Bold Believer Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Cannot say much....as my family is on medicaid....and am receiving help from the government. Not really thrilled either way with Republicans or Democrats. That is all I will say..... Sp long as you are not abusing the system, there is no problem there. You won't be the only American Christian to ever use gov't assistance. People with disabilities should be helped. The Church used to do that. Now the government does, with the people's tax dollars. The topic here isn't whether or not we should receive assistance, but about Jimmy Carter's shameless shilling for his party using mountains of dead babies to bring in votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
differentDemocrat Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 there use to be a time in (not so long ago) when Americans participated in the primaries of both Parties. Unlike most countries that have multiple Parties to reflect the peoples' true views we are only stuck with 2. Couple that with the fact that almost no one in this country votes (we historically have the lowest voter turn out) and you are left with both Parties essentially being controlled by fringe elements & big corporate business. The poor of this nation need the Democratic Party. There will always be those who are downtrodden and disabled. And in a country separated by church & state and with a growing number of atheists who reject the Church we must have a Party that espouses the issues of the poor.... Pro Lifers please sign the petition below affirming you support a Pro Life Democratic Party http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bigtent/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 there use to be a time in (not so long ago) when Americans participated in the primaries of both Parties. Unlike most countries that have multiple Parties to reflect the peoples' true views we are only stuck with 2. Couple that with the fact that almost no one in this country votes (we historically have the lowest voter turn out) and you are left with both Parties essentially being controlled by fringe elements & big corporate business. The poor of this nation need the Democratic Party. There will always be those who are downtrodden and disabled. And in a country separated by church & state and with a growing number of atheists who reject the Church we must have a Party that espouses the issues of the poor.... Pro Lifers please sign the petition below affirming you support a Pro Life Democratic Party http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bigtent/ The Democratic Party is not the champion of the poor. They are the creator of a dependency class. I have been very poor, and in the middle class, and the Democratic Party policies always harmed me. When I was poor, I was harmed by all the taxes, and yes, I did pay a lot in taxes. Some was state taxes and some social security taxes. Had I been able to keep my true earnings, I would have been ok, but not with the heavy rate of taxation caused by liberal policies. I went to seek a job I was qualified for, and because of the Democrats and their affirmative action programs, it had to be filled by a minority applicant, even though none had applied. I despise the Democratic Party, and what they have done to this nation. An ideal two party system to me would be Republicans verses the Constitution Party. I wish the Democratic Party would cease to exist. What do atheists have to do with anything? The people that need to be helping the poor are private charities and churches. If an atheist is too proud to seek assistance from one of those groups, let them starve. Why would my signing your petitiion make any difference, when I am not a Democrat, and wouldn't vote for them regardless since I disagree with nearly everything they stand for? I did vote in the Primary, as I always do, this time for Rick Santorum. That is someone I could enthusiastically support. Now it has come down to the lesser of two evils, and that means I am supporting Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Share Posted May 14, 2012 there use to be a time in (not so long ago) when Americans participated in the primaries of both Parties. Unlike most countries that have multiple Parties to reflect the peoples' true views we are only stuck with 2. Couple that with the fact that almost no one in this country votes (we historically have the lowest voter turn out) and you are left with both Parties essentially being controlled by fringe elements & big corporate business. The poor of this nation need the Democratic Party. There will always be those who are downtrodden and disabled. And in a country separated by church & state and with a growing number of atheists who reject the Church we must have a Party that espouses the issues of the poor.... Pro Lifers please sign the petition below affirming you support a Pro Life Democratic Party http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bigtent/ Yeah...like they need a sharp stick in the eye. Mack, the Democratic party cares not one whit for the poor. Perhaps they have YOU bamboozled, but not I. Look at the leadership of the Dem Party. They are just as rich as the leadership of the Rep Party, if not more so. What the poor need is a Church which stops giving lipservice to the principles of the New Testament while they let the government do their job for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2012 there use to be a time in (not so long ago) when Americans participated in the primaries of both Parties. Unlike most countries that have multiple Parties to reflect the peoples' true views we are only stuck with 2. Couple that with the fact that almost no one in this country votes (we historically have the lowest voter turn out) and you are left with both Parties essentially being controlled by fringe elements & big corporate business. The poor of this nation need the Democratic Party. There will always be those who are downtrodden and disabled. And in a country separated by church & state and with a growing number of atheists who reject the Church we must have a Party that espouses the issues of the poor.... Pro Lifers please sign the petition below affirming you support a Pro Life Democratic Party http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bigtent/ Yeah...like they need a sharp stick in the eye. Mack, the Democratic party cares not one whit for the poor. Perhaps they have YOU bamboozled, but not I. Look at the leadership of the Dem Party. They are just as rich as the leadership of the Rep Party, if not more so. What the poor need is a Church which stops giving lipservice to the principles of the New Testament while they let the government do their job for them. sad but true. @ different democrat. since my uncle was one of your types and all american jews that i know for the most part(save the abortion deal and gay rights) i know what you are saying but i disagree as tanf does encourage lying and tends to hold you down.i too pay taxes for my wifes ssi as i make enough to do so. is that right? that you retire and are on this entilement programan saved enough to make and are penalised? yet dont work and you are rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 It always gives me a hearty chuckle when someone trots out the "Social Welfare programs are a mere drop in the bucket financially compared to what we have historically spent on wars over the past 50 years" statement, and I've seen it pulled out like a rabbit out of a hat many, many times. The only problem with it is that it's 100% bogus. It may have been true, at one time, decades ago, but it isn't true now. Entitlements out-stripped military spending long ago. Entitlements account for the biggest chunk of the federal budget spent, as anyone with a computer and the internet can easily look up and see. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for 43% of federal spending in 2011. Military spending accounted for 19% of federal spending. When I do the math, that comes up to less than half as much spent on the military as what was spent on entitlements. In 2011, according to the CBO, entitlement spending was 102% of our GDP. We paid more, in entitlements, than what the country took in, product-wise. This is very true. I learned in my pre-marital counseling class in school that between 2004-2008 we spent $500 Billion on the Iraq war. In the same five years, we spent $560 Billion on unwed mothers and their babies. That doesn't include all of the other people that are on the social entitlement programs. Just unwed mothers alone was more than the entire Iraq war. If you include all of the other people that are milking our entitlement programs, including the millions of illegal immigrants, it is no wonder we are almost broke. There is also a lot of waste and fraud in entitlements and that is costing us hundreds of millions if not billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2012 i have heard this but never had the facts to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 i have heard this but never had the facts to back it up. Yeah, 24% of unwed mothers are in poverty compared to only 1% of married mothers. Unwed mothers have consistently cost the US tax payer $112 Billion a year due to $90 Billion a year in food stamps, welfare, medicare, housing and daycare subsidies, HEAD Start, as well free school breakfast and lunch programs. Since they are not working that is a loss of $22 Billion a year in tax revenue that the working taxpayer has to make up for. So $90 Billion + $22 Billion = $112 Billion x 5 = $560 Billion. Needless to say, marriage is good for the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted May 14, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2012 i have heard this but never had the facts to back it up. Yeah, 24% of unwed mothers are in poverty compared to only 1% of married mothers. Unwed mothers have consistently cost the US tax payer $112 Billion a year due to $90 Billion a year in food stamps, welfare, medicare, housing and daycare subsidies, HEAD Start, as well free school breakfast and lunch programs. Since they are not working that is a loss of $22 Billion a year in tax revenue that the working taxpayer has to make up for. So $90 Billion + $22 Billion = $112 Billion x 5 = $560 Billion. Needless to say, marriage is good for the economy. that part i know. the part where we have spent more on tanf then the iraq war. though i do see that as unnessary given what level of intel the american public is allowed to see. i wouldnt say that they arent all working. my step-daughter is one of these and well the useless men who made these babies ought to pay and the hard part is making them when they dont care.if we jail them they dont pay till they get out and when they do they cant pay much as they wont make much. i know this first hand as my step-daughter a repented believer now lives through this. its sad that our socieity encourages out of wedlock kids and also discourages virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 i wouldnt say that they arent all working. I didn't say that they were not all working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts