The really big welfare checks go to the rich people like Cheney's friends in the oil business. Welfare for the rich dwarfs the welfare for the poor in the US.

The gov't in the US is designed to benefit the rich not the poor and it doesn't matter if a conservative or a liberal gets elected...its all the same...gov't by the rich for the rich....if voting could change this then it would be outlawed.

The really big welfare checks go to the rich people like Cheney's friends in the oil business.  Welfare for the rich dwarfs the welfare for the poor in the US.

The gov't in the US is designed to benefit the rich not the poor and it doesn't matter if a conservative or a liberal gets elected...its all the same...gov't by the rich for the rich....if voting could change this then it would be outlawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly this is everywhere in the world....that being said at some point individual person needs to make smth out of themselves rather than suckle the teet of the government.

gov't by the rich for the rich....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll buy that. But honestly, where else on the little blue ball are things any different?

How on earth does the US "House of Commons", better known as the House of Representatives, represent and serve the people when the majority are millionaires and each and every member earns and lives within the top few percentile of American society. I'd be in favor of slashing congressional salaries and benefits. Not that it would ever happen, but I'd also be in favor of implementing a change so that a house rep's net worth could not be higher than the average of all his/her potential constituency. Wouldn't that make for fairer, more accurate representation (not to mention some real fireworks within the house corridors)?

Edited September 6, 200520 yr by Spee

The really big welfare checks go to the rich people like Cheney's friends in the oil business.  Welfare for the rich dwarfs the welfare for the poor in the US.

The gov't in the US is designed to benefit the rich not the poor and it doesn't matter if a conservative or a liberal gets elected...its all the same...gov't by the rich for the rich....if voting could change this then it would be outlawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly this is everywhere in the world....that being said at some point individual person needs to make smth out of themselves rather than suckle the teet of the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A song I learnt in my youth:

It's the rich what's gets the pleasure,

It's the poor what's gets the blame,

It's the same the whole world over,

Aint it all a fukcing shame.

Well then since everyone seems to be aware of the fact that gov't primarily benefits the rich then I think it would be good to stop complaining about people collecting welfare and living off the public teat 'cause its small potatoes compared to what rich people take from the gov't.

Well then since everyone seems to be aware of the fact that gov't primarily benefits the rich then I think it would be good to stop complaining about people collecting welfare and living off the public teat 'cause its small potatoes compared to what rich people take from the gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who would you classify as "rich?" Personally, in US stats, I'm well above the median percentile in per capita income, but I'm far far from rich. I live paycheck to paycheck like most other working people in the states.

I will always have a problem with the current welfare system because it is based upon the concept of entitlements and hand outs, rather than focusing on a hand up.

Obviously there are many success stories about kids who have risen to great success from welfare programs. But for the vast majority, it is either a system to manipulate for personal gain, or a path to laziness and unwillingness to seek out a better life.

Finally there is a huge difference between government spending programs to "benefit the rich" and welfare programs.

With welfare programs, there is very little impetus to work or develop. There is very little welfare money which actually gets churned back into local economies, saved, reinvested, etc. (Yes, obviously most people who get this money are impoverished and don't have two nickels left over to save or invest.)

Other programs "to benefit the rich" directly employ people, who in turn EARN their money through work. Then they take that money and save it, spend it, invest it in their children's educations, etc.

Welfare is like chiropractics. It is easy to create, diagnose and administer treatment to problems, without ever looking for the root cause. The fatal flaw is that once you get diagnosed with a problem, you can never be cured because there is no interest in finding and fixing the root cause. There is only more treatment.

Well then since everyone seems to be aware of the fact that gov't primarily benefits the rich then I think it would be good to stop complaining about people collecting welfare and living off the public teat 'cause its small potatoes compared to what rich people take from the gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who would you classify as "rich?" Personally, in US stats, I'm well above the median percentile in per capita income, but I'm far far from rich. I live paycheck to paycheck like most other working people in the states.

I will always have a problem with the current welfare system because it is based upon the concept of entitlements and hand outs, rather than focusing on a hand up.

Obviously there are many success stories about kids who have risen to great success from welfare programs. But for the vast majority, it is either a system to manipulate for personal gain, or a path to laziness and unwillingness to seek out a better life.

Finally there is a huge difference between government spending programs to "benefit the rich" and welfare programs.

With welfare programs, there is very little impetus to work or develop. There is very little welfare money which actually gets churned back into local economies, saved, reinvested, etc. (Yes, obviously most people who get this money are impoverished and don't have two nickels left over to save or invest.)

Other programs "to benefit the rich" directly employ people, who in turn EARN their money through work. Then they take that money and save it, spend it, invest it in their children's educations, etc.

Welfare is like chiropractics. It is easy to create, diagnose and administer treatment to problems, without ever looking for the root cause. The fatal flaw is that once you get diagnosed with a problem, you can never be cured because there is no interest in finding and fixing the root cause. There is only more treatment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not claiming that the US welfare system is good for anyone...I'm saying that those who claim about the expense should really be complaining about corporate welfare...that's where the big money gets wasted...but...since you are talking about welfare I'd like to point out a good reason for having it...and again I'm not justifying the present system of welfare but just trying to point out that society needs to have a welfare system...here goes... There's about 250,000,000 people in the US...half are of below average intelligence and ability...that's 125,000,000 people....now half of these people are below the average of the below average people...that's 62,500,000 people....now half of these people are below the average of the people who are below the average of the people who are below average in intelligence and ability...now that's 31,250,000 people. Now, realize that the same thing can be said for such traits as social ability, dedication, work ethic, health....I'm hoping that my point is becoming clear....society has member who, due to their genetics or their upbringing who have a very very difficult time keeping thier act together. It is not the responsibility of the welfare system to help these people to overcome their shortcomings....this job belongs to the eductional and health systems..among other gov't agencies...The welfare system is just supposed to make sure that these people have the wherewithall to keep body and soul together from month to month....If these people were left destitute by the gov't then more problems would be created than solved...that's why gov't s do it...if it was less of a problem to leave these people destitute then the gov't would do that...at least the US gov't would...that's why the NO response was so bad...it was the common perception that the political fallout from a few poor people' suffering would not be a significant political problem...but mother nature fooled them and created sooo many poor people having suuuch a big problem that the true motivation of politcs has been exposed.

Edited September 7, 200520 yr by chownah

Breaking news.... Wacko Jacko wrote a song for the children of hurricane katrina.

b]An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State [/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having lived in and around "welfare state" areas, tutored, supported and counseled "welfare state" kids, as well has having personally seen and experienced ghetto violence and other forms of anti-social behavior, it is easy for me to agree with a lot of what is written in this article.

Hopefully now, people will realize and accept that the welfare state initiatives of the 60's-70's effectively destroyed the urban middle class that thrived during the 40's-50's.

From the ashes comes the Phoenix. I hope that from the ruins of NO will come the future solution for poor, destitute urbanites in all of America.

Hand out? Or Hand up?

I hope people will get a hand out over the short term, to get through the crisis, but may the long term plan be a hand up. Also, when the hand up is presented, may the people to whom it is offered, take a firm hold rather than turning it down to wait for another hand out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

gov't by the rich for the rich....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll buy that. But honestly, where else on the little blue ball are things any different?

How on earth does the US "House of Commons", better known as the House of Representatives, represent and serve the people when the majority are millionaires and each and every member earns and lives within the top few percentile of American society. I'd be in favor of slashing congressional salaries and benefits. Not that it would ever happen, but I'd also be in favor of implementing a change so that a house rep's net worth could not be higher than the average of all his/her potential constituency. Wouldn't that make for fairer, more accurate representation (not to mention some real fireworks within the house corridors)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well then since everyone seems to be aware of the fact that gov't primarily benefits the rich then I think it would be good to stop complaining about people collecting welfare and living off the public teat 'cause its small potatoes compared to what rich people take from the gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who would you classify as "rich?" Personally, in US stats, I'm well above the median percentile in per capita income, but I'm far far from rich. I live paycheck to paycheck like most other working people in the states.

I will always have a problem with the current welfare system because it is based upon the concept of entitlements and hand outs, rather than focusing on a hand up.

Obviously there are many success stories about kids who have risen to great success from welfare programs. But for the vast majority, it is either a system to manipulate for personal gain, or a path to laziness and unwillingness to seek out a better life.

Finally there is a huge difference between government spending programs to "benefit the rich" and welfare programs.

With welfare programs, there is very little impetus to work or develop. There is very little welfare money which actually gets churned back into local economies, saved, reinvested, etc. (Yes, obviously most people who get this money are impoverished and don't have two nickels left over to save or invest.)

Other programs "to benefit the rich" directly employ people, who in turn EARN their money through work. Then they take that money and save it, spend it, invest it in their children's educations, etc.

Welfare is like chiropractics. It is easy to create, diagnose and administer treatment to problems, without ever looking for the root cause. The fatal flaw is that once you get diagnosed with a problem, you can never be cured because there is no interest in finding and fixing the root cause. There is only more treatment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make a number of fallacious statements about the notion of the "welfare state" and its implied privileges, and assumed beneficieries. I will be back later to confront some your erroneous factual and assumed claims.

But let me start with this question:

What welfare benefits of the "60s and 70s" are you specifically talking about?

gov't by the rich for the rich....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be in favor of slashing congressional salaries and benefits. Wouldn't that make for fairer, more accurate representation (not to mention Not that it would ever happen, but I'd also be in favor of implementing a change so that a house rep's net worth could not be higher than the average of all his/her potential constituency. some real fireworks within the house corridors)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, so you'd be in favor of instituting defacto wage discrimination against Representatives of congressional districts based on race, poverty, and location.

Save your brilliant idea, it's already been declared illegal by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 1964

Well then since everyone seems to be aware of the fact that gov't primarily benefits the rich then I think it would be good to stop complaining about people collecting welfare and living off the public teat 'cause its small potatoes compared to what rich people take from the gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who would you classify as "rich?" Personally, in US stats, I'm well above the median percentile in per capita income, but I'm far far from rich. I live paycheck to paycheck like most other working people in the states.

If you live above the median percentile, then I'm sure you don't live paycheck to paycheck like most others. An increasing number of these "others" do not live from paycheck to paycheck, because they cannot survive on 1 paycheck. There are a far greater number of working poor who cannot afford to pay rent, eat, and transport themselves to minimum wage jobs without the supplementary help of non-profit food kitchens and emergency help organizations that were originally formed for the homeless.

I will always have a problem with the current welfare system because it is based upon the concept of entitlements and hand outs, rather than focusing on a hand up.

Obviously there are many success stories about kids who have risen to great success from welfare programs. But for the vast majority, it is either a system to manipulate for personal gain, or a path to laziness and unwillingness to seek out a better life.

Finally there is a huge difference between government spending programs to "benefit the rich" and welfare programs.

With welfare programs, there is very little impetus to work or develop.

This is another mantra that gets repeated endlessly without any insight into the actual obstructions that are set up by the welfare system itself. There is no doubt that there is abuse and learned dependence, but the system does a good job of squashing any form of initiative. There have been many documented cases of students and employment trainees that have to choose between new training/educational programs and their welfare benefits because their training schedule doesn't accomodate their welfare-to-work, non-paid "jobs".

There is very little welfare money which actually gets churned back into local economies, saved, reinvested, etc. (Yes, obviously most people who get this money are impoverished and don't have two nickels left over to save or invest.)[/b]

This is another wrong assumption. Actually there have been both domestic and international studies that have shown that very poor contribute quite a bit to local economies. Where else are they going to spend their money?

Of course, with the exception of those that will walk into a multi-national chain like Rite Aid or Home Depot, corporations that effectively remove previously existing local economies of small business owners

And all done with handsome tax subsdies and tax write-offs, that then ship in middle and upper management from outside the community, and use the handsome tax payoffs to employ a fraction of local labor with part-time, minimum wage jobs.

Other programs "to benefit the rich" directly employ people, who in turn EARN their money through work. Then they take that money and save it, spend it, invest it in their children's educations, etc.

There are plenty of benefits for the rich that don't employ anyone. Mortgage tax subsidies are one, and historic bail-out mechanisms are another. Why do you think FDR's New Deal program was founded, and for whom? Public Housing was not started as an altruistic measure for the poor, but to bail out a sagging construction industry after the Great Depression. What about the Savings and Loan crisis, and that bail-out?

The irony is that many of the same people who make such a fuss about welfare for poor inner-city neighborhoods, have no problem accepting subsidized transportation services to ferry them back and forth from their bedroom suburban areas into the city. But perish the thought of actually allocating enough money to poor minority distircts to buy enough text books. Then the cry of communism and neo-liberalism rears its spoiled, pampered, hypocritcial little head.

You see, the problem I have with neo-con, libertarian arguments is that they are simply intellectually and ethically dishonest.

Welfare is like chiropractics. It is easy to create, diagnose and administer treatment to problems, without ever looking for the root cause. The fatal flaw is that once you get diagnosed with a problem, you can never be cured because there is no interest in finding and fixing the root cause. There is only more treatment.

Neo-cons make such a fuss about welfare and bail-outs, but have no problem supporting a war in Iraq with the same argument of "help" and "freedom". A perfect example of going to the root of some one else's cause - big oil interests. Nice job we're doing over there of rooting out the cause of terrorism

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

edit color

Edited September 7, 200520 yr by kat

.... a whole mess of stuff ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd love to respond, but you made such a mess of the post and misinterpreted my post so much, I'm not sure if I can. How about reposting in a more legible format?

Spee, first you quote me completely out of context from some other post, and then you say you can't understand the above posts.

It's very simple, the purple print is me, and the rest is you.

If you don't want to respond that's your business, but don't make excuses. It seems you are either side-stepping my posts altogether, or trying to tell me they don't make sense; nice try.

Edited September 7, 200520 yr by kat

The NeoCon line of thought is so entrenched into average conservatives that they don't even know that they are supporting NeoCons. NeoCons uses existing "American values" and glorify them to push forward a Fascist agenda. It seems to work. I am sure that the majority of americans (spee and Boon Me included) would be satisfied with a plain dictatorship if it meant greater security and more patriotism.

I am sure that the majority of americans (spee and Boon Me included) would be satisfied with a plain dictatorship if it meant greater security and more patriotism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're full of sh*t.

Quit trying to speak for me, you commie troll!

I am sure that the majority of americans (spee and Boon Me included) would be satisfied with a plain dictatorship if it meant greater security and more patriotism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're full of sh*t.

Quit trying to speak for me, you commie troll!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't speaking to you, monkey boy, what's your problem ? you have a big crush on me

I am sure that the majority of americans (spee and Boon Me included) would be satisfied with a plain dictatorship if it meant greater security and more patriotism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're full of sh*t.

Quit trying to speak for me, you commie troll!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't speaking to you .... what's your problem ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My problem is ....

You specifically stated my name. How on earth could that be interpreted as not "speaking to me?"

You said you are sure that I would be satisfied with dictatorship rule in America.

This is a complete falsehood in reference to my character, so I said you are full of sh*t.

Now I also say you must be a f*cking moron for not reading and understanding what you write before you post it, and a liar for trying to deny your reference to me when it is right there in black and white.

If you want to continue your endless trolling, or post some other stupid nonsense, then leave my name the &lt;deleted&gt; out of it!

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!!

Edited September 9, 200520 yr by Butterfly

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope he doesn't own a gun....

Another thing that bugs me about this event, and others like it:

Pleading for help from the same God that brought the disaster upon them in the first place ? (Assuming you believe in God).

These people (and others like them) really believe that God will take a time out from slaughtering his children by the hundreds of thousands, using diseases, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other disasters, to help out a couple here and there that escaped his wrath ?

I think the believers are asking for His mercy if He could see it their way.

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We disagree on many things, but on this remark we are in complete agreement.

He went on my Ignore list last week.

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We disagree on many things, but on this remark we are in complete agreement.

He went on my Ignore list last week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you again ?

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Spee is an angry conservative who think he can get away with name calling but if someone dares to mention his name in a post where he is exposed as a racist, hate filling conservative, then his "highness" goes postal.

I think someone needs his meds or else he is going to do a little poo poo on the floor !!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this will be a first. On to the Ignore list you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We disagree on many things, but on this remark we are in complete agreement.

He went on my Ignore list last week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you again ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good Job Insight

Edited September 9, 200520 yr by Butterfly

You guys crack me up!

Really surprised y'all haven't delved into the "Eeeeeeeevil BusHitlerCheneyHalliburtonOligarchalZionistMilitaryIndustrialComplex Cabal" by now!

You guys crack me up!

Really surprised y'all haven't delved into the "Eeeeeeeevil BusHitlerCheneyHalliburtonOligarchalZionistMilitaryIndustrialComplex Cabal" by now!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The truth is bad enough.

Here’s a story of a high ranking NO cop who committed suicide. A quick search found several accounts of Sgt. Paul Accardo taking his own life, after evidently being overcome by despair. That's not the case. This cop evidently took his life after going home and finding his house ransacked, his wife raped and murdered along with his children. I reckon the media are afraid George Bush will be blamed, and are protecting him from criticism by not reporting it. Right?

Link