[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 90°F  
River stage: 16.87 ft. Rising
Friday, Sep. 4, 2015

Speak Out 12/23/07

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Green churches

I DON'T know if it characterizes Southeast Missouri, but nationally I'm glad so many evangelical churches are turning green and recognizing our responsibility to be serious stewards of the environment.

Escaping addiction

REGARDING DENYING school financial aid to persons with drug convictions is wrong. We deny these people an avenue of escape from addiction. We deny them a chance to lift themselves above the influence of drugs. Then we blame them when they can't get away from the drugs. Perhaps some of us should consider this while we wonder if we're sober enough to drive home. If you have to ask, you're too drunk to drive, but I bet you will anyway.

Long-range issue

IT AMAZES me that anyone could look at the weather patterns for the last 100 years and think they can predict what the weather will be, or should be, in the next 100. If you look at the geological record from the last 500 million years, patterns emerge. These patterns are caused by cyclical, natural forces we cannot change. Is global warming happening? Most likely. There was an ice age 10,000 years ago, and we are still recovering. No one knows what the mean surface temperature of Earth should be. Do you? So, how can we say a bit of warming is bad?

Religious politics

COLUMNIST DAVID Limbaugh has cornered himself into a conundrum. Over the years he has (in the name of conservatism) come close to advocating a Christian theocracy. He has at least called for blurring if not severing the line of separation between church and state. So what? Well, we now have a Baptist preacher and GOP candidate for president, Mike Huckabee, who seems to have taken Limbaugh's message to heart. In fact, he may be the first presidential candidate in history to openly incorporate Jesus in a TV ad asking for voter support. However, when it comes to political and policy issues, Limbaugh and Huckabee often diverge, sometimes dramatically. Limbaugh cannot afford to overtly denounce Huckabee because it would open him up to apparently accurate charges of blatant hypocrisy. The only thing left for Limbaugh to do is write beating-around-the-bush columns, secretly hoping that a subtle message comes through that Huckabee's not the one. A cynical but accurate spin on Limbaugh's column would be that when it comes to all his Christian polemics, his purpose was not intended to mean that Christianity should ever get in the way of his neoconservative political agenda.

Thanks, holiday workers

I WANT to say merry Christmas to everyone who will be working at essential jobs on Christmas Day. You are appreciated so much by all the rest of us.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I'm glad someone finally put David Limbaugh in his place. Thank you, whom ever you are bad a. golfer

-- Posted by badagolfer on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 1:51 AM

-- Posted by badagolfer on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 1:56 AM

Holiday Workers,

You are welcome =)

-- Posted by allen6177 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 2:39 AM

Escaping addiction, I had not heard drug testing was being considered to qualify for financial aide. After thinking about it, I see your point, but think it is a good idea. Perhaps, we should consider drug testing for ALL finanical aide/welfare type programs.

OH, there is an idea regarding unwed mothers with multiple children. Instead of "giving" them financial assistance, perhaps we should LOAN it to them and HELP them find jobs and child care. Regarding child care, I believe there are still tax credits available, which offset much of this expense. Maybe our government should come up with a simple program that will offer these "tax dollars" upfront (direct payment to childcare facility), rather than in a lump-sum at the end of the year to the taxpayer. (I think one can still put these dollars in a pretax savings account also.)

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:37 AM

Add the childcare tax credit to the list of Welfare programs the "average" joe has taken advantage of. SOME need to stop pointing fingers at others, ALL have taken advantage of some welfare programs!

If we want lower taxes, then we need to lower the qualification limits for programs such as WIC, school lunch programs, childcare tax credit etc etc etc. Many who CAN afford to make ends meet, qualify for many welfare/entitlement programs.

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:43 AM

ALL, In case I don't get a chance to check back in the next few days:

"May all your Christmas dreams come true!!!"

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 5:35 AM

Mel,

The comment states drug convictions not allowed to garner financial aid not drug testing to get financial aid. I would support that anyone convicted of any crime for which they are currently on probation not be allowed to receive financial aid or any type of scholorship until their probation period is over. Have them complete their debt to society first.

That being said I have seen people turn their life around through education.

-- Posted by SWBG on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 7:31 AM

Re: Religious Politics

This is a very astute observation and I believe it's on target. The Limbaughs, David particularly, tend to build straw men to attack. I have followed their opinions for years and am astounded how seriously they are still taken by many. The game goes something like this: while bemoaning religious and culture division in our country and government they use their opinions as a tool to divide even farther, for that division is the source of their power, money, success, and fame. Without it they have nothing to write or speak about. They have no interest in middle of the road compromise to address and solve political and social issues; the kind of compromise that has always worked to move the country forward. We are at a point where our government is stuck in the mud of corporate, congressional, and religious self interest, which is the logical end to the type of divisiveness promoted by the Limbaughs. So it will be interesting to see how David spins his ideas through the political/religious complexities of the Huckabee candidacy.

-- Posted by 2times2 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM

Funny Alien Rabbit, No, I think you GOT my point. Many complain about "welfare" programs in general, but neglect to realize they are taking advantage of many such programs. You completely GOT my point!

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:50 AM

short white bald guy, I was thinking that may have been a typo or poor usage of words. LOL Really didn't alter my thoughts, in my opinion (which I know won't be popular) drug testing is not a bad idea when it comes to qualification for any assistance programs. Like many have said, I support "hand up" programs, don't see how drug usuage would lend towards success of the intended goal of the assistance programs.

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:55 AM

short white bald guy, "Nobody move, I dropped my brian!" Captain Jack, Pirates of Carribean-World's End

I re-read the Speakout Comment, and now understand the author's point AND agree with them completely! Society does need to assist these individuals towards a better path! (However, I still believe drug testing would be a good idea too.)

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 9:03 AM

Funny Alien Rabbit, Neither have I, but I know many have, especially the Childcare tax credit. And they should, if they qualify.

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 9:06 AM

melange, you can go on as much as you want that "ALL have taken advantage of some welfare programs!", but it is simply not true. I never have, and neither has any member of my immediate or extended family.

Sorry to all bloggers about my crazy ranting last night on 12/22 Speak-Out. Yes, I was harsh with unwed females, but it just gets my goat sometimes. I understand that anyone can have one accidental pregnancy, but after that, if you can't afford it, USE birth control!

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 11:24 AM

I've had family members that qualified and it necessitated recieving aid--

if you have several small children and lose your job--you will go get unemployment while looking. If you don't have food...you'll get food stamps. If your wife is pregnant when it happens...you'll get WIC. You do what you have to for the kids---even if it's not something you like at the time.

I would apply for any tax credit that I qualified for. That's why it's a tax credit! You are supposed to apply it when figuring your taxes. I won't feel bad about it either---Uncle Sam spends a lot of time in my wallet.

LOL

Also--pre-Merry Christmas to all in case some kinda drift away for celebrations. =)

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids,

since someone does not take the correct path from infancy forward perhaps there should be focus on getting them on the correct path instead of whining and complaining that they are not on the proper path and it may utilize some of your precious tax money to assist them. What would most of us do with lower taxes? Buy more stuff? I know that is what I would do. Then the division between rich and poor gets even larger.

Alan Greenspan has made recent comments that the ever growing gap between the wealthy and poor is dangerous to the economy.

-- Posted by SWBG on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 1:07 PM

I agree Short white bald guy. What happened to the welfare to work programs? They (or at least most of them) expired. I don't think that just cutting people off of these programs is an effective "welfare reform".

-- Posted by allen6177 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 1:28 PM

While we're at it, let's kick all women with out of wedlock pregnancies out of ALL health insurance programs. Let's also kick out all drug using welfare recipients out of ALL health insurance programs. We don't need cradle to grave drug addicted, baby machines inceasing the cost of insurance.

What happened to welfare to work? The social liberals said it was unfair and demeaning to expect welfare recipients to work and were threatened with the loss of votes. Retaining power in Washington trumps what is best for the country any day of the week.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 3:41 PM

It would be an interesting change to experience health insurance costs based on lifestyle choices and past history.

Alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drug uses; body mass indices indicating overweight or obese conditions; participating in unnecessary activities of high risk such as 4-wheelers or hanging outdoor Christmas lights - all would be considered and weighted when calculating the premium.

Also, if a claim is made, then much like car insurance, the person is placed into a different risk pool with appropriate rate changes.

I can see this idea going over big! About like a turd in the punch bowl.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 3:50 PM

Lib

You know one thing that kills me in the welfare debate is drug testing. I have a job, actually three. At two of those jobs I take mandatory drug tests. I would have no problem with the third one asking for one as well. However the welfare recipients living off the fruits of my taxes feel belittled by drug tests and can't take one? What is that all about? How else can we tell if someone on welfare isn't just putting my money up their nose or in their arm? How far do we fall as a nation?

-- Posted by Donnie on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:02 PM

Donnie

I'm with you on this one. I too am subject to mandatory random drug/alcohol testing at my workplace, and have no problem with it. The problem with suggesting drug testing for welfare recipients is that as soon as a politician suggests it (usally a conservative leaning one), the left leaning press and every other left leaning do gooder group accuses said politician of hating the poor and disadvantaged. Politician then retracts his suggestion of drug testing. Again, politicians make decisions based on what is best for him/her to get re-elected, not what is best for the country.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM

hilleco

Personally, I don't consider recieving SS to be welfare. You're just taking back what was taken from you earlier. Now, the merits of the SS system to begin with is another debate.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:25 PM

Gotta agree Lib. I wish private SS accounts had come into being because then you would actually get what you put in.

-- Posted by Donnie on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:32 PM

This concept will get booed-so be it. I have thought for a long time that any/everyone on welfare should be evaluated for skills and abilities, trained in that field for several years, given help finding a job and then after a set time, should lose all welfare benefits-sorry I'm so mean, but no second chances. Lots of folks (and children) would go hungry for a while, but might figure out their money tree dropped its leaves. Get hungry enough and they'll get with the program. Lots of down sides to this, but think of the benefit to folks who are stuck in a rut with their hand out.

-- Posted by mommalolo on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 4:58 PM

mommalolo

Your concept gets 3 cheers from me.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 6:08 PM

Right, Librule, that truly is the bottom line: "Retaining power in Washington trumps what is best for the country any day of the week."

It's surprising that there are people who consider SS "welfare". Yes, those on SS probably, in the long run, will get all their actual contributions (& those of their employers) back. However, those totals could have been SO much more if the money had been invested in private retirement funds--or into the retirement plan that our politicians can pay into.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 7:07 PM

nonetheless, SS is an 'earned' benefit. As I understand things (and I certainly do not claim to be all-knowing), welfare is not - just a 'money for nothing' concept.

Enjoy your SS check - you did earn it under the current guidelines.

Unfortunately, in this day and age of living paycheck-to-paycheck with no fiscal responsiblities or liabilities (just go bankrupt!) - suggest that SS needs to stay around in one way or another for those that have no concept of saving for future days.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 7:50 PM

Ah, the good old "let them get off their butts and work" theology. I used to subcribe to that philosophy, as well. The problem is more complex than that simple solution. It would have worked, back in the 70's, perhaps into the first years of the 80's, but when Democrat President Bill Clinton was selected to pass the Council on Foreign Relations plan of NAFTA, and the Republicans took up the mantra of FREE TRADE with gusto, then the "get off their butts" plan began to fail.

Oddly, many of the people who support "let them get off their butts and work," also support the off shoring of millions of American jobs. They think that America doesn't need manufacturing jobs. They thought that factory workers made too much money. In fact, they think that everybody but them makes too much money. They ridicule programs that help Americans, that feed and clothe the poor, and shelter the homeless. Yet they think that programs that help business, especially big, internationalist business, and corporate farms are just what the country needs. They think that welfare for the poor is a social crime, but corporate welfare, well that is a different story all together. That's just good governmental policy.

They have bought into the Rush Limbaugh lie that there would be computer jobs and that we were in the computer age. They tout the miracles of education, that doomed factory workers should just go back to college, or, retrained for another job. They tend to support the "there's jobs Americans won't do," but forget to add, "at a buck an hour." They long for the days of when almost everyone in their social class had servants. The turn of the 20th century was heaven in their opinion. That was when there was only a smidgen of a middle class, and where almost everyone worked for the company, rented a company home and spent what little money that they made at the company store. The poor had no power, the middle class, due to their small number had no power, life was grand for their ancestors. Now, gentry want to turn back the hands of time and return to those days, or, at least the 21st century version of the "good ole days."

That is why we are headed toward a New World Order feudal and cast system in America. We all will be put in our places. We will work for $1.95 an hour and be thankful for it, because of the scarcity of jobs and the competition for that job. Get rid of millions of jobs, bring millions of illegals in to compete for the remainder of jobs, that's the plan.

So, perhaps they will "get off their butts" as their welfare plans that have been fed to them over the years as a sugary drug to keep them quiet will end. Your job will be gone, and you will compete with this angry group for a $1.95 unskilled job. To amuse the olagarcy, you and your formerly economic inferiors may be encouraged to violently engage one another from time to time. You will become the circus from the old concept of bread and circuses.

Without proper jobs for the people, there will be unrest. Unrest will bring further gutting of our rights under the pretext of "protecting us," or, for "national security." Those who now endorse fascism, particularly, corporate fascism, will remain committed to the corporate agenda, even though, at their lowered social level, they will suffer, along with the rest of us.

There is coming a day when you will have wished that you received a case of ammo in your 2007 Christmas stocking, a set of grms radios, and an Israeli M15 gas mask and plenty of mask filters under your tree.

Best of luck to you.

-- Posted by Brill on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 7:52 PM

Jerry "MJB" Fletcher, you have just plum lost your mind. Please get help.

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:04 PM

Jerry, you're one righteous dude man. Sounds like some great sh*t you're on. Can you hook me up bro?

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:15 PM

SaviorBreath, Good for you and your extended family! I truly hope you or your family never requires the benefits from the taxes you have been paying!

I can not say the same and I am NOT ashamed to say both of my Grandmothers ended up on Medicaid. The cost of their nursing homes and medical care depleted their hard earned savings. (Neither of my Grandmothers could have been cared for by a family member or they would have been.)

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:17 PM

Drug testing of welfare recipients may pay for itself by cutting those who test positive off of benefits. Nice in theory. What ahppens to the children of the mother of six who tests positive for marijuana?

I guess they end up in foster care. There are not enough quality foster homes to go around as it is. Start up orphanages again? Talk about breeding a perpetual underclass. Not to mention the cost would be more than what it is now.

There is basically a segment of the population that is unemployable. Now granted there is a pervase undercurrent of entitlement that constantly needs to be addressed. It is more complicated than cutting everyone off.

-- Posted by SWBG on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:18 PM

Short Bald...

"quality foster homes" I can't have kids, and happen to think I'd be a wonderful loving (single) foster parent. If I understand they current system correctly, I don't qualify because I don't have a college degree. By the way, if I could afford it, I would do it for free. Wonder how many childless homes like that are out there? I'm guessing, that I am not the only one.

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:27 PM

You know, melange, not to beat a dead horse, but I don't have any problems, really any issues at all, with the elderly having medicaid available to them, especially after they have gone through their life savings for home health care or skilled nursing care. Of course, some elderly folks need this badly. My whole original rant or problem was with young, healthy girls having babies they cannot afford to take care of and then having another one! I know the topic has evolved, perhaps through the WIC comments, but really that was the only welfare issue I originally brought up.

Let's take a poll on here: How many of you are in favor of giving food, medical care, diapers, housing, utilities, child care, and MONEY to unmarried women, who do not work, with two or more children, on a monthly basis, for years and years and years?

I, curmudgeon that I am, vote NAY.

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:42 PM

I have said for a long time that drug testing people who receive welfare benefits would be a good thing. Maybe when people started losing it, and started realizing that this was not a career decision to stay on welfare less people would be on it. I doubt it. I do see myself as a "social liberal", whatever that is..lol. But I think that the welfare system is terrible broken and needs fixed. I am like Donnie in the sense that I am drug tested at 2 of my 3 jobs. I work my a$$ off, and it is terribly frustrating to see the abuses of the system day in and day out. But, I agree, just cutting people off is not the answer. I can't say that I know all of the ins and outs of the welfare to work programs. I guess it depends on who you ask as to who ended it, repubs or dems...but I think that was a reasonable solution.

-- Posted by allen6177 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:45 PM

SaviorBreath,

I will vote nay with you. I think there should be limits to the benefits received, and I think that there should be something showing that the people are looking for work, school, etc.

-- Posted by allen6177 on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:53 PM

SaviorBreath, I agree with you on that section of issue. I just wonder how "big" of an issue it really is? Does anyone have some numbers? It would be very interesting to know how much of our "welfare" goes to unwed mothers, with one, two, three, four etc children.

So my vote, NAY!

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 8:58 PM

Re: Religious politics

All Daved Limabaugh does is polarize people, then makes money off of it. He does nothing to solve problems.

Is forging adversarial relationships Christian?

-- Posted by Grit on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 9:00 PM

IMO - the discrimination should be made between those that truly need it, and those that just want it but don't need it due to their present abilities.

Try to figure a way beyond the situation of unwed mothers, disabled, or whatever.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 9:03 PM

Re: Re: religious politics

isn't that the key to business success? Create a demand, then be able to supply that demand.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 9:06 PM

melange, a cursory google search:

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900980_...

http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/welfare.h...

http://www.comingtogether.info/

My eyes are glazing over... did not read all of any of these sites, but saw some basic info. The third site sounds like socialism in the extreme until you get to the end where they explain how government would actually decrease. I'm not buying it, would have to read the whole thing again when I am not in a hurry, or less tired.

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 10:05 PM

From: Alice Bettencourt

January 22,1999

INTS 4763

"Women and Children on Welfare: Fact Versus Stereotypical Perceptions."

"stated that it did not make sense that the government was trying to have her return to work while her children were so young. If she worked her children would have to attend daycare thus the government would be paying someone else to watch her children. She argued that it would be more reasonable to have the actual mother take care of her own children. Why not pay the mother to take care of her own children instead of a stranger (Berrick, Pg. 136)?"

OMG This is the sense of entitlement I am talking about! The woman states that if they make her work, the government will have to pay for child care, so they might as well just pay her TO TAKE CARE OF HER OWN CHILDREN!!!

"The argument regarding the increase of children on welfare leads to the complicated issue regarding welfare and the use of birth control. With a large amount of children receiving AFDC and the trouble most women on welfare have with surviving on the system, many question the issue of whether or not these women should be required to use birth control while receiving assistance from the government. This issue has been debated upon in several states including Kansas and Wisconsin. In 1991, the Kansas legislature considered enacting a bill which gave a $500.00 bonus to every welfare recipient who agreed to have a Norplant implanted (Berrick, Pg. 15 and "Wisconsin Welfare Plan: To Reward the Married" NY Times, Feb 12, 1991 , Pg A16). There are several pros and cons to the requirement of birth control for women receiving government assistance.

The issue of women on welfare and required birth control is a subject that many, including myself, have had heated discussions about. Many argue that the issue comes down to the fine line of individual rights versus the rights of society in general. Those who argue for individual rights often state that the government cannot control one's body (along the same lines as pro-choice advocates in the argument about abortion). Women on welfare are not possesions of the U.S. or State Governments. They may be receiving benefits but this does not constitute a reduction in their individual rights. Those who argue for individual rights believe that any woman, no matter if she is on welfare or not, should be able to determine how many children she has. The Constitution gives each individual the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This includes the right to bear children. On the other side of the line, there are those who argue that once a woman starts receiving help from the government they need to work hard no longer need assistance. As previously discussed, by having more children while on welfare it appears that they decrease their chance of getting off of welfare sooner than if they did not have additional children. In the long run, each additional child born on welfare increases the amount that taxpayers pay. Many taxpayers argue that their own individuals rights are being supressed because they are forced to support others who cannot support themselves. They often argue that a woman who cannot afford to have a child should not have any additional children until they can be self-supportive. If not ,the government will continue to spend money on growing welfare families.. Each additional child on welfare increases the amount of money that a mother does not have to get her existing family out of the system. The mother often has to stay home with her young child/children thus, does not have the same opprotunities to escape welfare. Some states like Maryland have even argued that additional aid to women who have additional children should be abolished (Berrick Pg. 153). In 1991, Wisconsin's governor attempted to put a cap on un-wed welfare mothers' incomes if they had additional children. If they were married however, they would be entitled to an additional $80 per month for each additional child (New York Times, Feb 12, 1991, Pg A16).

If women on welfare do in fact have an additional child or children then they will have a harder time getting off of welfare because they will not be able to independantly support their children. This in the long run may increase a woman's dependency on welfare. Berrick quotes David Ellwood stating that "an important minority, at least one quarter, will collect AFDC for ten or more years" (Berrick, Pg. 115). She continues to ask what "all of the fuss" is about if only 25% of welfare recipients remain on welfare for a substantial amount of time. It is the fact, about 65% of all welfare dollars are consumed by this small percentage of welfare recipients (Berrick Pg. 115). The arguments for and against welfare will continue as long as welfare exists and there are families in need of assistance."

The book quoted is: Duerr Berrick, Jill. _Faces of Poverty: Portraits of Women and Children on Welfare._ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 10:23 PM

SaviorBreath, Hey thanks for information! I will read it in the morning, when I'm am not so tired and let you know what I think. (LOL, bet you can't wait!) Seems I do have an opinion on just about everything. LMAO Night all! Merry Christmas!

-- Posted by coke zero on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 10:41 PM

Friday evening, on one of the Cable News Channels, FOX NEWS, I believe, there was a guest who spoke about the problem with the loss of factory jobs, and the diminishing wage base for middle income workers. He mentioned that America could see unrest as a result of so many jobs being off-shored and illegals being brought in to undermine wages in construction and mining.

If a factory around here offered $15 hour jobs, you would see people lined up for them.

America is set for a very grave economic trial due to the incredible amount of olagarcy greed in this nation.

You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

-- Posted by Brill on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 11:15 PM

It is foolish to contend that by shopping at Lowes, or, any other major retailer, for that matter that we are doing our part to employ Americans. To say that we are helping Americans remain employed among the suppliers for a major retailer, would be a hilarious statement, if it weren't so sad.

Go to Lowes, count the number of American made products. Lumber from Canada, tools from China, nothing, or, very little is made in America. Sure, there are a few low wage retail jobs at Lowes and some of their suppliers that depend on selling China crap to dimwitted Americans, but by shopping at Lowes, Wal-Mart, or, any other major retailer, you do very little to "save" American jobs.

Sure, Robert Niblock, CEO of Lowes thanks you for contributing to his $5.5 Million dollar salary, and Lee Scott over at Wally's China Mart will kiss your *** over his $23.3 Million dollar pay package. Mark Parker over at NIKE thanks you for plucking down over $100 for a pair of his NIKE's made in Vietnam at below standard of living wages of 30 cents an hour. He thinks your are an idiot for doing so, but without it, he wouldn't be making $4.4 million each year, plus $7 million in NIKE shares. Target Stores, who have a problem with the Salvation Army, pays Robert J Ulrich $40 million, plus gave him $53 million in Target stock.

Yes, those ole $15 an hour factory workers are sure ruining America. They are so greedy, while the CEO's are worth every penny. America is being looted blind. The factory jobs are gone, the middle class is being "downsized," yet the president says it is a great economy, it just has a few hiccups now and then.

Fools will believe anything, as long as their leaders tell it to them.

-- Posted by Brill on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 11:36 PM

Swan, I doubt very much that the "mouth" is the orifice from which those words were uttered.

-- Posted by Brill on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 11:39 PM

Hilleco, Uuuummm, isn't that exactly what I have been saying for about 24 hours now? You are agreeing??

-- Posted by SaviorBreath on Sun, Dec 23, 2007, at 11:41 PM

Don't worry about Funny Bunny Alien. (or whatever his name is)Swan. It's likely to be the same sack of **** that "alledged" he was threatened with a knife at a peace rally.

That "same" person is nothing but a trouble making pile of ****! Don't worry Swan, he'll get his. We'll just start boycotting his place of business.

Keep up the good work Swan! We appreciate you telling it like it is!

Merry Christmas!

B.J.P.

-- Posted by Mr_Fruity_Flapjacks on Mon, Dec 24, 2007, at 12:20 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: