A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Why I am a Democrat-I did not write this but

Posted: Jul 23, 2010

I'm a Democrat because I believe that we have to help the least among us. If that's healthcare for children, the elderly or the poor, if that's education for people who's family can't afford to send their children to private schools, if that's women who need abortions, when it's gays or African Americans being discriminated against, if it's working folks trying to get a fair shake. I'm a Democrat because the Democrats stand with them.

I'm a Democrat because I understand that the Constitution is more than the just Second Amendment. I'm a Democrat because I understand that the Bible is more than just Ecclesiastes 5:17. Because the Declaration of Independence is more than the words "our creator." Those and other important documents to us have a context that we have to understand.

I'm a Democrat because I understand that law and order means more than just locking people away. We need drug rehab. We need to give people the opportunity not to commit crime. We need to keep people out of desperate straights in the first place.

I'm a Democrat because we're the party that won 2 world wars, ended segregation in America, contained Communism, founded the UN, set up Social Security, saved the Kosavars from genocide, produced the longest economic expansion in American history, and avoided nuclear confrontation in Cuba.

I'm a Democrat because we understand how to balance budgets. At the Federal level, Democrats were responsible for the largest surplus in American history. At the state level, we understand that roads, hospitals, and transit come with a cost, and we're still willing to pay that cost.

I'm a Democrat because Bill Clinton actually caught terrorists.

I'm a Democrat because Jimmy Carter knew how important human rights were to foreign policy.

I'm a Democrat because LBJ ended legal segregation in America.

I'm a Democrat because John Kennedy was willing to look our demons head on and still remind us what a wonderful country this is.

I'm a Democrat because Truman set up a sane international consensus after the Second World War including containing Communism, and the Marshal Plan.

I'm a Democrat because FDR showed us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself as he ended the depression and won World War Two.

I'm a Democrat because Wilson showed the world what a sane foreign policy and America what a sane economic policy would look like.

I'm a Democrat because Democrats haven't sold weapons to Iran. We haven't given aid to the Taliban.

;

Look...I'm sure many of us understand - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
where you are coming from on some things....but all of those people you listed....weren't perfect either.

I understand the desire to help those less fortunate but when you mandate it and don't allow us to choose who to be charitable too....it isn't giving of free will. It is taking away and giving to who the govt sees fit to receive that donation. If you check your facts and statistics, you will see the republicans are actually more charitable than democrats are when it comes to donating money.

There is still debate on whether FDR's new deals actually helped or prolonged the great depression.

As for private schools, democrats got rid of vouchers that allowed children who couldn't afford tuition to go to private schools.

I don't think any American wants segregation so don't know why that was even brought up...especially since a republican president abolished slavery in the first place.

I'm sorry but bringing up Carter makes me laugh.....horrible president.

As for Bill Clinton and terrorists...how many things were hit in the US during his administration...hmmm.

These are just a few things that come to mind.

I'm an independent because I'm willing to see the faults and accomplishments of both political parties. Neither party is perfect.

As for balancing a budget....that is something we need to do now and I wish Obama would do it....but I'm not gonna hold my breath for that happen.

I used to be a Dem until it seemed all this "help" we - were giving to less fortunate was

[ In Reply To ..]
getting to a level of creating more problems. I am all for helping the helpless, but not helping the lazy or the opportunists. Unfortunately, this is WAY out of control. ..and spending blindly the way Obama and others do, then seeing it does no good... only to spend MORE? This is total insanity. Neither side is perfect, but I cannot support the dems anymore for the most part. Oh, and Jimmy Carter??? Probably worst president in history, although guess we need to wait and see what happens by the time Obama is done with us.

Excuse me. Did you say lazy opportunists? - Could you please

[ In Reply To ..]
tell us exactly who you are talking about? While you are at it, do you have a single shred of evidence that helping the less fortunate has created more problems?

I think everybody, Dem & GOP alike could name - an opportunitist milking the system

[ In Reply To ..]
I know somebody that worked 9 days in 2009 (last week of May, first week of June). He started collecting unemployment in August, 2009, and collected it for approximately 8 months with all the extensions. He didn't look for work in that time. Of course, it wouldn't have done him any good since he couldn't pass the drug test needed for his job (heavy equipment operator). He was quasi-blacklisted by the union because his 9 days of work he showed up hungover each and every one of them. He is now attempting to get disability for injuries sustained during one of the 27-alcohol related serious injuries he has had (20 car, 5 farm equipment, and 2 personal aircraft).

When not collecting unemployment, he collects money by having the government pay him not to grow things on his farm.

Opportunist? You betcha. The man should be sending every citizen a thank you card for keeping him in weed, Copenhagen, and Budwiser.

Gee, you sure seem to known a lot about this guy. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I donâ��t know him, but I can think of a whole bunch of reasons why your story is not credible, by taking your story at face value.

First question. If the guy is such a free loader and did not work until the last week in May, why didnâ��t he file for unemployment benefits during the first 150 days of the year you say he wasnâ��t working?

Observation. Benefits are based on the last 5 quarters earnings, excluding the most recent quarter. In this case, he filed toward the end of the second quarter, so his base benefits would be calculated on earnings (only from employers who pay unemployment insurance) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. The weekly benefit would be in the amount of 4 percent of his total wages from the highest quarterâ��s earnings. For example, for a quarterâ��s earnings of $7500, the weekly check would be $300. Maximum weekly check is $355 in my state and average weekly amount is approximately 36 percent of previous earnings amounts.

Your freeloader would not qualify for benefits he could afford to live on for 8 months without having earned substantial income in 2008. He also would not qualify if he did not lose his job â��through no fault of his own.â�� To stay on unemployment, a minimum of 3 jobs searches each week is required which are logged and submitted to the unemployment office. He would have lost his benefits if he were not searching for work. Also, the unemployment office forwards job referrals on which you are required to follow up. Failing to do so (or refusing a job offer) also results in loss of benefits.

Exactly how do you know about the drugsâ�¦or is it alcohol? Which one? You insinuate both. Quasi-black listed? What does that mean? Based on a hangover? I donâ��t think so. Heavy equipment operators, drivers and other potentially hazardous occupations require both mandatory and random drug testing by the state. I do not know a single state in the union that would tolerate your preposterous claim that he had 20 alcohol-related accidents. In my state, itâ��s 3 strikes and you are outâ�¦not only out of a drivers license, but out of the free population and locked up in prison for 3 to 5 years. It only takes 1 alcohol-related violation to revoke a pilotâ��s license.

Last question. If you knew all this was going on, why then did you not report this (bogus/alleged) fraud? Doesnâ��t that make you just as culpable and shouldnâ��t you be apologizing to each an every taxpaying citizen?

It's an ex. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
He worked 6 good months in mid 2008. Nothing after until the 9 days in 2009. He has four DUIs that his state of residence knows about; they don't know about the ones he had accumulated across the USA before they started communicating with each other. He has spent time in jail for each alcohol-related incident. The last time was when they declared his 4th DUI a felony, gave him probation which he violated and then spent 8 months in (which he wasn't working the second half of 2008 and beginning of 2009). He was then placed on parole yet somehow was still able to get hired.

He was never actually fired. They just didn't call him back. A lot of union construction jobs have you come down on almost a per diem basis based on which piece of equipment you run. When he finished the specific patch of earth he was moving, he could have been called back to work on other parts or operate any of the other equipment he knew how to use, and they declined to have him back. About two months ago he called his union rep to see about getting work and they told him they didn't think they were going to be able to use him anymore.

He didn't make big money on unemployment; it was $153/week. However, his house and land were paid for (although he has since had to take out a loan on the value of it), he has no registered vehicle, has a well, and septic tank, and a burn bit. He got a settlement based on one of his drunken misadventures (only 6 figures...he probably would have cleaned up if hadn't contributed to his own injuries). His father took it and invested it in CDs, and the interest off those pays the utilities, the money for not growing stuff pays for the gas for the car he's not supposed to be driving, and the unemployment pays for booze, pot, and chew.

Interesting story. - Just a couple of things. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You do realize that alcoholism is a disease (sometimes fatal) and that drug addiction is a treatable condition that has features of neurologic disorder, don't you? In tandem, they can most definitely disable a person. By the way, using drugs is a parole violation and against the law, isn't it?

Ever hear of enabling? How about intervention? There is a supportive family member (father), state oversight and a relatively stable living situation (with or without UI benefits), all of which may contribute to a successful attempt at such. My family stood by and did nothing 30 years ago while we watched my 29-year-old brother drink and drug himself to death. To this day, we still ask ourselves, "what if?" and live with the ghost of what might have been.

Your ex does not sound like a freeloader to me. He sounds like someone whose judgment is pathologically impaired and who needs real help, the sooner, the better.

He has had help. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
He has spent time in jail, months at a time; at one point they even found a way in a county jail to smuggle him in pot. He has done multiple stints in rehab, two of which were inpatient. When he was out on parole, he would go to his mandated AA and therapy sessions, and stop and get beer on the way home. Sure it was a violation of parole, but they never checked.

He has had lots of help. He has chosen not to take advantage of the resources. He was sober when I met him and he is indeed a freeloader, even sober.

Also, "helping" him would just be throwing good money after bad. The state has already spent money trying him and housing him. He paid $20/month for his three times a week group therapy sessions (can't even do that with Kaiser). While he was in prison, he had his teeth fixed and got glasses, thank you Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer (although he did break the glasses when he got drunk and wrecked on the motorcycle).

How much more money do you want to toss this guy? Why don't you just have the Budwiser truck swing by and drop off a month's supply and skip the middleman because that's where it's going to go anyway. I really don't think we should be rewarding people for stupidity.

Doesn't seem there would be much of an incentive for him to "heal" himself if the government makes his life easy.

If he is violating parole, why - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
are you waiting around for them to check on him? Report it. Report the drug use to the police. That $153 a week is not what is making his life easy, but the folks around him that turn a blind eye to the drinking and drugging instead making his life decidedly UNcomfortable, that's a diffefrent story.

Maybe pronouncing him stupid and dismissing him as a colossal waste of time and money makes you feel somehow better about it all, but you cannot anymore "shame" someone out of alcoholism than you can diabetes or mental illness. It just ends up giving them more incentive to abuse.

But then again, you seem pretty determined to hang this on the government. I stand by my post. Enabling needs to be replaced with intevention for as long as it takes. It is way late for my brother, but my brother in law managed to turn himself around after 25 years of the same nonsense. I guess he just finally got tired and gave in, once we started never letting him have a moment's peace. It took about 8 years of concerted effort.

Whatever happens with it, I wish you, him and the family better luck with the outcome than ours had.

He was reported to the judge who sentenced him - and his parole officer.

[ In Reply To ..]
They've got more important things to do than chase a drunk around (until he gets behind the wheel again unlawfully and kills someone this time).

And screw supporting him. If someone wants to take him in out of the goodness of their heart, let them pay his way. I don't want another dime going to him, and I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

Here is what intevention looks like. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Report his behind, both to parole and to the local authorities, over and over and over again, every single incident. Regardless of how unresponsive the law is, document as much as possible. Report your suspicions of UI fraud.

With a record like you describe, and recent documentation, having him declared incompetent, a danger to himself and others, should be a walk in the park. Have his dad appointed legal guardian and take control of the land and investments, then start letting him know in no uncertain terms what is expected of him to recover his losses. I can't think of a better incentive than homelessness and being cut off from the drug and booze supply.

My best friend's grandmother did that with her dad. Losing more than a million dollars in property and assets worked wonders on him. He enjoyed nearly 20 years of sobriety before he died, not to mention recovering his wealth.

I gotta wonder. When the UI runs out and the behavior continues, who will be your next skapegoat? Oh, I forgot. More government failure, the corrections system, parole, local police, etc., etc., etc., anybody and everybody except those closest to him. It's called enabling...of both the blind eye and the behavior.

Perhaps you missed the part abou him being an EX. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
That means I don't speak to his parents. The only thing I know of his daily life this week is the clues gleaned from the drunken messages he still leaves on my phone 6-months since I last spoke to him and the incoherent emails. He's someone else's problem now, but I'll be darned if I want to be among those providing him with the money to buy beer and weed. That seems a lot like enabling, too.

I did not miss that part at all. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
He is your ex. I got that. So you have washed your hands of the entire messy situation, which is as it should be. But I have to wonder. This dude managed to get beer and weed money for years and years before he was on UI and will continue to do so long afer he has exhausted the benefits, in the absence of proactive intervention. The enablers were there before the benefits were approved and will be there after they expire, doing what they do best by turning that blind eye.

So forgive me, but I am a bit confused. How is it that the UI benefits are the culprit here? Again, if you truly believe that, why not report him to UI as a fraud, since you claim he is not looking for a job, and put an end to it? Can't make political hay out of that solution? I got that, too. Grousing and complaining are so much more fun, huh?

You can twist it however you want. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The discussion was about opportunists who milked the system. You seemed to believe that the unemployed were all just chomping at the bit to go back to work and deserved indefinite UI and that nobody was getting government assistance who didn't deserve it. I, and several others, pointed out people that we know that are doing just that...not the infamous friend of a friend of a friend but people that we know by name, address, phone #, and lots of other stuff that are taking advantage.

If the government is going to hand out money, it is their obligation to make sure it's going where it's merited. It's kinda crazy that the same group of folks that thought McCarthy was evil have absolutely no problem with turning this into a nation of narcs calling in to report their neighbors' ill-gotten gains.

Your entire first paragraph is - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
a hallucinatory product of your overactive imagination. I never said any of that. Before issuing that twist repremand, might want to step back, count to 10 and take a good long look at yourself.

About that sweeping McCarthy snipe. My suggestion was directed at your specific set of circumstances. If you are so convinced that your ex is a freeloading UI fraud, there is a swift remedy for that, one that you choose to forego for the sake of pitching all that political hay.

BTW, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies get much of their best results from anonymous tips. In some cases, failing to come forward with information is a crime in and of itself. I stand by the more appropriate notion of enabling for this situation.

Do you live in lala land or what? Abuse of the system is rampant!.nm - TX

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

As they say in lala land. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Put up or shut up. Abuse of the system is rampant? What? Because you said so? Show us statistics. Post a link to a conclusive study. Give us data. We need hard data.

Don't worry. We know you can't because it isn't.

Don't underestimate everyone - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
All cases are supposed to be reviewed on a periodic basis. 1 in 21 cases reviewed are judged to be fraudulent. It seems like that would count as rampant to me.

Do the math. 4.7 percent fraud versus 95.3 percent not fraud. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
So for the 4.7 percent, we simple condemn the other 95.3, huh? My idea? Prosecute the fraud, recognize just how crucial these programs are, and keep on truckin'. Thanks for the link and for helping substantiate my post.

REPORTED fraud. If more people wanted to be - self sufficient, there would be less fraud.

[ In Reply To ..]
But, its just like someone else said. People learn this generation after generation. I know families like this. The kids learn from the parents how to use the system. They grow up to do the same thing. We should help those who truly need it, not those who just find a way to use it. Its sad, and its everywhere.

You are avoiding the inevitable. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
So what is it you are trying to imply? At what point do you punish the legitimate claimants (who overwhelmingly outnumber all those imagined frauds you claim to know are hiding in the woodwork)? When there are 10 frauds to 90 legitimate claimants? 20 to 80? 30 to 70? Or are you one of those like we have in Congress who simply relegate them all to the great unwashed underclass?

This is not rocket science. Do you punish the honest for the actions of the dishonest or do you keep the programs, prosecute the fraud and eliminate the basis for your alleged concerns?

I don't see where anyone advocated eliminating all help. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
What I did read was a lot of people sick of carrying the weight for a bunch of people who are too "disabled" to put in a day's work but can swing a golf club for 18 holes. For those people that keep popping about children irresponsibly and get rewarded with an increase in benefits.

Nobody said everyone should be kicked off disability, but maybe if you cut down on those people who do milk the system, there would be enough to pay for some of the other programs that would benefit everybody.

Exactly... and to the point, thank you! nm - RightOn

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Guess you missed the 40 pubs who tried it - just this past week and

[ In Reply To ..]
maybe you haven't been following the mid term campaigns where certain candidates advocate dismantling Medicare and Social Security (just for starters) all together.

Hasn't anyone told you life isn't fair. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Honest people get punished because of the dishonest people on a daily basis. That is life. It is always the dishonest that ruin it for the honest. So who are you gonna blame? Instead of blaming those of us who want to make spending cuts, perhaps you should blame the people who are receiving govt assistance through fraud and ruining a program that was put in place to actually help those who really needed it.

I know a man who claims he cannot work because of a car accident he was involved in....and yet he does several smaller jobs where he is paid under the table and still receives disability. Not only is he not paying taxes on his income....but he can obviously work and doesn't need disability.

People on disability are allowed to work part time. (nm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]
:-)

Yes...they can. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
However, when they work multiple part-time jobs that would equal the amount of time a full-time job would have and get paid under the table while getting disability....wouldn't you say that is fishy? Or are you blind to that just like you are to Obama's faults?

How do YOU know he's getting paid under the table? (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]
Is that just an assumption on your part so you can smear this man?

My doctor and his nurse both have been bugging me to get a mammogram. I already have a terminal disease and simply don't want to have a mammogram done. They told me I could get it for free at Planned Parenthood.

When I told my daughter this (since she would be taking me there), she got a very sad look at her face and said she hopes it isn't at Planned Parenthood because there are protesters there all the time, and they harass every single person that goes into that place because they all assume people are having abortions. I suggested that if they harass me, maybe I should just flash them and tell them THAT'S why I'm there. Yes, of course, I was kidding, but there are those on this board full of hatred who will add that joke to their large ammunition pile when they slam me, which a few never cease to do. They already believe they have knowledge that I've never run a business, "good thing," for example. (I'm sorry for making a joke, but I'm in such a good mood from laughing so much after reading the posts dripping in hatred towards me. I find them incredibly funny. God love 'em. It's better to smile and laugh than to hiss and hate, IMHO.)

My point is that sometimes things aren't what other people think they are, yet people believe what's in their head instead of the truth. This man may not be receiving a lot in Social Security benefits and may need the extra money from part-time jobs. How do YOU know how much he makes and whether it's under the table or not? And if you're certain you have this knowledge, why don't you report him to the authorities?

Oh, please. Abuse IS rampant. People are good at - hiding it to the Govt but revealing it

[ In Reply To ..]
to friends and family. Problem with the USA lately is there is very little personal responsibility/accountability. I guess you are just fine with that, which makes you part of the problem.

POTUS ask for the money to step up cutting down - on the rampant fraud.

[ In Reply To ..]
"Budget office officials say every dollar spent by the Social Security Administration to review disability claims will save $11 in erroneous payments."

I did a word search on that article - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
and lo and behold, no "rampant" anywhere in sight. No one is disputing the existence of fraud. It is the overstated exaggerated hyperbole that is in question. Personally, I support Obama's request for this money 100 percent.

It's a shame that you have to go through (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]
all that research just to find out if the article has been tampered with. Thanks for doing it, though, on behalf of other posters who might have wondered, as well.

This is Nikki, "chiming in as usual even when not talking to me."

You guess wrong. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not fine with fraud. Frauds should be prosecuted and held responsible. I am also not fine with withholding vital and crucial support to honest taxpaying citizens who lose their jobs, become disabled, get sick, become homeless or go hungry, ESPECIALLY if that decision is based on the actions of the small percentage of dishonest recipients who fraud the system. I simply believe it is wrong, wrong, wrong to punish millions of people for the actions of relatively few.

Somehow it does not surprise me that you have resorted to presuming to speak for a complete stranger whom you have deemed to be part of the problem for no other reason but believing in helping fellow human beings in trouble instead of kicking them when they are down. You act as though believing in people rather than being automatically suspicious of them is some sort of crime. What a pathetic way to gain a feeling of moral self-righteousness and superiority.

Ummm. like the girl I used to work with in the office - who got pregnant again so that

[ In Reply To ..]
she could "live off the Govt for a while".. her exact words. I work with someone else currently who will only work 30 hours a week. She was offered 40, but admitted she would rather qualify for the tons of Govt aid she gets, and if she agrees to work harder (more hours), she wont qualify for the help, meaning from us taxpayers. She always has tips for everyone (proudly) on how to use the system. It is sickening, truly. I have several more examples just like that one. These girls are dems and have made comments how they dont understand how anyone could be a Republican. I am not saying all dems are this way, but there are lots of people who are able bodied, should be taking care of their own, but would rather have us help instead. What happened to pride, huh? Our country aint what it used to be.

There is no such thing as TONS of government aid - paid to low income, unemployed or

[ In Reply To ..]
disabled persons. Does not pass the truth-o-meter smell test. Sorry, no dice.

Anecdotal stories only serve one purpose and that is to prove you are willing to cancel programs and deny disability payments to the disabled, unemployment benefits to the jobless, medical care to the sick and dying, food, medicine and educational assistance low income children and to ALL legitimate claimants for the sake of one or two or three fraud stories you can tell.

The overwhelming majority of these folks are NOT frauding the system, but it seems that you are not able to distinguish between them and the miniscule percentage who are. I am sure these stories charm the socks off of your fellow party members, but the rest of us require cold hard facts, data, stats, etc. when confronted with such bogus blab.

Story is totally true. Believe what you want. You have - a lot of nerve, though. Shame on you.

[ In Reply To ..]
There are tons of stories just like that. It happens all the time because there are less and less truthful people. Too many are content to live off of others with no self respect or pride. Must be the way they were brought up.

Tons of stories about tons of welfare payouts" - Exaggerate much?

[ In Reply To ..]
Shame on you.

Shame on YOU! You just love preaching to people? - No one knows everything, including you.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Hey, I cant help it if you let yourself get caught - with your pants down. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Nah, you just preach the same thing over and over. - GoodDay

[ In Reply To ..]
It gets old, and it does not mean you are more informed than others. You know what they say about opinions, right?

how about.. - dnh

[ In Reply To ..]
Our neighbor who has 3 children, has lived with and still does live with with their father for 7 years, but won't marry him solely because she would lose her aid for daycare allowance and dependent children payments. By the way, she doesn't work outside the home but the govt pays daycare anyway. she spends her time reading, sleeping, shopping, etc. Or my friend's ex-DIL who goes to the gym daily, runs and swims, who travels the globe (seriously - 3 or 4 big trips per year), lives in a 3 bedroom elite apartment (just her) and just bought a new mercedes, all while collecting Social Security Disability for an injury sustained ..... no one knows where, how, or what actually, but it doesn't stop her from doing anything BUT working. By the way, her mom lived off the government for her whole life as did three of her aunts. She is just keeping the family tradition alive.

Isnt it disgusting? I know a guy on disability who - golfs, chops wood, but cant work... oh sure.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Do you know what his disability is, or - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
do you simply sit in judgment without that information? Not all disabilities and handicaps are visible, or didn't you know that? If you are or have ever been an MT, you should.

Yes! Its a "back injury". He calls my husband all the time - bored, fishing, playing and

[ In Reply To ..]
wanting to know if he wants to join him playing golf. He can do that. He can chop wood. He can remodel his house, but he cannot work a regular job. Oh sure. I KNOW what I am talking about here. You need to open your eyes to the real world, lady.

You seriously expect someone to believe that - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Social Security disability pays enough money to bankroll a Mercedes, elite apartments and trips abroad? Puh-leeze. If she has and does all that, I can assure you it is not the SS money that is paying for all that. My niece has AIDS. Her disability is an impressive $587 a month. Without someone to live with, she would be either homeless or dead.

You also conspiculously left out info about the single mom's baby daddy. Working? Not working? Good income? Low income? No income? What? Things are not always what they seem.

Case in point. My sister elected to stay single and live with her (now husband) boyfriend for 12 years so he could continue to collect his whopping $800 per month Social Security check, based on his total blindness. As long as she worked a 40-hour week at the hospital (in addition to providing total care for her blind roommate), her income would have totally disqualified him from that benefit if they were married.

For 12 years she commuted 60 miles round trip 5 days a week to maintain fulltime employment and assume total responsiblity for the household upkeep. It was not until she herself started to develop a disability (bad back problems and severe bilateral carpal tunnel uncorrected after surgery x2) from the stress and strain that she decided to get married and cut back to 30 hours per week. Even so, they cut his disability payment by $218.

They can barely make ends meet (and I do mean barely) but at least her back has not deteriorated any further, though her hands still make driving a nerve-racking and hazardous undertaking.

I was a dem until 2006 - adam

[ In Reply To ..]
then suddenly it seemed that 98% of the dem platform made no sense to me, was doublespeak.

I could dispute all the "facts" regarding all those past presidents and events but don't have the time or inclination.

... "opportunity not to commit crime. We need to keep people out of desperate straights"

Most crimes committed are not b/c of poverty ... people are not stealing bread to feed their family. They steal and deal b/c they think it's an easier way to make a buck. People are not murdering one another b/c of "dire straights."

Republicans did more for segregation in 1964 b/c 80% of the aye votes for the civil rights act were republican.

We don't need "rehab" - we need a good old dose of shame, but since almost everything has become acceptable in society there's little reason for self-control in any area of life anymore. We can always find a "disease" to blame, or poverty, or our surroundings. Never is it our character or lack of.

We need families who help one another instead of big daddy government.

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. That's been flipped backasswards.

A little history - see article

[ In Reply To ..]
"The Progressive Era
by William L. Anderson

The Myth and the Reality

One of the most enduring set of myths from U.S. history comes from the political and social developments in what is called the â��Progressive Era,â�� a period lasting from the late 1800s to the end of World War I. (Of course, one could argue, convincingly, that the Progressive Era never has ended.) The prevailing story told in textbooks, the editorial pages of the New York Times, and the typical classroom holds that this was the time when people began to use the mechanism of government to create the conditions for a better life for all and to begin the arduous process of reining in the excesses of capitalism.

According to the pundits, by the late 1800s many businesses in the United States had grown to gigantic proportions, monopolizing much of the economy. In response to this growing emergency, the government adopted new and â��progressiveâ�� policies of regulatory agencies and antitrust laws.

Besides regulating business activity, Progressives, through coalitions of intellectuals, political figures, and activists, saw to it that government also began the process of regulating the extraction of natural resources through executive action. (Progressives considered the legislative procedure to be a waste of time that needed to be replaced with a mechanism that permitted the executive branch of government to seek â��neededâ�� shortcuts around the give-and-take that accompanied the legislature at work.)

Through Progressive prodding, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which created the Food and Drug Administration and expanded government regulation of food and the workplace. Progressives also secured the right of women to vote and ended the state legislaturesâ�� stranglehold on the national electoral process by mandating the direct election of U.S. senators (which until 1913 were chosen by state legislatures).

Socially, the Progressives were humanitarians who sought to better the lives of ordinary people, with their greatest â��triumphâ�� being passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, which ushered in the era of Prohibition. (Most modern Progressives are not particularly proud of this â��achievementâ�� by their forbears, but the prohibitionist spirit is much more alive than they would like to admit. Today, Progressive lawyers have been busy suing tobacco companies and the liquor industry and attempting to ban products such as silicon breast implants that feminists and other modern Progressives think are not proper things for people to have.)

Last, the Progressive Era trumpeted science and the â��enlightenedâ�� Social Gospel, which became the religion of choice for religious skeptics who questioned the core doctrines of the Christian faith. From the implementation of â��scientificâ�� principles to govern politics, business, and social relationships, Progressivism helped to create a rational basis for modern society. From the creation of the Federal Reserve System to the Sixteenth Amendment that brought about the national income tax, Progressives were able to do away with the impediments created by the U.S. Constitution, which according to them stood in the way of progress.

If there was a downside to the Progressive Era, its modern supporters say, it was that Progressives were not able to do enough before â��reactionaryâ�� postâ��World War I forces set in. â��Reformsâ�� such as the banning of child labor, minimum wages, the welfare state, further regulation of business, and a completion of the process of transferring legislative power from the Congress to the executive branch would have to wait until the Great Depression, when the nation had supposedly had its fill of laissez faire. Also, in spite of the best efforts of the Progressives, segregation laws institutionalized racism, which worsened strife between whites and blacks.

While Progressivism has captured the hearts and minds of modern intellectuals and others, there is another story to tell about this era, a much darker tale than what generally is told. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that Progressivism helped to destroy, not preserve, the constitutional order. Far from ushering in the social peace, justice, and prosperity that Progressives promised, Progressivism helped to create the conditions for the Great Depression and helped plunge the country into one war after another. Perhaps the only positive thing we can say about the Progressive Era was that it did not do all of the damage that it could have done.

In taking this look at the Progressive Era, I will be examining a number of social and economic initiatives that took place during that time. I begin with the social policies and laws that came about during that era and dissect Progressivismâ��s long and sorry legacy.

Early U.S. Progressives

Progressives had their forbears in the Unitarians of early- and mid-19th-century New England. The Unitarians were what we would call the theological â��liberalsâ�� of that era, and they had come to believe that it was their duty to establish a sort of â��kingdom of Godâ�� on earth (as opposed to the Christianity that stressed the temporal nature of life and the prospect of Heaven for those who were followers of Christ).

According to Samuel Blumenfeld (â��Why the Schools Went Publicâ��; Reason Magazine, March 1979), the public-school movement that swept Boston during the 1840s was led by Unitarians such as Horace Mann. While Mann and his followers pushed government education at the expense of private schools, they were able to form coalitions with Calvinists and the Christian Protestant pietists, who saw public schools as a way to â��trainâ�� the children of Catholic immigrants who were pouring into the country from Ireland and southern Europe. Moreover, Unitarians and the pietists promoted laws to prohibit the making and sale of alcoholic beverages, again a coalition that was promoted, in part, as a wedge against Catholic immigrants, who came from cultures where alcohol consumption was a normal part of life.

When war broke out between North and South in 1861, the Unitarians were among the most forceful in calling for the complete destruction of the South, and while their influence on the actual fields of battle was negligible, they were highly influential on the political home front. (For example, Julia Ward Howe, who wrote â��The Battle Hymn of the Republic,â�� was a Unitarian.)

While the Unitarians and many of their fellow travelers were small in number, they were very influential because of their high levels of education and literacy, and were the forerunners of what one might call the â��liberal eliteâ�� of modern society. Their rise to power is notable and important because the mentality of the intellectuals of the mid and late 19th century differed substantially from that of the group of intellectuals who fashioned the early documents of the United States. Unlike the early American intellectuals who saw liberty as a polestar and tried to limit the growth and power of the state, the later intellectuals saw the state as a vehicle for their own political and social agendas. While the original American intellectuals championed the federal system with its balance of powers between the states and central government, the later intellectuals placed their faith squarely in the power of the centralized state.

Darwin, intellectuals, and the state

Charles Darwinâ��s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) had an enormous effect on how intellectuals viewed the world. First, it seemed to vindicate the liberal elite who saw the religion of their day as mere superstition. Darwinâ��s theories permitted the reformers to expound on their own beliefs that they could â��reformâ�� society through the miracles of science. Second, it gave impetus to those who believed that government power could be used â��wiselyâ�� to fashion a new society.

Many Progressives reasoned that if human evolution depended on â��survival of the fittest,â�� then humans could help that process along through eugenics, which also meant â��breedingâ�� humans in a way that would advance the â��superiorâ�� races and vanquish those races that were â��inferior.â�� (Progressives supported eugenics until Hitlerâ��s embrace of it gave it a bad name.)

For example, most people know Margaret Sanger as the founder of Planned Parenthood, but she also was a strong advocate of eugenics. In a 1939 letter, she wrote the following:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We donâ��t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
In 1921, she had written,

As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the â��unfitâ�� and the â��fit,â�� admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation. (â��The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propagandaâ��; Birth Control Review, October 1921; page 5.)
Another influential Progressive was Herbert Croly, the founder of The New Republic. Libertarian writer Virginia Postrel said of Croly,

Crolyism overturned the ideal of limited government in favor of a combination of elite power â�� commissions to regulate and plan â�� and mass democracy.... Frustrated with constitutional limits, Croly wrote, â��It remains ... true ... that every popular government should in the end, and after a necessarily prolonged deliberation, possess the power of taking any action, which, in the opinion of a decisive majority of the people, is demanded by the public welfare.â�� This statement, while extreme, pretty much sums up todayâ��s governing philosophy.
While Croly is not a household word today, he was an important social theorist who influenced Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both of them used the White House to centralize government in Washington. They also helped to bring about two sets of social policies: Prohibition and segregation.

Prohibition was the shotgun wedding of the secular Progressives and the Christian fundamentalists, both of whom wanted to ban intoxicating beverages, but for different reasons. Progressives saw it as a way to promote what Rexford G. Tugwell called â��social virtues,â�� while fundamentalists thought that alcohol consumption was sinful, which was reason enough for the central government to ban it.

(At least the Progressives realized that the U.S. Constitution did not permit Congress to outlaw the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages without the authority of a constitutional amendment. Todayâ��s â��war on drugs,â�� however, is carried on without such constitutional niceties.)

While Prohibition today is painted as the triumph of fundamentalist bluenoses, most Progressive groups supported it, from the feminists to those who believed that entry into World War I was necessary to spread democracy throughout the world. (For more on this subject, see Murray N. Rothbardâ��s â��World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals,â�� Journal of Libertarian Studies, winter 1989.)

Woodrow Wilson brought segregationist policies to the federal government. Many states and localities already had implemented those laws in their respective areas but with Wilsonâ��s presidency, which began in 1913, the federal government became a leading force in discriminating against blacks in federal hiring practices. Notes Charles Paul Freund,

Wilsonâ��s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted progressive. That role has been assigned to him by historians based on his battle for the League of Nations, and the opposition he faced from isolationist Republicans. Indeed, the adjective â��Wilsonian,â�� still in use, implies a positive if hopelessly idealistic vision for the extension of justice and democratic values throughout the world. Domestically, however, Wilson was a retrograde racist, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks â�� who were enjoying little of either to begin with. (In fact, Wilson reportedly struck a racial equality clause from the League of Nations charter as well.)
While some have tried to claim that Wilsonâ��s racism was due to his Southern upbringing, he simply was acting as a leading Progressive. Progressives reasoned that blacks were not as far â��evolvedâ�� as whites and, thus, should not be given the same rights and responsibilities. When one combines Wilsonâ��s acts of segregation with racist eugenics practices (through birth control and outright sterilization), it is not hard to understand why the Progressive Era was anything but â��progressiveâ�� when it came to the rights of African-Americans.

The Progressive Era, contrary to popular belief, was not a time when the U.S. government began to adopt â��wiseâ�� and â��far-sightedâ�� policies that matched the political, economic, and social â��needsâ�� of that time. Instead, it was a period during which many of the constitutional limits on government were either â��reinterpretedâ�� or simply eviscerated.

Progressives believed that they were bringing in an age of knowledge, enlightenment, and security. Instead, they brought social turmoil, injustice, and war.

Progressives and the Economy

The last quarter of the 19th century and the first decade or so of the 20th century saw the rise of the large corporation in the United States. Those of us who are used to mega-multi-national firms cannot appreciate the sea change that occurred in the United States, as business enterprises, from manufacturing to retail, were transformed from the small, mom-and-pop operations to something akin to what we see today.

Naturally, many Americans mistrusted this development, especially since many of these new â��captains of industryâ�� also worked closely with whoever was in political power, from the local mayor to the president of the United States. Given this background, it is not surprising that a number of myths have endured regarding business and the development of the central regulatory state during the Progressive Era. In fact, whenever someone attempts to challenge the current regulatory apparatus, invariably someone else will bring up the â��bad old daysâ�� of â��untrammeled free enterpriseâ�� before the state reeled in business enterprises to make them (as the story goes) more â��responsiveâ�� to the â��needs of the public.â��

Thus, if we are to rebuff the claims of Progressives that the â��reformsâ�� of the Progressive Era signaled positive change, we have to begin with the myths created about the various economic enterprises that seemed to define life in the United States around the turn of the century. The place to begin is with the historians themselves.

As historian David M. Kennedy has written, â��Most American academic historians have thought of themselves as the political heirs of the Progressive tradition.â�� Indeed, it is not just the historians who crave the Progressive mantle but also mainstream journalists, who long have promoted growth of the regulatory and welfare state, not to mention most politicians. While they no doubt are writing and speaking from a perspective they believe to be true, when one examines the historical record one finds that the Progressives are leaving out some important information, and it is precisely that information that I wish to share with readers.

For the most part, historians, academicians, and mainstream journalists have held that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were periods dominated by rapacious, greedy businessmen who were corrupting government through bribery and bilking the public. The prevailing view is that these enterprises actually were impoverishing most Americans and that, as they grew, they became gluttonous monopolies that used their market power to force up prices and produce inferior goods.

Indeed, some of the so-called robber barons of that age were little more than con men and crooks. They were what the economic historian Robert Higgs calls the â��political entrepreneurs,â�� men who demanded and received large subsidies from governments and ran inefficient, costly enterprises. For example, the famed transcontinental railway that still is portrayed as a great achievement in U.S. history with the driving of the â��golden spikeâ�� at Promontory Point, Utah, in 1869 actually was little more than an exercise in fraud.

As Burton W. Folsom Jr. points out in his book The Myth of the Robber Barons, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads received lavish government subsidies to complete the link between Omaha, Nebraska, and Sacramento, California, which meant crossing the physically imposing territories of the Sierra Nevada, the Great Basin, and the Rocky Mountains when there was no economic reason to do so at that time. The vast subsidies given to the two railroad companies created the incentives for shoddy workmanship and inferior rails and crossties, and hurried construction techniques that emphasized length over efficiency. (The railroads were paid by the mile, and they bilked the taxpayers out of every penny they could.)

The near-criminal exploits of the UP and CP are placed in stark contrast to the building of the Great Northern line by James J. Hill, who constructed his transcontinental railway across the northern states using private funds. Furthermore, Hill built as the market dictated, not according to what was politically feasible, and he encouraged the development of agriculture and other businesses that could be served by his railroad. In other words, the Great Northernâ��s transcontinental railroad was not politically driven but instead served an economic purpose.

The marvelous accomplishments of the Great Northern were, however, swallowed by the shenanigans of many railroad owners. While competition was fierce and the various attempts at forming cartels to hold rates high failed, railroads often were unpopular among the intellectuals as well as the populist farmers and others who were becoming increasingly involved in the political process. The agitation resulted in the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, the first of many commissions and agencies that ultimately were to make Congress the â��regulatorâ�� of interstate commerce.

As Milton Friedman notes in Free to Choose, the results of the ICC were much different than what the â��reformersâ�� had anticipated. Instead of independently â��regulatingâ�� the railroads, the ICC, which was staffed by people with ties to rail companies, worked hand in glove with the entities it was supposed to be overseeing. Thus, the first â��revolving doorâ�� between industry and the entities that regulate it was established.

One of the great myths arising from the Progressive Era was that the â��captains of industryâ�� were promoters of economic laissez faire; the reality is quite different. For example, American historians widely assume that the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed to correct abuse caused by â��monopoliesâ�� and â��price fixing.â�� The assumption was that business was becoming increasingly monopolized and that companies were conspiring with one another to produce inferior products at high prices.

The record is quite different. From John D. Rockefellerâ��s Standard Oil Company to the various producers of capital and consumer goods, the trend was for prices to fall and for the quality and availability of goods to increase. When Rockefeller entered the oil business in the mid-1860s, the price of a gallon of kerosene (the main refined fuel of choice in that day) was about 60 cents. By the turn of the century, Rockefellerâ��s efforts at eliminating waste and improving production methods brought the price of kerosene to less than 6 cents per gallon, and his story was typical of that era.

Although the free-enterprise system had resulted in the creation of vast amounts of wealth and an increasing standard of living for most Americans, the intellectuals and journalists of the day became infatuated with collectivist ideology. Many business leaders also bought into collectivist ideology, and, as Murray Rothbard points out, there was no one left to resist the clarion call to government regulation and cartelization.

The collectivist mindset

Influential writers such as Walter Lippman insisted on calling corporations themselves entities of collectivism, and others also bought into that error. He could not have been more mistaken, as the supposed power enjoyed by even the largest businesses depended entirely on how well they served their customers and on making correct predictions about the direction their particular industries would be going. Businesses that must serve customers, unlike governments, do not exist as a result of force.

For example, Rockefellerâ��s Standard Oil Company enjoyed almost a 90 percent market share at the turn of the century, but by the time his company lost a landmark antitrust decision at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1911, its share had fallen to about 65 percent and was falling quickly, as competitors moved into the newly discovered oil fields in Texas and Oklahoma. Whatever influence Rockefeller might have had with politicians was no match for competitors who could equal or better his prices.

Collectivism had been gaining force since the late 19th century, but the unhappy marriage of socialism and the business enterprise was spurred by the U.S. entry into World War I in 1917. Rothbard writes,

More than any other single period, World War I was the critical watershed for the American business system. It was a â��war collectivism,â�� a totally planned economy run largely by big-business interests through the instrumentality of the central government, which served as the model, the precedent, and the inspiration for state corporate capitalism for the remainder of the twentieth century.
The development of â��war socialismâ�� for the purpose of waging â��total warâ�� was approved by both political parties, Progressives, business leaders, and religious leaders. Furthermore, the practitioners saw this as a new horizon, an onward-and-upward step in the development of the United States. Rothbard writes,

Apart from the role of big business in pushing America down the road to war, business was equally enthusiastic about the extensive planning and economic mobilization that the war would clearly entail. Thus, an early enthusiast for war mobilization was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had been a leading champion of industrial cartelization under the aegis of the federal government since its formation in 1912. The Chamberâ��s monthly, The Nationâ��s Business, foresaw in mid 1916 that a mobilized economy would bring about a sharing of power and responsibility between government and business. And the chairman of the U.S. Chamberâ��s Executive Committee on National Defense wrote to the du Ponts, at the end of 1916, of his expectation that â��this munitions question would seem to be the greatest opportunity to foster the new spiritâ�� of cooperation between government and industry.
As I pointed out earlier, many of the nationâ��s intellectuals were won over to collectivism in the first half of the 19th century, and that trend accelerated, especially after the Northern victory in the Civil War. Nor were American intellectuals alone in their endorsement of socialism; the ideology, after all, had come from Europe. Great Britain and states such as Germany, in order to hold off the more radical calls for communism, already had implemented some â��progressiveâ�� policies such as the establishment of government â��old-age pensionsâ�� and some small forms of socialistic medical care.

The desire for intellectual â��respectabilityâ�� carried over to those involved in business, as intellectuals often displayed scorn for those involved in the â��trades.â�� (This was hardly a new phenomenon, as the antipathy toward work and those engaged in trade existed in antiquity, and still is part of the intellectual mindset today.) But as many people began to pile up large fortunes, they also found they could afford to enter a world that previously had been closed to them.

In a recent conversation I had with the economic historian Robert Higgs, he said that he believed that the desire for â��respectabilityâ�� was one of the driving forces of the Progressive Era. This certainly would have been true for many of the so-called captains of industry. Embracing collectivism and an ordered system of government regulation placed them in much more â��respectableâ�� company than would have been the case had they insisted on the â��unscientificâ�� and â��unsophisticatedâ�� regime of laissez faire, with all of its â��dog-eat-dogâ�� implications of unfettered competition. Notes Rothbard,

The new dispensation cloaked the new form of rule in the guise of promotion of the overall national interest, of the welfare of the workers through the new representation for labor, and of the common good of all citizens. Hence the importance, for providing a much-needed popular legitimacy and support, of the new ideology of twentieth-century liberalism, which sanctioned and glorified the new order. In contrast to the older laissez-faire liberalism of the previous century, the new liberalism gained popular sanction for the new system by proclaiming that it differed radically from the old, exploitative mercantilism in its advancement of the welfare of the whole society. And in return for this ideological buttressing by the new â��corporateâ�� liberals, the new system furnished the liberals the prestige, the income, and the power that came with posts for the concrete, detailed planning of the system as well as for ideological propaganda on its behalf.
Yet, as Rothbard also points out, the end result was the return of mercantilist policies that benefited the politically connected firms at the expense of those who were lacking political ties. In the final irony, in the name of preserving competition and promoting the â��public welfare,â�� the Progressives ultimately created a system that stifled competition and created entrenched interest groups and the ubiquitous â��revolving doorâ�� between regulated businesses and the agencies that regulate them.

The â��dog-eat-dogâ�� system that Progressives and their business allies created was supposedly put into place to combat a previous regime of monopolistic and anti-consumer big businesses. In reality, the old system, as reviled as it was, did more to raise the standards of living in the United States and to create opportunities for people who once would have been relegated permanently to poverty, sickness, and early death than anything that came out of the Progressive Era. Indeed, if we are to be honest, the true name for Progressivism should be Regressivism."

June 14, 2006

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Thank you for posting this. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
This guy should be teaching history as well as economics! Very informative.

Well that's funny because - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
A lot of what is written here is why I am an independent with more conservative than liberal viewpoint. Looks like you have really been led astray.

I believe we need to help those in need too. But I don't want to be forced to help if I don't have enough money for my basic survival needs (you know, food, rent, and to pay my basic bills), and I don't think I should have to work more hours, sell my stuff to move to a cheaper apartment so I can give the money that I save from that to give to the govt. Also I believe people should help people, not people give the govt money so the govt can keep it and give just a fraction of it to the needy and pretend it came from them. And then somehow convince those with less than others are that way because it's all those nasty rich conservatives hoarding it all. You do realize that independents and conservatives want health care for children, elderly, and poor. If you don't you really have been led astray (or at least easily influenced). Republicans have always been for higher education and help for the low income family to provide an education for their children. And as one of the posters correctly pointed out, it was the democrats who got rid of the vouchers to allow the less fortunate attend private schools (the writer conveniently didn't mention that).

Republicans and Independents understand the Constitution VERY VERY well. What do you think we are fighting for. Your second paragraph may describe a very few democrats, but for the most part the majority who are in govt which includes the progressives are trying as hard and as fast as they can to destroy it. The second paragraph describes republicans, independents, and some democrats to a "T". Whoever wrote this article is purposely trying to be misleading.

Your third paragraph also describes Independents and Conservatives.

The democrat party did not win 2 wars. Where they got those facts who knows, but then the democrat party is the party of deceit and lies, so no surprises there. Also, in case you didn't know - the Democrat party IS the party of war. Trying to take credit for ending two wars? Sorry...not gonna fly, since there is more than just a political party involving in both starting and stopping wars. Many factors come into play, like leaders of other countries, agreements made, etc. Besides, the democratic party of today is not what it used to be. It used to be a party that people were proud to belong to. Now it's just a party of progressives and shame. The democrat party is long gone. However, since you are talking about social security, and how that great system was set up by a democrat you should read up about how it almost came to an end and all funds stolen under who...a democratic president. How also it's going bankrupt under who...a democrat president/congress.

The paragraph about knowing how to balance budgets. Um...hellooooo...the writer was clearly asleep in this one. In case they didn't know this the budget is not balanced under who....a democratic president and congress. Democrats do NOT know how to balance a budget. That is why we need an economist and business man in the office...not a career politician who doesn't even care if the budget is balanced because they have their own printing press to make money.

Bill Clinton actually caught terrorists? Um hello...asleep again I see. He never actually caught any. And we won't even talk about all the attacks on us while he was in office. The atrocities created in Somalia, Kosovo, etc. under his reign.

Jimmy Carter...won't even go there. That would be way tooooo long. Only to say after Woodrow Wilson I think Jimmy Carter is the second worst President to follow.

The rest of it is not worth answering. It's a shame you posted such a deceitful article full of lies without researching the facts. The writer is trying to have one political party (the one he/she evidently belongs to) be associated with everything angelic while spouting his/her hatred for the other political party and trying to demonize them. Unfortunately for him/her they didn't do any fact checking before writing the article, and is not putting blame where blame is due.

There are good people and bad people in all parties. Not one side is free from fault.

It's irony though that that a lot of democrats are trying to distance themselves from their own party.

A reply - A Proud Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
Why I am not a democrat

I am an independent. That means I stand on my own two feet and I am strong in my beliefs. I listen to both sides of the isle and make my own informed opinions from what I hear. I do not listen to just one group and let them do my thinking for me. I even listen to people I do not like because to my surprise they just might say something that happens to be the truth. I have been known to change my mind on issues once hearing both sides speak, but they are my own decisions, not what a certain group tells me to think, say, or do. I may have more conservative viewpoints than liberal, but neither party describes me as a whole. I respect others viewpoints and donâ��t knowingly ridicule other people for their beliefs, and I donâ��t like being ridiculed for mine. And if someone points out that Iâ��ve made a mistake I fess up and say â��you know youâ��re right. I was wrong. I am sorryâ��.

Soâ�¦with that said, these are the reasons I do not associate myself with the democrat party and never will.

I believe in the American way of life and honoring our founding fathers for doing what was right for America no matter what the cost was to them. They sacrificed everything they had for the country. They feared for their lives, but they stood on principles and did what was right for the country. Because of what they did and went through I love them for their fortitude of character in doing what was right for the country, and I will ever be eternally thankful to them, and I will do my best to honor their memories, their lives, and their works. I do not consider the Declaration or any of their writings as â��unimportant and outdatedâ�� and need to be â��revisedâ��. I donâ��t believe itâ��s â��just a piece of paper not relevant to us todayâ��. I believe the words that were written in 1776 hold true to this day.

I will never belong to that party because I believe every citizen of this country has the right to speak out and have their voices heard. I believe there should be town halls and tea parties scheduled on a regular basis, where the people can have a voice, and I believe the people we elect should respect our opinion, after all they respected our opinion when we elected them, why stop there. And I will never belong to that party because I do not believe people should be called racists because they disagree with a policy of any administration.

Per one famous democrats own words â��Iâ��m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow youâ��re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say weâ��re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administrationâ�� â�� Hillary Clinton (speaking against the Bush administration).

I will never â��belongâ�� with them because I believe only one vote per person should count. I donâ��t believe in counting votes twice or more, or cheating to win. I donâ��t believe that dead peopleâ��s votes should be counted, and I donâ��t believe in counting more votes than there are people living in whatever county that might be in, and I donâ��t believe thugs for their party should be allowed to stand outside any polling booth and intimidate voters.

I will never associate with the party because I believe in trying to find solutions to problems instead of blaming the last person who was a different political party, especially for things that are not their fault.

I will never associate with the party because I believe in affordable health care for all citizens if they want it, and I believe if people donâ��t want it they should not be forced to buy a product they donâ��t want. I believe there should be other options for the person who is healthy and does not want to purchase it, and I believe that we should listen to the people with ideas on how to make it work. I donâ��t agree with the â��itâ��s my way or the highwayâ�� attitude. I believe in freedom of choice, not â��we will choose for you because you are just too stupid to make your own decisionsâ��. I believe in the basic rule that people should be able to make their own decisions regarding their own lives. And I believe that Americans are not â��stupidâ�� and can run their own lives very well.

I believe that America is a great country filled with great people. I feel all viewpoints should be heard, and no TV or radio show or any person in this country, no matter what political party they favor, should face death threats for presenting information that the American people should know. I believe that if a person doesnâ��t like something they have the power to change their TV or radio channel, but they do not have the right to try and shut down a program or group, or worse wish death on a person for informing the country of what is going on in the country, and again, no matter what political party they belong to. However, the exception to that rule is that if you spout words of treason or support for communism or socialism, like Bill Maherâ��s calling Americans "stupid" and we need to be "dragged", or Rosie Odonnelâ��s call for communism â��Seize their assets today. Take over the country, I donâ��t careâ�¦ Call it communism, call it socialism, call it anything you wantâ��. Then those people who speak words of treason should be held responsible and face the consequences. If they want communism so bad there are plenty of countries they can choose from. America is not and never will be a communist country. If you donâ��t like tough, you know where the airport is.

I believe that people should have to work for what they have. If they are unable to work that is a different story, but if they are capable of doing anything they should do something to better their lives or earn what they receive. I do not believe they should just be given things from a mysterious â��stashâ�� somewhere. I do not believe it is wrong for people to work hard and accumulate wealth, to build a future for themselves and their families.

I will never associate with that party because I believe in equality of basic human rights, not equality of possessions/funds. I do not believe in spreading the wealth. That is a communist way of life, and if you believe that then you should be called just that. We do not believe in that in this country. Itâ��s not what our founding fathers sacrificed everything for. I believe in working hard and saving for the future. If you work harder or longer than someone else you should be rewarded for it, not punished.

I will never associate with that party because I do not think its okay to portray one president as Hitler, walk around with signs with swastikaâ��s and words of hate, yet act insane when the same thing is done to the leader in their party. I donâ��t believe in double standards (I also donâ��t believe that any president should be portrayed as Hitler â�� he was an evil man and I donâ��t find our presidents, past or current, to be evil).

I will never associate myself with that party because I do not think its okay to start a race war, or hide behind the race card. To call people racists for disagreeing with policies or other issues going on under the democrat party, when race is not even an issue. To use â��racismâ�� as a fear word hoping to shut people up. Then when that doesnâ��t work begin using the â��violenceâ�� word. I will never belong to their party because I believe if you are going to accuse people of something you should at least have proof to back it up.

I will never be in that party because I can see there is bad people doing wrong in all parties and there are good people also in all parties. I am not afraid to say â��I was wrongâ�� about this issue or that issue. There are factions of good and bad in each party, but the blind support, the attacks, the demonizing of anyone not a democrat, the false accusations is why I will never associate with that party.

I will never be in that party because I believe in financial responsibility. I believe that if you donâ��t have enough money you donâ��t keep spending. It doesnâ��t work in my budget and it is not working in theirs. I donâ��t believe in behind closed door secret meetings, locking one political party out of meetings, automatically voting themselves pay raises while the countries unemployment continues to rise. I donâ��t believe in sticking things in bills that donâ��t pertain to the bill.

I will never "belong", because I don't believe in taking credit for things you didn't do and not taking credit for things that are your fault.

Lastly, I will never be associated with that party because I believe this is a great country. I donâ��t believe that Americans are â��selfish and arrogantâ��. I believe there are great people in our country and that we can do better. I believe there are great minds in this country, people with good ideas, and I believe it is possible to pull America out of the dark road we are going down. I believe most people are good and I believe we could become a great country again as long as one party does not rule over everything, again, doesnâ��t matter what party. We need something called check and balances.

Those are reasons why I am an independent. I am a former United States Army Staff Sergeant and proud to have served time in the military for the greatest country on earth. I cannot thank our troops and their families enough for their sacrifices they are making to keep this a great country. I just hope there is a country when they are done selflessly giving up their lives so that I may enjoy the freedoms I have today. They are â��awesomeâ�� and I am truly grateful that they are willing to lay down their lives for people like me.

Thank you for writing this... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
and thank you for your service to our country. My cousin is getting ready to leave for Afghanistan for his second tour and I know the hardship this puts on his family, but he believes in what he is doing. The military deserves the respect and support of every American, regardless of where they are.

I salute you, Proud Independent.

Thanks - A Proud Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
I didn't even go into half the reasons why I will never belong to the party. Just some of the stronger viewpoints. I have a few liberal viewpoints when it comes to religion and social issues, but conservative on the main issues.

I just get tired of hearing the demonizing of one party over and over here. The insults are getting old, although I always hear the phrase "forgive them father for they do not know what they do". They will go down with the sinking ship all the while blaming and name calling the republican and independents. I read an article written by a psychiatrist about this and it just makes sense.

Serving in the military was one of the best experiences of my life. I learned so much. I will pray for your cousin's safety while serving his tour. God Bless him for the courage and sacrifice he is making, and his family too, to make this country a better place for all people.

Absolutely wonderful reply...thank you sharing! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Similar Messages:

Aug 01, 2014
I'm doing a practice dictation for a total hip replacement, and of course this report is nothing like the 25 other reports it came with, so here is my issue. During a total hip replacement, the speaker says, "femoral head 28 +5". So, a 28 mm head, but what is the +5? Could anyone help me out? I did search beforehand but came up empty. Thanks in advance! ...

Aug 01, 2010
This was actually on a Facebook page. I think that taxes are a small price for me to pay for my freedom in comparison to the price others ...havealready paid. I'm willing to pay more so that the price our veterans have already paid will have been enough. Some people seem to have a strange idea of what it means to have something taken from them and given to someone else that hasn't earned it. None of us have earned the lives of our soldiers gave for us, but we're all sure quick to ...

Dec 04, 2012
I'm a small business owner, so I write off my medical insurance, but I didn't realize everyone could do it. ...

Dec 12, 2013
It's crossed my mind many times, but haven't actually done anything about it yet. Wondering how others may have gotten started, suggestions of how to choose a story line, etc., just any experience anyone would like to share. TIA ...

Jan 25, 2017
I urge all MTs to write to President Trump at the White House about your MT situation. He needs to start meeting with the heads of hospital systems and bring our acute care and radiology transcription positions back to the hospitals in the United States. Dictation is being sent offshore and then brought back to the United States - hospitals need to be held accountable just like the automobile, manufacturing, and tech companies. Many hospitals used to allow us to work from home. ...

Feb 20, 2016
And they talk about Trump's reality show. Can't wait to have a porno-pushing pres. ...

Jul 15, 2013
I won't be buying it, but it would be interesting to hear what she had to say about the trial. From the description, it almost sounds like she regretted not being able to convict. ...

Mar 07, 2015
President Obama's speech in Selma today. Some really good parts on voting rights and loving America. link below. ...

Oct 14, 2015
Nm ...

Nov 04, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC... Why I voted Democrat: I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I ...

Nov 05, 2009
Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, among others, receive H1N1 vaccinations despite scarcity of vaccine to protect high-risk children. ...

Dec 22, 2010
It's pretty cool. I answered 5 like a Democrat and 5 like a Republican so it said I'm Bi-Partisan, which I always thought, but wasn't really sure sometimes. lol. ...

Apr 10, 2012
> 12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT> > When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them > this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"...> > 1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon > of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at > 15% isn’t.> > 2. I voted Democrat because I believe the governme ...

Mar 03, 2010
What a difference a few inches on the forum make! A bit further down there was some gloating about a Republican who was under an ethics cloud quitting the House. ...and here we have this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33864.html I think that all of us, regardless of party, should start to ask ourselves where does this all end? ...

Sep 14, 2012
Guess who -- for the 2nd time in 2 months???.....HHS Secretary Sebillus. This time she violated the Hatch Act. "The ethics office found that Sebelius had made the speech in her official capacity as the nation's top health official, but departed from her prepared text and veered into politicking." (She called for Obama's re-election and endorsed a Democrat for governor.) But that's okay....she found what she did wrong "technical and minor" and they reclassified her speech as pol ...

Jul 25, 2016
Democrat Convention Schedule Monday, July 25, 2016 11:15 AM Free lunch, medical marijuana, and bus ride to the Convention Forms distributed for Food Stamp enrollment. 1:30 PM Group Voter Registration for Illegal Immigrants. 3:15 PM Address on "Being the Real You" Rachel Dolezal, former Head of the Seattle NAACP and Caitlyn Jenner 4:30 PM "How to Bank $200 Million as a Public Servant and claim to be broke" Hillary Clinton 4:45 PM How to have a successful career withou ...

Feb 10, 2017
Yes, this information has been verified. ...

Mar 27, 2014
I'm purposefully not posting a link. For those so inclined to search, the story is everywhere. ...

May 14, 2014
Totally disgusting. ...

Oct 10, 2014
Anything to get ahead. ...

Oct 13, 2014
According to the Daily Caller, even MSNBC won't defend Wendy Davis' controversial wheelchair ad. LOL ...

Dec 07, 2015
I had the occasion over the weekend to have a conversation with a former neighbor, a staunch liberal democrat from New York. We used to have many discussions over the past years about politics, always polite, always respectful. In fact, she is one of the few liberals I know who is not full of vitriol and hateful rhetoric. What she told me this past weekend shocked me. She admitted to me that I had been right all along about BO and his ineffective leadership. She said she never felt so helpless ...

Jun 08, 2011
whining about the unjust democratic recall process. “I want to bring light on the issue that 22,000 signatures can pretty much overturn an election where even the loser got 40,000 votes," he exclaims. The spoiler strategy was developed last week in a closed door La Crosse County GOP meeting of party leaders who think more time to campaign will work to their advantage once given the opportunity to outspend their democratic opponents. Never mind the extra cost o ...

Nov 27, 2010
John F. Kennedy, from inauguration address: We observe today not a victory of a party, but a celebration of freedom- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears described nearly a century and three-quarters ago. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. ...

Aug 15, 2012
...

Sep 14, 2012
Here's a great NY Times article "Even Critics of Public Safety Net Increasingly Dependent on It." It has a lot of information about what's been happening to incomes (dropping), expenses, and population and an interactive map of US public spending. Note, there's lots of information to support different viewpoints here. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html "One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the p ...

Jul 26, 2016
The contrast between that awful hate-filled RNC and the DNC cannot be doubted. The WILLING and great musicians performing, the great speech of Sarah Silverman - I'm with her by the way, "Bernie or Bust people, you're being ridiculous." Michelle Obama gave a truly brilliant speech, really mainly by talking about her children growing up in the White House. All Trump could do was tweet away and froth at the mouth wherever he was with his pitiful little diatribes, exposing the small, mea ...

Nov 05, 2013
...

May 25, 2014
What an uplifting story, especially this Memorial Day Weekend. Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/fox-news-atheist-democrat-i-met-jesus/ ...

Apr 01, 2015
What I'm reading about O'Malley I'm liking. He does not have the appearance of being democrat and I like that. His knowledge about the constitution and other issues I believe puts him in the middle. I believe he truly wants to save our country from the destruction we have seen it under. Of course there is more to learn about him, but right now I think he is the best hope to save our country. I will vote for anyone that will knock out the creature.&nb ...