COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mom2oneson

    turned me off to it. It just seemed like it was a little “too clean.” I watched it and it made me skeptical.

  • SpL

    I wonder who was the genius who decided to equate Tea Parties with an erotic act. The Tea Party is one of those things that the Left will ignore until it’s too late, as people continue to struggle economically. Just as the Right did with some things when they were in total control.

    • molybdanthan

      over at the Daily Show that went to the 2004 GOP convention and told the delegates to ask for deviant fetishes with innocuous sounding names. I saw it, and I remember.

      Their minds just stay at or below a guttural level. Sewage in, sewage out. Don’t expect that to change any time soon.

      • SpL
  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/republican587/ Elizabeth Christian

    n/t

  • flip

    her remarks were ignorant. But at the same time this woman claims to have grown up on wellfare, One area most conservatives label as ‘hand-outs’ and wasteful government spending. I most certianly think that the government did play a role in changing her life circumstance from ‘homeless’ to ‘on welfare’.

    • Jack_Savage

      And you are absolutely defending the witless Garafolo, so don’t try peddling this “I am not defending her, but…” garbage here.

      Again, what she said was “The President cannot change the circumstances of your life”.

      • flip

        “I outlined my struggles living in poverty and growing up on welfare…”

        “No President is going to change your life circumstances. No Government, No Friends, No Family, No friends but certianly no president are going to change your life circumstances.”

        Those quotation marks mean i am using someone elses words, in this case they are Katrina Pierson’s

        Did you watch the video?

        Or are you just as ignorant as Janeane…

        If someone else would like to actually have an intelligent conversation that would be greatly appreciated…

        • Jack_Savage

          At the beginning of the video as I was screwing with the volume, and I missed it.

          Now Einstein, tell me where I missed this part:

          “I most certianly (sic) think that the government did play a role in changing her life circumstance from ?homeless? to ?on welfare?.”

          Exactly where did she say she was “homeless”? And did it ever occur to you that she did not have any choice as she was growing up about whether she was on welfare or not? Did you catch the part when she talked about not having any support or role models? Perhaps your little welfare state doesn’t really prepare one for real life, does it?

          I would like to have an intelligent conversation also, but having one with a shill for the failed welfare state isn’t in the cards. Try again, Mr. 6 Days.

          • flip

            But that is what she would have been if she had not been on welfare. In no way am i blaming her for being on welfare or attaking her, she was a child. The point is that the government did change her situation as a youngster. And she looks like she is prepared for real life pretty well so maybe you should ask her about how welfare prepares you for life

          • Vegas_Rick
          • Jack_Savage

            “And she looks like she is prepared for real life pretty well so maybe you should ask her about how welfare prepares you for life.”

            So now welfare prepares you for life, huh? If you listened to the video as carefully as you say you have, you would realize that the whole point of her story is how government does not change your situation, only you can change your situation.

            Argue for the benefits of welfare with someone else. The only thing that supports your position is some half-baked fantasy.

          • sybilll

            by putting food on the table and helping her mother with housing, etc. In her Dallas speech, she talks at length about how her mother’s firm stance on putting education first is what prepared her for life. A wise mother, not the enslavement of government welfare deserves credit.

            Someone give this woman permanent air-time.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Her point was that while she grew up on welfare, it was up to her to get off of it, and, to make her own life. She?s warning others, who are in the position she was in, not to count on the One, or the Democrats to make their lives better. She?s saying, ?Don?t listen to their false promises. Pick yourself up and take responsibility for your own life.?

      At least that?s my take. Maybe I just look for the bright side.

      • Husker
        • flip

          But my point is that the welfare that helped her get to where she is is part of that wasteful spending that she was out there protesting.

          I also appreciate you being able to express your point of view in order to come to some sort of understanding without being rude. I obviously am not a huge right winger but im on here because i believe this sort of conversation is missing between people with different view points.

          • Vegas_Rick

            How do you know that? Isn’t it just as likely that, like millions of others on welfare, she was trapped by it? Is it even remotely possible that she may have thrived if she were in an environment where the adults actually worked for a living? Is it remotely possible that she was on welfare because her care givers were content to be on it?

            I don’t know and neither do you.

            But what I do know, from any number of studies, (don’t ask for links, do your own research) is that the poverty roles shrank significantly after welfare reform.

          • mom2oneson

            That is kind of my problem with her first video. You don’t just wake up one day and decide to and leave all public assistance and that day is the end of receiving help. She kind of gave this impression like she just had to want not to be on it and that was the end of it for her.

            If you ever wanted to post a diary about it I want to know why ou think welfare is a trap? I think there are problems with it but a trap isn’t one of them.

            Welfare roles may have shrank but that doesn’t mean people are better off. I am not for these welfare to work programs, but that is a rant for time. :) I think they are just a way of expanding gov programs for young children and creating more jobs for state workers.

          • Vegas_Rick

            You will get more hits than you can handle that will show how and why welfare is a trap? ALL entitlement programs are traps because they incent people to quit looking out for their own welfare. Whether that be Social Security- plan and finance your own retirement. Medicare- plan and save to cover your own medical care. Unemployment insurance (while I can stomach this one)- save for a rainy day. Etc

            These are conservative values. People who follow them generally don’t need public assistance.

          • mom2oneson

            Results 1 – 10 of about 3,150,000 for poverty and welfare. (0.23 seconds)

            :)

          • Jack_Savage

            “But my point is that the welfare that helped her get to where she is…”

            In all likelyhood, welfare held she and her family and her neighbors back, and condemned all but her to a hellish dependence on the government.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • mom2oneson

            nt

          • JadedByPolitics

            You would see that welfare does nothing to move up more than perhaps 10 percent of recipients…It is the rare person on welfare who uses that chance to make themselves a success a larger percentage spend it until they can figure away to get more government assistance it is a sickness for the majority of those takers!

          • mom2oneson

            I thought these programs were supposedly there to be a safety net to keep people with food (food stamps) cash (AFDC) and medical care (medicaid) formula (WIC) and housing (section 8/projects).
            It’s not the fault of these programs if people are lazy and don’t take advantage of education and opportunities. It’s not the fault of these programs if people have lots of children out of wedlock. It’s not the fault of these programs if people divorce and don’t support their kids. I think we are putting too much blame on welfare and not on people’s character/morals. I think there are inherent problems with getting something from the gov but I think more blame shoudl be placed on people’s character if they are young and healthy.

          • Jack_Savage

            And I agree to a point. I would say that if these programs were a last resort safety net, I would not have too much of a problem with it. They have become a subsidy to a way of life, however – a way of life that is destructive to the fabric of society. These programs have taken the act of charity out of the hands of private individuals and organizations, and put it in the hands of government.

            I believe if the programs weren’t there, or were very, very restrictive, there would be no financial benefit to the situations you describe, and their prevalence would most likely be reduced. You get what you subsidize.

          • Jack_Savage

            The dependence of individuals on welfare has prevented families from moving to independent living and perpetuated the cycle of poverty. When rules for certain programs required that homes receiving assistance be headed by a single parent, that almost single – handedly destroyed the black family.

            I have direct and personal experience observing the behavior of generations of family members who know nothing else but how to apply for benefits from the government.

            It sounds like you have had a different experience, as a small percentage of benefit recipients have. What I am saying is that the welfare state has been the single most devestating program for families, and the program most responsible for families not being able, or willing, to improve their circumstance in life.

          • JadedByPolitics

            It has been my experience that those who learn to take and take rarely learn to EARN! It is the RARE success story that eminates from welfare!

          • Jack_Savage

            Dependency is slavery, the chains are gold instead of iron.

          • mom2oneson

            like they can’t make decisions. Also I’ve never heard of a public assistance program that requires the person to be single, they are based on family size and income. If the black family was destroyed in some areas I don’t see how that has anything to do with public assistance? I think that type of thinking takes the responsibility away from individuals like the can’t make good decisions because they have not. You are putting the blame on public assistance instead of holding individuals responsible for things they should be help accountable for. If someone lazy, practices promiscuity, adultry, bad parenting, etc whatever has caused the family to break up they should be held accountable to that.

            Now I do believe that public assistance/gov intervention paying for things raises the prices for everyone and makes it harder for people not on it I totally believe that, medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 are perfect examples.

          • tcgeol

            When someone knows that they will be supported irregardless of poor decisions, stupidity, bad character, or whatever, there is no reason for them to do anything to better themselves. Welfare allows for these pathetic leeches to live as they please and still survive without facing the natural and proper consequences for their actions.

            Sure, there are a few decent people such as yourself who have been helped by it, but judging from the people I have known who were receiving public aid, you are in the great minority.

            Aside from that, public assistance is as unconstiutional as can be. Even if it did work, we shouldn’t have it, at least in the form it is currently in.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            is that they tend to talk of welfare as a monolithic entity rather than a set of programs – and also tend to lump recipients into a single category which can be labeled with whatever the discussant wishes to project on them – either pitying or disdainful.

            As you know, neither is the case – nor has has welfare remained the same over time. And welfare has been ill-served by heavy-handed top-down regulation and management. I know that for some people it made the difference between enabling them to reenter society as a responsible citizen and utter penury and physical jeopardy. I know someone rather well who was in a similar position as you (a single mom at the time) whom welfare enabled to regain equilibrium. One key factor: she and (I suspect) you both came out of largely intact family structures, which is not the case with the multigenerational subculture of welfare that has sprung up in many communities.

            In that sense, I do think it can be argued that the misbegotten welfare programs with its perverse incentives to push fathers away from their families that came out of the Great Society was itself destructive to family structures and community coherence – even if only it largely served as a positive feedback mechanism to self-destructive and family-destructive actions.

            But until the current Congress returned to the bad-old days with their latest welfare policies, I think that welfare reforms were mitigating some of the worst features – and there was an openness to experiment to see what interventions worked and what didn’t. Rebuilding communities and changing values take time, though. And reforming bureaucratic inhumanity while protecting against fraud is a huge challenge.

            Unfortunately, it does look like we’re headed backwards for the next few years at least.

          • Jack_Savage

            To add to what you said, the basic premise has morphed from protecting those who cannot take care of themselves to protecting those who will not take care of themselves. Broadly speaking, the concept of government funded social programs has infested the family structure and decision processes of lower income people to the point that they have no idea how to take care of themselves, even if they wanted to. The Katrina example is a perfect one.

            I was taught how to read, write, do math and that I had better get to work if I wanted to eat and have a roof over my head. That made me focus wonderfully -every bad decision I made (and there were plenty), I paid for, and I didn’t do it again. Bad decisions are now subsidized, even at the highest levels of business, and the term “corporate welfare” has a very good chance of escaping my lips in the near future.

          • flip

            The main difference was my preconcieved notion that wellfare helps people(which I guess is the idea behind it’s creation).

          • Vegas_Rick

            While I don’t personally believe welfare was created to help people, rather than to buy votes from those looking for handouts, even if FDR had the purest of intentions, there are always unintended consequences.

            I believe that the residents of New Orleans responded to hurricane Katrina with helplessness because they were so used to being taken care of, that they didn’t know how to look out for their own. I do not blame those residents.

            I blame the self-serving politicians who think it is their job to be our keeper. Because, Katrina is what inevitably happens to those kept by the statist.

          • Jack_Savage

            “I believe that the residents of New Orleans responded to hurricane Katrina with helplessness because they were so used to being taken care of, that they didn?t know how to look out for their own. I do not blame those residents.”

            They were waiting for George Bush to come by in a rowboat, and thought he was racist when he didn’t.

          • Vegas_Rick

            I’m not nearly as eloquent as the rest of you. But sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :)

          • mom2oneson

            If people are foolish and do not prepare to the best of their ability, how is that the fault of welfare? I’m sure the stores in NOLA accept food stamp benefits to buy bottled water and tuna with. That is common sense and has nothing to do with being on welfare or not being on welfare. We should call helplessness what it is and blame the individuals not welfare. I do not believe welfare is the cause of people not using the brains the Lord gave them to prepare and protect their children and elderly.

          • Leopard1996

            I think that what most people are saying here, and what I have said in a few posts is that the current system, appears to reward those by staying in that loop instead of incentivising them to get out of the loop of needing the public assistance. Hence it appears that more money going to these programs is throwing good money after bad. Now if there was a incentive to get off of the programs, like subsidizing the difference between what somebody made at a lower rung job with money to bring them up to a livable standard of living that may be fine, (I would probably advocate that), but right now if you try to dig yourself out on your own accord you are totally cut off, and if you look at the economics of it, digging yourself out just isn’t worth it.

          • mom2oneson

            Actually most of the people I know that recieve public assistance are that, they receive food stamps and mediciad, they work full time but don’t have any skills earn very much and realistically can’t go back to school to get those skills. When you are approved for those things, there is a pretty high income limit before you even after to report any changes in income.

            I did live in projects for a short time and I did see what you mean about those that don’t work and have no motivation..especially with young men. I posted this before but there was a vocational college across the street from the projects but all around the projects the young men would just be standing around. It’s still like that is very low income areas, one thing that stands out are all the young men on the streets doing nothing.

          • Leopard1996

            Getting rid of the welfare program. It is great that our society has a social net. But just like a trapeeze artist you have have to get off the net and get back on the Tapeeze and finsh the show.

            The way this system is now, it appears that you get penalized for doing just that, and unless you have some testicular fortitude, like it seems this woman here does (I did not watch the video, just looking at the comments here). You are more apt to hang in the net, instead of get out of it and the system rewards that instead of giving incentives to get out of the net.

          • mom2oneson

            You can’t do much when you are starving.There is a huge improvement in life when someone that needs food and gets approved for benefits, the difference between being preoccupied with that constantly needing sugar hungry feeling or trying to create a meals out of not so much for their kids that the kids will eat and constantly focusing on that vs eating and then focusing on work or finding a job or functioning. Being approved in the system does give some security for whatever it is that they are approved for. .

          • mom2oneson

            benefit is being given out.. Housing keeps someone from living in the car and stuff like that.

        • mom2oneson

          I’ve been here for around a year and something didn’t sit right with me when I heard her first video and it’s the same with this one. I posted a comment at the top. Aside from her own story that doesn’t sit right with me, something about the way she is addressing J.G bothers me too.

  • molybdanthan

    is like a dog with his leg up. That’s not the kind of trickle down anyone wants.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

      n/t

    • mom2oneson

      You wouldn’t be comparing the food the gov buys you to dog urine.

      • molybdanthan

        If there is no food to buy, I will plant crops. I may starve, and I may die. But it’s up to me. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to go? That’s not just in an ideal situation, it’s supposed to be the norm in this country.

        What I don’t do is obliquely rob you by demanding Government take from you-by force if required-in order to feed me. If you earned it, you should hang on to it. For you might need it.

        The Government buys nothing, makes nothing, and gives nothing away for free. Read Bastiat’s The Law for more on this concept. It bothers me that he wrote it in 1850, and somehow we’re still having this debate. And worse, we’re losing it.

        At least in the old days, any kind of governmental largess came entirely from the treasury, the taxpayer’s pocket. A plunder scheme developed between the politicians and their always-dependent, ever-reliable constituency.

        Now, Government just prints money, making it up as they go. But there will be Hell to pay at the end of this.

        • mom2oneson

          mother in law that cooks for 20 when there are 4 people in the house should voluntarily help you so you don’t starve. :)

          I didn’t say the gov should buy food. I’m going to find that book you mentioned.
          I’m saying don’t compare the food it buys or the cash it gives to dog urine.

          • molybdanthan

            Maybe they would start helping themselves.

            I say we lost the War of Poverty. Government won it. The Great Society, with all its trillions of dollars and countless meddling, created a generation of helpless people, and Mama State.

            People call reckless spending ‘pork,’ which is edible, maybe even delicious if you get more than your fair share. Perhaps if we called it by a less appetizing name, then no one would want to touch it.

            I’m glad the woman above is speaking out against the system that promises help, but delivers bare subsistence. A ‘vote for me, or die’ scheme that few have the courage to decry.

        • Slightly_Askew

          As a son-2-1-mom-2-two-sons, I agree with mom2oneson. My mom worked hard to support us when I was a child. She had to work late, and my brother and I were latchkey kids by age 11 (less money for a babysitter). You try feeding two growing boys (who are always hungry), maintaining a POS car so you can get to work, paying rent on a crummy apartment, buying school clothes and books, and still somehow manage to buy your kids a toy or two for Christmas on the salary of a secretary, then we can talk.

          I love and respect my mother for the things she sacrificed and the tireless effort she put into raising us, and if from time to time she had to use food stamps to buy us a box of generic pop-tarts, I don’t call that robbing from you. I remember a number of times her returning from the local church food pantry with nothing but canned salmon and pork & beans because donations were down that month. You couldn’t always rely upon the kindness of strangers.

          Yes, it was a lousy time for us, but mom eventually got better work. I started working at 16 and we eventually were finally able to support ourselves. I’m now a moderately successful professional (who gives an inordinate amount of money to rescue missions), and I owe it all to the strength of my mother and her ability to swallow her pride and accept a handout or two when times were tough.

          Of course, nobody ever tells welfare stories like this. It’s all about lazy people with 13 kids who sit at home watching Jerry Springer and trading their food stamps for cigarettes, so I guess I can’t blame you that you think welfare is evil. You want to talk about welfare reform, I’ll be right behind you, but don’t pretend like welfare doesn’t help people. “Let ‘em starve” isn’t going to win you any friends or votes.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I’m sure you can find a story for every government program.

            Should we all close up shop and become Democrats? Come on. Let’s evaluate facts, not feelings.

          • Slightly_Askew

            as much as an “anti-vilification of welfare recipients” argument.

            I saw it as molybdanthan snubbing his nose at anyone who would accept a handout and calling my mother a thief, and I responded to that. With NGO and private entities in place to assist those who are temporarily suffering, ready to stand up and take the place of welfare, I would like nothing more than to see the door slammed shut on the whole mess.

            Sorry if I came off as a Dem.

          • molybdanthan

            without tossing out any recipients of such support. I said I would help them, as I have before through my charitable efforts of the past. And maybe I could do more, if only government would do less.

            It reminds me of a story from the Cold War. Did you know that America essentially subsidized the Soviet people through food programs. That’s fine, I guess. Can’t let people starve just because their government wants them to. But the care packages that were sent over were taken by the commies and repackaged, so no trace of American involvement was ever known. That’s what the Dems have done here. We support people, and they take all the credit. Call us uncaring to boot. Remember “spread the wealth.” This from a guy who hasn’t worked an honest day in his life. But he can spread other people’s wealth around, and make a comfortable living for himself, and those of his kind.

            If more government is the answer, we really need to come up with a better question.

          • Slightly_Askew

            I’m sure I’ve made a comment here in the past how allowing me to keep more of my money means I could help more people (without the ridiculous overhead the government brings).

            I was taking offense at this remark of yours:

            What I don?t do is obliquely rob you by demanding Government take from you-by force if required-in order to feed me. If you earned it, you should hang on to it. For you might need it.

            You said you’d rather starve, and you would be robbing me by taking a government handout. That was my problem, and if I misinterpreted this, feel free to correct me.

          • molybdanthan

            Maybe I could mollify you by toning down the rhetoric, but what I’m saying is 100% accurate. If we can’t agree on the concept, I’ll just have to come up with a better way of convincing you.

          • Slightly_Askew

            and using part of the money to give to people (both who need it and who don’t). It may be pedantic, but we lose some perspective on the plight of the poor when we look at them as thieves who are stealing our hard earned money.

            I talk to homeless people every week who refuse government assistance, but continue to take handouts from people on the street. I have a hard time thinking more highly of them than I do a working mother on food stamps.

            I think we do agree on the concept, just not on who is the bad guy here.

          • molybdanthan

            The Tragedy of American Compassion. Great read. I’ll give you some quotes from it when I can find my copy.

            Government is always able to justify its baleful place in the scheme of things by touting the helpless women and children helped over the years through one aid program or another. That’s what photo ops were made for. But we’re quickly entering a time in history where no amount of government will be able to support all the underprivileged created and maintained by government. What happens then?

            Look at California. They got caught in a ‘helplessness’ minefield. If they cut benefits, even for illegal aliens, well just think of all the women and children who would starve. The Media would have run with that 24/7. Arnold didn’t want that. An entirely new gang of Lib politicans were hoping to be swept into office to ensure the trough stayed full.

            But in the end, California couldn’t raise taxes fast enough to keep the scheme going. It ended up bankrupting the entire state. So now, it’s going to take the entire country to keep them afloat. Meaning they’re still not changing the system in the slightest. All they’re doing is prolonging the problem, dragging us all down with them. All the way to the bottom.

            Not even the massive US Government is too big to fail. Nor are its vast networks of workers too numerous to jail. So let’s get going on that relief program. Build the wall they wouldn’t put at the border around Washington. “Escape from D.C.” It’s the surest route to economic salvation, and a movie I’d pay to see.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            provided we also built guard towers and other security methods so that no one could escape. Then they can create all the global warming climate change we need with their speeches CO2 emissions and pass all the laws and executive orders and court decisions they want, while the rest of us adults actually run the country. And if they behave, we might even give them three meals a day.

          • mom2oneson

            We aren’t saying the gov is right about public assistance, we are saying getting public assistance doesn’t mean someone is lazy or has a bad character or isn’t employed or isn’t doing the best of their ability or is just out to use the system and not doing the best they can in life like many people seem to think.

            I think y’all take away individual responsibility too much even and blame welfare when it’s a person’s character that should be blamed when they do have a bad character.

          • molybdanthan

            Nature is full of comparisons. Water always seeks its own level. Electricity always goes to ground, following the path of least resistance. People do too. So the system that enables this is the only problem. Not the people.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            As people, we’re not supposed to simply go with the flow along the path of least resistance. That’s what courage, determination, perseverance, etc. are all about – pushing back against the eay path to strive to do what you will, rather than what is done to you.

            So you can’t absolve people for taking the easy way out – understand, perhaps, but not exculpate.

          • molybdanthan

            I saw her mentioned a few days ago in a recommended diary, and started reading what wiki had on the subject. It’s pretty good.

            “Themis is untranslatable. A gift of the gods and a mark of civilized existence, sometimes it means right custom, proper procedure, social order, and sometimes merely the will of the gods with little of the idea of right.

            “There was themis?custom, tradition, folk-ways, mores, whatever we may call it, the enormous power of ‘it is (or is not) done’.” -Moses Finley

            The Libs have been like termites in their methodology. What they ‘build’ won’t stand. And they have to destroy to create.

          • molybdanthan

            I’ve got no dogs in the next race, so to speak. Something about being an ultra conservative white guy seems to repel the women these days. And I’m quite the looker too. Got a house, and a cool job. But no tattoos, no despicable cultural residue. It’s a bit of a conundrum.

            But since you mentioned it, this does always bring up the inevitable Lib fallback, “Think of the children.” So much that’s wrong today has been done in the name of ‘the children.’ For thousands of years, people raised them without government. But no more.

          • Slightly_Askew

            “Think of the children” in lib-speak means “*I* know what’s best for *your* children”.

            My statement was that it’s easier to be brave when you have nobody to support. Every day I am faced with temptations I would love to follow, but for the sake of my family, I choose not to. Yes, I am “thinking of the children”, but in this case my children (or in the original post, my mother’s children). Not quite the same thing.

          • molybdanthan

            we are giving victims to fortune and folly. But I’m not the brave one in this case. You are, for certain. Brave enough to keep it going.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            There are plenty of conservative women out there looking for a good conservative man willing to make a committment, though perhaps not in your immediate environs. Activities of common interest and church (if you’re a believer in what the church stands for) are usually the two best ways, although sometimes God’s sense of humor takes charge.

          • mom2oneson

            Women don’t like that type of attitude. I am telling you the same thing I would tell my son. ;) If you can find an online site with your church affiliation that cost $ to join you might be surprised at how many like minded young ladies there are. :)

          • molybdanthan

            The good ones are always spoken for.

            Don’t get me started on the other kind of woman. Most of the single women I meet are part of the ‘Sex in’ crowd. Brought up with Britney, to party like Paris. Reading Oprah’s favorite books, and voting Democrat. They’ve absorbed feminist philosophy and don’t even know it. Maybe I can convert one, but let’s be realistic. That’s not how it goes.

            Next, there’s lawyers involved, judges like SoSo, social workers, and the like, and I end up feeding the Lib apparatus that I really want to go hungry. Like I was saying before, we can feed the poor, but starve the Liberal.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            …get involved in conservative causes you believe in, like volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center. But do it because you believe in it, not as a pretext to find women, Love has a surprising way of tapping you on the shoulder when you’re not looking – especially when you’re not focused on yourself but involved in something bigger than yourself…

            Not quite sure what that bit about the legal system and feeding liberals was about…

          • molybdanthan

            I’ve seen guys put through the wringer through divorce and child custody hearings, and all that. A system put in place to let the State come right in and dictate. All those Libs, just soaking it up. Pitting wife against husband, child against father. Scary stuff.

          • molybdanthan

            About that. There are so many good women: here, there, and practically everywhere. Even in Congress. Maybe even in San Francisco.

          • mom2oneson

            Like maybe not CA. (I know there are nice women in CA I have friends there) but maybe you could try the south or the midwest?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            I do know of at least one conservative blogger in the City of the female persuasion, Cinnamon Stillwell, so it’s not completely “abandon all hope all ye who enter here”.Then again, I know of only one… :)

          • molybdanthan
          • mom2oneson

            but my advice still stands..try the south or the midwest. :)

          • molybdanthan

            so I guess I’ve got no excuse for being single.

          • mom2oneson

            right down to the box generic pop tarts and IMHO not a hint of dem sympathy don’t know why y’all thought that.

  • JadedByPolitics

    she didn’t need a teleprompter and you want to know why? SHE BELIEVES WHAT SHE IS SAYING!

    • molybdanthan
  • Leopard1996

    I have heard some anecdotal accounts on welfare and public assistance for things like low income housing and welfare benefits that would make it so that it is better off to be in the program instead of working.

    For example, a gentleman was in a low income housing apartment paying about 200 – 300 a month, but as soon as he stated the intention of getting a job, the rent went up to about 800 a month on top of other expenses, and the job he was getting was like something at a McDonalds or something like that.

    Also I have heard that if a couple is married they are less likely to get benefits because they expect one of the people to actually work, hence it is better off to be a single mother instead of having a husband who could probably only get a job in a lower rung occupation.

    This comment is to say that the welfare system is screwed up big time, and does lead to it being better to do things the wrong way than the right way.

    • mom2oneson

      AFDC (cash assistance) is penalized $ for $ but the other programs like food stamps, WIC, housing, are not like that HUD is I believe 30% of a persons income. So if he was making $700/month at McD his rent would have gone up to $233. With food stamps and mediciad there is a upper limit where you don’t have to report any change until you reach that limit. I’m sorry but I think he was lying or misinformed.

      There are lots of “welfare”myths as far as elgibility goes..I always have to roll my eyes because I know the person is lying when they tell they weren’t elgible because they (the state lol) were out of funds or because they (the applicant) own their home or my favorite is “because we are white.” I know they just didn’t apply or it was for another reason they were disqualified.

      “Also I have heard that if a couple is married they are less likely to get benefits because they expect one of the people to actually work, hence it is better off to be a single mother instead of having a husband who could probably only get a job in a lower rung occupation”
      It’s based on income, not on marital status. Also if her husband had a job they would still be elgible for food stamps, WIC, and mediciad if it was low paying.

      • Leopard1996

        Based on a state by state standard? So one state could possibly be different from the other, or is it all federal with the same rules?

        • mom2oneson

          I think there might be slight differences with benefit allotment for food stamps but except it’s pretty much the similar as far as income limits goes and the way it works. Now I’m sure there is some variance with income limits but I doubt it’s very different from state to state. Here is a link to info about food stamps:
          http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm

          I know things like TANF (cash assistance, before it was AFDC) are different (some states have more work/school requirements, they call it welfare to work, other states you can recieve cash without having to show you are in school or fililng out 20 job applications a week.) I’ve recieved TANF (welfare, cash assistance in 2 states) and I know in the one that didn’t have the work/school requirements it was better for me. The welfare to work programs are horrible in my opinion are basically a scam to create more jobs for state workers and just suck money out of the system in different ways. Apart from TANF work/school requirements I don’t think there is that much variance. Both states I recieved TANF in had “diversion” where you can opt in for a larger cash benefit for one month but you are then inelgible for cash assistance for 6 months. Some things are the same though, the most you can get an allotment for is 2 children (I think not sure if it’s 2 or 3) regardless of family size and there is a five year limit I think.
          I don’t know if these links are any good but here are two I found on TANF:
          http://www.spdp.org/tanf.htm
          http://www.urban.org/publications/900772.html

  • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

    Take that, Janeane Garofalo. She just called you a hypocrite…