Palin, Beck and Limbaugh

[Brian]

brian i agree with your last post. there is one thing i dont go for. not everyone on here is for taxes at all. they dont think that anyone should be on gov. help. its clear if you read their posts.

Well technically no one "should" be on gov. help.

I think what is happening dawgs is that people are trying to get the point across about how to not be on the governments teet. If people continue to use the gov. as there primary means of income, even when times are rough, they can become dependent on that help and not seek to stand on there own two feet.

Just look at the cities across the country that have the most social welfare programs dawgs,...they don't really work! They are the states that are in massive debt and the people are not really that much better off.

It's a mind set. A way of thinking. Do we survive by pulling our bootstraps up and doing whatever is necessary to change our own personal situation? Or do we set at home playing xbox all day having 9 kids with as many momma's while steadily collecting those checks from uncle sam.

In my opinion it begs the question of what kind of people should we be? Of course we are to help those in need. To show love, compassion, and good will, equally to all men. To love our neighbors as ourself. But we are also (I believe) suppose to teach and lead by example and not be in massive debt as to even have the need to rely on the government. we should show and teach folks to live a life dependent on God for all your provisions.
Nowadays I now a few people who literally cant cook for them self something as simple as hamburger helper, and this person was 20!

Anther person I know recently had some car trouble, several of the family members (adult members who had families of there own) were made to feel as if it was sorta there job to help this person out. Several people tried to offer this person a little advice (quite good I might add) on ways to eliminate possibly a couple hundred dollars a month off there bills. Well, that person was kinda defiant, saying that all those words were nice but they didn't put "instant money in the bank". Well in my opinion "instant money in the bank is the LAST thing that person needs! That's not heartless, that is what will actually WORK on solving there financial struggles in the long run.

Sorry for rambling so much.....

[dolfan]

A family sits around a table making funeral plans. In front of them lies a contract with the funeral cost printed at the bottom, and signature blanks unsigned. The kids all love each other, sure. No one reaches out to grab that contract, though. So, discussion happens. One daughter has cared the most for her now dearly departed mother. She has stayed overnight for weeks or months on end to take care of Momma. Eventually, she just moved in. Momma's SS checks paid for the utilities to stay on. Momma's Medicare and Medicaid paid for Momma's doctors and some of her prescriptions. Momma's government check paid for some of the medicine and Momma's EBT card from the welfare folks fed Momma. And daughter. And, yes, Momma paid for gas in her daughter's car to take Momma to the grocery store and to the doctor. Momma would fill the car up once or twice per month, maybe. The other kids acknowledge daughter's contributions to Momma. She and Momma had gotten so close, you know. So, naturally, they all agreed, daughter should have the final say-so on the funeral arrangements. And, she could sign the contract, too.

Who is the winner and who is the loser in this deal?

The winners: All the kids.
The loser: The funeral director.

Daughter doesn't have a pot to empty. The rest of the kids are not on the hook. The funeral director has a worthless contract signed by a broke daughter who has just spent the last 2 years siphoning off her mother's taxpayer-provided benefits. SHE has been the one "on government help". And, now the one person there for them at the end of that road has absorbed the losses.

Tell me Dawgs --- shouldn't the funeral home director get government help, too?? If not, why not? After all, I suppose they could've thrown Momma in a hole they dug by hand. Happened for centuries that way and here we are, all fat and happy. But, I suppose you have to extend compassion for the dead and grieving at your own expense, too, huh? Or, shouldn't the government go ahead and just pick up that tab, too?? Seems awfully unfair to put people in that spot, doesn't it?

My point is this, Dawgs: Government "help" is no longer a help. It is a weight and a burden that is unbearable. You talked about a house divided. How about a house collapsed under its own weight?? How about THAT house? You know what I see? You sympathize with that bunch around the table figuring out a way for someone else to pay for what he thinks ought to be done. That's what I see.

[Brian]

Same situation here....sorta.

My father, God love him, has never had a financial plan. He has pretty much lived his life with the motto ol' this old world ain't gonna be around in 1985, oops, 1990, oh 1995, 2000, surely 2001, 02, 03, 04, 05.....you get the idea. Therefore he has rented for 36+ years, has no nest egg, no backup plan and no final arraignments or life insurance whatsoever. He is 57 now and doesn't seem to be heading in any other direction than his usual path.

Don't get me wrong, I love my dad but I wish he would have planned better. My two brothers, sister, and myself are going to be left with that huge debt that we wont be able to pay. So now what? Let the funeral home be stuck with nothing? Dad didn't pay his mothers final cost, he couldn't, no means to. My mother passed from cancer a few years back, what do you think is happening with that debt? You got it....nothing.

I feel your pain dolfan.

[dawgs10]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/17/buffet ... nnellatest

well, lets see if these guys are talkers or doers. warren buffet is a rich guy i can get behind. put your money where you mouth is tax haters. give away without the gov. help.

[MacUser]

you mouth is tax haters

Haters? Again.. look in the mirror. You're rash generalizations again of name calling is turning you into exactly what you stated the Tea Party was doing.

Sadly... The ones that usually cry foul first are the worst offenders

[dawgs10]

you mouth is tax haters

Haters? Again.. look in the mirror. You're rash generalizations again of name calling is turning you into exactly what you stated the Tea Party was doing.

Sadly... The ones that usually cry foul first are the worst offenders

put your money where your mouth is!!! give it away without it being taken. Go Warren GO!!!

[dawgs10]

you mouth is tax haters

Haters? Again.. look in the mirror. You're rash generalizations again of name calling is turning you into exactly what you stated the Tea Party was doing.

Sadly... The ones that usually cry foul first are the worst offenders

and that would be the tea party crying foul first!!!!

[MacUser]

put your money where your mouth is!!!

Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie....

[dolfan]

Same situation here....sorta.

My father, God love him, has never had a financial plan. He has pretty much lived his life with the motto ol' this old world ain't gonna be around in 1985, oops, 1990, oh 1995, 2000, surely 2001, 02, 03, 04, 05.....you get the idea. Therefore he has rented for 36+ years, has no nest egg, no backup plan and no final arraignments or life insurance whatsoever. He is 57 now and doesn't seem to be heading in any other direction than his usual path.

Don't get me wrong, I love my dad but I wish he would have planned better. My two brothers, sister, and myself are going to be left with that huge debt that we wont be able to pay. So now what? Let the funeral home be stuck with nothing? Dad didn't pay his mothers final cost, he couldn't, no means to. My mother passed from cancer a few years back, what do you think is happening with that debt? You got it....nothing.

I feel your pain dolfan.

Reality really, really bites. Dawgs thinks that it is right for the government to force everyone in America to pony up with money, turn it over by force to the government, so that government can then decide if, when and to whom that money gets disbursed. He is also okay with the fact -- as demonstrated by himself -- that many people fail to provide for themselves and think it right and proper that others should pay their freight. He is okay with the fact that government has not solved problems, but has created multiple generations of dependent classes by their so-called welfare programs.

Look, my folks split when I was 6. We had zip. My father walked off and left my mother with his 2 sons and a daughter from a previous marriage, a mortgage she had no means to pay, and refused to pay child support. (This was 1973; deadbeat dads got away with it then, here.) Fast forward: we wound up living in public housing (a really bad project), on welfare, food stamps, free lunches, and my mother working as a cafeteria employee at my middle school, then in a grocery store deli where she retired from in 1994. She cleaned houses on the side. She did some other stuff, too that I won't mention here. All of the unimaginable squalor that goes along with that, I lived it. But, notice ---- "she worked". And, by 1980, I think it was, she had my brother and me OUT of public housing, she sent the welfare check back, told them "no, thanks", turned down the food stamps she was still eligible to receive. Am I glad we had food on the table due to food stamps? You bet. Am I glad we had Medicaid to pay for basic primary care? Yes, sirree. But, we knew, we were lectured to, and we had eyes open enough to look around us and see for ourselves that what we were living in the midst of was no way to live. We did not become entitled to the entitlements. Our basic assumption in life was "we are responsible for ourselves". We CELEBRATED -- truly -- the very day my mother actually put the welfare check back into the mail. I'm not kidding.

Now, do I look down my nose at anyone in honest need? No. Do I think the government ought to force money out of your pocket to pay for the needs of others? 100% absolutely not. Do I think the government has the power to legitimately provide for the needs of the honestly-in-need when its own spending priorities are done frugally and not to reward interest groups or buy the loyalties of bureucrats or funnel receipts back to corporations who contribute big bucks to political campaigns or who hire friends?? Yes. The government may legitimately do that, but it never, never, never, never has and there's no reason to believe it ever, ever, ever, ever will. What we have in reality is confiscation of wealth and redistribution of wealth -- communism. I look down my nose at communism.

[Full Quiver]

Beck is spot on!

[thatonegirl]

Soooo in my version of the bible it says "something something something that you do for the least of these, you do for Me...something something"

What about the people who really CAN'T help themselves at this point? What about the single mother of multiple children who is single because her husband has a midlife crisis and leaves her??? Should she not be entitled to some sort of government assistance?? Or should we just let her and those children starve to death and go without medical care? If the children are small enough (Pre-schoolers, let's say) then the mother might be stuck in a spot where it won't pay her to work.

The system is broken, my friends.

by the way hi this is my first post

[TW]

thatonegirl,
This may come across as being cold, cruel, and heartless. It is not the governments responsibility to provide financial support for anybody. Your Bible reference makes it quite clear that God, Jesus, expects us as Christians to provide this help. This is the role that the church provide for 157 years until the Great Depression when the government took over and placed upon the backs of the working Americans the burden of supporting a socialist program. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the Federal Government to spend one cent on any welfare program. And need I remind you that Jesus also said that the poor would always be with us.

The government needs to do what the government is supposed to do, and the church needs to do what the church is supposed to do.


TW

[dawgs10]

thatonegirl, you wont get any where with these guys. Read their lips, no new taxes, or old taxes, or any responsiblility for someone else at all.

[TW]

dawgs,
As usual, you are completely wrong! We all know that we have certain taxes that must be paid. And if they were enacted by congress in a legal manner there is no problem with them. As for responsibility, yes, we as Christians have responsibilities to help those in need. That in no way equates to "it's the government job." That is dumping our obligations as Christians onto a secular government, one which has no legal mandate or authorization to fill that function.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know history, understand civics or the economy, and refuse to learn when someone tries to teach you something. Do everybody a favor and just keep quite.


TW

[thatonegirl]

Call me crazy (go ahead. I won't get offended. ) BUT....I would think that since most Christians want a government that is basically a theocracy (want to make sure that abortion is illegal, disallow gay marriage and other things because they go against the Bible etc) that they'd be perfectly happy to have their theocratical government take up Jesus' cause to take care of the poor, the sick, the hungry....

.....ya know.....just saying......



and yo...dawgs......glad that i'm not the only one round these parts that feels that way