Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think veterans with disabilities have paid nothing and only take.
No, probably not. But that's what you just argued.
No, that's not what I argued at all.
It's the welfare recipients who've not paid for their Federal Government-funded services and entitlements that Obama has chosen to continue to favor at the senior citizens' and veterans' expense.
If you look at the steady drop for Obama here since the day he said he wouldn't guarantee any Social Security checks after August 2, it becomes more and more apparent that some old people are being called and they are not happy.
My mother in law called the other day complaining to the gf about the possible cutting off of her check.. When the conversation turned towards my way, which I knew it undoubtably would for money, I wanted to shout
WOMAN, YOUR 70 YEARS OLD, YOU'VE WORKED YOUR WHOLE LIFE, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO WITH ALL YOUR CASH?
Luckily though I refrained, I dont like the couch very much.. haha
It's the welfare recipients who've not paid for their Federal Government funded services and entitlements that Obama has chosen to continue to favor at the senior citizens' and veterans' expense.
That's the redistribution of wealth. All eyes are on the "rich" when in reality the middle class is being drained and it's going to the underclass which is growing.
That's the redistribution of wealth. All eyes are on the "rich" when in reality the middle class is being drained and it's going to the underclass which is growing.
And growing exponentially, as I've already posted.
Way to go with "How to Lie With Statistics"! That is the title of a book, BTW; am not calling you a liar.
I read the entire report. Here is the relevant section:
Births per 1000 women, ages 15 to 50
Women on public assistance: 160.4
Women not on public assistance: 56.1
You have to have a child to BE on public assistance, therefore virtually all women on public assistance have children, not so for women not on public assistance. In other words, women on pubic assistance are a subset of women who have had children. That number says nothing about the birth rates for individual women on welfare.
Way to go with "How to Lie With Statistics"! That is the title of a book, BTW; am not calling you a liar.
I read the entire report. Here is the relevant section:
Births per 1000 women, ages 15 to 50
Women on public assistance: 160.4
Women not on public assistance: 56.1
You have to have a child to BE on public assistance, therefore virtually all women on public assistance have children, not so for women not on public assistance. In other words, women on pubic assistance are a subset of women who have had children. That number says nothing about the birth rates for individual women on welfare.
um, isnt public assistance, welfare? And you do NOT have to have a child to be on welfare..
In my family many of the retired folks never really earned more than 5 dollars an hour and worked very hard to earn it, they all paid in to Social security and they deserve to have it paid to them.
These are examples of people the new tax break is designed to help: A single person earning $46,705, or 80 percent of the area's median income next year. A household of three earning $90,110, or 120 percent of the area's median income in 2009. The city defines an affordable place as costing no more than 30 percent of a household's income.
****************
Yeah...hard to make it on 120 K these days.......
I don't know if this is sad or not sad. I guess it depends on your point of view.
Look at the examples on the side of the article - You make $46,075? That's low income, chum.
I disagree. A 3 to 1 birth rate (women on public assistance have a birth rate 3 times that of those not on public assistance) exponentially grows the dependent class. Supporting them and their exponentially increasing numbers will very quickly become completely unsustainable.
One large reason for that is that any "fund" it can create can be exploited and used for revenues. Revenues that you don't necessarily ever get to utilize as a member of the so-called "public". Have you looked at a CAFR or equivalent?
Never mind keeping people chained into the system. They don't want you breathing w/o taxing it or giving you permission.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
