The U.S. ( Archived) (15)

Apr 6, 2007 3:44 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
The US Government takes from the needy






















































and gives to the greedy.

True?
Kat
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 3:46 PM CST The U.S.
bobby7
bobby7bobby7Mission, Canada16 Threads 2,351 Posts
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!applause
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 3:47 PM CST The U.S.
cutelildevilsmom
cutelildevilsmomcutelildevilsmomportsmouth, New Hampshire USA60 Threads 7,772 Posts
its a win win situation for me then....rolling on the floor laughing
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 3:53 PM CST The U.S.
highfidelity
highfidelityhighfidelityEurope, Lower Saxony Germany37 Threads 2,287 Posts
sigh everywhere the same more or less you know roll eyes
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:06 PM CST The U.S.
Raynew
RaynewRaynewConcord, North Carolina USA99 Threads 2,400 Posts
Tell me about it, I have to pay in this yearvery mad
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:07 PM CST The U.S.
garrulous
garrulousgarrulousFreeland, USA1 Threads 97 Posts
rolling on the floor laughing
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:09 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
There was a rule in many States that if you were from a poor family and you went to a rich family as a foster kid you did not get any money. If you went to a poor family, you would get some money. They went into court, and the court said it did not make any difference what kind of a family you were living in; it was what the child had access to and every child ought to receive foster child payments in the United States, no matter where they were or what situation they were in.

What the Republicans want to do in this bill is repeal a court decision. They do not like what the courts did. The same thing is true about kinship care. If a child is picked up by a foster home, they get money; but if they are picked up by their grandmother, they are not entitled to it, no matter what the circumstances are. That is the family friendly Republican budget cuts.


Should this money get to the child in any circumstance?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:15 PM CST The U.S.
highfidelity
highfidelityhighfidelityEurope, Lower Saxony Germany37 Threads 2,287 Posts
of course no question about it thumbs up doh
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:17 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
and just in case: I am an equal opportunity party bigot. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. As far as I can tell any other parties have no real say anyway.
So, if I find that there is something Democratic to say in this thread, I will.
Right now it just so happens to be what the Republicans are doing. I am more about the wrongs than the "whos".
Kat
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:22 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
Almost 9 of every 10 Americans earn less than $100,000 each year. And about the best we can say about how these Americans will fare under Republican Reconciliation is this: it just keeps getting worse.

The math is the math; Cutting taxes on capital gains and dividend payments will primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society, households earning more than a million dollars a year.

The vaunted Republican claim of reaching out to all Americans doesn’t hold water.

When the going gets tough, they get even tougher on average Americans. Republicans intend to reduce spending on vital programs that help low and moderate income families most.

The draconian spending cuts that they want, will bleed the economic life right out of ordinary Americans. $600 million in cuts to foster families, who earn less than $100,000, will make a mockery of so called tax cuts.
And it only gets worse.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:23 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
yay Good one.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:50 PM CST The U.S.
highfidelity
highfidelityhighfidelityEurope, Lower Saxony Germany37 Threads 2,287 Posts
Another "good one "

Protected by a podium, thousands of thorns in the world's most beautiful rose garden, and a cordon of Secret Service agents, President Bush continued his retreat into a bunker mentality.

The House and Senate had just passed a $122 billion war funding bill that demanded U.S. troops begin a systematic withdrawal from Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid, majority leader, had said that Congress had finally acceded to the will of the people.

President Bush defiantly told the people that he would veto the bill and continue his war in Iraq. "Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," said the President. If anyone could be accused of not providing soldiers what they need it's the President and his Administration.

Soldiers are dying because the Administration didn't provide adequate body armor, forcing families to privately buy the bullet-proof vests for their sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers.
dunno very mad
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:55 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
If we consider the proposed reduction in SSI payments, the slice of the pie is beginning to look like someone suffering from malnutrition. And it’s not over, yet.

Republican reconciliation removes 300,000 people from the federal Food Stamp program. That’s taking food right off the table.

A mere 1% of the tax benefit is left for the average American family-and they’re not through yet, because the they intend to implement a guaranteed plan to reduce child support payments that are collected.

That is a situation that existed in such a way that our soldiers were dying because they were not adequately protected by armoured vehicles or body armour. I think some of that has been alleviated since then. Better protection has supposedly been sent. I hope.



Heres some more on our budget cut proposals. And it's causes.

The Congressional Budget Office has told us that over the next five years about $8 billion fewer dollars will be collected for child support and 80% of this reduction will come from families that make less than $50,000 per year.

After this cut, any tax benefit that the Republicans are trying to sell to the average American is wiped-out.

But it’s not just that Average Americans get no benefit, it’s that they actually lose what they have today. Cutting $14 billion in federal student loan assistance may not be noticed, if you are a millionaire.

But 84% of student loans last year were given to students that come from households with annual earnings of less than $100,000. 84% gasping for air that isn’t there any more.

Only the most affluent of Americans will benefit from the Republican reconciliation measure. For the other 9 out of 10 Americans, it’s so-long, good luck, don’t bother to write.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:56 PM CST The U.S.
highfidelity
highfidelityhighfidelityEurope, Lower Saxony Germany37 Threads 2,287 Posts
one last "good one" for now dunno

Had the $9 billion that was "lost" in Iraq and the billions more that had been misappropriated or wasted been applied to "supporting the troops," not only would more soldiers have lived through IED explosions, but there would now be adequate medical care for the veterans and their families. There would be enough left over to rebuild New Orleans, give basic health care to the 47 million Americans without adequate insurance, assist the three million homeless (about one-third of them veterans), and probably put a large dent into funds needed to find a cure for cancer.

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld justified all of this non-support for the troops by an excuse. In December 2004, 21 months after the President ordered the shock-and-awe military to invade, occupy, and eventually destroy the Iraq, Rumsfeld flippantly said, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." If nothing else about the Bush­Cheney Administration matters, the war in Iraq shows that this nation does not have the president we want or need. His actions and inactions in the Iraq War alone suggest not only has he failed to support the troops, he has lied, deceived, and degraded his oath of office. A court martial for dereliction of duty is not constitutionally possible for the man who likes to be known as the "Commander-in-Chief," as a "war president," and as the "Decider." His actions justify not only impeachment but also charges of treason.

doh peace
------ This thread is Archived ------
Apr 6, 2007 4:57 PM CST The U.S.
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
Ooops, when I was re reading my script, I forgot to go up further. Sorry, I didn't mean to put that post about our soldiers in the middle.doh
------ This thread is Archived ------
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

This Thread is Archived

This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.

« Go back to All Threads
Message #318

Stats for this Thread

1,229 Views
14 Comments
by lvslife (223 Threads)
Created: Apr 2007
Last Viewed: Apr 9
Last Commented: Apr 2007

Share this Thread

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here