COL Gene COL Gene

LET THEM STARVE

▼

LET THEM STARVE

The Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush

from JoeUser Forums


Bush in his 2007 budget has proposed ending a program started in 1968 to distribute Federal Surplus Food to needy seniors. That program CSFP provides boxes of surplus food each month to 420, 000 of the poorest American seniors in 32 states and Washington D.C. The total cost of this program is $107 Million per year and is one of the ways Bush plans to deal with a $600 Billion dollar deficit. Bush claims that this is an overlapping program with food stamps. However when AARP looked at how much many of the people receiving this Surplus Food is receiving from Food Stamps, they found they receive $10 or $20 per month from the Food Stamp Program. How the Hell is this an OVERLAPPING program? The fact is it is supplemental and if an elderly poor person receives the $20 from Food Stamps and the Surplus Food at a value of $55 they receive the GRAND SUM per month of $75. I bet we, as tax payers, spend MORE then $75 per day to feed George W. Bush in the White House!

Bottom line, this Cut is unlikely to survive the GOP in Congress since many are concerned about their own reelection in November 2006. I hope Our Lord Jesus is looking upon his servant George W. Bush to see what Bush is trying to do to the LEAST of his people!
politics
22,454 views 73 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
You do?? Where can I get one?!? Access is so much easier when they only have one leg


OMFG, I laughed so loud when I read that that I woke up the dogs and got bitched at by my dear husband for being too loud. Fucking hilarious, your Empness.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moreso because I assumed he was talking about a guy...


So had I.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakestreet

I bet many of the 500,000 home owners in New Orleans that lost their homes are in the POOR category. They may have owned there little home and now have NOTHING. The Insurance will not pay even if they had homeowners Insurance and many have very little and to rebuild even with a low interest loan. Look at the 9th Ward 10 months AFTER the storm. The majority of the homes are STILL PILES of Rubble.

When Bush made his speech 10 days after Katrina he acknowledged what you still will not admit-- There are a large number of Americans living in POVERTY. Bush quickly forgot this and returned to his Conservative Values-- Take care of the RICH! Some have been critical at me relating to Jesus. The ONLY reason I raise that issue is because Bush continually tells us about his religious beliefs. His policies toward the poor and elderly sure do not demonstrate ANY compassion for their needs.

I will give George one thumbs UP- Per his tax returns; he does give about 10% to charity for which I applaud him. Cheney does not file the Schedules A and B so you do not know what he does about giving to charities. I believe charities are helping but I also know the NEED is FAR greater then the charities can provide and that is government deeds to fill in the gap!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
When Bush made his speech 10 days after Katrina he acknowledged what you still will not admit-- There are a large number of Americans living in POVERTY. Bush quickly forgot this and returned to his Conservative Values-- Take care of the RICH! Some have been critical at me relating to Jesus. The ONLY reason I raise that issue is because Bush continually tells us about his religious beliefs. His policies toward the poor and elderly sure do not demonstrate ANY compassion for their needs


I notice you can't refute his post. You just go back to blaming Bush for Katrina.

I believe charities are helping but I also know the NEED is FAR greater then the charities can provide and that is government deeds to fill in the gap!


You mean welfare state.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

NO I do not mean a Welfare State!!!!!!!! I mean SOME of our people need help. If they either can not provide for their needs (Old and/or disabled) or work but have a job that is needed for which the pay is below a living wage, we should provide a supplement where needed (i.e. the Surplus Food). For those that CAN and DO NOT contribute, I would NOT support help to them at taxpayer expense! Just because we help the people that NEED help does NOT make this a welfare state! That is what I call a Christian!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
" mean SOME of our people need help."


Then give them help, instead of paying them to continue suffering.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those that CAN and DO NOT contribute, I would NOT support help to them at taxpayer expense!


Which is a great majority of what you call "poverty" in this country. As Baker pointed out in post #22, our "poor" in this country are not as bad off as you make them to be. If you want to see real poor col I suggest you traveling to france or some other socialist countries who think accomidating every single person through higher taxation works.

NO I do not mean a Welfare State!!!!!!!! I mean SOME of our people need help.


I agree someone who cannot work because of no fault of their own should be helped. I will finally agree with something else you say. "Some" people need help col, not a great majortiy. Although your constant "blame Bush" for this problem is totally ignorant considering this has been a problem for decades. And don't start with your "Bush is making it worse" rhetoric because most of America is doing just fine. Unemployment is at VERY LOW rates.


Just because we help the people that NEED help does NOT make this a welfare state!


You are right again col, but this is not what you usually preach. You seem to make the arguement that someone who makes a low wage at their own choice should somehow get assistance from the government. That is where the welfare state comes in. Althoug you won't answer directly you also seem to run around the idea that the rich in this country must somehow support someone who isn't rich. Income redistribution as it's known elsewhere.

That is what I call a Christian!


For once col had a somewhat decent post and you just had to throw this in. Christian organizations help a lot of people in need col. I think what you are doing is insulting them even though you are probably trying to throw a jab at Bush.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then give them help, instead of paying them to continue suffering.


A simple, but excellent point.

Do you understand col that democrats and liberals do their best to keep people poor? Take a look at the illegal immigration issue which you propose to care so much about. Democrats around the country are proposing federal benefits for illegals, and many illegals already do get federal benefits both legally and illegally. Why are they doing this? For a new voting class that the majority will be on entitlement programs.

The same applies to most minority classes that the democrats use for votes in each election.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is NOT the government's JOB to feed the poor and needy, Col. As soon as you realize that, we can begin meaningful work on cutting the federal budget. When the government collects money to redistribute to the poor, it does so in a notoriously inefficient manner that returns 50 cents for every dollar it collects. I am going to borrow a phrase from little whip and ask you: if seniors are starving in America, WHERE ARE THE BODIES? Your proposal of increasing spending and increasing taxes to meet the spending will quickly bankrupt this country as wise businesspeople will quickly discover that it is better to do business elsewhere (at which point you will propose tariffs, which will lead to massive inflation due to higher costs for the end user).

The government needs to do its job and leave charities to do their job.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please answer if you believe Jesus would have cut surplus food to the older poor?


Actually, Jesus wasn't a governmental leader, he was a RELIGIOUS leader. I believe his statements made it VERY clear that those are two separate areas.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
For all that agree with the Budget Cut I outlined in this Blog, I guess you must like Scrooge as well.


COL,

Did you actually READ "A Christmas Carol" or do you just get your quotes from the Democratic Underground? If you READ the book, you will notice that the problem with Scrooge was that he depended on the GOVERNMENT programs to help the poor, and figured because he had paid his taxes, he didn't have to help out of his own pocketbook ("are their no poorhouses" "many would rather DIE than go to those poorhouses" "Perhaps they SHOULD, and decrease the surplus population". Sounds like a DEMOCRAT to me!). Next time you use an analogy, make sure your usage fits!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty


Are you aware that our standards of poverty are VASTLY higher than the world standard? 1/5th of the world's population lives on $1 a day or less...virtually NOBODY in America is that destitute (and if they are, they're STUPID! You can make more than that collecting cans off the street). You also haven't addressed the fact that what is considered "poverty" on a national level is a reasonable wage in some areas.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I worked with people that met the poor and very poor categories when I served as President of Cape Coral Housing and Rehabilitation Corp. The definition changes each year and I can assure you the people that we dealt with that level of income had a VERY hard time paying for the ESSENTIALS of life. Many people including the conservatives do not want to admit how many people are in the category or just how difficult it is to live on that income! What people can live on in other countries mean NOTHING when trying to live in this country with the cost of housing, energy and health care.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon

He also made it clear just what happened when the Rich man turned a deaf ear to the needs of Lazarus who had nothing!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Charity is like turning the other cheek. As long as it is your cheek, then you are making the sacrifice. When you endanger other people with your forgiveness, or steal THEIR money to give to charity, it is worse than doing nothing at all.

Therefore, if you are concerned with charity, focus on charity. Government isn't in the business of charity, and when you institutionalize it, it is no longer charity, it is simply paying people to be poor with other people's money.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend. That is the lesson Bush and the GOP has not learned.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend. That is the lesson Bush and the GOP has not learned.


It's stealing when you demand them to be only on one class of Americans.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top



Reasonable tax rates are NOT stealing. We have an obligation to pay for what we choose to spend


You seem to be missing a "very" important point......."We" (the american public) did NOT "chose" to spend it. Congress did. Let "them" figure out a way to pay for it. When I get a yes/no vote on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, "then" you can talk about raising taxes.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon

He also made it clear just what happened when the Rich man turned a deaf ear to the needs of Lazarus who had nothing!


Quit trying to twist the Bible into saying something it doesn't. Christ preached about PERSONAL responsibility, NOT governmental responsibility. There is a HUGE difference.

I have never denied personal responsibility; in fact, I have issued a standing offer to replace your friend's $10 food stamp money with a personal $10 cash contribution if he will swear off the food stamp money. The only stipulation is he has to prove he is not receiving food stamps anymore. My $10 is legal tender, whereas food stamps can only be used in certain places, for certain items.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I NEVER said taxes should only be paid by one class of people. Now you LIE. What I said is the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy should be reversed and return to old rates. That would apply the Federal Income tax all but the poor who have a hard time LIVING without Federal Income Taxes. Even the poor pay sales. Payroll and local taxes.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
I NEVER said taxes should only be paid by one class of people. Now you LIE. What I said is the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy should be reversed and return to old rates.


That is just what you are saying. Returning to the old rates IS A TAX INCREASE. Increasing taxes on the WEALTHY CLASS is what you propose. Your obsession with Bush is blinding you.


That would apply the Federal Income tax all but the poor who have a hard time LIVING without Federal Income Taxes. Even the poor pay sales. Payroll and local taxes.


And a minimal tax should be placed on the poor to help make up for the services they use. Although you the socialist believe peoples wealth should be tied to the federal government.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
And a minimal tax should be placed on the poor to help make up for the services they use. Although you the socialist believe peoples wealth should be tied to the federal government.


I believe every wage earner in America should pay a minimal tax. Many of the poor, however, DO actually pay taxes when it balances out. Sure, they may receive an EIC check, but many pay sales taxes, property taxes, state income tax, vehicle registration, gasoline tax, and various other hidden taxes that lead to some financial contribution to the community.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

That is correct returning to the old rates is a tax increase on that group that can afford to pay a little more. The two reasons for this are first, we need to balance the budget and no amount of cuts alone will produce the $600 Billion we are out of balance. Second, the tax cuts were to return a surplus that Bush claimed existed. That was not true and therefore the basic reason for the tax cuts did not exist and they were not justified in the first place. There was NOTHING to give back. WE were not being OVER TAXED as Bush Claimed because his surplus was nothing but HOT AIR!
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon

You are correct as I pointed out the Poor actually pay a large portion of their income in the taxes you mentioned and may pay a greater portion then the very wealthy relative to their income!

We need to return to the advice both O'Neil and Greenspan gave us when the tax cut talk began in 2001. They both said the tax cuts should be tied to the available SURPLUS with which to pay for them. They BOTH told this to Bush and WARNED him about returning to annual budget deficits which Bush ignored!