Ungrateful "slum" dwellers

[2ndAmendment]

I kind of feel that the white boy does need to shut up,

and all the other racist whites need to shut up too.

The whites will not live in that slum and expect the minorities to be happy since they got a TV.

Disgusting white racist crud dumped on top of poor Americans living in a slum - its disgusting.

Most of us feel you should shut up, but you are still here.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I know what's more pitiful...


... and looking at her photo almost made me ill.


I will never understand the mentality that believes government housing is supposed to be upper-class and a "right".

They should have let that backwards, pathetic city sink into silence.

Welfare is unconstitutional. There should be no federal housing for anyone that is not at a federal post, i.e., military, embassy, or the like.

The response should be, "OK. You are right. You should not live like this. Here is your eviction notice. You have 30 days. Here is the address of the local employment office. I suggest you get a job. Don't let the door hit you in the butt as you leave."

 

[godsbutterfly]

The untrue white racist claims do not hold up when telling it to another white person like me.

The whites of appalachia are proud of their heritage and their "poverty" is part of their virtue.

Even your post shows a particular pride in having those "poor white folk" up there in appalachia because that means the african Americans in the white-created slums got no right (says white racist) to be complaining about their slums since the poor black woman "got a TV".

By the white God - the black folk can not claim to be "poor" when they "got a TV."

Evidently you have never been to the Appalachians. My son went there as part of a Missions trip and they are not thrilled to be living in poverty. Radio Patrol is right - it is disgraceful the conditions these people live in right here in America and it isn't because they don't work either. It's because of the area they are in.

 

[hvp05]

Welfare is unconstitutional. There should be no federal housing for anyone that is not at a federal post, i.e., military, embassy, or the like.

Did you read this bit... ?

Obama weighs in

The latest of many sidewalk protests drew support from presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who wrote an open letter to President Bush on Tuesday asking him to step in and delay the demolitions.

As if the President has time to stop running the country long enough to listen to every big-mouthed, whiny witch complain.



There is no way he could have enough time to listen to that many people!

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Evidently you have never been to the Appalachians. My son went there as part of a Missions trip and they are not thrilled to be living in poverty. Radio Patrol is right - it is disgraceful the conditions these people live in right here in America and it isn't because they don't work either. It's because of the area they are in.

So you claim to be in agreement with the racist pigs on this thread that claim the white poor are deserving and truly in need so their welfare and your charity to those white appalations is A-O-K, while the african Americans living in the slums of New Orleans are unworthy of the gov assistance?

This is one of those times where your post really make me angry.

 

[godsbutterfly]

So you claim to be in agreement with the racist pigs on this thread that claim the white poor are deserving and truly in need so their welfare and your charity to those white appalations is A-O-K, while the african Americans living in the slums of New Orleans are unworthy of the gov assistance?

This is one of those times where your post really make me angry.

My post made you angry? Well build a bridge and get over it! First of all I never said anything about African-Americans living in the slums of New Orleans being unworthy of government assistance in that post. I am saying that the Applachains are full of impoverished people who are definitely in need of help and IMO they deserve it. Now, back to New Orleans - if people, regardless of race, can show they deserve government assistance they should get it. However I am curious as to how this woman at the center of the controversey has needed it her whole life as did her mother before her.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Question:

What exactly entitles someone to government assistance? What makes them deserve it?

 

[Sonsie]

What I don't understand is people who stay in the same depressed areas who DON'T LEAVE! (those who actually want to work that is, not welfare queens like that worthless wench) During times of economic upheaval in the past people moved to where the jobs are, millions of people on the move to greener pastures. I can understand wanting to stay in the same small town but if you can't support yourself there then it's time to leave. The government shouldn't subsidize you staying next to that played out coal mine/closed factory because you consider it "home". I grew up in a tiny frozen northern town with only a paper mill and crappy service jobs available. Guess what? We all grew up and left there. The town is smaller now than it was in the 70s and only the old and the poor stay (subsidized of course), very little middle class remain. Would I like to move back there? Yes. Could we make a living there? No. So guess what, we are moving again this time out west. Following the job again.....

 

[godsbutterfly]

Question:

What exactly entitles someone to government assistance? What makes them deserve it?

You have a good job. You develop a brain tumor. After the surgery and the treatments you need time to recover.You might have Health Insurance that covers your Medical Care. Your long term Disability only pays a certain percentage of your paycheck. Your savings is going fast. You have a family to take care of.You might need to get help from the government for a short while with food or to help with electric etcetera until you are back on your feet.

Circumstances vary but that would be one example.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Question:

What exactly entitles someone to government assistance? What makes them deserve it?

Question two: Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the government to provide housing for people? And don't say the preamble because no powers are granted there and don't say Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 1, because the "general welfare of the United States" has nothing to do with giving individuals anything.

 

[2ndAmendment]

What I don't understand is people who stay in the same depressed areas who DON'T LEAVE! (those who actually want to work that is, not welfare queens like that worthless wench) During times of economic upheaval in the past people moved to where the jobs are, millions of people on the move to greener pastures. I can understand wanting to stay in the same small town but if you can't support yourself there then it's time to leave. The government shouldn't subsidize you staying next to that played out coal mine/closed factory because you consider it "home". I grew up in a tiny frozen northern town with only a paper mill and crappy service jobs available. Guess what? We all grew up and left there. The town is smaller now than it was in the 70s and only the old and the poor stay (subsidized of course), very little middle class remain. Would I like to move back there? Yes. Could we make a living there? No. So guess what, we are moving again this time out west. Following the job again.....

Internet? Will your company let you telecommute?

 

[2ndAmendment]

You have a good job. You develop a brain tumor. After the surgery and the treatments you need time to recover.You might have Health Insurance that covers your Medical Care. Your long term Disability only pays a certain percentage of your paycheck. Your savings is going fast. You have a family to take care of.You might need to get help from the government for a short while with food or to help with electric etcetera until you are back on your feet.

Circumstances vary but that would be one example.

Except that is not the governments business. Sorry. It just is not. Nor do I think it should be. It should be the business of you and me to see a person in need and give a little. You give a little, I give a little, Otter gives a little, Larry gives a little and Bustem gets by and recovers. Then someone else has a problem and Bustem joins in and is one of the givers. Get by with the help of friends not a handout from the government. People helping people. That is the way it was before the great socialist programs of FDR.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Except that is not the governments business. Sorry. It just is not. Nor do I think it should be. It should be the business of you and me to see a person in need and give a little. You give a little, I give a little, Otter gives a little, Larry gives a little and Bustem gets by and recovers. Then someone else has a problem and Bustem joins in and is one of the givers. Get by with the help of friends not a handout from the government. People helping people. That is the way it was before the great socialist programs of FDR.

The only exception I see would be people employed by the Federal Government, service members etc. etc.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Except that is not the governments business. Sorry. It just is not. Nor do I think it should be. It should be the business of you and me to see a person in need and give a little. You give a little, I give a little, Otter gives a little, Larry gives a little and Bustem gets by and recovers. Then someone else has a problem and Bustem joins in and is one of the givers. Get by with the help of friends not a handout from the government. People helping people. That is the way it was before the great socialist programs of FDR.

I would love to see the world still working that way and I will say that the people from my church would pitch in and see to it I did not have to worry, but so many people have lost their caring and compassion and so many others have become demanding and greedy that those days have all but disappeared over all. That's another reason why they have just tightened up the bankruptcy laws again - too many people were living above their means and then bailing out and leaving it all behind. Sad situation all around.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I would love to see the world still working that way and I will say that the people from my church would pitch in and see to it I did not have to worry, but so many people have lost their caring and compassion and so many others have become demanding and greedy that those days have all but disappeared over all. That's another reason why they have just tightened up the bankruptcy laws again - too many people were living above their means and then bailing out and leaving it all behind. Sad situation all around.

Caring and compassion has gone away because government has assumed the role of the individual. Those receiving welfare do not need to be grateful because it is their "right" to get taken care of by government. And politicians never rejecting a way to grab votes are happy to give away other peoples money to those that do not work for it.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[godsbutterfly]

Except that is not the governments business. Sorry. It just is not. Nor do I think it should be. It should be the business of you and me to see a person in need and give a little. You give a little, I give a little, Otter gives a little, Larry gives a little and Bustem gets by and recovers. Then someone else has a problem and Bustem joins in and is one of the givers. Get by with the help of friends not a handout from the government. People helping people. That is the way it was before the great socialist programs of FDR.

Additionally - if you are receiving Socially Security Disability Benefits (not SSI) you are only allowed to receive it if you have been paying into Social Security for a certain number of years and then you cannot receive that amount when you reach the age to receive Social Security Benefits. I had to go on Disability temporarily due to an illness that struck unexpectedly. It took me years to recover but I can now work again. The amount I received during those years has been subtracted and when I reach my ripe old age I will not see that amount. They figured out how much I could receive each month based on how much I had paid in and on my earning potential. I don't feel as though the Government handed me anything or that I used anybody elses money because I have paid into Social Security since my first job at age 18 and now I am back paying into it again.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Additionally - if you are receiving Socially Security Disability Benefits (not SSI) you are only allowed to receive it if you have been paying into Social Security for a certain number of years and then you cannot receive that amount when you reach the age to receive Social Security Benefits. I had to go on Disability temporarily due to an illness that struck unexpectedly. It took me years to recover but I can now work again. The amount I received during those years has been subtracted and when I reach my ripe old age I will not see that amount. They figured out how much I could receive each month based on how much I had paid in and on my earning potential. I don't feel as though the Government handed me anything or that I used anybody elses money because I have paid into Social Security since my first job at age 18 and now I am back paying into it again.

Yes. And I pay into Social Security, too. But, Social Security is yet one more thing that the federal government is not supposed to be doing under the powers granted under the Constitution.

If you had saved what you have been paying in in a private savings or investment account, you would have far more than you will ever collect from Social Security.

 

[This_person]

So you claim to be in agreement with the racist pigs on this thread that claim the white poor are deserving and truly in need so their welfare and your charity to those white appalations is A-O-K, while the african Americans living in the slums of New Orleans are unworthy of the gov assistance?

This is one of those times where your post really make me angry.

Can you show me anywhere anyone in this thread said anything like this, other than you?

I re-read the thread. The first racist post was by you, against whites. No one else spoke anything regarding race until you did. You race-baited the conversation. That's sad for you, that you felt you needed to do that.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Yes. And I pay into Social Security, too. But, Social Security is yet one more thing that the federal government is not supposed to be doing under the powers granted under the Constitution.

If you had saved what you have been paying in in a private savings or investment account, you would have far more than you will ever collect from Social Security.

You're right about this and we also don't get to choose whether or not we want to pay into it. It comes out of your paycheck regardless.

 

[toppick08]

Can you show me anywhere anyone in this thread said anything like this, other than you?

I re-read the thread. The first racist post was by you, against whites. No one else spoke anything regarding race until you did. You race-baited the conversation. That's sad for you, that you felt you needed to do that.

He's just following an old Democratic trick practiced (invented) by the "mighty" Kennedy clan......