Ahwahnee]

 

You cannot look at one piece of the issue in a bubble. Obama has an economic plan endorsed by many leading economists. Refute the entire plan or don't bother with it at all.

 

I find this curious, most of the economists come from universities or public service. Would you expect them to have a conservative or liberal view? Their jobs probably depend on the view they take. Does an endorsement mean we should avoid common sense?

 

When you take your kids to a park, and bring a chest full of drinks, should you be required by law to give half of them to everyone else in the park, since you have so many? Or should you be able to choose what you do with your drinks? Would you go to the park if you were required to give away your drinks?

 

Trickle down may not work, but redistribution of wealth by business or government doesn't help either.

[Kay in Cal]

Ahwahnee wrote "When you take your kids to a park, and bring a chest full of drinks, should you be required by law to give half of them to everyone else in the park, since you have so many? Or should you be able to choose what you do with your drinks? Would you go to the park if you were required to give away your drinks?"

 

Worked for Jesus. The disciples weren't crazy about the idea either, btw... ‘Where are we to get enough bread in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’

 

 

 

Matthew 15:32-39

 

Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way.’ 33The disciples said to him, ‘Where are we to get enough bread in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’ 34Jesus asked them, ‘How many loaves have you?’ They said, ‘Seven, and a few small fish.’ 35Then ordering the crowd to sit down on the ground, 36he took the seven loaves and the fish; and after giving thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. 37And all of them ate and were filled; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 38Those who had eaten were four thousand men, besides women and children. 39After sending away the crowds, he got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan.

[Nestof3]

Wow -- comparing Jesus to the gov't -- I have a difficult time with that.

 

Jesus had wisdom and insight the gov't just doesn't have. He was also equally direct with people and their sin. The gov't is not.

[Nestof3]

Joanne, like I said, I am not speaking of your specific situation.

 

I will say, though, that most wives (ex-wives included) would be enraged to discover that while their husband (ex-husband) claimed he could not afford $1.80 a day for his child's lunch, he was in fact spending money on the sorts of things I mentioned.

 

Sometimes it's about priorities too. And saving a little here and there helps out a lot.

[TravelingChris]

Lowering taxes particularly corporate taxes helps the economy. For examples, look at Ireland, Estonia, and the US. Yes, we are not having as robust an economy right now as in the last six years. We should increase energy production, stop madating ethanol and reduce government spending.

 

Yes, I do have a degree in economics from one of the foremost universities.

[Margaret in GA]

win means a stable and secure society with a govt that can keep it that way.

 

Hate to point this out, but they had that before we invaded them.

 

 

Why do I support Obama? Because he's against the war. You wonder how we'll make it without a tax increase? Consider that we spend $12 billion a month on this war.

 

Margaret, faithfully supporting our troups by asking the Commander in Chief to bring them home

[Kay in Cal]

Wow, that was really out of context and slap-down rude. Where did I ever say Jesus was the government? What I said was... Jesus does indeed require us to share our drinks that we take to the park if others don't have them. Whether or NOT the government requires it, Jesus requires it of Christians.

 

You disagree?

[Joanne]

Sometimes it's about priorities too. And saving a little here and there helps out a lot.

 

Yes, I realize that. I've been living it for years.

 

My point, however, is that my experience has challenged my previous assumptions about people "in the system", "in need" and how much I can assume about them. Especially given little bits of information such as "they have cable".

 

It was "easy" for me to be critical of school lunches, or other social type gov't spending before I was in a position to feed my kids and get them medical care - or not.

 

I didn't understand the issues involved until I was there. Ideally, I believe local private organizations should help families in need. But the reality is those options are limited - in part because of the increased role government has taken over the years. This does not make me happy, but I do not have time to change the system and feed my kids.

[TXMomof4]

Hate to point this out, but they had that before we invaded them.

 

 

Why do I support Obama? Because he's against the war. You wonder how we'll make it without a tax increase? Consider that we spend $12 billion a month on this war.

 

Margaret, faithfully supporting our troups by asking the Commander in Chief to bring them home

 

 

We were so secure that the terrorist were able to hijack 4 planes and kill 3000 people. I am amazed at how complacent we have become, when there was a very real attack on our country, and others that really were planned. I know the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here may not resonate with many, but I am all for it. Can you imagine if we didn't confront those terrorists on their own ground? Suicide bombers on our streets? I believe it is naive to think that couldn't happen.

 

The cry immediately after 9/11 was "Why wasn't anything done to prevent this! How could we not know something like this was coming?"

Now everyone is yelling, "What are we doing? Who do we think we are?"

You can't have it both ways. Either the government is aggresive in national security issues, or they aren't and we have learned that we will pay the price for that choice.

[Melinda in VT]

We were so secure that the terrorist were able to hijack 4 planes and kill 3000 people. I am amazed at how complacent we have become, when there was a very real attack on our country, and others that really were planned. I know the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here may not resonate with many, but I am all for it. Can you imagine if we didn't confront those terrorists on their own ground? Suicide bombers on our streets? I believe it is naive to think that couldn't happen.

 

The cry immediately after 9/11 was "Why wasn't anything done to prevent this! How could we not know something like this was coming?"

Now everyone is yelling, "What are we doing? Who do we think we are?"

You can't have it both ways. Either the government is aggresive in national security issues, or they aren't and we have learned that we will pay the price for that choice.

 

I'll probably get negative rep for this, but . . .

 

The men who planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks were not from Iraq. I believe that our involvement in Iraq has actually increased the opposition to the U.S. among Muslim extremists and diverted resources that should have been used to find Bin Laden.

[Margaret in GA]

I'll probably get negative rep for this, but . . .

 

The men who planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks were not from Iraq. I believe that our involvement in Iraq has actually increased the opposition to the U.S. among Muslim extremists and diverted resources that should have been used to find Bin Laden.

 

:iagree:

 

I cannot believe that people don't realize that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Also, I want to say that so many of us are not so far apart. I happen to be a very liberal pro-lifer who is for the Fair Tax.

 

Margaret

[melissel]

Evil? Wow, that's harsh. I used to work for Hewlett Packard, and I saw a lot of integrity there. A good strong business means secure jobs, new hires, and a lot of money spent in the communities where they are located. When corporations can't make a profit, they are forced to shut down entire divisions which creates havoc with the families affected as well as the communities they live in.

 

I think Mrs. Mungo's point is that maybe if they weren't spending bazillions on corporate jets, sports boxes, C-level salaries, etc., the companies could still make a profit without decimating the lives, families, and communities of the people employed by the divisions they are "forced" to shut down.

[melissel]

I'll probably get negative rep for this, but . . .

 

The men who planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks were not from Iraq. I believe that our involvement in Iraq has actually increased the opposition to the U.S. among Muslim extremists and diverted resources that should have been used to find Bin Laden.

 

:iagree:

[Phred]

We were so secure that the terrorist were able to hijack 4 planes and kill 3000 people. I am amazed at how complacent we have become, when there was a very real attack on our country, and others that really were planned. I know the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here may not resonate with many, but I am all for it. Can you imagine if we didn't confront those terrorists on their own ground? Suicide bombers on our streets? I believe it is naive to think that couldn't happen.

 

The cry immediately after 9/11 was "Why wasn't anything done to prevent this! How could we not know something like this was coming?"

Now everyone is yelling, "What are we doing? Who do we think we are?"

You can't have it both ways. Either the government is aggresive in national security issues, or they aren't and we have learned that we will pay the price for that choice.

Only we attacked the wrong country. And now we're bogged down there. It was obvious before we went in that it was the wrong country. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the targets, not Iraq. But here we are...

 

We invaded a country that we had no right to invade. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes. Abu Ghraib. We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding our boys in WWII... why is it now ok? I'm not so afraid that I'm willing to have these things done in my name.

 

You can believe this nonsense if you want to ... but it's been shown time and time again to be lies. Bush lies. Our government lies. It's time to end the fear and the lying.

 

"suicide bombers in the streets"... do you think they're going to walk here?

[Ahwahnee]

Ahwahnee wrote "When you take your kids to a park, and bring a chest full of drinks, should you be required by law to give half of them to everyone else in the park, since you have so many? Or should you be able to choose what you do with your drinks? Would you go to the park if you were required to give away your drinks?"

 

Worked for Jesus. The disciples weren't crazy about the idea either, btw... ‘Where are we to get enough bread in the desert to feed so great a crowd?’quote]

 

Choosing to help or give to others is different than making a law that takes away things with the pretense of giving to others. Which do you feel better about: giving $10 to someone you see that needs it, or forcing someone to give $10 to the government so they can give $8 to some they think needs it most.

 

Americans deserve better:

 

• Health care

• Corporate Governance

• Peace

• Prosperity

Saying your for change and trying the same ideas socialists have tried in Europe does not make it happen. America cannot afford to be like Europe.

 

While peace is important, we are 3 months pregnant with Iraq. Suggesting we can cut our losses by aborting the baby does not seem practical. Most Americans do not want to be there, but can see the need for us to do what we can responsibly. We need that region to be stable, otherwise we will be laughing about when we complained about $5 a gallon gasoline, because we will have $10 a gallon gasoline and a trashed economy.

 

I hope whomever is the next President will have the wisdom to lead us through.

[cornopean]

I'll probably get negative rep for this, but . . .

 

The men who planned and participated in the 9/11 attacks were not from Iraq.

I don't know that anyone defends the Iraq invasion claiming that the 9-11 attackers were from Iraq.

 

I believe that our involvement in Iraq has actually increased the opposition to the U.S. among Muslim extremists

I agree. if we fight them, I don't expect them to cheer us.

 

 

 

and diverted resources that should have been used to find Bin Laden.

why catch Bin Laden? the guy is holed up in a cave somewhere. we need to fight the war on terror. Bin Laden is only a small part of that. Right now, Al Qaeda is saying that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and I think we should take them at their word and fight them there.

[cornopean]

I think Mrs. Mungo's point is that maybe if they weren't spending bazillions on corporate jets, sports boxes, C-level salaries, etc., the companies could still make a profit without decimating the lives, families, and communities of the people employed by the divisions they are "forced" to shut down.

I guess I just don't see what right anyone else has to tell a board of directors how they spend their money. I might not like it....but it's their business. If people don't want to work there, they leave and go elsewhere.

[PineFarmMom]

Never mind...it's useless to argue.

[melissel]

I guess I just don't see what right anyone else has to tell a board of directors how they spend their money. I might not like it....but it's their business. If people don't want to work there, they leave and go elsewhere.

 

I don't think that anyone has the right to tell the boards of directors how to spend their money with the exception of expressing our opinions with our wallets, which I certainly do. My point was addressing the ethics of these big companies. Helping myself to a salary in the tens of billions and annual bonuses for myself and my cronies while claiming that the company is so broke that we are "forced" to lay off thousands is not ethical, IMO.

 

If people don't want to work there, they leave and go elsewhere.

 

And this is just silly. People take jobs where they can get them. Being so flip about an issue that enormous doesn't build you any credit here. Either that, or you certainly run in vastly different circles than the majority of the posters here, which would explain A LOT.

[PineFarmMom]

You're listening to Rush aren't you?

 

your retardican administration

 

 

Any desire or interest I had to read what you said before or after this statement is out the window since you sink to such a level as name-calling. I just had to get onto my 4 and 2yo sons a while ago. I expect it of kids. sad.

[Angela in TN]

Only we attacked the wrong country. And now we're bogged down there. It was obvious before we went in that it was the wrong country. Afghanistan and Pakistan were the targets, not Iraq. But here we are...

 

I'm going to throw this out there that Saddam Hussein and his government needed to come down. They are accussed of killing hundreds of thousands of people. This is from NPR who is less than balanced. So as far as I'm concerned regardless of the lack of WOMD he needed to be taken down (Hilter anyone?). And in case you forgot the intelligence they had at the time suggested this, even the democrats agreed with this. It's easy to armchair quarterback when looking back but at the time, a majority of lawmakers agreed.

 

You can believe this nonsense if you want to ... but it's been shown time and time again to be lies. Bush lies. Our government lies. It's time to end the fear and the lying.

 

I'm guessing you only believe "government lies" if Republicans are in power? :001_rolleyes: I'm all for healthy debate but just so you know talking "down" to others because they don't share your views won't win anyone over. JMHO :auto:

[battlemaiden]

Wow, that was really out of context and slap-down rude. Where did I ever say Jesus was the government? What I said was... Jesus does indeed require us to share our drinks that we take to the park if others don't have them. Whether or NOT the government requires it, Jesus requires it of Christians.

 

You disagree?

 

Kay,

 

Respectfully, I had the same reaction. I don't think she took what you wrote out of context, unless we both did. She was using the example of drinks at the park to illustrate the GOVERNMENT and you responded "worked for Jesus".

 

It is this sort of confusion on the role of CHRISTIANS versus the institution of GOVERNMENT which has caused so many problems.

 

Yes, as a Christian I should share my "drinks" and I do. But when the government wants to take over that role....we have a problem.

 

Give to Caesar and all that.

[battlemaiden]

I think the neutral way to phrase it would be: One is a vote to outlaw a procedure the other a vote to leave it to a woman's doctor to determine if it is medically necessary.

 

I'm a little late to the discussion, and I can't read through all the posts right now, but I just want to clarify that in the debate over partial birth abortion that went before the Supreme Court it was determined that Partial Birth Abortion has NEVER been "medically necessary"....ever.

 

Just wanted to be clear on that simple, but significant point. Sorry if it has already been mentioned.

 

Jo

[Mrs Mungo]

I find this curious, most of the economists come from universities or public service.

 

Seriously, if you actually go back in the thread you will see that leaders from major financial firms support Obama's plan. What view would you expect them to hold? Three former SEC chairmen have endorsed Obama among other financial institution leaders. Your premise is wrong.

 

Just one of the articles on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080514/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_sec_dc_2

 

When you take your kids to a park, and bring a chest full of drinks, should you be required by law to give half of them to everyone else in the park, since you have so many? Or should you be able to choose what you do with your drinks? Would you go to the park if you were required to give away your drinks?

 

Trickle down may not work, but redistribution of wealth by business or government doesn't help either.

 

This isn't how taxes work. Taxes pay my husband. They pay for his weapon and protective equipment, the vehicle he rides in, the food he eats, etc. Taxes pay for the roads. In the current case taxes are BADLY needed to start paying down our national debt. Did you even bother to look at Obama's economic plan? And melissel got my point about corporate jets, etc.

 

Phred said:

Afghanistan and Pakistan were the targets, not Iraq.

 

Pakistan was never a target and that's part of the problem. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, we can't invade them or they will nuke India and Israel. We have to play nice with Pakistan. So...who is then surprised that a country like Iraq would think it is in their best interest to have nukes? I don't think the government believed Iraq had nukes but I have my own reasons for that.

 

Texas T said:

It absolutely pre-dates this administration. I can think of a certain president of the opposite party of the said "retardican" party who spent more time being a bimbo in the White House than taking care of the business that definitely would have helped avoid the situation we are in today. He is definitely part of the mix, a way way bigger part of the mix than any dem admits or will ever admit.

 

Wow, I REALLY disagree. Clinton created the no-fly zones in Iraq, he bombed training camps in Afghanistan, he reacted in an appropriate manner to the threats at hand. The government knew something was coming but they really thought it was going to happen at one of our military bases overseas. We were living in Germany on 9/11. From the time we moved there in late 1997, through the embassy bombings and up to 9/11 I saw security increase *exponentially*. I realize most people here aren't military and are not really aware of the timeline of these events but that was really an inaccurate statement. Clinton may have been *wrong* in what he did part of the time from my, personal, POV (like refusing to send the Blackhawks to Kosovo and firing Wesley Clark as the head of NATO when he did it anyway) but it wasn't because he put no thought into it.

 

Eliana said:

You believe that the invasion of Iraq is taking action against future terrorist attacks? How?

 

I think the whole reason the government Iraq was to give the terrorists a place to blow up/shoot at Americans that wasn't on US soil. That's just my personal opinion, mind you. I would agree with Angela that Hussein's rule was terrible in many ways but there are other despots out there. I'm not touching the intelligence issue other than to say even Colin Powell after the fact said he though the administration was being deceptive.

[cornopean]

This isn't how taxes work. Taxes pay my husband. They pay for his weapon and protective equipment, the vehicle he rides in, the food he eats, etc. Taxes pay for the roads. In the current case taxes are BADLY needed to start paying down our national debt. Did you even bother to look at Obama's economic plan?

I think the point was that charity is voluntary or it's not charity. When the govt reaches into my pocket and gives it to someone else, they are not, for all that, charitable or generous. They are thieves.

 

 

I don't think the government believed Iraq had nukes but I have my own reasons for that.

to the best of my knowledge, no one in our govt claimed that Iraq had nukes.

 

 

 

I'm not touching the intelligence issue other than to say even Colin Powell after the fact said he though the administration was being deceptive.

he did? where?

[cornopean]

I don't think that anyone has the right to tell the boards of directors how to spend their money with the exception of expressing our opinions with our wallets, which I certainly do. My point was addressing the ethics of these big companies. Helping myself to a salary in the tens of billions and annual bonuses for myself and my cronies while claiming that the company is so broke that we are "forced" to lay off thousands is not ethical, IMO.

oh, I get you now. I agree completely. I thot you were advocating some kind of govt regulation of corporations to stop this. I agree it is unethical. I just don't think the govt should try to do something about it.

 

 

And this is just silly. People take jobs where they can get them. Being so flip about an issue that enormous doesn't build you any credit here. Either that, or you certainly run in vastly different circles than the majority of the posters here, which would explain A LOT.

I do not believe the business owners of this land are obligated to provide people with the standard of living they desire. do you?

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the point was that charity is voluntary or it's not charity. When the govt reaches into my pocket and gives it to someone else, they are not, for all that, charitable or generous. They are thieves.

 

I did not address the issue of charity in my post and I disagree with your premise. Maybe I just watch too much CNN but I have to disagree that charity=thievery. How many moms here have been on WIC? Do you support WIC, cornopean? Do you support low-income moms who work a minimum wage job and still can't feed her kids receiving milk, bread and peanut butter for her kids? Do you *honestly* support not feeding low-income children? The children should never suffer because of the choices of their parents. The kids are here, they need feeding, what's your solution?

 

to the best of my knowledge, no one in our govt claimed that Iraq had nukes.

 

They claimed they had all the makings of nukes-that was the point of the whole "cylinder" thing. That was the point of the uranium issue that turned out to be totally false. Did you watch the hearings on this?

 

 

he did? where?

 

I can't find an exact quote but here is something from:

http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf

that seems to prove exactly what I believe is the real reason for invading Iraq

The President constantly says it is a problem with Al Qaeda

 

and we have to fight them there or we will fight them here.

[cornopean]

I did not address the issue of charity in my post and I disagree with your premise. Maybe I just watch too much CNN but I have to disagree that charity=thievery.

now really now....did I ever assert that charity = theft? my position is that when one person forcibly takes money from another person, that is theft no matter what he does with the money once he has taken it. giving it to a starving person does not justify the theft. nor does the fact that duly elected officials due the stealing. It's still theft.

 

 

 

How many moms here have been on WIC? Do you support WIC, cornopean?

we get WIC. :001_smile:

 

 

Do you support low-income moms who work a minimum wage job and still can't feed her kids receiving milk, bread and peanut butter for her kids? Do you *honestly* support not feeding low-income children?

Frankly, I want to eliminate all suffering on the entire globe. but we have to be realistic about what is the best way to do this. I would support some kind of negative income tax as Charles Murray suggests here.

This plan

 

1. gets rid of the bureaucracy,

2. keeps people from utter destitution,

3. keeps the govt from trying to manipulate society via welfare payments,

4. provides a greater role for private charity to operate which is always preferable to govt "charity"

5. places a limit on the amount people will get.

 

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm a little late to the discussion, and I can't read through all the posts right now, but I just want to clarify that in the debate over partial birth abortion that went before the Supreme Court it was determined that Partial Birth Abortion has NEVER been "medically necessary"....ever.

 

Just wanted to be clear on that simple, but significant point. Sorry if it has already been mentioned.

 

Jo

 

 

Jo, I would love to read more about this, please. (And preferably from a medical site, if possible.) Do you have a link or can you narrow my search at all?

[Mrs Mungo]

now really now....did I ever assert that charity = theft? my position is that when one person forcibly takes money from another person, that is theft no matter what he does with the money once he has taken it. giving it to a starving person does not justify the theft. nor does the fact that duly elected officials due the stealing. It's still theft.

 

 

 

 

we get WIC. :001_smile:

 

I meant government using tax dollars for charity=theft.

 

You are *against* government programs to help families (calling it theft) and yet you accept WIC? How is this logical?

[nakitty]

 

 

we get WIC. :001_smile:

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously??? If you receive WIC that indicates to me that you are low enough income that you get every single bit of your income taxes returned...and most likely, you qualify for the EIC and child tax credits....which means that you get MORE back then you pay in....so what are complaining about, exactly?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Why does the federal gov't get involved in city schools' lunches? Why not just create a cafeteria like any private enterprise would. The child could either bring a bagged lunch or buy the lunch in the cafeteria. Why are tax dollars going to this? I actually saw people complaining about the cost of the lunches!

 

 

 

Because the sad fact is, kids go hungry. For some kids, this is their only meal of the day.

 

This is a very small way the government can do something very tangible to preserve the brains and enhance the lives of little children. (And some not-so-little children.) I'll never be against spending money to feed hungry kids. I've seen too many in my life that wouldn't even have a cold potato to bring to school, and that's not an exaggeration.

 

Parents' fault? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not looking too hard to see fault when there's a hungry child waiting to be fed.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

You are *against* government programs to help families (calling it theft) and yet you accept WIC? How is this logical?

 

I'm sitting here shaking my head too.... :confused:

Very interesting given the sig line.

[nakitty]

And....about PBA....the fact is that PBA would have been determined illegal a LONG time ago...and many times over now....had government officials just kept their paws off the bill....they continuously slip clauses in to these bills that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with PBA....just to try and sneak something through. I will give you a guess at which party is most infamous for doing this....and it isn't the liberals....

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Seriously??? If you receive WIC that indicates to me that you are low enough income that you get every single bit of your income taxes returned...and most likely, you qualify for the EIC and child tax credits....which means that you get MORE back then you pay in....so what are complaining about, exactly?

 

I think he's more making an argument philosophically. In a broader sense, this is what the government should require, as he sees the issue. And there's not really anything you can DO about those EIC credits and child tax credits and tax codes. I mean, you can send the money back or not take the deduction, and I guess that would be more of a practical, money-where-your-mouth-is kind of argument, but not many people will do that.

 

I'm not happy about the stimulus plan. Stupid and shortsighted, IMO. But I didn't send the money back. And if gas taxes are rolled back this summer, much as I will gripe about idiocy in high places, I will no send the government a check for the difference.

[battlemaiden]

Source(s)?

 

Determined by the Supreme Court? I hope that it wasn't you mean - I would be extremely uncomfortable having the courts decide what medical procedures are and aren't medically necessary.

 

As I recall, Sweden has, or used to have an interestingly structured abortion policy: free, legal, easily accessed in the first trimester, requiring two (I think) doctor's testimony (wrong term, but we're heading out the door in a sec and I'm getting sloppy here) for the second trimester, and almost impossible to get in the third without extensive medical evidence of its necessity. [i'm not advocating this, though it seems a better system than the one we have now.]

 

If it is never medically necessary, then wouldn't a policy requiring two doctors (with relevant knowledge/experience) to order it as medically necessary effectively outlaw the procedure?

 

I think you misunderstand.

 

It was from questioning during the sumpreme court case that the justices repeatedly asked if the procedure had ever been used to save the life of a mother. No "never" was the answer. The medical testimony assured the court that the procedure was not necessary for the health of the mother.

 

It has been a while, but my source was the actual transcripts from the arguments. It will take me a while to find it. I'm a little spread thin today with "to-do" items, but I'll look.

 

And btw, medical testimony before the court seems like a very valid way to review the medical facts.

 

Jo

[Phred]

I'm going to throw this out there that Saddam Hussein and his government needed to come down. They are accussed of killing hundreds of thousands of people. This is from NPR who is less than balanced. So as far as I'm concerned regardless of the lack of WOMD he needed to be taken down (Hilter anyone?). And in case you forgot the intelligence they had at the time suggested this, even the democrats agreed with this. It's easy to armchair quarterback when looking back but at the time, a majority of lawmakers agreed.

A few points. First, this isn't armchair quarterbacking. I was against this invasion then just as I'm against it now. It's not our job to run around the globe removing dictators who kill gazillions of people ESPECIALLY when we've just been attacked. Our lawmakers were misled as were our allies. What's the catchphrase? Bush lied, people died. More Iraqis have died now that we've invaded than ever died under Saddam. Over 600,000 in the last five years alone. That's more than Saddam ever killed. Frankly, nobody seems to care if Iraqis die now, why so important then?

 

No democracy ever took hold when it was imposed upon the people. The tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots. It can't be watered with the blood of mercenaries hired to come and restore order. If the Iraqis want a free country it's up to them to make it so. Sadly, they tried but the elder Bush wimped out on the promised help back at the end of Gulf war I. Thousands were killed then.

 

The best you can call this war is a mistake. Only now that we've invaded under the guise of there being weapons of mass destruction and there aren't any... whoops. So now you try to justify the war by saying we had to take out Saddam? Ok, we did. Why are we still there? Our young men and women are dying for a mistake. Tied up in a country when we need them elsewhere. We need the money elsewhere. Sad...

 

I'm guessing you only believe "government lies" if Republicans are in power?

That would be a bad guess. But if it makes you happy.

 

I'm all for healthy debate but just so you know talking "down" to others because they don't share your views won't win anyone over. JMHO

You mean like you just did? Gotcha!

[kokotg]

 

It was from questioning during the sumpreme court case that the justices repeatedly asked if the procedure had ever been used to save the life of a mother. No "never" was the answer. The medical testimony assured the court that the procedure was not necessary for the health of the mother.

 

 

 

there's a difference between "health of the mother" and "life of the mother." I'd be interested in seeing which phrase was used in the line of questioning you're referencing.

[cornopean]

Seriously??? If you receive WIC that indicates to me that you are low enough income that you get every single bit of your income taxes returned...and most likely, you qualify for the EIC and child tax credits....which means that you get MORE back then you pay in....so what are complaining about, exactly?

Yes we qualify for all those things and I don't think we are the better for them. Since the tax code takes from the rich, it is taking money from the most productive members of society. That money is then processed thru a hugely inefficient bureaucracy and given to people who often don't need it.

We just bought a brand new house. why do we need WIC? but since they meant if for us, we take it.

also....now that we have WIC the temptation is huge to waste the stuff we were given since we never paid for it. I just found a full bottle of milk that our little boy never drank. Oh well.....who cares......we never paid for it. just dump, fill it up again, and waste some more. oh....and the more kids we have, the more milk we get from the govt teat. and we are having kids fast and furious:auto::auto:

 

The perverse incentives this program creates are terrible.

[nakitty]

Yes we qualify for all those things and I don't think we are the better for them. Since the tax code takes from the rich, it is taking money from the most productive members of society. That money is then processed thru a hugely inefficient bureaucracy and given to people who often don't need it.

We just bought a brand new house. why do we need WIC? but since they meant if for us, we take it.

also....now that we have WIC the temptation is huge to waste the stuff we were given since we never paid for it. I just found a full bottle of milk that our little boy never drank. Oh well.....who cares......we never paid for it. just dump, fill it up again, and waste some more. oh....and the more kids we have, the more milk we get from the govt teat. and we are having kids fast and furious:auto::auto:

 

The perverse incentives this program creates are terrible.

[cornopean]

This is a very small way the government can do something very tangible to preserve the brains and enhance the lives of little children. (And some not-so-little children.) I'll never be against spending money to feed hungry kids. I've seen too many in my life that wouldn't even have a cold potato to bring to school, and that's not an exaggeration.

 

Parents' fault? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not looking too hard to see fault when there's a hungry child waiting to be fed.

the sad fact is that it is the very welfare you advocate that causes these problems. Welfare traps people and holds them down. The War on Poverty has created more poverty than it eliminated. actually it created a whole different kind of poverty. The poverty we see now is generation after generation of the same people on poverty. They grow used to it as a way of life. Welfare makes people comfortable in their poverty. That is a major problem with welfare.

 

George Will writes;

 

 

But no one knows how to stop it [poverty]. Anyway, spending at least $6.6 trillion on poverty-related programs in the four decades since President Johnson declared the "war on poverty" is not "nothing." In fact, it has purchased

a new paradigm of poverty

.

That new "paradigm" is what I am talking about.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yes we qualify for all those things and I don't think we are the better for them. Since the tax code takes from the rich, it is taking money from the most productive members of society. That money is then processed thru a hugely inefficient bureaucracy and given to people who often don't need it.

We just bought a brand new house. why do we need WIC? but since they meant if for us, we take it.

also....now that we have WIC the temptation is huge to waste the stuff we were given since we never paid for it. I just found a full bottle of milk that our little boy never drank. Oh well.....who cares......we never paid for it. just dump, fill it up again, and waste some more. oh....and the more kids we have, the more milk we get from the govt teat. and we are having kids fast and furious:auto::auto:

 

The perverse incentives this program creates are terrible.

 

For fifteen (?) years of our married life, we qualified for WIC and food stamps on my dh's enlisted income. We did not take them. We did not need them. We have no qualms about people who NEED them taking them. We would, if we saw a need, offer to drive the people who need them to the food stamp office (to save them gas money) and assist them with filling out the paperwork if, say, their hands were broken or something.

 

But to argue and blog and sneer at a candidate who is a supporter of some social programs because you feel that's what, immoral?, and then say you don't need programs but you take them anyway, and not only do you take them, but you take more than you can use?

 

Really? REALLY?? You're serious?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Ya think?

[cornopean]

For fifteen (?) years of our married life, we qualified for WIC and food stamps on my dh's enlisted income. We did not take them. We did not need them. We have no qualms about people who NEED them taking them.

the funny thing is......the politicians who pass such legislation intend them to be used by middle class folk. The same thing happened recently with the SCHIP program. It was meant for people who were quite well off.

 

 

But to argue and blog and sneer at a candidate who is a supporter of some social programs because you feel that's what, immoral?, and then say you don't need programs but you take them anyway, and not only do you take them, but you take more than you can use?

I never sneer at people.

I do feel that wealth redistribution is immoral. Noone has offered any reasons to the contrary.

I am not entirely at peace with us taking WIC. Frankly, I just look at our bottom line.....and if they offer it, we take it. but I ain't entirely happy about it.

[cornopean]

I'm sitting here shaking my head too.... :confused:

Very interesting given the sig line.

It's purely an economic decision. It helps our bottom line. I would write my legislator and tell him to nix the program in a second if I thought I it would work.