Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 21:29:36 GMT -5
"There are ways to do most of the above without rewarding bad behavior."
If this statement is true for you than I suggest your are not looking very hard. In my one tiny church in a small city with hundreds of others I have delivered food to the elderly, served breakfasts for lower income kids in schools, helped to buy and assemble playground equipment in parks for children in lower income neighborhoods, given rides to Dr. appts for people that can't afford transportation. My husband has helped build houses for lower income families, put on roofs, shoveled snow, yard work, house maintenance. This is one tiny church and there are hundreds more doing the same thing along with many groups that have no religious affiliation at all. I am not saying that this in itself is enough. I am saying that if you don't see it, you are not looking and maybe you should.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 21:30:36 GMT -5
It doesn't? When then does it promote entitlement programs? it doesn't.
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Feb 6, 2012 21:35:46 GMT -5
It doesn't dj? I rather think they like the minorities being dependent om them and it sure seems to be a good way to keep them voting for the same ole same ole. Welfare is not suppose to be a free hand out generation after generation but a hand up to help one get back on his/her feet. Some have been sarcastic and made comments about "what about the retarded or what about the starving children....Liberals are so drastic. I do not think you will find very few if any on either side that do not want to help those people but many are sick and tired of taking care of people(and there are many) that have absolutely nothing wrong with them and could take a job in construction and learn a trade and get the hell off of welfare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 21:41:40 GMT -5
Exactly. Vote for the freebies. When the freebies dry up though....so sorry.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 21:48:57 GMT -5
It doesn't dj? I rather think they like the minorities being dependent om them and it sure seems to be a good way to keep them voting for the same ole same ole. this doesn't explain the 40% of the poor that vote Republican, nor does it explain the 40% of the rich that vote Democrat. i seriously doubt it explains the other fraction, either. i think there are other explanations for all of this that have nothing to do with being poor, or as you put it, "dependent". and who is more dependent on the government? an urban working family, or a rural farmer? but suit yourself. if it makes you happy to think that the government is breeding an army of reliable voters, go right ahead.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 21:50:28 GMT -5
What do you mean, it doesn't...Medicade, WIC and AFDC are all government programs. so are farm subsidies and the military. i have noticed that farmers and military personnel tend to vote Republican. is it really that simple, lone?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 21:53:40 GMT -5
It's not just that. Only a small piece of the puzzle.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:01:49 GMT -5
Exactly. Vote for the freebies. When the freebies dry up though....so sorry. my mom has voted reliably democrat every election since FDR. she has never taken a red cent from the government, and never will. ditto for my MIL and FIL, both of whom served in WW2. they are not rare exceptions. they are the general rule. so just what sort of goodies are you referring to?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:05:21 GMT -5
I would be interested in knowing how many voters, who were dependent upon the government, voted for Obama. approximately 60% of those in the bottom quintile vote Democrat in the general election. that holds pretty well as an average. but very few of the poor are "dependent" on the government. to back up a second: i think it is kinda insulting to assume that people will ONLY vote their wallets. i think it dehumanizes them- makes them smaller than they actually are. i hear it on the left, too: that people ONLY vote Republican because of the tax breaks. it is utterly false. they vote for these parties because they IDENTIFY with them and their "core values", or at least the ones they project. is that so complicated? to assume that i would vote for Ron Paul because i expect money from him, or that my mom would vote for Obama because she does is condescending to the extreme.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:06:07 GMT -5
Exactly. Vote for the freebies. When the freebies dry up though....so sorry. I think the freebies are drying up now. The cow is going dry. if true, Romney is a shoo-in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:17:29 GMT -5
so are farm subsidies and the military. i have noticed that farmers and military personnel tend to vote Republican. is it really that simple, lone? I don't see goverment farm subsidies and military as being on the same plate. me neither. so why do both groups tend to vote Republican?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:18:07 GMT -5
if true, Romney is a shoo-in. How do you figure? you just said that the poor vote Democrat because they are sucking government teat. if the teat goes dry, why would they vote Democrat?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:38:06 GMT -5
you just said that the poor vote Democrat because they are sucking government teat. if the teat goes dry, why would they vote Democrat? I actually didn't say that. you're right. nana and one other poster did that, not you. my badRegardless, I thought you were comparing Mitt to Newt. nope. i was constructing a syllogism based on faulty logic: IF Democrats require servile and dependent voters sucking at the teat for victory AND IF the teat is going dry THEN Democrats will lose i don't think that Democrats need the teat to win, and i don't think that the teat is going dry. but Democrats STILL might lose. all they need to do is convince everyone that the BLS has been taken over by communists, and that more people by percentage are unemployed now than when Reagan was president. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 22:43:40 GMT -5
I would be interested in knowing how many voters, who were dependent upon the government, voted for Obama. approximately 60% of those in the bottom quintile vote Democrat in the general election. that holds pretty well as an average. but very few of the poor are "dependent" on the government. to back up a second: i think it is kinda insulting to assume that people will ONLY vote their wallets. i think it dehumanizes them- makes them smaller than they actually are. i hear it on the left, too: that people ONLY vote Republican because of the tax breaks. it is utterly false. they vote for these parties because they IDENTIFY with them and their "core values", or at least the ones they project. is that so complicated? to assume that i would vote for Ron Paul because i expect money from him, or that my mom would vote for Obama because she does is condescending to the extreme. I think it is a small pc of the puzzle. I really do believe that what ever party you vote for the end goal is basically the same. The methods to get there however, very different.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 22:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 22:47:57 GMT -5
I think it is a small pc of the puzzle. i am not that interested in small pieces.I really do believe that what ever party you vote for the end goal is basically the same. The methods to get there however, very different. what do you think the end goal is?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:04:44 GMT -5
nope. i was constructing a syllogism based on faulty logic: IF Democrats require servile and dependent voters sucking at the teat for victory AND IF the teat is going dry THEN Democrats will lose i don't think that Democrats need the teat to win, and i don't think that the teat is going dry. but Democrats STILL might lose. all they need to do is convince everyone that the BLS has been taken over by communists, and that more people by percentage are unemployed now than when Reagan was president. ;D Everyone is responsible for all the teat sucking going on. we like our standard of living. as one Indian put it to me recently, Americans like it, but others earn it. where is the fairness in that? i don't entirely agree with that assessment. i don't think it is quite that simple. but i can certainly see what he means.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:08:09 GMT -5
Comparisons to Reagan's first term are off base because of one simple number: the right track / wrong track number. Things were bad under Reagan, because like Obama he inherited a substantial mess- and in actuality, it was a much worse mess than the one Obama inherited. However, most Americas believed his policies were moving us in the right direction. Nobody thinks Obama has us on the right track.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:19:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 23:12:00 GMT -5
Comparisons to Reagan's first term are off base because of one simple number: the right track / wrong track number. Things were bad under Reagan, because like Obama he inherited a substantial mess- and in actuality, it was a much worse mess than the one Obama inherited. However, most Americas believed his policies were moving us in the right direction. Nobody thinks Obama has us on the right track. Really? Nobody thinks that? You've talked to everybody? Or are you using "nobody" in the sense of that little ghost character that the kid from Family Circus used to blame everything on? Man, I've been wondering for years who thought that crap was funny... now I know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:12:19 GMT -5
Comparisons to Reagan's first term are off base because of one simple number: the right track / wrong track number. Things were bad under Reagan, because like Obama he inherited a substantial mess- and in actuality, it was a much worse mess than the one Obama inherited. However, most Americas believed his policies were moving us in the right direction. Nobody thinks Obama has us on the right track. on the contrary. 30% think we are on the right track. that is about 30 million more than zero, in terms of voters. i should also add that this number has NEARLY DOUBLED in the last three months. of the 60% that think we are on the wrong track, fewer than half blame Obama for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:17:03 GMT -5
Comparisons to Reagan's first term are off base because of one simple number: the right track / wrong track number. Things were bad under Reagan, because like Obama he inherited a substantial mess- and in actuality, it was a much worse mess than the one Obama inherited. However, most Americas believed his policies were moving us in the right direction. Nobody thinks Obama has us on the right track. Really? Nobody thinks that? You've talked to everybody? Or are you using "nobody" in the sense of that little ghost character that the kid from Family Circus used to blame everything on? Man, I've been wondering for years who thought that crap was funny... now I know. i think i have discovered Paul;s true identity!
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 7, 2012 10:47:24 GMT -5
Our very freedoms.. money.. They want a Socialist country.. Yes, totally get that, but to what benefit would a socialist country be to our government? Again, Control of our lives.. our money.. Look at other Socialist countries...
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 7, 2012 10:48:33 GMT -5
Nobody thinks Obama has us on the right track. Now, don't say nobody.... Liberals do..
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,052
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Feb 7, 2012 10:49:20 GMT -5
Probably not ALL liberals though nana..
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Feb 7, 2012 10:57:11 GMT -5
Probably not ALL liberals though nana.. That would be refreshing to know! ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 22:12:41 GMT -5
Yes, totally get that, but to what benefit would a socialist country be to our government? Again, Control of our lives.. our money.. Look at other Socialist countries... let's do that, shall we? in France, women are given 12 months of PAID leave when they have a child (or is it 24? i can't remember). if they decide to go back to work early, they get a GOVERNMENT NANNY to come in and take care of the child. in addition, there are people that will buy groceries and run errands for them for free during that time. how much more pro-child, pro mother, and pro-nurtunring is that than the US? how is this something to be scourned, ridiculed, and hated? why would anyone NOT want that? your turn.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 22:35:53 GMT -5
let's do that, shall we? in France, women are given 12 months of PAID leave when they have a child (or is it 24? i can't remember). if they decide to go back to work early, they get a GOVERNMENT NANNY to come in and take care of the child. in addition, there are people that will buy groceries and run errands for them for free during that time. how much more pro-child, pro mother, and pro-nurtunring is that than the US? how is this something to be scourned, ridiculed, and hated? why would anyone NOT want that? your turn. And what does this mother give up to equal what she is getting? Remember, we must have balance. what could be more important than spending time with your newborn, lone? what is more valuable?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 7, 2012 22:39:16 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:04:07 GMT -5
WRONG! 16 weeks more than the US. there is NO PAID maternity leave requirement here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:05:30 GMT -5
what could be more important than spending time with your newborn, lone? what is more valuable? I agree 100%. No need to sell me on that, but I still wonder what it is she would be giving up to get these benefits. Is she paying more in taxes? if she works, she is. of course. my point is this- what does it say about OUR priorities when mothers have to go back to work to pay for their kids, rather than spending time with them?
|
|