Sign Of The Times... Lisa & Kobe & Trisha!

[VetScratch]

This past week I visited an old friend who is working on a summer project at a nearby campus. This private college offers fully subsidized housing to unwed mothers. In addition, mothers and their kids are listed by first name on the reserved parking signs. Meanwhile, everyone else except faculty must scramble to find a spot to park because the unwed mother's dorm displaced an open parking lot.

[Lefty]

Screw up royally and reap the royal rewards. Gawd...
The School Supervisor in Mass who couldn't pass the state's tests gets a big raise. Gawd...
People who ignore the warnings on cigarette packs sue and get big bucks. Gawd...
Rappers whose songs talk about raping women and killing cops get big bucks. Gawd...

[Amazin]

......And there's money for war but can't feed the poor.

Works both ways Lefty

[VetScratch]

I have no problem with unwed mom's getting scholarships and grants, but why should a free ride extend to the kids? Where are the child support payments?

I see families who are too embarrassed to press paternity cases and get court-ordered child support for their "little girl." That's why advertising the little b*****ds on reserved parking signs floors me!

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Amazin
......And there's money for war but can't feed the poor.

Works both ways Lefty

Nobody dies of starvation in America, except possibly by choice, but I don't know why you'd choose it. We have fat homeless people. Lots of 'em, in fact...

[Amazin]

If you can't afford to buy quality food,malnutrition sets in leading to health problems.It is reported that L.A. alone has 580,000 who can't afford to eat.

[Lefty]

amazin, it's been my experience that libs throw out "made up" statistics. 580,000 can't afford food? I don't blve it. I see homeless in Vegas who are offered beds and shelter but the catch is they can't have alcohol and drugs in there so they CHOOSE to live in the streets. And when they camp along an avenue and won't clean up their mess and literally crap everywhere our Mayor(a democrat BTW) has no choice but to get tough. So the stupid liberal advocacies for the homeless call him mean and now LV called mean to the homeless. Maybe they'll get mad and leave. What they really want is to live without responsibility, without rules and have others front them money clothes and food.
Nobody goies hungry in this country.
amazin, without war you'd be under a Nazi or Communist regime.
Is that what you want? Or are you so dense you can't understand that?
The truth is there are jobs everywhere? Ok, so a lot are minimum wage. When I was raising my 4 kids I wasn't too proud to work for min. wage if nothing else was available. There were times when I took commission sales jobs cause I cou;ldn't find anything else. My family never went hungry.
Once again, amazin, your analagy is no analgous.

[Lefty]

and furthermore....
It is the govt's responsibility to protect this country and sometimes, sadly, that means going to war.
But it is not the govt's responsibility to feed the poor.

[Amazin]

Lefty says"Nobody goies hungry in this country."

Once again you spoke too soon.I allways have backup.You say I made up the 580,000 who can't afford food in L.A. Here's the site I got it from

http://www.fit4free.org/hunger.htm

The government does have a responsibility to it's people.Who else?Next you'll be like Marie Antoinette
and tell them to eat cake.

[GameTheory]

If the government doesn't do it, that doesn't mean people will go hungry. Private charities do a much better job of this sort of thing than the government. With the government, the % going to overhead is enormous. The left tend to think that the people of this country are not really good people, and therefore must be forced to do things like provide for the needy, otherwise they won't. The fact is people pay such high taxes that they give less to charity, which would do a much more efficient job of what you want the government to do.

Here is a non-made up statistic: everywhere they lower the tax burden, contributions to charities go way up! The best thing that could happen to "the needy" in this country is for most of the government welfare programs to dry up and go away. Having people "married to the government" is actually not a good thing -- for them or for the rest of us. Many people are only "needy" (i.e. dependent on the government) because we have made it a viable option to do so. If it wasn't, that doesn't mean they would all die in the street. Much more likely is that they would become productive citizens. Unfortunately for many it is probably too late as living for many years without the need to take responsibility for themselves has turned them into unemployable mush-minds. You can blame liberal policy for that.

[VetScratch]

amazin'
Next you'll be like Marie Antoinette and tell them to eat cake.
"Lisa, if you take your pill right now, Momma will give you some cake!"

:)

[Lefty]

amazin, Read the constitution. It's the Govts job to defend us not feed us. The freedom gives us the opportunity to feed ourselves.
Haven't seen any stories lately about anybody dying of starvation and you know the liberal media would be all over that one.
The stories I am seeing however, are about how this countries citizens are so obese that it has become an epidemic.

[Derek2U]

I'm kinda saddened 2 see U agree with Lefty's politics. U seem
rational/logical in many areas but ur response is bewildering.
Oh government please protect us by (1) giving huge BILLIONS
each & every year, in 1 form or another, to: DAIRY FARMERS,
CROP FARMERS, FOREIGN AID -- now HOW isnt this JUST CHARITY?
(2) Making CHINA-KOREA MFG GIANTS. Don't we "owe" our USA
CITIZENS something after taking their jobs away. Guys, I just
can't understand how U equate joblessness/despair/poor health/
as a party issue? Is this something U can tolerate in society when it gets beyond just a few folks? And lets not forget how our gov't SAVES us from Smoking/Drinking/MacD's/Internet
wagering/Paying a Prosti/Gay marriage--- come on guys talk
fair--- u got a REPUBLICAN in charge & why dont we see MORE
talk about U doing what U like & me also? (I'm not talking
military stuff here at all) ..... U got a black supreme court guy
who must have forgotten HOW he rose above his humble
background .... yeah if i could help usa peeps in such basics
stuff as housing/eating I would ..... there's a lot wrong going
on here & its not the Liberals 100% who are prolonging it ....
POWER .... don't 4get 2 b VERY skeptical about THAT & who is
wielding it NOW. it goes 2 their heads.

[GameTheory]

Derek --

When did I defend corporate welfare? I don't like that either.

But I do think much of this so-called despair, etc is caused by liberal policy. Whereever the government is least involved in people's lives you'll find people better off than where it interferes.

[VetScratch]

Lefty:
The stories I am seeing however, are about how this countries citizens are so obese that it has become an epidemic.Poverty sometimes leads to obesity and malnutrition at the same time. It is all too common for a welfare family with fat kids in rags to buy cartons of dirt-cheap "Little Debbies" with food stamps, and then trade the remaining food stamps on the black market for liquor.

Most private charities are smarter about the way they deliver aid.

[Tom]

While I seriously doubt that number in one city, it probably is a large number in rality. How many of that number are illegal aliens, criminals who have snuck over the boarder?
Let's clean up the data before we act on it - get the illegals out, then do a recount.
OK, now we have whittled that down sizably, how many of those can workand refuse? Is it really our responsibility to feed the lazy? I know of what I speak here - I have seen the shiftless drifting thorugh jobs becasue they have to, but only long enough to find a way to get fired and back on easy street. When someone tells me unemployment is 7% I don't get to upset over it when probably something like 6% are not employable to begin with.
OK, the illegal and lazy are gone. Who is left hungry?
Hmm, the drug users. OK, they always have the munchies. Can we really count them? Naw.
Who else? The welfare heirs? The second, third, generation welfare people - like father like son? Carrying on the family business? HeHe. Can't count them.
So, how many still hungry?
Uhhhh, about 37.
So how do we help these 37 poor souls? Hire them to each scour over the Constitution and find theat elusive clause that makes it a federal obligation to feed everyone! Dammed if I can find it in there. We need professional reserchers on this one!

[JustRalph]

From the LA Times Magazine. This is in the same vein somewhat. It also goes back to a thread from a few weeks back about immigration


July 20, 2003
Undermining American workers

Record numbers of illegal immigrants are pulling wages down for the poor and pushing taxes higher. No way up
Undermining American Workers

By Fred Dickey, Special to The Times

The perils of illegal immigration rattle around in the attic of public policy like a troubled spirit. We pretend not to hear the dragging chains because we don't know how to silence them, but the ghosts will endure, especially in California. Because the nation can't control its borders, the number of illegal immigrants grows by an estimated half-million each year. They come because we invite them with lax law enforcement and menial jobs. Their presence makes our own poor more destitute, creating a Third World chaos in the California economy that we are only beginning to understand.

Patricia Morena has no time for a philosophical discussion on unauthorized immigration. She lives with it, or tries to. She's a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent, and a motel maid in Chula Vista, six miles north of the border. She's short and heavyset, and dresses with care in tasteful thrift shop. She earns $300 before taxes, when she's fortunate enough to have a five-day week. She's a single mom with three children, all stuffed into a ratty little one-bedroom apartment. The eldest, an 18-year-old boy, has taken to stealing; she thinks it's because he's always been poor.

Sitting in the pale yellow kitchen light, she looks resigned rather than angry. She has the fear of anyone who's 39, broke and tired: being replaced. If she didn't have to compete with unauthorized workers in the cheap motels that cluster just north of the border, she thinks, she could lift her wages from $7.50 per hour to maybe $10 and bargain for some health insurance.

But she won't ask for a raise. "If I ask for money, the bosses say, 'I can get a young girl who is faster and cheaper,' " she says. "The bosses have power over illegals. They know they're afraid and not going to ask for overtime, even though I know the law says they should get it." So Morena remains mired, one of 32.9 million people the U.S. Census Bureau says lived in poverty in 2001.

The 1996 welfare reform act was pitched as a means for poor people to elevate themselves through work. President Clinton said at the time that the act was "to give them a chance to share in the prosperity and the promise that most of our people are enjoying today."

[JustRalph]

Well, seven years later, Morena is still poor. Although she never studied economics, she has learned a fundamental economic truth: The only leverage unskilled workers have is scarcity of labor. Morena can't work her way up the economic ladder because the bottom rungs have been broken off by the weight of millions of new illegal workers. The census bureau says the number of illegal immigrants in the country doubled in the 1990s, from 3.5 million to 7 million, the largest such increase in the nation's history.

So Morena soldiers on at $7.50 an hour, living with a reality that the late Cesar Chavez, champion of the farm worker, understood back in the 1960s. Chavez, says David M. Kennedy, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian from Stanford University, advocated limited immigration to protect the wage levels of the Chicano workers he struggled to unionize. Without such restrictions, demand for labor would fall, and with it the pressure to pay higher wages.

The people who traditionally benefit from the Patricia Morenas and other low-paid workers are farther up the economic ladder—businesses, industries and homeowners. For them, stagnant low wages mean they can hire maids, farm laborers, seamstresses, roofers and carpet cleaners for about the same wages as they paid a quarter-century ago. That helps industries grow cheap lettuce and make down-market shirts. It frees up enough money for homeowners to afford those sports cars whose price tripled even as the cost of getting their lawn mowed stayed the same.

Yet the relentless flow of illegal labor is now changing life for Californians on those higher rungs too.

apart from the proliferation of workers standing on street corners waiting for jobs, it's difficult to see that migration from Mexico into California during the past two decades is on a scale that astonishes even those who specialize in making sense out of human patterns. One such expert is Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of classics at Cal State Fresno and the author of "Mexifornia," a recent book that reveals the extent of the changing culture and demographics of California. He says that no immigration in American history even remotely compares to the one underway along the southwest border, which, incidentally, is the longest that has ever separated First- and Third World countries.

Today, nearly half of California's residents are immigrants or the children of immigrants, and the state's population is projected to increase by 52%, to 49 million, between 2000 and 2025. An estimated 950,000 Mexicans without papers live in the five-county Greater Los Angeles area, says Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute public policy center in Washington, D.C. They are mostly nested in communities of the 2.4 million Mexican-born migrants. Statewide, there are 1.6 million undocumented Mexicans, and 4.8 million in the country, Passel says. They make up more than half of the 8.5-million-plus undocumented persons of all nationalities.

The image of migrants popularized by their advocates is of work-tough campesinos who cross the border spitting on their hands and eagerly looking for shovels. That is true to a considerable extent, because a lot of shoveling gets done. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says in support of a new amnesty for unauthorized immigrants: "There are approximately 10 million undocumented workers employed throughout the country who are working hard and performing tasks that most Americans take for granted but won't do themselves."

The second half of that sentence has been accepted as a truth for generations. Illegal immigrants are just doing the work Americans won't. But is it true today?

In April, I shopped for a contractor to paint my house trim. I got three bids. One was for $1,600, about $400 less than the others. The only condition was that payment be in cash. That wasn't remarkable. Is there a Californian alive who doesn't know they can pay under the table for cheap immigrant labor? You pay cash. There are no checks. There is no tax record.

But this bargain didn't come from an undocumented worker. It came from an established businessman with good references. I asked why the ethical gyrations.

He vented: "If I'm going to stay in business, I have to do what the illegals do. They never pay taxes, on profits or on their employees' pay. Right there, I'm at a 20% disadvantage. They'll come in here with about six guys with paintbrushes who work for peanuts, do a fair job, and then they're gone." These competitors have driven every American out of gardening, he added, and are doing it to house-painting, roofing and car repair. He concluded in frustration, "What am I supposed to do?"

Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA Education and Research Foundation, a Washington, D.C., organization devoted to immigration control, says it's not that millions of unemployed Americans "are too lazy and shiftless to bus tables or wash dishes." What the Chamber of Commerce and like-minded business groups really mean, he says, is that "Americans won't work like slaves, like serfs. Americans want to be paid and treated fairly."

"The National Restaurant Assn., for one, doesn't want their customers to know that this system forces illegal workers to live in abject poverty," Beck says. "It's the serfdom thing. If customers thought about it, they'd say, 'No, I don't want people who are hidden in the kitchen or serving me to be so poor and neglected that they might be TB carriers, and hate my guts for not caring about them.' "

Terry Anderson, a black talk-radio host in Los Angeles, says he sees similar displacement throughout the African American community. "I defy you to find a black janitor in L.A.," Anderson says. "In the '70s, the auto body-repair business in South-Central was pretty much occupied by blacks. Those jobs are all gone now. They're all held by Hispanics, and all of them are illegals. And those $25 jobs that blacks used to hold in the '70s now pay $8 to $10, and a black man can't get hired even if he's expert. It's absolute discrimination, because there's a perception that a Hispanic works better. Well, he works cheaper. They're in the country illegally, so they have no bargaining power, and the wages get driven down."

[JustRalph]

The point he and Beck make is decidedly not a racial one, not black versus Latino or Mexican versus white. Their point is about money. Illegal, powerless immigrants versus relatively empowered American citizens. Who among us could survive if every day, the streets outside our workplaces were lined with people willing to do our jobs for two-thirds or half the pay because in the world they came from, in the world where their money is sent, half of our pay amounted to riches?

Anderson particularly despairs of the effect the scarcity of low-end jobs has on poor youths. In May, 6.1 million whites and 1.7 million blacks in the country were unemployed. But of those without jobs, young people took the worst hit. The unemployment rate for whites ages 16 to 19 in the labor force was 15.4%, with 892,000 unemployed; for black teenagers, it was 270,000 out of work, at a scary 35% rate.

These kids are the millions of potential burger-flippers and mowers of lawns that Beck and Anderson say employers are bypassing in favor of undocumented migrants. "There was this kid in my neighborhood—good kid, 17 years old, and he goes down to the local McDonald's to get an after-school job," Anderson says. "The manager tells him that because he doesn't speak Spanish, she can't hire him because it would have a disruptive effect on all the other workers who don't speak English. I mean, think of that: Here's a kid trying to get a little ahead—American born, four generations in South-Central—who's told he can't sell French fries because he can't speak a foreign language. You want to talk about disillusionment?"

as cheap, illegal workers flood the labor force, governments and taxpayers are feeling the pinch. Just as one dishonest act often leads to another, illegal labor has led to other illegalities. The most pervasive is the untaxed cash transaction. It has created a surging "underground economy" that has become a hole in society's pocket through which falls many of our democratic values, and a lot of loose cash.

John Chiang of Los Angeles, one of five members of the state Board of Equalization, California's tax oversight agency, says off-the-books businesses can have a "profoundly dislocating effect" on the economy. It pushes some businesses to compete by also cutting legal corners, and discourages other businesses from coming to California.

A study last year by the Economic Roundtable, a Los Angeles research group, found that the underground sector in Southern California probably accounts for 20% or more of the economy, says economist Dan Flaming, author of the report. Nationwide, the International Monetary Fund reported in a 2002 issues paper, underground work amounted to 10% of the total economy.

As the underground sector surged in the '90s, an unpleasant snowball began to gather mass. The amount of tax revenues generated by the economy didn't keep pace with the population growth and accompanying rise in demands for government services. That, in turn, "adds significantly to the tax burden of honest taxpayers," Chiang says. He estimates that the state is losing $7 billion a year in unpaid taxes.

The state Employment Development Department's estimates are somewhat lower, at $3 billion to $6 billion annually in lost income and wage-related taxes. Any way it's counted, that's a pile of money for a state running a $38-billion deficit that Sacramento is attempting to close by cutting services, raising taxes and borrowing money.

Certainly, not all of the loss is due to illegal immigrants, and the state, with scrupulous political sensitivity, avoids placing blame there. But Jerry Hicks, whose job until recently was to measure the underground economy for the Employment Development Department, reluctantly agrees that common sense would put undocumented workers at the head of the tax-avoidance list. It's anybody's guess how much fault lies with businesses forced to compete by dealing in cash.

That loss of tax revenue is key to understanding why unchecked illegal immigration creates a downward economic spiral. Jan. C. Ting, Temple University law professor and former assistant commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, says the swelling population of poor people who have little more than manual labor to offer, and who pay few taxes, will inevitably draw heavily on social services. That drain will, in turn, increase taxes on businesses and homeowners, who may depart for other states, which in turn will drive tax rates even higher.

An often-cited National Research Council study in 1997 concluded that each native household in California was paying $1,178 a year in state and local taxes to cover services used by immigrant (legal and illegal) households. The demand for such offsetting taxes undoubtedly has increased in proportion to the numbers of illegal immigrants since then.

What is known is how the tax drain is changing society. As the IMF's issue paper warned last year, the lost revenue can lead to "a deterioration in the quality and administration of the public goods such as roads and hospitals provided by the government."

Hospitals provide a clear warning signal. Here's how it happens: An illegal immigrant, without health insurance, has a serious health problem and goes to a public hospital, incurring a catastrophic medical cost. At bargain basement wages, that patient has as much chance of paying the hospital bill as paying off the national debt. So the patient scribbles out a passable IOU, and disappears.

Someone else pays. America's health system draws its lifeblood from private health insurance, and if large numbers of patients have no insurance or can't pay, the money has to be taken from taxes—siphoned from the state treasury. A robust society can absorb a certain amount of those losses, but if the tax base isn't expanding as fast as the demands placed on it, the system begins to shut down—as Los Angeles County's has.

In 2002, 33% of L.A. County residents were without health insurance or were grossly underinsured. The county thinks that rate is the highest in the United States, which helps to explain why the county prepared to close two hospitals last year because there was too much demand and too little revenue.

Carol Gunter is acting director of county emergency medical services, the person who has to try to run a "business" in which about a quarter of the customers don't have the means to pay for her product, but are entitled to its full service. So just how many emergency room patients are illegal? Federal law prevents her from knowing because hospitals are forbidden to ask about citizenship. What Gunter does know is that, despite billion-dollar federal bailouts, the number of public L.A. County hospitals recently went from six to five, and another is going to close.

In March, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced she had joined other senators in supporting a bailout bill to reimburse state and local hospitals for emergency medical costs incurred by undocumented immigrants. She estimated those costs in California at $980 million in the past year. Celebration over the proposal becomes somewhat muted when we consider that a bailout is—by sinking-lifeboat definition—intended to overcome the effects of a leak, and her statement mentioned nothing about patching the boat. Feinstein declined to be interviewed on the subject.

Jim Lott, executive vice president of the Hospital Assn. of Southern California, puts it bluntly: "We are in a [health-care] meltdown in Los Angeles County to the extent we have never seen before."

The state can't be far behind. An estimated 20% of patients throughout California are uninsured, with hospitals incurring $3.6 billion in uncompensated care. Fifty-one percent of the state's hospitals operated in the red last year.

After the "please pay cash" painting contractor left my house, I put pencil to paper on the bids. Considering that his line of work is labor-intensive, if I accepted the above-board bid of $2,000, probably about $1,500 would go toward wages, and maybe 10% of that would go to the government. If I went for the underground bid, I would get off cheaper—and the government would lose $200. Multiply that by the countless such transactions in California daily, and a lot of hospitals are going to run short, and a lot of potholes are going to grow.

author hanson describes the practical effect of the massive immigration numbers: "The unfortunate message we give migrants is, 'You can work here, but only undercover, and you can't join our society.' "

Chiang sees the same ominous divisions. "California is becoming a dichotomy society—high-wealth, low-wealth; educated, undereducated; and the underground economy plays a large role in creating the unregulated atmosphere that tends to widen those social and economic gaps."

So the people on either side of the divide go to their corners. The wealthy to West L.A. and its counterparts around the state. The poor? "We have towns in the Central Valley that are—literally—100% Mexican, and consist mainly of illegal migrants," Hanson says. "In those towns, Spanish is the only language spoken; there is no industry, and the towns are huge pockets of poverty. We can legitimately fear that this is the California of the future."

Two small cities of about the same size in Fresno County underscore Hanson's point. The town of Parlier in 2000 was 97% Latino, with 36% of the town living in poverty, and a per capita income of $7,078, Hanson says. The town of Kingsburg, whose population was 34% Latino, had just 11% living in poverty. The per capita income was $16,137.


If you want to read more....click the link below:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:QRwrWIQQXEUJ:www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-immigration29jul20.story+undermining+american+work ers&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Lefty]

Derek, most of the things you write about are Demo policies that we should free ourselves of but seem to be stuck forever with. The Govt is supposed to defend this country to provide the freedom for everyone to have the opportunity to succeed. Some of us make it and some of us just squander our opprtunities. Clarence Thomas, who you mention, did not squander his and did not get to where he is because of any govt prgm; and that is why the liberals are so deadset against him.
Besides, we give away billions in food stamps and as Vet says people trade em for cigs and alcohol all too many times.
We have numerous housing prgms that are govt sponsored and just drive by any project and see how rundown it is and prob. riddled with crime. The inhabitants don't appreciate the handout far too many times.
Too much of our taxes go for social prgms that flat do not work.
Our govt is supposed to provide us freedom and the rest is up to us. Anything else is Socialism or worse, Communism.

[Amazin]

Lefty says"It's the Govts job to defend us not feed us"

Let me present some government agencies that are set up to protect us but not from the Iraqi boogie man.

1)Depatment of health and Human sevices
2)Department of health education and welfare
3)Social security and medicare.

Now if the only thing the govrnment is responsible for is national defense then why do we have all these and other government agencies and programs.Because the government is not as ignorant as you are about their responsibilty in peoples health.There is also the EPA and the FDA so we don't ingest things we shouldn't.Furthermore notice the word HEALTH in the first 2 departments.You can't have good health if you can't afford to eat.

[Lefty]

amazin, we are in agreement. All these liberal things shouldn't be there. We do feed people via food stamps and of course there's lots of charities. The schools feed the kids. Anybody goes hungry in this great country it's their own damn fault.
It's not the govt's job to feed you and your family or mine. It's yours and mine.
The libs are ruining this country with their rampent socialism and sadly too many repubs buying into it to one degree or another.
I'm a capitilist not a socialist and that's the bottom line.
Social security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme and should be phased out gradually and replace with private accts. Medicare is costing over 100 hundred times what was projected to cost and is driving healthcare through the roof and should be phased out gradually and replaced with medical savings accts.
Want food, get a job.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Tom
While I seriously doubt that number in one city, it probably is a large number in rality. How many of that number are illegal aliens, criminals who have snuck over the boarder?

I doubt that number too, but in response to your second question, practically none of them. Lived in L.A. for years, and there are lots of homeless people, mostly in Santa Monica (on the beach) and downtown L.A. I don't think I've ever seen a Mexican homeless person there. Not one. Whatever you think of the illegal (& legal) immigrants, they are working or trying to work. They certainly are not living in the streets.

The homeless there are almost exclusively white & black people born in America. L.A. is a bit confusing, because they have professional panhandlers. The panhandlers in L.A. make more money that I did when I was there with a real job. There are actually people that live in decent homes, put on their "panhandler garb", and stand on the off-ramps with their "Will work for food" signs. [Note: they will not work for food or even for money if you offer it to them. They just want cash on the spot.] Many of them probably were homeless for a short bit, and then found out what good money it is to be a panhandler.

If you're situated at a on or off ramp where there is a light and the cars are stopping (like in West L.A.), you'll make at least 2-3 bucks every red light all day long.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by GameTheory
If you're situated at a on or off ramp where there is a light and the cars are stopping (like in West L.A.), you'll make at least 2-3 bucks every red light all day long.

The corner of Wilshire and San Vicente. My wife runs a Restaurant 3 blocks from there. Everyday she passes the homeless and the panhandlers on the corner. She tells me about them for almost a year now. She points them out to me whenever we are in the area. She tells me she feels sorry for them but she knows they are not "typical homeless" people. I tell her it's just a scam or the usual info you hear about them not wanting to be helped etc. We discuss it several times over the last year we have been in California. A couple of months back a woman shows up on the street corner with a sign about having 3 kids to feed, no job etc. She is the buzz in Brentwood, and picking up some bucks on the corner. A couple of weeks back my wife is called into the bar of her Restaurant by some wait staff. They point out the "homeless mom" having the Filet Mignon" in the corner. She has a few glasses of wine and later ducks out back to the parking garage where she gets in her newer model SUV and heads for home. Those Jags and Bentleys are still tossing them dollars on the corner every day. It is amazing what this country allows.

[GameTheory]

If they've got a really good spot they'll make $100/hour or more. Some news guys followed one "injured vet" home one time to a BIG house in Encino...

[VetScratch]

In the 80's, a hot dog vendor was described in Time or Newsweek.

Every morning, he drove his perfectly restored gull-wing Mercedes from his $500,000 house in Darien to an alley-way garage in the Wall Street district. After pulling his pushcart out of the garage and dressing in his "Mustache Joe" outfit, he parked the Mercedes and sold hot dogs from 10:00am to 6:00pm.

If I remember correctly, he spiffed cops on his beat over $1,500 per month to run off all competition.

[Amazin]

While there may be a few con's posing as homeless,I'm talking about real homeless like those that freeze to death in winter and people who really are hungry.The other thing is they usually are discriminated when applying for a job.What phone # and address do they put down?The cardboard box?

Now if you find it difficult to believe 580,000 in L.A. are hungry how about this report from the department of agriculture:
Hunger persists in the U.S.

* 33.6 million people—including almost 13 million children—live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents approximately one in ten households in the United States (10.7 percent).
* 3.3 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes.
* 7.4 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 24.6 million people, including 9.7 million children, live in these homes.
* Preschool and school-aged children who experience severe hunger have higher levels of chronic illness, anxiety and depression, and behavior problems than children with no hunger, according to a recent study.

[Amazin]

Meanwhile the Pentagon spends one Billion dollars a day on military spending.$355 billion a year.And that's during peacetime!

[Amazin]

Like I said "Money for war but can't feed the poor"

[VetScratch]

It's wrong for the government to feed the poor or wage war against paper tigers. Reform the tax code and let domestic famine run its course! The former will alleviate the latter unless decadence is out of control. Only medicine should be socialized. The poor and ignorant can "take" food from the rich but cannot practice medicine.

[Tom]

If Joe Friday were still alive, we wouldn't have this problem.
I'd post more, but right now, I'm hungary. Where is my congressman? Shouldn't he be delivering me a pizza or something?????

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by VetScratch
It's wrong for the government to feed the poor or wage war against paper tigers. Reform the tax code and let domestic famine run its course! The former will alleviate the latter unless decadence is out of control. Only medicine should be socialized. The poor and ignorant can "take" food from the rich but cannot practice medicine.

This off-topic stuff is way more fun than coherant communication! :) :) :)

[Lefty]

amazin, since the Johnson Adm the U.S. has spent over 5 trillion on the war on poverty. We spend billions in food stamps. Yet there are still the poor and there always will be. You can take the entire military budget and spend it on the poor and you won't solve the problem. It comes down to personal responsibility.
One more time(and you still won't get it)It's not the govt's job to feed the poor.
BTW, spending money on the military in peacetime is what keeps thje peace.

[Amazin]

Lefty:

Einstien said you cannot prepare for war and prevent war at the same time.Think about that and you'll realize your statement about military spending during peacetime can only bring war not keep the peace.

Vet:

What are you saying?

[Lefty]

Einstein was a mathematician not a military man.
Even after 9-11 you libs don't think we need to keep the military up to strength; damn you might even think we don't need a military.
It's beyond my power to help people that dense.

[VetScratch]

Amazin,
What I meant is that Off-Topic is more fun than Nine-Ball because no one runs the table... seems like we can all call for a re-break at any time. The object seems to be scattering.:)

[Lefty]

Vet, we certainly don't need socialized medicine. Hillary tried and thankfully she failed. Socialized medicine means less service, poorer quality and higher taxes. We have Canadiens on this board; bet they're not enamored with it. I understand in Canada it's a yrs wait for a simple Catscan.
Competition is the answer and you get that by letting people do their own shopping; visa vie, medical savings accts.

[Amazin]

Einstien was a scientist who obseved the scheme of how things worked.He is more qualified than a military man to understand the hypocratic method of keeping peace with threats of violence.

Once again you need a history lesson.Where are those invincible armies and civilizations of the past.Dusted.So goes a live by the sword,die by the sword ideology.The test for this nation will be wether or not we extend a helping hand to our own people and others around the world.So far Bush is way off course.

You need to broaden your horizons.What you see is not all there is.When it comes to the poor, hungry, sick,elderly or children,it's disgusting to talk politics about it.Where is your humanity?

[Lefty]

Einstein more qualified on war and peace than a military man. That's your opinion and in my opinion just crazy.
I need a history lesson? If this country had not went to war when necessary do you really think this country would exist in freedom?
You can think what you want(thanks to many brave men and women dying for your freedom)but this country exists because of the revolutionary war and remains free because we fight to keep it that way.
Those civilizations fell not because they took up the sword but rotted from within from moral decay. And if you libs get your way, then yes, this country is vulnerable to all sorts of bad things from moral decay to socialism or just plain being taken over by the enemy because you don't believe in fighting for your freedom, your family or your beliefs.

[Lefty]

amazin, wheres my humanity? wheres yours? The Demos and libs pretty much in charge of congress for over 40 yrs and spouting the same nonsense you do. So after all this time and over 5 TRILLION dollars the problem still exists. So where's your humanity. You keep wanting to make the same mistakes and get the same bad results. My humanity lies in the area of getting better results. Give the people more of their own money through tax refunds and they can better buy food and medicine for their family. This country is rife with opportunity. I say if anybody is hungry they should get off their butts and do something about it. In the 60's I worked hard and long hrs often at minimum pay jobs to keep my kids fed and they never were homeless or hungry. It's up to every american to do the same for their families.
Results through tax relief, privitazion of social security for our kids and grandkids and medical savings accounts for our kids and grandkids.
And if anyone dares attack my home or family I will kill the sob's protecting my family.
That's where my humanity is, sir!

[Lefty]

amazin, you say, "it's disgusting to talk politics about it." meaning the poor and the children.
Hmmm, well, you're the one that brought it up, my man.

[VetScratch]

Lefty,

The poor can take care of themselves with respect to housing and food. If society doesn't self-regulate itself, then the poor must simply redistribute wealth out of desparation by force.

However, the poor cannot cope with grossly inflated medical costs, and they cannot easily redistribute the special training required for medical care, even by forceful means.

Socializing medicine would greatly alleviate tensions that create crime and violence.

[Tom]

Give a man a meal and tomorrow he is hungry again.
Kill a terrorist and tomorrow, he is still dead!
Bang for your buck.
:cool:

[Lefty]

Vet, socializing medicine would result in long long waits for the simplest of procedures, just like Canada. How will that ease tensions? Why do you think Canadiens sneak into our country for healthcare? Competition brings down prices just like in everything else our capitalist system should be applied to healthcare. Medical savings accts the way to go not socialized medicine.
Besides, you can't be turned down in this country for healthcare just because you have no money. So that cry for socialized medicine is a spurious one.

[Tom]

Just provide everyone with the exact same plan the congress has for itself. That would be fair.
If we can't afford it for EVERYONE, then Congress surely has NO RIGHT to have it.
We have Canadians busing down here for medical prceedures while we are busing up there for prescription meds. No one getting rich here but Trailways.
It is a very sad refelction on both countries.

[VetScratch]

Lefty,
The only Canadians that we see in U.S. waiting rooms are wealthy Canadians! After you reform medicine to help the poor, wealthy Americans can still buy premium care just like wealthy Canadians.

I think we all understand why poverty breeds crime and violence. Medical costs have inflated much more rapidly than food and shelter. This would appear to be the best target for reforms that will diminish crime and violence.

[Amazin]

The thickness of Lefty's skull is staggering. I may need a jackhammer,but here's the point again.

Just 10% of our military budget spent yearly on America could give every high school graduate a college education for four years.

If the US took just 25% of their annual military budget, it could go a long way to wiping out hunger and homelessness around the world.

It costs 4 Billion a month to occupy Iraq, 1.9 billion to occupy Afghanistan. If the US spent just three months occupation costs, they could wipe out hunger and homelessness completely for ten years. However, it does not seem like feeding and sheltering our own citizens has a very high priority.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Amazin
However, it does not seem like feeding and sheltering our own citizens has a very high priority.

No it is not.......they are supposed to do that for themselves. It's called capitalism. They still have flights to communist countries.....you can book a flight to your Utopia........go visit Fidel with your buddies

"Oliver Stone calls him "one of the earth's wisest people." Jack Nicholson has dubbed him a "genius." "An experience of a lifetime" is how Kevin Costner described his own meeting. "

You live in a free country. You are free to move.............

[Tom]

If your communist theory of government is so ideal, why is it that none those countries has the money to what you desire?
The fact that we HAVE the billions to spend says something about capitalism, doesn't it? Richest nation in the world, we didn't get that way by accident.
Q2...why is it so hard for you to carry on a discussion without resorting to cheap shots and insulting comments to those you disagree with? Is it becasue your arguments are so weak you have to somehow enhance them with verbal toughness? Are you weak in vocabulary? Are you upset because your arguements do not hold water? Or were you just brought up bad?
Not that I care, mind you, just curious what makes someone like you tick.

[Amazin]

Tom

Answer to question #1

I'm not talking about communism or capitalism.I'm talking about the totally disproportionate amount spent for destroying lives rather than building lives.

Answer to question #2

I speak the truth.Lefty's set in his ways and so are you.It would take a spiritual jackhammer to get thru either of you.

I don't understand the need for your last question. You fit the profile perfectly of the type of person you describe.

[Lefty]

amazin, OVER 5 TRILLION SPENT ALREADY. It didn't help. The govt cannot wipe out poverty. You can take 100% of the military budget and poverty would exist. Here's the deal about this country: The govt protects us from evil countries through the might of our military. We have freedom to pursue any opportunity we want. It's up to us to feed, shelter and clothe ourselves. Even so, we still spend billions on foodstamps and all kinds of socialistic prms and we still have the problem. It's the people, not the govt. Clinton whacked the hell out of the military budget. But he didn't make a dent in poverty, did he? Socialism does not work. Communism does not work. We are capitalists. We are so succesful at it that the rest of the world envies us our success.

Vet: The rich Canadiens come here so they can get treated. Too long a wait in Canada. In the last yr I suffered a stroke, and also had 2 skin cancers removed from my body. In Canada i'd prob still be waiting for treatment. Nobody in this country is refused medical treatment. That's why it costs so much to go to the hospital because those of us that can pay or has insurance must make up the difference for those that cannot. Ergo, we don't need socialized medicine.
If poverty causes crime then crime should have been rampant during the Great Depression. It was not.
I repeat, we are capitalists. We are successful and we are free.
Count your blessings.

[Derek2U]

I think Amazin has a good point: I did NOT read his message
as NO Capitalism --- and I agree 100% that Capitalism is the
BesT. But it's the Lack of Capitalistic Vision that annoys me.
In the long run we will pay more $$$$ if we don't get better
vision about our social problems. We could make things simpler
& get more results from our Tax dollars if we THINK. Jobs &
Oil & HealthCare & Education & Poverty --- why can't we just
RE-THINK our positions on these issues & RATIONALLY address
solutions without being a REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT? I think
those political labels make for tunnel vision.
PS: Me & my wife Solange want to become more politically
active in NY but I have no patience & would probably rap some
skulls & lose my job & where would that get us? So, I am
encouraging my wife to change society. hehe

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin

.....I speak the truth.Lefty's set in his ways and so are you.It would take a spiritual jackhammer to get thru either of you.



You are making false conclusion based on the data, A,. YOU meet the criteria of stubborness that you accuse Lefty and me of having. Therefore, the logical conclusion must apply to you as well.
HAND

[Lefty]

Derek, you make some good points, on theory, but here's the problem...The Dems held Congress for over 40 yrs and screwed up healthcare, social security and the tax code so royally it will take yrs to straighten out, and if the Conservatives of either party don't get elected so they have a wide majority in Congress I doubt if it ever gets fixed, just more bandaids. The Dems objective(just pay att to what they say and do and this will become clear)is to keep people voting for them. They get 90+ pct of the black vot, for instance but the blacks, african Americans,take your pick still have the same probs. During the Reagan yrs black people were the fastest growing group, financially, yet they keep voting for promises and not results. They keep the problems fresh,(Dems) keep promising solutions that never come and keep picking up votes, mostly from people,I suspect, who rely on the networks for their news.
Social Security needs to be reformed, nothing could be plainer. But what do you get from Dems when the repubs try to reform it. You get nonsense from the Dems that the Repubs are going to take away the old people's SS, and throw them in the streets.
Mostly what we need in this country to start with is term limits. The last time it was put up for vote(right after the election of 94 Congress)
over 80% of repubs voyed for it, but sadly, predictably, the Dems did not follow suit.

[Lefty]

Another Ex: Another thing that happened during that Republican held 94 Congress was that they pushed Welfare Reform. The Dems and Clinton fought it hard. The late Patrick Moynahan even said if it was passed that there would be gangs of hungry 12 yr olds attacking people in the streets. But the Repubs held the day and Clinton was forced to sign the law. During the 96 Demo Convention he even promised a disgruntled Jesse Jackson that not to worry that he(Clinton)would fix it later. When it worked quite well as the Repubs predicted, wellsir, then Clinton took credit for the whole thing.
Tom Daschle supports tax cuts for his home state but not for the country. You see the problem...

[Amazin]

Lefty quote:
"OVER 5 TRILLION SPENT ALREADY. It didn't help. The govt cannot wipe out poverty."

Well that would be great...if the money got to the poor.BTW that figure is the cumulative total since 1965.According to a census bureau report 46% of all poor families recieved no government benefits of this money.Maybe that's why the government can't wipe out poverty.DUH.

So with all that so called money for the poor, ninety-four percent of all shelters for the homeless in the United States are operated by private-sector organizations, and as many as 80 percent of low-income people initially turn to the private sector in times of crisis.So where's the government money?


When spending decisions are made through the political process, powerful special interests invariably influence how the dollars are spent. It is no accident that more than two-thirds of federal welfare spending ends up in the pockets of people who are distinctly not poor.

[Lefty]

amazin, you are starting to get it. I've preached this to you and ljb over and over in past posts: only pennies on the dollar get to the poor and the rest is eaten up by layer upon layer of bureaucracy. I've stated this over and over in past threads. I'm glad it's sinking in. So why would you want the govt involved in trying to help the poor? So here's the deal, and it's pig simple: Cut our taxes so we have more money in our pockets; that way the money, our money anyway, stays in our pockets and we can feed ourselves without some damn govt handout where we get may .20cents on the dollar. Round and round the mulberry bush but you are starting to get the goist of what i've been saying over and over.
The govt is horribly inefficient in everything except defending us with the might of our military. That's their primary job. The rest is up to us.

[Amazin]

Well,I'm glad we agree on the money not getting to the poor.In my book it's called corruption.

Now you say that the gov't is horribly inefficient(corrupt) in everything but defending us. How come in all my posts dealing with the corruption of government and war you don't agree?I don't want to rehash things I've pointed out about the Iraqi war and other wars.But if you agree that the government is corrupted ,how is it that the military,in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is not affected by corruption.

[VetScratch]

I think many historians and anthropologists would agree that the only societies which have THRIVED by housing, feeding, and nurturing the poor were feudal, tribal, or non-mercantile. Some islands provided an abundance of natural resources that made organized commerce unnecessary. Some tribes practiced communal welfare. Some feudal lords practiced societal husbandry to enhance the strength of their labor and military forces.

Other than that, history appears to be just a succession of struggles between rich and poor factions rallying behind the banners of race, religion, and ideology.

[GameTheory]

In most tribal societies, *everyone* has a role assigned to them. If you can't do fulfill your role (or any other that needs filling), you're just killed or at least exiled.

[VetScratch]

I can agree with you insofar as what "communal welfare" means to me. Roles and ability are usually matched to best serve the tribal community, but rewards and productivity seldom reflect a true meritocracy. Rogues who are exiled are no longer members of the tribe.

Our welfare problem seems to be failure to exile rogues.

[Big Bill]

Just Ralph,

Hadn't checked my mail box for months and when I did I found e-mail from you dated last May. I feel like an idot for not checking more frequently. Anyhow, I've answered your e-mail so check your mail box.

Big Bill

[Lefty]

amazin, don't read things into my words that are not there. I did not agree that the govt is corrupted. I said the govt is inefficient in everything but war. Just look at the results. Our govt is supposed to defend us not guarantee shelter for the homeless. We are free to make our own life. If you want guaranteed food, shelter medicine etc. go to a socialist country. Because that's what it is. The money does not get to the poor not because of a corrupt govt but because the govt is inefficient in doing this as that is not its job. The money is ate up by the bureaucracy,offices paperwork, workers etc.
However there is a lot of corruption amongst the people getting these services. They sell food stamps for booze and cigarettes, and generally play the system.
Lower taxes, let people keep most of the money they make and the can fend for themselves as it should be. In dire cases there should be some help for the poor souls thayt just can't make it but the fraud should be eliminated and dealt with harshly.
I see people at the racebook I frequent living in shelters, eating at shelters and these guys are healthy thirty forty yrs old. They should be kicked in the street and forced to get a job or get outta town.
There are far too many playing the system.
I don't want to support these people and according to the Constitution I shouldn't have to.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Well,I'm glad we agree on the money not getting to the poor.In my book it's called corruption.

Now you say that the gov't is horribly inefficient(corrupt) in everything but defending us. How come in all my posts dealing with the corruption of government and war you don't agree?I don't want to rehash things I've pointed out about the Iraqi war and other wars.But if you agree that the government is corrupted ,how is it that the military,in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is not affected by corruption.

The original design of velcro was based on the way a politicain's hand and cash interact. A senator is to a dollar bill as a moth is to a porch light. Anytime the govn't gets near money, it absorbes it. They have no conception of what money or budgets are, therefore they cannot understand what cost is. It was Bush I that did not know what a super-market scanner was-was he in touch with the electorate or what?!? This is why they are so good at wars - the costs of waging them is not understood, so they just shoot the works, over and over again. Shock and awe really describes the check for this Iraqi dinner.
Airport security is a good example of govn't waste. I fly far too often and I can tell you, Osama Bin Ladin could walk right through many airports as he looks on TV and no one would bat an eye.
Our government is focused on perpetuating itself at all costs, so waging a successful war is not that far a reach.

[Amazin]

Most corruption is clandestine. Also, determining just how efficient government institutions are is not what would be called an exact science. As a consequence, corruption is notoriously hard to measure.In some cases it's not.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Amazin
Most corruption is clandestine. Also, determining just how efficient government institutions are is not what would be called an exact science. As a consequence, corruption is notoriously hard to measure.In some cases it's not.

Whatever. Government is not accountable to anyone except itself, which is why it will NEVER be efficient. It is NOT POSSIBLE.

[Lefty]

amazin, so giving that you think the govt is corrupted and the money not be given to the poor why oh why do you want the govt to appropiate more money for thse prgms that do not work, for whatever reason. You want to take money from the military and give it to these unworkable prgms. You are getting yourself tied in knots again.
One more time. The govt is not here to feed or clothe or house the poor.
In extreme cases, we as humans must help the truly, and i stress truly, unfortunate. But that's for private charites to do.
The govt defends. Keeps us free. Gives us opportunity to help ourselves.
Private charities help the TRULY unfortunate.
And that's what this country is all about.

[Amazin]

The government needs to be accountable to it's people.That's what's in the constitution.It's when people give up their rights and duties as citizens that corruption sets in.

[Lefty]

The govt is accountable to the people, but we are capitilaists not socialists. The govt is inefficient at getting the money to the people because of the bureacracies that get setiup. Been through that time and again.
ONE MORE TIME> The govt. defends you but you're supposed to get off your lazy ass and feed and clothe yourself.(knowing how you like to misconstrue my words, amazin, i'm speaking of the editorial you and not you personally)

[MikeDee]

I think I've got a solution, that will make everyone happy.

We should attack Canada and Mexico and make them states.

Lefty can be happy because the government will be fighting wars.

Just Ralph can be happy because all those ill-legal aliens will now just be tourists from another state.

All the liberals will be happy because drugs bought in Canada won't be illegal anymore and all those jobs we exported to Mexico will now be part of the good ole USA again.

Haven’t figured out the how to solve the "world hunger" problem yet, but I'll think of something.

[Amazin]

Lefty quote:"The govt is accountable to the people"

Are you really that naive?Haven't you had enough history lessons yet?How can the government be accountable to it's people when it hides the truth from them.

[Lefty]

amazin you can't stay on a subject, can you? Your arguments end up with you chasing your hindquarters.
You stated at first that money should be taken from the military and put in social prgms to feed the poor. When I pointed out that the govt is not the vehicle for doing that you agreed. When I then stated if you agree why do you want to keep funding these unworkable prgms you start your circular routine...
I'm on point and my position is unchenging.,.. I blve in capitalism not socialism, end of argument.

Mike, i'm not ever happy about war but do blve in defending the country with everything we have. I'm happy that we are now taking the fight TO the terrorists. I do note that you were trying to be humorous.
There's plenty of food in the world, but the dictators take control of it in the third world countries and it doesn't get to the people.
Pleny of food so what the world need is more democracy.

[Amazin]

Lefty says:" You stated at first that money should be taken from the military and put in social prgms to feed the poor. When I pointed out that the govt is not the vehicle for doing that you agreed."

Where did I agree?I only agreed that a large segment of money for the poor was not reaching the poor.I also pointed out that government inefficiency that you attribute this to and corruption are so closely tied together that at times its very difficult to tell them apart.I never said that government is not the vehicle for feeding the poor.I said they should live up to their responsibility in feeding the poor.You want to let them off easy.You don't believe in lettting criminals off easy do you?.It's taxepayers money.They have a responsibilty to the people who pay them to do a job.

[Lefty]

amazin, you did it again. You say money not reaching the poor. That's what I say, only for diff reasons. Why pour more money into social prgms that do not work? Doesn't make sense. It doesn't work because socialism does not work. And taking money from taxpayers and giving it to others is Socialism, make no mistake about it. Cut our taxes and let us support the charities of our choice.

[Amazin]

I don't know what society you are fantasizing about.I'm talking about the government and institutions that exist. now.It's easier to make them accountable for their actions than implement a whole new structure that's not about to happen any time soon and no one but you is talking about but you.Today's poor and homeless will be dead long before your fantasy comes true.

[GameTheory]

What are you talking about? There are no charities now? For every government program you can name, there is a private charity doing the same thing better. And they would have a hell of a lot more resources to work with if the goverment programs would shut down. The government programs NEVER work -- and you think that is all because of corruption? You are in the one in a fantasy, I'm afraid.

[Lefty]

amazin, hey bud, you're the one with the fantasy. You're the one who thinks the govt should feed the poor and house the homeless and all with hard working people's tax money. Johnson's Great Society didn't turn out so great did it? The govt is not equipped to do the things you want. I don't understand what's so hard about letting us keep our own money and feed and clothe and shelter ourselves. It's Capitalism> Apparantly you are a utopian socialist and that's fantasy my friend. Don't you understand there are homeless people out there who choose to remain in the streets rather than go to a shelter and obey the rules about alcohol and drugs and these same ones expect you and me to feed them and donate clothing to them.
There was a time to get food stamps you had to put up some money. For instance if you qualified for a $100 in foodstamps you had to pay $50. Now they give them away and fraud is rampant on the part of the ones getting them not the govt.
I do not want to help people who do not want to help themselves. I want to be in control of my own money.
The fantasy is yours and you can have it. Socialism not for me.

[Amazin]

GT quote:"he government programs NEVER work -- and you think that is all because of corruption? You are in the one in a fantasy, I'm afraid."

Lefty and me agree that since the Johnson era 5 trillion dollars were allocated to the poor. I've allready posted that a census bureau report states that 46% of poor folks never got a cent of this money.That's over 2 trillion dollars.And you're trying to tell me that this has nothing to do with corruption?If so I have a bridge to sell you.

The problem with most governmental institutions is they corrupt from inside out like cancer.Yes they have external checks and balances but nothing internal.So when there is an investigation,now the truth is bureaucratized
and people are bought off and/or shut off from the truth.

So you see Lefty,you sound like someone talking out of both sides of his mouth.This is exactly what the executive branch of our government does that you say does not work,yet you defend them.

[Lefty]

amazin, you're the two-sided mouth-talker, not me. You're the one who wants to put the military's money into these failed prgms. Once again, they fail because that's not what our govt is setup to do. The layers of bureauacracy is enormous. You have to hire people, setup offices, tons of paperwork etc and consequently the money is eaten up. Why can't you understand this? That's why the govt should defend us and charity left to small, local volunteer organizations. I don't defend failed social prgms. They all should end and the money returned to the people who paid...us! How come you don't get it. Socialism doesn't work, that's why were Capitalists, please join us.

[GameTheory]

I am not defending the government. I am saying the government sucks at nearly everything it does, and therefore I want the government to do as little as possible. I want the government to shrink several orders of magnitude.

I don't understand how you can on the one hand say they are corrupt and stealing (essentially) all this money that isn't getting where it is supposed to go, and yet you still want them (apparently) to get even MORE money to throw away. It sounds like you want a big government at all costs.

If it can be proven that private charities do a much better job (it can), and it can proven that if you cut taxes and eliminate some of these government programs that much more money will find its way to these charities (it can), would you then say, ok, maybe there is a better way? Why is government the ultimate answer?

[Amazin]

GT

Like I told Lefty,I don't see these government agencies handing the ball over to private organizations.That's why I said it's just fantasy talk on your part and Lefty's. I don't see any grassroots movement there.I do agree that private organizations have done a better job,but what about this taxpayer's money that somehow dissapears in these government institutions like a black hole.Im saying they should be held accountable and not given the bureacratic exemption.How come they can get away with it?

If I opened a bookie shop and had all you guys investing money with me and I had alot of employees and when you wanted to be paid ,I said the money's not available,it's all this bureacracy,you'd be pissed.You'd also demand to be paid.But if I'm the government,I guess you're up a creek. What I'm saying is these institutions got taxpayers money and the (poor) people are up a creek.Over $2 trillion unaccounted for is a bit fishy to me. You call it bureacracy because you don't want to believe your government is crooked. Isn't that what Nixon said"I am not a crook". You guys need a realtiy check.

[Lefty]

amazin, why do you want to put more money in what you say is such corruption as you originally stated?
I never said the govt would turn this over to private org, I said they should. The reason they won't is cause all the Wash liberals won't allow it. I hate Socialism and far too much of our tax money goes to "social engineering. " I'm firmly grounded in reality and i don't want to give the govt another dime for these failed policies but as per your orig post on the subject, you do. Why?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Amazin
GT

Like I told Lefty,I don't see these government agencies handing the ball over to private organizations.That's why I said it's just fantasy talk on your part and Lefty's. I don't see any grassroots movement there.I do agree that private organizations have done a better job,but what about this taxpayer's money that somehow dissapears in these government institutions like a black hole.Im saying they should be held accountable and not given the bureacratic exemption.How come they can get away with it?



The government doesn't have to "hand the ball". Your argument is based on the assumption that if the government didn't help the needy, the needy wouldn't get helped. In other words, Americans are a bunch of selfish bastard who won't take care of their own. That just ain't true....

[Amazin]

Lefty asks:"why do you want to put more money in what you say is such corruption as you originally stated?"


I said to take it out of the corrupt military because it is overfunded.Then this money should be given to those in need.It should not be given to government institutions that will bureacratize it into thin air.If necessary another agency should be set up to oversee the distribution of this money.It's really not that hard. But this problem of missing money for the poor needs to be addressed and investigated by congress.Only then will a new agency be created to oversee the distribution of $$$ for the poor.However I think Congress is aware of dissapearing funds and doesn't give a rats ass for a variety of reasons.The poor need lobbyists.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Lefty asks:"why do you want to put more money in what you say is such corruption as you originally stated?"


I said to take it out of the corrupt military because it is overfunded.Then this money should be given to those in need.It should not be given to government institutions that will bureacratize it into thin air.If necessary another agency should be set up to oversee the distribution of this money.It's really not that hard. But this problem of missing money for the poor needs to be addressed and investigated by congress.Only then will a new agency be created to oversee the distribution of $$$ for the poor.However I think Congress is aware of dissapearing funds and doesn't give a rats ass for a variety of reasons.The poor need lobbyists.

"Will lobby for Food?"
A, what we don't need is another beauracracy-thay only draw more funds to sustain themselves. Of coarse congreess is aware of the whole thing-they are the ones taking it!
A congressman's goals are:
1. Get re-elected
2. Get rich
3. Get their party members re-elected
4. Get their party members rich
5. Get richer.
You and I do not make this list, Ever.
Liberal and conservatives are not linear-they are circular-as you go farther and farther to the right, you end up on the left, like the equador. Our governement is organized laterally, not horizontally. The horizontal pillars that support the word order are us-and the rest of the suckers. Atop of the pillars sets the lateral world order. An American leader has more in common with a Russin leader than an American. Doin't know if I made that all that clear, but hope you gert the drift. Jsut throwin gmoney at something is no answer. We need a new paradigm. And we need it quick, before all we have have left is a pair of dimes! :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Overfunded military, I think not. Hey, if this country falls, buddy boy, you go dn too, ya know. Military definitely not overfunded. What is overfunded is all these "feel good" social engineering prgms that try to help people who for the most part won't help themselves. One more time: The govts job is not to feed or clothe people; it's to keep the country free so they can do that for themselves.
No investigation necessary. Why don't you understand most of the money is eaten by offices, people to run those offices, paperwork etc, i.e. the Bureaucracy. Why do we need another agency? That's changing one bureaucracy for another.
The poor don'rt need lobbyists they need a shove toward self support and the way to do that is to make it less easy for them to be dependent on handouts. Take the money in all these social prgms, return it to the people in the form of tax refunds and that will create more jobs for people who really wanna work.
For the people who don't wanna work, let 'em eat cake; dumpster cake.

[Amazin]

You know we can argue this endlessly but here's the bottom line:What counts is people not money. The military is the biggest and also the most wasteful of all the government agencies. At the same time there are people starving in America.I don't care how you rationalize it,It's wrong.If you can't understand that,you are also in need of help.

[Lefty]

amazin, this is capitalism not socialism. The people who are truly in need of help cannot be helped by the govt. That's not it's function. That's what private charity is far. I don't understand why libs can't understand that if the govt. stopped these wasteful social engineering prgms and returned the money to us(the rightful owners)that more people than ever would be helped.
I still say if anyone going hungry in this country it's their own damn fault.
If you personally know of someone going hungry(not these made-up stats)then direct them to the nearest place giving out free food.) Those agencies all over the place here in Vegas and the bums are getting fat. I can only hope there are a few who truly need the help and are getting it.
Most poor people have jobs and families and would do much better if so much money wasn't stolen from them in the form of taxes.

[VetScratch]

Tom,

You had better not come out of the closet too often, or we'll have to classify you in the George Kaywood League of Mensa Handicappers! :) :) :)

.... A REALLY GREAT POST!