Gohmert the no-balls slimy weasel had the gall to “invoke” Gabrielle Giffords as a “cite” of why he is so terrified of angry killer libruls…
Giffords has a “concern” with her name being used like that…
"I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber — at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead — held town halls.”
“I have held over 50 town halls.”
“It’s what the people deserve in a representative. To the politicians who have abandoned their civic obligations, I say this: Have some courage. Face your constituents. Hold town halls.”
Who’s “allowing” anything? I have no power to prevent a poor person from having a kid. Neither do you. Where does “allowing” come into this? Who is doing the allowing or disallowing? I don’t understand your position here. What policy are you proposing to disallow poor people to procreate? How do you imagine this would work? All you are doing is complaining about a problem, but I have yet to see an actual policy proposal of how you’d like the government to act on the matter.
You have complained numerous times about the problem of people having kids that can’t afford them. What’s the functional difference between that and “if only poor people would stop having kids, we’d be better off”? I never claimed I was quoting you so the fact that you didn’t say the exact words is irrelevant. What is the actual difference between the two? What I stated is the same as what you have been complaining about.
This is false. You’ll need to give me some cites before I respond to this. I reject the premise entirely.
You are unhappy with the social safety net we have today. The logical next step is that you must want to reduce or eliminate it. Doing this will result in actual people and children dying that don’t have to. This is reality, and the actual consequence of your wishes. This is not worst case scenario. This is the predictable result of what you want. If I’ve mischaracterized what it is that you want, then again I ask you to make an actual suggestion of how you want to deal with the issue from a policy perspective.
You did not. I was asking how you would separate the sponges from the worthy since you said it was the sponges who were undeserving.
I already did in my last post. We have 5% unemployment. That means 95% of the eligible workforce is employed which, as noted, is considered full employment or nearly so. 95% = “most”.
As noted, most are employed. “Good paying” is a whole different argument.
More than should which is another point of contention. It has been pointed out regularly that Walmart pays so little many of its employees need government assistance. What this amounts to is Walmart is getting you to subsidize their employees’ compensation. Walmart workers cost taxpayes $6.2 billion in public assistance (and of course they are not the only one). I hope you as zealous at stopping that and making Walmart pay a living wage as you are at ending the ACA.
The money you paid in is long gone. You’re collecting money others are now paying in.
This sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude that largess from the public purse that I receive is right, or proper, or deserved, or earned, while distributions to others is somehow suspect - is galling.
By way of contrast, I would like to give a shout-out to poster Bricker, whose posts I have followed, among others, over the years. Our politics widely diverge, but as a former Catholic, I appreciate the wisdom of his empathetic Christianity, the consideration of another before oneself. It is a philosophy lacking in the bulk of politics today.
So take your “earned” SSDI. Take the money that arrives monthly from the public trough, and enjoy. It’s yours.
And try not to gaze so critically at the mote in your neighbor’s eye.
Yes and no. The Social Security Trust fund dollars were invested in US Bonds, Notes, and maybe, TBills. If the trust fund is being reduced, money I paid in, is being used to pay at least part of my benefit. But I paid in for my grandparents and parents, so I don’t feel too bad about my kids paying for me.
It’s disgraceful that these freeloaders are wasting oxygen. If we only had liberty, they’d be able to sell both kidneys, liver etc. to the highest bidder, leave their mortal coils gracefully and repay some of their debts.
Better yet, since we know from Tarantino’s Hostel that some people will pay large sums to torture people, were our society free enough to allow it they could volunteer for that, and repay even more of the moneys they’ve stolen from taxpayers. Shouldn’t mortgage holders have the right to get a maximal return from bankrupts? “Quality of mercy is not strained” you say? Ha, there’s no such thing as mercy!
Wow! [sarcasm]Did you have to get a PhD in Econ to figure this out?[/sarcasm] Since I’m sure Hannity et al mention it at every opportunity, you must think everyone watching RealNews instead of FoxNews is a moron!
I suppose next you’ll tell us free public schools aren’t free, and that anyone earning less than $45,000 is wasting your money every time they call 911 to report a rapist. And the Pyramids weren’t really used to store grain, were they? Should we call up MSNBC and tell them Bricker knows all kinds of stuff the libtards need to learn about?
I suppose next you’ll tell us there’s no Santa Claus. :mad: While you’re disillusioning us: Were there WMD’s in Iraq? Is there balm in Gilead?
You’re right, the lenders who lent them the money, then chopped the mortgages up into ‘tranches’ (using entranching tools, I guess) to be re-packaged and re-sold in the Wall Street casino, were just passive participants, helpless in the face of Those People wanting to live above their means. :dubious: :rolleyes: :dubious:
Living high off the hog on subsidized health insurance. :dubious: :rolleyes: :dubious: Because that’s what living large is - being able to go to the doctor in time for your cancer to be treatable, rather than waiting until your symptoms drive you to the ER, and you find out you’re a dead man walking.
You know, all you fucking ‘personal responsibility’ conservatives might consider that, if you want Those Freeloaders to get jobs and work for a living, it’s a damned sight easier to be able to work if you’re in decent health.
How wonderfully paternalistic of you.
Working class folk surely rejoice that there are people like you around who can tell them what’s best for them. Which is apparently that they don’t deserve to get decent health care.
We aren’t. Liberals are for free availability of birth control, including the much more reliable long-term methods that don’t require taking a pill every day. They’re more expensive than The Pill, though, and conservatives have been upset that they’re ‘paying for people to have sex.’ You gotta talk to your own side about this one.
I didn’t used to know this, but during the Obama years, conservatives have informed me with great regularity that Social Security Disability Insurance - that’s what you’re collecting, right? - is just a big scam to pay for not having to work.
Generations of people worldwide used to expect their children (if they had any, and if they lived nearby, and if they were themselves in good health and otherwise capable to do it) to take care of them. Later, people in many countries came up with these national healthcare and pension schemes by which the duty to care for the elderly and the weak is moved in part or in whole from individual relatives to larger groups.
Generations of people worldwide expect to be cared for if they are weak or sick. And generations of people worldwide have been and keep being cared for.