Community > Posts By > AndrewAV

 
AndrewAV's photo
Wed 05/20/09 08:34 PM

I personally think we are all being manipulated. We have had the technology to power homes with alternative sources. I remember many many years ago, Johnson Controls developed hydrogen fuel cells that were intended to power individual residential homes. This would take you completely off the grid and would leave utility companies scrambling for customers. What ever happened to that? All you ever hear about is they are trying to make them smaller to power cars. But, we already had them, although bigger, that would power homes.

I tried to find a link on the web but it appears the military has secured the website. (navy)

There is much out there that we are not being told.


economics, my friend. simple cost vs benefit analysis. Do you realize the cost of a hydrogen fuel cell that can power an entire home? it is easily over the average value of a home even 3 years ago. They are far from cheap. There is a large difference from using hydrogen as fuel (cheaper) and creating hydrogen from a water molecule (not so cheap). Not to mention the environmental changes from all that water vapor output.

AndrewAV's photo
Wed 05/20/09 08:30 PM


You seem more intent to defend the Republican Party than outraged over the facts!


Are you on a crusade against the republicans? They are virtually nothing now, disorganized and unable to even get a clear GOP leader upfront.
I would hate to see a one party system running in USA for any period of time. I can name 2 places where it happened before: Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. One was far right the other was far left, both equally bad.


The republican party has had a revelation. It is going to take time to figure out how to react to that revelation. I'm guessing about 4.5 years... just long enough to blow the next election. I figure that they will return more to their economic roots if they can find an appropriate leader and will trump whomever comes against them in 2016. However, I do not think they can pull off the unity they so desperately need like they did in 1980.

AndrewAV's photo
Wed 05/20/09 08:25 PM


Your point is lost!


No, her point is not "lost". Your point is lost not realizing that it passed by the entire senate and it made of 56 dems and 41 republicans, clearly a dem-majority. So instead of arguing about in a dem-republican terms, you should be seeing that it doesn't matter what party the person belongs to, corruption is equal on both sides.


I think the point should be that they're all essentially whores. They will do almost anything for money and it's always a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation. Whether it be dems in majority or republicans, they've always been corrupt and everyone is to blame.

btw, fanta, the stink came from both sides. the republicans became more vocal after the last election because of all the promises from Obama about no more pork and then you have the "stimulus" bill and that last appropriations bill that was loaded as well - from both parties, although, far more from the democrats as they are in power... that's more than expected. It's just like how there was more republican pork between 2000 and 2006.

AndrewAV's photo
Wed 05/20/09 08:19 PM
The part that made me chuckle is that this is the first time the Obama administration has admitted any tax on the higher-ups is passed on directly to consumers - like anyone with the slightest of economics or business knowledge can comprehend. Like there's a difference between a tax on energy suppliers and a tax on income...


The cap and trade is, in fact, genius for those that hold extremely environmentally-conscious views.

you see, by selling credits and fining those that violate limits, you increase tax revenues. However, the results are two-fold. By taxing the providers in this manner, you increase costs that are directly passed on to the people. Simple supply and demand analysis shows that as price increases, quantity demanded falls, and therefore, less energy is used.I personally feel that this is the core goal of cap and trade, not better emissions from energy suppliers.

AndrewAV's photo
Tue 05/19/09 11:48 PM
and taxing "cadillac plans" that increase the costs of the system? wtf?

erroneous on all accounts. If anything, it would decrease the costs because the fixed costs in relation to the treatments will be spread out on that many more patients, reducing costs for the supplier. more people using it does not automatically make it cost more.

just another tax on the rich. This is retarded. Eventually, there will not be any rich to tax and we'll be really screwed. Oh well. Carter II will figure it out eventually.

AndrewAV's photo
Tue 05/19/09 11:44 PM




I think they should tax all junk foods and make them unavailable for purchase with Food Stamps.
Fruits, veggies, meats and some spices should only be covered be the FS program.


FYI, healthy food costs more then unhealthy food.

Doesn't matter. If the Taxpayers have to foot the bill, we should have a say in what types of food is acceptable.


noway


i'm sure this argument will go the way of the "no lottery for welfare recipients" thead debate, but i fully agree. if we're paying for your food, you should not be able to spend it on twinkees and swiss cake rolls so we have to pay for the trip to the hospital when you have a heart attack. I mean, not limiting all fattening foods, but ruling out junk foods and sodas makes total sense to me.

AndrewAV's photo
Tue 05/19/09 08:51 PM

Anton, my friend. It was Junior Bush and that big spineless jellyfish of a Republican Congress that got us into this mess. We were running surpluses when Junior took over. Now that we need that money, we don't have it because it's been squandered. How sad.




Far from it... but that was another topic.

The OP, however, is so true.

AndrewAV's photo
Thu 05/14/09 06:07 PM


Look at the medicare fraud rate and you'll see why this is a bad idea.

Ok, highest quality? I would rank that at a $0 deductible, $0 copay PPO plan with freedom to go wherever you'd like. The incredible majority of americans do not have that... in fact, I'm sure it's well under 1% outside of bogus union contracts.

It cannot happen without extreme growth of the medical field in productivity. Our current medical system simply cannot sustain it. It's that simple.


I don't know if I'm misreading this. I just woke up.

Are you saying that you think that Medicare has a $0 co-pay and a $0 deductible? If you are, that's not true. They have a co-pay and deductible. They also pay almost $100 monthly for it.


Nope, two different thoughts altogether. the $0 copay and $0 deductible was in relation to how few americans get that amazing kind of coverage (i.e. highest quality) and the only people I've ever met that received it were in unions.

AndrewAV's photo
Wed 05/13/09 10:34 PM
Edited by AndrewAV on Wed 05/13/09 10:40 PM
Look at the medicare fraud rate and you'll see why this is a bad idea.

Ok, highest quality? I would rank that at a $0 deductible, $0 copay PPO plan with freedom to go wherever you'd like. The incredible majority of americans do not have that... in fact, I'm sure it's well under 1% outside of bogus union contracts.

It cannot happen without extreme growth of the medical field in productivity. Our current medical system simply cannot sustain it. It's that simple.

AndrewAV's photo
Tue 05/12/09 07:59 PM
Edited by AndrewAV on Tue 05/12/09 08:00 PM

What we have is a country too large and diverse to oversee it's own best interest. There needs to be an increase in individual state power... a union of 'city-states'...


you domestic terrorist you. questioning the ultimate authority of the federal government!


welcome to the club. This was the way the forefathers intended this nation to be run and while I do not fully support what I believe it would become (as in still having all the social programs and the like), it is a far better allocation of resources than our current situation. After all, who is going to be more liable to the people, someone that represents half a state or someone that represents 10 cities? just like in a corporation, is the VP really going to care about your problem nearly as much as your direct superior?

AndrewAV's photo
Tue 05/12/09 07:20 AM


Akron wants stimulus money to cut down endangered ash trees

By Katie Byard
Beacon Journal staff writer

POSTED: 06:20 p.m. EDT, May 10, 2009

Akron hopes to land federal stimulus money to cut down more than 1,000 healthy ash trees — the species targeted by a tree-killing beetle.

The move is pre-emptive; the emerald ash borer beetle eventually will make its way to Summit County, said city arborist Bill Hahn.

''It's not a question of if; it's when,'' Hahn said.

Officials are seeking about $762,000 to take down and replace all ash trees — an estimated 1,075 trees — in city rights-of-way.

Once infested by the pest — first found in this country in 2002 — trees die within a few years.

They then become a menace, Hahn said.

''They become dangerous — very brittle and they fall apart very quickly — when they die,'' Hahn said.

''Gravity takes its toll'' and branches fall, he said.

The dark green beetle was first spotted in the United States in Michigan. It is believed to have arrived in this country stowed away in cargo from Asia.

The pest has spread to many Ohio counties, including Medina, Portage, Wayne and Cuyahoga, as well as parts of Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Ontario. It has killed millions of trees.

Hahn said city officials don't want to see a repeat of what happened in the 1960s, when Dutch elm disease claimed many elms.

''They were dead and falling down all over town and they were huge,'' he said.

The city has been removing the trees under a five-year program that began last year. General funds covered the bill to cut down and replace 150 to 200 ash trees last year and the first part of this year.

The federal money would allow Akron to accelerate its removal program. The city would hire contractors to do the work.

The city notifies residents with trees that will be removed from the front of their homes.

While 1,000-plus trees sound like a lot, they represent less than 1 percent of the trees in city rights-of-way, Hahn said.

Akron is replacing the ash trees with a variety of species, including American yellowwood, elm, linden and crab apple, the fruiting and nonfruiting varieties.

The federal money would flow through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which is seeking $9 million to divvy up to communities, said Drew Todd, state urban-forestry coordinator.

Treating the trees to stave off the Asian beetle would be too expensive, foresters say.

''Once you start the treatments, you basically have to keep it going. You can't just treat it one year and then stop,'' said Pat Neville, forester for Shaker Heights, which also is seeking federal funds to speed up its removal program.

Neville said the borer hasn't been detected in that city.

Strongsville, in western Cuyahoga County, also wants to take a pre-emptive strike.

Strongsville tried a volunteer program, in which homeowners would sign up to have trees removed from tree lawns. Few residents took advantage of it.

''Most people want to wait and see and hope for the best,'' said Jennifer Milbrandt, Strongsville's coordinator of natural resources. ''We try to explain it's just a matter of time'' before ash borers arrive.

Akron also is applying for nearly $700,000 in federal stimulus money for a tree survey that would identify damaged trees, as well as spots for additional trees. This money also would pay for replacement trees.

The program would involve workers from Davey Resource Group — part of the Davey Tree Expert Co. of Kent — fanning into neighborhoods with portable computers.

http://www.ohio.com/news/44677172.html


All people will die eventually too it's not a matter of if, but when therefor we should kill all humans too. At least that would solve the economic crisis.


yeah, think of all the jobs! there has to be at least a dozen there!

AndrewAV's photo
Mon 05/11/09 10:37 PM




US Deficit to Quadruple to $1.8T, Top 2008 Record
Posted 7 hours, 30 minutes ago in US, Business, Politics | Print E-mail Digg StumbleUpon ShareThis

(AP) – With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion—about four times the record set just last year.

The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in. As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration also reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits, and food stamps.

************************

What will happen when we get to borrowing 1 dollar for every dollar spent?





So long as we collect taxes, this can never happen. However, the point to worry about is when the interest on said debt will hit the point where the interest is 100% of that income from taxes. That is a dangerous circle of events.

We make so much off taxes, but there is a portion of that which goes to interest (funny enough, larger than the recent deficits and almost what we are going to have this fiscal year) so we have to borrow to make the ends meet on the budget. That means, next year's budget will have a larger portion going to interest and we will have to borrow more money in order to cover the gap. Repeat that last sentence a few times and you will realize that with every passing year, our deficit spending chews more and more of the income from taxes. This puts us in a position where there are three options (two that can actually happen). one, we sit at the mercy of our debtholders. two, fiscal responsibility and pay down the debt (ha!). Three, default, with major political ramifications.

Deficit spending under W's administration was bad and irresponsible. Obama's administration is just taking the game to the next level. Currently, many only blame Bush and Co. for the problems we are facing and they will likely blame him when the **** hits the fan. The scary part is, the **** has not hit the fan yet and we are very quickly approaching option number 1. When it does, we will not be ready. It's going to be Great Depression II. And the sheeple are too blind to see it coming and no amount of government spending will be able to fix it because there will be no loans to use.

A vicious cycle - and we're stuck in the middle.


Bush didnt help it, but as from thin air, Clinton created an opportunity for a quick buck. Many people became rich almost overnight during the Clinton 8.
He created a lot of false wealth from risk taking, enabled by lax-regulations.
He did it as Gov in Arkansas and he did it as President.
Today's economic problems are too similar to Whitewater to be a coincidence.
It's Whitewater on steroids.


It wasn't so much the lax regulation as it was the work-arounds his administration and the congress at the time allowed.

The primary difference was that economic growth during the 1990s was real and this did in fact allow a lot of people to get rich quick and that money was irresponsibly thrown about by everyone - from the person that made it to the government *cough* California *cough* and their tax revenues. However, much of that revenue allowed Clinton's administration to reduce the surplus. With the last 8 years, the growth was an illusion.

AndrewAV's photo
Mon 05/11/09 09:10 PM



Globalization!



K Car! Jimmy "the waste" Carter! The Pacer, Pinto, Vega, etc. etc. etc. When you have no competition you get crap.Try this: build a better car than the Japanese are and more people will buy it. You can shovel the sh!t cars to the people but for now they have a choice and they are clearly choosing quality. What a concept.




American cars didn't get cheap until after the gas crisis and the tariffs were lifted during the 70's.
They had to cheap down some gas efficient cars just to compete with the cheap ass foreign cars prices and gas mileage.

That was then. Now Toyota's cost as much as a Chevy or Ford, and American cars are better quality.
They still arent the quality of a 68 Camaro.

How many 70 Model Toyotas or Datsuns do you see?


That is a fallacy. The real question is why fix a cheap car? If you buy a cheap import and the engine takes a dump, it is often more economical to replace the entire car. With a domestic, that was not always the case. That is the primary reason. At the time, the domestic offerings were far more expensive. It cost a lot more to replace that camaro than just the engine. A honda cvcc did not offer nearly the dilemma. Once the 80s hit, you see far more Hondas and Toyotas in fair shape while around here, all the domestics are falling apart at similar mileages.


AndrewAV's photo
Mon 05/11/09 06:44 PM


US Deficit to Quadruple to $1.8T, Top 2008 Record
Posted 7 hours, 30 minutes ago in US, Business, Politics | Print E-mail Digg StumbleUpon ShareThis

(AP) – With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion—about four times the record set just last year.

The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in. As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration also reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits, and food stamps.

************************

What will happen when we get to borrowing 1 dollar for every dollar spent?





So long as we collect taxes, this can never happen. However, the point to worry about is when the interest on said debt will hit the point where the interest is 100% of that income from taxes. That is a dangerous circle of events.

We make so much off taxes, but there is a portion of that which goes to interest (funny enough, larger than the recent deficits and almost what we are going to have this fiscal year) so we have to borrow to make the ends meet on the budget. That means, next year's budget will have a larger portion going to interest and we will have to borrow more money in order to cover the gap. Repeat that last sentence a few times and you will realize that with every passing year, our deficit spending chews more and more of the income from taxes. This puts us in a position where there are three options (two that can actually happen). one, we sit at the mercy of our debtholders. two, fiscal responsibility and pay down the debt (ha!). Three, default, with major political ramifications.

Deficit spending under W's administration was bad and irresponsible. Obama's administration is just taking the game to the next level. Currently, many only blame Bush and Co. for the problems we are facing and they will likely blame him when the **** hits the fan. The scary part is, the **** has not hit the fan yet and we are very quickly approaching option number 1. When it does, we will not be ready. It's going to be Great Depression II. And the sheeple are too blind to see it coming and no amount of government spending will be able to fix it because there will be no loans to use.

A vicious cycle - and we're stuck in the middle.

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 05/10/09 08:40 PM


Dem dudes musta' never went ta' skool.
Even I knows plants thrive on carbon dioxide.
Dey sho gots lots of folks buffaloed.

Send this on to BHO. It's simple enough so even he can grasp it.

Carbon dioxide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material to produce polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose, proteins and the wide variety of other organic compounds required for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend on living and decaying plants for food, either directly or indirectly. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle



I posted an article about a recent study here a few weeks ago showing that cutting back the CO2 output was the cause of some warming.


There has also been studies that show CO2 is not a precursor to warming, but a product.

I just can't wait until they place new smog emissions on cars. I've explained it all before and I'm not doing it again... once that happens, I'm out of this industry and I'm actually going to use the little piece of paper from college. you can't have it all. you either get CO and HC emissions or you get CO2. With ideal control, there are only 3 outputs of exhaust gases: O2, CO2, and H2O vapor. if you can see any other combination in those that gets rid of CO2 without creating a flammable gas such as methane or butane, I'm all ears.

AndrewAV's photo
Fri 05/08/09 07:47 AM

Andrew states...

Fire Departments are not socialism. Capitalism is about efficiency and in most areas, it is far more efficient to have a taxpayer funded fire department than a private one. the New Deal was the largest creation of social programs in our history and none of them really fell away after. Social programs are like a drug - once a person gets a fix on them, it's hard to let them go.


Ok, I am going to atempt to show you the absurdity in your argument, as it is worded.

A government owned and operated employment service, such as a fire department is not privately owned for efficiency reasons, and that is warrant to believe that it is not a socialist ideal? I find that claim to be without substance, but nonetheless lets follow it...

Using the exact same measure, none of the actions recently taken by our government contradict your model... as it has been presented, so they are not socialist measures either.

Unless of course you believe that the public itself would run the banks and the auto industry more efficiently.

What say you?

huh


I'm essentially arguing that it is not entirely socialist. I'm not attacking you, but you have to have more than the basic econ 101/wikipedia understanding of the two systems in order to comprehend most of my arguments. If, in a capitalistic system, it is more efficient for the government to do something, then it is therefore still aligned with the capitalism model. Just because it exists in that sense in a socialism model does not mean that in every instance it exists it is socialism. It's like saying because that one apple is red, all apples are red and simply a fallacy.

The efficiency principle is applied where private citizens cannot perform a duty as well as the government. Sure, healthcare costs more for the company then medicare, but the healthcare industry has a lot more overhead because they are far more indepth with their job. They don't have the fraud levels medicare does. Either way, privatized companies are doing just fine managing healthcare and not being able to afford it does not qualify under lack of efficiency. It is by nature of economics that some win and some go without with everything in life. it all comes back to scarcity. a firehouse and the intertwined systems are very difficult to be profitable with by the nature of the business. just like how a police force cannot be private because of the potential bias. These things are not sociailism.

AndrewAV's photo
Thu 05/07/09 10:19 PM



I sure love all these folks worried about other people's entitlement issues...LOL They crack me uprofl

Acting like they are doing others a favor with their scorn.noway

If they are so worried about entitlement, make sure they themselves never get entitled and that is the end of their personal responsibility.

Entitlement talk stems from extremist groups. Clinton made sure that welfare is not an entitlement program anymore. Foodstamps never has been so what is all the concern about unless you have a hidden agenda.


No, entitlement comes from all those that are crying to the government to fix their problems.

Clinton did nothing but sign the bill for welfare reform. It was republicans in Congress that started the reform. Congress is largely responsible for just about everything. All that had been done then is quickly being erased.


Grassroots started the reform!
I know!
I worked hard and long on it here in NC back in the mid 80's on!


This is the ultimate root of all of it, much like any such legislation, but in washington, it was pressed much harder by congress (with the support of grassrooters like yourself) and clinton merely signed it.

AndrewAV's photo
Thu 05/07/09 10:16 PM

Our current socialist practices began last century with the New Deal. It began to lace a sense of entitlement into the American public and now, that sense of entitlement has gotten further out of hand.


Care to the 'New Deal' in a litle more detail?

Not that it matters much, but I disagree with the placement of timing, I find it began way back with Benjamin Franklin establishing Fire Departments... for the greater good of all!

The problem with our current socialist spending? Sustainability.


This is only a legitimate worry if the investments do not show a profit later.

The principle of socialism is based on that everyone puts in everything they can and everyone takes out what they need. In order for socialism to succeed, there has to be that balance that what is taken out does not exceed what is put in.


I find this to be a little too abstract. Actually kinda wrong according to my understanding.

We are far exceeding what we put in. We have faced record deficits for the past 8 years and are facing even further record deficits that will make the last 8 years look like chump change. We cannot sustain this practice. It's that simple. We are already over 11 trillion dollars in debt and rising fast.


What if the investments turn a profit? Why not invest in America and it's people?

What is being put into place is partly infrastructure investment (which is not always socialism, capitalism is based on the most efficient entity performing any one good/service and sometimes, the government is it) but is largely is socialistic spending. Increasing jobless benefits, medical assistance, and other care programs will be the reason for the tax hikes that are to come. We are creating permanent programs with borrowed funds. Bush and his administration borrowed heavily to fund tax cuts and the wars (though both only totaled about 60% of their deficits IIRC). Nothing has changed in those budgets but we are now permanently increasing our social spending while our economy is falling. Even when it rises again, we will not be able to sustain our current spending practices because we could not even do that before.


Again this presupposes failures of investment.

What we need is responsibility, not giving handouts to the people. You may think my statements are heartless, but the facts are the facts: we are not fixing anything. We are placing a band-aid on a bullet wound that is our economy. We are failing to fix the problem at this point and all the administration is concerned with is the people that are going to help this economy the least. Until we fix the root, we are doomed to repeat.


Handouts to people ??? That is an interesting take on things.

What do you believe is this 'root'?


Fire Departments are not socialism. Capitalism is about efficiency and in most areas, it is far more efficient to have a taxpayer funded fire department than a private one. the New Deal was the largest creation of social programs in our history and none of them really fell away after. Social programs are like a drug - once a person gets a fix on them, it's hard to let them go.

Sustainability has nothing to do with turning a profit, it has everything to do with productivity. we are increasing spending far faster than our productivity is growing. if you don't understand the principle of productivity in the economic sense, just think of it as real economic growth like we sustained in the 1990s.


I really don't know any other way to word the socialism lines. If you can't understand the idea, I'm sorry. To be honest, it's too complex an economic topic for most and you have to understand the other marketplace occurrences of the two systems in order to see how it works. Basically, capitalist systems can survive with occasional deficit spending, but socialist systems cannot.


I'm curious what these investments you are speaking of are - because all I see is a lot of money being thrown at failing companies. Chrysler: billions gone, still Chapter 11. GM: even more billions, still at risk for Chapter 11. AIG: over 150 billion and still, failing. These are not investments. Investing requires a keen eye and is done with the statistical advantage determined by research that a gain will be had. We are simply giving money to failing ideologies. while we are receiving a 5% return on the TARP funds, we borrowed it in the first place, so it is nowhere near that amount. What we are doing is not investing, it is hoping the economy recovers and everyone forgets how much we are wasting.


The root, as I've stated before, is the money supply and the control of it. It's long. It's not too complicated (mostly). I've covered it many times before and really don't feel like doing so again in great detail. Basically, economics is based on scarcity. The fed violates that rule of scarcity. the banks control the fed. the banks profit from loans. the banks make more money to make more loans. loans default (partly) and the artificial "growth" is realized to be artificial. market crashes. we spend lots of created money. we fix nothing.

AndrewAV's photo
Thu 05/07/09 09:35 PM


I sure love all these folks worried about other people's entitlement issues...LOL They crack me uprofl

Acting like they are doing others a favor with their scorn.noway

If they are so worried about entitlement, make sure they themselves never get entitled and that is the end of their personal responsibility.

Entitlement talk stems from extremist groups. Clinton made sure that welfare is not an entitlement program anymore. Foodstamps never has been so what is all the concern about unless you have a hidden agenda.


drinker drinker

I wonder what all these nay-sayers are going to do when all their predictions prove wrong and the economy recovers!

I sure hope they're hungry!


I never said the economy won't recover, I said the recovery is artificial. We have done nothing to fix the problem, only pass band-aid legislation that will get us out eventually, only to let us fall again in the future.

AndrewAV's photo
Thu 05/07/09 09:34 PM

I sure love all these folks worried about other people's entitlement issues...LOL They crack me uprofl

Acting like they are doing others a favor with their scorn.noway

If they are so worried about entitlement, make sure they themselves never get entitled and that is the end of their personal responsibility.

Entitlement talk stems from extremist groups. Clinton made sure that welfare is not an entitlement program anymore. Foodstamps never has been so what is all the concern about unless you have a hidden agenda.


No, entitlement comes from all those that are crying to the government to fix their problems.

Clinton did nothing but sign the bill for welfare reform. It was republicans in Congress that started the reform. Congress is largely responsible for just about everything. All that had been done then is quickly being erased.