Plans to have middle classes target/blame the lower classes (elites laughing)

[chrsswtzr]

Talk about corporate welfare, then maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.

Until then, I'll assume that this is just one more veiled way of scapegoating the poor for the crimes of the rich.

Amen, brother.

+100

[jkm1864]

I have to say that a couple of the comments here serves the NWO well.. One is attacking people in need and blaming them for taxes when it is not them who is responsible for stealing your taxes in the first place but attacking your neighbor rather than laying blame where it should be causes divisions among the people which is what the proponents of the NWO love..Divide and conquer is their motto! Another sounds to serve the eugenics when someone calls for some law to prevent a person from having children! Can't you see that this is exactly what they want?  This is supposed to be a movement to conquer the NWO but I see lots  of infighting going on! How do you think that a group divided and arguing all the time can ever unite against a common enemy??  Stop taking it out on your neighbors or anyone who is close enough to take your frustrations out on and instead focus on who caused all of this to start with! If it is true that your neighbor is guilty because he needs help in hard times then are we all not more to blame for allowing it to get to this point to start with?  Why fight with  someone (who has lost their job) over tax money and where it is going ?  Shouldn't you be more concerned with those who stole this money from you with illegal income taxes in the first place?? Or maybe you should be more concerned with all the money spent on illegal wars or banker bailouts but it is soooooooo much easier to blame the neighbor in need isn't it? Easier to take your frustrations out on the victims than the ones who are really to blame because it is much easier to kick the neighbor who is down than to stand against those in power..right?

Well when You get on a boat and spend 9 months a year away from Your family You might have a different opinion. Or better yet You work 18 hours a day at 16 an hour to bring home 111k a year and everything is taxed because some envious puke thinks Your rich You might change Your mind. I do agree with You though but these are the same people that the powers that be use to oppress us with endless taxation. I can't stand welfare people and personally I do think they are THE boil on the middle classes butt cheek while the powers that be are the hemoroid.

[thrashbassist]

I can't stand welfare people and personally I do think they are THE boil on the middle classes butt cheek while the powers that be are the hemoroid.

Right, how dare a paralyzed veteran on welfare not get off his lazy ass and get a job!

What's with all the sweeping generalizations going on in this forum? I thought we were more intelligent than that.

[xTruthSeekerx]

Right, how dare a paralyzed veteran on welfare not get off his lazy ass and get a job!

What's with all the sweeping generalizations going on in this forum? I thought we were more intelligent than that.

QFT

[jkm1864]

You have no idea what I've been through to even propose such a ridiculous challenge. I have lived in a tent and dug ditches to feed myself. My mother got pregnant with me at 16 and raised me by herself in a roach invested apartment working 2 jobs without outside help. No welfare in either case.

CHARITY is different than welfare. This country had an incredible amount of charity before the government started extracting wealth for social programs like "welfare". Learn the origins of welfare and you might think different. It's not about helping people...it's about social control.

DO YOU PEOPLE HERE EVEN LISTEN TO ALEX JONES? SINCE WHEN DID HE SUPPORT WELFARE? WTF?

You are so right CHARITY makes You feel good when You help Your neighbor out while welfare just makes me feel like I just got f**kED..........

[ramallamamama]

Richard C. Cook is the guest that Alex has interviewed who recommends giving everyone a stipend.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7852

He more recently referenced a guy whose web site I'm looking for that has some ideas on how to pay for it.  This isn't anything new.  Buckminster Fuller thought we would reach a point about now that we would have to pay people not to work.

Thanks for the link.

[Freeski]

I'm totally for charity and let's not forget that for the longest time this great country was one of the most charitable around.

And, don't forget, the state has come in and gobbled most of them up, by putting them under their control while earning money for themselves. And to think you need government approval to be charitable is evidence that we already live in that scientific dictatorship.

[jkm1864]

Right, how dare a paralyzed veteran on welfare not get off his lazy ass and get a job!

What's with all the sweeping generalizations going on in this forum? I thought we were more intelligent than that.

A veteran should be taken care of by his previous employer period. If You get hurt at a job and You were doing Your job Your employer has the moral obligation to take care of You until You can get better. I have a problem with the people that get pregnant in high school and expect to live on it till their children get old enough to leave. We have taken personal responsibility out of the equation and gave it to the state and its no wonder why We have a problem. I say get rid of the IRS... Starve the federal government so corporate corruption is down. You get rid of the majority of taxes and that means more money to go around. You can't make any exceptions in this because if You allow one they will make more down the road. Most people think its OK to tax the hell out of the rich and the corporations but they don't realize that if Your business made more You might pay more especially for good employees. The main reason our jobs are going over seas is not because they don't want to employ Americans is because the federal government is sucking the life blood out of the economy. So don't act like I am some heartless NWO thug because I am not I just don't believe its right to tax 100 people to feed ten people that can't find work. I do not believe in this collectivism bullshit because its not right to take from one and give to the other especially when You are some big government entity that doesn't understand the peoples plight in whom You are taxing and whom You are giving it too. Also don't You think society would actually evolve and be better in the long run if the government wasn't involved. The community is where it should be managed and I haven't found one person yet that wouldn't give to his neighbor if his house burnt down have you? No on the other hand if Your neighbor is a idiot druggy that sits around running the roads and falls on hard times because of his foolish behavior its the communities right to say no to helping him out because He just might learn a lesson.

[clearmyst]

Are you serious Do also think people on disability shouldn't bitch too

Your sounding a little like Bill O Reilly there.

I am not worth someone forking over their earned wage to care for my ass. Neither are you or anyone else, though this egotistical society that has forgotten what it means to be self-reliant and that includes what tragedies may befall they are your own and you must deal with them.
If you have family or a charity or whatever to support you that is the proper role, uncoerced and without intervention and stealing other peoples money.

If you rely on the government for your dough then you make a choice to accept the status quo and forfeit any apparent change you would desire. Be all you want to be.

[abrhim]

I guess this is one of those 'bump' situations.

[clearmyst]

1.So someone who is dependent on the welfare system because they are physically unable to work shouldn't be allowed to criticize the government? And say her husband wants to go back to work but can't because if he takes a job, his wife's benefits will be taken away (usually being Medicare and Medicaid). Does he not deserve to complain about how the system screwed them over?

I know this because not too long ago my parents were in this situation, and the only reason they were able to get out of it was because luckily, I had a good enough job to be able to pay my for mom's prescriptions and medical bills for a few months until my dad could get insurance at his new job. But some people aren't that lucky and have nobody to depend on.

They certainly have no moral right to criticize the hand that feeds them.
Most people are so selfish they dont care about the people they steal the food right from under their plates as long as they get their well deserved piece of the pie. There is no such thing as free money and every action has a consequence if you care to have a broader view then yourself as a the center of the universe.

Blame government for creating the mess that tries to force people into becoming welfare whores or mini-pararsites living off the biggest parasite of them all- Government.

[Freeski]

I am not worth someone forking over their earned wage to care for my ass. Neither are you or anyone else, though this egotistical society that has forgotten what it means to be self-reliant and that includes what tragedies may befall they are your own and you must deal with them.
If you have family or a charity or whatever to support you that is the proper role, uncoerced and without intervention and stealing other peoples money.

If you rely on the government for your dough then you make a choice to accept the status quo and forfeit any apparent change you would desire. Be all you want to be.

An outstanding depiction of freedom! Because with it comes responsibility.

[clearmyst]

As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. And although I generally support limited government and free enterprise (I'm a Neo-Georgist, not a Marxist), I nevertheless think the following image accurately reflects both the corporate monstrosity that laughingly passes for "free market capitalism" these days and the plutocracy that laughingly passes for "democracy."



The difference between left-wing (or "progressive") libertarians and right-wing (or "conservative") libertarians is that the latter want to start abolishing privileges at the bottom and work their way upward whereas the former want to start at the top and work their way downward.

And people like you are so arrogant did you ever both to stop and think about where the funds for "privileges" come from? Or even why you or anyone deserves a bonus where others do not?

[SlaveState]

Interestingly enough, if you do CHARITY work at your local shelter or church you will find that most of these people are NOT on welfare but instead are busting their asses to do their best. Many of the people on welfare are only more than happy to tax YOU so they can have a bigger check.

They think that driving a late model Honda and owning a home means you're the elite, trying to educate them on Obama and they call you racist.

As far as veterans... the government owes them 100% support if they are injured in the line of duty...that's not welfare.

Notice the government craps all over the vets and is happy to extract wealth from the middle class to support "welfare" because they love you. I don't think so.

I would bet that many of the people here defending welfare have never had to fight CPS nor have most of them really donated a good amount of money to charity or volunteered their time to help others.

It gives them a sense of pride watching that welfare funding extracted from their meager paychecks....you are funding eugenics people! The government doesn't care about poor people! This is the tasty cracker that's full of rat poison!

Go do real charity work and watch a poor family cry with humility and then you start to shed a tear too because humans helping humans is what God made us to do- not gun to the head social extraction for societal control.

Alex has shirt for you! http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/sot.html

[clearmyst]

An outstanding depiction of freedom! Because with it comes responsibility.

People think your being cruel or heartless when it reality I assume we all want each other to operate as sovereign unchained individuals doing what we will?
Even in nature the birds will push their children to fly without coddling them at the nest bringing them food for life, the nanny state is artificial and keeping us all like drug addicts addicted to the opium of government.

[thrashbassist]

They certainly have no moral right to criticize the hand that feeds them.
Most people are so selfish they dont care about the people they steal the food right from under their plates as long as they get their well deserved piece of the pie. There is no such thing as free money and every action has a consequence if you care to have a broader view then yourself as a the center of the universe.

So you're saying that someone who is forced into a situation in which they have no choice but to rely on the welfare system for income otherwise they won't get the medical care they desperately need has no moral right to complain, just like those welfare-leeches who have no problems, but just don't want to work?

Blame government for creating the mess that tries to force people into becoming welfare whores or mini-pararsites living off the biggest parasite of them all- Government.

I've already said like three times in this thread that in order to solve the problem, we need to start at the top.

[InfoTruth]

sure, why not, and while we're at it, why not require drug tests for all welfare recipiants. Oh, hey, another great idea, lets suspend certain rights too, like the right to protest the government or the right of someone on welfare to not be arbitrarily searched in their homes or on the streets. Or maybe welfare recipiants shouldn't be able to own guns either, maybe shouldn't be allowed jury trials either.
 Actually, I have it solved....why not just round up all the welfare recipiants and herd them in to camps, they could all work in the camps to pay for their keep, be tagged of course with RFID chips, gotta make sure they aren't wandering off to do things that tax payers do, can't have em doing that, can we.
  

I'm for certain that some posters on this thread wouldn't mind that. One of the posters here said illegal immigrants should be forced to go into labor camps. I mean some people here are just inhuman and don't care about their fellow man.

[Freeski]

I've already said like three times in this thread that in order to solve the problem, we need to start at the top.

Meaning drastically shrink the size and scope of government? (If so I agree!)

[thrashbassist]

Meaning drastically shrink the size and scope of government? (If so I agree!)

Absolutely. Government should only do what it's supposed to do, and that is protect our rights and allow us to prosper on our own.

[Freeski]

Absolutely. Government should only do what it's supposed to do, and that is protect our rights and allow us to prosper on our own.

It''s a beautiful thing!

[jkm1864]

I wonder how man kind has ever survived this long without welfare. I mean those damn savages how dare they not give 50% of their income to support the elderly and the poor. Oh wait I think it was the community that banded together to help the people that came upon hard times. So please get off Your high horse and stop acting like You have the moral high ground when You obviously don't. You make me wonder if You actually pay any taxes at all with Your glaring comments of my intelligence because if You sacrificed as much as I do You wouldn't enjoy seeing Your check -3700 dollars a month all due to these wonderful government programs.

[jkm1864]

As far as medical bills thats not our fault either.... You need to look closer at home and blame the insurance companies and the government. Most people don't even understand what Ron Paul meant when He talked about managed care. The government in collusion with the insurance companies shut down medical schools all across the nation because of a so called glut in doctors in the foreseeable future. Now there was no glut coming and if there was its free market and then it would be cheaper because more doctors competing for customers. They even placed a board over each state that limits the amount of liscences they give out each year meaning they bottle neck it. The doctor to patient ratio is 1 to 900 right now and You wonder why people need health insurance to protect themselves. The solution of the problem is to not make more welfare because thats going to tax us more and give the insurance companies more money. The solution is to get the government out of the way and let the free market flood the market with doctors. I had a problem the other day with a slight gum infection which put me in the worse pain that I have felt in my life. I had to go to three different doctors & dentists. The first one I went to treated me like I was a Mc'donalds customer and his office was the drive through window. The last was a young man whom treated me like a valued customer and wanted to fix my problem. The young guy sent me a note in the mail thanking me for giving him the chance to help me. The other shit head just sent me a bill. Now this is what I am talking about the one guy had to build a clientele base so He had to work hard and give me good service while the shit head had a clientele and I was just a nuisance. So thats how You fix that problem You create more doctors and then they compete for customers and the service improves.

[clearmyst]

So you're saying that someone who is forced into a situation in which they have no choice but to rely on the welfare system for income otherwise they won't get the medical care they desperately need has no moral right to complain, just like those welfare-leeches who have no problems, but just don't want to work?

Well you always have a choice its just a matter of if one will always choose the easy path presented.
Your example is more understandable then most be I still agree we need to deal with the root of this problem.

You know we all could have hell of lot cheaper medical if we were allowed to buy amongst an unrestrained free-market we'd have literally countless options that wouldnt involve being pegged down to a limited service based on the government raising prices and regulating in alliance with the insurance companies.

[Freeski]

I wonder how man kind has ever survived this long without welfare. I mean those damn savages how dare they not give 50% of their income to support the elderly and the poor. Oh wait I think it was the community that banded together to help the people that came upon hard times. So please get off Your high horse and stop acting like You have the moral high ground when You obviously don't. You make me wonder if You actually pay any taxes at all with Your glaring comments of my intelligence because if You sacrificed as much as I do You wouldn't enjoy seeing Your check -3700 dollars a month all due to these wonderful government programs.

In my books, government killed real charity. Assholes.

[Freeski]

Well you always have a choice its just a matter of if one will always choose the easy path presented.
Your example is more understandable then most be I still agree we need to deal with the root of this problem.

You know we all could have hell of lot cheaper medical if we were allowed to buy amongst an unrestrained free-market we'd have literally countless options that wouldnt involve being pegged down to a limited service based on the government raising prices and regulating in alliance with the insurance companies.

The free market can solve ANY problem!

[TGRR]

Let me propose something radical for discussion.

The founders of this country fought against taxation without representation. In other words, those who were taxed did not have a vote in how the tax system worked.

I'm tired of watching mindless fluoride-head obamanoids vote for more and more tax increases against the working class.

To me, this is just like taxation without representation. So I propose if you're on welfare...no vote until you're out of the system. It's not fair that you can vote yourself a pay raise at my expense and with more and more people in the system it is becoming disproportional against those who are not taking government money.

Thoughts?

Jim Crow is SO 1950s.

[TGRR]

The free market can solve ANY problem!

Yeah.  Like banking fraud and incompetence.

[Freeski]

Yeah.  Like banking fraud and incompetence.

Absolutely! If you had to pick a bank, you'd ask your friends and family for opinions. Due diligence rocks!

[TGRR]

Absolutely! If you had to pick a bank, you'd ask your friends and family for opinions. Due diligence rocks!

No I wouldn't.  My friends and family are not banking experts.

Asking opinions of laymen isn't "due diligence".

[Geolibertarian]

And people like you are so arrogant did you ever both to stop and think about where the funds for "privileges" come from?

Actually, it's people like you who are so arrogant that you refuse to acknowledge how the "governments" you rail against come to exist in the first place:

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

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/NaturalLaw.htm

In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them.

Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.

These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.

The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving themselves from starvation.

These laws have continued in force for hundreds, and, in some countries, for thousands of years; and are in force today, in greater or less severity, in nearly all the countries on the globe.

The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of the robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained.

The result of all this is, that the little wealth there is in the world is all in the hands of a few -- that is, in the hands of the law-making, slave-holding class; who are now as much slaveholders in spirit as they ever were, but who accomplish their purposes by means of the laws they make for keeping the laborers in subjection and dependence, instead of each one's owning his individual slaves as so many chattels.

[Continued...]

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


The key point here is that a group of private individuals presuming to "own" all the land comes first, and the "government" (or, more accurately, the State) into which they organize out of common interest comes second. (Whether they actually call it such is irrelevant). That's the inevitable result of allowing the concept of "private property" to be applied to the Earth on which all must live yet which none produced in the same unlimited, unconditional sense that it's applied to the products of human labor.

What you also refuse to acknowledge is that the enormous wealth disparity generated by this original layer of landed privilege is the very thing that created in the minds of the masses the apparent need for all of these additional layers of compensatory or offsetting privileges about which you and others incessantly whine and complain:

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

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1

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

Or even why you or anyone deserves a bonus where others do not?

When did I even imply that I or anyone else "deserves a bonus where others do not" to begin with?

If you fail to provide a supportive quote, then I'll take that as a grudging admission that this is a bald-faced lie on your part.

[Geolibertarian]

The free market can solve ANY problem!

Not if it's treated (in quasi-religious fashion) as a God-like entity existing independently of the people who compose it, it can't.

And unfortunately that's exactly what an alarming number of well-meaning people who've fallen (however unwittingly) under the influence of the Austrian School continually do.

[Raincheck]

Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the  pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are  they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better  do it, and decrease the surplus population."

[Montag]

I know a quadriplegic who works at a bank, now doesnt that make the people who could work and dont look pretty bad?

-if you get hurt on the job its a different story, however-

[Geolibertarian]

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

"Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child."

[jimwill]

From Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein

Politics

Starship Troopers is a political essay as well as a novel. Large portions of the book take place in classrooms, with Rico and other characters engaged in debates with their History and Moral Philosophy teachers, who are often thought to be speaking in Heinlein's voice. The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy with aspects of a meritocracy based on willingness to sacrifice in the common interest. Suffrage belongs only to those willing to serve their society by two years of volunteer Federal Service — "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37°C"[15] The Federation is required to find a place for anyone who desires to serve, regardless of his skill or aptitude.

There is an explicitly-made contrast to the democracies of the 20th century, which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[16] Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to exist only if they are deliberately sought and paid for.

Although I served my military time, I don't totally agree with him.

[BlueBaron]

I wonder how man kind has ever survived this long without welfare. I mean those damn savages how dare they not give 50% of their income to support the elderly and the poor. Oh wait I think it was the community that banded together to help the people that came upon hard times. So please get off Your high horse and stop acting like You have the moral high ground when You obviously don't. You make me wonder if You actually pay any taxes at all with Your glaring comments of my intelligence because if You sacrificed as much as I do You wouldn't enjoy seeing Your check -3700 dollars a month all due to these wonderful government programs.

Times past were different, people weren't huddled into large metropolis, and gardens were not a privilege, most people don't have any land to grow stuff and the Governments are trying to make that illegal. So it's a lot different.

Before in times of old most people had some land the locals would have a market and sell and trade their wares, but today most of that is illegal in the USA I hear.

So the people are trapped in a city in a system, that's why there should be welfare to help, the system is designed that way. It won't go back to the way it was any time soon, maybe even never with the demonic scum that are in charge.

Your taxes mainly pay for the national debt/interest and not welfare, plus welfare is only a fraction of the military budget, not to mention the 14+ Trillion the bankers have stole in the USA alone, and your worried about some poor person receiving some money to support themselves and their family, to be able to eat !

It's this kind of "I'm ok jack, screw everyone else" attitude that has been imposed on us by the Government and people also, that has allowed us to be in the situation today, we find our selves in, SCREWED, holding a fan with shit flying off it and spinning in all different directions landing on everything, and it stinks to high heaven.

[donnay]

donnay,
It is buying loyalties for the elite.
There is no reward in being on welfare...other than the occasional  hick up , most people stuck in welfare are not doing well.They
tend to live in sh!tty hoods, misery abounds in between direct deposits- with people who try to steal from them.. not what I would want for my "money"
 We attack,hate a few frauds who drive fancy cars and wear fancy clothes, but by far the real robbers of our wealth escape our  attention and our wraths...cause no one points in their direction

The truly sick SOB who have created this current 'crisis' are still not talked about  by most people. Still  not understanding the entire  financial system the sheeple still blame a few bad mortages for all of this.
when it has been planned for decades, by the same monsters that have created all previous downturns.
They are making a KILLING off this right now.
BANKSTERS are to blame...the BIG ones - not the  local small fry

I definitely agree.  We need to audit the fed and then end the son of a bitch!  People have got to get fired up about the resolution Ron Paul has (HR 1207) because it is a start. 

[BlueBaron]

This is from another similar post below, but it shows were the money goes.

author=Jackson Holly link=topic=107305.msg653726#msg653726 date=1243174979

Here's the problem:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Voskhod3]

You people sound a lot like the evil bastards we're all currently enslaved under.

Agreed.

These people are crazy.

Enforced contraception?

Yeah... lets stop the people at the bottom of the pile from having a say in the way they are completely screwed by the system.

Jeeze... revolution anyone?

[CaptBebops]

Military Industrial Complex = corporate welfare.

I've been saying that for years (and often chastised for it).