Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation.

[PoliticalChic]

Americans are so afraid that one person will bilk the system that they set up elaborate systems of fraud detection that cost far more than the losses which occur because of fraud or abuse of the system. Every single program has "means testing" which duplicates the means testing of other programs. It's one thing to talk about how much money is spent on social programs, but how much of that money is actually making into the hands of the people it's purportedly supposed to help and how much is spent on administration of these programs?

Food stamps, is one example of a program which layers means testing on top of other means testing. And recipients are required to spend the money in stores taking electronic debit cards which restrict their shopping to supermarkets and other corporate entities. The cards can't be used at farmers' markets or fresh produce stands where the consumer gets more nutritious foods at a lower price. It would be far cheaper to increase general welfare, or earned income credits to put more money into the hands of low income families and let them spend the money where they see fit.

Someone published a list of all of the programs under which the poor were able to obtain money from the government, but each program was separately administered, often by different government departments or even by differing levels of government, required separate means testing, and a whole separate government department for administration. While it can reasonably be argued that such administration provides jobs for the unemployed, it also adds to the costs of such programs.

Means testing is an expensive process. In Canada, they did studies which found that the cost of means testing was more expensive for some programs than universal coverage, and that was cheaper to make some programs available to everyone, than it was to eliminate those who didn't need the money.

In the early 1990's, the Province of New Brunswick was able to cut $300 million from the provincial budget and balanced the budget, without cutting government programs or services. It was referred to as McKenna's Miracle (Frank McKenna was the Premier of the province at the time). Basically, the province cut $300 million from the costs of administering government programs by streamlining the system under which they were administered, and removing the duplication of work between departments and programs.

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." William F. Buckley

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative ignorance as to the facts and truth of public assistance programs is comprehensive and absolute; they adhere only to the myths and lies contrived to comport with errant rightwing dogma.

"...they adhere only to the myths and lies contrived to comport with errant rightwing dogma."

Find any lies in the following, you low-life sack of sewage.

1.. News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty.

2. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

3. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



I made you eat your words again, huh?

Getting to be a regular pattern.

all these facts are created from billionaires taking too much off the top dah.... you know those buying your politicians to give loop holes deregulate wall street etc. you people are paying for their grand ol parties on both sides and just keep choosing to be on the loosing side of this corrupt system instead of over turning it and making a new one not so easily corrupted. did you hear christie advocating to sell government to highest bidder? that's what you want? and you reap what it sows.

Do you know what a "fact" is???

Try English, you dope.

Start with 'dictionary/'

Post #194 is entirely factual. American has the richest 'poor people' in the world. Know where the money to pay them comes from?
No....not the government. It takes it from producers.

Enough language arts.
Now for your history lesson:

Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute



Hey....ever heard of Thomas Jefferson???

who was the old timer that said either you are a made man or a slave for another man? if you'd work for the heaven of a few, why wouldn't you work for the heaven for the many? makes no sense. I see these scum you refer to and they'd work harder then any of the rich and take less for it. you are all lost souls. if you stopped long enough to listen for a truth through all the lies you might hear a cool tune. think of humanity as a body. do you starve the muscles that feed the brain? give the muscles no rest? polluted the brain with it's own vanity? porn power and violence? do you pollute the muslces nervous system with fear? money is oxygen and all parts need it. the brain should get more but not at the expense of all other systems. wake up.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”

Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

 

[SAYIT]

liberals... “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?”

Liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They use their brains for some things, but not for political thought. The welfare programs exist for one purpose, to get liberals/demonrats elected. If poverty were to end, look at all the votes the liberal/demonrats would lose? It would be a disaster. Liberal programs exist not to end poverty, but to increase it, and thereby increase the political power of the left.

And republicans think with what? Not their brains either....

They are claiming that only conservatives know what is right with the USA....You know the Rand Paul kind...

Nope. They are saying the Demo/leftist/socialist method of giving away other peeps money is not only not helping the poor, it often hurts those it is intended to help just to keep those Demos, leftists and socialists in power.

 

[SAYIT]

Americans are so afraid that one person will bilk the system that they set up elaborate systems of fraud detection that cost far more than the losses which occur because of fraud or abuse of the system. Every single program has "means testing" which duplicates the means testing of other programs. It's one thing to talk about how much money is spent on social programs, but how much of that money is actually making into the hands of the people it's purportedly supposed to help and how much is spent on administration of these programs?

Food stamps, is one example of a program which layers means testing on top of other means testing. And recipients are required to spend the money in stores taking electronic debit cards which restrict their shopping to supermarkets and other corporate entities. The cards can't be used at farmers' markets or fresh produce stands where the consumer gets more nutritious foods at a lower price. It would be far cheaper to increase general welfare, or earned income credits to put more money into the hands of low income families and let them spend the money where they see fit.

Someone published a list of all of the programs under which the poor were able to obtain money from the government, but each program was separately administered, often by different government departments or even by differing levels of government, required separate means testing, and a whole separate government department for administration. While it can reasonably be argued that such administration provides jobs for the unemployed, it also adds to the costs of such programs.

Means testing is an expensive process. In Canada, they did studies which found that the cost of means testing was more expensive for some programs than universal coverage, and that was cheaper to make some programs available to everyone, than it was to eliminate those who didn't need the money.

In the early 1990's, the Province of New Brunswick was able to cut $300 million from the provincial budget and balanced the budget, without cutting government programs or services. It was referred to as McKenna's Miracle (Frank McKenna was the Premier of the province at the time). Basically, the province cut $300 million from the costs of administering government programs by streamlining the system under which they were administered, and removing the duplication of work between departments and programs.

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." William F. Buckley

Damn I love these poke-da-socialists-in-da-eye threads. Ain't America grand?

 

[SAYIT]

I'll fix the problem the first time, and do it correctly..........Even if I could make more money doing the opposite FOR THE SHORT TERM...........because the bad electrician will only gain for a while..........as the one that does the job right for a reasonable price will get other jobs as HAPPY CUSTOMERS tell others about the service rendered by the one doing the job correctly.

Whoa! Sounds like the "Invisible Hand" of capitalism at work. Build a better mousetrap...

 

[percysunshine]

Americans are so afraid that one person will bilk the system that they set up elaborate systems of fraud detection that cost far more than the losses which occur because of fraud or abuse of the system. Every single program has "means testing" which duplicates the means testing of other programs. It's one thing to talk about how much money is spent on social programs, but how much of that money is actually making into the hands of the people it's purportedly supposed to help and how much is spent on administration of these programs?

Food stamps, is one example of a program which layers means testing on top of other means testing. And recipients are required to spend the money in stores taking electronic debit cards which restrict their shopping to supermarkets and other corporate entities. The cards can't be used at farmers' markets or fresh produce stands where the consumer gets more nutritious foods at a lower price. It would be far cheaper to increase general welfare, or earned income credits to put more money into the hands of low income families and let them spend the money where they see fit.

Someone published a list of all of the programs under which the poor were able to obtain money from the government, but each program was separately administered, often by different government departments or even by differing levels of government, required separate means testing, and a whole separate government department for administration. While it can reasonably be argued that such administration provides jobs for the unemployed, it also adds to the costs of such programs.

Means testing is an expensive process. In Canada, they did studies which found that the cost of means testing was more expensive for some programs than universal coverage, and that was cheaper to make some programs available to everyone, than it was to eliminate those who didn't need the money.

In the early 1990's, the Province of New Brunswick was able to cut $300 million from the provincial budget and balanced the budget, without cutting government programs or services. It was referred to as McKenna's Miracle (Frank McKenna was the Premier of the province at the time). Basically, the province cut $300 million from the costs of administering government programs by streamlining the system under which they were administered, and removing the duplication of work between departments and programs.

"...each program was separately administered, often by different government departments or even by differing levels of government, required separate means testing, and a whole separate government department for administration."
.

Sometimes, failure is the only option.

.

 

[SAYIT]

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

What a crock. Peeps with low paying jobs usually have only low earning skills.
Forcing employers to overpay low skill workers would just drive up the pay scale (and prices) for everyone, solving absolutely nothing. As already noted, leftists think only with their hearts.

 

[SAYIT]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.



1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

Do the right care if it's running well? They care if they profit out of it, they don't care if lives are lost, in fact they seem to encourage people getting themselves killed for the cause of making more rich people richer.

"[Democrat] GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE 'DUTY TO DIE'
DENVER, March 28— Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ''duty to die and get out of the way'' instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, [Democrat] Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday."
GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY IF VERY ILL HAVE DUTY TO DIE - NYTimes.com

Do you support unlimited taxpayer funded assistance to give seniors every medical treatment they desire, despite their ability to pay?

The point, though you try desperately to avoid it, is that no party or political ideology has a monopoly on what seems to be heartless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

What a crock. Peeps with low paying jobs usually have only low earning skills.
Forcing employers to overpay low skill workers would just drive up the pay scale (and prices) for everyone, solving absolutely nothing. As already noted, leftists think only with their hearts.

And like the rest of your RW pals, you have no better ideas.

Here's an idea:

How about wages just get put back in line with productivity? All that means is that the producers, i.e. labor, would get a bigger share of the value of what they're producing.

That need not drive up prices because you're simply redistributing the profits in a fairer proportion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.



1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

Do the right care if it's running well? They care if they profit out of it, they don't care if lives are lost, in fact they seem to encourage people getting themselves killed for the cause of making more rich people richer.

"[Democrat] GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE 'DUTY TO DIE'
DENVER, March 28— Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ''duty to die and get out of the way'' instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, [Democrat] Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday."
GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY IF VERY ILL HAVE DUTY TO DIE - NYTimes.com

Do you support unlimited taxpayer funded assistance to give seniors every medical treatment they desire, despite their ability to pay?

The point, though you try desperately to avoid it, is that no party or political ideology has a monopoly on what seems to be heartless.

The alternative to limited funds for healthcare for seniors who cannot otherwise afford it is unlimited funds for seniors for healthcare for seniors who cannot otherwise afford it;

Since PC is attacking the former, it's logical to conclude she supports the latter, or,

she's just making one more irrational, gratuitous, partisan attacks on liberals.

 

[SAYIT]

The Chinese are doing what used to be our jobs for $300 a month.

Bring those jobs back here at 300 a month and the US worker would still get virtually every form of government assistance for the poor/low income American.

That is how free trade, another pillar of conservative economic policy, works.

Those jobs were chased out of the US by our draconian tax system which is so onerous that those who run the businesses which can relocate some or all of their operations outside the US would be guilty of violating their fiduciary responsibilities to the company's stakeholders if they failed to do so.
Much as socialists demand it to be, companies are not in biz to benefit employees or the tax man.

 

[SAYIT]

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

What a crock. Peeps with low paying jobs usually have only low earning skills.
Forcing employers to overpay low skill workers would just drive up the pay scale (and prices) for everyone, solving absolutely nothing. As already noted, leftists think only with their hearts.

And like the rest of your RW pals, you have no better ideas...
How about wages just get put back in line with productivity? All that means is that the producers, i.e. labor, would get a bigger share of the value of what they're producing.

That need not drive up prices because you're simply redistributing the profits in a fairer proportion.

Fairer? Did you really say fairer? What are you, 9 yrs old? Life isn't fair and fair is subjective at best.
I'd say that wages are in line with productivity (market value of labor) and the job of deciding who gets what from a company's profits is the responsibility of neither you nor our gov't. That is just typically arrogant socialist talk of what you think is fair and how to accomplish the socialist agenda in this country.

 

[SAYIT]

Conservatives got more than they bargained for when they decided to destroy the American middle class.

and here is the proof..........a scam artist electrician...........who will repeatedly tell you the problem is fixed only to see the fuse blow again................

Supporting a party that has added more to the welfare rolls and then saying they fixed it..................

Ignoring the underlying problem all together.

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

If it weren't for lies you'd be mute.

If you want to argue that conservatism isn't anti-labor, let's hear it.

If you want to argue that conservative free traders don't want capital to go to the area of cheapest labor, let's hear it.

If you want to argue that conservative economy/domestic/social policy is designed to widen the gap between richer and poorer at every opportunity, let's hear it.

Try to do it in your own thoughts.

Every single thing I post are my own thoughts, you moron.

Our loony leftist is so accustomed to applying only his socialist handbook talking points he can't conceive of the idea that others are able and permitted to form their own opinions and speak them. Arrogant lefties are sooo lame.

 

[percysunshine]

Americans with good paying jobs don't collect welfare.

Conservatism has tried to systemically drive down wages, weaken labor, and drive jobs out of this country for the benefit of the capitalists.

And they've been successful. Now you're reaping the whirlwind, because what conservatives never took into account is that the People, with the power of the ballot box, would take back much of what conservatives took away from them,

in the form of government help for the poor and low income Americans that conservatism created.

What a crock. Peeps with low paying jobs usually have only low earning skills.
Forcing employers to overpay low skill workers would just drive up the pay scale (and prices) for everyone, solving absolutely nothing. As already noted, leftists think only with their hearts.

And like the rest of your RW pals, you have no better ideas.

Here's an idea:

How about wages just get put back in line with productivity? All that means is that the producers, i.e. labor, would get a bigger share of the value of what they're producing.

That need not drive up prices because you're simply redistributing the profits in a fairer proportion.

Awesome! A chart of the effects of the computer and robotics revolution, and how it transformed an industrial economy.

So the goods producing workers were replaced by machines. So what? They all got Information Technology jobs.

Speed bumps are common with progress.

.

 

[SAYIT]

PC has a simplistic world-view that consists of "1" and "0." She apparently is a binary thinker, and has no problem with classifying Americans as only "liberals" or "conservatives." To this day, I don't exactly know what a "liberal" is, other than some nasty "enemy."

Her lengthy diatribes via numbered thoughts seem like an attempt to convince readers that she is an intellectual. She is not. She is a monkey with a keyboard.

Uh-huh. Well, that's helpful. All you proved is that you are the monkey with a keyboard. Well done.

 

[SAYIT]

Although I don't ever see it happening, I'm more and more inclined to support the idea that every American get a guaranteed basic income,

regardless of their situation, that replaces all or most of the programs for the poor.

That's the idea behind not asking the bottom 50% of American earners to help shoulder the federal tax load. Unfortunately even that did not satisfy he demands of some for free stuff from the gov't. Those in the bottom half get a free ride. WooHoo!

 

[SAYIT]

A citizen's health is more basic than his education.

and has Obombcare changed the cost of that as promised............NOPE............rates continue to sky rocket............due to the rules...........and businesses are making changes to the workforce to adapt................causing lost jobs and 30 hour weeks.....................
That isn't a solution. It's a disaster..................

You can talk market realites to a socialist until you are blue in the face but he will simply cover his eyes and ears.

 

[haissem123]

Conservative ignorance as to the facts and truth of public assistance programs is comprehensive and absolute; they adhere only to the myths and lies contrived to comport with errant rightwing dogma.

"...they adhere only to the myths and lies contrived to comport with errant rightwing dogma."

Find any lies in the following, you low-life sack of sewage.

1.. News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty.

2. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

3. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



I made you eat your words again, huh?

Getting to be a regular pattern.

all these facts are created from billionaires taking too much off the top dah.... you know those buying your politicians to give loop holes deregulate wall street etc. you people are paying for their grand ol parties on both sides and just keep choosing to be on the loosing side of this corrupt system instead of over turning it and making a new one not so easily corrupted. did you hear christie advocating to sell government to highest bidder? that's what you want? and you reap what it sows.

Do you know what a "fact" is???

Try English, you dope.

Start with 'dictionary/'

Post #194 is entirely factual. American has the richest 'poor people' in the world. Know where the money to pay them comes from?
No....not the government. It takes it from producers.

Enough language arts.
Now for your history lesson:

Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute



Hey....ever heard of Thomas Jefferson???

who was the old timer that said either you are a made man or a slave for another man? if you'd work for the heaven of a few, why wouldn't you work for the heaven for the many? makes no sense. I see these scum you refer to and they'd work harder then any of the rich and take less for it. you are all lost souls. if you stopped long enough to listen for a truth through all the lies you might hear a cool tune. think of humanity as a body. do you starve the muscles that feed the brain? give the muscles no rest? polluted the brain with it's own vanity? porn power and violence? do you pollute the muslces nervous system with fear? money is oxygen and all parts need it. the brain should get more but not at the expense of all other systems. wake up.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”

Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

I didn't expect you to find it. sorry about that. maybe next time you'll work on it some more.

 

[Brucethethinker]

Ronald Reagan was the first republican I supported, Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter was the last demonrat I supported.

So you went from supporting a business owner, Naval Academy graduate and nuclear submarine commander to supporting a 2nd tier movie actor whose wife "directed" him to the governor of CA position. And you think YOU are "smart". LMAO.

I've never said I'm smart, I often say I'm a dumb hillbilly.

Sorry, Zekey...but you've been snookered.
Carter was an incompetent fraud and phony...much like the community organizer.
Let's set the record straight:
1. "Invariably Carter introduced himself as a “nuclear physicist and a peanut farmer.” He was neither: he held only a bachelor’s degree, and he owned a peanut warehouse."
Carter 8217 s Lies Commentary Magazine
2. "Until I read Rod Adams today I carried around the belief that Pres. Jimmy Carter was a Navy-trained nuclear engineer and a former nuclear officer. He was neither. What is dangerous about this sort of resume-buffing and credentials-inflation is that Carter was able to destroy the entire US nuclear industry – in part because people thought he “must know about that nuclear stuff”.

I never knew that, but it explains things. What a lying piece of crap! I despise him even more now, if that's possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...they adhere only to the myths and lies contrived to comport with errant rightwing dogma."

Find any lies in the following, you low-life sack of sewage.

1.. News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty.

2. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

3. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing."
Scribd



I made you eat your words again, huh?

Getting to be a regular pattern.

all these facts are created from billionaires taking too much off the top dah.... you know those buying your politicians to give loop holes deregulate wall street etc. you people are paying for their grand ol parties on both sides and just keep choosing to be on the loosing side of this corrupt system instead of over turning it and making a new one not so easily corrupted. did you hear christie advocating to sell government to highest bidder? that's what you want? and you reap what it sows.

Do you know what a "fact" is???

Try English, you dope.

Start with 'dictionary/'

Post #194 is entirely factual. American has the richest 'poor people' in the world. Know where the money to pay them comes from?
No....not the government. It takes it from producers.

Enough language arts.
Now for your history lesson:

Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute



Hey....ever heard of Thomas Jefferson???

who was the old timer that said either you are a made man or a slave for another man? if you'd work for the heaven of a few, why wouldn't you work for the heaven for the many? makes no sense. I see these scum you refer to and they'd work harder then any of the rich and take less for it. you are all lost souls. if you stopped long enough to listen for a truth through all the lies you might hear a cool tune. think of humanity as a body. do you starve the muscles that feed the brain? give the muscles no rest? polluted the brain with it's own vanity? porn power and violence? do you pollute the muslces nervous system with fear? money is oxygen and all parts need it. the brain should get more but not at the expense of all other systems. wake up.

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”

Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

I didn't expect you to find it. sorry about that. maybe next time you'll work on it some more.

I was being kind.

There is no evidence that there ever was a cerebrum.


And, based on that conclusion, I suggest you make an appointment with your dentist to have your cranial cavity filled.