# And so it begins in missouri....



## AZ Jim (Apr 7, 2015)

Note who this hurts:

*Missouri budget plan cuts social programs, makes major shift*



*kansascity.com*/news/government-politics/article17613590.html
the associated press   JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Missouri Senate plans to debate on  Tuesday a budget proposal that cuts spending for seniors, people with  mental illness and foster children as well as making a major policy  change – it budgets lump sum amounts that state departments could  allocate rather than specific amounts for each program. 
 Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer’s  fiscal year 2016 budget proposal creates lump sum grants for most  services within the Department of Social Services, Department of Mental  Health and Department of Health and Senior Services. 

 It cuts $130 million in general revenue from the House proposal for most programs within those departments. 
 Schaefer said last week the cuts would leave the budgets of  the departments higher than actual spending in fiscal year 2014. But the  combined totals of the three departments would be lower than 2014 by  about $69 million and below the current fiscal year ending June 30 by  about $35 million, according to the Senate proposals and previous  budgets. 
 Budget director Linda Luebbering said the proposed cuts  would be magnified because departments would also get less in federal  matching funds, increasing the total amount of the cuts to about $300  million. She said spending has increased because of greater need. 

 “The departments are serving more seniors, more people with  disabilities, more people with mental illness, more foster kids,”  Luebbering said. “Even if spending is up a little bit, it’s because  demand for their services are up. It’s not like they’ve got extra money  for fun stuff.” 

 The three departments administer many social welfare  programs – including the Medicaid health program for the poor, cash  assistance, food stamps, in-home and community services for people with  disabilities and foster care for children. Together, they account for  nearly half of every dollar of general revenue the state spends. 
 Schaefer said the unsustainable growth of these departments needs to  be reined in. Departments frequently request more than they need,  leading to “fluff” in their budgets, he said. 
 “They have a lot of money that they have built into these lines that  they just don’t need,” Schaefer said. “They’re not going to tell us  where to find it. It just doesn’t work that way.” 
 A lump sum style plan for the entire Missouri budget was last floated in 2003. 

 That House Republican proposal was criticized as passing the  buck on spending cuts and was eventually rewritten by the Senate before  it got to the governor’s desk. It reflected a similar frustration to  the one expressed by Schaefer now. Then, department directors under  then-Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, generally refused to suggest cuts as  requested by House Republican leaders. 
 The House Budget Committee Chairman at the time was Carl  Bearden, now head of conservative advocacy group United for Missouri. He  said the proposal coming out of the Senate, which has previously been  more bound to tradition, gives it a better shot of moving forward. 
 “There is a lot of frustration in the Legislature and  particularly here in the budget that departments aren’t being as  forthright as they should be,” Bearden said. 
 The three departments have spent more than 99 percent of general revenue in fiscal year 2013 and 2014. 

 Departments do request more authority to spend possible  federal dollars, Luebbering said, but they rarely do not use any general  revenue. 
 The largest general revenue funded programs in the  Department of Social Services are child welfare programs for abused or  neglected children, Medicaid and child care subsidies for low-income  working parents, Department of Social Services spokeswoman Rebecca  Woelfel said. 

 The department has seen growth in the number of abused and  neglected children as well as growth in Medicaid enrollment – currently  at its highest since May 2012 – Woelfel said. Higher costs have also  been driven by increasing costs of drugs in the Medicaid program, which  primarily serves children, the elderly, blind and individuals with  disabilities. 
 Department of Mental Health spokeswoman Debra Walker said  state psychiatric hospitals are already above occupancy. Community-based  support for people with developmental disabilities, treatment for those  with chronic health conditions and mental health issues and substance  abuse treatment programs would also be affected by the proposed cuts,  she said. 
 “Missouri also has growth each year in the number of  individuals with developmental disabilities that go into crisis due to  the death of a caregiver, a worsening medical condition or other  circumstances,” she said in a written statement. 

 Demand for services has never been greater, according to  Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Ryan Hobart. Cuts  would affect home-delivered meals for seniors, health coverage for  Missouri residents with HIV/AIDS and disease tracking and surveillance,  Hobart said in an email.


And in Kansas where politicians tell medical doctors what procedures they cannot do.

*Kansas Abortion Bill To Ban Procedure By State Workers Passes House*



*huffingtonpost.com*/2012/03/17/kansas-abortion-bill-ku-medical-center_n_1355351.html
John Celock Become a fan john.celock@huffingtonpost.com Email   Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has said that he will sign a sweeping 69-page anti-abortion bill.     
        The day after a Kansas legislative committee adopted an amendment to protect accreditation of the OBGYN residency program at  the University of Kansas Medical Center, the full state House adopted  an amendment which could put the program back in jeopardy. 

 The full House of Representatives adopted an amendment to  the state budget Friday evening that would prohibit state money from  being used on abortions and would ban state workers from performing  abortions during the workday. Opponents say the amendment will  jeopardize the accreditation of KU's OBGYN residency program, where  residents receive training to provide abortions.

 On Thursday, a House committee meanwhile passed an amendment to the state's sweeping anti-abortion bill  meant to allow for the abortion training to continue at KU. The  Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires OBGYN  programs to provide abortion training. 

 "Kansas citizens do not want (abortions)," state Rep. Joe Patton (R-Topeka) told HuffPost about why he sponsored the amendment. 
 Patton said that he does not know if the ban would actually threaten  the accreditation of the residency program, noting that KU officials  have declined two invitations to testify before the House Federal and  State Affairs Committee, which is considering the anti-abortion bill.
 In 1998, Kansas lawmakers prohibited abortions from being performed  on state property. A KU Medical Center spokeswoman told HuffPost earlier  this month that no abortions are performed at KU, which is considered  state property. Under state law, the medical center's doctors and nurses  are employed by private foundations, but the residents are considered  state employees. Patton said he believes the medical center has been  skirting state law to provide abortion services. 

 "The public policy should be that a state agency should not be  involved in this practice. Since 1998, they have thumbed their noses at  public policy in Kansas," he said Saturday morning.
 Rep. Sean Gatewood  (D-Topeka), who is leading opposition to the anti-abortion bill, said  that legislators have been meeting with KU officials privately to craft a  procedure to protect the residency program. He said the amendment  adopted by the committee Thursday would exempt KU residents from the  worker ban and allow the training to continue. He said the amendment did  include a one-year sunset clause, which would give legislators the  opportunity to review the residency program annually. The amendment and  full bill were passed by the committee on Thursday. 
 "I don't get it; it seems reckless to me," Gatewood told HuffPost about the budget amendment. 

 The anti-abortion bill includes a provision that permits  doctors to withhold from a mother any information that could possibly  cause her to seek an abortion; it also prevents a medical malpractice  suit from being filed should the woman and child subsequently have  health issues, but does allow a wrongful death suit to be filed in the  event of the mother's death. The bill also includes the end of a series  of tax deductions relating to abortion. Opponents have said that bill  will also impose a sales tax on abortions  in the state, including those sought by rape victims. The committee on  Thursday removed language that required a woman to listen to the fetal  heartbeat, but have kept language that requires doctors to tell women  that abortion causes breast cancer.
 Earlier this week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives also adopted a bill that  would instruct doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast  cancer. The theory that abortion causes breast cancer has been rebuked  by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the  National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and  Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,  who have all said the research is faulty.
 Gatewood said state Senate leaders have signaled they will  likely not consider the anti-abortion bill, saying that it is too late  in the legislative session to take up such a complex bill. The House had  used a parliamentary maneuver when adopting the bill in committee to  attempt to expedite Senate consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has  told HuffPost that he will sign the bill.

 The full budget is likely to be adopted by the House on  Monday, where legislative rules would prohibit an attempt to remove the  abortion language, according to Gatewood. The budget is subject to  legislative negotiations before being sent to Brownback. It has not been  determined if the abortion amendment will remain in the final bill. 
 Patton said he remains committed to seeing the adoption of  the abortion ban, saying that if the medical center leaders will not  speak publicly on the bill, they are trying to promote abortion. 
 "This should not be discussed in the closet, but out in the open," Patton said.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 7, 2015)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ure_limits_tanf_money_no_cruises_for_you.html

Here in Brownbackistan, we also just passed legislation to put substantial restraint on those receiving assistance through State issued debit cards. A mother of two can receive a maximum of $430/month to assist in feeding and clothing her children... or paying rent... or making payments for a vehicle to get back and forth to work... or....
Brownback signed the bill that will now limit daily withdrawls on the debits cards to $25. The cards are issued through Chase Bank. Chase imposes an 85 cent fee for each transaction, after the first one each month. Then, if the card-holder doesn't have a bank account where they can use an ATM without cost, they pay an additional 50 cents per transaction. That uses up $20/month just in fees. Then, consider that most ATM's won't dispense cash in less than $10 increments. So, in most cases, the card-holder can only access $20/day.

Okay, let's tell our landlord we can't pay our full rent this month. We will pay $20/day because that's all we can access. Or, we need to go to the grocery store. Instead of being able to purchase groceries for a week or two, now we can only buy $20/day because that's all we can access.

Brownback sold this plan as a means to keep card-holders from spending their money on "sinful" things like tattoos or gambling or in sex shops. Most recipients are only trying to put food on the table, not ink on their arms. Most are busy trying to juggle one or two minimum wage jobs with the resonsibility of raising kids. Take more time away, now, so they can make daily runs to the grocery store to spend their $20.


----------



## Debby (Apr 7, 2015)

Isn't that so mean spirited?   How can those guys presume to think of themselves as decent folks when they seem bent on making the lives of so many, absolutely difficult!


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 7, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ure_limits_tanf_money_no_cruises_for_you.html
> 
> Here in Brownbackistan, we also just passed legislation to put substantial restraint on those receiving assistance through State issued debit cards. A mother of two can receive a maximum of $430/month to assist in feeding and clothing her children... or paying rent... or making payments for a vehicle to get back and forth to work... or....
> Brownback signed the bill that will now limit daily withdrawls on the debits cards to $25. The cards are issued through Chase Bank. Chase imposes an 85 cent fee for each transaction, after the first one each month. Then, if the card-holder doesn't have a bank account where they can use an ATM without cost, they pay an additional 50 cents per transaction. That uses up $20/month just in fees. Then, consider that most ATM's won't dispense cash in less than $10 increments. So, in most cases, the card-holder can only access $20/day.
> ...




I also heard they cannot spend their money on cruise ships...   Have a lot of those stopping in Kansas..?  What is wrong with Brownback?


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I also heard they cannot spend their money on cruise ships... Have a lot of those stopping in Kansas..? What is wrong with Brownback?



Yep!  I just say an ocean liner/cruise ship sail by my front window!!  :>)  The ambiguity if amazing.  You have to spend the money in Kansas.  Cannot be spent out-of-state.  But, you can't spend it on cruises.  There ain't a cruise ship within 1,500 miles of us!!!  (I know.  You could purchase a cruise at a travel agency in Kansas.  It's just the idea that is so ridiculous.)

What's wrong with Brownback???  He has two puppet strings, each attached to a puppet master.  One is tied to a controlled by the Koch Brothers.  The other is tied to and controlled by the hard right-wing evangelicals.  Most everything he has pushed through can be traced back to one of the other puppet master.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 7, 2015)

Part of the problem is the people making these decisions have NEVER been in a situation where they've had to struggle to make ends meet.  Financially strapped people generally don't get elected to a legislature.  So the people making the rules have no idea of what real people go through. Or how difficult it is for disabled and/or blind prople to get to an ATM to withdraw their $20.  AND the sad part is, they don't care!

And how can that "Patton" person say "the people of Kansas don't want abortions?"  Like he would know.  Very few people WANT an abortion, bur I believe they had the right to make that choice themselves.  Probably Patton has never been in the position to be pregnant with a child he cannot possibly afford to feed, or been the victim of rape or incest, or whatever reasons women make the decision.  And with the cuts they are making to services, I'd imagine he's not in favor of assisting mothers to raise those children, either. Probably just another well-to-do old white Christian Right guy deciding what's best for the rest of us.  

There is certainly nothing Christian about taking food off the tables of the poor, or restricting their medical care by downsizing Medicaid, or not providing deserving seniors with the services they need to survive.   Hypocrisy, yes -- Christianity, no.


----------



## Don M. (Apr 7, 2015)

It's interesting to see what percentage of a States money is spent on the various programs.  In most states, Health Care consumes the biggest slice of the pie, followed by Education, and Pensions.  In most States, Welfare programs take less than 10% of a given States budget...with the exception of Illinois, where Welfare takes more than Education.  Here is a pretty good web site where you can look up your States expenditures....you can select "State" above the pie chart. then go directly below the Federal budget pie chart, and select a State, and see the results.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart


----------



## rickary (Apr 7, 2015)

Where does the money come from.  Taxes.  I am paying over 70k in taxes this year so I am helping some of those people.  Plus what I give to the church which is none of your business.  Now the question is of those of you who are b...g what are you doing to help or do you expect that is someone other than your problem.  I have found those that gripe the most about these things are the ones that pay nothing and expect everything.  Perhaps I should have waited to say this with more posters.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 7, 2015)

Congratulations Rickary, in your short tenure in these forums, you have become the only member on my "Ignore" list.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 8, 2015)

rickary said:


> Where does the money come from. Taxes. I am paying over 70k in taxes this year so I am helping some of those people. Plus what I give to the church which is none of your business. Now the question is of those of you who are b...g what are you doing to help or do you expect that is someone other than your problem. I have found those that gripe the most about these things are the ones that pay nothing and expect everything. Perhaps I should have waited to say this with more posters.



We are in awe that we've been "dressed down" by a 'one-percenter'.  We are humbled that a 'one-percenter' makes sure we know he supports his church.  Oh, as far as we "who are b...g", we do pay taxes.  The Good Lord has blessed my wife and I with gainful employment for all of our married life.  Raising three children, all now married, we were fortunate enough to never need to apply for any assistance.  There are many of our fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times and need a hand up.  I do not have any angst about paying my fair share to help those who are truly in need.  What does bother me are politicians who sacrifice the well-being of their fellow man to placate the one-percenters who enjoy the privilege of living the good life and don't want "bothered" by the riff-raff.  After all, the one-percenters buy elected officials every day and those huge campaign donations deserve more tax breaks, even if those favors are at the expense of the less fortunate.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> We are in awe that we've been "dressed down" by a 'one-percenter'.  We are humbled that a 'one-percenter' makes sure we know he supports his church.  Oh, as far as we "who are b...g", we do pay taxes.  The Good Lord has blessed my wife and I with gainful employment for all of our married life.  Raising three children, all now married, we were fortunate enough to never need to apply for any assistance.  There are many of our fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times and need a hand up.  I do not have any angst about paying my fair share to help those who are truly in need.  What does bother me are politicians who sacrifice the well-being of their fellow man to placate the one-percenters who enjoy the privilege of living the good life and don't want "bothered" by the riff-raff.  After all, the one-percenters buy elected officials every day and those huge campaign donations deserve more tax breaks, even if those favors are at the expense of the less fortunate.




To be fair... there are some folks in the higher percentiles who are staunch Democrats and DO care about the poor...   Just sayin'   But I know what you are saying..  most are selfish prigs wanting more and more and always at the expense of others.


notice I said "prigs"  and not what I was thinking.. hahahaha


----------



## Ameriscot (Apr 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> To be fair... there are some folks in the higher percentiles who are staunch Democrats and DO care about the poor...   Just sayin'   But I know what you are saying..  most are selfish prigs wanting more and more and always at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> notice I said "prigs"  and not what I was thinking.. hahahaha



Yes, there are.  I have a relative who is a one percenter, a Democrat who volunteers in campaigns, and is extremely generous to many charities.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Yes, there are.  I have a relative who is a one percenter, a Democrat who volunteers in campaigns, and is extremely generous to many charities.



Guess it's just a matter of values....  Some have 'em.......  Some don't


----------



## BobF (Apr 8, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Congratulations Rickary, in your short tenure in these forums, you have become the only member on my "Ignore" list.



Oh Oh, I have been replaced Jim?


----------



## Ameriscot (Apr 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Guess it's just a matter of values....  Some have 'em.......  Some don't



True.  Very proud of them.  Great couple.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Yep!  I just say an ocean liner/cruise ship sail by my front window!!  :>)  The ambiguity if amazing.  You have to spend the money in Kansas.  Cannot be spent out-of-state.  But, you can't spend it on cruises.  There ain't a cruise ship within 1,500 miles of us!!!  (I know.  You could purchase a cruise at a travel agency in Kansas.  It's just the idea that is so ridiculous.)
> 
> What's wrong with Brownback???  He has two puppet strings, each attached to a puppet master.  One is tied to a controlled by the Koch Brothers.  The other is tied to and controlled by the hard right-wing evangelicals.  Most everything he has pushed through can be traced back to one of the other puppet master.



But even if they booked the cruise in Kansas... they wouldn't be allowed to spend money on the ship.. or in the ports of call..   But I wonder what kind of cruise can be had for $20

Really great "ports of call" though... Kansas City, Wichita, Topeka.... and then I understand that there will be an international Cruise available... to Lincoln Nebraska.  lol!!


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 8, 2015)

I just read that the cards can't be used to take the kids to a swimming pool.
The card should be used to give the kids a free swim once a week.

No wonder some kids just mooch around the neighbourhood getting into trouble.


----------



## Jackie22 (Apr 8, 2015)

I read that in some state they are trying to eliminate the purchase of steak or seafood with food stamps.....Isn't it amazing, the priorities of these Republicans?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

Funny... I thought fish and meat were a good source of protein.  ..   Unfortunately, some aren't happy unless the poor are eating laundry starch and wearing rags.


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 8, 2015)

It's not so much priorities as a complete lack of understanding of how people live who have meagre incomes.
Do they imagine that they dine on steak and seafood every night? 

They do have birthdays though and might just like to have a BBQ with a feed of sausages, chops or steak.
Is that too much to hope for once in a while?

Apparently it is, because their lot must not only be poverty, it must be unrelenting and grinding poverty.
It is a Dickensian mindset.


----------



## Jackie22 (Apr 8, 2015)

Yes, that is true, Warri, it just seems to me that instead of trying to pass important legislature they spend all this time and effort nit picking the poor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

The ability to sit in judgment,  must be an unrelenting burden..


----------



## rickary (Apr 8, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Congratulations Rickary, in your short tenure in these forums, you have become the only member on my "Ignore" list.



Well since you were right under my post I had to peek as I knew it would be about me.  You have been on m list along with 3 others for several days.  I joined 4/14 and you have only been a member since 11/14.  You are not very observing.  I kept my mouth shut for along time but just couldn't do that anymore. Mainly due to ones like you.  Believe me I am not congratulating myself but I am pretty happy.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 8, 2015)

I also had to peek, my reference of tenure had to do with your participation, not time as a member.


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 8, 2015)

Why do some politicians feel the need to punish people, including children, for being poor? There seems to be a very strong aroma of blame.


----------



## rickary (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> We are in awe that we've been "dressed down" by a 'one-percenter'.  We are humbled that a 'one-percenter' makes sure we know he supports his church.  Oh, as far as we "who are b...g", we do pay taxes.  The Good Lord has blessed my wife and I with gainful employment for all of our married life.  Raising three children, all now married, we were fortunate enough to never need to apply for any assistance.  There are many of our fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times and need a hand up.  I do not have any angst about paying my fair share to help those who are truly in need.  What does bother me are politicians who sacrifice the well-being of their fellow man to placate the one-percenters who enjoy the privilege of living the good life and don't want "bothered" by the riff-raff.  After all, the one-percenters buy elected officials every day and those huge campaign donations deserve more tax breaks, even if those favors are at the expense of the less fortunate.



I truly agree with you about helping our fellow man and there have always been those that needed it.  Quite a number of years ago families and the church helped those in need.  Now the democrats over the years have started welfare and dependency on the government costing taxpayers billions of dollars for those who will not work.  Granted there are a small percent that cannot work and certainly deserve all they get.  That is a small percent but is certainly growing.  Now the government is trillions in debt because of welfare and wars.

Perhaps this person was trying to help the state by making sure they used the money for the right reasons.  What is wrong with their families helping if possible.  If not there are all kinds of shelters in most states where one can stay to get on their feet.  Now I know this is not the American dream money but do we(taxpayer) owe every one residing in the USA the American dream.  Obviously if one does not pay any taxes they could care less where the money goes.  Those that do not pay any federal or state taxes exceeds 50 percent.


----------



## Misty (Apr 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> To be fair... there are some folks in the higher percentiles who are staunch Democrats and DO care about the poor...   Just sayin'   But I know what you are saying..  most are selfish prigs wanting more and more and always at the expense of others.
> 
> 
> notice I said "prigs"  and not what I was thinking.. hahahaha



I'm going to throw in a "to be fair" among the constant republican bashing that goes on in this forum, This article is by a liberal, so it has to be correct, and there are many more articles by other data showing the same findings.



 

 [h=1]Opinion[/h] 


​ 
          [h=1]Bleeding Heart Tightwad[/h]Published: December 20, 2008 
                 This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and  who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this:  We liberals are personally stingy.






 Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
  Nicholas D. Kristof  

      [h=5]On the Ground[/h]



Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous  government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet  when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals  are cheapskates. 
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors  to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by  conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by  liberals.

 A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average  annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those  of liberals.


Other research has reached similar conclusions. The  “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds  that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while  Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that  Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless,  personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans  — the ones  who try to cut health insurance for children. 

“When I started  doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that  political liberals  — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others  than conservatives did  — would turn out to be the most privately  charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite  conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran  analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option  but to change my views.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 8, 2015)

There are two very different conditions of recipients.  The largest segment of those receiving assistance are folks who have had medical issues and need financial help to dig out of a hole... have lost their employment and need help until they can find gainful employment... are stuck in minimum wage jobs and, even though they work hard, cannot make enough to cover the costs of raising a family... a single parent that has childcare costs and food/clothing costs that his/her job does not pay enough to cover... persons whose mental abilities handicap them such they cannot hold a job that pays a living wage... truly disabled people whose medical issues restrict what employment they can find... and a plethora of other situations, most not avoidable or immediately correctable.  

Then, there are the generational welfare cases and the outright fraud that steals money meant for the less fortunate.  There are so many supposedly "disabled" who feel they are more entitled to someone else paying their way than working to pay their own way.  There are entirely too many of these in the system.  The legislation imposed by this latest Brownback will have little effect on curbing the fraud and generational welfare issues.  It will, however, impose additional burdens on those who dearly depend on the benefit programs to maintain food and shelter for families.  Yes, as you say, there are shelters.  I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters".  The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors.  That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 8, 2015)

I personally would rather have my tax dollar go to the occasional fraud... than to cut benefits or cause hardship  for the truely needy and disabled.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I personally would rather have my tax dollar go to the occasional fraud... than to cut benefits or cause hardship for the truely needy and disabled.



I personally would rather have a very few votes cast by those not properly registered... than to impose restrictions that cause citizens to lose their right to vote.

I personally would rather have medical doctors make decisions as to when termination of a pregnancy is in the best interest of an expectant mother... than have politicians legislate such that the health and welfare of all are at risk.

I personally would rather see a child educated as to the correct history of the world... than to have religous fundamentalism edit our textbooks so the words agree with specific beliefs.

I personally would rather see our elected officials elected on name only... than to have them elected by millions of dollars infused into campaign chest by large corporations.


----------



## Denise1952 (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ure_limits_tanf_money_no_cruises_for_you.html
> 
> Here in Brownbackistan, we also just passed legislation to put substantial restraint on those receiving assistance through State issued debit cards. A mother of two can receive a maximum of $430/month to assist in feeding and clothing her children... or paying rent... or making payments for a vehicle to get back and forth to work... or....
> Brownback signed the bill that will now limit daily withdrawls on the debits cards to $25. The cards are issued through Chase Bank. Chase imposes an 85 cent fee for each transaction, after the first one each month. Then, if the card-holder doesn't have a bank account where they can use an ATM without cost, they pay an additional 50 cents per transaction. That uses up $20/month just in fees. Then, consider that most ATM's won't dispense cash in less than $10 increments. So, in most cases, the card-holder can only access $20/day.
> ...



One apple can spoil a barrel I think.  Something has to be done about those abusing benefits we all can get from the gov if needed.  It's like that "guy" that stands and begs for money on the corner.  He may be legit, but we don't want to give to him because some of those "guys" bring in 60,000 a year.  I don't know the answer.  Some women use abortion like birth control which is wrong imo.  Some use abortion for more legit reasons.  How do you separate them (not talking to those that believe abortion is aok for any reason).


----------



## rickary (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> There are two very different conditions of recipients.  The largest segment of those receiving assistance are folks who have had medical issues and need financial help to dig out of a hole... have lost their employment and need help until they can find gainful employment... are stuck in minimum wage jobs and, even though they work hard, cannot make enough to cover the costs of raising a family... a single parent that has childcare costs and food/clothing costs that his/her job does not pay enough to cover... persons whose mental abilities handicap them such they cannot hold a job that pays a living wage... truly disabled people whose medical issues restrict what employment they can find... and a plethora of other situations, most not avoidable or immediately correctable.
> 
> Then, there are the generational welfare cases and the outright fraud that steals money meant for the less fortunate.  There are so many supposedly "disabled" who feel they are more entitled to someone else paying their way than working to pay their own way.  There are entirely too many of these in the system.  The legislation imposed by this latest Brownback will have little effect on curbing the fraud and generational welfare issues.  It will, however, impose additional burdens on those who dearly depend on the benefit programs to maintain food and shelter for families.  Yes, as you say, there are shelters.  I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters".  The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors.  That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars.



You say this as it were fact which you gather by watching and reading liberal media.  It is your opinion not fact.  You do not know. You can get by with this on this forum because it has many more liberals.  That is fine by me.  But lets not make fun of one another because we disagree on left and right issues, religion, etc.  

Now I talked about families and churches use to help and shelters available in most sates and you turn it around;                                                                                                                                                                                                                        '"Yes, as you say, there are shelters.  I suppose you would rather see large compounds where we could keep the less fortunate hidden from having to be seen by the "one-percenters".  The priviliged could continue giving their "charitable" contributions... mainly to lessen their own income tax burden... and have shelters and facilities install bronze plaques near entrances highlighting the names of the donors.  That would do so much more to advance the social standing of the privileged, rather than have folks actually live in our communities assisted by tax dollars."   NOW THEN THAT IS YOUR IDEA NOT MINE.

So please do not be ridiculous with me.  

My daughters best friend's son has a rare kind of leukemia and has a very slim chance of living.  Because it cost 30K for radiation treatment and 10k for a pint of blood.  No welfare will touch that.  So what does she do she works and tries to raise the money thru contributions from the community or sit and watch her son die sooner.  Lots of people like that in the USA. But what do you do.  If I were a one percenter, I would give her the money in a heartbeat.  Do not disgrace me by calling me that again, please.


----------



## rickary (Apr 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> I personally would rather have a very few votes cast by those not properly registered... than to impose restrictions that cause citizens to lose their right to vote.
> 
> I personally would rather have medical doctors make decisions as to when termination of a pregnancy is in the best interest of an expectant mother... than have politicians legislate such that the health and welfare of all are at risk.
> 
> ...



Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.
 Letterman's TopTen Reasons to Vote Democrat 

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can nowmarry whatever Iwant. I've decided to marry my German Shephered.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of4% on a gallonof gas are obscene, but the government taxing the samegallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do abetter job ofspending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long asnobody isoffended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own agun, and I knowthat my local police are all I need to protect me frommurderers and thieves. Iam also thankful that we have a 911 service thatgets police to your home inorder to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions ofbabies beingaborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive andcomfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a rightto free healthcare, education, and Social Security benefits, and weshould take away SocialSecurity from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not beallowed tomake profits for themselves. They need to break even and givethe rest away tothe government for redistribution as the Democrat Party seesfit

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need torewrite theConstitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would neverget theiragendas past the voters.

… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better topay$billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because itmightupset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. Wedon't careabout the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.



"Thedifference between genius and stupidity is that genius hasits limits"…Albert Einstein. AMEN!!!>
I know you all will appreciate this definition. The bestdescription ofObamacare so far:

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said:

“We have to pass it, to find out what's in it." 
A physician called into a radio show and said
"That's the definition of a stool sample."


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 9, 2015)

nwlady said:


> One apple can spoil a barrel I think.  Something has to be done about those abusing benefits we all can get from the gov if needed.  It's like that "guy" that stands and begs for money on the corner.  He may be legit, but we don't want to give to him because some of those "guys" bring in 60,000 a year.  I don't know the answer.  Some women use abortion like birth control which is wrong imo.  Some use abortion for more legit reasons.  How do you separate them (not talking to those that believe abortion is aok for any reason).



While I agree wholeheartedly that the frauds and abusers need to be weeded out... Cutting benefits and making it extremely difficult and degrading for those who are truely needy or disabled is NOT the way to do it.   I don't care how much a "fraud" supposedly makes... or WHO saw someone buy lobster and a bottle of vodka with food stamps..  Starving a hungrey child is NOT the solution.   To do so is not what we should be as a society.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Apr 9, 2015)

rickary said:


> Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.
> Letterman's TopTen Reasons to Vote Democrat
> 
> #10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can nowmarry whatever Iwant. I've decided to marry my German Shephered.
> ...



Snopes calls BS!




image: http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif



*FALSE*



*Example:*_[Collected via e-mail, October 2014]_

I've just rec'd several e-mails with the Title: Letterman's Top reasons to Vote Democrat. We are all wondering if this is actually his Top 10. Most of us doubt it is.

Thanks so much for your help.


*Origins:*   As early as 2013, an e-mail forward including a list of popular talk show host David Letterman's "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat" (alternately titled "Top 10 Reasons to Vote Straight Democratic") began to circulate. In the missive, a number of political points were sarcastically framed, each criticizing Democrats under the guise of praising the party. 

As the midterm elections of 2014 approached, the Letterman Top Ten e-mail surged in popularity, and many questioned whether that list was genuinely a comedic commentary delivered by David Letterman:David Letterman's Top 10 Reasons to vote Democrat 

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

#1. And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.


This list is not something that was penned by David Letterman or ever presented on his _Late Night show; it's a spoof written by someone using Letterman's familiar "Top Ten" shtick to make a political point. Most of the list's points aren't even delivered in joke format and are just political criticisms commonly lobbed at the Democrats by their opponents."


_


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 9, 2015)

Letterman IS a Democrat.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 9, 2015)

Isn't he thinking of running for Congress?  I thought I heard rumors about that


----------



## rickary (Apr 9, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> While I agree wholeheartedly that the frauds and abusers need to be weeded out... Cutting benefits and making it extremely difficult and degrading for those who are truely needy or disabled is NOT the way to do it.   I don't care how much a "fraud" supposedly makes... or WHO saw someone buy lobster and a bottle of vodka with food stamps..  Starving a hungrey child is NOT the solution.   To do so is not what we should be as a society.



It is the very poor, handicapped or addicted that get food stamps.   So if you see one buying other than food or cleaning supplies of personal hygene items with food stamps, there is most likely a child doing without. Do you sacrifice the needs and goods of the many to serve the one.  The government cannot legislate no starving children, so it is we in our communities have to make sure that don't happen.  The left now a days think the government should take care of all problems leaving no responsibility to themselves.  Most post you make indicate that.  

I will admit I peaked but I am interested in this thread.


----------



## rickary (Apr 9, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Snopes calls BS!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who cares who wrote it.  No one said it is the absolute truth, it is an opinion of the right just like the left has their opinions.


----------



## rickary (Apr 9, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I also had to peek, my reference of tenure had to do with your participation, not time as a member.



Tenure means time not number of posts.  But why should you care about tenure, we in the USA believe all men/women are created equal.  Newbie


----------



## SeaBreeze (Apr 9, 2015)

rickary said:


> Now if you can say that I can post this by DavidLetterman. Now I read your and certainly agree with the logic. Bear in mindthis is not the logic of the Right it is the opinion of the liberal media andthis is the opinion of someone else.





rickary said:


> Who cares who wrote it.  No one said it is the absolute truth, it is an opinion of the right just like the left has their opinions.



Well, you first said it was written by David Letterman.  Then you posted to bear in mind that this is not the logic of the right, but the opinion of the liberal media...now you say that it is an opinion of the right??   Nobody really cares who wrote it Rickary, it's just a cheap spoof written to criticize a political party and no more.


----------

