Band mom pointed out that she is "Expected to submit to drug testing at my place of employment," and that the, "Taxes paid by my employer and by me on my earnings are directly supporting welfare recipients."
Exactly true, but there's the rub. It might very well cost MORE tax dollars to drug test welfare applicants and recipients than the government will ever SAVE to 'weed' out the druggies.
Eliminating government waste is a great thing and I wish politicians were more sincerely dedicated to pursuing that end. On the natinoal level we could cut a ton of brass from the Pentagon, for instance, and not lose one ounce of military effectiveness. There are probably many examples of government waste at the local level that would actually SAVE money.
But drug testing for Welfare strikes me as political grandstanding that actually wastes more money than it saves.
The lovely TQ is losing some much needed beauty sleep quoting Horace Cooper, former Labor Department official in the Bush administration (Thar y'all go blamin' everthang on Dub-yuh!). Horace was charged with felonies, copped a plea, and served time in federal prison. Apparently TQ's Constitutional go-to guy was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal along with lots and lots of other republicans.
You mean THAT Horace Cooper?
Going to prison doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't make him right, either.
The republican party: making America safer for the filthy rich!
if government thinks you have to pass a drug test to earn money from tax payers, give a cup to politicians first.
I wonder where the over/under would be in Vegas?
The new dim-witted republican governor here in Florida passed a similar bill that's costing more money to administer than it actually saves. People applying for Welfare pay for the drug test up front. If they pass they get their $30 back. If they flunk they don't collect and the State keeps the drug test money
I guess republicans don't know that the cost of illegal drugs is out of the reach of most poor people. Turns out that only about 3% of applicants failed the test, while law enforcement estimates put illegal drug use statewide at somewhere between 7 to 10%
Going after Welfare recipients is another goofy example of republicans targeting the wrong people. Raising taxes on people living in poverty won't balance the budget. So why target the poor?
Come to think of it I guess there are two reasons:
First, the republian party is a wholly owned subsidiary of rich people.
There are plenty of republicans chomping at the bit to run on a presidential ticket. None of them would help Romney with voters, but there are people ready to pay the ultimate political price.
The GOP does not have a running mate problem. They have a presidential cadidate problem.
For all members of the right wing tea bagging brigade, here's something you can all look up in the comfort of your own double wide - or single wide - home. Please research how the national debt grew under supply side republican presidents. This is not a trick question. These would include the years 1981 - 1993 and 2001 - 2009. If congress had allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire, as they were scheduled, our current recovery would be much stronger and national debt much lower.
Howl all you want but those are the facts.
Supply side - or trickle down - economics has been the single greatest cause of America's financial ruin, and only top shelf PR can spin this GOP economic catastrophe. Don't hurt the 'job creators,' they wail. Don't resort to 'class warfare' they sob. Don't look at the facts. It's not our fault. Don't blame us because we republicans hate blame the way vampires hate daylight.
They find it much easier to blame someone else. Heck, they were blaming Obama before he was sworn in as president and haven't let up.
The fact that Mitt Romney wants to slash the tax rate on rich people even MORE proves he is not qualified to run for dog catcher. Oh, I know he was governor of Massachusetts, but he doesn't want to dwell on that portion of his resume. Forget all that government take over of health care. Forget all that talk about being moderate and even progressive. Forget the fact that he didn't run for reelection because he would have lost.
Apparently the only policy Mitt advocates NOW, the one issue over which he is willing to go to the mattresses, is tax cuts for the rich. He promises to eliminate a cabinet post or three, cut off funding for Planned Parenthood (red meat for tin foil republicans) but who knows? He takes so many different positions on so many different issues it's literally impossible to know what he believes.
Except tax cuts for the rich.
The GOP is trying to peddle that load of horse manure this time because they want you to believe that THEY are very patriotic, THEY have an unfair tax rate, and THEY are the job creators.
And to make that fly they want you to believe that poor people are getting away with murder. Obviously the GOP is counting on voters being heartless and brainless cowards with very short memories.
But if Romney is elected we won't be able to just click our heels three times.
The republican party is all about purity tests these days. Like Reagan said, trust but verify, and It's important to know where everyone stands on important conservative issues.
Like tax cuts for the rich, evolution, water pollution, tax cuts for the rich, air pollution, immigrantion, tax cuts for the rich, birth control, abortion, tax cuts for the rich, climate change, alternative energy...
Gosh, the list goes on and on, but not everyone in America is really conservative enough to qualify these days as being a genuine conservative.
Heck, not everyone in the republican party qualifies.
But let's forget about the idealogical split in the GOP for a second and think about how Romeny is going to get elected president. George W. campaigned for latino votes in 2000, got about 42%, and 'squeaked' into office. He got about 44% in 2004 and barely won re-election. McCain only got about 30% in 2008 and lost to Obama. Right now Romney is polling under 20% and his promise to veto the 'dream act,' (originally a republican initiative) may push that number even lower.
Maybe one of you tea bagging right wing posters will give us examples of how republicans in general and Romney in particular will appeal to latino voters. Is there any policy being forwarded by the GOP that caters to any voting bloc outside the 1%?
Seriously, I know it's early, but I can't find a thing.
Just a side note for those of you keeping score. It was Mitt who told the world that Ann was keeping him up to speed on economic issues concerning women.
Hillary Rosen spoke to the stupidity of that idea, but she forget to insert the word, "workplace," and I noticed the so-called "liberal" media conveniently edits her statement to make it sound like a broadside (pun intended) against Ann Romney mother of five.
But Rosen is also a mom, and unlike Ann she has had to work for a living.
The tea bagging right wing nut jobs were in full throated out rage when Mitt made his infamous, "I like firing people," comment. They had a point. It was taken out of context.
It did, however, speak to the narrative that Romney is not like most people in this Country. He doesn't have more money than god but they belong to the same country club.
Likewise, Hillary Rosen's comments were clipped from her statement. Mitt has said that Ann tells him about economic issues concerning women. The point is, Ann has never held a job in the workplace. How could Ann Romney possibly relate to most women who have to juggle working at their job while trying to raise a family and run a household?
The Drug Test
SO IT COMES FULL CIRCLE
Band mom pointed out that she is "Expected to submit to drug testing at my place of employment," and that the, "Taxes paid by my employer and by me on my earnings are directly supporting welfare recipients."
Exactly true, but there's the rub. It might very well cost MORE tax dollars to drug test welfare applicants and recipients than the government will ever SAVE to 'weed' out the druggies.
Eliminating government waste is a great thing and I wish politicians were more sincerely dedicated to pursuing that end. On the natinoal level we could cut a ton of brass from the Pentagon, for instance, and not lose one ounce of military effectiveness. There are probably many examples of government waste at the local level that would actually SAVE money.
But drug testing for Welfare strikes me as political grandstanding that actually wastes more money than it saves.
The Drug Test
You Mean THAT Horace Cooper?
The lovely TQ is losing some much needed beauty sleep quoting Horace Cooper, former Labor Department official in the Bush administration (Thar y'all go blamin' everthang on Dub-yuh!). Horace was charged with felonies, copped a plea, and served time in federal prison. Apparently TQ's Constitutional go-to guy was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal along with lots and lots of other republicans.
You mean THAT Horace Cooper?
Going to prison doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't make him right, either.
The republican party: making America safer for the filthy rich!
The Drug Test
FAIR IS FAIR
if government thinks you have to pass a drug test to earn money from tax payers, give a cup to politicians first.
I wonder where the over/under would be in Vegas?
The new dim-witted republican governor here in Florida passed a similar bill that's costing more money to administer than it actually saves. People applying for Welfare pay for the drug test up front. If they pass they get their $30 back. If they flunk they don't collect and the State keeps the drug test money
I guess republicans don't know that the cost of illegal drugs is out of the reach of most poor people. Turns out that only about 3% of applicants failed the test, while law enforcement estimates put illegal drug use statewide at somewhere between 7 to 10%
Going after Welfare recipients is another goofy example of republicans targeting the wrong people. Raising taxes on people living in poverty won't balance the budget. So why target the poor?
Come to think of it I guess there are two reasons:
First, the republian party is a wholly owned subsidiary of rich people.
Second, poor people have lousey lobbyists.
Selection Process
I DON'T GET IT
There are plenty of republicans chomping at the bit to run on a presidential ticket. None of them would help Romney with voters, but there are people ready to pay the ultimate political price.
The GOP does not have a running mate problem. They have a presidential cadidate problem.
The Tin Man
REPUBLICANS HATE DAYLIGHT
For all members of the right wing tea bagging brigade, here's something you can all look up in the comfort of your own double wide - or single wide - home. Please research how the national debt grew under supply side republican presidents. This is not a trick question. These would include the years 1981 - 1993 and 2001 - 2009. If congress had allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire, as they were scheduled, our current recovery would be much stronger and national debt much lower.
Howl all you want but those are the facts.
Supply side - or trickle down - economics has been the single greatest cause of America's financial ruin, and only top shelf PR can spin this GOP economic catastrophe. Don't hurt the 'job creators,' they wail. Don't resort to 'class warfare' they sob. Don't look at the facts. It's not our fault. Don't blame us because we republicans hate blame the way vampires hate daylight.
They find it much easier to blame someone else. Heck, they were blaming Obama before he was sworn in as president and haven't let up.
The fact that Mitt Romney wants to slash the tax rate on rich people even MORE proves he is not qualified to run for dog catcher. Oh, I know he was governor of Massachusetts, but he doesn't want to dwell on that portion of his resume. Forget all that government take over of health care. Forget all that talk about being moderate and even progressive. Forget the fact that he didn't run for reelection because he would have lost.
Apparently the only policy Mitt advocates NOW, the one issue over which he is willing to go to the mattresses, is tax cuts for the rich. He promises to eliminate a cabinet post or three, cut off funding for Planned Parenthood (red meat for tin foil republicans) but who knows? He takes so many different positions on so many different issues it's literally impossible to know what he believes.
Except tax cuts for the rich.
The GOP is trying to peddle that load of horse manure this time because they want you to believe that THEY are very patriotic, THEY have an unfair tax rate, and THEY are the job creators.
And to make that fly they want you to believe that poor people are getting away with murder. Obviously the GOP is counting on voters being heartless and brainless cowards with very short memories.
But if Romney is elected we won't be able to just click our heels three times.
Campaign Outreach
IT'S ONLY A TEST
The republican party is all about purity tests these days. Like Reagan said, trust but verify, and It's important to know where everyone stands on important conservative issues.
Like tax cuts for the rich, evolution, water pollution, tax cuts for the rich, air pollution, immigrantion, tax cuts for the rich, birth control, abortion, tax cuts for the rich, climate change, alternative energy...
Gosh, the list goes on and on, but not everyone in America is really conservative enough to qualify these days as being a genuine conservative.
Heck, not everyone in the republican party qualifies.
But let's forget about the idealogical split in the GOP for a second and think about how Romeny is going to get elected president. George W. campaigned for latino votes in 2000, got about 42%, and 'squeaked' into office. He got about 44% in 2004 and barely won re-election. McCain only got about 30% in 2008 and lost to Obama. Right now Romney is polling under 20% and his promise to veto the 'dream act,' (originally a republican initiative) may push that number even lower.
Maybe one of you tea bagging right wing posters will give us examples of how republicans in general and Romney in particular will appeal to latino voters. Is there any policy being forwarded by the GOP that caters to any voting bloc outside the 1%?
Seriously, I know it's early, but I can't find a thing.
Here's a slogan:
ROMNEY Not Rich Enough
Moms
IT'S MORE THAN A PIVOT, IT'S A PIROUETTE
I used to think TQ was just a crumping tap dancer, or tango two stepper, but lo and behold - she's a square dancin' ballerina.
Bravo!
Moms
MITT STARTED IT
Just a side note for those of you keeping score. It was Mitt who told the world that Ann was keeping him up to speed on economic issues concerning women.
Hillary Rosen spoke to the stupidity of that idea, but she forget to insert the word, "workplace," and I noticed the so-called "liberal" media conveniently edits her statement to make it sound like a broadside (pun intended) against Ann Romney mother of five.
But Rosen is also a mom, and unlike Ann she has had to work for a living.
Okay, I'm calling 'uncle' now.
I believe this dead horse has been beaten enough.
Moms
SAME SHOE, DIFFERENT FOOT
The tea bagging right wing nut jobs were in full throated out rage when Mitt made his infamous, "I like firing people," comment. They had a point. It was taken out of context.
It did, however, speak to the narrative that Romney is not like most people in this Country. He doesn't have more money than god but they belong to the same country club.
Likewise, Hillary Rosen's comments were clipped from her statement. Mitt has said that Ann tells him about economic issues concerning women. The point is, Ann has never held a job in the workplace. How could Ann Romney possibly relate to most women who have to juggle working at their job while trying to raise a family and run a household?
This is a little tempest in the little tea pot.
George Zimmerman
DON'T THROW STONES
Hey Chet, at least Jack is man enough to show his face.
Some people are too chicken to even post an avatar.
Et tu?