Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but...

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

 

[Zoomie1980]

You take gov't money, you give gov't the right to call the shots about what you do with it.

That works for cities as well. You take federal dollars you can't ban ROTC at your schools or create illegal sanctuary for illegal aliens.

If we can tell Citi what to do with their TARP we can also tell San Francisco to screw themselves and cut them off.

 

[Againsheila]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

I don't know of one Christian Charity that requires you to pray, or even listen to a prayer or sermon before getting charity from them. My friend's church provides free sack lunches Mon-Thurs, no sermonizing, no prayers. Another friend's church gave us Christmas and Thanksgiving baskets when we were very poor, no strings attached. One did have a free Bible in it. Gee what a crime.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings requiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

I don't know of one Christian Charity that requires you to pray, or even listen to a prayer or sermon before getting charity from them. My friend's church provides free sack lunches Mon-Thurs, no sermonizing, no prayers. Another friend's church gave us Christmas and Thanksgiving baskets when we were very poor, no strings attached. One did have a free Bible in it. Gee what a crime.

I've seen it both ways and I tend to believe in the "He who pays the Fiddler, calls the tune."

We've all been on hard times at some point in our lives and we've all had help from those who took pity on us and went out of their way to help. Most of us were humbled by their sacrifice and compassion... we took the charity with humility and worked hard to correct our circumstances; surviving, living... ultimately thriving where we can give to someone else. We did NOT demand that someone help us... we did NOT declare that we were ENTITLED to BE HELPED...

This thread is trying to determine the distinction between those who feel that people are ENTITLED to be helped... that they shouldn't be turned away because they refuse to be held accountable, they shouldn't be subjected to preaching... YET when a GROUP of people, such as those who comprise a Corporation come for help... THOSE SAME PEOPLE are now DEMANDING all manner of strings... and PREACHING the secular word... "Calling the tune...' so to speak.

Why?

 

[Vel]

Wow.. this could set a whole new precedent. If taxpayers can tell businesses that took tax dollars what their top pay can be, maybe we can also finally do something about our perpetual welfare recipients. Can we start drug testing welfare recipients now? I'm all for cutting off the money for those that smoke and drink while living on the taxpayer's dime. How about making sure that those people that raise three or four children on W.I.C. be required to take birth control in order to continue getting those checks. Think what a savings that would be. Do you think Obama thought about where this precedent could lead? Nah.. I doubt it.

 

[user_name_guest]

Maybe we should reduce the amount of pay that members of Congress, Executive, Administrative, and Judicial branch make in Washington.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care. But if they use my tax money then my standards must be met.

 

[Killuminati]

Its not government's money is our as tax payers, but the government is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, and has power what can you do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow.. this could set a whole new precedent. If taxpayers can tell businesses that took tax dollars what their top pay can be, maybe we can also finally do something about our perpetual welfare recipients. Can we start drug testing welfare recipients now? I'm all for cutting off the money for those that smoke and drink while living on the taxpayer's dime. How about making sure that those people that raise three or four children on W.I.C. be required to take birth control in order to continue getting those checks. Think what a savings that would be. Do you think Obama thought about where this precedent could lead? Nah.. I doubt it.

Thank you...

That's exactly the point... The left demands that all of the Social Entitlements to individuals be stringless... No moral judgments be assessed against those seeking the government dole; but where the dole is propping up Corporations who succumbed to THEIR "Reasonable Regulations;" regulations which serve as a means toward 'social engineering', well that's another kettle of fih entirely... and it's 'high time that someone set those people straight!'

One should also note how the thread DRIED RIGHT UP once the point was made ratified...

Now you Progressives NEED to answer this question...

WHY IS IT UNACCEPTABLE TO TELL THE RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO; ASSESSING JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIFESTYLES; LIFESTYLES WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR NEEDING SUBSIDY... But it IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO TELL CORPORATIONS HOW THEY HAVE TO LIVE WHEN THEY SEEK 'GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE?'

Now this isn't a complex issue... and the answer is obvious.

 

[editec]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

I say you're mostly an angry not especially well informed troll.

First of you you claim to speak for the left more than any person on this board as in:

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity

Now, I do not know a single liberal who has ever said that they hate Christian charity.

And lad?

Neither do you.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

I say you're mostly an angry not especially well informed troll.

First of you you claim to speak for the left more than any person on this board as in:

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity

Now, I do not know a single liberal who has ever said that they hate Christian charity.

And lad?

Neither do you.

Shogun

 

[WillowTree]

Wow.. this could set a whole new precedent. If taxpayers can tell businesses that took tax dollars what their top pay can be, maybe we can also finally do something about our perpetual welfare recipients. Can we start drug testing welfare recipients now? I'm all for cutting off the money for those that smoke and drink while living on the taxpayer's dime. How about making sure that those people that raise three or four children on W.I.C. be required to take birth control in order to continue getting those checks. Think what a savings that would be. Do you think Obama thought about where this precedent could lead? Nah.. I doubt it.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Ravi]

I'll speak for the left. No one on the left cares if religious charities have strings attached to their charity UNLESS the religious charity is taking government money. Then they care.

PubicHair, methinks your brain has blown a gasket. Again. Better quit trying to think otherwise you'll soon be carted away by the men in white jackets.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care. But if they use my tax money then my standards must be met.

Clearly... And naturally, you agree then, that "my" standards regarding those who take the Social Subsidies from my tax money should also be met... I mean, just imagine how we could clean this old world up through the 'Reasonable Regulations' imparted on those who find themselves facing various problems; problems created as a result of their personal behavior... when they come to the table asking for our assistance.

GONE would be the day when it is said that PEOPLE have a RIGHT to our Tax money.... they would come with hat in hand, humbled by our willingess to help... as long as they recognize that the help comes with numerous and highly encumbering strings... Strings which would hold them accountable to us, for their future behavior; their addictions, they're moral depravity... and their failure to meet the thresholds established in our SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Oh I think maybe we're onto something here...

Who's with me?

Just think of it... we can easily extrapolate that things like the Federal and State highways and interstates... the use of Police and Fire assets.. Why... EVERYONE is protected by the US Military and the Agricultural, Commerce and Educations departments... ALL paid for by our tax dollars... Entitling "US" to get 'THEM' in line with how 'we feel they should behave...'

Of course, on the other hand; and I'm just spit balling here... we COULD find that this idea becomes very restrictive; inevitably including EVERYONE; with everyone having their own ideas of what's decent and all... I mean that really boils down to giving our "GOVERNMENT" the 'RIGHT' to usurp individual RIGHTS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR POWER... on the basis that the collective (the government) determines what is and is NOT a right... because WE are ALL enjoying the fruits of the all mighty Federal Tax Dollar... Meaning that the only people who the Federal government could not RIGHTFULLY control, would be those who can say, definitively, that they do not benefit from ANY government programs on any conceivable facet... and that would pretty damn hard to do... But Hey... it wouldn't even matter at that point because by that point WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO KICK THAT GUYS ASS INTO NEXT WEEK... Who the fuck is HE to tell US what he will and will not do!! RIGHT? He would be, after all, in the stark MINORITY and we all know that unpopular opinions are INVALID OPINIONS... Right?


But wait... Let's think about this:

POWER in and of itself, BY DEFAULT, constitutes RIGHT... despite the axiom to the contrary; particularly where one removes the notions of divine endowment; absent the ultimate authority of God, the ultimate authority quickly rolls down to the next ultimate authority on the list which is HUMAN POWER and there's precious little power which competes with the US Federal government in the "POWER" department; thus the US Federal Government is the ultimate power, thus the US Federal Government presents, again: by default, once we assent to it's RIGHT to determine what IS RIGHT... THE POWER OF THE US GOVERNEMNT would under this new found notion, be the final arbiter which enforces what is right and what is 'A RIGHT' on the basis of it having provided tax payer dollars in the way of assistance... and PRESTO we're all living in a totalitarian shit storm.

So... I dunno... maybe we need to re-think this whole idea and READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE UPON WHICH IT RESTS AND SEE THAT HUMAN POWER IS NOT THE ORIGINS OF OUR RIGHTS AND IS TO BE LIMITED, AT LEAST WHERE ONE DESIRES TO REMAIN FREE... and stop being so quick to strip the individual of the product of their labor to subsidize another's inadequacies in some twisted counter productive notion of FAIRNESS... Maybe... JUST MAYBE, the Founders of the US were RIGHT when they SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; RECOGNIZING THAT THE CATASTROPHIC POWER WHICH SUCH INEVITABLY MUST AQUIRE WILL JUST AS INEVITABLY RESULT IN IT BECOMING THAT FROM WHICH THEY, THE FOUNDERS OF THE US HAD JUST FOUGHT TO FREE THEMSELVES... MAYBE IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO SUBSIDIZE PEOPLE WHEN THEY FAIL; MAYBE SETTING HIGH MORAL STANDARDS AND HOLDING PEOPLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR FAILURES TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS IS A BETTER IDEA, DESPITE THAT BEING... HARD! MAYBE... An individual has a right to pursue the fulfillment of their lives and that their right does NOT come with any gaurantees and that the reason that works is that WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS; RIGHTS WHICH COMPRISE THE EXTENT OF OUR "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY"...

I'm just sayin'...

Just a thought...

 

[editec]

Corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are legal entities which exist at the pleasure of the CITIZENS of this nation.

If a corporation is being bailed out by the CITIZENS of this nation, the CITIZENS have the right to impose pay caps, or for that fucking matter, any god damned thing THE CITIZENS choose on them.

If these legal entities don't like those rules then they are free not to take the American CITIZENS' largess.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

can you direct me to a single thread, in the entire history of this board, with some lib whining that homeless people have to listen to some priest if they go to a catholic charity?




P.S. - this board needs an emoticon for "strawman"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are legal entities which exist at the pleasure of the CITIZENS of this nation.

If a corporation is being bailed out by the CITIZENS of this nation, the CITIZENS have the right to impose pay caps, or for that fucking matter, any god damned thing THE CITIZENS choose on them.

If these legal entities don't like those rules then they are free not to take the American CITIZENS' largess.

OH! I see... I never really thought about that... So you're saying then that a "Citizen" is NOT a legal entity? "Citizens" just "ARE"? So a 'citizen' then would not be a distinct legal entity which enjoys certain rights and priviledges relevant to that legal status?

Fascinatin'... and what a GREAT POINT you'd have there if it weren't so fucking WRONG.

When we tell the "Corporation" that they can only PAY THE CITIZEN THAT SITS IN THE EXECUTIVE SO MUCH... DOES THAT EFFECT THE CITIZEN WHOSE LABOR PRODUCT IS BEING LIMITED? 'Cause I think it might....

And... given that Corporations PAY TAXES... How does that effect your flaccid little calculation?

You drive a car which rides along the highway MY TAXES PAID FOR... why shouldn't I tell you how mmuch you can earn? After all you're BENEFITTING FROM MY TAX DOLLARS...

You eat FOOD which MY AG Dept PROTECTS FROM Contaminates and disease... How is it that you escape my telling you how much you can earn after you've benefitted from my tax dollars?

You live in a home which rests within MY TAX DOLLAR FUNDED FIRE DISTRICT... And I think you are earning TOO MUCH MONEY... what reason can you give which would preclude me from having a right to tell you how much you can earn, due to you having enjoyed the benefit of MY TAX DOLLARS...?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

can you direct me to a single thread, in the entire history of this board, with some lib whining that homeless people have to listen to some priest if they go to a catholic charity?




P.S. - this board needs an emoticon for "strawman"

So you're limiting the scope of reality to discussions held on this board? Well that's a neat trick...

And just to be sure, you're implying that you know to a certainty that there is no argument coming from the ideological left that it's NOT FAIR to hold people who ask for assistance, accountable?

I wonder then... how did the word "ENTITLEMENTS"get applied to public assistance?

Work that out and get back to me...

LOL... Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is it fine for the Gov't to tell you how to act when you take THEIR money; but NOT when your taking Charity?

The primary reason that the left HATES Christian Charity... because such almost ALWAYS comes with the 'string' that to eat the Church's soup, you must listen to the Church's message... we're told that it's not FAIR that Christian charities have all these strings reuiring those they care for to listen to the good news and withold subsidies when a person fails to be held accountable.

YET... the left feels that all of those things are now PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE and only RIGHT where a Corporation is coming to the alter of the Federal Coffers looking for a hand out.

What say YOU?

As long as they don't use my tax money, I don't care. But if they use my tax money then my standards must be met.

Clearly... And naturally, you agree then, that "my" standards regarding those who take the Social Subsidies from my tax money should also be met... I mean, just imagine how we could clean this old world up through the 'Reasonable Regulations' imparted on those who find themselves facing various problems; problems created as a result of their personal behavior... when they come to the table asking for our assistance.

GONE would be the day when it is said that PEOPLE have a RIGHT to our Tax money.... they would come with hat in hand, humbled by our willingess to help... as long as they recognize that the help comes with numerous and highly encumbering strings... Strings which would hold them accountable to us, for their future behavior; their addictions, they're moral depravity... and their failure to meet the thresholds established in our SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Oh I think maybe we're onto something here...

Who's with me?

Just think of it... we can easily extrapolate that things like the Federal and State highways and interstates... the use of Police and Fire assets.. Why... EVERYONE is protected by the US Military and the Agricultural, Commerce and Educations departments... ALL paid for by our tax dollars... Entitling "US" to get 'THEM' in line with how 'we feel they should behave...'

Of course, on the other hand; and I'm just spit balling here... we COULD find that this idea becomes very restrictive; inevitably including EVERYONE; with everyone having their own ideas of what's decent and all... I mean that really boils down to giving our "GOVERNMENT" the 'RIGHT' to usurp individual RIGHTS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR POWER... on the basis that the collective (the government) determines what is and is NOT a right... because WE are ALL enjoying the fruits of the all mighty Federal Tax Dollar... Meaning that the only people who the Federal government could not RIGHTFULLY control, would be those who can say, definitively, that they do not benefit from ANY government programs on any conceivable facet... and that would pretty damn hard to do... But Hey... it wouldn't even matter at that point because by that point WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO KICK THAT GUYS ASS INTO NEXT WEEK... Who the fuck is HE to tell US what he will and will not do!! RIGHT? He would be, after all, in the stark MINORITY and we all know that unpopular opinions are INVALID OPINIONS... Right?


But wait... Let's think about this:

POWER in and of itself, BY DEFAULT, constitutes RIGHT... despite the axiom to the contrary; particularly where one removes the notions of divine endowment; absent the ultimate authority of God, the ultimate authority quickly rolls down to the next ultimate authority on the list which is HUMAN POWER and there's precious little power which competes with the US Federal government in the "POWER" department; thus the US Federal Government is the ultimate power, thus the US Federal Government presents, again: by default, once we assent to it's RIGHT to determine what IS RIGHT... THE POWER OF THE US GOVERNEMNT would under this new found notion, be the final arbiter which enforces what is right and what is 'A RIGHT' on the basis of it having provided tax payer dollars in the way of assistance... and PRESTO we're all living in a totalitarian shit storm.

So... I dunno... maybe we need to re-think this whole idea and READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE UPON WHICH IT RESTS AND SEE THAT HUMAN POWER IS NOT THE ORIGINS OF OUR RIGHTS AND IS TO BE LIMITED, AT LEAST WHERE ONE DESIRES TO REMAIN FREE... and stop being so quick to strip the individual of the product of their labor to subsidize another's inadequacies in some twisted counter productive notion of FAIRNESS... Maybe... JUST MAYBE, the Founders of the US were RIGHT when they SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; RECOGNIZING THAT THE CATASTROPHIC POWER WHICH SUCH INEVITABLY MUST AQUIRE WILL JUST AS INEVITABLY RESULT IN IT BECOMING THAT FROM WHICH THEY, THE FOUNDERS OF THE US HAD JUST FOUGHT TO FREE THEMSELVES... MAYBE IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO SUBSIDIZE PEOPLE WHEN THEY FAIL; MAYBE SETTING HIGH MORAL STANDARDS AND HOLDING PEOPLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR FAILURES TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS IS A BETTER IDEA, DESPITE THAT BEING... HARD! MAYBE... An individual has a right to pursue the fulfillment of their lives and that their right does NOT come with any gaurantees and that the reason that works is that WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS; RIGHTS WHICH COMPRISE THE EXTENT OF OUR "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY"...

I'm just sayin'...

Just a thought...

Corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are legal entities which exist at the pleasure of the CITIZENS of this nation.

If a corporation is being bailed out by the CITIZENS of this nation, the CITIZENS have the right to impose pay caps, or for that fucking matter, any god damned thing THE CITIZENS choose on them.

If these legal entities don't like those rules then they are free not to take the American CITIZENS' largess.

Now friends... THAT IS ONE WHO PRIDES HERSELF ON HER STATUS AS A MODERATE...

She's found a reason to isolate a group of people as being of a different legal status and determines that because "THOSE PEOPLE" are of a different legal status than the CITIZEN... and despite the simple, but incontestable fact THAT "THOSE PEOPLE" are paying taxes, JUST LIKE THE CITIZEN... that THOSE PEOPLE are SUBJECT TO BEING TOLD WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO, WHILE THEY'RE ON THE GOVERNMENT DOLE...

This is a self described MODERATE... a person who PRIDES THEM SELF ON BEING A CENTRIST... A deep thinker which stands above the polarizing extremist... and she's DETERMINED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO TELL 'CERTAIN LEGAL ENTITIES" that enjoy a government subsidy... or who benefit from tax dollars... what they can pay THOSE WHO WORK FOR THEM; WHAT they can and cannot do.

So, in other words, those who the COLLECTIVE DETERMINE ARE OF AN acceptable LEGAL STATUS can take the government dole and NOT be told how much they can earn... while those of an arbitraly distinct category cannot... everyone got that? Seems pretty clear, right? Accept those whose income is ACTUALLY BEING LIMITED ARE OF THE EXACT SAME STATUS AS THOSE WHO ARE SAID CANNOT BE TOLD HOW MUCH THEY CAN EARN... THIS MODERATE is advocating that the would-be 'RIGHTS' of the COLLECTIVE, TRUMP THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY WILL ACCEPT AS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR... OR WHO THEY WILL PROVIDE THAT LABOR FOR... BASED UPON A BENEFIT THEY RECEIVE FROM THAAT COLLECTIVE.

Which while it amounts irrational drivel... it stands as high reason for those on the ideological left. Although I am shocked that no leftist has broken out the 'Slippery Slope' contest... it's usually worn out by this time...

 

[Againsheila]

Wow.. this could set a whole new precedent. If taxpayers can tell businesses that took tax dollars what their top pay can be, maybe we can also finally do something about our perpetual welfare recipients. Can we start drug testing welfare recipients now? I'm all for cutting off the money for those that smoke and drink while living on the taxpayer's dime. How about making sure that those people that raise three or four children on W.I.C. be required to take birth control in order to continue getting those checks. Think what a savings that would be. Do you think Obama thought about where this precedent could lead? Nah.. I doubt it.

Thank you...

That's exactly the point... The left demands that all of the Social Entitlements to individuals be stringless... No moral judgments be assessed against those seeking the government dole; but where the dole is propping up Corporations who succumbed to THEIR "Reasonable Regulations;" regulations which serve as a means toward 'social engineering', well that's another kettle of fih entirely... and it's 'high time that someone set those people straight!'

One should also note how the thread DRIED RIGHT UP once the point was made ratified...

Now you Progressives NEED to answer this question...

WHY IS IT UNACCEPTABLE TO TELL THE RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO; ASSESSING JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIFESTYLES; LIFESTYLES WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR NEEDING SUBSIDY... But it IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO TELL CORPORATIONS HOW THEY HAVE TO LIVE WHEN THEY SEEK 'GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE?'

Now this isn't a complex issue... and the answer is obvious.

Okay, first of all, drinking is legal. Second of all, some drugs are prescription drugs required by a doctor, I pretty sure, that because of my back, there are some times that if I were to take a drug test I'd fail. I take percocet, on occasion when my back really hurts.

Now as for the kids, I have no problem with limiting the number of kids to people on welfare to ZERO. Whatever number of kids you had when you went on welfare, that's the number you get to have until you get off of welfare. I think welfare should be a temporary thing to help people get over rough times and I object to the fact that when my husband was laid off for three years, we couldn't get any government help. Thank God for our family and friends. And for luck as well. I quit paying for Cobra, $850 a month was more than our housepayment and I decided we needed the house more. It took me more than a year to find a job, but thank God that when I did, the insurance kicked in right away because soon after that we found out my husband had colon cancer. What if that had happened during the time we had no insurance? We would have lost everything. Also, thank God that my husband was rehired just before my job was sent to India and HIS insurance kicked in right away because that's when we discovered I had breast cancer. Again, we could have lost everything.

I also think it's time that we provide disability payments that are reasonable for people to live on. If you are disabled, and I mean truly disabled, then there is no reason you should have to do without food or heat to pay the bills.

I also believe unemployment needs to be revamped....provide unemployment for up to two years to anybody who can't find work. After two years, provide retraining and then give them another year to find a job, if they can't, put them to work and pay them minimum wage. There are a lot of things they could do that would help our society, even just picking up trash along the highway, or pruning trees and bushes along our roads, or just walking the hallway in our highschools to help police them.

We need to start paying living wages to those on the bottom end of the spectrum and everything should go up from there. Then someone could again stay home to raise the kids. I've watched the kids in this neighborhood and the one's where the mom's stay home are the best behaved.