Right, God forbid we should allow poor children to eat. You're a real class act.

zzzz

do you live in poverty?

So,"freebies" would be fine and dandy if you got your's????

Marylou, that's exactly the mindset of most Americans. If the Baby Boomers had a mantra, that would be it. "Gimme".

"Free" has certainly been redefined in our policies. Exactly who is it that funds these "free" programs? The taxpayer! They should more appropriately refer to these types of subsidies as "taxpayer funded lunch programs" or "tax payer funded housing" or "tax payer funded college grants" or "tax payer funded cell phone allotments." But then again, that would be honesty at its best and we certainly cannot be honest about where the money comes from. The electorate would not be able to handle the truth!

hey Sal... taxes are the lowest they have been in two generations.

Patrick - Are you talking about property taxes? Are you talking about fuel and transportation taxes? Seriously? The cost of living as a result of tax increases, lower wages, fuel increases and food costs is driving the middle class family into a pit. The fuzzy math is not adding up for the average Joe. I just passed a gas station where a gallon was selling for $3.82/gallon....up 13 cents in 7 days! For any American family we need to get real very quickly. Are we truly better off now than we were 4 years ago?

federal taxes....

@ Donna. Yes, I'm much better off than I was four years ago. New job, more cash, less travel=Happy Tee Smyth.

Also, what did Governor Christie say when you asked him why your property taxes weren't lower?

No,Paul,but unless you and others who share your beliefs are going to support that child,MYOB!If the parent(s) cannot support the child,someone else has to.Children cannot live on air.After all,these are the women who did the corrrect thing.They chose life.

Good for you, Tee! Perhaps you may want to share your secret with the Obama administration. Seems as though they need all the help they can get in the job creation department. Now you'll have lots of money to voluntarily fund programs such as these even beyond what our taxes are already paying into it. I'll try and get that address for you so you can go ahead and cut that check.

You know what, MaryLou, actions have consequences. You jump off the Empire State Building and no matter how sorry you are you're eventually going to hit the ground and suffer the consequences of your actions. People get pregnant, that usually results in a baby for which that person is responsible. You want me to pay for that child? Maybe I can help, maybe I can't, but that has no bearing on the situation. I have six kids; how about sending me a check so I can upgrade from PB&J to hotdogs tonight.
I'm more that willing to give attention to any logical argument you can give to support your point of view except for telling me that if the person can't care for the child and I won't, the child does not deserve life...unless, of course, you can support it logically.
Just one line of logical argumentation is all we need to get started.

Seriously, Hussein? The fact you have to stress the Hussein part everytime shows your ignorance and prejudice. You do realize that people like you who do that, hurt your own arguments because we might as well put an asterisk next to your comments that says, "Look, no matter what Obama does, I hate him."

His middle name is Hussein, get the f*ck over it. I suppose we shouldn't name kids Jeff or Jefferson since the President of the Confederacy i.e. essentially treason against the US was named Jefferson.

I'm pretty sure no one mistook you for an Obama voter.

Not my problemo!!!!!

Joshua Huddy

How's this....Let people be responsible for themselves....Their situation is NOT MY PROBLEM. DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT ANY BETTER FOR YOU?

No matter who has to pay for it, right, Bob? BTW, termination in the womb, the agreement of such thinking being a litmus test of the Dems, falls into your philosophy of caring for the weakest of our society, where?

Paul,the right to life crowd might have an arguement if they cared half as much for the children who are already born as they do for fetuses and embryos. After they take their 1st breath,the attitude is, as So Much to Say,says"not my problem."Get 'em born,then the heck with them!

Then, Bob, by all means cut a HUGE personal check to the charity of your choice. I do not need the federal government to be generous to the needy with my money. I think Americans have proven for generations that they are the most generous nation on the planet.

Marylou - Abort all the babies you have the desire to abort. Do not, however, force those who personally find the act morally reprehensible to fund it. You're killing these infants because nobody wants them? Who is next? Should we hold nursing home residents to the same standard and discard them once they've reached a "politically defined" expiration date too? It's a really slippery slope and with the rapidity in which our culture is circling the drain, I think that the "unwanted" nature of human life is open for interpretation.

Thanks for telling me what I think, MaryLou. So, let me get this straight...if you get pregnant, my unwillingness to support your child justifies you in terminating the life of that child and I should raise no protest against the taking of innocent lives unless I am willing to support those lives. Let's see, how many thousands of abortions occur each day?Your grasp of logic astounds me. Any other gems to offer?

BTW, which "crowd" do you belong to? Once I know I can point out all the inconsistencies that essentially invalidate that viewpoint altogether.

What are you talking about... and it is spelled Netanyahu.... Bibi. This spat is been ongoing because Israel have been fighting in public over how to halt Iran's nuclear hopes. But, you aren't interested in knowing the back story, just a way of dealing Obama a cheap shot. Obama spoke with Netanyahu the other day, they dealt with the issue and the Israelis clarified that there was never a meeting planned etc etc etc... but you don't get that from a headline on Drudge.

DUHHHHH who cares how it's spelled..... I'm guessing you're worried more about your next handout. Don't worry your dirtbag so called president will probably get re-elected and your welfare check will be safe.

Caml down So much to say ! it's going to by ok, Obama is going to handle the situation. Tonite he's going to meet with his foreign policy advisors Beyonce and Jay-Z, then perhaps a round of golf then he's going to have a sit down with Ambassador Letterman. You must also listen to White House press secretary Jay Carney who just informed us lower level Americans that "violent protests throughout the Middle East are not directed at the United States or U.S. policy"

I know I feel better now

Oh, and Obama will also be busy first attending the $40,000/plate fundraiser hosted by Jay-z and Beyonce...before heading over to the David Letterman show. Democrats have been hoodwinked. Jay Z and Beyonce have a net worth of almost $1 BILLION, but Dems say Romney is the 'rich whitey.' Appalling hypocrisy.

...says the Obama lap dog.

Now that is what I call real objectivity, Bob. I'd be interested in your view of the Democratic Party if you could be intellectually honest enough to provide such. For you information, I'm not interested in calling you names, I just want to get at the facts.

Mr. DiBartolo,
If we could filter out the shouts from the right wing disenchanted segment and focus on your question for a moment and try to get to the heart of the matter. There is a fundamental difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties and the difference is "economics", the social issues come and go, but economics is what it is really about, especially in a national election held at a time when our economic cycle is at a low point. The Democratic Party views the economy as a bottom to top flow, not top to bottom as the GOP sees things. As we have learned from corporate profit investment ratios and cash flow, the top is doing very well in spite of unemployment and main street recession. The middle class is loosing ground fast as the income gap widens between the haves and the have nots. The Republicans insist on pumping more and more money at the top of the economic food chain, ignoring the fact that as corporations prosper the middle class is falling and the middle class is the foundation of our economy and our nation in general. We need to prime the economic pump, not at the corporate level with tax breaks given to Wall Street that do not filter down to Main Street, but rather we need to prime the economic pump at the "household" level of our economy, get people spending again, and the rest takes care of itself, thats the beauty of capitalism.

Bob - The recycled, losing economic strategy of the Democrat Party has been tested and has failed. The only equitable reform that I would therefore imagine you would support is a flat tax. If that is the case, then we are on the same page. I can say with certainty that I have never been hired for a job by a poor person. I've never rented an apartment from a homeless person. Continue to punish the creators of wealth in this country and they will continue to do as they have which is protect their hard earned wealth on foreign shores if need be. It's federal POLICIES and REGULATIONS that are crippling job growth NOT the job creators.

Donna,
Now let me get this right...you want more Republican "trickle-down" economics and deregulation...isn't that exactly what got us in this mess in the first place...I don't want to over-simplify economic theory, but it is not as complicated as the Republicans try to make it...Recession occurs when money flow is disrupted, money needs to flow between the business sector, government, and household sectors, the Republicans want to cut the flow and allow it to accumulate in one sector of the economy, the corporate/billionaire sector...whether you like it or not, capitalism works best when the wealth is more evenly distributed...money needs to flow to all sectors and we Americans are spenders, not savers...but like I said, spending is good for capitalism because it maintains money flow...our middle class is not able to spend because wages are dropping, so are benefits...we must inject money within the household level...encourage labor unions, but instead the Republicans are demonizing unions...a big mistake for the financial security of America and especially our middle class...Remember that the 1950's and 60's were prosperous for America and union membership was high...could there be a correlation?

>> "...I don't want to over-simplify economic theory..."

That's mighty big of you, Bob. BTW...

"Remember that the 1950's and 60's were prosperous for America and union membership was high..."

If you don't know the answer to that, no amount of explaining will help.

As for economics, spend some time and look up anything by Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams and it might start to make a little more sense to you.

Bob, if you "...filter out the shouts from the right wing disenchanted segment...," all you'll hear then is the cacophonous crying of the liberal hand-wringers. But then again, that's probably all you hear and listen to now anyway, right? Yours sounds like a classic Socialist or Communist economic model...never has worked, never will.

People get rich (not me, but I'm not jealous, are you?) and then start spending and investing their money and...watch it now, here it comes...they start hiring people and people go to work. it's that simple, Bob.

What's complicated is when I hear somebody like Nancy Pelosi say that food stamps are good for the economy and that every $1 of food stamps given away and spent injects a buck whatever back into the economy. For her next project she will unveil her perpetual motion machine. Are you in, Bob? SanFran-Nan and her husband are looking for investors to bilk.

Well Bob, we agree on a couple of things. Social issues are second and third tier issues. What should be most important to all of us is the economy and our national security. Both need to be strong. The Dems do want a bottom to top flow. But they want to start at the very bottom and their solution is to legislate the poor into middle class. It wasn't fair the poor didn't own homes and so it was ordered. Banks had to make loans available to those who could not afford them. That didn't work out well. Many American poor are doing very well by global standards thanks to legislation. But who pays the bulk of the bill? Middle class. Who is going to create real jobs that last and contribute to the economy? Some of the wealthy but mostly the small business owner.
Perhaps that isn't fair. The poor do create jobs. Thousands of public sector jobs to administer the programs that support them. Then you make them join a public union and force them to pay union dues which go to politicians who want more "free" programs.

Paul, if I could be so forward, where did you ever pick up this devotion to the GOP economic "model"? Before the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the country suffered through 9 years of Republican Trickle-Down/deregulation during the Republican Administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...before the Great Recession of 2008, the country again suffered through 8 years of Bush Trickle-Down Deregulation, and again the Republicans drove American Families off an economic cliff...where would a person find any reason to support the Republican failed economic model today?

Bob - Actually, the big part of the mess we find ourselves in was due to regulation via the Community Reinvestment Act from the Clinton years. Those bills are now coming due and it is the taxpayer who, yet again, is left footing the bill. So you seem to feel that the problem with the U.S. economy is that we do not have enough unions? That's an argument I've never heard before. Lastly, for the wealthiest Americans, what do you think the top tax rate should be and what exactly is your definition of "wealthy?"

BTW...jerseyswamps...you have hit the proverbial nail on the head!

Hey, Bob, did you ever hear of the Great Depression? Did you realize it was about to end quite abruptly when Roosevelt intervened and extended it umpteen years with no end in sight and it finally took a war to end it? Did you know that his own Treasury Secretary told him we had thrown a load of money at it with no appreciable effect?

BTW, economics runs in cycles...recessions come and go. The best thing a president and the government can do is nothing.

BTW...look at all that nice produce in the picture, I bet 80% of it gets thrown out.

@clamdigger -exactly. all that healthy food that WE pay for is going straight into the garbage. If you can't afford kids don't have them. There are ways to prevent pregnancy ya know. Or just plain don't do the deed (self control). Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the lack of self control of others?

Have you ever seen a doctor using Plan G Medicaid?

@ Tee. Don't worry under Obamacare we'll all be on "medicaid". Good luck finding a doctor once it's fully in effect.

...it's rather ironic that the costs for medical care in Socialists European countries is a lot less than ours and better. That's why those here who can afford it go to Europe for care and treatment. . .but lets all keep John in the dark about those facts?

Spooner - I've lived in Germany for a few years and trust me their state-run healthcare system is the dregs and utilized ironically only by those who cannot afford supplemental coverage. Those who want quality care in a timely fashion still pay for it. The same holds true for England.

@Donna: "I've lived in Germany for a few years and trust me their state-run healthcare system is the dregs "

Not true at all. The system is not state run nor is it the dregs. The US 'system' is the 'dregs' aka ranked 48th in the industrialized world. And do not let me get started on the paper work nightmare here ...

Butterfly, try living with the locals. Their tax rate is progressively at nearly 45% plus add in the cost of fuel at $8.35/gallon and you have a very burdened populace. According to recent reviews, lots of care is given in Germany for which we don’t actually know the effectiveness compared to other treatments. There is overutilization of the system. Also, the German system is a bit rigid in its structure, which makes innovation in organizing health care more difficult than it is here.

I do know a few families who live in Germany and they have nothing bad to say about the care they receive.If someone has high blood pressure,the medical professionals don't just prescribe drugs to control it.They advise patients to lower their sodium intake and get exercise 1st.In other words,they don't look to pills to treat conditions that can be controled woth lifestyle changes.Very nuch like things used to be done in the USA.Every drug has side affects.Some people in this country take drugs to treat the side affects from other drugs they are taking.
Patients are not given MRIs to rule out brain tumors if they have a headache,either.

This isn't a freaking hand out, it is a program aimed at the working poor. a family of four making 29k a year.. That is 21k a year in take home pay or 1750 a month. So what are you talking about in regard to self esteem... these are people that struggle every day to make ends meet, and you are moaning about free meals for their kids in day care???? think about it, rent 800 for a two bedroom (which means all the kids sleep in one room) utilities 300... phone 50 (basic service) food 350 ( cutting corners everywhere)... transportation 2 bus passes for 2 zones to get to work, 260... ohh wow that's 1760 already... so best cut out some food, and if you need clothing for the kids, better shop at Goodwill, and turn off the AC when its only 85... and this is someone making 29,000 a year. at the HIGH end of this scale. That is what people make in retail or even some professional jobs.

what world is this? isn't this a so called Christian nation... Cause that is what Jesus would do.... moan about free meals for poor children.

crap like this really brings out the dump in people... just think for one second what these working people go through just to make ends meet. and to even bring up socialism or whatever is just stupid.

Spooner, i've lived in the US for 6 decades and I've never known of ANYONE...family friends or anyone who have gone to Europe for their medical treatment. Show me 'the facts' on that. Heck, most people couldn't afford the $1000 plane ticket to get there or the $500/night hotels once they're there. Are you talking about some LaLaLand celebrities who go their for lypo or what?

Typing in capital letters does not make what you wrote any more true.

Newsflash: you already lived with Socialism before Barack Obama became president. Don't believe me? Look at your paystub. See that "little" thing called FICA?

I could go on, and on, and on......

Sal - Amen!!! It seems that my immigrant parents, too, worked jobs that no one else would take so that my brother and I could live a better life. No signs on the streets in their native language when they came off Ellis Island. No free medical care. No free meals, transportation or housing. Just pure, unadulterated hard work and a lot of gratitude for the opportunities this nation afforded them. They understand the American dream does not get handed to you....you must earn it.

@Sal, get a grip; why this shouting with ALLCAPS? And Obama's policies are pretty much center right not socialist. Are you watching Fox News, listen to Rush and reading Drudge?

@Donna: "No free medical care. No free meals...Just pure, unadulterated hard work...the American dream "

really? Sounds like you want your children to be like Oliver Twist ..

Butterfly - Actually, I want my kids to go through life "earning" their successes not having them handed to them. Thankfully, the lessons have been learned in my home, but I fear that many share your entitlement view and my kids will be the minority in the arena of personal responsibility. The best gifts a parent can give their children are the tools to fend for themselves. I really hope you're not suggesting that those values are "old school" and not beneficial to young adults.

Donna.My ancestors have been in the US sonce long before Ellis Is.My husband's grandparents came from eastern Europe as teenagers during that time.True,no signs in their nagtive language.True,they worked hard,But they did get so-called handouts.They charged at the local food stores and other place where they needed necessities.If they were sick,they went to the doctor,whether or not they could pay up front.But,the difference is that these providers of goods and services knew that they would be paid.The doctor might have been paid partially with services provided by the family,babysitting,housework,yardwork,vegetables from the garden,etc.

You'd have to talk to their church about that, and maybe the wing nut call to end contraception. and I totally agree with you, why do families make babies they can't afford, and more to the point, why are we fighting contraception when you pay a little now or a lot latter. But, you have so many religious folks fighting family planning with little regard to the consequences.

Amen,Patrick.And let's not forget that if women use contraception,there would be fewer abortions as well.

Patrick - I listen to an awful lot of news and I'm unaware of ANYONE trying to take away contraception. Enlighten me, please. I reckon that there is a difference between available contraceptives and FREE contraceptives. Is that what you are talking about? You see, I've always been hammered with the freedom cry that a woman had the right to do with her body as she pleases. I think they call it Pro-Choice. As such, I might recommend that ladies choose to save a couple bucks, buy some pills or condoms, then enjoy their Saturday night. JUST DON'T ASK ME TO PAY FOR IT!

John- you continue to promote your race baiting remarks. . .waiting for the Caddy convertible coming around the corner with one of those welfare queens driving. . .

I think if you look at education levels in a community it rails up with assistance. There are some not strong will enough to break through a sub par educational system and get stuck in dead end lives. If it be drugs, a bad job or crime... and that isn't about race its about education and economic station. so you pay for either way...

Spooner - I think it is YOU who automatically sees race in a remark. Why do you think in terms of "color" first and not "content" of the conversation. I think JJ wanted to determine the distinction between those who fall on hard times and get "temporary" assistance vs. those long-term users (even generational at times) of the system.

Ummmm earth to Spooner......if anyone here is a race baiter its you !

...and your point is what, exactly, as it relates to my ultimate point to Mr. Sorce?

Oh please spare me the anti-union garbage. Blaming unions for the economic meltdown caused by the banksters and the fraud of the hedge fund managers is just insane. The unions did not cause the economic meltdown of 2008. Germany has a strong union movement, unions even have a seat on the board of directors of corporations. Canada has about a 29% unioization rate while ours is down to 11.8% after 30 plus years of aggressive union busting. How few unions do you want in this country? 0%? Do you want to ban public worker unions? That's not very democratic in my opinion. I am just amazed at the rabid anti-unionism of ordinary Americans who would benefit the most from unions. I get why the top 1% hate unions, they want a low paid, expendable, compliant herd of peons to easily push around and intimidate.

Joe R- your right about what has happened to private sector unions, but the same cannot be said for public sector union growth. . .and No I'm not against unions...I'm for "collective bargaining" It serves a very important labor purpose. But in public sector unions, they seat on both sides of the table...when they lobby and pour money into politicians campaign coffers? There bankrupting cities. Just look at what's happening to Chicago's public education where there over loading classrooms with students for one, while the average teacher there earns $76,000 a year...and before the Mayor instituted changes. . .worked a shorter day. Just look at the contracts in this state, when it comes to accumulated sick & vacation time that has to be paid, when they retire?

Actually, dajoepa75 (hmmm, interesting pseudonym...), you are asking the wrong question. Of course I want to do all those things for the less fortunate, and I'm sure many of the others on this site do as well. Again, that's not the question. The question is how to pay for it. Barack Obama's "Dream's of My Father," had Barack quoting his father who thought that taxation at 100% was justifiable if needed. So, at what point are you permitted to say to the government bureaucrat with his hand in your pocket, "Enough!"
We already owe over $16 trillion dollars (not including unfunded liabilities) and no one has suggested any real method to pay that back. We currently have our eye on $20 trillion of debt with, again, no plan to slow down. We are already borrowing (or printing) 40-cents out of every dollar we spend for government. Where's the breaking point. It's one thing to give out of your abundance. It's another to give out of your poverty and be willing to share whatever little you might have. It's quite another to give out of your borrowing expecting future generations to subsidize what you are unwilling to pay for yourself.

Paul, I don't understand.......

>> Paul, I don't understand.......

I'm not sure whether I should take you seriously but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and bite.

If it were within my means I would like to relieve the pain and suffering of all who live on my block, in my town, in my state, in the nation, in the world...But I do not possess the means to accomplish such lofty goals. Should I take a loan out or take out an additional mortgage on my home to relieve the suffering of those I see on a daily basis? Additionally, it is not the government's task to feed the citizenry, only to protect the citizenry and provide an atmosphere in which the citizenry can conduct business freely thus fulfilling it's job to provide an environment where all may participate in the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee we will achieve happiness, only that we have the right to pursue it.

Today our government and it's bureaucrats seem to think they can end all suffering no matter what the cost to you and me; as if no one should ever experience hardship even when it is at the individual's own instigation. It's a messiah complex and pure utopian philosophy and that will never come about in this life, not for lack of enough people trying.

We don't have a revenue problem in this country that requires us to pay more and more and ever higher taxes; we have a spending problem and it must stop peacefully or it will ultimately, much to the chagrin of all, end in violence.

And whose accountant are you, Billy? I recommend Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams,or maybe Gary North. When you figure out what economics is all about then I might want to hear about it.
Look, I'm a little slow on the uptake so maybe you can help me...
"Anyone that took economics knows that a nation collects the same amount of dollars at 100% tax rate as it would at 0% tax rate..."
I guess I'm not "Anyone" so maybe you can enlighten me. While you're at it maybe you can point to an example of how that theory worked out, as well.
BTW, we've spent trillions on welfare since Lyndon Johnson instituted his Great Society, could you please elaborate on the huge returns that has produced?
As for austerity only applicable in times of plenty, tell it to the Greeks and the Spanish, you'll probably find a better audience there if you can get them to stop rioting long enough to listen to you.
BTW, you almost had me thinking you were serious until you implied that printing money was a good thing and an obligation in times like these. Do you even read what you write, Billy?

Hey Paul, as far as the 100% and 0% tax rate being the same. A country gets 0%. When the tax rate is 0% there is no revenue. When the tax rate is 100%, there is no revenue generated either because, what's the use of working? It needs to be somewhere near the bottom third in order to make it worth people's time, but that the government gets the money that it needs. As far as an example? look at the last several decades of tax history. Also, it is based largely on Laffer Curves if you are truly interested.
With regards to austerity, if you had a farm and grew tons and tons of corn, you'd be a fool to eat it all just because you had a decent harvest. Most people would stow the majority of it away, and consume it during the lean months.
I do think you mistake my compassion for being naive. I think we are wasting money on straight handouts, and must somehow tie some if not most to work. But denying Americans access to basic necessities is not what I believe in.
I think we too often confuse needs and wants. Food, shelter, clothes, and basic healthcare should somehow be made available to everyone.

Wow, Billy, that's enlightening and we're really not that far apart. Imagine that a short explanation would achieve that? Anyway, back to some of our points; your 0% versus 100% scenario can only be pure analysis (I don't doubt it's true) because it's never been put into practice. Although, I must point out that Barack Obama identified a quote from his father stating that 100% taxation was justified if needed. Now I'm wondering if President Obama didn't also inherit some of his father's insanity as well as the dreams he attributes to him. I'm all for cutting our corporate charity and foreign aid charity, as well. I do have a problem with your assignment of saving (and that's all it is, old-fashioned saving as recommended in the Bible) to austerity. In fact your good time/bad time scenario is right out of the Bible, right? Joseph as Pharaoh's economic minister? The difference is that Joseph had inside information of a coming plague. Saving some of what you make is just common sense whether you use it for bad times or look to provide for your old age when you can't work as hard or to pass on an inheritance to your children. Austerity comes when you hit the bad times and start using what you have saved. You don't live off of savings in hard times at the same level you lived in good times; if you do you're crazy. So, I think you're a little off in confusing saving with austerity. As for printing money...that is never a good idea and we can discuss that further if you like.

But if you have 3 brackets, by definition that is not a flat tax. Therefore, you support progressive taxation, it's just a question of where to set the threshholds.

And as to "do away with all deductions", what do you suppose would happen to the housing market should mortgage interest no longer be deductible?

If the issues were really that simple, they'd have been fixed long ago. Public policy is hard, letting off steam on the internet is easy.

I'm all for a flat tax and not liberal by any standard,but we are headed toward a financial downfall that's going to make the last 5yrs look like childs play. We need to get out of our Chinese debt and very quickly.

IMO the only way I see the only real soultion would be to initate a flat national sales tax of $0.01 cent on any final sale over $25.00 or so. So whether you spend $25.00 or $250k or more there would be .01 cent added to the final bill.

This owuld be on all sales such as fast food,resturant meals, food ,clothing,cars,computers,tv's,appliances,cameras,etc., would not apply to fuel or utilities. You'd be suprised how fast those pennies will add up.

I respond with trepidation, because the discussion is far afield of feeding poor people. Communism is a pre-industrial concept. Communist China is industrializing; by that "model" the US would be investing in smokestack industries to manufacture and export goods by exploiting cheap labor. I don't see that happening. "De-industrialization" - moving toward a service-based economy - is contrary to the interests of the "mega-corporations / banks" because service industries and workers require neither direct capital investment nor social overhead capital. Instead, they "are" their own "means of production" through their higher skill level: think physician, nurse, attorney, computer technician, chef, plumber. Oh, and taxing consumption would be regressive, cause deflation, increase prices, reduce wages and dampen consumption - not the best idea in a recession.

You know what, Pete, you might want to take a moment and put a little meat on all the bones you just threw out there. Whatever your problem is, it's not trepidation.

So, you make this long winded statement about "De-industrialization, i.e., moving towards a service economy," not happening; you then list a group of workers, every one to the last of them, service providers.

Put the brakes on for a moment and help us lesser mortals to understand what appears otherwise to us as a jumble puzzle.

I don't mean to sound patronizing. I have a background in comparative economic systems, with a concentration in the economics of development. Reading Friedrich Hayek (whom free-marketeers like me enjoy) and especially Bela Balassa (a free-marketeer with direct experience in the failure of Communism in a post-industrial society - and my favorite college professor), one sees that Communism is a pre-industrial phenomenon. Among its many failings is the inability to grasp that, in a highly-developed economy, directly productive capital (think factories) becomes secondary to skilled labor; a middle class evolves; service occupations supplant traditional factory jobs. This is the opposite of the Marxist concept of alienation: instead of the "proletariat" becoming increasingly numerous and poorer, the "proletariat" basically disappears. This is not yet happening in China, but it probably will - and when it does, the better-educated and more prosperous "masses" will demand greater freedom. I do not believe that the "mega corps and banks" are behind the service-economy evolution. They would prefer that the US depended upon big factories and capital investment, which they would own and finance. From the Marxian percpective - again, absolutely not my perspective - the greedy capitalists are the cause of alienation. So: Communism is pre-industrial; it fails after industrialization; the US's move toward a service economy is a good thing.

Bob - The answer is...nobody knows for sure. But experience tells me that we have tanked in the last 4 years economically and internationally. I love my kids and to keep up with the foolishness that has defined this administration places those kids in harm's way. I'm ready for the change and it can be ABO (anyone buy Obama).

In answer to your first question...Yes! Whether I make more money or not is not the question, but I know what the the answer is, "Stop Spending!"

As for your comments about Romney and taxes...And you know these things how, Bob?

Let me ask you something, Bob Bitching. [BTW, love the name.] When you ask if I think I will be better off you suggest I need to ask myself "what's in it for me". I don't know if I will be better off with Romney or Obama. But it isn't about me. Or the rich guy the next town over or the poor family on the other side of me. For me it is about what is best for this country and our children in the near and distant future. My kids and your kids should not have to live in an underground economy because they can't afford to pay the bill we left them. I want them to be able to live without fear of another attack on us. I want a strong economy and strong national defense for them. They can't afford any more Obamas.

Thanks for finally saying it, JerseySwamps. Unfortunately, we came out of the sixties laying the foundation of the "ME" generation and Mr. Obama knows just how to cater to that mentality. It's ready to yield it's fruit now with a complete economic and cultural breakdown. I probably shouldn't say that though because it might be perceived as racism.

Sal- where did the money come from to fund the GI bill while we were in debt over our head during WWII when the bill was voted on?

Please take your medication and turn off your caps lock (not necessarily in that order).

by wussess do you mean malnourished children fed from near expired food from Alda and dollar stores? most filled with the most vile crap, that makes you fat... and yes you can easily be malnourished and obese.
It is clear that most of you that write things like Firedup here, have never volunteered with people living in true poverty. or even known or help people like this.
Can we look at these numbers again...

a single parent has to make under 19k to get free meals. that is just over a grand in take home pay. where do you live on that much in New Jersey? let alone live on that hold down a job, and care for a child.

I think all of you need to look in the mirror and say, is this really the sort of program the the United States of America can't afford? Sure there are church programs, and community projects to feed the poor. The WORKING poor i should say so you get a job folks don't blow a gasket... but is that enough. Do you really want to live in a country the neglects its most powerless. Hell, some of you would be more likely to give money to a pet shelter over a food bank.

To me this entire thread is disgusting and revolting.

Wanna debate healthcare or debt spending, write your own blog post on the topic of your choice.... But I wonder if most here even read the story. looked at the numbers...

I'm trying to follow along and then this...

"a single parent has to make under 19k to get free meals. that is just over a grand in take home pay."

Is that misstated; if not, what does that mean?

I should have said a month... Take out all the payroll taxes a person earning at the bottom of this list takes home a grand a month.

I'll start. As I said in another article. Obama gutted what was a good reform of our welfare system for families. This was signed into law by Clinton. That's right, Democrat Bill Clinton. It required those on welfare to do something. That is go to school, training, look for work, etc. Reform also did not grant an automatic increase in a welfare grant for more children. The child did receive medicaid and food stamps but not extra money. Welfare rolls dropped. Obama gutted the work requirement. He also did away with the resource limit for food stamps. We now have people in very expensive homes with several expensive cars, jewelry, etc. receiving food stamps if they can show no income. Obama is very happy to have more people receiving entitlements from him. Those people are less likely to vote against him.

The Department of Education, revamp the tax code and trim down the IRS, get real about the EPA and stop making it impossible to do business in the U.S.

Just a simple start.

@jerseyswamps, you do realize that governors, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindhal and Rick Scott asked the Obama administration to lessen the reforms for welfare system, right?

"You breed em, you feed em?" How clever, did you come up with that yourself or is that a really tired cliche? Well I guess the myth of the welfare queen is alive and well, because your friend of a friend of a friend once saw someone with a cell phone in subsidized housing.

It might also be helpful to read the article. The food programs are also for ADULTS in day programs. Perhaps you should go down to your local senior center
and tell a 90 year old veteran that their "parents bred em, so they should a fed em."

The nearest subsidized housing that I know of is for senior citizens.Most of them have no cars at all.They are provided a bus to do their weekly grocery shopping at Shop-Rite,not Whole Foods