One other point I don't get about some Liberals/Dems...

[steelchair]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

it's the tail wagging the dog , and what i have asked of libs is , how can you look at europe with their socialism which creates a well do do political class, high taxes , and high unemployment ; they have single payer health care which is piss poor health CARE , i know that from experience . plus, their open borders are really becoming a dangerous burden, they have lost control, in france they have been fighting in the streets way too often . i just don't get it .

 

[Rolodawg2011]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

This will be an interesting conversation. I'm not sure you'll get a real answer though,

 

[1966septemberdawg]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

I agree 100%. I am a christian and will not try to tell others how they should live their lives. Especially when it means the government holds a gun to my head for my hard earned money to give it to a welfare recipient that is pumping out babies and has no intention of bettering themselves or their children. The libs do not even realize they are slaves to the big government system that feeds, clothes, provides transportation, medical and provides housing so they will stay on the modern plantation and vote democrat. Freedom is not for wimps and not everyone can handle the responsibility of that charge. The golden rule should apply here, but not when big government steps in. If I can not afford something I either save up for the future purchase or I do with out, Simple! I will not ask my fellow citizen or working man to subsidize my lifestyle.

 

[steelchair]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

Funny, no one wanted to get me corrected on this one.

 

[saidog]

Funny, no one wanted to get me corrected on this one.

Crickets, Whitepug, where are you?

 

[DawginSC]

I'm sure DawginSC will blow his mind on this one:

I look at politics mainly from a financial perspective. Honestly, even as a "christian" I don't get too caught up in the LGBT or abortion talking points. Nor do I think republicans are purposely trying to bulldoze the national parks and ruin the environment.

The one I really struggle with is...the liberal/Democrat that is halfway intelligent, has a job and is a contributing member of society. To that person I ask: How do you look at others in the democratic party, not a few fringe members but huge numbers, and say, "I have the same needs as them from my president"? Really, how can you look at the welfare, drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population and say, "that's me...I'm with them"? I don't get it. I guess this is a simple way of putting, I'm not a fan of Socialism. But, it takes the big words out and dumbs it down to a sort of common sense approach.

Sure, the conservatives have their lunatics, any group does. Pick one, none are perfect. But, by in large I would much select a candidate that supports my interests.

Now, one reply, and the obvious one to this would be: "I care about all people, not just my socioeconomic group." Same here, I just don't want the lazy welfare group making decisions for me.

The part your missing is simply that you aren't identifying the members of the group properly. YOu think that people who take advantage of social welfare programs are "drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population".

For example... most people on medicaid (the one for poor people) are elderly.
Most people on food stamps are elderly.
Medicare is for the elderly.
Social security is for the elderly.
Welfare (TANF) is a program that allows 2 years of lifetime eligibility.

The people on the various welfare programs are mostly OLD people. And yeah... I do think that at some point in my life I'll be old. I hope so at least.

You simply don't have a grasp of the actual numbers. 3 million people in the US are on TANF ... the program that most people consider welfare. 40% of the population is around 120 million people. Your beliefs simply don't match reality. The majority of the social welfare net is in place to make it so that old people can retire rather than working for peanuts at Walmart as a greeter until they die. Should life throw me a curveball and my retirement accounts aren't sufficient to support me when I'm old... I don't want to have to worry about being able to pay for insulin or doctors visits because some GOP president changed medicare so it no longer covers anything. I don't want to cause my kids to have to go broke because medicaid isn't in place to keep me in a nursing home like it does today (90% of nursing home residents have their bills paid by medicaid). I don't want to have to worry about food if some wall-street exec running my retirement fund embezzles everything.

You need to reconsider this idea that most people receiving government entitlements are druggies or people intentionally scamming the government. They're regular people who got old.

That being said... I'm not particularly liberal on economic issues (outside of medical ones... but being a diabetic I DO care about that on a personal level). I don't really favor instituting much int he way of new entitlements. I'm just not for rolling back the existing social programs which are there largely to help the elderly.

I'm EXTREMELY liberal on social issues... but that's outside of your question.

The problem is that in today's GOP, if you want existing entitlements for the elderly to continue (or maybe be improved to reduce waste but not to increase benefits)... you're not welcome. 30 years ago that wasn't the case. Even barring the social issues, I wouldn't pass the purity test.

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

The part your missing is simply that you aren't identifying the members of the group properly. YOu think that people who take advantage of social welfare programs are "drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population".

For example... most people on medicaid (the one for poor people) are elderly.
Most people on food stamps are elderly.
Medicare is for the elderly.
Social security is for the elderly.
Welfare (TANF) is a program that allows 2 years of lifetime eligibility.

The people on the various welfare programs are mostly OLD people. And yeah... I do think that at some point in my life I'll be old. I hope so at least.

You simply don't have a grasp of the actual numbers. 3 million people in the US are on TANF ... the program that most people consider welfare. 40% of the population is around 120 million people. Your beliefs simply don't match reality. The majority of the social welfare net is in place to make it so that old people can retire rather than working for peanuts at Walmart as a greeter until they die. Should life throw me a curveball and my retirement accounts aren't sufficient to support me when I'm old... I don't want to have to worry about being able to pay for insulin or doctors visits because some GOP president changed medicare so it no longer covers anything. I don't want to cause my kids to have to go broke because medicaid isn't in place to keep me in a nursing home like it does today (90% of nursing home residents have their bills paid by medicaid). I don't want to have to worry about food if some wall-street exec running my retirement fund embezzles everything.

You need to reconsider this idea that most people receiving government entitlements are druggies or people intentionally scamming the government. They're regular people who got old.

That being said... I'm not particularly liberal on economic issues (outside of medical ones... but being a diabetic I DO care about that on a personal level). I don't really favor instituting much int he way of new entitlements. I'm just not for rolling back the existing social programs which are there largely to help the elderly.

I'm EXTREMELY liberal on social issues... but that's outside of your question.

The problem is that in today's GOP, if you want existing entitlements for the elderly to continue (or maybe be improved to reduce waste but not to increase benefits)... you're not welcome. 30 years ago that wasn't the case. Even barring the social issues, I wouldn't pass the purity test.

dawginsc, i see you joined in 2001 , i have been on the board for years ; but i don't recall you posting until fairly recently . is this a new " handle " , if so , what was your old handle ? just curious . oh , are you really in sc ?

 

[DawgMaticFan]

The demographics of those who receive, or have received government assistance is far more complicated and the numbers nothing close to what the OP claims.
There are many ways to break down the numbers. It's true democrats are more likely to have received certain types of assistance at some point in their lives than republicans. It's also true whites in red states are far more likely than whites in blue states to have received these forms of assistance.
It's true red states receive more than they pay in to the federal coffers. It's true ideologically liberals, moderates and conservatives are equally likely to be on or have been on these forms of public assistance.
The only demographic consistency is poor people and those who have risen from poverty are more likely to have received one or more forms of easily recognizable types of government assistance. That is like saying those who have been unemployed at some point have received unemployment checks at a higher rate than those who have never been unemployed...da !
There is a whole other form of taking more than you've earned, those favors overwhelmingly go to the rich in the forms of tax laws, fraternity, rigged bids, etc, etc.

 

[DawginSC]

dawginsc, i see you joined in 2001 , i have been on the board for years ; but i don't recall you posting until fairly recently . is this a new " handle " , if so , what was your old handle ? just curious . oh , are you really in sc ?

I haven't posted here in a long time. Started here (actually followed along with updates on September 11th here while at work because all of the news websites were unavailable from my work... so venters watching TV kept me updated through the day).

I've mainly stayed on the College Football Soundoff (free national board for rivals). Come over here to look, but rarely post.

For some reason my post count didn't come over when I post here. If you look me up there I have over 28,000 posts. Here... a couple hundred (all starting a bit before signing day)

 

[DawgMaticFan]

I haven't posted here in a long time. Started here (actually followed along with updates on September 11th here while at work because all of the news websites were unavailable from my work... so venters watching TV kept me updated through the day).

I've mainly stayed on the College Football Soundoff (free national board for rivals). Come over here to look, but rarely post.

For some reason my post count didn't come over when I post here. If you look me up there I have over 28,000 posts. Here... a couple hundred (all starting a bit before signing day)

Post counts don't transfer to other boards.
I've seen some of your post at Soundoff.

 

[gawga_dawg]

Steelchair, the way you talk one would think half the country is lazy welfare recipients leeching off the government. Secondly, the red states, or the conservative states tend to take more money from the government than the blue states. Third, what about corporate welfare. We gave those criminal bastards on Wall Street 850 billion, most of whom should be sitting in jail. We gave the auto companies who are incompetent 750 billion dollars. Don't even get me started on the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. People taking welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the wars, the nation building around the world, the corporate welfare, and the unbelievable waste in defense spending. Can someone tell me why we need 600+ military bases around the world in the year 2016? Can someone explain to me why we continue to meddle in other countries business? Welfare recipients are not a problem that is hurting this country. That other stuff hurts ten times more. I'm not suggesting able bodied people should be able to take welfare indefinitely, and the fact is they don't.

The ironic thing is most of you on here who lecture about the lazy leeches, will be taking social security and medicare when you reach that particular age. So you aren't really in a position to talk down about people taking from those programs. They paid in.

The simple fact is I don't think either party gives a damn about this country, the middle class, the poor, etc. They're in it for themselves and their corporate and wealthy benefactors.

 

[DENTDOG]

I will just chime in here about one pet peeve. Welfare mothers, out of wedlock and having 1,2,3 to increase their benefits. The libs love them. It drags the country down but one party promotes it. All you need to know about motives.

 

[DawgMaticFan]

I will just chime in here about one pet peeve. Welfare mothers, out of wedlock and having 1,2,3 to increase their benefits. The libs love them. It drags the country down but one party promotes it. All you need to know about motives.

That is not really true. Bill Clinton reformed welfare and despite the long running republican talking points, he RAN on that platform, it wasn't something Newt forced down his throat.
I went to see BC in early 1991 before I knew anything other than he was considering running for POTUS and he had been Governor of Arkansas. After his speech I turned to my wife and said, he has a real chance of winning. All of the things he ended up accomplishing were laid out in that speech.

 

[steelchair]

Steelchair, the way you talk one would think half the country is lazy welfare recipients leeching off the government. Secondly, the red states, or the conservative states tend to take more money from the government than the blue states. Third, what about corporate welfare. We gave those criminal bastards on Wall Street 850 billion, most of whom should be sitting in jail. We gave the auto companies who are incompetent 750 billion dollars. Don't even get me started on the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. People taking welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the wars, the nation building around the world, the corporate welfare, and the unbelievable waste in defense spending. Can someone tell me why we need 600+ military bases around the world in the year 2016? Can someone explain to me why we continue to meddle in other countries business? Welfare recipients are not a problem that is hurting this country. That other stuff hurts ten times more. I'm not suggesting able bodied people should be able to take welfare indefinitely, and the fact is they don't.

The ironic thing is most of you on here who lecture about the lazy leeches, will be taking social security and medicare when you reach that particular age. So you aren't really in a position to talk down about people taking from those programs. They paid in.

The simple fact is I don't think either party gives a damn about this country, the middle class, the poor, etc. They're in it for themselves and their corporate and wealthy benefactors.

Last time I checked 47% of this nation is receiving some sort of government handout. Sure, there's a percentage of that that is well deserved, whether it be for SS or properly distributed welfare. But, I'll gladly talk down to the entitlement crowd that thinks the government owes them something. Maybe some of you guys should look around a little.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Reform is the most abused term in politics and in government. There's no reason productive reform (more efficient government) cannot happen. Government does not have to be better funded to be better operated. And no one hates the Wall Street leeches more than I do. There are plenty of needed changes to go around. And, as much fun as it is for us and our conflict seeking media to rail on about elections, picking a President has little to do with changing our core problems of hatred, jealousy, greed, envy and distrust. We the people can change things at the family, neighborhood and community levels as soon as WE start proving we can. We need to stop waiting for elected officials to do it ALL for us. Those of us with our hands on our wallets are just as accountable as those of us with our hands out or in someone else's pocket. All of our woes top to bottom front to back can be fixed, but we have to show and tell our "leaders" how it's going to be, and stop waiting for them to match our sensibilities.

 

[DawgMaticFan]

Last time I checked 47% of this nation is receiving some sort of government handout. Sure, there's a percentage of that that is well deserved, whether it be for SS or properly distributed welfare. But, I'll gladly talk down to the entitlement crowd that thinks the government owes them something. Maybe some of you guys should look around a little.

It's hard to have an intelligent conversation when a percentage is given that clearly is intended to distort. Much of that 47% is for SS, pensions, subsidies, etc. That is assuming the numbers you present are accurate.
I also have a hard time with people ( not you necessarily) who rage about takers while also against minimum wage laws that at least protect those at the lowest levels who are willing to do work most people turn their noses up at.
There are many people who are forced to apply for food stamps to feed their kids even while cleaning hotel rooms or washing dishes 40 or more hours a week.
This country is the most top heavy large nation in history, and it gets worse every year. Yet the narrative we see most suggest just the opposite.

 

[UgaTom]

Steelchair, the way you talk one would think half the country is lazy welfare recipients leeching off the government. Secondly, the red states, or the conservative states tend to take more money from the government than the blue states. Third, what about corporate welfare. We gave those criminal bastards on Wall Street 850 billion, most of whom should be sitting in jail. We gave the auto companies who are incompetent 750 billion dollars. Don't even get me started on the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. People taking welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the wars, the nation building around the world, the corporate welfare, and the unbelievable waste in defense spending. Can someone tell me why we need 600+ military bases around the world in the year 2016? Can someone explain to me why we continue to meddle in other countries business? Welfare recipients are not a problem that is hurting this country. That other stuff hurts ten times more. I'm not suggesting able bodied people should be able to take welfare indefinitely, and the fact is they don't.

The ironic thing is most of you on here who lecture about the lazy leeches, will be taking social security and medicare when you reach that particular age. So you aren't really in a position to talk down about people taking from those programs. They paid in.

The simple fact is I don't think either party gives a damn about this country, the middle class, the poor, etc. They're in it for themselves and their corporate and wealthy benefactors.

SS & Medicare are entitlement programs. That is money that people have earned and which the gov't has taken from them for future disbursement. There's no irony in a person who will one day get those benefits being critical of welfare programs. FWIW, plenty of those people are critical of entitlement programs as well.

 

[im4thedawgs]

The part your missing is simply that you aren't identifying the members of the group properly. YOu think that people who take advantage of social welfare programs are "drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population".

For example... most people on medicaid (the one for poor people) are elderly.
Most people on food stamps are elderly.
Medicare is for the elderly.
Social security is for the elderly.
Welfare (TANF) is a program that allows 2 years of lifetime eligibility.

The people on the various welfare programs are mostly OLD people. And yeah... I do think that at some point in my life I'll be old. I hope so at least.

You simply don't have a grasp of the actual numbers. 3 million people in the US are on TANF ... the program that most people consider welfare. 40% of the population is around 120 million people. Your beliefs simply don't match reality. The majority of the social welfare net is in place to make it so that old people can retire rather than working for peanuts at Walmart as a greeter until they die. Should life throw me a curveball and my retirement accounts aren't sufficient to support me when I'm old... I don't want to have to worry about being able to pay for insulin or doctors visits because some GOP president changed medicare so it no longer covers anything. I don't want to cause my kids to have to go broke because medicaid isn't in place to keep me in a nursing home like it does today (90% of nursing home residents have their bills paid by medicaid). I don't want to have to worry about food if some wall-street exec running my retirement fund embezzles everything.

You need to reconsider this idea that most people receiving government entitlements are druggies or people intentionally scamming the government. They're regular people who got old.

That being said... I'm not particularly liberal on economic issues (outside of medical ones... but being a diabetic I DO care about that on a personal level). I don't really favor instituting much int he way of new entitlements. I'm just not for rolling back the existing social programs which are there largely to help the elderly.

I'm EXTREMELY liberal on social issues... but that's outside of your question.

The problem is that in today's GOP, if you want existing entitlements for the elderly to continue (or maybe be improved to reduce waste but not to increase benefits)... you're not welcome. 30 years ago that wasn't the case. Even barring the social issues, I wouldn't pass the purity test.

You're being dishonest to suggest Republicans don't want to fund social security and medicare. Actually attempts to continue to keep it solvent (as "W" attempted to do) and still give young people a better chance to benefit in their retirement were used by Democrats for political purposes. I actually believe every penny earned should be subject to SS taxes. No reason somebody working at McDs pays on 100% of their earnings while Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't. Sorry but to suggest Republicans are "cold hearted" towards the elderly isn't based in fact. But if a party has changed beyond recognition it's the Democratic party. Moderates need not apply.

 

[MRDAWG]

I agree 100%. I am a christian and will not try to tell others how they should live their lives. Especially when it means the government holds a gun to my head for my hard earned money to give it to a welfare recipient that is pumping out babies and has no intention of bettering themselves or their children. The libs do not even realize they are slaves to the big government system that feeds, clothes, provides transportation, medical and provides housing so they will stay on the modern plantation and vote democrat. Freedom is not for wimps and not everyone can handle the responsibility of that charge. The golden rule should apply here, but not when big government steps in. If I can not afford something I either save up for the future purchase or I do with out, Simple! I will not ask my fellow citizen or working man to subsidize my lifestyle.

"The golden rule should apply here, but not when big government steps in".........Where did Jesus say there was an exception to the Golden Rule?
Please site the bible verse.

 

[im4thedawgs]

The part your missing is simply that you aren't identifying the members of the group properly. YOu think that people who take advantage of social welfare programs are "drugged up, government boob sucking 40% of the population".

For example... most people on medicaid (the one for poor people) are elderly.
Most people on food stamps are elderly.
Medicare is for the elderly.
Social security is for the elderly.
Welfare (TANF) is a program that allows 2 years of lifetime eligibility.

The people on the various welfare programs are mostly OLD people. And yeah... I do think that at some point in my life I'll be old. I hope so at least.

You simply don't have a grasp of the actual numbers. 3 million people in the US are on TANF ... the program that most people consider welfare. 40% of the population is around 120 million people. Your beliefs simply don't match reality. The majority of the social welfare net is in place to make it so that old people can retire rather than working for peanuts at Walmart as a greeter until they die. Should life throw me a curveball and my retirement accounts aren't sufficient to support me when I'm old... I don't want to have to worry about being able to pay for insulin or doctors visits because some GOP president changed medicare so it no longer covers anything. I don't want to cause my kids to have to go broke because medicaid isn't in place to keep me in a nursing home like it does today (90% of nursing home residents have their bills paid by medicaid). I don't want to have to worry about food if some wall-street exec running my retirement fund embezzles everything.

You need to reconsider this idea that most people receiving government entitlements are druggies or people intentionally scamming the government. They're regular people who got old.

That being said... I'm not particularly liberal on economic issues (outside of medical ones... but being a diabetic I DO care about that on a personal level). I don't really favor instituting much int he way of new entitlements. I'm just not for rolling back the existing social programs which are there largely to help the elderly.

I'm EXTREMELY liberal on social issues... but that's outside of your question.

The problem is that in today's GOP, if you want existing entitlements for the elderly to continue (or maybe be improved to reduce waste but not to increase benefits)... you're not welcome. 30 years ago that wasn't the case. Even barring the social issues, I wouldn't pass the purity test.

Loose with some facts. Only 10% of Snap benefits go to elderly households. 44% goes to children, with 2/3 of those single parent households. 39.8% go to whites, 25.5% to blacks and 10.9% to hispanics. Entitlements seem to be pegged to family structure issues. No surprise. Marriage could probably reduce the poverty rate by 50%.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

"The golden rule should apply here, but not when big government steps in".........Where did Jesus say there was an exception to the Golden Rule?
Please site the bible verse.

Jesus did not say there was an exception, I DID!! Jesus also helps those that help themselves. We have multiple generations sucking off the government tit without any thoughts of bettering themselves, that is where I draw the line.
I do not get myself into a situation where I can not afford to live and then expect your family or any other family to subsidize my livelihood because I do not want to work for it. Jesus does not approve of laziness and cheats who live off the sweat of others honest work. That is where I believe the golden rule is abused.

 

[DawginSC]

dawginsc, i see you joined in 2001 , i have been on the board for years ; but i don't recall you posting until fairly recently . is this a new " handle " , if so , what was your old handle ? just curious . oh , are you really in sc ?

I've been mostly on CFB soundoff (the national free board). I came over here just before signing day to see some recruiting related information and got pulled into political discussions.

I'll probably go back to posting almost entirely on the national board after the election.

And yeah, I live in the upstate of SC.