Bush shows contempt for elderly

[Timber Loftis]

I don't know that my battle cry would be Nalia's ("For the needy!" ), but I must say that other spending *has* increased while this program for the poor has been cut. Now when you want to buy more bombs, I'm fine with decreasing some spending. Pork barrel bicycle paths in Austin and navy yards in North Carolina come to mind as programs to take money from - even though these are 5-yrs-ago examples. But, I would put heating subsidies for the poor pretty low on the list of programs to decrease.

And, please, for sake of debate, let's assume there is a decrease and not try to argue over inflation rate and compounding interest issues. But on that note, I think if you'll read the article, Messrs. Muppets you'll note that it's a drop in real dollar expenditures.

Perhaps we cut the budget because Mr. President felt we needed better surveillance equipment. On that note, a national source recently published the following explanation as to whay the Bush Administration was having trouble finding Osama:



But, on a serious note, two points must be made.

1. I would rather see the $$$ go to provide heat for the poor in Chicago than bail out United or SBC in Chicago - both of which are defunct corporations that just this year have taken over a hundred million in bailout money. C'mon people, if we expect our poor to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, then that applies to poor companies, too. It's dispicable to claim capitalism and then bail out corporations.

2. If the administration could get a handle on the economy, there'd be more money and less belt-tightening. Now, those of you out there getting ready to trot out the "President and economy are not related" brigade can kiss off: that's an argument made by administrations with bad economies. Now, I don't agree with all the polemico crap Slate slaps on the internet, but here's a poorly-written piece with some good points regarding Bush's mishandling of the economy, and addressing how a president can actually do things to affect the economy:
http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2072281

Oh, and good mooring all. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Snow in Chicago, if anyone's interested. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

Hey TL that retouched photo has been playing around the internet longer than the Anna Kornakova sites. The original photo clearly showed the lens caps dangling. Nice reminder how accurate the web can be though [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: In response to your #2 above, umm I seem to recall that argument being made about the president during good economies too. Why isn't Illinois taking care of these people? Why should people from Rhode Island with their own problems be worried about those people in chicago?

[ 12-02-2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Magick:

1. The photo was a joke, see.

2. You are bright enough to know that the feds control much more localized stuff that they rightly should. Power of the pocketbook and all that. Illinois isn't dealing with these people primarily because DC feels the need to collect lots of $$$ and then dole it out as it sees fit - even though DC has little idea of how to rightly spend money in the city of Chicago as opposed to the desert of NEw Mexico as opposed to the plains of Nebraska. And, IMHO, this applies no matter the administration in power.

Moreover, the state of Illinois is very very poor at the moment. Now, that may be due to whatever fiscal woes, but the point is that when we as society face decisions regarding welfare spending, I don't think anyone here can dispute the fact that heat for the poor (note: heat, not VCRs or TVs) is pretty high on the list. And, that point applies whether it is DC, Chicago, Springfield, or Timbuktu spending the $$$$.

[edit:] Come to think of it, I'm still seeing that a$$hole in the question-mark coat running around on late night TV advertising his telephone-book-sized guide to thousands of gov. programs where "you, yes YOU, can get FREE money." Why don't we take some of THAT money and give it to the poor. Truly, do you really want to see your tax dollars send somebody already on WIC and AFDC back to school for plumber training rather than see those dollars provide a little heat for society's most needing members? Elderly members who, in some instances, have likely already spent their time working their tails off only to have some Republican-backed golden-parachute yuppie geek waste their pensions on bad investments and million-dollar lobbying?

3. Hope you had a good turkey-day.

[ 12-02-2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Magick: 1. The photo was a joke, see. 2. You are bright enough to know that the feds control much more localized stuff that they rightly should. Power of the pocketbook and all that. Illinois isn't dealing with these people primarily because DC feels the need to collect lots of $$$ and then dole it out as it sees fit - even though DC has little idea of how to rightly spend money in the city of Chicago as opposed to the desert of NEw Mexico as opposed to the plains of Nebraska. And, IMHO, this applies no matter the administration in power. Moreover, the state of Illinois is very very poor at the moment. Now, that may be due to whatever fiscal woes, but the point is that when we as society face decisions regarding welfare spending, I don't think anyone here can dispute the fact that heat for the poor (note: heat, not VCRs or TVs) is pretty high on the list. And, that point applies whether it is DC, Chicago, Springfield, or Timbuktu spending the $$$$. 3. Hope you had a good turkey-day.

The point I didn't make I suppose is, Yeaht eh pic is a joke, but a really OOOOOOllddd one

As for the Feds controlling the $$ sorry to say, but it is not the feds job to be worried about internal state matters. The State is supposed to look after the welfare of its citizens with some support of the fed, not the other way around. As for IL. being strapped for cash...show me a state that isn't.

I guess im just pissed off that everyone looks to the feds for handouts, but that is really the least efficient method of taking care of the problem. More money gets wasted the more levels of beauracratic bull dung that are added.

I won't even explore the responsibilities of individuals for their own welfare and for the responsibilities of family (another benefit of the nuclear family) for the welfare of family members.

[Timber Loftis]

To continue:

I agree it's a state's affair. But, MY point is the feds won't let it be that way. Now, if the system could be redone, I'd be all for more state control - a point I agree heavily with republicans about (though I really mean it, and I suspect NO politician in DC truly wants to see power leave DC). But, given the situation AS IS, my simple point is that the $$$ should go to something like this as opposed to several other wasteful programs I've aptly cited.

As for family members caring for loved ones - too true. But, most homeless folks I've met simply have no family left (and, yes, I interview them upon occassion to satisfy my curiosity). That doesn't mean society should let them absolutely fall through the cracks. Now, I'm not for doling money out to people just because they are lazy or the victims of bad luck. But, in a first world country, we have enough welfare $$$ floating around to spend them on food and heat for those who will freeze to death this winter without it.

We seem to be on the same page then TL [img]smile.gif[/img] I too spent some time with the homeless. In San Diego (a warm place with more than its share if indigents) I had to work in some of the major congrgational areas. I found the majority of the homeless there were or appeared to be mentally disturbed. There were a few people who had bad luck stories and a great many of those were due to alcohol or drugs. Only a few actually wanted or seemed interested in permanent changes to their status. And of course the gangs were a whole different story.

As for bailing out failed companies, in some cases this action may help keep the unfortunate working class employed by those companies from becoming like the current lot of homeless. But you are also correct, there is probably more than enough squandered and fradulent money floating around our current welfare system to take care of everyone.

[Timber Loftis]

I promise I'm not posting this to rattle your cage, MagiK, but... The extreme amount of homeless folks in CA with mental isssues is, as far as I know, a result of Reagan. In an effort to balance the budget when he was governor, he closed a large number of state-run mental treatment wards, resulting in an overnight turning-out of thousands of homeless. Now, I haven't fully researched this but that was the general wisdom and history I was told by Californians.

On the bright side, at least it's reasonably warm in CA. Which may explain the high number of indigents there. I know I would try to migrate there if I had no home.

My cage remains unrattled [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think you are way misinformed though [img]smile.gif[/img]

The majority of homeless in San Diego are surprisingly (NOT) not California natives. They migrate to areas of warmth and reletivly mild climate. Want to know how many homeless wander the streets of Anchorage Alaska? Not very damn many (Yes I have spent a bit of time in Anchorage). By the time I got to San Diego, Reagan was long gone and Grey Davis has since made up for any lack in socialistic policies

Edit: You know, for some reason I have not been actually angered by anything in the last couple of weeks...could a woman actually have tamed my wild rages?

[ 12-02-2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by MagiK: My cage remains unrattled [img]smile.gif[/img] Edit: You know, for some reason I have not been actually angered by anything in the last couple of weeks...could a woman actually have tamed my wild rages?

[img]graemlins/kissy2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lovestory2.gif[/img] I imagine it's possible! [img]smile.gif[/img]