Skip to main content

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), hiding his radical H.R. 3
power grab in a 'welfare reform' bill

On Thursday you heard about a bill apparently aimed at cutting off food stamps and other welfare benefits to the family of anyone on strike against their employer:

You really can't get any lower than this: House Republicans have introduced legislation that, if passed into law, would deny food stamp assistance to any family member of a striking worker.

And you may also have heard that this was, perhaps, not as big a change in current law as was originally thought:

The problem with all of this is that it’s not news. I know because I work at a hunger-relief organization, and part of what we do is help individuals and families sign up for food stamps (now known as SNAP). It has now been confirmed to me, by three people who work here, including our policy manager, that this has been the case dating back to about 1996.

[...]

But furthermore, while the language is offensive, it’s largely unworkable if the idea is to kick people already receiving SNAP off the program. When you apply, there’s a requirement to report if you’re on strike. If you’re already receiving SNAP, it’s a lot harder to determine that, simply due to the fact that the welfare offices where the majority of SNAP cases are handled are overworked, understaffed, inefficient, and in general swamped.

But don't turn away just yet. This bill (H.R. 1135 and a newer version, H.R. 1167), styled the "Welfare Reform Act of 2011," is actually chock-full of extremist agenda items. If the backwards stab at striking workers doesn't do it for you, how about this? Remember H.R. 3? The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"? That was the one that freaked everybody out by trying to redefine rape so that it'd no longer be a safe exception to extremist abortion prohibitions.

Well, public backlash forced Republicans to remove that particular provision, but as I hope you're aware, H.R. 3 hides even bigger dangers than the redefinition of rape, if you can believe such a thing is possible.

H.R. 3 would revoke eligibility for tax deductions related to health insurance costs for individuals or companies who buy plans that offer coverage for abortion. It's no longer enough, as is the case under the Affordable Care Act, that people interested in purchasing insurance with such coverage do so by actually writing a separate check, drawn entirely from private or personal funds. H.R. 3 declares that because all money is "fungible," when you take a tax deduction that puts "federal dollars" in your pocket. And because those dollars are then available for you to use to pay for... anything... including your health care coverage, in order to prevent you from using them to pay for the kinds of coverage these Republicans don't like, the government will step in and take your deductions away.

So, what does this "Welfare Reform Act" have to do with that?

Good question! The answer, of course, is: absolutely nothing. Unless you're a Republican so driven in this ideological war that you'll always be on the lookout for any excuse to launch an attack. And that probably explains why Title VI of this "welfare reform" bill actually contains... the key provisions of H.R. 3.

Interesting, no? The Republican "welfare reform" bill is alleged to do virtually nothing—or at least nothing viable—to change current law with respect to welfare benefits, but it does attempt to severely restrict people's ability to pay for health insurance that covers abortion, even with their own, private money. What interest would "welfare reformers" have in making it more difficult for Americans doing well enough to be able to pay for their health insurance out of pocket?

None, really. It's just another example of Republicans leveraging the old "Istook amendment" scheme to control the destiny of any dollar that passes at some point through federal hands. So now, it's not just "welfare" if the government is giving you federal dollars in the form of food stamps to keep your family fed. It's "welfare" if the government is "giving" you dollars in the form of a tax deduction, too. Take a deduction? You're "on the dole," Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer!

When I first raised the alarm about H.R. 3, I said that its use of the Istook amendment fungibility theory would open the door to all sorts of invasions, targeting all the Republicans' favorite boogeymen:

If the anti-choice zealots can successfully enact a law that gives the federal government the inroads and leverage to impose tax penalties on the availability of abortion services coverage, what prevents their using the same power to penalize contraception coverage? And that's just the smallest theoretical step you can make from the abortion issue. Nevermind that the theory is the same whether they want to reach into other areas of medical coverage, or anything else they'd like to get their hands on. Same sex partner benefits, for instance? Health benefits won through collective bargaining by public employees' unions? You can all certainly imagine more.

And you should try to imagine them. I would encourage you to try to think about how they could come up with a way to burn your own favorite issue group, no matter what it might be. Because this theory gives them the power to do it. And if it's left to the choice community advocacy groups to fight the battle on their own, it'll be over pretty quickly, and the "Small Government Republicans" will be right on your doorstep next.

It didn't take long for the theory to be deployed against union workers, first in Wisconsin. Now it's made its way to Washington, called into action to help Republicans stamp out the threat of international terrorism starving children in union households, even though there's a strong argument that it'd either be entirely duplicative of current law, or be largely ineffective. (And I'm not 100% sure about that. Although strikers may not report their ineligibility voluntarily, it surely creates some liability for those who don't.) And I suppose now would be a good time to ask ourselves why we think Republicans would include this provision in their bill if it really wouldn't do much to change current law.

So, how are we doing in terms of coming together across issue silos to combat this threat? Did the reproductive rights advocates get (or seek) a lot of help from outside their little island in fighting this one? Because here they are, on union doorsteps, just as predicted. And by the way, if you think you've beaten H.R. 3 by focusing on the provisions redefining rape and hammering Republicans as extremists, do note that this time, their abortion restrictions are tucked away in a corner of a "welfare reform" bill. And they'll be in every bill they can shoehorn them into from here on in.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by oo.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yet more incontrovertible proof.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thematt523, Trix

    that Democrats are just like republicans.

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:01:39 PM PDT

  •  How about... (5+ / 0-)

    if you or a family member are on the board of directors for a publicly or privately owned company whose employees strike, you cannot submit itemized deductions on your personal or business tax return.  

  •  DOA... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, StrayCat

    Another piece of Republican legislation being put forward to position Republicans politically by pandering to their base and inflaming "anti-welfare outrage" more racist cant from the Republican "right". This bill will be stopped by the Senate and will go nowhere but the dust bin, where it belongs, but it will be used as ammunition by the Republicans to paint Democrats as "socialists" and champions of "big spending" and "supporting illegal immigrants and welfare cheats with the hard earned tax dollars of the middle class", I can see the campaign ads now.

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:19:51 PM PDT

  •  It's a good thing the START Treaty got passed in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, StrayCat

    the Last Real Congress.

     These guys would have put an anti choice rider on that too.

    it tastes like burning...

    by eastvan on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:20:32 PM PDT

  •  Looks like it may be time for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat

    Obama & the Dem "Leadership" to negotiate with the Rethuglicans.

    Oh.  Fuck.

    I just realized how that would probably play out.

    Only a catastrophic decline in Obama's poll numbers will move him away from the right.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:23:24 PM PDT

  •  I got an idea! How about we remove any tax (10+ / 0-)

    exemptions from giant companies that pollute the environment since toxic substances in our ground water cause pregnant mothers to have miscarriages?

  •  I hope it passes the House (0+ / 0-)

       The Senate will kill this measure but I want to see if the news media explains this bill should it pass the House. People need to know just how radical and out-of the-mainstream the current Republicans are. I'm tired of hearing the crap about both parties being the same. This law wouldn't even get a vote under Pelosi. There is some validity to the Republican position though. If Medicaid recipients can't have their abortions covered, why should middle-class office workers have theirs covered by government-subsidized employer insurance. Money IS fungible. If middle-class women were forced to pay for their own abortion coverage maybe we could destroy that awful piece-of-crap Hyde amendment. Don't get me wrong, I support Roe v Wade and believe we need single-payer health insurance. However, I do think there is some hypocrisy when we give tax breaks to employer insurance with no strings, but deny services for poor women.

    •  Money is not fungible, not in that way. The logic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrayCat

      of Istook basically is that if you pay in US dollar in US currency, even that is Federal money for Hyde and the Stupak compromise.

      The problem with it is that if money is fungible, therefore nobody will ever have non Federal money, because any Federal financial benefit facilitates anything whatever else that someone could want to do that requires money. This started out  in this round as a way to get around the private financing part of repro rights in PPACA, and has grown and grown to the point that it is more important than even tax increases for taxpayers, since employers lose the right to retain existing plans or get new plans that cover abortion rights if they intend to deduct them as they now do. That one is a twofer for Rs since O said that if employees and their employers wanted to keep their plans they could, and this Istook nonsense and the R position in HR 3 eliminates that, and blames it on maternity provisions.

       But the entire premise of most bills distinguishing between Federal money and other money, everything from state contributions to this and that, on down, is that there in fact is a difference, in what the Feds write checks for and what other people do.

      Has Istook ever been tested in court or is it just GOP yacking in the House?

  •  If you hate H. R. 3, you'll really hate H. R. 25 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar, Matt Z

    The "Fair Tax Act of 2011" which replaces our current tax system with a flat tax of 23%.

    Wait, what's this?...

           (12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-

                `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `taxable employer' includes--

                    `(i) any household employing domestic servants, and

                    `(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).

                `(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `taxable employer' does not include any employer which is--

                    `(i) engaged in a trade or business,

                    `(ii) a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706), or

                    `(iii) a government enterprise (as defined in section 704).

    So if I have a housekeeper, I have to pay taxes on her services.

    If I am a state government, I pay 23% tax on all my employees pay.

    But if I have a business, I don't have to pay taxes on anything.

    These people are literally nuts.

  •  I want to type something inappropriate (0+ / 0-)

    sooooooooooooooo bad.

    But instead I'll type my opinion on abortion:

    I don't like them, but I wouldn't outlaw them or do anything to restrict them, but would not allowing them in the third trimester be a huge deal, if not for the slippery slope thing?

    "WINNING!" - Charlie Sheen/Barack Obama

    by sloopydrew on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:52:09 PM PDT

    •  I trust women. (7+ / 0-)

      Because I trust women, I believe the vast overwhelming majority of women do not wake up one day during their third trimester of pregnancy and say to themselves, "A root touch-up today?...Or, an abortion?...hhhmmm, I think I'll go get a third trimester abortion..."

      So, yes...it would be a huge deal for the women who find they need a third trimester abortion for any number of very legitimate reasons.

      Are there some instances where a woman may simply decide very late in her pregnancy that she does not want to become a mother?  Sure.  Should ALL WOMEN be subject to laws seeking to restrict the less-than-decisive or honorable among our number?  NO!

      How about this...I also believe the vast overwhelming majority of men are not rapists.  I walk around every day among men whom I presume are not criminally intended.  

      Of course, there are exceptions.  What laws should we impose on ALL MEN in order to control the exceptions among them?

      The world is just going to have to learn to give women the same presumptive latitude and trust.

      Yes, it's a huge deal...and I've never met anyone who "likes" abortions.

    •  Are You Being Snarky? (8+ / 0-)

      If not, you're naive. Abortions in the third trimester account for fewer than 1.5% of all abortions. They are done for basically two reasons: the survival of the mother (think ectopic pregnancies) or a fatally flawed fetus. Banning them during the third trimester puts at risk the small number of women whose pregnancies pose severe physical and emotional hazards. Civilized people would regard such a ban as cruel and inhuman punishment.  

  •  I'm getting old and slow... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat, phonegery, rlharry, Matt Z

    ...because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the inherent conflict between the two (beginning) arguments being put forth by the Republicorpuppets:  

    1. How "greedy, fat-cat, union members with cushy jobs and bloated salaries" somehow qualify for SNAP...  

    2.  Union members who strike should be removed from SNAP, which one might presume they wouldn't qualify for if they were, in fact, "greedy, fat-cat, union members with cushy jobs and bloated salaries."  

  •  The Istook amendment will not doubt not apply (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry

    to corporations receiving any Federal dollars.

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Republicans are Tyrants at heart (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat

    Our rhetoric and pr should emphasize that point, imo.


    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:03:20 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be great... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat, Matt Z

    ...if you could file class-action against politicians who campaign on one platform and then legislate on a completely different one? For like fraud or breach of promise or something? Like say, if they campaign on fixing the economy and unemployment, and then spend all their time jerking off with anti-abortion legislation and union-busting?

  •  Heh, The silos need to be split in half, (0+ / 0-)

    It's time we feed from the same trough.

    "Misfortune shows those who are not really friends." Aristotle

    by JugOPunch on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:10:40 PM PDT

  •  somebody, please...! (0+ / 0-)

    promote this state for tourism !! link.

    The Addington perpwalk is the trailhead for accountability in this wound on our national psyche. [...you know: Dick Cheney's "top" lawyer.] --Sachem

    by greenbird on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:13:28 PM PDT

  •  I don't get it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat, rlharry, Matt Z

    I really don't get it. I feel so disconnected from these people. Pandering to their base? I live in one of the most conservative states in the entire nation and I don't know anyone who would verbalize this. Do people really get to the voting booth and think "Hey, I am going to vote for this guy, he is going to screw the poor"? I know the answer - because they've sold the poor and disadvantaged as lazy no-gooders for so many years that their "base" has lost touch with humanity.

    •  Also how are you supposed to vote for an R (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      if they promise not to raise taxes in bad times, and do this HR3 stunt which raises takes for employers unless they change their medical policies, raises taxes for all taxpayers with female family members who need repro rights medical care, and raises the number of IRS employees who have to administer this nonsense. And then who takes the idea to other places where something is funded in part either by deductions or tax credits or some other Federal activity. As it is, the Rs are using as the excuse for this that it has some effect on taxes and the Federal budget deficit, which is why they defend doing it now, it's all about the money.

  •  Need to call in the Supremes. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar, StrayCat, rlharry, Matt Z

    This is beginning to sound like a Supreme Court challenge is in the near future on this "fungible" money crap. I mean when the money has changed hands to the citizen then that should be that. But this action by the Congress is an attempt to control the citizen's purse, not the governments.

    It may just well be unconstitutional as it directly impacts a citizens right of commercial freedom. I am no scholar by a long stretch. But dictating what a person can or cannot do with their own money strikes me as completely against the law according to the way commerce should be enforced in a capitalist society.

    This directly impacts the flow of money on the individual's end. Can the Congress pass a law that inflicts restrictions on how an individual spends their money? And can the Congress refuse to provide a funds (eg Tax Breaks) to an individual simply because of their commercial actions in the marketplace? This is what this comes down to.

    I would admit its a shaky course of action. But someone has to define the limit to how far the Congress can affect the money in our pockets. Claiming that because they gave us $5 at one point gives them the right to restrict the rest of our paycheck is totally overreach in my book.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:21:53 PM PDT

    •  I had very similar thoughts. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrayCat
      an attempt to control the citizen's purse, not the governments.

      ...very well phrased.

      •  Their response will be simply to point to the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marjmar

        insurance mandate, social security deductions and the like and ask why you don't want to abolish thise if you abolish this, you being so interested in the liberty of private citizens' pocketbooks.

        One answer may be that it is one thing to have to buy something that involves interstate commerce, and another to deny people the right to use their own money to buy a legal service.

    •  Actually , Congress does have the right (0+ / 0-)

         The tax break on employer provided healthcare is can be conditioned on many things as long as it pertains to those policies. The government isn't telling you how to spend your money unless you want a tax break. The Feds can't tell states how to spend their money, but they do put strings on grants to the states that forces the states to adopt some policy or another. States are often required to use some union labor and/or minority firms on projects funded by the federal government. It's all legal and constitutional. If you want the tax breaks or federal funds, you gotta play by the rules.  

      •  But the Fungible part is a bit of an overreach. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlharry

        They are claiming a bit more than they have in the past when it comes to how government money is used.

        How can they limit tax breaks based on the use of one's own money? The bill restricts only the use of the governments dollars. Their whole basis for this restriction is tied the fact that government money cannot be used to fund an abortion. They cannot legally or financially prove (let alone enforce) that the person used the same money the received from Uncle Sam to pay for their abortion. This is where the Supremes should step in. The writing of the law cannot be physically or financially enforced because this whole "fungible money" argument is pure financial mythology.

        That's all I am saying. The bill as written is based on a fantasy leap into financial wizardry never before attempted. The Supremes should be able to claim it's unenforceable as written wouldn't you say?

        "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

        by Wynter on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 09:11:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not an overreach - Just zealotry (0+ / 0-)

            Congress puts strings on every single tax break in the code. If they choose to do so, congressmen could deny tax preferred status to those insurance policies which cover abortion. Their logic may be faulty and their justification weak, but if it passed it would be the law and it would be enforceable. Congress does not have to grant a tax exemption for any medical policy and can set the criteria for the ones that are approved. People need to understand that Congress CAN take away the tax exemption for corporate sponsored medical insurance based on what it covers. The House will eagerly do this. Fortunately, the Senate won't ( I think).  

  •  Fire and Brimstone!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar, rlharry

    That's one playbook from which the Republicans are getting their ideas. They also draw inspiration from the book of racism. Underlying, but unstated, most of their rhetoric lies a conviction that the beneficiaries of welfare, abortions, strikes, food stamps, subsidized health care, educational subsidies, housing subsidies, etc. are primarily black. It's not PC to say so, so they couch it in attacks on Obama's character, and strident screams "I want my country back." Racism, unacknowledged and unvoiced, is the ugly reality that drives virtually all their drive on social issues and some financial.  And the fire and brimstone of evangelistic preaching gives it its punitive focus.

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry

      I've also come to think the up-tic in lambasting of "elites" (hello??!!??  Koch Bros. et.al.??!!?? Have they taken a look at the donors for the Republicorp party??!!??), especially the relentless attacks on President Obama as "an elite," is a veiled way of calling him, specifically, an "uppity n----."

    •  Uppity Women Unite! (0+ / 0-)

      It is also misogyny.  Women will always fight that second class citizen fight as long as men believe women are inferior like it says in the Bible, don't you know.  Feminists, during the height of the movement, used the slogan:  Uppity women unite!  It was an in your face rallying cry against men and women like Phyllis Schlafly who accused women of being uppity for having the audacity to want equal rights.

      "The most authentic thing about us is our capacity to create, to overcome, to endure, to transform, to love and to be greater than our suffering."

      by rlharry on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 06:09:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uppity Women is Certainly Important (0+ / 0-)

        But I still think the the audacity of Obama, a n__, to be elected is the catalyst that drew out into the open all the fears, hysteria, irrational posturing, and, yes, hate for all to see. The steadfastness of Republicans to oppose anything Obama supports, even things they've long supported, is to me proof positive their posturing is not about policy but all about Obama. Witness McConnell's open admission that the goal of this Congress is to see that Obama is not re-elected; policy needs and other considerations are secondary.  The venture into Libya is just the latest. Republicans wanted aggressive action against Kadaffhi (sp?) and pushed it, but the moment Obama took it Republicans began to waffle. They just can't believe a n___—and that's how Republicans define Obama—would ever do something they'd agree with.  

  •  The supreme irony is that earlier today ... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christy1947, StrayCat, Anorish, rlharry, Matt Z

    I heard Michelle Bachmann proclaiming to the assembled right-wingers in Iowa that people had the right to control their own lives and medical care, and that the hated "Obamacare" had to be repealed so that government wouldn't control people's lives.

    I guess that's true except when the right-wingers want to determine exactly what your health insurance policy can include, and when they want to co-opt a woman's uterus to force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  THEN, the government controlling people's lives and decisions is just fine to them!

    Still PROUD to be a Democrat!

    by leevank on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

  •  I called my GOP representative about HR 1135 (6+ / 0-)

    The aide that answered sounded in a panic and said that a lot of people were upset and were calling to complain.  My Rep is Taliban Dan Burton from IN-05 and I usually have the feeling that they listen, but don't care.  This time they were definitely listening.

    The GOP approval numbers are falling and the protests aren't going away -- as a matter of fact they are spreading. People are becoming more and more aware of the GOP hidden agenda.  It's very important to let them know they aren't doing this in the dark -- that people see it and we vote.

    Call your representative.  It works!  If you are lucky enough to have a good Democrat, call to support them.

    I think Cantor and Boehner's office deserve calls too.

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." ~Albert Einstein

    by ParkRanger on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 08:29:05 PM PDT

  •  It's a myth that they took the language out of HR3 (0+ / 0-)
    Well, public backlash forced Republicans to remove that particular provision, but as I hope you're aware, H.R. 3 hides even bigger dangers than the redefinition of rape, if you can believe such a thing is possible
    .

    they only said they would
    they haven't actually done it

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 09:41:22 PM PDT

  •  IOU Republicans aren't afraid of (0+ / 0-)

    the bogey man; they are the bogey man.  There are really people who want to hurt other people's children.  I think it's jealousy that makes them do that -- jealousy that someone else is getting what think they were deprived of.
    One has to wonder how many of these people are the products of abusive fathers.

    http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

    by hannah on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:36:29 AM PDT

  •  The Rich ARE on the Dole! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marvyt, rlharry, Matt Z
    It's "welfare" if the government is "giving" you dollars in the form of a tax deduction, too. Take a deduction? You're "on the dole," Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer!

    The biggest users of tax deductions ARE the wealthy, so glad to see they recognize they are on the dole!

    The daily floggings will continue until morale improves.

    by Tuba Les on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:06:03 AM PDT

  •  thanks for the link (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the link david!
    french lamour (aka brendan skwire, aka brendancalling.com)

  •  That's a strong admission (0+ / 0-)
    when you take a tax deduction that puts "federal dollars" in your pocket.

    Except, of course, when you're a rich man. Then, taking a tax deduction is just keeping your money when the government wants to rob you of it.

    So this quotation will be used by any bright Democrat in debates with any Republican who voted for it.

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:12:23 AM PDT

  •  why not they are only women and children (0+ / 0-)

    discriminate against them.... raaaaaa raaaa raaaa

    If we do not treat a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of dollars the same way we treat someone who stole $500 from a cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law?. ~ Senator Ted Kaufman

    by anyname on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 07:17:38 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site