A Condensed Version of History

[DARISC]

[quote=Hugh R;3644031]Winston Churchill said that I believe.

Yeah, he did.

Its not about a social conscience or compassion.

Yeah, often it is.

Its about other people deciding what is the "right" thing to do with my money.

Given that this is a democracy, and that the "other people" you refer to are people such as yourself who excercise their votes on specific issues and to elect their representatives in government, there will always be winners and losers, sometimes very sore and bitter losers. Such is life.

I'll give you an example. I don't have the citation, but a few weeks ago I was reading in the LA Times about a housing project in Chicago and how the housing police were cracking down for all kinds of minor violations as, in one residents mind, a way to "clear out" some people. Be that as it may, the resident who was being interviewed was a 74 or 75 year old lady who had lived there for 50 years.

I can see it coming - lazy, promiscuous welfare slut, not even a husband, but a bunch of kids (probably grand kids too) sucking up upstanding hardworking citizen's hard earned tax money!

Stepping outside of the main story, I said to myself "What the fu(k is someone doing living in subsidized Federal housing for 50 years!!

Lets see what I've done in the last 50 years...went to nursery, elementary, and high school. Went in the military, got out, put myself through college, worked, went to school at night for my Master's degree, worked, studied and went to school at night to get professional certifications, worked.

Number 1, you're prejudging a person you know very little about and, number 2, anecdotes relating to failed, abused, corrupted, unnecessary, etc. programs, laws, etc. are a dime a dozen - it's a BIG country, ALWAYS needing tinkering and fixing. Ya don't keep trying to fix it, it falls apart. Simple as that.

What has she done in the past 50 years since she was 24 or 25 to improve her lot in life? Oh, and she had three kids but no husband, now or ever, that I could discern. This is a person who has been living on Federal handouts since Eisenhower. Its someone with a "social conscience" that was using MY taxpayers $$$ to allow this.

See above.

This goes on today, and I don't see how raising my taxes, with the mantra that "I'm lucky, or I'm not paying my fair share" is something I should stand for. I pay more taxes than the average family of four in the US even makes. In fact, the "average" american family doesn't even pay enough taxes to put their own kids through public school. In Cali the per student costs the state pays are $7000 so if you have two kids you should be paying $14,000 per year or your kids education, let alone police, fire, roads, flood control, etc. To pay $14K for your kids education in Cali you need to have an adjusted gross income of around $150K (9% top tax rate). Again, this doesn't include police, fire, etc. I think people should pay taxes that are "fair" by that I mean what you take in goods and services from the state should be roughly close to what you pay in. Or we should at least start with that premise and go from there. How is it "fair" that one family pays $40k in taxes and another family the same size pays two bucks? I don't think we'd have such a bloated inefficient government (case in point the Los Angeles Unified School District, which paid $12 Million for a payroll system that doesn't work), and then spends several hundred thousand more on PR firms to stem the criticism of the flawed payroll system) if Joe six pack was paying taxes closer to his "fair share".

Maybe those who have no kids but live in the school district that your kids went to school in should get a tax refund? Why should they be paying to put "other people's" kids through school?

Take heart; you and others of your mindset can have your way - if you have the numbers. No one has taken away your vote (yet)./quote]
..

[Hugh R]

DARISC, valid point about the neighbors without kids, have to think about a sharp biting retort to that one! But do you see my point about someone living in subsidized housing for 50 years? And yes, I don't know anything about the women, but the LA Times, DID say she was 74/75 and had three kids. 50 years in subsidized housing, are you kidding me? Also subsidized housing artifically props up the cost of housing in an area, sort of like farm support does to the cost of food.

[Hugh R]

Nice cut and edit job, missing several of my points.

I especially like this part below.

Take heart; you and others of your mindset can have your way - if you have the numbers. No one has taken away your vote (yet)./quote]
..[/QUOTE]

Dude, you need to chill out. This part of your post is sort of indicative of many liberals, which is that if I disagree with you I must be some kind of hate mongering, racist, xenophobe. I supprt the country helping those who truly need help as much as anybody. I used to own a house in a not so good part of LA and when I was studying for grad school on Friday nights, the "boys" were out drinking and howling at the moon, the same boys who claim they are held back by the Man.

When I mentioned the part about the women living in subsidized housing for 50 years you completely blew that off. Go back and see what you've done in 50 years if your that old, or for that matter, any of your friends. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm generalizing about someone that I know nothing about. But 50 years in subsidized housing and three kids, just how much do I need to know. What, they didn't mention that she has Downs Syndrome or something?

[DARISC]

As promised on the Ike thread, Hugh - here it comes!

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Nice cut and edit job, missing several of my points.

didn't cut or edit anything - just interjected responses to your otherwise completely unedited post. And I'm sure that I got all of your points.

I especially like this part below.
Take heart; you and others of your mindset can have your way - if you have the numbers. No one has taken away your vote (yet )./quote]
..

No sarcasm meant. Majority rules, use your vote, is all I'm saying there.

Dude, you need to chill out.

I'm honestly bemused by that comment. I had no idea that I was coming across as heated, just voicing my opposition to your point of view.

This part of your post is sort of indicative of many liberals, which is that if I disagree with you I must be some kind of hate mongering, racist, xenophobe.

Whoa! You're coming out of left field with that one. No WAY did I say that! Dude, YOU need to chill if you really have that impression of me. You don't peg everybody who disagrees with you as a Liberal, do you? I rather see myself as attempting to be analytical as oppposed to liberal. Batting 0 here, eh?

I supprt the country helping those who truly need help as much as anybody.

I won't call you on that, but I do get the impression that you might be quicker to jump to judgment than I am.

I used to own a house in a not so good part of LA and when I was studying for grad school on Friday nights, the "boys" were out drinking and howling at the moon, the same boys who claim they are held back by the Man.

You'll perhaps understand that I'm not particlularly impressed by that one way or the other since I came back from Viet Nam and, with the aid of the G.I. Bill and a supportive wife, worked on the back of city garbage trucks with other motivated college guys during the summers and parked cars on weekend midnight shifts at a big hotel during the school year for four years of undergrad and two years of grad school - so what? I was WAY too occupied to even think about "the "boys" were out drinking and howling at the moon, the same boys who claim they are held back by the Man". Never saw it as a sacrifice or particularly unusual.

When I mentioned the part about the women living in subsidized housing for 50 years you completely blew that off.

No, I didn't at all - It's just that I've heard so many similar anecdotes intended to portray an overall picture - stereotyping, to be precise.

Go back and see what you've done in 50 years if your that old, (Oh, I'm older) or for that matter, any of your friends (Oh, my friends for the most part have done o.k. too).

See above. And, not that it's important, I also lived in a couple of VERY tough neighborhoods in SD back then. Again, so what?

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm generalizing about someone that I know nothing about.

Yeah, yeah, you are.

But 50 years in subsidized housing and three kids, just how much do I need to know.

Apparently knowing that much is sufficient for you - I'm not arguing that point at all. You will surely admit, however, that there is a recognized discipline called sociology (which has absolutely nothing to do with "Socialism" - and I am neither a sociologist nor a socialist), the practitioners of which attempt to understand the root causes for great disparities in societies, which if left to grow, severely damage the society as a whole - that's including you and me both, brother.

What, they didn't mention that she has Downs Syndrome or something?

Would that make a difference?

We do be different - that's the beauty of the American way, eh?

Peace,




..

[Racerbvd]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_go_co/congress_grinch_democrats_1

9 Dems say no to Christmas resolution By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 13, 2:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Rep. Jim McDermott says he is no Grinch, even though he voted against Christmas.


The Democrat from Washington state says he was protesting an expected veto of a children's health insurance bill when he voted against a resolution recognizing the importance of Christmas.

"While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children. There's a little bit of irony going on around here," McDermott said Thursday.

The Christmas measure was approved 372-9 on Tuesday night. Democrats cast all the no votes. Beside McDermott, the other dissenting votes came from Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey of California; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; and Bobby Scott of Virginia.

Ten lawmakers, including Republican Mike Pence of Indiana, voted "present." Forty lawmakers were absent for the vote.

McDermott said President Bush's veto Wednesday meant that "10,000 kids in my state" would be left without health coverage. The veto was the second time Bush rejected a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase spending for the popular program.

"I guess I'm the only guy left in Congress who still gets angry, but there are some things that are just not right," McDermott said.

On that last point, at least, Republicans agreed.

"I think there's an anti-Christian bias," said Rep. Steve King, who sponsored the resolution. "I would not have thought that five or 10 years ago that we'd need to make a statement" affirming the importance of Christmas and Christianity.

King's resolution stated that Christianity was the predominant faith in the United States and contributed greatly to the development of the country and Western civilization.

"I've watched Christ be eradicated by ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lawsuits and people be afraid of confrontations. They wish (people) 'happy holidays' but not 'Merry Christmas' because they might be offended," King, R-Iowa, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

McDermott, in his 10th term, is revered by many of his liberal constituents in Seattle for his anti-war stance and other votes. But he is loathed by many conservatives, who call him "Baghdad Jim" in honor of his prewar trip to Iraq, where he said he believed Saddam Hussein but not Bush.

McDermott said Thursday that he expected to take political heat for his actions, but if it forces a discussion of Bush's veto, "then it was a good protest vote."

Bunch of f-n A-holes!!! If the paren't in these clowns' States were responsable parents, they would provide for their own kids!!! If you can't feed em, don't breed!!! Don't expect the rest of us to pay because she didn't swallow

[Moneyguy1]

All I can say is




WOW!!