Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
Posted By: Barlyston on 2008-10-18
In Reply to: Why the personal attacks? - sm
o
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
So you ARE asking for a handout then. nm
x
I took it as Peggy wants a handout and Obama is her savior..nm
//
why progressive taxation?
Two answers:
1. Because it's good for the economy. Money doesn't exist to stagnate in pools; it has to move.
2. Because it's the moral thing to do. If you have for example a flat 10% income tax, a millionaire will flinch, but a poor man will starve.
progressive taxation
See, DNH, the thing I'm getting at is, it already *is* my money. My money, your money, it's being taken already, and given to people who don't work, billionaires who have not a worry in the world.
Your example of a 25% tax rate is even better than mine. That guy making 60,000, he's making 45,000 after taxes. Well and good--it was a big bite of his income, but he can still afford his house and to feed his kids. But what about the guy making 30,000? Suddenly he's making 22,500 a year, and how's he going to pay his heating bill this winter? He can't afford food, he can't make rent.
So what looks initially like equal treatment, is actually something far different: A neglible weight on the wealthy, a noticeable burden on the middle class, and a death sentence on the lower class.
The incentive argument doesn't work, either. During the height of taxation in the 50s, the economy grew at a healthy rate, and it grew by making things, building things, actual goods and services, not the fake growth we've seen in the recent low-tax decades, where all the wealth is made up of obscure financial instruments that nobody understands.
People don't give up their dreams because they fear a high tax rate. They give up their dreams because suddenly they can't afford food anymore, and they're going to get thrown out of their houses, and their kids are going to be dressed in rags, because every dime they worked so hard for is being redistributed right on up into the hands of billionaires.
What if it were my money? I'd rather every dime I had go to the poor, than yet another penny wind up in somebody's else's hedge fund.
His lies changes everyday but his taxation
@@
You can google his taxation attempt in March
I see what is really going on here. For weeks I heard Obama won't tax us, he's gonna save the middle class, yaddda, yadda, yadda, and you call all facts lies. Now, I'm so sorry you think the actual bill on capital hill which he helped propose is a lie, which means you think he is a lie, but his vote is there.
Get off your lame brain duff and googgle it, if you dare!
In your response, what I see if someone who truly does not care about this country at all but chooses to believe you are going to get a bigger free ride. If you think his taxation attempt on YOU, the poor middle class or whatever, is going to get a tax cut, I dare you to look it up for yourself. I know you won't....you don't want to see the truth about this man.
Have you ever considered that..(sm)
dems would love to see Rush running for pres or become a serious voice in the pub party? The farther right the pubs go, the better the vote for dems. There is no way that Rush doctrine would be able to win an election, so why not see if we can goad him into trying. Looks like he's going for it -- check mate....LOL
So is this considered a bad thing?
Seriously, have you ever considered an antipsychotic?
??
CNN is considered reputable right?
This is one I found from CNN with Barack's half brother, George. I respect the fact that George says he isn't expecting a handout from his brother. A lot of Americans can learn from him!
Still, I can't help but wonder why Obama wouldn't at least make an effort to help his village. If he wasn't talking so much about "world changing" and what not I wouldn't ask, but since he is, shouldn't he start with his family? It would sadden me greatly to see even a half brother or sister living like that.
This is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV5sZtQvGKs
Not trying to smear, just asking a legitimate question.
Shouldn't you have considered all that BEFORE you
xx
As an IC, I'm considered a small business, so
but not really sure which will benefit me the most. ICs must all think like small businesses and consider taxes based on that, not as individual taxpayers.
I actually don't agree with either one on all tax issues, so I'm still on the fence. I doubt Barack will be able to enact and MAINTAIN the tax cuts he has promised. I agree with giving seniors a break on taxes when they are on a limited budget, for example, but Barack has said seniors making less than $50K. That means if they make $49K (which is more than I make, BTW), they don't have to pay ANY taxes?? Lower that amount a tad and I might see it as reasonable, but a senior making more than me, receiving senior discounts, Medicare, etc., and then not having to pay taxes. Seems a little off balance somehow.
And simplifying tax preparation isn't one of my top priorities, I have TurboTax for that. A lot of his other tax proposals pretty much mirror McCain's so I don't see much difference there, like the R&D, small biz, etc. I like his ideas on taxes, but IMO, his website is full of promises that he will have a VERY hard time fulfilling.
I like that Barack addresses credit card practices. I feel this is a BIG problem. Good creditworthy people are getting screwed by shady practices of credit card companies left and right. I don't see where McCain has addressed this.
I like McCain's summer gas tax holiday, lowering gas prices in the summer, since historically, gas prices always climb through summer especially around the holidays. I also like his HOME plan, as this would make the people truly affected by subprime loans eligible to trade their mortgage. But probably what I like most is McCain's view on healthcare - restoring control to the PATIENTS. I know people that live in countries with Government provided healthcare, and they do not have any more control over that than any of us with paid insurance policies do. I feel the only way to change this issue is to crack down on the insurance companies, force their hands to make premiums more affordable, make them honor their premium terms, limit their restrictions on patients and pre-existing conditions, and do not allow them to tell patients what procedures they can and can't have and what doctors they can and can't see.
I am independent and considered Obama, but
nm
I seriously considered voting for Bob Barr
I don't want to waste my vote though and there is no way that Bob Barr can win. So why take votes away from McCain? My goal this election is to keep Obama out of office.
No, I haven't considered it, and the people who own dailykos...
have owned up to it, apparently, because of the firestorm it caused. It is exactly the kind of stuff dailykos engages in on a daily basis.
Only if I felt that all available options had been considered and rejected...sm
How long has the US had nuclear weapons? More than 60 years. Iran, if they have any capability, it is very limited. Any serious threat or attack by them would only result in their ultimate annihilation. However extremist they may be, they know that.
child support is not considered a garnishment -
He darn well makes enough to pay her what he owes her and even if they won't hold it out of his check, then he is still responsible for paying it and should be sending the difference.
Child support is not like a regular garnishment - it is a court order, not just something the military can decide whether they want to do or not. What they ordered is not an unreasonable amount.
My husband's child support sure comes out of his check even though it is 42% of his pay since he is on disability now because of an on the job injury. When he went to court because he was getting behind, the judge told him she did not care if he was working or not, that he better come up with 100% of the money every week or go to jail - that her order was her order; so out of a $300 weekly check, the mom gets $124.13 a week.
My daughter's ex is sitting up there making more babies (at last count, 3 more to 3 different moms), has already paid for another abortion that we know about, and driving new cars and living in a very nice apartment complex, while my daughter cannot clothe her children without help, and guess what, he is good friends with the commander who told my daughter if she needed child support of more than $400 a month then she did not need her children and needed to give them to their dad (who by the way has only seen the 1 year old daughter 1 time in her life)...
The thing is, in the state of Georgia, he is getting further and further behind and so hopefully the next step is to pull his security clearance so that he loses the job in the Navy he wants, then when he is discharged in April and moves back to Georgia, they are going to pull his driver's license and also start holding his federal income taxes this year.
Our Founding Fathers were considered terrorists. sm
God forbid, there are people out there who want to defend our Constitution. Americans should be ashamed of themselves for letting things go this far. Real change needs to come from us. It should alarm people. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used the same tactics to stifle dissent. People who support the Independent Party, Christians, and pro lifers are also on it. DHS distributed that memo to 70 or 80 different fusion centers throughout the US. Many thanks are due the concerned and honest police officer who leaked the one that went to Missouri.
Bush considered taking Obama's approach last summer
efforts to forge peace in Israel/Palestine.
Bush floated the idea of re-establishing a diplomatic US interests section in Tehran last summer which for the time being has been shelved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_no_deal
Here's the no-brainer rule-of-thumb on this topic. If you wwant war, you don't negotiate with opponents. If you want peace, you sit down aat the table.
When evaluating the credibility of this ad, as yourself that basic question..."Who stands to benefit the most" by taking this position? As they have demonstrated over the past 60 years, it is in Zionist's best interest to perpetuate war in their region. They have been able to enrich their nation immensely with US taxpayer dollars and enjoy an uncontested nuclear bully status in the region as the US's most favorite global puppet. The notion that the US would promote peace or stability in the region would diminish their status exponentially and are the last nation on earth that would like to see the US play the disarmament card.
Apparently Barr, Ron Paul, & Baldwin supporters are considered terrorists. sm
A Missouri State Policeman leaked this information last week. This should raise some alarm bells. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr are supposed to be preparing statements about it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
MT on welfare.
I took my first MT job in 1974 when we were still respected hospital employees with benefits. In 1976 I had my first child and in 1980 I became a singe parent. Between 1974 and 1992, I worked between 40 and 50 hours every single week of my life, worked all holidays because I needed the extra pay and had an interval between 1986 and 1993 where I did not take one single vacation day because I bought a home to get my son away from the gang problems that became concentrated in apartment complexes. During those years, I developed hypertension at age 34 and progressive, unrelenting back pain in 1987. With the help of ibuprofen and regular exercise, I worked through it and never skipped a beat. For those who may not remember, 1986 was when outsourcing happened and in the years to follow, not one single start-up MTSO offered medical benefits.
In 1992 I began to develop significant insomnia due to the chronic pain. One morning, after tossing and turning through the night, I got out of bed and found myself unable to stand erect because of the pain. For the next week or so, I had to crawl around on my hands and knees and was unable to work. I got behind in my bills, depressed and was utterly exhausted. I had a physical and "nervous" breakdown that landed me in a psychiatric facility where I received much needed rest and treatment. I couldn't afford to pay that bill.
I lost my car, my job and my house. My son had to go to live with his father since I could not feed him and at age 40 I had to move back in with my aging mother. I tried to apply for social security disability just long enough to get job retraining and get back on my feet again. I was denied those benefits. I applied for unemployment and food stamps and entered the county medical health care system. I was not able to achieve rehabilitation and recovery sufficient to enable me to return to transcription. I ended up out of work for 7 years while I figured out my own rehabilitation and lived with my elderly mother who could not really afford to support the extra expense of feeding me on a fixed social security/retirement income. My unemployment benefits ran out, but I stayed on food stamps for 3 of those years for her sake until I returned to school on a student loan and later on scholarship. When mhy mother's health deteriorated, I became her terminal care attendant and had to leave school.
I am no slacker. It took me 7 years to recover from the disability I sustained from medical transcription and single parenthood. When I was able to return to work, I did. I still transcribe and at age 59, have developed the same back problems I had that disabled me in 1993. I am simply trying to scratch my way to retirement, which probable will commence for me one I drop dead in front of the computer. I would not wish this fate on anyone, but if any of you, your family or your friends ever do encounter such circumstances for whatever reason, (i.e., death of a spouse, for example) and need assistance, you will come to understand the importance of welfare and will never view it with the cold-blooded, icy, self-righteous indignation that some on this board have expressed.
Before you come back with "that's the exception, not the rule," don't bother. I saw plenty of others in my situation along the way, especially during the 6-8 hours I spent in the waiting rooms at the county hospital before MD appointments. I am no better and no worse than any of them. Same human beings, facing the same struggles, each with their own special needs going unaddressed for the most part. Poverty is a cycle that is destructive, not only to the welfare recipients and their families, but to the society at large. Outrage is not going to solve it. Insight will.
Welfare in Florida
Welfare in Florida can add up to about $900-1000 a month! Add reduced rent to that, food stamps, reduced utility bills, and why would you want to work?
I am so sick and tired of driving by low-income apartments with satellite dishes in the front, high-end SUVs in the parking lot and big-screen TVs visible through the screen door.
So yes, welfare does pay!
Isn't the poor the ones that get the welfare now?
So what's your complaint? You think they need more? Fine, give them everything you have and we'll call it a day!
|
