This is excellent!

 

Someone has to clean up the poop - and the democrats always leave it to others to do.

If it was offered to him, he most likely will do just that .... did you ever think of that????

Yes, that used to be a position of the Democratic party. But lately it seems to me that saying that would make you a Republican in many Democrats' eyes.




Did you ever try offering a job like that to a homeless person?

There are some that are quite fine living outside and under bridges and going to shelters.  They have no accountability, no bills, no taxes and no one to hassle them and tell them what they have to do.  They can get free meals, clothes, showers and medical.  What more do they need?   Our church recently went to the homeless and helped them in all sorts of ways including feeding, clothing and passing out goodie bags with toiltries.  Many were grateful.  But there were some of the homeless that were vulgar and critical of what was being done on their behalf.   They laughed, swore and mocked my friends who spent more than a day of their own time on their behalf. 

Agreed.  The whole platform is to take from those who do and give to those who don't. 

well, I can see the dividing line here without knowing  which side of the fence you're on.

I have a friend who has a son in his 20's.  The kid is useless.  He has no ambition, no goals and is aimlessly walking thru life.  My friend, who has always been a hard worker blames the government.  See, when his son was 12 he gave him a much deserved spanking.  The kid went to school and told on his father.  The CPS came by and threatened my friend saying he was NOT to lay a hand on his son unless he wanted to see jailtime.  My friend said it was humiliating to sit there and take this from what looked to him somebody who didn't have a clue.  His son, knew exactly what he did and held it over his dad's head.  So now, this dad says, the government should take him in because they are the ones who created this surly, unresponsible kid who can't hold down a job for anything. 

ok,  I agree, but do you believe we should be FORCED to do so?  It's one thing to do something out of the goodness of your heart, it's quite another to be FORCED to care for another.  This is not biblical btw.  

If I go to the store and buy my groceries should I be forced to take 25% of what is in my carriage and give to another having no choice in who I give it too?  That's the way of the Dems and I don't think it's right at all. 

Then if you believe this, you should be a Republican, because what you just described here is not the Democratic way. 

Well actions speak louder than words. 

Some might, but many would see it as this better: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach this man to fish, feed him for life. I want this man to get a job, I would be willing to help him get this job, what i don't want is to have to work for him while he gets to sit back and enjoy his free time and free money. Is that really too much to ask? Or are you saying all homeless people are incapable of providing for themselves for one reason or another?

Nothing against your friend but there are other ways to discipline a child that don't involve spanking. Don't get me wrong I'm not against spanking I just know that there are other ways to discipline a child like timeouts, taking away perks like tv, computer, internet, game systems, don't allow them to play with the neighborhood kids, etc. I'm not saying that they all work, but it can't all be the governments fault. Hell now that the kid is in his 20's your friend can kick the kid out of the house, force him to get a job and pay his own way.

yes, I can see it now. A revolution of homeless people marching down the streets of Times Square holding up signs saying "I want work", "I'll clean your back yard for $5", "I'll pick fruits and veggies for minimum wage". But wait, what will happen to all the illegal immigrants who are doing the jobs some claim Americans don't want to do that now ThinkAloud believes homeless people would do if offered to them?

Thank you, Thank you. I'm here every Wednesday night. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

BTW KFC,

My boss loved this joke. So much he asked me for a copy to send to a couple of Liberal friends of his. LOL.

Hello KFC, All,

I read your comment about the church group assisting homeless and getting hassled in the process. I work at our local soup kitchen fairly frequently.  The hardest part is serving the food because we never really know what to expect coming through the line.  As nice, middle class, religious types, we harbor thoughts that homeless people might appreciate our efforts, and most do, but there are the occassions where its not a pretty picture. Here's the thing, many are homeless for very good reasons, rarely because they enjoy it or are comfortable with it.  Some might be antisocial personalities, paranoid, alcoholics, drug addicts.  Some might be relative imbiciles, uneducated and/or uneducable. Still others might be so tired of being on the bottom that they just do not have it in them to be nice.  

In the study I referred to, we interviewed abot a thousand homeless people, on the streets, under bridges, in abandoned cars and buildings, pretty much everywhere.  We found them in cities and small towns, as well as in rural areas.  As I recall, about a third needed mental health services, some were suffering from the effects of Ohio becoming part of he rust belt, many had substance abuse issues.  A substantial portion were combat veterans. 

 

This is not an easy population to work with.  Its rather like trying to nurture an injured animal: do so at your own risk.

 

You also mentioned something to the effect that we as citizens should not be "forced" to help others.  That's why we are to pay taxes and support public services. Clearly and historically, the private sector will not do it. There's no profit in it. And churches are not organized across the board, do not (or rarely) share information, services, or resources, and are, at best haphazard and untrained, and atr worst, fuel on the fire.

A society is often evaluated by how well it cares for its aged, sick, and otherwise dis-enfranchised citizenry.  While we in the US talk a good game our attitudes toweard the poor and dis-enfranchised are often so stereotypic as to create real problems aroud funding issues.  The result is poor and often terribly inadequate services, poor and intermittant service delivery, and a sense of entitlement by a growing underclass.  It is a terribly complex social problem which cannot, nor will not, be remedied by simplistic solutions.

Be well.

 

You know, I used to be what one would call a "Democrat" in the US.

But lately I constantly find myself on the side of the Republicans.

and this is liberal lunacy!

I'll give you an example from ME, my home state, from another liberal lunatic. George Mitchell was all gung ho over his "luxury tax." Maine, a very liberal state, is known to tax anything and everything. Maine is/was the highest taxed state in the nation.

Anyhow Mitchell came up with this tax to tax the rich. So it covered anything and everything from furs to jewelry to yachts. Dems were very proud of this because they felt they were socking it to the rich.

You know what happened? Within a year, Mitchell was back in the Senate passionately demanding an end to the same dreaded luxury tax. The levy had devestated Maine's boat building business, throwing yard workers, managers and salesmen out of jobs. The tax was repealed in 93. So much for that idea.

Bush's tax cuts on the other hand benefitted all, including the poor who don't pay any taxes at all. By taxing the big corporations with a heavy hand isn't going to solve anything. Their costs will be handed down to us, the average joe anyhow. So going after say the oil companies' profits is only going to push up the price of oil for the consumer.

Taxing the evil rich people unfairly isn't the answer. Winston Churchill said:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equl sharing of miseries."

So let's make everyone miserable?

"According to a 2007 study by the heritage Foundation, "Since 2000 the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4%-meaning the average famiy in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81% to 85%.

So the poorest Americans went from paying nothing to actually getting a subsidy but liberals still oppose Bushs tax cuts because the "rich" got some relief too.

Buh's tax cuts were a great economic stimulus. It's funny how peope tend to work harder and become more ambitious whenever you let them keep more of their own income. The unemployment rate in Jan 2007 was the second lowest since the mid 1970's."

(Excerpt taken from "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by Mark W. Smith)