To hell with them and the little *******s they pop out with such alarming
regularity. Boo hoo, such a shame.

Harry Krause wrote:

MadDogDave wrote:

The 12 Percent Problem
Thank goodness for our wonderful president and his efforts to maintain
the underclass. Jesus is proud.



One of the saddest statistics in the still eerily jobless recovery is
that 1.3 million more Americans fell into poverty last year — almost
half of them children. Whatever else is on the national agenda, there
should be no higher priority than directing already available help to
these least among us. But the growth in the poverty roll to almost 35
million — more than 12 percent of the population — has been accompanied
by an equally disturbing drop in those impoverished families who are
eligible for limited welfare actually managing to obtain the aid.

After the end of the old welfare system was legislated, time-limited
help for the needy was enacted, with more than three in four eligible
families benefiting in 1996. But by 2000, only half the eligible
families were receiving this aid, for reasons not fully plumbed as
government officials continue to simplistically trumpet the drop in the
welfare caseload. Clearly, more poor people are hurting more,
particularly in the vanishing of employment opportunities that were
promised and prodded as part of the new, temporary aid program.

As more families sink below the poverty line, joblessness among single,
undereducated mothers is up to 18 percent; and families whose temporary
welfare help ends are increasingly unlikely to find jobs in the current
resistant economy, according to recent data analysis by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank. Years ago, the
nation chose to proclaim a "war" on poverty. Priorities shifted as
progress was measured. The poor are still out there at the edge of the
scope, the last in line for recovery.



Hey! The Konservatives in this Kountry only care about preventing the
abortion of a fetus. Once there is a live birth into an impoverished
family, the Konservative koncern over "right to life" ends.


It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave

Gene Kearns wrote:

It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.


Really? Stupid? I am forced to conclude one of two possibilities. You
either:

A. failed to understand the point I was making. Or:

B. Are a hopeless liberal, who advocates a "cradle to grave" entitlement
philosophy, in leau of earning your lifestyle.

I'm hedging toward "A", since if "B" were true, while we may have a
idealogical difference in how one maintains their lifestyle, most mature
people would be able to refute the rationale without resorting to
labeling, out of hand, those disagreements as "stupid".

In this country, you are free to the pursuit of life, liberty and
happiness, but there are no guarantees. Part of the price of freedom, is
the responsibility to take the proper care of yourself. If you fail to
do that, it's not government's or society's place to bail you out for
more than a temporary measure.

Dave

jps wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

Hey! The Konservatives in this Kountry only care about preventing the
abortion of a fetus. Once there is a live birth into an impoverished
family, the Konservative koncern over "right to life" ends.


It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.

Reflecting on this statement, for the first time I have to wonder if
Harry is right. For me, that is a scary thought.....

That's right Gene. The right to lifers are in that fetus' corner right up
until the time they're born. Then they better've been born into a good
family. It's just the luck of the draw.

Dave's just properly reflecting the party position.

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor in this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make ends meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the money to a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

jps,
Are you projecting your employees problems onto the general population? PS
= where did you get you facts about what percent of those who can not meet
basic needs are working? Is it possible that you just made it up, or do
you have some facts to back up your theory?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor in this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make ends
meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the money to a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

Go find out for yourself. I'm busy making a living.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:XLo7b.298251$Oz4.89792@rwcrnsc54...
jps,
Are you projecting your employees problems onto the general population?
PS
= where did you get you facts about what percent of those who can not
meet
basic needs are working? Is it possible that you just made it up, or do
you have some facts to back up your theory?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor in
this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time
meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make ends
meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the money to
a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

Just as I thought, you have no basis for any of your political crap trap. I
have never seen anyone who was more willing to prove anyone wrong, so the
fact that you ignored this opportunity, is proof that you pulled it out of
your ....


"jps" wrote in message
...
Go find out for yourself. I'm busy making a living.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:XLo7b.298251$Oz4.89792@rwcrnsc54...
jps,
Are you projecting your employees problems onto the general population?
PS
= where did you get you facts about what percent of those who can not
meet
basic needs are working? Is it possible that you just made it up, or
do
you have some facts to back up your theory?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those
who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor in
this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time
meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make ends
meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the money
to
a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

I'm not going to do your work for you, sorry. If you're truly interested in
the answer, you'll go find it for yourself.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:TJp7b.298533$Oz4.89781@rwcrnsc54...
Just as I thought, you have no basis for any of your political crap trap.
I
have never seen anyone who was more willing to prove anyone wrong, so the
fact that you ignored this opportunity, is proof that you pulled it out of
your ....


"jps" wrote in message
...
Go find out for yourself. I'm busy making a living.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:XLo7b.298251$Oz4.89792@rwcrnsc54...
jps,
Are you projecting your employees problems onto the general
population?
PS
= where did you get you facts about what percent of those who can
not
meet
basic needs are working? Is it possible that you just made it up, or
do
you have some facts to back up your theory?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those
who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor
in
this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time
meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make
ends
meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the
money
to
a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:58:49 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

MadDogDave wrote:

The 12 Percent Problem
Thank goodness for our wonderful president and his efforts to maintain
the underclass. Jesus is proud.



One of the saddest statistics in the still eerily jobless recovery is
that 1.3 million more Americans fell into poverty last year — almost
half of them children. Whatever else is on the national agenda, there
should be no higher priority than directing already available help to
these least among us. But the growth in the poverty roll to almost 35
million — more than 12 percent of the population — has been accompanied
by an equally disturbing drop in those impoverished families who are
eligible for limited welfare actually managing to obtain the aid.

After the end of the old welfare system was legislated, time-limited
help for the needy was enacted, with more than three in four eligible
families benefiting in 1996. But by 2000, only half the eligible
families were receiving this aid, for reasons not fully plumbed as
government officials continue to simplistically trumpet the drop in the
welfare caseload. Clearly, more poor people are hurting more,
particularly in the vanishing of employment opportunities that were
promised and prodded as part of the new, temporary aid program.

As more families sink below the poverty line, joblessness among single,
undereducated mothers is up to 18 percent; and families whose temporary
welfare help ends are increasingly unlikely to find jobs in the current
resistant economy, according to recent data analysis by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank. Years ago, the
nation chose to proclaim a "war" on poverty. Priorities shifted as
progress was measured. The poor are still out there at the edge of the
scope, the last in line for recovery.



Hey! The Konservatives in this Kountry only care about preventing the
abortion of a fetus. Once there is a live birth into an impoverished
family, the Konservative koncern over "right to life" ends.


It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.

Reflecting on this statement, for the first time I have to wonder if
Harry is right. For me, that is a scary thought.....



Dave is known for outrageously stupid statements, though the one you
cite certainly is a keeper. Reflect on what Dave is actually saying here
and you'll have a much clearer understanding of why I think
right-wingers like Dave are trash.

Note that I am NOT referring to all right-wingers in this fashion. But
if they espouse the "Dave belief" he has stated here, they are nothing
but trash.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.