Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by Lady_Brat none (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 13:32

epi""""""Perhaps its time for your state to stand on its own two feet and stop living off the rest of us and if you have to pay more state taxes then so be it."

I believe I remember arguments that New Orleans hadn't received help soon enough due to it's being a poor state and Blacks making up a majority of its population. Attitudes seem to have changed a little now. JMHO, but it seems things have sunk to a new low when someone from one of the more prosperous states infer that they are more deserving of help than a poor state as they contribute more to the "pot". I thought this was America and we were all equal........my mistake.

As for the "pork" included in these bills it should be outlawed permitting only distribution of actual relief funds needed by the victims of whatever disaster "to get back to being functional and safe". Those who include such trash in a relief bill, be it Reps or Dems, should be ashamed of themselves and voted out by their constituents next election. Victims of Sandy difinately have reason for being upset with the stupidity being shown by our government. Where and when, however, does doing away with the pork begin. Just as with the mass shootings over the years, the first call is for gun control instead of solving the real problem.........time rolls on and no changes are made to correct the cause....next shooting, same response. Same in disaster relief......we complain about the pork but once funds are distributed the pork is forgotten until next time. No, we don't have funds for the pork included in this bill but the victims of Sandy don't have time to wait for a resolution. People should begin immediately after funds are distributed contacting their representatives to get laws passed banning ANY pork whatsoever from being included in disaster relief funds.......as well as other bills where the pork is slipped in. Let the lawmakers know that we are sick of relief for life and death matters being used for some jerk to "pork" up his desires.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Isn't it amazing. The ones who so vociferously clamor for those who work hard and are successful to pay more in taxes, are the same ones who say, I don't want to pay for people in states that need more help. Over and over it proves...a liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back. Their compassion ends and the end of their nose.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

"a liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back."

That worn out old chestnut yet again.....

I guarantee you every liberal on this forum is fully prepared to give their own shirt in order to contribute to a fair and just society. Liberals pay taxes, too, liberals are wealthy too. The self absorption by some conservatives who think they carry the entire burden of society on their back is nonsense.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

The ones who so vociferously clamor for those who work hard and are successful to pay more in taxes, are the same ones who say, I don't want to pay for people in states that need more help.

Snort! And the same ones who say "boo frickety hoo" about fellow citizens in need are the very ones who clamor that others have "no compassion" when they themselves want help.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

"

Snort! And the same ones who say "boo frickety hoo" about fellow citizens in need are the very ones who clamor that others have "no compassion" when they themselves want help.

And who would you be referring to here cp?

chase, if what you say is true, then why whine about having to help some states that have a poor and underemployed percentage of the population.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

mrskjun wrote,

Isn't it amazing. The ones who so vociferously clamor for those who work hard and are successful to pay more in taxes, are the same ones who say, I don't want to pay for people in states that need more help. Over and over it proves...a liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back. Their compassion ends and the end of their nose.

Multiple falsehoods here. You incorrectly assume that no liberals who support higher taxes on upper-income people are themselves upper-income people. That assumption is provably false. Next, you claim there are multiple liberals here who have posted that they want to increase taxes on the wealthy and deny aid to less-fortunate people in other states. Absent your producing specific posts to support this claim, it is a fabrication, a straw man you have created in order to attack it; it's as false as your claim that the state of Louisiana pays the federal government billions of dollars in oil royalties each year.

When you habitually fabricate information to support a predetermined position, you will understand if it fatally undermines your credibility.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

chase, if what you say is true, then why whine about having to help some states that have a poor and underemployed percentage of the population.

Disingenuous much?

The objections were to the Congresspersons from "taker" states voting against financial aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Mrs...perhaps it because it appears that the poor conservative States want the shirt of the back of the wealthier liberals States.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 14:49

Mrs...perhaps it because it appears that the poor conservative States want the shirt of the back of the wealthier liberals States.

*

Remember those complaints about conservatives that don't approve of abortion, or late term abortion, and the liberals are always complaining that they condone these people existing but they don't want to pay for them?

Same thing with crack heads, lazy people that won't take personal responsibility for their lives.

SO many encourage their proliferation, but don't want to pay for it.

You get more of what you subsidize--make excuses for people, take over the responsibility for their needs, and someone is going to pay.

You asked for them, you got them.
Lots of them.
More of them, under Obama's economy.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

You get more of what you subsidize

That's true in the case of the war on drugs. Billions spent on law enforcement over the years, and more and more drugs enter the country. Time to rethink the drug laws, and time to treat addictions as medical problems to be managed by health experts.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I cannot believe that this tragedy has a part 2 to discuss, fight about how greedy and broke liberals are that want to take all the money from the rich people in the south.

Okay I will bite.

We all agree there are wealthy Liberals and Conservatives. I think a little search will turn up only Conservatives whining about not giving because taxes will help some lazy person next door, down the street or any imaginary friend they can think up. Those black people are making a entire state look like they are poor.

Warren Buffet comes to mind, a Liberal Rich man. Is he saying taxes will go to those lazy black people down the street?

Bill Gates another wealthy Liberal. Is he saying taxes are too high and the welfare queen is going to destroy America?

So is this selfish problem Conservative or Liberal?

I hope you remember this when the hurricanes hit Louisiana this summer.

Please start several topics of not wanting one dime for hurricane relief if there is Pork.

Please start several topics of how you hate the government for trying to give money to your area.

"Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2" You all should be ashame of yourself.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Does anyone remember the hooray about the Line Item Veto that Clinton wanted?

IF we had such a thing, a President could veto all those things that he considered unneeded for the major plan.

But noooooo, Congress zapped that. It would have kept them from slipping in goodies that did not have a chance without the main bill (in this case, storm relief)


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

epi""""""Perhaps its time for your state to stand on its own two feet and stop living off the rest of us and if you have to pay more state taxes then so be it."
I believe I remember arguments that New Orleans hadn't received help soon enough due to it's being a poor state and Blacks making up a majority of its population. Attitudes seem to have changed a little now. JMHO, but it seems things have sunk to a new low when someone from one of the more prosperous states infer that they are more deserving of help than a poor state as they contribute more to the "pot". I thought this was America and we were all equal........my mistake.

Isn't it amazing. The ones who so vociferously clamor for those who work hard and are successful to pay more in taxes, are the same ones who say, I don't want to pay for people in states that need more help. Over and over it proves...a liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back. Their compassion ends and the end of their nose.

Lady Brat and Mrsk, deliberately distorting my comments, taking them out of context and applying a meaning to them that has no bearing on reality is nothing less than dishonest. Par for the course as we have seen over and over and over again. Your only mistake is believing and posting falsehoods and/or making things up pretending they are true.

It is a simple premise that you can either grasp or not. I don't feel that those who are the recipients of others largess and generosity during a crisis or otherwise should try to deny others the same. I would think they would be there to support them since one would assume they would know better than most. Nothing more and nothing less. Jindal and others, who have their hand out and know exactly how much that aid helps should be the first to support others when the shoe is on the other foot, especially when these people who are now suffering are the very ones who continue to prop their state up with their taxes. Simple.

People like Maggie and others who were affected by Sandy are as deserving of help as anyone else, but some tried to deny it to them. And as we see on here some support that and are forced to distort the truth in order to make it fit.

I am happy to help those that need it but I admit to not feeling very generous to those who seem to think that some are not as deserving as others because of the color of their skin, their economic standing, their political beliefs, etc. which is what we have seen here from both of you.

I have no problem helping anyone that needs it and my actions have backed up my words in the past and will in the future. I sleep very well at night knowing what I contribute to others both through my tax dollars as well as my philanthropy.

Mrsk, you take our money every day so don't claim you don't. Our tax dollars goes to keep up your infrastructure etc. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.

Since you don't have a clue as to what I give it is arrogant and ridiculous to assume anything but that doesn't stop you. Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing just what you pull out of your...


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Demifloyd wrote,

You get more of what you subsidize

Contraception, education, alternative energy, arts, etc. We have some common ground.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Mrskjun, here's my source:

The source in question is responding to concerns that a flat tax would place an undue burden on the poor. The very crudeness is why it sticks in memory so well.

I truly wish the source in question would also stop referring to the children of the poor as "what" in her beloved phrase "you get more of what you pay for." It's an ugly dehumanizing phrase that I find repellent. Demi, at least lend your fellow citizens the dignity of a human pronoun even if you'd happily deny them a penny.

Here is a link that might be useful: source 'f'course


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Louisiana, a Test Case in Federal Aid

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: April 4, 2009
NEW ORLEANS � Years before Washington spent $787 billion on a national stimulus bill, it staged an unintended trial run in Louisiana, a huge injection of some $51 billion for which historians find few, if any, precedents in a single state.

The experiment is still playing out, but some indicators suggest that what occurred in Louisiana � dumping a large amount of reconstruction money into a confined space in the three and a half years since Hurricane Katrina � has had a positive outcome. The state�s unemployment rate of 5.7 percent in February was considerably below the national average of 8.1 percent, and it was the only state to see a drop in unemployment from December to January. It was also the only state with an increase in non-farm employment in February.

State economists specifically mention what one called 'the ongoing building boom' from federal dollars as a main reason for the numbers. Largely a result of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, construction projects have not dried up as they have elsewhere, and a few can even be seen in downtown New Orleans.

Construction has 'really hung in there and done very well,' said Loren Scott, an emeritus professor of economics at Louisiana State University. 'In most states construction is way down, but in ours it has been up.' The relatively low unemployment rate in Louisiana 'tells you that the stimulus can have an effect,' Mr. Scott said.
However, the state�s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, has positioned himself as a leading voice against the new stimulus bill, objecting to federal intervention in a state�s economy. He has threatened to reject $98 million in stimulus money intended to help Louisiana�s unemployed, echoing other Southern and Western governors who have turned such rejections into a conservative rallying cry.

But even as Mr. Jindal has criticized the stimulus bill, his own subordinates have continued to request money from Washington, notably in replacing Charity Hospital, which for generations served the poor in downtown New Orleans. State health officials, disregarding restoration work at Charity done in the months immediately after Hurricane Katrina, say they need a brand-new hospital and an additional $500 million; the Federal Emergency Management Agency has balked and is offering only $150 million.

Mr. Jindal amplified his anti-government-spending theme in a speech last month at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington, saying Democrats believe that 'the historic spending and expansion of government' is the way out of the economic crisis.

'They honestly believe that,' he said. 'Conversely, we honestly believe that they are completely wrong, and that their path will have dire consequences for not only this time, but also for the future of America.'

In Louisiana, however, the consequences have hardly been dire � just the opposite, in fact. One of the governor�s leading aides, the state�s recovery director, Paul Rainwater, praised the federal relief effort in Louisiana in recent remarks to Congress, the day after his boss scorned federal help on national television in the Republican Party�s response to President Obama�s first address to Congress.

'No other state in the nation has been blessed with such generosity from Congress and the American people,' Mr. Rainwater said.

Referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a principal conduit for the aid that has flowed here, he said that 'Louisiana is FEMA�s biggest �customer,� so to speak, and the state�s Office of Facility Planning and Control is the largest single public-assistance applicant in American history.'

In the preceding 18 months, some $25 million a week had been given out in the public-assistance program, which helps local governments rebuild vital facilities, among other functions.

Over all, Mr. Rainwater said in an interview, $10 million a day was spent in the state in 2008, enough to draw contractors from around the country. In the last two weeks alone, he said, the state helped open six new apartment complexes, five of them in New Orleans.

'You take 10 million a day you didn�t have otherwise in your general fund, you can generate a lot of energy in your economy,' he said.

Because of that history, the governor�s anti-stimulus stance � as well as his threat to reject the stimulus package�s supplemental unemployment aid as an unwarranted burden on business interests � has provoked some skepticism and incomprehension here.

'The feedback I get is, it�s no longer an issue of big government vs. little,' said State Senator Eric LaFleur, a Democrat who wants to override the governor�s promised veto of the money. 'If that money has been made available and we�ve paid for it, we should accept it. To do anything otherwise is purely political.'

The torrent of money flowing here after Hurricane Katrina has gone for projects small and grand, from $63,000 to the St. Theodore Holy Family Catholic School in Lake Charles and $96,000 for the Louisiana School for the Deaf in Baton Rouge to $11 million to the public housing authority in New Orleans and $160 million for the city�s sewer and water board. Billions of dollars more have been paid out in federally subsidized flood insurance, levee reconstruction and low-cost loans, including $7.9 billion for the Road Home program, which provided cash grants to people whose homes were damaged in the flooding.

The official list includes dozens upon dozens of projects, and the money is still being paid out � indeed, a constant lament of Louisiana officials is that it does not come fast enough.

Here is a link that might be useful: Jindals takes but...


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Walk a mile in your shoes? I already have.

What I remember from our disaster was, there was no television coverage of it, whatsoever. None. We didn't even exist or deserve attention for awhile. Then, some attacked us because we banded together as Nashvilleans helping Nashvilleans because we were proud of our neighbors and friends (that it was somehow a dig against other disasters in the US? When we were just happy someone was helping us!). If you didn't have flood insurance, you ate the costs. Several people ended up foreclosed on. Then, some, who were in the flood plains, lost their homes completely. Were not allowed to rebuild. Sure, the government bought them from them, but at a greatly reduced rate and surely not enough to buy a new one. At the time that the May 2010 flood hit Nashville, it was the costliest natural disaster in US history outside of hurricaines. I believe Joplin outdid us shortly thereafter. Help? What help did we get? Not that I am saying, poor pitiful me. I'm saying, this shi- happens all the time, when it never should. Who is deserving of rebuilding and for help? Those who are struck down. All of us... and no one deserved the attrocity that befell them. Not one. But it's time to backdown and love your fellow countrymen. Pull together, use those hands for rebuilding and hugging, instead of pointing fingers. Let's face it, it's never enough money to rebuild. And since when is Congress anything other than self-serving? It's not gonna stop but we can!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I guarantee you every liberal on this forum is fully prepared to give their own shirt in order to contribute to a fair and just society.

Chase,

How many shirts do you own? They better be Xtra large too!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Brush...I am more than glad to share the good fortune I have had with my fellow man.....more than glad.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Circuspeanut, I find the despicable lies and innuendo you made about my personal life last year in a long and ranting post--out of the blue--repellent.

I couldn't care less what you think about what I think about people that could do better, but refuse to do so while expecting others to take up their slack.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Perhaps we are at the point to consider how many times we want to provide disaster relief to the same area before we say enough. You know the risks when you rebuild. If you rebuild, the Federal government isn't going to bail you out to rebuild again. Several areas along the Outer Banks come to mind. I think there is a road there that federal disaster relief has rebuilt like five times already.

I'm not talking about Sandy or Katrina this time around.

The Florida Keys put in draconian housing standards after the last big hurricane there. First floors can no longer house any utilities and must be able to survive storm surge flooding through. But after Katrina, New Orleans did not require any code changes so that the most vulnerable 9th ward or anywhere else could survive the next flood. Will we be doing the same Katrina Relief after the next hurricane? Same for Mississippi flood plain. How many times does a house have to be drowned before we stop providing disaster relief.

None of this pertains to immediate relief and rescue national guard type help. I'm talking about rebuilding money.

Maybe disaster relief should be three strikes and you're out.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Or maybe, we can just have compassion and rebuild anyhow. It's been home for generations and they're just supposed to leave? Your comments border on "they deserve it" kimka. No they don't. There is "weather" in every part of the US. Sometimes, it knocks you for a loop and sometimes you dodge a bullet. Drought? Mud slides? Forest fires? Tornadoes? Blizzards? It's everywhere.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Well this post is achieving it's desired goal!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Maybe disaster relief should be three strikes and you're out.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

If the country wishes to have shipping down the Mississippi and utilize New Orleans as a working port (or any other port on the Gulf of Mexico), disaster relief will be part of the package. Given the problems that global climate change will bring, all U.S. ports could be facing terrible natural disasters. Do we stop exports and imports, fishing, ocean travel? The same could be said for agricultural in tornado country, or any number of activities that are vital to the U.S. economy that take place in areas where disasters caused by flooding, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, etc. occur.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 17:23

Which states voted "against" Sandy aid?

Click link and scroll down for interactive map.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I'm really talking about requiring changes in building codes so that the same damage doesn't happen repeatedly with the same reoccurring disaster. The Florida Keys people know that another hurricane will come so do the flood plain people. One group is now better able to withstand their disaster than the other.

I am in no way saying people deserve what they get if they stay or rebuild. But rebuilding the same way (to the same code) means the same damage will happen again.

Does that make sense, especially when some one (or many some ones) else have to pick up the tab?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I think thats a valid point - building codes are going to need to reflect the realities of a rapidly changing climate with more frequent and more severe droughts, floods, winds, and the rising seas.

And its also valid to note that New Orleans/Mississippi River is a major port and transport artery, and its going to continue to take major Gvt commitments to keep it operating.

I heard something this morning about the number of levees in the country that need some serious maintenance.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Spend some time on N. Carolina's Outer Banks in someone's lovely beach cottage if you want to experience a truly fragile environment. That incredibly thin strip of land has been put back together countless times. Houses on stilts have washed away and been horribly battered in every storm. You can't stop the simple nature of things - those barrier islands constantly erode on one end and build up on another. They could very easily disappear and Pamlico and Albermarle Sounds becomes open ocean.

I truly believe there are some places we just weren't meant to permanently occupy.

And no effense meant to New Orleans and to all the people who are justifiably proud to call it home, but can a city built in a bowl surrounded by water - Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico - be defended?

Here is a link that might be useful: Just a matter of time


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

But rebuilding the same way (to the same code) means the same damage will happen again.

Responsible municipalities should be changing the building codes based on the latest disaster evidence.

You will still be only building to the latest worst disaster. For example: After each major quake in the SoCal region, L.A. City tightens its building codes for new construction based on the current structural failures. Since the 1930s, reinforcement has been for lateral movement from the shock waves. Then the 1994 Northridge quake hit with vertical movement, and reinforced structures collapsed. More changes to the building codes, more retrofitting on freeway supports based on the newest best guess. Who knows what the next major quake will bring?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Kimka, Maggie addressed this on the other thread. There have been changes and I am sure there will be more. The first of 12 city council meetings about the storm was held this week and they will be making more recommendations after that.

I don't know about other places.

Posted by maggie2094 (My Page) on Tue, Jan 15, 13 at 22:02

Then there is infrastructure, etc. my town lost everything. Just a note my area was developed in the 50s and has never had a sea water flood. All our utilities are now raised on blocks. LG frontloader pedistals are now considered flood mitigation items lol If you has more than 50 percent damage to your home, you must go through ICc process to raise your home with front door at 14 feet above sea level. It makes sense. FYI FEMA rezoned our area about 6 years ago. They know more than we know no doubt.

Already there are changes here too. NYU Med Center is reopening slowly. Two weeks ago a limited number of services resumed and just today the neo-natal unit on the 9th floor reopened. The emergency room is still closed as are many of the other wards.

They are now in the process of relocating much of the infrastructure including the emergency generators to a safer area where they will not be affected by flooding. They were originally in the basement and were deemed useless when the water flooded where they were. The cost of reopening the hospital is $1 billion+ so it isn't that easy and few can afford to make changes on their own in their own homes.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

"Pork" sounds awful and often times some of the add-ons to legislation are misguided, even abusive.
However, given the deep division in Congress, why remove their ability to wheel and deal a little bit to get something done?
OK, I will include money for a highway project in your State if you give me your vote on a measure that you deemed to be a close call for you. Yes. it is technically "pork" but it is also the way business often gets done in Congress.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 17:58

Don't we send our representatives to Congress to "bring home the bacon" to our communities?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Just to be clear, only one congressman from north Louisiana voted against the Sandy aid, and I've already said that I hope he isn't re-elected. As far as the infrastructure..let's be clear. It was because of the shoddy workmanship of the Corps of Engineers that the levee in New Orleans failed. It wasn't Katrina hitting the city, it was levee failure that caused all of the destruction.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Just to be clear it doesn't matter what caused it. The levees didn't hold the water that Katrina brought. The bottom line is when Louisiana was in trouble and needed help everyone stepped up to the plate. The other states approved aid and Americans championed your cause even with the "pork" and that included those heartless, uncaring "libruls" you continue to spew nonsense about - unlike what happened now with Sandy.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Just to be perfectly clear epi...I was 100% behind the aid package for Sandy, pork and all. I said, that I wasn't for the pork in the Katrina bill, not for the pork in the Sandy bill...I think it's wrong that pork should be added to disaster relief bills and I stand by that.


 o
Walk a mile in our shoes

Just to be perfectly clear epi...I was 100% behind the aid package for Sandy, pork and all. I said, that I wasn't for the pork in the Katrina bill, not for the pork in the Sandy bill...I think it's wrong that pork should be added to disaster relief bills and I stand by that.

Mrsk, you have already made your feelings perfectly clear. You said a lot of things in these 2 threads...including distorting people's words and meanings including my own. Others were able to express themselves without resorting to exaggerations, lies and insults. The same can't be said for you.

Between twisting my words, your erroneous stats, and your comments about the African-American community there is nothing left to clarify unless you want to apologize to those who you insulted. Otherwise, it is just more of the same.

If you read anyone's comments you would know that everyone agrees with your point on the pork but we all know that wasn't the only reason that the GOP was blocking the aid and besides, timing is everything.

This should not have been debated during the crisis. Before or after is more appropriate but NOT when people are suffering, especially people who have historically helped others including your own state. No one was asking for anything more than anyone else has received in the past under the same circumstances including support from elected officials and fellow citizens which we saw was not the case this time. You don't change the rules mid-game simply because it is happening to people who have different political views than you and/or you want to either prove a point or punish them (or the President).

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 20:16


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

marquest"""""""Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2" You all should be ashame of yourself."

Since I made the OP on "Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2" mind telling me what I have to be ashamed of. Went back, reread my post and I see nothing to be ashamed of. I basically stated that victims of Sandy have a real reason for being upset, that ALL pork should be banned in bills covering disasters and that we should start working on getting that done as soon as Sandy victims are paid in order to prevent future disaster victims from going through the same crap. Hey, works for me but you are entitled to your own opinion.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I couldn't care less what you think about what I think about people that could do better, but refuse to do so while expecting others to take up their slack.

That's OK, Demi, I just figured it never hurts to ask.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Since I made the OP on "Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2" mind telling me what I have to be ashamed of.

1) Dishonesty

2) Taking my words out of context

3) Distorting and misrepresenting them to start this thread

4) Stirring the pot for no reason.

All are your usual mo so no surprise.

Marquest was right, you should be ashamed of yourself but you never are.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Thank you epi expressed my thoughts perfectly.

The difference of how the aid is being voted on, the attitude of the members here that went through other hurricanes is insensitive and hypocritical.

They say "Of course I want funds to go to NY" but when they were in the same position. Pork was not brought up one time. If it was so offensive why did you not bring it up when you had those shoes on?

They say "I did not like the Pork in the Katrina bill" but they did not whisper a word of this disapproval. Where are those shoes now?

They say "We are concerned" Where are the post of support without argument and discussion of the Pork that is so offensive and how that pork could have been used in another bill. Where are those Shoes?

Where is the comment. This is not the time to argue about what is in a bill when these people are suffering. After that comment was said where do you see someone had the good sense to stop. Know we get a Walk A Mile in My Shoes "fight about Pork 2". Where are those Shoes?

When the last hurricane hit Louisiana. We and I on HT did not discuss one objectional issue in those threads. I expressed my concern for the people. Demi's Mom offered my prayers and thoughts that things were OK for her and her Mom and others that were going through that tragedy. Later in other Hurricane topics others inquired how Demi's Mom was doing. Where are your Shoes?

It is hypocritical and you should be ashame when you cannot see the difference of just because you say you wish the people well but OH THAT PORK what about that. It is like as my Mom use to say it is like a cow giving you milk and kicking it over. Keep the milk if you are only going to kick it over.

That is what WALK A MILE IN MY SHOES means and if you use the title to step on maggie, Joe and others that post here know what those shoes feel like you should have the common decency to think before you post and use that title.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

You are still doing it epi...despite the fact that all but one of our lawmakers voted for the Sandy aid bill, despite the fact that I was 100% for the Sandy aid bill, you keep trying to make a point that those of us in Louisiana were against it. I don't know why. I'm quite sure the people in the northeast would rather that all the money in the bill be coming to them in aid rather than having it look like they are getting an enormous amount when so much of it is being siphoned off in pork projects. And beyond that fact 80% of it won't even be spent in 2013.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Why don't you stop mrskjun?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Marquest and Epi expressed everything I wanted to say ,so it would be redundant to do so.

All I remember is how empathetic we in the Northeast were to the sufferers in Katrina. No mention of pork in the aid package, no one didn't vote for the aid bill. But suddenly because we are the liberal northeast who give out more than we take in, pork is suddenly the issue. It's punishment for the states going overwhelmingly for Obama especially New Jersey and their Governor who had the good grace to embrace Obama for the help he brought.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

You are still doing it epi...despite the fact that all but one of our lawmakers voted for the Sandy aid bill,

No Mrsk, it looks like YOU are still doing it.

All but one? Looks like more than one to me.

La. delegation's votes mixed on Sandy aid funds
January 16, 2013

WASHINGTON - Half of the Louisiana House delegation voted against the $50.4 billion Hurricane Sandy disaster aid package passed by the House on Tuesday after critics alleged it was hypocritical for representatives from hurricane-vulnerable Southern states to oppose the aid.

Reps. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge; Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson; and John Fleming, R-Minden, voted against the supplemental package while Reps. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman; Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette; and Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, voted in favor of it.

The legislation to aid the Northeastern states was approved on a 241-180 vote, with a majority of Republicans opposing it.

I am not the one who started a 2nd thread. I am not the one who distorted facts, you did and based on this thread continue to. YOU misrepresented and distorted (my) words and also inserted the black community, using them as a scapegoat. YOU used erroneous stats, etc.

Maggie asked for help. Instead you decided to use the opportunity to spew an ill-timed, passive-aggressive, "joke" seemingly in retribution for some perceived slight at being called a racist. It's all right there in black and white so it looks like YOU are "still doing it".

I am not interested in continuing a circular conversation. The threads are there for anyone to read.

edited to add link.

Here is a link that might be useful: More than one....

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 15:29


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

mrskjun wrote,

Just to be clear, only one congressman from north Louisiana voted against the Sandy aid

...and...

all but one of our lawmakers voted for the Sandy aid bill

These statements are false.

Will you retract them? If not, why not?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 15:50

Who lies to support a position? Setting up stawmen, making all kinds of fallacious arguments, twisting the words and positions of others. Quite weird actually. What is gained by that? I usually just ignore but this has gone on for two threads. It's a very silly and embarrassing thing to do. If a position is that untenable maybe it's time to rethink it?

Congress screwed up on this, they shouldn't play political football when people are cold and miserable with their lives in shambles. We are all neighbors and we are all in this thing together. Thank goodness the bill finally got through and hopefully it will help folks get their lives back on track.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 16:15

>Quite weird actually<

Quite consistent with total la la-based right wing point of view, actually. I used to have right wingers in my own family and they were always worked up about and stating nonsensical concepts.

>I usually just ignore<

Yep! Otherwise it's like reading pages and pages of spam.

Which it might as well be.

Anymore I mostly only know what the repeat offenders are babbling by reading the rebuttals to it.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Tornado season next month courtesy of GW (which most of the Takers don't 'believe' in, but we digress). I think it's about time for the Northeast to wake up and smell all the pork acomin' and remind them that G-d helps those that help themselves.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I think some of you have collectively lost your marbles!! You want me to say I don't think the people who suffered from Sandy shouldn't get all the help they can? Sorry, can't, won't, do it. I would like to see them get every dime that was in that bill...they won't, but they should. I felt exactly the same way about Katrina, even though I personally didn't get a dime..so what?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

so what?

So what? The so what is you lied. You continue to lie. You continue to make up facts to support your position. And you continue to refuse to acknowledge your facts are wrong.

That's so what.

Geez.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Mrs, is it true that only one LA politician voted against the Sandy package or is it true several did?

One of you have your facts wrong.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I lied jill? Exactly what did I lie about?

67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people who were left, at best, powerless or homeless by a hurricane in November. All 67 are Republicans:
Justin Amash (R-MI)
Andy Barr (R-KY)
Dan Benishek (R-MI)
Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Paul Broun (R-GA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Doug Collins (R-GA)
Mike Conaway (R-TX)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
Sean Duffy (R-WI)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)
Stephen Fincher (R-TN)

John Fleming (R-LA)

Bill Flores (R-TX)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Tom Graves (R-GA)
Sam Graves (R-MO)
Andrew Harris (R-MD)
George Holding (R-NC)
Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Randy Hultgren (R-IL)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Mark Meadows (R-NC)
Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Tom Petri (R-WI)
Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Tom Price (R-GA)
Phil Roe (R-TN)
Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Matt Salmon (R-AZ)
David Schweikert (R-AZ)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Randy Weber (R-TX)
Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
Roger Williams (R-TX)
Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rob Woodall (R-GA)
Kevin Yoder (R-KS)
Ted Yoho (R-FL)


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

That's the so what, mrsk. Not what you personally think but what the actual facts are.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

what????


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people

The House vote on January 15 was 180 votes against - all Republicans.

Louisiana
Nay.....R.....Scalise, Steve.....LA 1st
Yea.....D.....Richmond, Cedric.....LA 2nd
Yea.....R.....Boustany, Charles.....LA 3rd
Nay.....R.....Fleming, John.....LA 4th
Yea.....R.....Alexander, Rodney.....LA 5th
Nay.....R.....Cassidy, Bill.....LA 6t


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

From epi's link:

Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, was the only member of the Louisiana delegation to vote against the nearly $10 billion in supplemental Sandy flood insurance funds that was approved earlier this month as the first part of the $60 billion total aid package.

He was the only one that voted against the supplmental flood insurance bill passed earlier this month.

1/2 your delegates voted against the $50.4 billion disaster relief aid bill that was passed this week.

So, we have 3 possibilities:

1. you lied

2. you have a serious reading comprehension problem, or a serious inability to understand the simplest facts

3. you were mistaken and will retract what you said (there is a first for everything, I suppose)

Which is it?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

'Secession'--an idea whose time will come--hopefully, sooner rather than later.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

mrskjun wrote,

I lied jill? Exactly what did I lie about?

You made the following claim:

Just to be clear, only one congressman from north Louisiana voted against the Sandy aid

...and...

all but one of our lawmakers voted for the Sandy aid bill

Jill is probably referring to those provably false statements. I look forward to your response to the questions posed to you here about the truth of your claims.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

It is no secret that Mrs and I don't agree on much but I do not believe she is a liar......perhaps easily misled, often terribly misinformed, but not a liar.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

67? What happened to the other 113 votes. 180 voted against the aid. 179 Republicans/1 Democrat

Deliberately omitting facts is tantamount to lying and is deceitful.

Here is a COMPLETE list for those who are interest in accuracy.

Alabama
-Robert Aderholt
-Mo Brooks
-Martha Roby
-Mike Rogers

Arizona
-Trent Franks
-Paul Gosar
-Matt Salmon
-David Schweikert

Arkansas
-Tom Cotton
-Tim Griffin
-Steve Womack

California
-Ken Calvert
-John Campbell
-Paul Cook
-Duncan Hunter Jr
-Darrell Issa
-Doug LaMalfa
-Tom McClintock
-Gary Miller
-Dana Rohrabacher
-Ed Royce

Colorado
-Mike Coffman
-Cory Gardner
-Doug Lamborn
-Scott Tipton

Florida
-Gus Bilirakis
-Vern Buchanan
-Ron DeSantis
-John Mica
-Jeff Miller
-Rich Nugent
-Bill Posey
-Trey Radel
-Tom Rooney
-Dennis Ross
-Steve Southerland
-Daniel Webster
-Ted Yoho

Georgia
-Paul Braun
-Doug Collins
-Phil Gingrey
-Tom Graves
-Tom Price
-Austin Scott
-Lynn Westmoreland
-Rob Woodall

Idaho
-Raul Labrador
-Mike Simpson

Illinois
-Randy Hultgren
-Adam Kinzinger
-Peter Roskam
-Aaron Schock

Indiana
-Susan Brooks
-Larry Bucshon
-Luke Messer
-Todd Rokita
-Martin Stutzman
-Jackie Walorski

Indiana
-Susan Brooks
-Larry Bucshon
-Luke Messer
-Todd Rokita
-Martin Stutzman
-Jackie Walorski

Iowa
-Steve King
-Tom Latham

Kansas
-Tim Huelskamp
-Lynn Jenkins
-Mike Pompeo
-Kevin Yoder

Kentucky
-Andy Barr
-Brett Gutherie
-Thomas Massie

Louisiana
-Bill Cassidy
-John Fleming
-Steve Scalise

Maryland
-Andy Harris

Michigan
-Justin Amash
-Dan Benishek
-Kerry Bentivolio
-David Camp
-Bill Huizenga
-Candice Miller
-Mike Rogers
-Fred Upton
-Tim Walberg

Minnesota
-Michelle Bachmann
-John Kline
-Erik Paulsen

Mississippi
-Alan Nunnelee

Missouri
-Sam Graves
-Vicky Hartzler
-Blaine Luetkemeyer
-Billy Long
-Ann Wagner

Montana
-Steve Daines

Nebraska
-Jeff Fortenberry
-Adrian Smith
-Lee Terry

Nevada
-Mark Amodei
-Joe Heck

New Mexico
-Steve Pearce

North Carolina
-Howard Coble
-Renee Ellmers
-Virginia Foxx
-George Holding
-Richard Hudson
-Walter Jones
-Patrick McHenry
-Mark Meadows
-Robert Pittenger

Ohio
-Steve Chabot
-Bob Gibbs
-Bill Johnson
-Jim Jordan
-David Joyce
-Bob Latta
-Jim Renacci
-Steve Stivers
-Pat Tiberi
-Brad Wenstrup

Oklahoma
-Jim Bridenstine
-James Lankford
-Markwayne Mullin

Oregon
-Greg Walden

Pennsylvania
-Mike Kelly
-Timothy Murphy
-Scott Perry
-Joe Pitts
-Keith Rothfus
-Bill Shuster
-Glenn Thompson

South Carolina
-Jeff Duncan
-Trey Gowdy
-Mick Mulvaney
-Tom Rice
-Joe Wilson

South Dakota
-Kristi Noem

Tennessee
-Diane Black
-Marsha Blackburn
-Jim Cooper
-Scott DesJarlais
-Jimmy Duncan
-Stephen Fincher
-Chuck Fleischmann
-Phil Roe

Texas
-Joe Barton
-Kevin Brady
-Michael Burgess
-John Carter
-Mike Conaway
-Blake Farenthold
-Bill Flores
-Louis Gohmert
-Kay Granger
-Ralph Hall
-Jeb Hensarling
-Sam Johnson
-Kenny Marchant
-Michael McCaul
-Randy Neugebauer
-Pete Olson
-Ted Poe
-Pete Sessions
-Lamar Smith
-Steve Stockman
-Mac Thornberry
-Randy Weber
-Roger Williams

Utah
-Rob Bishop
-Jason Chaffetz
-Chris Stewart

Virginia
-Randy Forbes
-Bob Goodlatte
-Morgan Griffith
-Robert Hurt
-Scott Rigell
-Rob Wittman

Washington
-Doc Hastings
-Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Wisconsin
-Sean Duffy
-Tom Petri
-Reid Ribble
-Paul Ryan
-Jim Sensenbrenner

Wyoming
-Cynthia Lummis

And the Democrat - Jim Cooper (Tennessee).


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

So you have demonstrated some statements Mrs made which were incorrect. What now--you gonna send a posse?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

elvis wrote,

So you have demonstrated some statements Mrs made which were incorrect. What now--you gonna send a posse?

That's a strange suggestion. Why would a "posse" be an appropriate follow-up to exposing falsehoods posted by mrskjun? Do you send posses after you demonstrate that someone else on the Internet has posted false information?

It is interesting that you acknowledge that mrskjun has made multiple false statements, yet she herself refuses to admit it. Don't you find that extremely strange? Do you stand by erronneous claims you make after it is demonstrated that they are wrong?

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 21:01


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

It is interesting that you acknowledge that mrskjun has made multiple false statements, yet she herself refuses to admit it. Don't you find that extremely strange? Do you stand by erronneous claims you make after it is demonstrated that they are wrong?

Nope, that's the normal around her Factotem. Tis normaL for Mrskjun and demi for that matter to make statements that are not true, have those statements proven to be false, then proceed to twist and squirm and blow in the wind as the confrontations about the distorted facts and lies presented by the 2 are exposed.
Yet there is never an apology made, never an admission of being wrong, of lying about the facts stated in the posts.

And of course, the conservatives come to their defense all the time.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Facto: "That's a strange suggestion. Why would a "posse" be an apropriate follow-up to exposing falsehoods posted by mrskjun? Do you send posses after you demonstrate that someone else on the Internet has posted false information?

It is interesting that you acknowledge that mrskjun has made multiple false statements, yet she herself refuses to admit it. Don't you find that extremely strange? Do you stand by erronneous claims you make after it is demonstrated that they are wrong?"

"suggestion"? No; that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it. "appropriate"? I didn't say it was appropriate. Who knows what's appropriate in this venue. Would I send a posse? Personal question.

"It is interesting..." Glad you find it so. "...she herself refuses to admit it." And?

Do I "find that strange?" Do I "stand by erroneous claims..." Whether I do or not, what does that have to do with anything.

You need another hobby.

Little: "Nope, that's the normal around her Factotem. Tis normaL for Mrskjun and demi for that matter to make statements that are not true, have those statements proven to be false, then proceed to twist and squirm and blow in the wind as the confrontations about the distorted facts and lies presented by the 2 are exposed.
Yet there is never an apology made, never an admission of being wrong, of lying about the facts stated in the posts."

I hope this isn't your "good" side; you should know better.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by littleonefb z5MA (My Page) on
Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 19:01

It is interesting that you acknowledge that mrskjun has made multiple false statements, yet she herself refuses to admit it. Don't you find that extremely strange? Do you stand by erronneous claims you make after it is demonstrated that they are wrong?

Nope, that's the normal around her Factotem. Tis normaL for Mrskjun and demi for that matter to make statements that are not true, have those statements proven to be false, then proceed to twist and squirm and blow in the wind as the confrontations about the distorted facts and lies presented by the 2 are exposed.
Yet there is never an apology made, never an admission of being wrong, of lying about the facts stated in the posts.

*

You talkin to ME?

Or just about me?

Show me a misstatement of facts that I have made and intentionally not acknowledged.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

epi, I apologize, I had only seen the list I posted. I'm ashamed of those reps that voted against the aid pkg from my state.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 20:42

In Ohio every single Republican voted against Sandy relief ... shame on them!

In Florida, that has received billions of Federal Disaster relief over the years, fourteen Republicans voted no! Unfrigginbelievable!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

elvis wrote,

Facto: "That's a strange suggestion. Why would a "posse" be an apropriate follow-up to exposing falsehoods posted by mrskjun? Do you send posses after you demonstrate that someone else on the Internet has posted false information?
It is interesting that you acknowledge that mrskjun has made multiple false statements, yet she herself refuses to admit it. Don't you find that extremely strange? Do you stand by erronneous claims you make after it is demonstrated that they are wrong?"

"suggestion"? No; that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it.

If your quesiton was rhetorical, because the answer is obviously "no", what was the point in asking it?

"appropriate"? I didn't say it was appropriate.

I know. That's why I asked. Do you think it would be appropriate?

Would I send a posse? Personal question.

Not at all, and it's the same question you asked. I guess you won't answer it.

"It is interesting..." Glad you find it so. "...she herself refuses to admit it." And?

And I find it extremely strange -- incomprehensible, really -- that someone would be so fearful of the consequences of acknowledging the truth that they would refuse to admit a misstatement.

Do I "find that strange?" Do I "stand by erroneous claims..." Whether I do or not, what does that have to do with anything.

It gets to the essential question regarding the integrity and intellectual honesty of conservatives. It has to do with whether conservatives will behave honestly when discussing issues. So I am interested in your take on that behavior, as you are a conservative. It's up to you whether to address those questions directly, or to duck them. Either response will be informative.

You need another hobby.

Do you mean in addition to reading and posting here, or instead of participating on this forum? Why?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

Show me a misstatement of facts that I have made and intentionally not acknowledged.

Well, you said that the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

SOB


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Thank you Mrsk. I appreciate it. With all due respect, I would also appreciate, going forward, if you would not distort my words and/or positions into something they are not. It will make discussions better for everyone especially you and I. Again, thank you.
In Florida, that has received billions of Federal Disaster relief over the years, fourteen Republicans voted no! Unfrigginbelievable!

I know OM. If your stomach can take it, there are back stories of why some people voted as they did. I won't link them. They don't deserve any more time or attention. Some sound like they are adolescents not adults. In Labrea's words...WAAAA WAAAAA

I wonder how many snowbirds lost their homes, and how they and other transplanted NE'ners, who still have family here, feel that so many in FL voted against it.

Using Americans as pawns in political games is reprehensible.

My disdain isn't reserved for the Republicans. Hearing what Nagin is being indicted for and how it related to Katrina makes my skin crawl.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

SOB

No, you read my post. And felt compelled to reply, too. Quite the opposite of skipping what I write.

Anyway, in response to your request, I provided an example of a misstatement of facts that you have made and intentionally not acknowledged. Here it is again:

You said that the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 22:01

It does? Where do I get mine?!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Did Demi really say: "the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people."?

I would like to see that...so we can discuss it.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

elvis wrote,

Did Demi really say: "the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people."?
I would like to see that...so we can discuss it.

I accurately paraphrased (notice I did not use quotation marks), but in any event, I doubt demifloyd would deny saying words to that effect.

She is, however, ducking the issue, which is telling. I suggest you ask her yourself.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I certainly don't recall saying those words, Elvis.

But I'm sure if I said that "the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people" it will be posted.

It's strange the quote and time of that post hasn't shown up though, hasn't it?

Most of us that participate in threads usually follow out the conversation until we are no longer interested--we're done with it.

I was and am.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Obama Cell Phones ... which was a continuation of a subject first mentioned here: The War Against Employees


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

I certainly don't recall saying those words, Elvis.
But I'm sure if I said that "the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people" it will be posted.

It's strange the quote and time of that post hasn't shown up though, hasn't it?

You're beating around the bush. Are you denying that you stated that the govermnent directly pays for cell phones as an entitlement? Surely you haven't forgotten the lengthy "Obamaphone" discussion your false claim triggered.

Most of us that participate in threads usually follow out the conversation until we are no longer interested--we're done with it.

I was and am.

That's disappointingly pusillanimous (note spelling). Cowardly. A mere three hours ago, you posted,

Show me a misstatement of facts that I have made and intentionally not acknowledged

and now, after I promptly produce an example of exactly what you requested, you run.

The inescapable conclusion is that you recognize the accuracy of my example of your failing to admit you were wrong, and you are afraid to own up to it even though you issued the challenge.

It therefore seems that littleonefb was right when s/he said,

Tis normaL for Mrskjun and demi for that matter to make statements that are not true, have those statements proven to be false, then proceed to twist and squirm and blow in the wind as the confrontations about the distorted facts and lies presented by the 2 are exposed.
Yet there is never an apology made, never an admission of being wrong, of lying about the facts stated in the posts.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Most of us that participate in threads usually follow out the conversation until we are no longer interested--we're done with it.

I was and am.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Is this what you were referring to, Demi?

Tapped? 'LifeLine' program offers free phone
By Kim Komando, Special for USA TODAYUpdated 5/31/2012 3:56 PM Comments

"Going through a rough patch financially? As you cut your monthly bills to the bone, it may be tempting to decide to go without cell phone or Internet service.
People with low income can qualify for a free cellphone plan.
But this can be one of the most risky places to cut if you are a student needing the expected tools of technology at your fingertips. It can also be a serious disadvantage if you are a job seeker. Immediate access to the Internet and telephone are important to search effectively and to be immediately available when that important job interview comes along. Additionally, it doesn't make a good impression to have no phone to list on an application or resume, or to answer your email sporadically.

For others, it can be dangerous. Without a phone or an Internet connection, seniors can become cut off from their families and health care providers.

Clearly, technology has become a basic need. That's why I'm happy to tell you that, in this difficult time when you most need it, you may qualify for a free phone and broadband service.

If you meet certain low-income requirements, you can receive a free basic cell phone with a free calling plan of 250 minutes per month. You may also be eligible to receive a $10 per month broadband Internet connection and a low-cost desktop or laptop computer for your family.

The FCC's LifeLine Assistance program was set up in the '90s to help low-income families with monthly landline bills. Over the past few years, the program has put more than 12 million wireless feature phones into the hands of low-income Americans.

THE INFORMATIONAL WEBSITE FREEGOVERNMENTCELLPHONES.NET

estimates that as many as 50 million additional households might be eligible for the program. LifeLine is funded by the small Universal Service Fee that is added to phone subscribers' monthly bills.

To get a free phone, you need to apply to one of the regional providers serving your state. The three biggest companies are Assurance Wireless , a subsidiary of Virgin Mobile/Sprint; Reachout Wireless , which is a division of Nexus communications; and Safelink Wireless/, owned by Tracfone.

Unfortunately, 12 states aren't served yet. Consider buying a cheap pre-paid phone if you live in one of those. They include Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming.

How cheap? You can pick up some pre-paid phones for as little as $10 now, and monthly plans start at $10.

If you are in one of the 38 participating states, you'll next need to confirm that you qualify for the program. Income guidelines for free phones vary by state. If you already receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, home energy assistance or free school lunches, you will likely qualify for a free phone.

In addition to the feature phone and 250 minutes, eligible participants usually receive voice mail, caller ID and call waiting. You can tack on a low-cost texting plan, if needed, and it's easy to buy extra minutes when appropriate. No contracts are required.

When your financial situation improves, you just drop out of the program. If a year goes by and you still need the service, you'll re-qualify by answering a few questions.

If you qualify for the phone program, you're probably also eligible for a new program offering low-cost broadband service. To gain approval for merging with NBC Universal last year, Comcast began offering the Internet Essentials plan for low-income families.

The program is available in 40 states. Families qualify for the $10 monthly plan if they are receiving free lunches from the National School Lunch Program.

There are a couple of other conditions: You can't have been a Comcast customer for the last 90 days, or have an outstanding bill or unreturned equipment.

Call the provider at 855-846-8376 to request an application. Under this program, qualifying families can also buy a $150 netbook computer.

The success of this program inspired the FCC to launch its Connect2Compete initiative. The agency and its nonprofit partner, Connect2Compete, are currently running a pilot program in San Diego.

As with the Comcast program, families can get fast $10 monthly Internet from Cox if they're receiving free lunches from the National School Lunch Program. They can also buy a $150 refurbished PC laptop or desktop from Redemtech.

When the program goes national this fall, most major cable companies are expected to participate. The C2C has already received $4 billion in donations from leading tech companies such as Best Buy, Intel and Microsoft.

Sesame Street, Careerbuilder, Indeed and others have climbed on board to provide educational and job content.

According to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 18th in the percentage of households with high-speed Internet access. About one-third of Americans still don't have a fast connection.

I'm betting that, as more low-cost technology becomes available over the next couple of years, those statistics will turn around dramatically."�

Kim Komando hosts the nation's largest talk radio show about consumer electronics, computers and the Internet. To get the podcast, watch the show or find the station nearest you, visit www.komando.com. E-mail her at techcomments@usatoday.com.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

Most of us that participate in threads usually follow out the conversation until we are no longer interested--we're done with it.
I was and am.

You issued the challenge to produce an example of you making a misstatement of facts that you did not acknowledge. I did so within two hours. When you read my post, suddenly you "are no longer interested" in the conversation. But the truth of the matter is clear.

I say you are slinking away in fear of addressing the truth, and your evasion is tantamount to admitting the statement of yours that I provided was false. For whatever reason, you lack the courage to discuss your own errors.

You said the goverment directly pays for cell phones as an entitlement. That claim is false. You refused to admit it then, and you won't even discuss it now even though you asked for just such an example.

You have proven Littleonefb right in saying you would "proceed to twist and squirm and blow in the wind as the confrontations about the distorted facts and lies presented by the 2 are exposed. Yet there is never an apology made, never an admission of being wrong, of lying about the facts stated in the posts." Sadly, this seems to be typical behavior for right-wingers (there are exceptions, though few), and it underlies the grave difficulty in having an honest conversation with many of those on the right.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Personal Responsibility

-No alibi will save you from accepting the responsibility.

- Accountability breeds response-ability.

-Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Yes, ELVIS. Lifeline Assistance Program.

I believe that I noted that the program was begun during President Reagan's term for landlines. The number of people getting free cell phone service because of the government mandates for assistance since Obama has been president has exploded, as has the costs of this program.

From the office of Representative Tim Griffin:


"The Lifeline Program was established in 1984 to subsidize landline phone service for low-income individuals. Under the program, telecommunications carriers submit reimbursement requests to the government-run Universal Service Fund (USF) to receive a subsidy for services provided to qualifying low-income subscribers. The USF is funded through fees collected from telecommunications carriers which are directly passed onto their customers, as part their telephone bill.

In 2008, the Lifeline Program was expanded to include wireless service providers. Between 2008 and 2009, non-landline costs for the program doubled � from $143 million to $384 million � and then doubled again, totaling over $719 million in 2010. Before the certification of the first wireless carrier, the overall Lifeline Program cost $822 million per year, an amount consistent with the previous five years. That number grew to $1.025 billion in 2009 and to $1.315 billion in 2010. According to the Federal Communications Commission, it is common for multiple wireless service providers to seek reimbursement for Lifeline services provided to the same household."

*

That was the salient point of my post and that discussion.

*

Since citizens are required to have proof of automobile insurance when procuring a driver's license, when registering a vehicle and when a vehicle is inspected (at least in this state) why does not the government require that people provide proof of homeowner's insurance at the time that property taxes are paid?

We're going to have to produce proof of health insurance in order not to cost the government more money, why not the same for our homes when we suffer losses?

Of course there would have to be provisions made for those that rent and lease to associate with property, but it seems to me that if the government is going to have a say in just about everything we do, certainly it could require proof of homeowner's insurance as well as flood insurance in zones that require such.

I am aware that some are already required to if they have mortgages, but for those that don't, why not look ahead and save money for taxpayers by insisting every home is insured?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Shucks, Demi. Does this mean you're not a liar? Well, there's no outrage in that!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

Yes, ELVIS. Lifeline Assistance Program.
I believe that I noted that the program was begun during President Reagan's term for landlines. The number of people getting free cell phone service because of the government mandates for assistance since Obama has been president has exploded, as has the costs of this program.

A failed evasion. You claimed the government directly pays for cell phones. Yet even the quote you pasted in states,

"The USF is funded through fees collected from telecommunications carriers which are directly passed onto their customers"

The government does not pay for the phones; the carriers do. Yet, you still refuse to admit that your claim was wrong. It is baffling why this is so difficult for you. It brings to mind the earlier discussion about people making choices when they have addictions; you indicated that even though some people have urges, they could choose to overcome them. Yet you cannot bring yourself to make the choice to simply admit your error, due apparently to some compulsion that blocks you. Perhaps that gives you some new empathy for those with a serious addiction problem and what they go through when faced with that moment where they could choose to do the right thing but can't bring themselves to do so.

Since citizens are required to have proof of automobile insurance when procuring a driver's license, when registering a vehicle and when a vehicle is inspected (at least in this state) why does not the government require that people provide proof of homeowner's insurance at the time that property taxes are paid?

The analogy fails. The only type of auto insurance that is mandated is that which protects other people and their property from injury and damage done by you and your vehicle. As far as I know, no one is required to prove they have insurance for damage to their own vehicle.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

elvis wrote,

Shucks, Demi. Does this mean you're not a liar? Well, there's no outrage in that!

Demifloyd claimed that the government pays for those cell phones. That claim is false. The carriers pay for those phones; the government does not.

Demifloyd may simply have been mistaken when she first issued this claim, but the falsehood was quickly pointed out to her. Yet, she has never admitted this error (if that's what it was), and she has engaged in multiple evasions when the matter is raised in response to her own challenge. So the question is, why does she refuse to simply admit she was wrong?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

Show me a misstatement of facts that I have made and intentionally not acknowledged.

I responded,

You said that the government directly pays for cell phones for poor people.

Demifloyd, you have since posted four times and every time you have evaded addressing the response to the challenge you issued. You objected to littleonefb's characterization of your behavior when your errors are uncovered, yet your response provides a perfect illustration of precisely the syndrome littleonefb described. Why you can't summon the integrity to simply admit you were wrong, retract your claim, and apologize, remains a mystery. We can conclude, however, that you will not discuss issues honestly, as you will refuse to acknowledge your own misstatements.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

I saw Vicky Hartzler on that lists boy can she game the system for every dime she can get out of it.

"We do participate in the government programs, like probably 95 percent of farmers do," the congresswoman told The Hill in a recent interview. In fact, most farmers do not receive direct assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

bye the way she claims to be tea party fiscal conservative!

According to data collected by the Environmental Working Group, only 38 percent of U.S. farmers collected subsidy payments in 2007. The money went mostly to what the EWG terms "plantation scale" operations.

From 1995-2009 the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients received 74% of all farm subsidies with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient -- hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers.
Hartzler Farms, in Cass County, falls into the category of large and wealthy. Most of the money that Hartzler and her husband, Lowell, received were subsidies for corn, soybeans and wheat; together, the crops accounted for more than half of the payments the USDA made.

She & her husband received over $700,000 in subsidies.
She was wailing about drought relief last year !


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Factotem, thanks so much for taking the time to "prove" to Demifloyd that my statements was in fact true.

Demi is all for the Prove it bit, show me where I said that bit, but when it is proven to her, well, you see what happens.

Demi, don't know if it is a comprehension problem you have, or this is just part of your nature, or it is deliberate that you say the things that you do, get proven what you say is not true and then you just twist and turn and blow in the wind, but you can not admit to being wrong, proven wrong and apologize for accusing people of lying about you and/or what you say.

Whatever it is, whatever the reason, you have proof that what I said about you is true, and I'm not going to spend my time finding more and more threads where you have done exactly the same thing.

I could, in turn as could factotem, say to you, "prove us wrong" and show us where we are wrong in what we have said and shown on this thread, but that would be a waste of time.

You aren't going to respond to what has been proven to you and you can not prove us wrong.

Enjoy your twisting, turning and blowing in the wind, but the next time you decide to whine about "poor demi" or say such things as "prove that I said that" or some such demand like that, you might want to think first about posting that, as it is not difficult to prove the facts.

You might also want to think twice about those constant 2 words you love to use all the time "personal responsibility".

It's looking more and more like it's time you take personal responsibility for what you say, own up to it for change.

Who know, it might even be good for your psyche.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Oh gee, now we have twins!!!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Sucks, doesn't it?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Mrskjun, does is scare you or upset you to find out that more than one person on this forum actually think alike?

Heaven forbid, it's those "liberals" again that think alike. Heck it's fine though when the conservatives come popping on a thread and "smack each other on the back", supporting each other and doing all that good stuff, backing up each other, saying the same things over and over again.

Oh, heck, twins, triplets who cares how many? People think alike and then post similar thoughts but apparently it's a problem only when liberals do that, but it's fine when the other side does it.

Got it now. thanks.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

labrea, that is what makes me so angry when I see people say all those people that cannot take personal responsibility taking our money. Or the constantly comment of those Blacks that need all that help. The people with no Personal Responsibility is the reason for all the ills of entitlement programs.

The entitlements are Wars and those that profit because of the Wars, the Plantation Farms, the Corporations. That is where our money is going. The food stamps and entitlement for the poor are only 12% of the budget. But that 12% is not worthy because they are poor. Not worthy because they are not taking as much as the real entitled part of society.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 12:27

Yes, with the system we have at the moment those who complain about welfare queens etc. (but not the financial sector etc.) make themselves look to be clueless dopes (or worse) by doing so.

This post was edited by bboy on Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 12:28


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

There surely are way more than twins here who have the same political views. Shall I list your "twins" mrsk?... Demi, Brat, Elvis, FF, CW, Paulines,and I could be missing more.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

The one that gets me is the often repeated untruth that blacks elected the President. It is simply not true especially given the electoral college process.

The other one that gets me is the lies that claim Obama has created the huge debt problem through his out of control spending.

Both are simply untrue yet repeated ad nauseam even in the face of facts to the contrary.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to those paying, and is considered government revenue to be dispersed as seen fit. Given the factually small amount of fraud committed within the public sector, why should it bother anyone that some of those tax dollars go toward housing and feeding those who are unable and less fortunate than those who have the wherewithal and are fortunate?

For a nation that claims to be so christian, there seems no end to the hypocrisy flying around.

The factually largest entitlements go to entities that are not in need, and the factually largest amount of fraud is not perpetrated by the public sector.

Facts, however, seem to be in short supply whenever this subject is argued.

Perhaps we should look a little deeper and ask why so many people need the extra help? Perhaps part of the issue is lack of jobs that pay a living wage... and why is that?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Perhaps we should look a little deeper and ask why so many people need the extra help? Perhaps part of the issue is lack of jobs that pay a living wage... and why is that?

*

Yes, wages are stagnant.

The economy is sick and the government is still spending too much and being very hostile to business.

Still--not nearly enough jobs and stagnant wages coupled with crippling, out of control debt with continued waste, fraud and spending.

The Promised Land!

Mm Mmm MMM


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

being very hostile to business.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

The corporations that pay such high taxes and spend so much on some of the ridiculous EPA regulations aren't laughing, Nancy.

Neither are the people that otherwise could have been employed at these companies.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Corporate tax rates haven't changed since 1994.

Recent reports have corporate profits increasing far ahead of increases in employment. So why no hiring in the face of healthy profits?

Additional stimulus would put more money in the hands of consumers, generating more business for retailers, and generating more income taxes. But, no - we can't have that!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Horsefeathers.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Moi, Marshall?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Demifloyd -

You have now posted a half-dozen times since I met your challenge, yet you continue to evade the issue you raised.

You posted a falsehoood and have refused to retract it.

Why the abject failure to take personal responsibility for what you did? Is all that talk simply a case of "do as I say, not as I do"? Why do you lack the integrity to acknowledge your misstatement? Why, like an addict unable to make the good choice when presented with a moment of decision, can't you choose to make the appropriate admission?

This sort of intellectual dishonesty is not peculiar to demifloyd, unfortunately; I find it all too often on the right (and occasionally, though far less often, on the left), and it is a fatal obstacle to constructive discussion.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 14:25

This thread is well on it's way to wearing the shoes out.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

The stock market has done amazingly well during the last four years...corporate profits are soaring. Corporations are doing just fine even with the "oppressive" EPA guidelines.

Wages stay low becasue YOU subsidize more of what you get.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Nancy: NUNCA, chica!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

The corporations that pay such high taxes and spend so much on some of the ridiculous EPA regulations aren't laughing, Nancy.

Neither are the people that otherwise could have been employed at these companies.

When those companies spend money to comply with regulations, do you believe that money disappears from the economy?

Can you give an example of money spent complying with a particular regulation, including where the money goes? Might it go to another company, which allows that company to employ people?

You've indicated previously that high corporate taxes impair companies' ability to hire people. What exactly is the connection between the two?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 14:36

The corporations that pay such high taxes and spend so much on some of the ridiculous EPA regulations aren't laughing

....and this is just another case where "what we leave our children/grandchildren in the regards to "climate change" does not seem to matter just the "bottom dollar".

I totally disagree, read the recent article on Bejing and how people cannot go outdoors without masks because the pollution is just that intense.

Money matters but the environment doesn't?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Ohiomom--I support many of the EPA measures.

So do many conservatives and Republicans--we also care deeply about the environment.

Some of the regulations are unduly burdensome practically and financially, in my opinion and not necessary for environmental, human or animal safety.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Their favourite solution: Post more falsehoods.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

"Some of the regulations are unduly burdensome practically and financially, in my opinion and not necessary for environmental, human or animal safety."

Demi, would you please provide some examples of the regulations you feel are unduly burdensome to corporations and some evidence that they, in fact, are?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

Some of the regulations are unduly burdensome practically and financially, in my opinion and not necessary for environmental, human or animal safety.

Have they resulted in the elimination of certain industries because they are too burdensome?

Where does the money spent on compliance go? Does it exit the economy, or does it go to other companies which employ people?

Can you provide some examples of the regulations to which you object?

Are you going to continue to refuse to address the false statement you posted about the government directly paying for cell phones, even though you wanted an example of such a misstatement?

This post was edited by Factotem on Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 15:16


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 15:15

While some go on about the "debt" we are leaving our children, some of us care about the "environment" we are leaving our children.

At the link is what happens when there are no EPA regulations ... "air-pocalypse"

Here is a link that might be useful: Living with Beijing's 'air-pocalypse'


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 15:12

"Some of the regulations are unduly burdensome practically and financially, in my opinion and not necessary for environmental, human or animal safety."

Demi, would you please provide some examples of the regulations you feel are unduly burdensome to corporations and some evidence that they, in fact, are?

*

Yes, Chase.

I'll provide only one example. I don't have time for more as I'm headed out the door (I sound like the mouse that was a poet and didn't know it). I am also not inclined to tap dance but for my own pleasure; however, I will answer your question to illustrate.

This EPA regulation:

EPA Regulation

I know of older people that have hired contractors to remodel or paint their homes and they are shocked to find how much more it will cost because their homes fall within the purviews of this regulation. Some people simply can't afford it and this regulation causes some not to purchase homes that would be affected by this regulation.

Of course no one wants anyone to be harmed by lead and of course there should be some regulation and procedure for testing and removing lead paint.

However, these regulations seem to be unduly burdensome and costly, in my opinion.

Companies and contractors that remodel, paint, sheetrock, etc. have to spend considerably more time and effort, and pay for training of workers in schools, etc. to comply with the requirements of the EPA. The costs associated with this, and additional time for the job, become prohibitive for some for what should be a simple remodel or paint job.

The companies that do the right thing and do comply often lose business to individuals or companies that violate the EPA regulations by not complying.

And yes, the EPA does in fact "estimate" that the additional charges won't be unduly burdensome. Their guesses and estimates of the additional costs are admittedly speculative based on the particulars of any given project and regardless--people lose bids over several hundred dollars or even less.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Ah, yes, the lead paint safe mitigation rules ... darn, on top of the asbestos ceiling tiles, insulation, linoleum, and other once common uses in home construction.

Demi, I can't believe you would pick on these kinds of health-and-safety rules.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 16:24

I can.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Major job killer....


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Once again the problem with the Conservative is they only repeat what they hear.

- I ask the Conservative that listen to their party talking points think about what they hear.
This is the exact words that came out of P. Ryan mouth and Demi repeated...
The corporations that pay such high taxes and spend so much on some of the ridiculous EPA regulations
Think.....EPA =Environmental Protection Agency. Do you want to leave a environment that will make them sick with more breathing problems so Corporations can make a bigger profit? These are not three unimportant letters. Know the meaning and what they mean to you and your children. I do not know about others but my daughter is the most important person in my life. I love her over Corporations and there is nothing stupid about Protecting the Environment. I want as much protection as I can get for her. If you ask me to choose between her and a Corporation she will win every time.

-The other Lie straight from every Republican that gets near a microphone.

Obama is going to leave a debt for our children to pay

Two wars, Lower taxes, an economy that was crashing was not a problem until OBAMA?

Can Demi or Msk tell me why you did not get upset when we had a surplus and when you saw it gone and we were getting deeper and deeper in debt you were not screaming across the net about the debt we were leaving our children. Did you demand that surplus that Clinton left be put back immediately 9 years ago?

Don't let people make a fool of you because they say it does not make it true. We need to use our brain and think is this a talking point and does it mean good for my family and not for the Corporations. They are doing fine. They are getting their entitlements look at the bonuses they are giving their executives. The stock market is soaring. Who is hurting?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 17:58

Go to church and be told what to think.

Go to Fox and be told what to say.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Demi and mrsk were remarkably quiet when Bush was demolishing our surplus which he inherited from Clinton. Where was the outrage then? Partisan, anyone?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2


Go to Fox and be told what to say

Repeat as needed.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 18:47

Some rinsing beforehand might be helpful.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 18:01

Partisan, anyone?

*

LOL, I need screen cleaner!
That statement from the most partisan poster here?

Puleeze.

*

Do you people have a purpose here other than trashing people that don't agree with you, for only giving their opinion?

Apparently not.

Someone email me when the venom is milked enough to have a discussion about something other than particular conservative posters.

Frankly, that venom is never milked enough.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Yes, ELVIS. Lifeline Assistance Program.

I believe that I noted that the program was begun during President Reagan's term for landlines. The number of people getting free cell phone service because of the government mandates for assistance since Obama has been president has exploded, as has the costs of this program.

Ha, this is really laughable.

You never called it the Lifeline Assistance Program until others pointed out to you the name of the actual program. Not the right-wing talking point falsehood.

You called them "Obama phones".

You mentioned when the program started? No, you didn't. Others pointed that out to you and only then did you claim to know that.

You also never acknowledged that they are not paid for by Obama. They are paid for by the phone companies that supply them.

You didn't admit your mistake (or lie) back in November and you won't admit it now.

Why? Are you so arrogant that you think you're not capable of making a mistake? Or was it not just a mistake? A lie that fit the agenda of making Obama look bad?

What will be next? More twisting and turning? Or leaving the thread? Or maybe, just maybe, admitting you were wrong? Hey, even MrsK admitted she was wrong recently (which she should be applauded for).


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

...applauded for something that should go without saying. Ookaaay...

Lead shmead. Poison the children!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Poison the children!
Heck Yea, some would be homeless if they did not sell the air their children breath. All those useless environmental regulations. Dah

You are so silly. You expect someone to give up the roof over their head for clean air for their children.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Ya, Marquest. We will be accused of making bad decisions--when there's money to be made. Let's sell our morals too.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by maddie_athome (My Page) on
Sun, Jan 20, 13 at 0:14

...applauded for something that should go without saying. Ookaaay...

Lead shmead. Poison the children!

*(

I'm shocked--poison children?

What a horrible position to take.
It sure appears that there are nefarious attempts to intentionally ignore what I said and mischaracterize my post.

As I said, "Of course no one wants anyone to be harmed by lead and of course there should be some regulation and procedure for testing and removing lead paint.

However, these regulations seem to be unduly burdensome and costly, in my opinion."

That is a pretty innocuous opinion considering the detail of the regulations--the outcome and intent of protecting everyone from lead poisoning is something I laud. There are less burdensome and more reasonable methods.

Wow--was that so big and scary a thought that it deserved all that attention?

Apparently!


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2


While some go on about the "debt" we are leaving our children, some of us care about the "environment" we are leaving our children.

Ya but it's profits before people.

Poison The Children:

February 7, 2012 -- For Christmas this year, Congress gave the nation's urban children a gift that will keep on giving -- a 94 percent cut in funds for lead-poisoning prevention. Once a child is poisoned by toxic lead, permanent brain damage reduces I.Q., lowers grades in school, and diminishes self-control. This, in turn, can lead to frustration, a sense of failure, impulsiveness, aggression, and, for some, potentially even violence, crime, and prison. (More on lead and prisons in a moment.)

With a peculiar mix of frugality and cruelty, Congress's $1 trillion spending bill for 2012 shrank a small ($30 million per year) federal lead-poisoning-prevention program to a minuscule $2 million annual effort, a 94 percent cut. And it's no surprise to anyone that the children harmed by this grinch move are mostly city kids, which means they're mostly African-American and Hispanic. The nation's medical establishment has been reporting excessive lead in urban children (75 percent of them of color) since 1952 -- so we have 59 years of studies, all showing the same thing. Therefore, in this rare instance, Congress relied on the best available science and knew exactly what it was doing. It was saddling hundreds of thousands of urban children with persistent cognitive damage and elevated blood pressure for life.

...

Less than 2 weeks after Congress delivered its toxic Christmas gift, a federal Advisory Committee on Lead Poisoning Prevention recommended that the official standard for declaring a child poisoned by lead should be cut in half. The Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACCLPP) issued its report Jan. 4, recommending that the official definition of "elevated blood lead levels" should be reduced by half, from its present 10 units to 5.

Poison the children and make + keep them dumb--future Republican voter material.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2


And, to debunk yet another blatant lie:

Corporate Profits Under Anti-Business Obama

U.S. corporations' after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan's administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.

Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.

All pocketed by businesses, of course, on par with the cheap-labour-racket....

...Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states.

Plus the fact that the Dow more more than doubled under Obama.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

...applauded for something that should go without saying. Ookaaay...

You do have a point. However, I look at it like praising a child or puppy when they do something good to reenforce the behavior. ;-)

Oh, believe me, demi, we all read your post and we all now exactly what you meant.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

However, these regulations seem to be unduly burdensome and costly, in my opinion."

in my opinion Demi this is the part that is the problem.

I do not think this issue should be an opinion but a majority expectation and a right. When it comes to the environment and the effects that can cause such huge life threatening results. Regulation should be unduly burdensome or whatever it takes to make sure the air we and our children breath is an extremely important issue.

Because of the majority of homes in my state are one of the housing that lead poison was an issue. I personally know the laws and procedures that were required to rehab so that no one would be hurt or become ill. Keep in mind that is part of my income renting housing. I did not for one second think twice knowing that parents and their children could be harmed if I did not do and pay for the job to be done properly.

So even though it ate into my profit I did not put profit ahead of the life of others. That is not the consensus of corporation today I know and I find it a problem that business no longer care about their fellow citizens when it comes to profit.

You talk about personal responsibility and it appears you think that encompass how much money you have only when it is so much more. What we say and do not and have the courage and conviction to own up to our words, not putting the love of money above all else, caring for society, are all part of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is not how much money we have or where we live or how many personal possessions we have acquired.

My personal responsibility "I am my brother's keeper"


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Interestingly, in my experience contractors and painters that specialize in dealing with lead paint, asbestos, etc in older homes, are sought after and making serious money for their efforts.

My son just paid a bomb to have some asbestos ceiling material dealt with. The contractors were very busy and dictating their prices..... making a ton off environmental concerns and regulations.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

That is a pretty innocuous opinion considering the detail of the regulations--the outcome and intent of protecting everyone from lead poisoning is something I laud. There are less burdensome and more reasonable methods.

What are they?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Sun, Jan 20, 13 at 12:32

However, these regulations seem to be unduly burdensome and costly, in my opinion."

in my opinion Demi this is the part that is the problem.

I do not think this issue should be an opinion but a majority expectation and a right. When it comes to the environment and the effects that can cause such huge life threatening results. Regulation should be unduly burdensome or whatever it takes to make sure the air we and our children breath is an extremely important issue.

Because of the majority of homes in my state are one of the housing that lead poison was an issue. I personally know the laws and procedures that were required to rehab so that no one would be hurt or become ill. Keep in mind that is part of my income renting housing. I did not for one second think twice knowing that parents and their children could be harmed if I did not do and pay for the job to be done properly.

So even though it ate into my profit I did not put profit ahead of the life of others. That is not the consensus of corporation today I know and I find it a problem that business no longer care about their fellow citizens when it comes to profit.

You talk about personal responsibility and it appears you think that encompass how much money you have only when it is so much more. What we say and do not and have the courage and conviction to own up to our words, not putting the love of money above all else, caring for society, are all part of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is not how much money we have or where we live or how many personal possessions we have acquired.

My personal responsibility "I am my brother's keeper"

*

I agree with you Marquest.

You make good points about a lot of companies making money from the EPA regulations, I made good points about companies in a bad economy not being able to compete with people that don't comply, and with older people on limited incomes that need to remodel or paint homes pre 1978.

Of course we should have methods and rules for removing lead paint and ensuring the safety of everyone--I have repeated that.

However, the "rules" are unduly burdensome and costly for some--I think there could be a better and simpler way, but of course when the government is involved complicated, inefficient and costly are the standard course.

Now, if you want to argue that burdensome, expensive regulations are good for the economy, that could be a very interesting thread.

I don't see it that way in all cases.

But it would be an interesting thread.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

First, demifloyd wrote,

There are less burdensome and more reasonable methods.

But then, she says,

I think there could be a better and simpler way

So in a matter of hours, you go from an unqualified assertion to one laden with uncertainty and devoid of specifics.

Thin stuff.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

demifloyd wrote,

The companies that do the right thing and do comply often lose business to individuals or companies that violate the EPA regulations by not complying.

And you contend that is the fault of the regulations, not of the dishonest people who violate them?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Where we are disagreeing is many things cannot have a price. You went back to that good for the economy, who can compete, search for top dollar. Clean air is good for the economy. Lead health effects is not good for the economy.

You said the elderly. Giving them a cheap removal of lead and other environmental issues is a problem for the elderly as well as the public at large. Removed improperly will effect you and your children. Funny thing about that lead it travels in the air.

Sometime you have to spend a buck to make a buck. The mindset is cheap so the Corporation can keep the profits vs the effect of cheap vs profit.

Lets use me as an example. I do not properly remove the lead. It gets in the air the family that moves in effect the healthy of that family and 10 others in the area. Health is a big driver of the economy. I saved a buck but am paying 10 fold for higher health care because the insurance company has to spend for the effects of my cheap removal and released it into the air. Now I may have saved an extra 1,000 but my insurance is costing me an extra 2,000 in insurance a year because I am not the only one that tried to save a buck. Greed will always be a lose, lose way of life. As evident of the economy we have now.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

"You said the elderly. Giving them a cheap removal of lead and other environmental issues is a problem for the elderly as well as the public at large. Removed improperly will effect you and your children. Funny thing about that lead it travels in the air.

Sometime you have to spend a buck to make a buck. The mindset is cheap so the Corporation can keep the profits vs the effect of cheap vs profit."

Very good. I'm not seeing the connection between elderly persons being able to afford to remove lead and corporations keeping profits. Other than that missing part, looks good to me. Nice work.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

iirc, local government and/or state government have programs to help the elderly and low income residents comply with regulations -- or at least we do in California. There's nothing stopping other state and municipal governments from having similar funds. We all benefit from a healthier population.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Nancy is correct.

There are a number of programs around the country, both government and private, that help low income and elderly defray the costs of asbestos and lead removal. This comes in the form of home repair grants, free or reduced labor, materials or supplies, rebates, tax credits, and low interest, no interest, deferred, or forgivable loans.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

We all benefit from a healthier population.

True. For some people, however, they don't want to pay anything for it. Because, you know, if those elderly and poor that are living in houses with lead weren't so lazy and irresponsbile, they could afford to have the lead removed safely.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

That's harsh.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

It sounds like the prevailing attitude of a few here.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Sad. So much energy; so little to show for it ;(


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

Really? 3 sentences constitutes so much energy? You must be very low energy. Is that why you usually just cut and paste and don't add much?


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

marquest"""""""""They say "We are concerned" Where are the post of support without argument and discussion of the Pork that is so offensive and how that pork could have been used in another bill. Where are those Shoes?"

Funny, I was under the impression that the "pork" was ONE of the main reasons funds were not being distributed and that the reason it was discussed was because people were against it. Again, if you read my post I said "Same in disaster relief......we complain about the pork but once funds are distributed the pork is forgotten until next time. No, we don't have funds for the pork included in this bill but the victims of Sandy don't have time to wait for a resolution. People should begin immediately AFTER funds are distributed contacting their representatives to get laws passed banning ANY pork whatsoever from being included in disaster relief funds.......as well as other bills where the pork is slipped in. Let the lawmakers know that we are sick of relief for life and death matters being used for some jerk to "pork" up his desires." All your comments seem to say that other's posts weren't worded to your satisfaction.......... or more likely you may just have a reading comprehension problem. I haven't seen anywhere on either post where anyone said they felt funds should be held up only discussion of doing away with the pork so others in the future won't have to face this problem. Whatever, I am in no way ashamed of my post.

Mrsk""""""""67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people who were left, at best, powerless or homeless by a hurricane in November. "

Got to check the names but if any of those from Fl were from my district they will be hearing from me at the polls and by letter also.

As I read further on the thread MrsK, it seems that this matter is entirely your fault due to the fact that three Reps from LA voted against the bill. I mean if you voted for those who voted against this bill that makes you responsible, right? This thread and the accusations in it have reached the ludicrous point...........but then again that seems to happen more and more frequently. No matter what the topic there are a few who just wait for you, demi , cw or a few more to make a comment that they can tear into and start lambasting and maligning y'all instead of debating the subject...........just another day at HT


lily""""""""""" It's punishment for the states going overwhelmingly for Obama especially New Jersey and their Governor who had the good grace to embrace Obama for the help he brought. "

Yes , that is exactly why the funds have been held up....DUH........your hatred is causing you to be paranoid lily.

lily""""""""""""Shall I list your "twins" mrsk?... Demi, Brat, Elvis, FF, CW, Paulines,and I could be missing more."

Thank you for including me in the group lily. Fine people and fine company. Proud to be included.

lily""""""""Demi and mrsk were remarkably quiet when Bush was demolishing our surplus which he inherited from Clinton. Where was the outrage then? Partisan, anyone?"

couldn't think of this on your own lily.............parroting as usual.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

All your comments seem to say that other's posts weren't worded to your satisfaction.......... or more likely you may just have a reading comprehension problem. I haven't seen anywhere on either post where anyone said they felt funds should be held up only discussion of doing away with the pork so others in the future won't have to face this problem. Whatever, I am in no way ashamed of my post.

The comprehension is all your issue. Your comprehension problems is your lack of the political process. Every bill has had Pork. All the hurricane relief before and all after will have Pork. It is what they have had to do to get that Congressman and Senator to cast their vote for the relief.

I repeat over and over.

1. This is the first significant hurricane in the east, in a very long time..

2. The Gulf have had several to our one Hurricane. In all of those incidents all the bills had Pork.

3. In all the post after those Hurricanes not you or any other in need of relief mentioned "How horrible that Pork was in the Bill"

I could give you a link when the a poster brought up a negative about helping the hurricane victims. Those victims were all to eager to say not now we are suffering.

I see you feel you should not be ashame it does not make your disrespect for the people that are suffering right. No one can make another human being feel shame it is their character or it is not.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PUT THOSE SHOES ON AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PORK.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

As I read further on the thread MrsK, it seems that this matter is entirely your fault due to the fact that three Reps from LA voted against the bill. I mean if you voted for those who voted against this bill that makes you responsible, right?

Who said that? I didn't read that. Please point me to the post if I missed it.

What I read is the criticism of MrsK was that she posted wrong information about how many from LA voted against the bill and for some time refused to acknowledge that. She did, to her credit, eventually acknowledge she was wrong (something rarely done here by a conservative, by the way).


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

The term "Pork" has become the new four letter word.

Every single solitary Bill passed out of Congress has other funding/legislation contained within it. Issues not large enough for their own "Bill". It isn't necessarily "pork" just becasue it isn't related to what the lay man believes a Bill to be about.

There was no such thing as a Sandy Relief Bill ...rather there was Bill XXXXXX that contained emergency relief for Sandy as well as other minor items .

As a matter of fact one of the "pork" items that was contained in the bill was an item authorizing the State Department to move funds from one part of their budget to another in order to comply with the findings of the ARB....but the House removed it...there you go, money to protect diplomats is "pork"....

makes ya want to upchuck.


 o
RE: Walk a Mile in Our Shoes 2

You're a day late and a dollar short, or in this case a week.
The bill passed. Get over it and move on. Everyone else has.

Bored Brat? It sure seems so based on the number of threads you posted on in the last hour trying to antagonize.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here