On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:00:03 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote:

On Feb 6, 12:52 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal
(paraphrased):

Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA.
_______

Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who
cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to
redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy.

Just another example of my contradictory nature.

Doesn't apply to me, Jack.

What *does* seem to apply to you is the mindset that an employee of
SSA must necessarily buy into all facets of socialism. That's what I
infer from the initial statement above.

On Feb 6, 3:34 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:00:03 -0800 (PST), marcia

wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:52 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal
(paraphrased):

Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA.
_______

Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who
cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to
redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy.

Just another example of my contradictory nature.

Doesn't apply to me, Jack.

What *does* seem to apply to you is the mindset that an employee of
SSA must necessarily buy into all facets of socialism. That's what I
infer from the initial statement above.

Curious why you chose to respond to my statement in *this* thread,
where it's completely non-sequitur, rather in the *original* thread?

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:39:16 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:34 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:00:03 -0800 (PST), marcia

wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:52 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal
(paraphrased):

Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA.
_______

Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who
cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to
redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy.

Just another example of my contradictory nature.

Doesn't apply to me, Jack.

What *does* seem to apply to you is the mindset that an employee of
SSA must necessarily buy into all facets of socialism. That's what I
infer from the initial statement above.

Curious why you chose to respond to my statement in *this* thread,
where it's completely non-sequitur, rather in the *original* thread?

Couldn't find it.

But I remember the smarmy statement and meant to respond but forgot.

"marcia" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...

Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack
doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says
they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on
disability, always on disability.

Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a
disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of
church
and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT
to
force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in
many
cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you'
figuratively
speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.)

How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take
your
filthy hands out of mine?

--
Gregory Hall

Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals
don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social
Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in
most cases) paid into it before they became disabled.

You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy
about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war
in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with.

I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that
my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for
the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current
state of our economy.

We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars
are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we
don't personally support.



Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and
socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives
want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway.

So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your
own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay
whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home
for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's
all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when
it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.
http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...als_as_a_whole

That's the difference.

--
Gregory Hall

"marcia" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...

Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack
doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says
they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on
disability, always on disability.

Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a
disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of
church
and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT
to
force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in
many
cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you'
figuratively
speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.)

How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take
your
filthy hands out of mine?

--
Gregory Hall

Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals
don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social
Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in
most cases) paid into it before they became disabled.

You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy
about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war
in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with.

I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that
my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for
the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current
state of our economy.

We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars
are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we
don't personally support.



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3133219AANXEA3

The U.S. is a huge party ― bouncers take out the trash;
“ assholes � get jailed, impoverished or killed.

If I can take your money with impunity,
as each government has always done,
then the money is truly mine, not yours ― get used to it.

On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...



On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...

Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack
doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says
they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on
disability, always on disability.

Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a
disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of
church
and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT
to
force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in
many
cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you'
figuratively
speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.)

How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take
your
filthy hands out of mine?

--
Gregory Hall

Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals
don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social
Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in
most cases) paid into it before they became disabled.

You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy
about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war
in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with.

I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that
my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for
the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current
state of our economy.

We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars
are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we
don't personally support.

Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and
socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives
want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway.

So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your
own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay
whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home
for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's
all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when
it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...e_30_more_than...

That's the difference.

--
Gregory Hall

Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of
the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion
of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record
profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and
instead invest in green energy.

See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few
programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance.

You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton,
limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare,
and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients,
right?

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote:

Get it out of the pockets of
the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy

Didn't realize that Franklin Raines of Freddie and the other idiot at
Fannie were right-wingers.

Not to mention the Fed. Govt, pressuring the right-wing bankers to
make home loans to deadbeats.

And it was Jimmy Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" that started
the ball rolling. Willie kept it rolling when he rewrote regulations
that would have prevented much of the abuse.

You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton,
limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare,
and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients,
right?

Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing
AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails.

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...

Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal
(paraphrased):

Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA.
_______

Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who
cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to
redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy.

Just another example of my contradictory nature.
____

Posted from alt.free.newsservers

So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and
food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then
when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help.

What part of "healthy" don't you understand?

Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare
mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the
poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a
laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't
mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What
hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like
job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare
mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and
who doesn't?

You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc.

"welfare mammies"

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/

A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps.

You know about whom I am talking.

"welfare mammies"

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/

And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed
to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control,
abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child
care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies".
--
Kali

With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against
of those left-wing abominations, Hillary.

Your solution for poverty?
--
Kali

"marcia" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...



On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message

...

Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack
doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says
they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on
disability, always on disability.

Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of
a
disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of
church
and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your
RIGHT
to
force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled,
in
many
cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you'
figuratively
speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.)

How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take
your
filthy hands out of mine?

--
Gregory Hall

Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals
don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social
Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in
most cases) paid into it before they became disabled.

You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy
about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war
in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with.

I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that
my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for
the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current
state of our economy.

We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars
are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we
don't personally support.

Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and
socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives
want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway.

So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your
own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay
whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at
home
for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket.
It's
all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But
when
it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy
lot.http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...e_30_more_than...

That's the difference.

--
Gregory Hall

Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of
the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion
of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record
profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and
instead invest in green energy.


It doesn't work like that, Marcia. When you agree to have taxes taken out of
your paycheck you have no say as to how they are spent. You can't vote for
taxes and then whine out loud that you expect to have a say in how they are
used. It's too late after the horse is out of the barn.

And you're totally wrong about it being bankers who tanked the economy. It
was left-wing policies, namely banks being supported by liberals like Barney
Frank assisted by the liberal CEO's of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to lend
money for mortages to minorities and other people who could not possibly pay
back the loans. (Community Reinvestment Act - the root cause liberal
legislation) These bad loans were bought up by Freddy and Fanny and packaged
and sold on up the line. When it came to the point where these people who
could not possibly pay off loans they never should have been given in the
first place started defaulting in droves then the whole Ponzi scheme came
tumbling down. This was largely percipitated by oil going up to 150 dollars
a barrel and gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices skyrocketing so people
used up all their mortgage money paying for energy. This is also caused by
liberal polices that restrict drilling and exploration for new petroleum
reserves.

See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few
programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance.

Doesn't matter. The minute you approve of any taxes you give tacit approval
of all the things those taxes are used for. As long as you are for any
income taxes or payroll taxes you have lost total control of how and where
they are spent.


You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton,
limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare,
and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients,
right?

Was that the one the Republican majority in congress crammed down his
unwilling throat?

--
Gregory Hall