With all respects, but I simply can not believe that most working poor can not get ahead. You do present a good argument, and I respect your opinion. I will just leave it at this; I know of some people who claim to be poor, they come to us (the synagogue and they are not Jewish, but they come because we will not turn anyone away) and we pay their utilities and such. I also offer help in budgeting if they want, and often I find where even these people have excess in their income. After following a disciplined budget for a few months, they are on their feet and they have saving accounts. The hard thing for these folks is getting past the instant gratification mind set.

I will leave this to AuntiE, I do not want to overstep again!

If you consider all possible costs, to include parties at the White House, Air Force One trips, then during President's Bush's tenure as President cost $25 Million Dollars.

Sorry it took so long to respond, but I had to research each of his trips, how many secret service, and aids accompanied him. I also had to look up the first lady and her vacations. Not an easy task.

Notice when I did Obama, I did not count those trips to Chicago, his almost daily golfing, White House parties.... but, I did include those when doing President Bush, otherwise the total would have been exceptionally low. So, I pumped up the cost by including these expenses.

Snowbear,

Thank you. It is a problem, especially now that Obama has come out against anyone that has two cents to rub together. But, it is the socialist philosophy that no one has a right to their earnings, that everything belongs to everyone. And, it is my opinion that Obama is a socialist; which may be due to his Muslim upbringing and beliefs.

I must have been asleep when our nation changed from a land of opportunity, where anyone with ambition, a willingness to study hard and work hard can achieve. It seems that now it is those who do work hard is somehow obligated to support those that are unwilling to pursue their a dream other than being the number one scorer on X-Box games. And those who believe it amusing, and a release from their boredom to k**l others.

I do appreciate the fact that at least you understand. Thank you again.

Rumitoid, again this is interesting. He went from a deprived, down trodden, impoverished youth to a farm boy. How interesting.

Lindsay,
Many people think that "rich" people have all kinds of loop holes that they shelter their money in off shore accounts. That we hoard our fortune and the little guy is always the looser. They also intertwine the notion of rich people and corporations. Well, I pay 38 percent in taxes on my income. I do not have loop holes to take advantage of due to being a widow, having no mortgage, business losses and such. I do have money put away in another country, but before you go gotta; I paid taxes on that money, nothing was or is being hid away.

You claim that income redistribution is not a bad thing. To me it is. My family worked for what they passed on to me, I have worked so I can pass on to my children. We did not rob anyone, we did not ask for handouts/handups even when times were rough. We worked. This is a unique concept in this day and age, but some of us old folks actually went 9 to 5 at a job, put our noses to the grind stones and earned a pay check. In my circle of friends, we make many contributions to include educational and scholarship awards, donations to hospitals, fund organizations that care for the needy, abused children, older Americans, and the list goes on. I personally have paid the tuition of not only my children but on last count 35 full ride scholarships within the last 10 years. I believe, and most of my friends also think that we have given much more of our wealth than the grand majority. Therefore, I must ask the question....how much more do you want to take from us? How much of my wealth do you want to distribute?

I am in no way trying to discourage you or challenge your opinion. But, it would be helpful if you would look at the other side of the situation.

Now then, big corporations is another story. They do have loopholes that the take full advantage. But, again without those corporations how many people would be unemployed? Would the ranks of the poor grow? Do you think it fair for the stock holders to be required to sell their stocks and give the money away?

You do have a point about low wage earners. They do spend every red cent that comes into their hands. Perhaps that is the problem. They spend their money and then look at the government or cast the green eyed monster at people who sacrificed to put 10 percent of their income into investments to make a better life. And you say by redistribution of my wealth that I will receive benefits. Hades, I do not even get thank you notes! And, I do not drink so when I go to the islands, I sip fruit juice and water.


Just food for thought.

If you are going to be the accuser, then you are required to prove what you have been saying. There comes a time when one must put up or go away and admit that they have unfairly treated another person. You are at that point. I am calling! No more raises, no more passes. Show your cards. As they say, I am all in. Deed to the farm is on the table. I call! Put it out there and let the community see your evidence! And, I am not laughing.

Really, go back get the date time stamp and quote it along with all the follow ups you mention. I keep all of my posts so I can refer to them quickly. And, no I will not do the research for you. If you make a statement, be prepared to back it up with the quotes. I trust that you had the same foresight to save your comments by subject matter, writer and any follow up conversation by topic.

As for my character and my nature, because you and I are from different worlds, I sincerely doubt that you will be able to met me, have a face to face discussion therefore you will never be qualified to judge me; you can only judge the limited contact we share on this forum. I assure you that these quick comments do not make you competent as a judge.

Really, then quote it! Give me date time stamp and a direct quote.

I am not looking for your job! Do not want it, I would fall on my face!! You can not be replaced and few can stand at your side....that is all I was saying....Honest!

Interesting about your friend, do you remember posting

"I mentioned this trend to a staunch conservative friend of mine from the MidWest; a tough farmboy, a Nam vet and part of the vigilante border patrol. I expected outrage. Instead, he did a little douletake and said he and his teenage friends did this when he was a kid. Not picking on any race in particular, women or the elderly but picking out someone to knock out with a punch. I thought he was kidding; he wasn't and made no apologies. Actually looked at me as if I was off. That early Thanksgiving dinner was interesting."

My, how memories are softened with the Christmas season!

Am I the one who raised Henry Ford as an icon of the Democratic party and his wage setting methodologies? No, it was you. Many people are unaware of the "dark" side of his personality, his business associates, and his personal views of individuals. If you identify with him, that is not my problem because I did not mention anything about you in my approach to Mr Ford.

I do not know you, so I can not say what you are like on a personal level ergo to like you or dislike you as an individual I would not venture in either direction. However, as I have read many of your comments I can say that many of your views are contravene to my standards, ethics, and beliefs. This is no way of saying that you are lacking in values or ethics, it is simply that you and I are from different worlds and are essentially incompatible.

Do have a wonderful holiday!

No, you are right. I have never been desperate.....for any reason or anything. But, that has nothing to do with whether or not this man's life could have been saved had he been able to purchase a weapon.

But, to respond to guns and the control of firearms. May I recommend a study done in prisons and specifically of those incarcerated crimes committed while in possession or the use of guns.

http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

"(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.

Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail t***saction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record t***sactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal t***sactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.

The off-the-record nature of the market is further illustrated in the responses to a series of questions concerning the ease with which these men felt they could arm themselves upon release from prison. (As convicted felons, of course, all these men are legally prohibited from acquiring guns upon release, under provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.) Most of the sample (gun owners and nonowners alike) thought it would be "no trouble at all" to acquire a gun upon release; about 80 percent felt they could obtain a suitable handgun in a few days or less. When asked where they would go for guns, their sources were friends, the street, and various black market sources.

These results suggest certain policy implications. Policies attempting to regulate handgun acquisition at the point of retail sale may be effective in preventing some types of criminals from acquiring firearms (e.g., juveniles or nonfelony offenders), but they are likely to have little effect on the most serious handgun-owning felons represented in this sample. Hardcore felons of the sort studied in this research rarely use customary retail channels to obtain handguns.

(2) Gun theft plays a critical role in connecting the adult felony offender to his firearms supply.

Half the men in the total sample had stolen at least one gun at some time in their lives (as shown in Figure 1). Many had stolen more than one. A few, particularly the more predatory felons, had stolen guns in extremely large numbers. At least 40 percent and perhaps has many as 70 percent of the most recent handguns owned by this sample were stolen weapons. These percentages include not only the guns that the felons stole themselves (32 percent), but also guns that the felons knew or believed to have been stolen prior to their acquisition of them."

Therefore, I state once again. The people the laws will affect are those individuals who obey the rules and regulations that are already on the books for gun purchase. Regardless of how many laws are passed, the rate of felonies committed by the people who are intent on robbing, murdering, or causing harm will acquire guns. By removing guns from law abiding people you are in essence painting a target on their backs.

By the way, are you aware by using all upper case in your writing it is the same as yelling at your readers? Very impolite. I am sure that you were not aware of this fact, because you are a gentle, evangelist who would never say or do anything to hurt another person's feelings.

Merry Christmas!

One has to understand Small Business is largely responsible for providing jobs to those American workers who consider themselves to be “The Average American”. This is significant, because the same people who v**e for Obama are also v****g against small business.

Democrats would have you believe that all Republicans are rich people who made their money off the backs of the less fortunate. But the t***h is that most Republicans are small business owners and their non union employees. These people, employers and employees, “keep their noses to the grindstone”, have next to no political voice, and have no desire to be singled out. They simply want to be allowed to work and allowed to achieve. Small business owners do not seek subsidies. Instead, they claim that over-regulation is strangling their businesses, and this a major factor in the creation of, or lack of, small business. For example small medical practices are struggling with Health Information Systems. The regulation demands that all private medical practices utilize “health information systems” by 2015. This regulation is just one more financial hurdle required in order to set up a private medical practice. The result is that small, private practices are no longer being created. This is one of many examples of regulation strangling small business.

A Democrat generally believes that to stimulate the economy, more capital must be put in the hands of the consumer. The belief is that the consumer will go out and spend more, which is supposed to increase retail sales. Increased retail sales, in turn, increases orders going to factories. The factories will then hire more people, and so on. Hence, any program that puts money in the hands of the unemployed and low income citizens is, in the opinion of the Democrats, good for the economy.

Putting money into the hands of the unemployed can be good if the purpose is to sustain that person between jobs. However, what if the unemployed do not mind being unemployed? What if an unemployed person views this unemployment money received as a convenient, paid vacation?

Manufacturing, home builders, retailers, and such claim that they do not have enough qualified applicants to fill jobs. So, has the Democrat's ideas worked for the past 5 years? Or have some people grown so accustomed to being paid for doing nothing that they would rather tax payers support them, their habits, and their ever increasing broods of children?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: