Damned shame that even in Arkansas, hate filled athiests want all

[MDVOL]

vestiges of Christianity stamped out.

But then again, Athiests have given the world sooooo much.

Like Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, the Kims of Korea, Bernie Sanders, etc, etc, etc.


Charles Schultz would slap them

 

[bobhawg]

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was a "free thinker?"

But I have a simple answer to the problem. Let those who wish to, go to the show and those who do not stay in the school study hall.

 

[MDVOL]

Thomas Jefferson had Asperger's Syndrome

Thing is, the athiests want no compromise like you suggested. They have bastardized the 1st amendment "Freedom of Religion" to mean "Freedom from Religion" and have used the courts to enforce their view.

Somehow that last half of the Right to Freedom of Religion is always deleted.

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion(except Global Warming)
Nor prohibit the free expression thereof"

 

[bobhawg]

Re: Thomas Jefferson had Asperger's Syndrome

The thing I do not understand about people who do not believe there is a God is if they are correct, then those who do believe in one are merely wasting their time and that cannot harm any atheist. So why care if some one else does believe in a higher being.

Now, forcing an atheist to participate in a religious meeting I do think is wrong. And I am not sure is it is meaningful to have a prayer before a high school football game for instance as I feel God is not really interested in who plays or wins one of those.

But I agree that some of the stands of the anti-religion groups are absurd.

 

[bagr]

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[Ole Hambone]

Do you have any clue how much damage liberals have done to our society? Any at all?

 

[Hog Alumni]

You never see them go after the Muslims like they do Christians. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by original hambone:

Do you have any clue how much damage liberals have done to our society? Any at all?

Well, there's the Bill of Rights, the 13th1-15th Amendments, Sherman Antitrust Law, the 16th,17th & 19th Amendments, Social Security, the GI Bill, The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Repeal of the Poll Tax, The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, & 1966, Medicare, Medicaid, Brown v. Board of Educ, Miranda v. Arizona, Griswold v. Connecticut, and most recently the A.C.A.. Those are some of the most memorable liberal things I can think of that were all opposed by conservatives. How damaging have they been?

I know conservatives gave us the 18th Amendment, the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, & Citizens United. I know the effects of Dred Scott & Plessy. The effects of the third decision are still developing.

This post was edited on 12/3 4:24 PM by NEastArkie

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Do you have any clue how much damage liberals have done to our society? Any at all?

Well, there's the Bill of Rights, the 13th1-15th Amendments, Sherman Antitrust Law, the 16th & 17th Amendments, Social Security, the GI Bill, The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Repeal of the Poll Tax, The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, & 1966, Medicare, Medicaid, Brown v. Board of Educ, Miranda v. Arizona, Griswold v. Connecticut, and most recently the A.C.A.. Those are some of the most memorable liberal things I can think of that were all opposed by conservatives. How damaging have they been?

Let's not forget that thanks to the libs the average welfare household costs taxpayers 60k a year, public retirement plans have numerous states on the verge of bankrupcy, and working for a living has become an option and not a requirement nationwide. And of course, we are borrowing money at mindboggling rates to try to pay for it all.

Maybe the conservatives understood that no matter how well meaning entitlement programs are in the beginning, they always turn into wasteful, overpriced, and fraudulent bureaucracies by the time the government gets through with them.

Do you realize NEA, that if everybody in the world decided to live exclusively by the Bible, that all of the ills of the world would disappear? No need for cops, court systems, prisons, welfare, military, and no more crooked politicians. No more lying, cheating, stealing, murder, laziness, greed, or dishonesty from anybody. The able bodied would work, the sick or helpless would be cared for, and everybody would strive to always be honorable. You know, the utopia that libs foolishly continue to believe we can get from the government though history has clearly shown we can't. I will never understand how otherwise intelligent folks like yourself manage to make yourselves believe that if you make the source of greed and corruption big enough, it will somehow quit being greedy and corrupt.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Do you have any clue how much damage liberals have done to our society? Any at all?

Well, there's the Bill of Rights, the 13th1-15th Amendments, Sherman Antitrust Law, the 16th,17th & 19th Amendments, Social Security, the GI Bill, The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Repeal of the Poll Tax, The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, & 1966, Medicare, Medicaid, Brown v. Board of Educ, Miranda v. Arizona, Griswold v. Connecticut, and most recently the A.C.A.. Those are some of the most memorable liberal things I can think of that were all opposed by conservatives. How damaging have they been?

I know conservatives gave us the 18th Amendment, the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, & Citizens United. I know the effects of Dred Scott & Plessy. The effects of the third decision are still developing.


This post was edited on 12/3 4:24 PM by NEastArkie

I know for a fact you are wrong about some of that. Double check the percentage of Repubicans that voted for the CRA 1964 vs the percentage of Democrats that voted for it in congress...

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Do you have any clue how much damage liberals have done to our society? Any at all?

Well, there's the Bill of Rights, the 13th1-15th Amendments, Sherman Antitrust Law, the 16th,17th & 19th Amendments, Social Security, the GI Bill, The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, Repeal of the Poll Tax, The Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, & 1966, Medicare, Medicaid, Brown v. Board of Educ, Miranda v. Arizona, Griswold v. Connecticut, and most recently the A.C.A.. Those are some of the most memorable liberal things I can think of that were all opposed by conservatives. How damaging have they been?

I know conservatives gave us the 18th Amendment, the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, & Citizens United. I know the effects of Dred Scott & Plessy. The effects of the third decision are still developing.


This post was edited on 12/3 4:24 PM by NEastArkie

I know for a fact you are wrong about some of that. Double check the percentage of Repubicans that voted for the CRA 1964 vs the percentage of Democrats that voted for it in congress...

You didn't say "Democrats" or "Republicans." You said "liberals." In 1964 there were liberal Republicans & conservative Democrats. The liberal candidate for Ark governor in 1966 & 1968 was Win Rockefeller. The conservative one was Orval Faubus. Besides, the "percentage" of which party primarily supported that bill is a bit misleading. The Democrats held huge majorities in both houses of Congress. Just a few Republicans were a larger percentage of their party than more Democrats were of theirs. Regardless, all the southern Democrats, including Fulbright & McClellan, Stennis & Eastland, Richard Russell & Al Gore, Sr., voted against those bills. Northern liberal Republicans including Everett Dirksen & Edward Brooke favored it. Conservative Barry Goldwater opposed it & the only states he carried in 1964 were his own native AZ & 5 states in the deep South. Still it was Lyndon Johnson (following the failed push by JFK) who made it happen. It was the passage of those acts that led to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968. George Wallace, an erstwhile Democrat, but then "American Independent" carried the South. Since 1968 the once "Solid [Democrat] South" has become just as solidly Republican.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by rzrbk7777:
Let's not forget that thanks to the libs the average welfare household costs taxpayers 60k a year, public retirement plans have numerous states on the verge of bankrupcy, and working for a living has become an option and not a requirement nationwide. And of course, we are borrowing money at mindboggling rates to try to pay for it all.

Maybe the conservatives understood that no matter how well meaning entitlement programs are in the beginning, they always turn into wasteful, overpriced, and fraudulent bureaucracies by the time the government gets through with them.

Do you realize NEA, that if everybody in the world decided to live exclusively by the Bible, that all of the ills of the world would disappear? No need for cops, court systems, prisons, welfare, military, and no more crooked politicians. No more lying, cheating, stealing, murder, laziness, greed, or dishonesty from anybody. The able bodied would work, the sick or helpless would be cared for, and everybody would strive to always be honorable. You know, the utopia that libs foolishly continue to believe we can get from the government though history has clearly shown we can't. I will never understand how otherwise intelligent folks like yourself manage to make yourselves believe that if you make the source of greed and corruption big enough, it will somehow quit being greedy and corrupt.

I don't know what you mean by "the average welfare household costs taxpayers 60k per year." I'm not sure I even know what you mean by "average welfare household." I have no idea if you include elderly SS recipients or nursing home medicaid patients. If you're talking about classic "welfare," the TANF program, I certainly have no idea where you're getting your figures. Those who get TANF, food stamps & housing assistance get nowhere close to $60k. A typical family of 3 gets something on the order of $12k-$15k per year total. Now if you include medical costs that someone in that category might incur, then I suppose the "average cost" to the taxpayer can go way up. I know for example of one family of 3 where the mother has serious medical issues & is totally disabled. She qualifies for Medicaid & her health costs are probably close to $100k per year. (Medicaid won't pay that much, but the hospitals & doctors invoices probably total that much.) Her husband was badly injured & cannot work, but he doesn't qualify for SS or Medicaid because he isn't totally disabled. Their total family income is right at $300/mo in food stamps, $200/mo in housing assistance (of $350 in rent), & her SS of $600/mo. So that totals $1,100 per month paid by the taxpayers. It's hard for me to begrudge them that.

I agree that if everyone lived exclusively by Biblical principles the world would indeed be a much better place. However, I don't know of any "libs" who think gov't can create a uptopia. Most of us believe, however, that it is a very good means to make the world better than it is. For example, I think FEMA is helping a whole lot of people in the NE following Hurricane Sandy. I'm not sure if you're calling the gov't "the source of greed & corruption," but if you are, I strongly disagree with you. The gov't is simply an agency created by mankind. It's as good or bad as the people who run it. In the case of the United States, the citizens run the gov't. As a result of having good & bad citizens it has mixed results, but overall the "liberal" positions of the last 200 years seem to have been the ones that have made our country better. A whole lot of what were considered "liberal" at the time are now things even conservatives like. I think the list I mentioned above are examples of that.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by rzrbk7777:

Let's not forget that thanks to the libs the average welfare household costs taxpayers 60k a year, public retirement plans have numerous states on the verge of bankrupcy, and working for a living has become an option and not a requirement nationwide. And of course, we are borrowing money at mindboggling rates to try to pay for it all.

Maybe the conservatives understood that no matter how well meaning entitlement programs are in the beginning, they always turn into wasteful, overpriced, and fraudulent bureaucracies by the time the government gets through with them.

Do you realize NEA, that if everybody in the world decided to live exclusively by the Bible, that all of the ills of the world would disappear? No need for cops, court systems, prisons, welfare, military, and no more crooked politicians. No more lying, cheating, stealing, murder, laziness, greed, or dishonesty from anybody. The able bodied would work, the sick or helpless would be cared for, and everybody would strive to always be honorable. You know, the utopia that libs foolishly continue to believe we can get from the government though history has clearly shown we can't. I will never understand how otherwise intelligent folks like yourself manage to make yourselves believe that if you make the source of greed and corruption big enough, it will somehow quit being greedy and corrupt.

I don't know what you mean by "the average welfare household costs taxpayers 60k per year." I'm not sure I even know what you mean by "average welfare household." I have no idea if you include elderly SS recipients or nursing home medicaid patients. If you're talking about classic "welfare," the TANF program, I certainly have no idea where you're getting your figures. Those who get TANF, food stamps & housing assistance get nowhere close to $60k. A typical family of 3 gets something on the order of $12k-$15k per year total. Now if you include medical costs that someone in that category might incur, then I suppose the "average cost" to the taxpayer can go way up. I know for example of one family of 3 where the mother has serious medical issues & is totally disabled. She qualifies for Medicaid & her health costs are probably close to $100k per year. (Medicaid won't pay that much, but the hospitals & doctors invoices probably total that much.) Her husband was badly injured & cannot work, but he doesn't qualify for SS or Medicaid because he isn't totally disabled. Their total family income is right at $300/mo in food stamps, $200/mo in housing assistance (of $350 in rent), & her SS of $600/mo. So that totals $1,100 per month paid by the taxpayers. It's hard for me to begrudge them that.

I agree that if everyone lived exclusively by Biblical principles the world would indeed be a much better place. However, I don't know of any "libs" who think gov't can create a uptopia. Most of us believe, however, that it is a very good means to make the world better than it is. For example, I think FEMA is helping a whole lot of people in the NE following Hurricane Sandy. I'm not sure if you're calling the gov't "the source of greed & corruption," but if you are, I strongly disagree with you. The gov't is simply an agency created by mankind. It's as good or bad as the people who run it. In the case of the United States, the citizens run the gov't. As a result of having good & bad citizens it has mixed results, but overall the "liberal" positions of the last 200 years seem to have been the ones that have made our country better. A whole lot of what were considered "liberal" at the time are now things even conservatives like. I think the list I mentioned above are examples of that.

Don't know the breakdown, and I don't know how Arkansas stacks up with places like NY, Cal, and others but I'm sure welfare entitlements vary greatly from state to state and it's likely that Arkansas is on the lower end. Also, am I wrong in believing that taxpayers subsidize things like internet, cable, utilities, cell phones, rent, etc?

And FEMA is a poster child for waste. When that hurricane was supposed to hit NO a few years after Katrina, a friend of mine in the ambulance business sent a unit and a crew down there for two weeks at $2300 a day plus all expenses. There were easily over a 1000 ambulances down there collecting the same amount. My friend's crew transported one patient during that two weeks. One. He called them back on his own as nobody official ever bothered to, even as the threat proved minimal and passed. There were still 100's of crews sitting around sopping up government gravy after they left. That is just one small and insignificant piece of the huge pie that gets divided when FEMA comes to town. Clearly, there is a huge lack of accountability and thus tons of waste when the government comes with a checkbook. FEMA caught on quick.

And then there is the always true fact that if you want something to cost far more than it should while doing far less than it was supposed to, run it through the government. The source of greed and corruption I mentioned is the elected officials, especially federal, who go in as servants and come out as multi-millionares. Funny how consistantly that works.

I never cease to be amazed that libs think charitable giving and taxes are the same thing. In truth, if you want to help the less advantaged, the government is right at the least effective way to go. There are lots and lots of places to give that are far less careless with our money than government bureacracies. You would be hard pressed to find a charity that handles money worse than Uncle Sam. So, instead of taxing and wasting us into oblivion and yearning for more of the same, why not lower taxes and give more to charities that give more and waste less?

 

[NEastArkie]

Don't know the breakdown, and I don't know how Arkansas stacks up with places like NY, Cal, and others but I'm sure welfare entitlements vary greatly from state to state and it's likely that Arkansas is on the lower end. Also, am I wrong in believing that taxpayers subsidize things like internet, cable, utilities, cell phones, rent, etc?

And FEMA is a poster child for waste. When that hurricane was supposed to hit NO a few years after Katrina, a friend of mine in the ambulance business sent a unit and a crew down there for two weeks at $2300 a day plus all expenses. There were easily over a 1000 ambulances down there collecting the same amount. My friend's crew transported one patient during that two weeks. One. He called them back on his own as nobody official ever bothered to, even as the threat proved minimal and passed. There were still 100's of crews sitting around sopping up government gravy after they left. That is just one small and insignificant piece of the huge pie that gets divided when FEMA comes to town. Clearly, there is a huge lack of accountability and thus tons of waste when the government comes with a checkbook. FEMA caught on quick.

And then there is the always true fact that if you want something to cost far more than it should while doing far less than it was supposed to, run it through the government. The source of greed and corruption I mentioned is the elected officials, especially federal, who go in as servants and come out as multi-millionares. Funny how consistantly that works.

I never cease to be amazed that libs think charitable giving and taxes are the same thing. In truth, if you want to help the less advantaged, the government is right at the least effective way to go. There are lots and lots of places to give that are far less careless with our money than government bureacracies. You would be hard pressed to find a charity that handles money worse than Uncle Sam. So, instead of taxing and wasting us into oblivion and yearning for more of the same, why not lower taxes and give more to charities that give more and waste less?

The amount paid in welfare benefits might vary somewhat from region to region, but not by much. Nowhere do people "do well" on welfare. At best they barely subsist.

Katrina is indeed a great example of terrible gov't mismanagement, but let's remember what happened there. Bush had replaced a professional, James Lee Witt, who ran it under Clinton with a political appointee, "Brownie." FEMA was a mess under his watch. It has performed very well, however, in dealing with Sandy. That's just a matter of competent vs. incompetent managers. (To be fair, there was also state & local mismanagement under Katrina whereas state & local management is better under Sandy. Again its simply a matter of getting competent people.)

I've never heard a "lib" confuse taxes with charity. It's just that unlike the "cons" who just hate the idea of gov't providing the service, libs believe its a reasonable function of gov't to "promote the general welfare" or "do good." And no matter how either of us might wish it to be otherwise, there is nowhere nearly enough charitable giving to provide basic needs & health care to the number of people who need it. If your criticism of gov't help is that it is less efficient, then at least you're not an ideologue about it. If it's a question of simple efficiency we just need to look at the data. Despite myths to the contrary the gov't is a much more efficient way of providing many benefits. All one has to do is look at health costs vs. results in every other industrialized country & compare them to ours. Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance. UAMS is more efficient than Baptist or St. Vincent & is much more charitable despite the origins of those two "charitable hospitals." Is there waste & inefficiency? Absolutely. But history & current data support the notion that gov't is pretty damned efficient in most of its undertakings.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Don't know the breakdown, and I don't know how Arkansas stacks up with places like NY, Cal, and others but I'm sure welfare entitlements vary greatly from state to state and it's likely that Arkansas is on the lower end. Also, am I wrong in believing that taxpayers subsidize things like internet, cable, utilities, cell phones, rent, etc?

And FEMA is a poster child for waste. When that hurricane was supposed to hit NO a few years after Katrina, a friend of mine in the ambulance business sent a unit and a crew down there for two weeks at $2300 a day plus all expenses. There were easily over a 1000 ambulances down there collecting the same amount. My friend's crew transported one patient during that two weeks. One. He called them back on his own as nobody official ever bothered to, even as the threat proved minimal and passed. There were still 100's of crews sitting around sopping up government gravy after they left. That is just one small and insignificant piece of the huge pie that gets divided when FEMA comes to town. Clearly, there is a huge lack of accountability and thus tons of waste when the government comes with a checkbook. FEMA caught on quick.

And then there is the always true fact that if you want something to cost far more than it should while doing far less than it was supposed to, run it through the government. The source of greed and corruption I mentioned is the elected officials, especially federal, who go in as servants and come out as multi-millionares. Funny how consistantly that works.

I never cease to be amazed that libs think charitable giving and taxes are the same thing. In truth, if you want to help the less advantaged, the government is right at the least effective way to go. There are lots and lots of places to give that are far less careless with our money than government bureacracies. You would be hard pressed to find a charity that handles money worse than Uncle Sam. So, instead of taxing and wasting us into oblivion and yearning for more of the same, why not lower taxes and give more to charities that give more and waste less?

The amount paid in welfare benefits might vary somewhat from region to region, but not by much. Nowhere do people "do well" on welfare. At best they barely subsist.

Katrina is indeed a great example of terrible gov't mismanagement, but let's remember what happened there. Bush had replaced a professional, James Lee Witt, who ran it under Clinton with a political appointee, "Brownie." FEMA was a mess under his watch. It has performed very well, however, in dealing with Sandy. That's just a matter of competent vs. incompetent managers. (To be fair, there was also state & local mismanagement under Katrina whereas state & local management is better under Sandy. Again its simply a matter of getting competent people.)

I've never heard a "lib" confuse taxes with charity. It's just that unlike the "cons" who just hate the idea of gov't providing the service, libs believe its a reasonable function of gov't to "promote the general welfare" or "do good." And no matter how either of us might wish it to be otherwise, there is nowhere nearly enough charitable giving to provide basic needs & health care to the number of people who need it. If your criticism of gov't help is that it is less efficient, then at least you're not an ideologue about it. If it's a question of simple efficiency we just need to look at the data. Despite myths to the contrary the gov't is a much more efficient way of providing many benefits. All one has to do is look at health costs vs. results in every other industrialized country & compare them to ours. Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance. UAMS is more efficient than Baptist or St. Vincent & is much more charitable despite the origins of those two "charitable hospitals." Is there waste & inefficiency? Absolutely. But history & current data support the notion that gov't is pretty damned efficient in most of its undertakings.

You are making blanket statements as fact that just aren't. I wasn't talking about Katrina in my story. And exactly what was it that went on in NYC and NJ in the week and a half following Sandy that looked to you like FEMA was on top of things? Was it the lack of fuel, the lack of utilities, or the non-union utility crews that were turned away b/c in lib world, unions trump things like heat and water. No matter what actually happened up there, the company line amongst libs was gonna be "FEMA and BA did a great job". That didn't make it so. And to carry on as if a liberal(aka spend like there is an unending supply of cash) controlled FEMA has somehow become a model of efficient spending and fiscal responsibility......

You've never seen a lib confuse taxes with charity? So exactly where does the whole "tax more to give more" mentality come from? And of course, since taxing isn't enough, let's borrow from our enemies to keep those freebees flowing. And let's not just give to the needy, let's give to PBS(Lord knows the 100's of TV and radio stations already out there aren't quite enough), the National Endowment for the Arts, green energy(Solyndra), and countless other enities that sap the treasury but do little to nothing to help either the country or the needy.

I happen to be in the healthcare industry and I can tell you from my own experience that the least charitable hospital system in NWA is the one that is county ran. They are the least likely to treat an uninsured or underinsured patient and by far the most aggressive and least compromising when it comes to collecting on those that are less fortunate. OTOH, Mercy Health is easily the most forgiving. That's not speculation on my part as I've had a front row seat to it for years. Medicare and Medicaid are very difficult to deal with, but then so are the insurance companies, most of which follow Medicare guidelines. Efficient is not a word I would use to describe Medicare.

I'm far from a rich man, but I have given to missionaries consistently, I bought Christmas presents for an entire Mexican orphanage last year, I have bought Christmas for out of work families from my church, I have repaired cars, bought tires, even bought used cars for people in need, gave money to families in crisis, found jobs for some, and generally helped whenever I had the means and saw the need for years. By doing that, I am able to help those that need help and keep the professional takers out of my pocket. I also get to know that a huge chunk of my giving doesn't get pilfered off by bureacrats. So no, I don't think the gov is an efficient way to keep corruption out of giving.

 

[NEastArkie]

The person who gave the biggest props to FEMA & Obama was the Gov of New Jersey. Of course there were problems & shortages immediately following the disaster. FEMA can't undo that kind of damage & it certainly can't restore things to pre-disaster conditions within a week or two, but there are nowhere near the complaints about it now that there were during the Katrina fiasco. You repeat the non-union utility crew line as fact, but that was immediately debunked by the very crews who were supposedly turned away.

No. I've never seen a "lib" confuse taxes with charity. I suppose if there is such a thing as a "tax more to give more" mentality it comes from John Maynard Keynes & even to some extent from Adam Smith.

As for "borrowing from our enemies" the amount of our debt to China is an insignificant fraction of our debt, but borrowing from them is not a problem at all. The interest rate we pay them is incredibly low, lower than the small inflation we have right now. Because of that China is essentially paying us to borrow from them. That's a great deal for us.

As for the programs you criticize, they're such a small amount of our budget that they hardly count at all. Add all of them together & I doubt they cost what one week in Iraq or Afghanistan cost. Solyndra wasn't even a blip on the budget. It was an investment gone bad. Big deal.

If the county's hospital isn't charitable, I'd say blame that on the county, not the federal gov't. But the problem is that we have a system where any of them are in the collection business. No other industrialized country in the world has such a system. Talk about inefficient & detrimental to overall national health! That's a major part of our problem.

As for your charitable giving. Good for you. But I doubt you can do much for a family whose finances have been ruined because they were underinsured or had their insurance lapse following a major illness or injury. Few people can pony up $100,000 or so.

 

[MDVOL]

So what? Christie is a marginal Republican and wants 100% of the


cost of that storm picked up by the US Taxpayers.

So he sucked up to Owebama.

FEMA did a lot better job post Katrina than they have Post Sandy.

Only thing is, there is no National Media covering the homeless in New Jersey and New York 24-7 like they did in New Orleans and no racial points to be scored against a White Republican by every Black politician and Black entertainer that could fight their way to a microphone this time.

Owebama got his damned Photo-Op and that was all the "help" anyone will ever get from him.

 

[NEastArkie]

Re: So what? Christie is a marginal Republican and wants 100% of the

Originally posted by MDVOL:

cost of that storm picked up by the US Taxpayers.

So he sucked up to Owebama.

FEMA did a lot better job post Katrina than they have Post Sandy.

Only thing is, there is no National Media covering the homeless in New Jersey and New York 24-7 like they did in New Orleans and no racial points to be scored against a White Republican by every Black politician and Black entertainer that could fight their way to a microphone this time.

Owebama got his damned Photo-Op and that was all the "help" anyone will ever get from him.

Yes, the costs of that storm, like every disaster, hits US taxpayers. Nothing gets past you. As for which disaster FEMA performed better, I never thought about all this public perception boiling down to the race of the President or entertainers. I'm sure you're onto something. And I never knew Chris Christie was black. You going to tell us about the trilateral commission next?

 

[71card]

I won't respond to all of your presumptive talking points....I'm pressed for time....just the last one. As one of 14 children, I paid my own way through HS and college; worked my way up through a corporation through perseverance and hard work; paid off my college debt at age 55. Saved close to a Million $; lost a huge chunk of it to Dodd-Frank in the housing bubble (2 houses - one for a handicapped child). Now I don't have to pay income tax and I am not proud of it. I am proud that I do contribute a lot of TIME to my child's family and to charity. 100% of the fruits of my labor goes to charity - that is what I am most proud of. What I don't understand is the ignorance of liberals. (I do understand the ignorance of minorities. It is by design of Democrats. That is another topic.) If you want to understand it better, research the intentions of Profs. Cloward and Piven (now about 80 yo) and check out how our POTUS champions their cause. Then, NEA, you champion the cause of disadvantaged citizens. As a liberal, you should know about the 'charitable' works that your party is pushing through the PP&AHCB that was initiated by margaret Sanger. Of course you know which ethnic group she sought to 'minimize'. Since people who, if they knew what they were donating to, would not do it, the gubmit presents it as a 'health' issue and forces them to pay it through taxes. That is the difference between taxes and charity.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:
The person who gave the biggest props to FEMA & Obama was the Gov of New Jersey. Of course there were problems & shortages immediately following the disaster. FEMA can't undo that kind of damage & it certainly can't restore things to pre-disaster conditions within a week or two, but there are nowhere near the complaints about it now that there were during the Katrina fiasco. You repeat the non-union utility crew line as fact, but that was immediately debunked by the very crews who were supposedly turned away.

No. I've never seen a "lib" confuse taxes with charity. I suppose if there is such a thing as a "tax more to give more" mentality it comes from John Maynard Keynes & even to some extent from Adam Smith.

As for "borrowing from our enemies" the amount of our debt to China is an insignificant fraction of our debt, but borrowing from them is not a problem at all. The interest rate we pay them is incredibly low, lower than the small inflation we have right now. Because of that China is essentially paying us to borrow from them. That's a great deal for us.

As for the programs you criticize, they're such a small amount of our budget that they hardly count at all. Add all of them together & I doubt they cost what one week in Iraq or Afghanistan cost. Solyndra wasn't even a blip on the budget. It was an investment gone bad. Big deal.

If the county's hospital isn't charitable, I'd say blame that on the county, not the federal gov't. But the problem is that we have a system where any of them are in the collection business. No other industrialized country in the world has such a system. Talk about inefficient & detrimental to overall national health! That's a major part of our problem.

As for your charitable giving. Good for you. But I doubt you can do much for a family whose finances have been ruined because they were underinsured or had their insurance lapse following a major illness or injury. Few people can pony up $100,000 or so.

The governor of New Jersey? Have you spoken with him privately or just watched his public sound bites as he shmoozed for more federal money like everybody else? Maybe if you watched news networks that weren't acting as extentions of obama's campaign machine you might have gotten a better look at what was actually happening on the ground there and for how long. And yeah, there were non-union crews turned away. Want to bet some money on it?

Never heard of tax more to give more? Let me put it another way. Have you ever heard the lib regime discuss the 1% ers paying their fair share? Do you really believe that having internet and cell phones is a "right" owed by taxpayers to those who pay no taxes and do not contribute anything to society? Could you trouble yourself to explain to me how the folks paying the bulk of the tax burden aren't paying their fair share while the over 40% of the country that pay virtually no taxes and instead actually take from the system still manage to be mistreated? Can you explain how that is not text book "tax more to give more" and also how you never noticed?

Our debt to China is an insignificant fraction of 16 trillion dollars? And our debt to them is no problem at all? Care to explain that? And could you possibly explain what will happen to the interest on that debt when interest rates go up from their all time record lows(which history states clearly will happen)? Considering that our "insignicantly" low interest already costs us closing in on a trillion a year to service, it will almost certainly bankrupt us in short order. We are having to pay it with borrowed money now.

If you think China is paying us to borrow money then how are we going deeper in debt to them? That may be the single lamest liberal statement of all time but certainly points to the mindset that got us where we are.

And to further that mindset, those programs I criticize get annual government checks of 40 mil here, 32 mil there, 127 mil there, etc., and there are hundreds, maybe 1000's of them that serve virtually no need that we can't easily live without. All of that stuff adds up to alot of wasted taxpayer money when we already aren't making it on what we are bringing in. Have you never, ever had to cut waste out of your budget? The big stuff, we aren't going to disband the military or shut down SS or medicare, so where the heck are we going to cut? There are billions of dollars every year taken from citizens and given to completely uneccessary entities of which NPR and the the endowments of the arts are shining examples. Do we really need to fund the Muppets(a billion dollar industry unto itself) and some guy putting a crucifix in a jar of urine in the name of art? I don't think so, but we do it b/c some of you want to spend our tax money like it's monopoly money. What the heck, just 40 mil here and 30 mil there, right?

And Solyndra was no big deal? 500 million dollars is no big deal to you? We handed money to some hardcore obama supporters w/o bothering to notice they were about to go under and that's no big deal to you? No wonder you think borrowing from China is profitable. That is a shining example of the mentality that will destroy our country. That is what insanity looks like on a massive scale.

That county hospital is exactly what government run entities act like. They are just like dealing with the IRS. Several years ago, I had to have lifsaving emergency surgery. We were very broke at the time and I had no insurance. I was first taken to the nearby Christian hospital and moved to the county hospital the next day for the operation as they had the only doctors who did that procedure at the time. Back then I made my living with a part time one man service business and as a substitute mail carrier. When I stopped working, money stopped coming in. I had no choice but to go back to work well before the doc cleared me. I forged a doctor's release so the post office would let me work. We had to have income.

My medical bills were huge. We went to both hospitals and explained our situation and that we had about 15K dollars that we pulled from a retirement fund(all we had in it after taxes) and we wanted to pay everybody as much as we could. The Christian hospital was very kind and easy to work with. They forgave most of the bill and accepted a small fraction as payment in full. The county folks were rude, unbending, threatening, and basically heartless as hell.. They refused anything less than full payment(which we certainly didn't have), harrassed us, treated us like deadbeats, took legal action against us and eventually ruined us financially inspite of our efforts to do our best. That was a real world experience for me and I have paid more attention since then and it continues to happen everyday to somebody.

So please spare me the crap about how the government is there to help me and save me from the evil private companies. I've never owed a private business that didn't work with me during tough times if I tried. OTOH, anytime I was found to owe a government entity, I was treated poorly while they demanded and penalized me at every turn w/o remorse or compassion. You libs live in a fantasy world.
.

This post was edited on 12/12 12:33 PM by rzrbk7777

This post was edited on 12/12 12:49 PM by rzrbk7777

 

[rzrbk7777]

Oh, and one more thing, that health system that you think is so bad is widely considered the best on the planet while those industrialized nations with socialized health systems lag far behind in many areas especially when it comes to specialized care availability.

Though my experience with the county run hospital was bad after the fact, I did in fact recieve lifesaving care when I clearly had no means to pay for it. And speaking of being in the "collection business", what do you think a government run health system will look like? There are already small companies cancelling expansion plans to avoid reaching the minimum payroll for requiring health coverage that would stagger them if they went over it, and larger companies that will cut hours to lower their full time employee numbers. Why? Because the government will now serve as the "collection business" that you claim hospitals are, except they will collect up front, squander billions in "administrative costs", and coldly cripple or destroy any businesses that fail to heed their demands. The incentives for expanding businesses and creating jobs just took a massive kick to the nads while you libs cheerlead. Good job.

 

[Mundo Cani Vol]

Do you have any legitimate reason why the taxpayers of Montana, Utah, Idaho

and the other states should pay for what the taxpayers of New Jersey, New York, etc along with the insurance companies who would pay for those having flood insurance since they are living so close to the ocean?

That was the way it was until Jimmy Carter created FEMA.


Gave states who were favored, a leg up on those who were not. Like Texas with their wild fires, Tennessee with their flood. Obama told them they couldn't have any Federal help in manpower or money. That character in the White House is president of only those who support him. The "Red" states can all go to Hell as far as he is concerned.

BTW,the people in New York and New Jersey are still homeless and FEMA is still clueless in how to deal with them.

But there is no Oprah there, no Sean Penn with his boat, body guards, camera men and no room for any survivors should he come across any just to show how much they care.

No daily CNN, MSDNC, and the rest of the democrat loving media there daily pounding the president on why things are not better because their job was to get democrats control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections and to re-elect Mugabe Jr. in 2012.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Wonder how democrats would react if Travis Tritt had been on stage of the CMAs and aid "Barack Obama hates white people"?

Bet there wouldn't have been the "well, he does hate white people" response excusing him like there was for Kanye West