Comments on: 3 in 10 is bad, but could be worse

By: IndyInjun

IndyInjun — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:01:42 +0000

Will David love Bush when the DOW stands at 4500 by the first week in January?

The natives around here are more than a mite restless.

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:43:56 +0000

Game,

Apparently David doesn’t have a clue as to the difference. Poor chap…he is probably still in love with W’s presidency.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:33:12 +0000

David
I’m talking about NEO conservatives. Get it? Apparently not.

By: David

David — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:22:06 +0000

Hey Game,
Conservatives don’t care about real charities? Really? Then why did Palin give more to charity that Biden over the last number of years. As a statistical fact, those who are identified as Republicans give significantly more to charity than those who identify themselves as Democrats. Nice try, though. As for outsourcing, companies have a responsibility to make money for their shareholders. Because of the outrageous union mandated hourly wages for unskilled labor, companies go elsewhere where they don’t have to pay people more than they are worth. $50 an hour for a GM assembly line worker? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Say thanks to the unions for the outsourcing.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:51:50 +0000

Neocons love to outsource, meanwhile they don’t give a flip about real private charity (such as Churches, Synagogues, Salvation Army, Goodwill, ect…) Outsourcing in many cases still leaves the taxpayer on the hook without real competition.

By: IndyInjun

IndyInjun — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:44:19 +0000

AIG whined at a deafing pace…..now their managers enjoy make work jobs selling poison finance.

The common folk out here are wising up pretty fast.Instead of bailouts, most of the criminals would be well advised to make their escape plans……IF there is any corner of the world where they can hide from the victims of the grandest theft the world has ever known.

AIG threw a $445,ooo party after their bailout……enmity for flat-screen TV’s seems ill-placed from this vantage point.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:14:55 +0000

$40,000 per year is not poverty.

Poverty is US$365 per year. Poverty isn’t only being able to afford 1 flatscreen tv. Poverty is watching a child die of starvation. Poverty isn’t not being able to get the newest most expensive medical procedure to save you from your stupid life choices. Poverty is having to decide which of your children will get to sleep under the mosquito net and not catch malaria while the rest of your children take their chances.

Phil Gramm is right – this is a nation of whiners.

By: ramblinwreck

ramblinwreck — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:33:15 +0000

Indy, no Chrisitan I know of begrudges helping the truly needy. The difference is that those of us who do so apply some judgement ( I know that’s a bad word to some people ) when deciding who gets helped and who doesn’t.

I just don’t think it’s compassionate to steal money from me to give to someone else. That isn’t a Christian value.

If I can’t do it to you, and you can’t do it to me, the government shouldn’t be able to do it to either of us.

By: IndyInjun

IndyInjun — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:00:30 +0000

David:

The market ruled AIG positions unneeded.

Make work government jobs that do not fill a marketable purpose ARE welfare.

By: David

David — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:03:52 +0000

At least those companies or evil corporations who get what is described as corporate welfare create jobs and employ people unlike the non-productive welfare recipient who just sits on his backside doing nothing to earn the assistance he receives from the taxpayer’s back pocket. It really boils down to who is productive and pulls his weight in society versus those who aren’t.

By: IndyInjun

IndyInjun — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:56:34 +0000

The WELFARE that is bestowed by keeping one middle level AIG manager in his job dwarfs the welfare that the poor get by a factor of ten or more.

REPUBLICANS as Christians should ask why they begrudge helping the later, when the former stole from everyone.

By: ramblinwreck

ramblinwreck — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:39:02 +0000

“there are those that the state must help”? Wow, what did people do before the state started “helping”? I believe neighbors and churches helped the ones that deserved help did they not? When I was a kid in the 50′s there were some poor people who got help from the community but they didn’t expect the stinking government to take them from cradle to grave like they do today. I’d much rather have the ability for a church or my responsible neighbors decide who is worthy of help rather than some bureaucrat who has a vested interest in an ever-increasing number of people who need “help”.

Today the state “helps” everyone without any determination whether they should be entitled to resources stolen from the rest of us. This removal of the “actions have consequences” moral lesson is emblematic of why the government always gets larger instead of smaller. Maybe if more people knew that the government wasn’t automatically going to “help” them they’d be more responsible for themselves.

Of course, all this will magically change when Obama is sworn in and the point will be moot.