Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Disaster in the making

April 25, 2014

Washington’s limits are seemingly inconsequential. If unemployment benefits are running out, just extend them. If the minimum wage seems insufficient, increase it....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(55)

mikekerstetter

Apr-27-14 5:37 AM

Look at that, Lauri, we agree on something. :)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Apr-26-14 3:29 PM

Doobie, you better do some investigating on where exactly "your paycheck" taxes go. I am sure you would be surprised to see many more asinine causes besides unemployment that you are paying for.Do you think that they put your name on your pile of taxes and only put that towards things you might agree to? Get real. Yes I happen to care about others so thats a bad thing to you? Your attitude towards others is very selfish,maybe you are just to young to know lifes bitter sting in the ass, but someday you might.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Apr-26-14 3:11 PM

Mr. Kerstetter, yes the boyfriend is the childs father, that is even worse in my eyes. Why would someone who can afford to pay their own way take advantage of things they do not need, I can not imagine lying and cheating like that. I hear you we did everything that we could to take care of our children without the need for babysitting, aside from my parents and grandparents weekly "need" to see the kids we did it ourselves. Just as these people who take advantage exist, there are many more who play by the rules and thoses are the ones who should not lose the help they need. How to do it? I do not know that answer but totally cutting people off of some of these programs is not the answer either.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-26-14 2:33 PM

LauriH, you didn't say. Is the boyfriend the child's father?

Regardless, it's what we've designed with our tax and entitlement system. I personally know people who have gotten divorced (but stayed together) for the tax and other benefits.

It's all tied together with what I was trying to convey to you the other day on another thread. Instead of people feeling guilt and shame for having children out of wedlock and living off the system, they expect that they be taken care of. In other words, they feel entitled to our tax money to live the way they choose to live.

We struggled to provide for our kids so that they were raised by us and not the neighborhood or babysitters. We didn't look for programs to help us out. Our kids didn't have designer clothes or name brand stuff. We did the best we could, all the while paying in taxes so others could take advantage of the system. I just don't understand that mindset.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Apr-26-14 11:39 AM

Mr. Kerstetter I agree with alot of what you said. My oldest daughter has a friend who is 20 just had a baby, lives with a guy who works for the gas company but she collects all of the "extras" such as WIC, section 8 housing, food stamps and recieved a big fat income tax return close to 6,000, did I mention that she does work part time, but boyfriends income is not "existant"when it comes to applying for these benefits. Those are the people who are bilking the system not the ones who have worked all of their lives and need to collect unemployment. Yes these programs need to be reformed to stop all of the fraud and waste by these kinds of people, while helping those who really are in need of them. We can have it both ways.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-26-14 11:25 AM

CMReeder-"You want impose limits on government but nothing else. So what is the limit to poverty, obstruction, monopoly, access, resources, equality? You and Phil favor no role for government or governing at all."

Chuck, You are posting childish nonsense. Nowhere did Phil or I EVER say that Government has no role to play or that we don't want governed. We want a Government that does what it was designed to do. Provide infrastructure, security of our borders and defense, and limited oversight to ensure equal opportunity and equal rights (obstruction, monopoly, access, resources and equality as it pertains to access and rights). That's it. The Government's job is not taking over the role of charitable contributor through taxation (poverty and equality as it pertains to wealth).

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-26-14 10:28 AM

Phil favors the Robinhoods.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-26-14 10:26 AM

I see Mike that like Phil you are still limited.

You want impose limits on government but nothing else. So what is the limit to poverty, obstruction, monopoly, access, resources, equality?

You and Phil favor no role for government or governing at all.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Apr-26-14 7:19 AM

sideliner, good post about the Texas family, I was hoping someone else read the story, thanks.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-26-14 6:21 AM

sideliner, I live in the real world; the one where people in general do what they want to whom they want as long as they can get away with it. What's worse, they expect the Government to provide for them. Rent money, free phones, EBT cards, tax exemptions and tax laws that have them receiving more in their tax return than they paid in for the year.

There are plenty of us (Phil, Gavin, Ritty and I) who advocate closing the loopholes and tax breaks for everyone. Your ilk wants nothing to do with a plan like that. You only want to sock it to the rich and corporations. The government is not Robinhood. Nor should they be.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-26-14 6:13 AM

CMReeder-"Where is the limits to capitalism? to growth? to investments?"

That is limited by talent, vision, taking risks and initiative.

CMReeder-"to population?"

Really? You expect the Government to limit population? I guess that answers the question why you are adamant about the Government mandating coverage for abortion and birth control.

CMReeder-"to expansion? to destruction? to opportunity?"

Expansion and opportunity are limited by the same things as capitalism and growth. Destruction is unlimited. As we've seen over the last century, morality and honesty have steadily declined with the liberal push for moral relativity.

CMReeder-"What is the limits to help and aid and support? All you want to do is focus placing limits on government and governing and ignore the rest."

The Government shouldn't be responsible to force its citizens to help out their neighbors. Back in the day, neighbor helped neighbor during hard times, not the G

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Apr-26-14 4:18 AM

Cap, a group of every-day Dems (about 1M) have banded together as Democrats(dot)com to petition congress to do just that. There is an active petition circulating at this minute with a list of corporate subsidies that should be cut...

But you are correct in that there is so much money involved on both sides that it is not likely to go away any time soon.

Again I say, the deck is stacked...

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Apr-26-14 4:08 AM

Phil, I live in the real world; the one where your capitalists do what they want to whom they want as long as they can get away with it. Here is a prime example...

cnn(dot)com/2014/04/25/justice/texas-family-wins-fracking-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Apr-26-14 3:42 AM

Sideliner, may I ask what steps Democrats have taken to reduce corporate welfare? Pointing fingers at one side of the aisle for an issue that is supported by most in government, is very uninformed IMO. Cutting off corporate welfare would also cut off the money supply going to political coffers. Neither side is willing to eliminate that cash cow.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-26-14 2:04 AM

Your letter was very limiting.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-26-14 2:03 AM

Where is the limits to capitalism? to growth? to investments? to population? to expansion? to destruction? to opportunity? What is the limits to help and aid and support? All you want to do is focus placing limits on government and governing and ignore the rest.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Doobio24

Apr-26-14 12:40 AM

Lauri-you seem to have a passion for helping people through rough times or in dire need which is commendable. So dedicate your entire paycheck to extend unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage, and subsidize healthcare. That is your right. Quit volunteering my paycheck to support your liberal causes.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Apr-25-14 6:39 PM

Sideliner, you’re right about laws preventing bad behavior; I should’ve said punishes bad behavior.

I guess your view of our fellow man is far more negative than mine and that’s a shame. I’m glad mine is more positive, I believe that makes me a lot happier with life.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Apr-25-14 6:22 PM

"The rule of law prevents capitalists from using force or fraud"

Really? You can't be serious?! Just make a law and bad people quit doing bad things?? This country has more people in prison than any other civilized country on the planet, Phil. So much for any law preventing "force or fraud."

Don't you remember Enron? Madoff? 2008???

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Apr-25-14 6:01 PM

Sideliner, individual rights verses collectivism is far from a vague idea. People that base their principals upon placing what the needs of the collective over individual rights believe in government forced wealth redistribution, while people that base their principals upon individualism believe in voluntarily cooperating with one another. If my posts seem predictable it’s because I’m consistent in my beliefs. I can’t say that for many others posting here.

This unfettered capitalism you talk about is a myth. The rule of law prevents capitalists from using force or fraud. The bad things you conjure up result from the crony capitalism you and yours support. Profit and greed aren’t the same thing. I’d say politicians and their cronies are the greedy ones.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Apr-25-14 4:59 PM

Definitions are not necessary, Phil. But your comments these days are so predictable with those same tired catch words that rarely deal with anything specific but instead pontificate with vague, righteous protests against anything that would reign in unfettered capitalism. And that has demonstrated time and again that greed is king and profits come at whatever cost.

You think business should be able to do anything it wants to do and that the market takes care of all.

Have you watched what the gas companies are doing with royalty payments around here? That is just one small local sample of what unchecked profit driven greed will do to you and me and anybody that will let them...

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-25-14 4:40 PM

For most Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives, social safety net programs are not a part of the Federal Government function as set up in the Constitution.

Other's interpret the Constitution as saying we can set up social programs to 'promote the general welfare' of its citizens.

I fall somewhere in between. Social programs largely didn't exist until the early 1900's. They've been expanding ever since. They are a great drain on our economy, but now that we have them, I don't see them ever going away, and, maybe, some of them never should.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Apr-25-14 4:32 PM

Lauri, actually the letter was about limits, not cuts. I’m still waiting for comments about where we should place limits on government programs.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Apr-25-14 4:23 PM

Lauri, I’m for limiting government and that means any function that eventually takes it to the limits specified in the Constitution. Our differences derive from the fact that you’re an altruist and collectivist and I’m an individualist.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Apr-25-14 4:11 PM

Mr. Underwood,like Sideliner said we are all about cutting programs across the board but it does appear clear to me that many of the cuts are to programs that help the unemployed and the poor. I just assumed you were for cutting the benefits because I did not see any other gov't spending in your letter that you thought should have been cut except the ones for people who can not get a job within 26 weeks or people who want a wage paid to them that has kept up with the cost of living. Yes these jobs were not meant to raise a family on but that is all many can get in our job market today.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 55 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web