So, you look forward to paying for more social
Posted By: handouts? nm on 2008-08-16
In Reply to: This is utter BS, but I'd take a socialist nm - Over a fascist...anyday.
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I was looking forward
to the foot-long hot dog myself..............
oh no - social ostracism -- I can't
bear it . . .
isn't that social security?
We already pay 7.5 of income to social security and employers pay an additional 7.5%. An IC pays the full 15% themself. Is this 5% in addition to that, replacing that or what? Can you provide additional information or a source for such?
Re: Social Security
Yes, I applied in April of 2008. Was denied. Filed Request for Reconsideration. Was denied. Am now awaiting a hearing, which might take another year. Since my initial application, I've developed a few more diseases, and I'm hoping to talk with my lawyer today to see if we can send a "Dire Need Letter," since the situation is now dire.
As far as quarters, I have plenty of them and was even told when I applied how much I could expect to receive each month.
I never, EVER thought I would be in a position like this. If anything, I've softened my attitude about "those people" who are forced to take advantage of government assistance. You just never know when it might happen to you. 
Thanks for the link; I look forward to seeing it.
I am looking forward to reading
Stephen Colbert's book "I am America and so can you." I got a little preview this morning on Tim Russert. It promises to be a delicious, laugh-out-loud satire.
Looking backward instead of forward is
nm
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.
We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.
Going forward would be a blessing.
Just give the man a chance. He was vetted inside out before he got to the Senate. He was then vetted even more before he was elected by the majority of Americans.
He is NOT a terrorist. His interests lie in helping the middle class, not in continuing the corporate welfare and helping the rich get richer, as has been going on for the last eight years.
We are in a SERIOUS economic crisis right now. That "trickle down" theory simply isn't working because the richest and greediest at the top simply AREN'T allowing anything to trickle down. They outsource our jobs so they can hire cheaper labor to get even richer.
Unlike Bush, Obama wants to give financial incentives to small businesses for keeping our jobs IN America. That just might help many medical transcriptionists in the USA.
The constant jabs and stabs at his character are reflective of the smear tactics employed by the McCain campaign, and most people saw past it and rejected that tactic.
Worse yet, the constant flaming of him and suggesting he's a terrorist is doing nothing but practically insuring that his safety is in jeopardy. If he survives long enough to take the oath of office and begin to do his job, I'll be his toughest critic if he doesn't deliver on the promises he made.
We've had EIGHT LONG YEARS of constant fear mongering, and Americans are tired of it. I realize there is reason to be fearful of terrorists, but Obama is NOT a terrorist, as he's been portrayed on this board. He's a Christian, not a Muslim, as he's been portrayed on this board. He wants CLEAN COAL and wants to find technology to support that so the coal industry can continue to exist, and he is supported by the United Mine Workers of America (contrary to what has been alleged on this board). He is encouraging public service in exchange for help with the costs of college (and will NOT FORCE it on everyone, as has been alleged on this board).
Most of an article was copied and pasted here yesterday about some congressman from Georgia being fearful that Obama is a Marxist because he thought a civilian force to help protect us was a good idea. One small paragraph of that article was DELETED, and that was the fact that BUSH SUPPORTED THIS.
As it is now, under Bush, we have the military in place in America, ready for ???? in case we the people become uncivilized. We have Bush and Paulson buying banks. We've had a "redistribution" of wealth for the last eight years that has benefited the richest of the rich. We, the people, are paying trillions of dollars to bail out institutions that continue to party on our dime, institutions that continue to give multi-million dollar bonuses to crooked executives, while more and more Americans become jobless. It's been reported that 47 million people don't have health insurance. Just keep in mind that with each job lost, there is a high probability that health insurance is lost, as well, since many people can't afford exorbitant COBRA payments.
Obama wants to help every American afford healthcare. This is especially relevant for me, as someone with an incurable disease and no health insurance, which I had to voluntarily terminate when my monthly premiums rose to 50% of my gross annual income.
These are the issues that are important to people. Either way, Barack Obama was duly elected by the majority of Americans, and he will be our President -- unless the hostility towards him grows so hateful that any chance he may have had will simply be extinguished, and if that happens, it will be because of some of the rhetoric going on in this country that is reflected on this board.
I don't see him as some sort of "Messiah." I see him as a biracial man who is the product of a union that wasn't even legal in some states just a few years before he was born. He has a perspective that is unique in that he has lived both a white and a black life.
In my opinion, he represents a little bit of the very best in most of us. It would be hard to see that, though, after reading the hostile comments on this board, some of them inflammatory opinions, and some of them copied and pasted articles (with portions of content removed that might be viewed as favorable to him, as in the case of the Georgia congressman yesterday).
If you're better off than you were eight years ago, then you're an anomaly because the country as a whole is in much worse shape. I trust Barack Obama. I don't trust hateful rhetoric -- rhetoric that is reckless and result in devastation for this country. We've been divided, by design, for the last eight years. It's time for us to come together.
Can we just give him a chance -- PLEASE -- for the sake of our country and for the sake of our children and their future? You just might be pleasantly surprised at the sunshine that might peek through all those dark clouds that reside in your hearts and minds, if you allow yourself to see it.
Forward her emails to me, please.
Thanks.
Moderator
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
You don't believe in Social Security and Medicare?
What would your plan be for the elderly population then?
No drug laws? I thought libertarians only objected to posession of marijuana as a crime. I didn't know you actually objected to all drug laws. So then, you believe all drugs should be legalized?
You don't believe in a standing military. I am not sure I remember that right. It's hard to remember that very long list without it in front of me. So is your plan then that we should all live in a drug-haze, leave all other countries to their own devices and we won't need a military because we won't be bothering anyone and who will care anyway because, of course, we will all be stoned? I can't say that I see any cogent thought behind this list. It's a morally relative list of Doctor Feel Good. I thought libertarians had more sense. What a bummer dude.
Perhaps it was the social and community outreach
1. Can-Cer-Vive support to cancer patients and caregivers.
2. Churh school and youth church.
3. Counseling services, both individual and group.
4. Emmaus Road Ministry, which provides companions, prayer partners, helpers and friends for grieving persons, months after the passing of a loved one. Ongoing contact with the family is maintained.
5. Girl Scouts.
6. Teen choir.
7. Computer classes.
8. Assistance to physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped.
9. Marriage enrichment seminars.
10. Workshops on building and maintaining Christian homes.
11. Men's chorus.
12. Men's fellowship.
13. Bible study.
14. Sanctuary choir.
15. Stewardship.
16. Women's chorus.
17. Women's drill team.
18. Yoga.
19. Youth drill team.
20. Active seniors.
21. Adopt-a-Student.
22. Athletes for Christ.
23. Career development.
24. Church in the community.
25. Domestic violence advocacy and support.
26. Drug and alcohol recovery.
27. Food share.
28. Grandparent's ministry.
29. HIV/AIDS support.
30. Housing workshops.
31. Health and wellness.
32. Legal counseling.
33. Math tutors.
34. Prison ministry.
35. Reading tutors.
36. Drama.
37. Fine arts and literary guild.
38. Quilting.
39. Adult dance.
40. Music.
Compare these ministries with Obama's life experiences, political views and current campaign platform. That is explanation enough for me.
I think the quickest way to fix Social Security...
is to make it so politicians have to rely on it when they are of retirement age instead of us paying them their government salary after they leave office.
I think a lot of economic problems would be solved if politicians would have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Do you draw social security or do you know
someone who does?
Medicare and social security
This today regarding Social Security and Medicare. For the person below who thought this money could not be used for other purposes, please note the *** paragraphs and the final paragraph stating this administration would run a deficit this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.
Washington – The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.
Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner. Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
*******The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be." Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade. However, Republicans pointed to the newly dire assessments as evidence the Obama administration has failed to come forward with actual entitlement reform to close the funding gaps. "Instead of getting existing public programs in order right now, some are saying we should create a new government-run health insurance plan," Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a reference to the administration's health care proposals. "When we can't afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?" House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree." The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession.
The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.
Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1. The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring. That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report. At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083.
*******To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries. While the government is obligated to redeem those bonds, it has already spent the excess Social Security collections over the years to fund general government operations, providing the trust funds with IOUs.
While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system. Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections. Obama on Monday praised the pledge by the health care industry to achieve $2 trillion in savings on health care costs over the next decade, but it was unclear how much help those pledges would be in achieving Obama's goal of extending coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans. The administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation in this area this year, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security. The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget — soaring entitlement spending.
*****The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.
Thanks. Very much looking forward to reading more of your views.
Me too, MS....I look forward to all who are speaking tonight.
Guiliani is speaking, Huckabee....though I am not a Republican, I have to admire them. When one of theirs has some issues that they disagree on (like Guiliani being pro choice), they don't excommunicate and demonize them. MUCH more democratic party than the Democratic party.
That is good. I look forward to seeing how she speaks and...sm
how knowledgable she is when answering unscripted questions or delivering a speech.
looking forward to Friday's debate
can hardly wait.
Funny. Not ONE pub has stepped forward
x
I'll step forward.......
I have two choices here, more taxes or no more taxes. Now, in light of the current situation that will now tax us more, before all this, Obama has not been shy about taxing, taxing, taxing, to pay for all his little social programs, which for the most part are jokes. And for those that don't believe this is a racial issue, think again. He came out punching at first, spouting all his plans for more social programs, more this, more that, bigger government, and that means higher taxes for all...all except those that don't pay taxes in the first place and live off the government, which he is well aware of and aware that these same people usually don't vote but he is going after them with everything he's got, including ACORN, because he doesn't care how he gets their vote, just that he gets it.
McCain has directly said he will not add more taxes, he wants smaller government, less government interference in our lives. As it should be. The government's main role is to basically run a military to protect this country, not to tax its citizens.
Obama has said nothing about smaller government, less government interference in our lives but instead has said just the opposite. Now, I understand with so many voting for him that already need someone to tell them what to do, how to feel, how to think, etc., that won't be a far stretch to believe that the government is their friend and ally, but sadly enough he likes it that way.
I don't particularly care for either one of them. Ron Paul would have done it for me, but with what I am left with, I choose between less government or more government. More government = more taxes !!!!! You can't argue that point.
Where is he planning to get this money. Well, he has spouted the fact that bringing our troops home will free up that money to be put here......I'll believe it when I see it. If he ever gets his hands on that kind of money, he will have blown it on more social programs and babysitting programs for lazy parents, who suck the blood out of my paycheck in the first place, all for the sake of making their children smarter. Pleeeeeze.....the only thing that will make anyone's child smarter is having a parent that gives a d*mn in the first place, not more taxes thrown at the problem. You don't need more taxes to read to your child, put a book in the home (hey, the library is free), talk to your child instead of the ususal phrases of condemnation I hear around here, make sure they do their homework, basically just be involved. No one needs to pay more taxes to get that.
More social programs = socialization of a country. But, for those that believe he will save them from themselves, Obama is loving it. Because these are the same people that freak out at the thought of thinking for themselves, not being dependent on the government for their lives.
Thanks for the head's up. Look forward to watching
bury this one in the trash right where it belongs...under the rotting fish.
If you are all about moving forward, why dont you
nm
Yeah, they are liberal on social issues. sm
And, they have run amuck chasing the adoption records of Roberts. It's things like this that make people want to lump liberals/democrats all up in one pile when in fact this is one, maybe two journalist starting this up. It gives fuel to the right wing media and the wheels keep on turning.
Post Office, Social Security
Veterans Health care.
This is not social programs......this is HUGE government
!!
Social Security is a retirement "insurance" sm
as with any insurance you usally do draw more than you pay in! If you have a (for example) $250,000 life insurance policy, do you think you are going to pay in $250,000 for it?
All this complaining about people drawing SS but I tell you if you are paying in and happen to have a catastrophic illness and have to draw disability benefits, you will be glad you paid in.
Then why don't we make a pact from this moment forward?
We will stay off your board if you stay off ours. Do you agree or not?
Fantastic speech -looking forward for the debate
nm
Anytime he's on-camera and turns forward
very often)... and anyone can see it. His left jaw/cheek or whatever sticks out like a chipmunk with an acorn in his cheek. I was just wondering if that's where his cancer was.
Thanks Nanaw. Guess the poster looks forward to
nm
Only the open minded and forward thinking
There isn't anything he can do about narrow-minded, self-righteous divisionists. Obama has won over the educated majority of the entire world.
You might want to Google "mccain privatize social security"
nm
Correct....or the 3.5 trillion dollar social programs
@
Tax cuts, progressive tax system, social programs
are as American as apple pie and these same policies and initiatives can be found puncuating the pages of our history from the day of our country's inception.
You do not understand Marxism or socialism, or you would be a lot more exercised by the current redistribution of wealth that takes your tax dollars and moves them upward to an elite ruling class that represses and undermines the middle class at the drop of a hat. State ownership of banks, lending institutions and direct personal property "buy outs" (as proposed by McCain certainly smack of Marxism and are not exactly what you could call traditional American values.
My social security kicks in this April and I am hoping
they have enough left to get me through my life. I am not worried about that basically but I can hardly wait, full retirement age so working, drawing from there- priceless.
So why wasn't social services called on this girl?
So the parents who are involved in the lives of their children should be punished because some are not? Obviously if the parents don't care then something is wrong in the household and their needs to be an investigation or a report.
I just don't think a 14-year-old girl has the maturity to make decisions on her own like that. God knows the stupid things I would have done at 14 if my dad had just let me do whatever I wanted or wasn't informed!
I mean in that case, schools shouldn't call home when we skipped school because we should be allowed to make our own decisions about whether we want to be educated or not.
A lot of it also has to do with Social Security Disability (SSDI), supposedly the dad......sm
had a back injury years back, so he can also collect SSDI, along with a Worker's Comp claim, along with State supplementation because of the size of the family/income ratio....don't know exactly how it works, really do not want to know, I just see the daughters taking over...as I said, the oldest has two babies a year apart, and the third is on the way, and her little sister is at home, pregnant, no daddies in sight....let's invest in more social workers for each state to work on these cases, cut out the fraud, and can you imagine, state by state, how much money could possibly be recouped this way, medical benefits, food stamps, welfare, rent subsidies...I also have a young woman in the neighborhood living with parents, two small school children, and she gets welfare for the kids and she is on SSDI for "ADHD!" but she goes out and parties!! don't get me started here, I am starting to sound right wing, huh???? ;-)
You can't make this stuff up...Looking forward to a *whiter* NO???see article
HUD chief foresees a 'whiter' Big Easy
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 30, 2005
A Bush Cabinet officer predicted this week that New Orleans likely will never again be a majority black city, and several black officials are outraged.
Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development, during a visit with hurricane victims in Houston, said New Orleans would not reach its pre-Katrina population of 500,000 people for a long time, and it's not going to be as black as it was for a long time, if ever again.
Rep. Danny K. Davis, Illinois Democrat and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, quickly took issue.
Anybody who can make that kind of projection with some degree of certainty or accuracy must have a crystal ball that I can't see or maybe they are more prophetic than any of us can imagine, he said.
Other members of the caucus said the comments by Mr. Jackson, who is black, could be misconstrued as a goal, particularly considering his position of responsibility in the administration.
I would beg and hope that the secretary, if that is what he is saying, would re-evaluate the situation, said Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat.
Mr. Jackson, whose remarks were reported by the Houston Chronicle, said New Orleans might reach a population of 375,000 people sometime late next year with a black population of about 40 percent at the highest, down from 67 percent before Hurricane Katrina sent a storm surge that overwhelmed New Orleans levees and flooded 80 percent of the city.
The population of New Orleans before Katrina was a little less than 500,000, surrounded by large, predominantly white suburbs. The largely black Ninth Ward and the predominantly white middle-class Lakeview section near Lake Pontchartrain were overwhelmed by floodwaters.
Mr. Jackson, a former developer and longtime government housing official, said the history of urban reconstruction projects shows that most blacks will not return and others who want to might not have the means or opportunity. His agency will play a critical role in the city's redevelopment through various grant programs, including those for damaged or destroyed properties.
In the storm's aftermath, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, charged that relocating evacuees across the country was racist and designed to move black people, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, out of Louisiana. The state elected its first Republican senator, David Vitter, in nearly a century in 2004.
Both the preacher and the congresswoman suggested that the residents be housed at the closed England Air Force Base at Alexandria, La., to keep them closer to home.
Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Illinois Democrat, said Alphonso Jackson's remarks and the prospects of real-estate speculators and developers in New Orleans are foreboding.
You consider Social Security and Medicare expanding government projects, t hen?
Help me understand this concept. I am afraid the logic escapes me.
No need to worry about your 401k, democrats would like to absord it into the Social Security system.
xx
According to that., I would also be paying...
less, but the difference is minimal. There are so many disclaimers on the site I don't know if I believe it anyway...however, what you have to take into consideration along with this, is all the programs he is proposing to the billions of dollars. Look at our economy now. I don't think he can deliver on any of it without sending us into another financial crisis. Either of them actually. So what I am looking at is who can do the best with what he is going to be faced with. I believe McCain and his reforming agenda, his history (he saw this fannie/freddie debacle coming years ago and the Dems pooh-poohed him)...that is the experience and track record I want to see.
why would we be paying for it?
I am not talking about a low income clinic, I am talking about a regular gynecology office. When I took my daughter in for visits, I did not ask the taxpayers to pay for it. I paid my copay and filed it on my insurance -
I don't think we pay for everybody's medical care - that would be socialism, remember?
How about paying for good
So much for exporting Democracy.
U.S. paid for Iraqi praise, paper says
BY LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military offered a mixed message Wednesday about whether it embraced one of its programs that reportedly paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents. A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, called a report detailing the program troubling if true and said he was looking into the matter.
This is a military program initiated with the Multi-National Force to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news, Johnson said in an e-mail.
Details about the program were first reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times. It was the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press.
Two other federal agencies have been investigated in the past year for similar activities, leading Congress' Government Accountability Office to condemn one -- the Education Department -- for engaging in illegal covert propaganda.
Military officials who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity said the Information Operations Task Force, based in Baghdad, bought an Iraqi newspaper and took over a radio station to put out pro-U.S. messages. Neither outlet was named out of fear that they would be targeted by insurgents, the newspaper said.
The stories in Iraqi newspapers often praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote Iraq reconstruction efforts.
The Times quoted unnamed officials as saying some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and though basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening.
Defense Department officials didn't deny the report.
Rumsfeld spokesman Bryan Whitman said, so this article raises some question as to whether or not some of the practices that are described in there are consistent with the principles of this department.
The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that translates the stories into Arabic and places them in Baghdad newspapers, the newspaper said. Lincoln's staff or subcontractors in Iraq occasionally pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they hand stories to Iraqi news outlets, it said.
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she couldn't comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government.
Copyright © 2005 Detroit Free Press Inc
If you live on the GC, you were paying about
nm
My dear, you will not be paying any
more taxes than they paid in the 1990s, and I can't feel sorry for you. 250K is a lot of money. Our country is under seige by big business, and you feel sorry for yourself that you might have to pay your fair share. My DH and I work our butts off for 60K a year, and we pay 20% to 25% in taxes, but we don't whine about it. However, it would be nice to get a break.
Paying for it is a problem
I already have almost $20,000 in student loans and I'm still a year or two away from a bachelor's. And I am attending a little podunk school in South Georgia! But through the pell grant I was able to take a year and get my MT certification through the community college, and while it wasn't Andrews or MTech, I still received a good education and I make a decent living for a newbie who is still taking classes. There are a lot of grants and what not out there that you can use to take classes for free if you can keep up the grades. And it may be something the candidates need to look into. Maybe instead of just handing out checks to be used however, they can put them towards paying for education for people who can't afford it.
You don't have to have a bachelor's to make a decent living. You can go to school to be an auto mechanic, a paralegal, a respiratory therapist, etc. Most of these only take a year or two, and they will give you a lot more money than being on welfare. Plus, there are many online accredited schools now that take financial aid that parents can use if they can't physically go to class because of kids, etc.
90% of the time, it is the lack of will on the persons part that keeps them where they are. Just giving them more money is an incentive to stay down. That is why the welfare system is so horrible. There needs to be case workers who are working with these people and helping them get off of welfare. If they are on welfare and driving a BMW and can afford cable, internet, etc, then there is a problem. Something is fishy about that.
I know there are people who legitimately need help, and they deserve it. But for the most part, people are just to lazy, or don't care, and they just stay right where they are, never trying to better themselves. NO ONE should have to take care of them.
No, was just stating that we are still paying them...
its not like they are not getting an income while they are campaigning.
The point was that he could share his own wealth if he wanted to without being forced to by the government...lead by example, before he forces the rest of us to join in whether we want to or not.
what are you talking about? Are you saying paying
taxes is stealing? Don't get your post.
With all the not paying of taxes going on...
I think maybe an audit of all politicians should be undertaken? LOL! Sheesh....then again....I'd hate to see actually how many of them are screwing us even more by not paying taxes. Yeeks!!!
|
