very well put

Ditto

Rich, I have been in Eastern Washington the past few days, so I know what you mean about feeling like a political minority, LOL. And I am joking, really!

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. My post was not directed toward individuals who hold conservative beliefs. I was directing my comments to people and organizations who throw these bombs out there to distract and divide us. They usually have a hidden interest (almost always economic). Look at the group CALA, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. They are actually funded by the insurance lobby. We see this over and over. We had the property rights issue on the ballot here a few years ago, and it was made to look like a grass roots movement, when in fact it was funded by the Builder's Association. We spent almost all of last summer getting hysterical over "death panels," which almost everyone but a few on the fringe agreed were not a part of the health care proposals. Remember when flag burning was all the rage? Why? Was there a sudden outbreak of flag burning? No.

I suspect many of us agree on a lot more than we realize. And a lot of these problems are easy to fix. Illegal immigration? Stop scapegoating the workers, start enforcing the law against the employers, and they'll stop hiring people who are in the country illegally. Oops, can't do that - that would cut into profits.

Health care? Single payer, Medicare for all. It's easily paid for, already in place, easy to administer. No, can't do that - too much money in the insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Flat tax? I've actually come around on that one for income tax As long as there is a very generous personal deduction before it kicks in, I'm all for it now. It'll never happen - too many businesses want those loopholes.

In the last economic bailout, why did the unionized auto workers have to accept pay and benefit cuts as part of the package, but there was such outrage at the thought of cutting CEO salaries combined with an inability to stem the outrageous bonuses paid in the financial industry?

While tax cuts worked for Kennedy and Reagan, that was because they could cut personal rates that were 60, 70, 80 percent down to the 30 percent area. Tax rates are already pretty low now, so additional cuts won't provide the same type of stimulus. And remember that in those times, we had a stable middle class. We had tariffs and rules in place that made it advantageous for companies to locate here and manufacture here and sell their products here. A good college education was attainable for a reasonable price or even free. California and New York had free university systems. You can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who intended the University of Virginia to be free. Education used to be valued here. And even if you didn't go to college, there were lots of jobs that could provide a good stable middle class living - you even got things like sick leave and disability and vacations and a pension! That all began to change under Reagan, accelerated under the first George Bush, and really took off under Bill Clinton. Tariffs were abolished and companies were encouraged to relocate overseas. Our economic plan for the last 40 years seems to have been send everything overseas so we can all buy cheap crap at WalMart. Except the jobs that allowed us to buy that stuff are gone. The banking system has blown up because of excessive greed. Credit has dried up, and our debt is now being financed by China. (Who, by the way, is instituting a national health care system. They understand the economic problem of having a population that doesn't have discretionary dollars because of health care costs - who would have thought?)

And so it goes - until we get the money out of politics, nothing's going to change. And the people that are making all that money don't want us to figure that out. They don't care if gay people can get married, or if we burn flags, or if abortion is legal or if somebody cheats on welfare. They don't give a damn about you or me or the United States. They just want to make money. And somehow, they've convinced Americans that the politics of greed and selfishness is a good thing - I've got mine, screw you. And as long as our politicians are bought and paid for by them, they win. We lose.

HMCRich.

if you are waiting for the trickle down theory to work...

you know that fairy tale justification for decreasing the tax burden on the very wealthy and corporations...

you will be waiting a long time...

ronnie fielded that one in the last century and it hasn't worked yet.

We cut their taxes.. they cut our jobs.
Hows that working for you?

he was an actor.. and got his big political boost scaring the bejeezus out of his fellow Americans over health care reform...

he was apparently a better salesman than he knew because he sold America a health care system that is in the business of NOT providing health care...

but it was a sales job... advertising.. political theater... a con job... a swindle...

just like all that trickle down stuff... talked most of you into mortgaging our future for an illusion... and took the rest of us down with you when the bubble burst...

At some point you would think self interest would kick in and expose the republican emperor's clothes as nothing more than so much hot air...

i keep waiting for common sense to become common again..

in the meantime.. if the dems were doing half what you think they will do while you sleep.. i would become a monkey's uncle...

not much hope there these days:(

Well, Comcast just dumped my post, and I really don't have the patience to re-post my point-by-point reply rich.
Just understand this, trans-national corporations and the super-wealthy in this country have no use for you, other than as a useful idiot. We've been living this failed experiment of supply-side economics while suffering under Jude Wanniski's horribly anti-American "Two Santa Claus" theory for 30 years now, and the middle-class keeps shrinking and the lower classes keep getting more desperate. I don't know what led you to your conservative stance, whether it is religious or an objectivist stance. Or maybe you are a Hobbesian/Calvinist who really does think we are all born nasty little creatures and therefore each person needs to greedily and jealously guard whatever scraps they can get their hands on, cooperation be damned. Whatever it is, the Republican Party's only goal is to drain as much money as they possibly can out of middle- and lower-class Americans, and whether or not you know it, you are complicit.
--
This will give you some idea how corporations have been shirking their responsibility to our Nation:
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
"Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses."
--
And this article gives a good example of how they were busy cutting taxes in '03 during a WAR (which they started on false pretenses. You admit that, don't you?) even though they knew full well that tax cuts would far outstrip revenues:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1311

And here is another that shows how eager they are to start doing the same thing again:
http://www.cbpp.org/

Is the tax burden on the middle-classes in this country too steep? Hell yeah! But the Republican Party LIKES that status quo, they don't want their benefactors to have to PAY FOR THINGS! The Republicans, if they were ever honest, would have as a party motto "you're on your own, sucker!"

What the hell rich, just tap into your trust fund. That's what we should ALL do, right?

Maybe Free is just putting stuff out there to see who will bite. The possibilities are endless.

Golly Wally, I mean Dawsonct, I thought every home had June and Ward Clever. Thanks for reminding me that people from all walks of life have problems. I guess I missed the story on Fox News. Oh No, I might be a Worst Person In The World. Save Me Keith Olbermann.

Post 21 was very informative. I even agree with many portions of it. Maybe for different reasons. And yes, I too want actual representatives in all levels of government that support the voters wishes.

I certainly do not have proper representation since I have people with a D denoting their party. On the state level the D's have been in power for a long time and now are freaking because they overspent, Dino we needed you and you warned us. Now they want a state income tax. Hey Joe, where you going with the income tax bill in your hand? Father please forgive them for they know not what they do.

And nationally, if you want to get rid of a large portion of the lobbyists throw out the current system and institute a flat tax or national sales tax. No loop holes. This progressive tax system is starting to blow up on us.

Elikipedia. I have no problem with immigrants, as long as they are legal. My wife was one. Now she is an alien ... I mean a resident alien. Our best friend is gay and I am conservative. How can that be? I like Christmas and Easter. I like Presidents Day and Independence day. I like MLK and Thanksgiving. So what is the problem? I don't want an oligarchy but I don't want the complete opposite either. Birthers, Truthers, liberals, conservatives, whatever. Even if they are wrong they are entitled to their opinion, just like you are entitled to yours (and none of us are correct all of the time).

OMG... I (a non-progressive) have been politically profiled!!!! You are not being very PC. Why all of the negativity? I am self prescribing The Beatles, All You Need Is Love. After that I will overdose with War Pigs by Black Sabbath and I am the Anti-christ by Slayer.

On a less lighter note. I am a minority in opinion in this left leaning rain swept piece of rock. Obama and crew do not seem to really care about massive private sector job creation. They are stifling job creation by either not being clear or threatening to raise taxes. Most of the economic indicators show it. I should know, I am currently unemployed. He is saying the right things at times but not acting in business favorable ways.

Mellon proved that increasing taxes inhibits revenues. Even JFK knew that he could get more public programs by dropping tax rates. Cutting taxes can help but cutting them the wrong way will hurt. Just ask Herbert Hoover.

Healthcare reform...Yes, I want it too (believe me) but this so called bill is not the right one. Normally something this big is bi-partisan and this is not. Civil Rights Act as an example. For Pelosi and Reid to try and skirt the process is unethical. Just ask Charlie Rangel. Yes there are many sad stories out there. There are many successes too.

The Federal Government's job is not to mandate health insurance. This should have always been a states issue. At least Massachusetts tried it the appropriately political and constitutional way. Tell me, with SSN, Medicare and Medicaid growing broke, how can we afford more?

My heart went out to the poster who can't afford healthcare and the daily bills. There has to be a better way.

Back to Free's original post. It was an interesting story. Fortunately it has come to light and just maybe some good can come from it.

Hey FREEPER, where are you? Throw a bomb without explanation, then disappear. I guess we know now that you don't have anything to bring to the table, nor do you have an opinion worth listening to. Pretty much what I have come to expect from you. Nothing.
--

yes, it is...
floated regularly by people who know better

but if you don't speak up to refute this nonsense... people who don't know any better believe all the hype...

that's the real trouble these days
hype rules

Really? The old welfare queen story? Didn't Reagan use this bogeyman back in the '80s? And wasn't welfare extensively reformed back in the '90s under Clinton's administration? The welfare queen story is old news - aren't the current scapegoats supposed to be illegal immigrants - or there's always gay marriage, the War on Christmas, flag burning, Obama wasn't born here, and don't forget the folks who suddenly inexplicably seem to feel a burning need to carry their guns everywhere. Sheesh.

It's the same old story - distract with divisive social issues while the real issues go unresolved. We need to be talking about health care and our financial system and other issues that are truly important, not this silliness. It's an old, tired tactic to divert attention from what really matters.

dawsonct
that democracy that we are supposed to have here can kick in any time...

To advance my point, we live in a society that continually and strongly supports the pop-culture notions of the value of young women as only sexual beings. Young men see them merely as tools for their satisfaction, and many girls and young women, especially those in our swiftly growing underclass, only know to seek value by being put to that use. Often the results of their devaluation is such a strong yearning for acceptance that it often leads to an abandonment of their sense of self-preservation, that, coupled with the trend to avoid sex education in our schools, gives you a generation who are having unprotected sex and young men who don't offer anything but temporary and superficial attention. Of course this has been leading to an increase in STDs, abuse, and pregnancies among our Nation's lower economic populations, who then give birth to a generation with virtually zero chance of ever rising out of their circumstances, as our system now stands.
--
To further condense my already truncated analysis, we have created a cycle of poverty and abandonment and abuse in our society. It had been directed primarily at persons of color in the past, but now it is based more on economic jingoism, created by the super-wealthy, propagated by (their) media, and carried out by political leaders who worry more about re-election and their post-electoral careers.
We need to return our Nation to The People.

http://www.youngfoundation.org/our-work/research/themes/civic-and-political/extremism/the-far-right-britain

The posted article was written by members of the "Young Foundation" who are also keeping an eye on your fellow wingnuts in Britain.

The same (single mothers) study is used by Christian apologetics to justify and predict a return to traditional gender roles.

When large socialogical studies are dissected, there can be different meat for every "journalist".

and one other minor point...

this point seems to have gotten lost in the article blaming women for choosing welfare over men... but it's kinda difficult for a woman to "choose" welfare when a dad sticks around and takes responsibility for his children.

single parent households become single parent households either because one of two committed parents dies or one of the two committed parents bails...

When one parent is forced onto welfare it is because the other parent bailed on both their partner and their children. You don't have to live together to jointly assume responsibility for your children.

it's a sad commentary that so many fathers are bailing that women find the security and poverty of public assistance reassuring.

HMC, first, let's take some personal responsibility here; it's OUR government, not THE government. We get the government we deserve, and as long as Americans think governance is something DONE TO them instead of something in which they PARTICIPATE we will continue to spiral into the hands of the trans-national corporations who don't have loyalty to any nation or people or ideal, other than maximizing profits.
--
Point #2: as a former counselor for Children's Home Society of Washington, I can assure you that sometimes for a child, the only thing having two parents mean is that they have two people tormenting them. I'm certain one of the kids I worked with, whose "father" prostituted the kid out to his drug dealer starting at 2 years old, would have rather not had two parents. I have plenty of other two parent household horror stories. Having (at least) two adults involved in raising a child is probably the ideal, but it simply doesn't always work that way, and I think you are intelligent enough to know you can't take an absolutist position in this case, certainly not while discussing human nature.

"Two parent homes are better at socializing children" -- it kinda depends on the parents. If you've got a dad that beats the crap out of you, you might not be better off. There have been tons of tv shows and movies about the kid pining to find his father and I always thought, "What if you found him and he's not so great?" My own brother-in-law, at age 16, had a dad who showed up just long enough to steal his car.

Progressive government programs regardless of the country will at times inhibit families from reaching their potential. The facts were stated in the article; two parent homes are better at socializing children. Single parents whether by choice or not, inadvertantly put their children in a higher risk group because the children need nurturing not neglect.

Prison populations have more inmates from single family backgrounds. I am not saying that all children who only have one parent will turn out rotten. I know from personal experience that I benefitted from two parent households versus single.

The original post is relevant because it shows how the government and programs can change certain segments of society. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent is up to you.

dawsoncourt

thanks
you put that well
and put a smile on this old cynic's face

after all the recent political posturing
that wasn't easy to do

Really people, unemployment benefits (which are about half what you were making, and run out after a short time) don't encourage laziness. Programs to help the poor rise out of their poverty are not incentive to become poor.
Park benches do not cause homelessness.
Tax breaks to corporations to off-shore their manufacturing doesn't make America stronger.
Funneling tax dollars out of the pockets of the middle-class and straight into the off-shore tax havens of the super-wealthy does not create jobs or wealth for America.
--
Education DOES tend to create liberal, progressive thinkers, so I DO understand why conservatives are so opposed to publicly funded education. Really, it's the only cause and effect about which Republicans are ever right.

if they were purchased with an EBT card...
those energy malt beverages don't contain liquor.

although i agree they could have made better nutrition choices...
living in a tent city makes refrigeration and food prep problematic at best.

Prepared foods don't qualify for EBT purchase either.. so even a hot dog is not an option.

It's pretty expensive when your food choices are limited to those that can be carried and consumed on the spot.

Well, obviously they should have taken the $3.00 apiece they spent on that malt liquor and put it toward a home! Jeez, that's like 1% of the security deposit at the cheapest apartments. Escaping homelessness would be so easy if they'd just quit buying cheap booze, huh?

I was at a local convenience store and witnessed 2 people that were living in tent city (they conversed with the cashier about it) purchase a few tall cans of those Energy Malt Beverages with there EBT card........

sarahscoot..

good point.

we know she didn't buy the champagne with food stamps. alcohol isn't an allowable purchase.. nor is TP or shampoo or a host of other products that make living a little easier.

It's so easy to make assumptions... to jump to conclusions based on very little evidence.

we don't know what she had to give up to afford that celebration meal.

I suspect the person reporting her excess wouldn't have eaten what she did for the month to afford that one celebration. But then, it's likely they wouldn't have to.

My favorite: "I was behind a woman at the grocery store yesterday whose cart was filled with lobster, filet mignon, and champagne, and she paid with food stamps!1!!!1!1!1111!!!"
I always wonder how people even notice whether another shopper is paying with public assistance money. Maybe I'm just not nosey enough, but I only notice another shopper's mode of payment if it takes an exceptionally long time to process, like slowly writing a check or paying in pennies.

Well, I guess that it is ONE provable case of corruption in the ENGLISH welfare system; that's one MORE than the apocryphal "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" that Crazy Ronnie always used to rant about.

Just in case you were wondering...
the state supported mega-mansion doesn't happen in the US... and i am surprised to find it happening in the UK.. my guess is that this is an exceptional circumstance...

However.. this statement in that article probably is pertinent in the US..

"But their positive attitudes towards welfare suggest that they believe the state is more likely to provide security than a permanent male partner. "

The author of that article chose to label this a lifestyle choice..
but could as easily labeled it an indictment of their male partners...
security being the operative word in that statement.

Few argue that in general... children raised in 2 parent homes do better scholastically and emotionally.. but that generally requires 2 committed parents.

When there is only one committed parent in a 2 parent home...
the committed parent might well find they can provide a better financial and emotional environment for their children by living alone..
even on welfare.

That's a tragic reality.

so again.. i ask.

What was the point in posting this?

If you read the article though, it's pretty nuts. This lady lives like a queen and it's all paid for by the governemnt in Britain. You have to admit, thats pretty messed up. I'm not saying that she should be living in a cardboard box, but the state should not be supporting a nearly 4 million dollar mansion for her!

to the OP:
so..are you against single motherhood, or just the fact that she gets a gov't. allowance to live in this place? You didn't clarify that...

Just FYI, separate from any judgment on the content of the post, this is not a spammer - this person has belonged to the Forums for more than two years, has posted occasionally (click "member" and it should bring up a list of their previous posts), and always has had that URL attached to her/his handle.

Is posting spam a lifestyle choice, too?

your point?

= Single mothers on state benefits make 'lifestyle choice' =

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/7309419/Single-mothers-on-state-benefits-make-lifestyle-choice.html

"Earlier this month, an unemployed single mother on state benefits was found to be living in a £2 million mansion in St John’s Wood."