I Awoke To A Red Map

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Then why is there this?

I like this doozey, Al Frankin's stealing money from the 1990 Child Care Act to give to the Indians.

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2822: Franken Amdt. No. 2822; To reserve not less than 2 percent of the amount appropriated under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 in each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

High priority stuff man, you must be proud.

2% going to the tribes and tribal organizations. You're whining about 2% going to Native Americans. Umm, did you know that Native Americans have children, too? Seriously, they do. They have children and well, things between the tribes and the federal government are handled a bit differently from the states as the tribes have partial sovereignty. Still, it's 2%. That meant 98% of the appropriated funds went everywhere else BUT the tribes. I guess you're probably screaming that 2% was too much for a population whose demographic is 1% of the population. However, considering a few other circumstances, I can give them that extra 1%.

You are a strange bird.

It's just handing it over to them, they won't buy baby formula they will build more casinos.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

Honestly, if I had to do it, my first thing would be to change subsidies to pay-outs.

Those of us who earn our money have to figure out how to budget, so why don't the poor have to do it, too?

Instead of paying their bills for them with subsidies for housing, daycare, utilities, etc., why don't we just figure out what the amount of that support is and make it a yearly block grant disbursed in 12 monthly payments? If we did that, we could basically eliminate the need for all the support bureaucracies that oversee all the other agencies currently in place to administer those subsidies.

The poor would still get their accustomed support, and we'd save a ton of money by cutting out the administrators.

Then, I'd start means testing so that the amount of support tapers with the amount of self-support a family on aid takes in. Right now, it's all or nothing. Make too much and you lose all your aid which makes it hard to get off the dole. Taper the support incrementally so it's not so hard to start working for your independence and require people to find jobs or enter job programs and maybe more people would actually start working toward independence.

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It would open some eyes, too. So many people think that the do not poor are living in horrendous conditions or don't have enough money because they don't get enough in hand-outs. Most people don't realize how much they actually do get in terms of support. They don't understand that there really is enough available in terms of subsidy and support payouts for the do not poor to live decently comfortable lives if they manage what they get wisely.

What most people don't understand is that the do not poor have poor money management skills which is why so many of them are poor in the first place.

If we confiscated all wealth from everyone and every business tomorrow, equalized it and distributed and equal share to every citizen, many of these people I am referring to would be do not poor again inside of a few months at most.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I am certainly not against giving monies to the Native American tribes as is their due, however, when we vote for a bill, or ask our congressional representatives to vote for a bill, we do, as Americans, expect those monies to go where it is supposed to go - where we voted for it to go initially.

And while yes, Native American tribes have children, they don't have the same type of oversight of funds, so there is no promise that child care funds will go to their own child care improvements. Its why funding of tribal and reservation lands is usually separate from other public funds earmarked for specific things.

At least, in an ideal world that's how our fiscal responsibilities should be handled.

And... in seeing a huge percentage of the population going away from what is their norm... they feel that the current/former politicians have not taken proper care of what their responsibilities have been, and are hoping to change to a more responsible government in the future rather than one who is irresponsible.

Everyone is looking at our government right now, and feeling pretty frightened by what we see happening. This red map is a reflection of that fear.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

Without a doubt this stands as the single most baseless and vile post I have ever had the displeasure to read upon these boards. The broad brush, unsubstantiated demonization of an entire social class as alcoholics and child abusers is absolutely deplorable and utterly without merit or reason. Then to go further and joke about the potential death of an entire social class based upon your biased and irrational views? Projection?

True colors shining right through. Whether you are an elitist, racist, classist, or just lost in some self-engrandizing fantasy, I care not. Just be aware that you are exemplifying everything that people hate about government and those in power.

Beyond that, I will actually include you in my prayers because karma tends to be mean, and the karma from this single post should rightly be enough to knock one down from their ivory tower.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

Without a doubt this stands as the single most baseless and vile post I have ever had the displeasure to read upon these boards. The broad brush, unsubstantiated demonization of an entire social class as alcoholics and child abusers is absolutely deplorable and utterly without merit or reason. Then to go further and joke about the potential death of an entire social class based upon your biased and irrational views? Projection?

True colors shining right through. Whether you are an elitist, racist, classist, or just lost in some self-engrandizing fantasy, I care not. Just be aware that you are exemplifying everything that people hate about government and those in power.

Beyond that, I will actually include you in my prayers because karma tends to be mean, and the karma from this single post should rightly be enough to knock one down from their ivory tower.

What you are in denial of rampant alcoholism among the poor?
Why do you think the govt handed out food funds in the form of stamps? And now Food Cards?
So it would be used to buy food.

I was pointing out the insanity of the previous posters proposition to do away with that system and just give cash blocks out to people who have no self control to manage their funds in the first place. And yes early deaths would be part of those consequences.

High horse indeed.
Stop worrying about others so called karma and keep track of your own.


Oh and to add, no it is not me that exemplifies what everyone hates in government, it is overwhelmingly the Democrats because that is the way people have voted this time around, the Democrats that represent more wrong than good as reflected in the voting.

a reply to: Hefficide


"Waking up to a red map just shows me how much closer we are to the bad times."

It is clear where your loyalties are, but you are now outnumbered for no other reason that people are smarter than they were back a few years ago when a new Messiah, a product of the socialist mind, was found and brought forth to cure what ails the US according to that line of thinking and his personal grudges. The raw number of those that voted speak the minds of the people. Give us some credit.

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry." ~ Frank Zappa


Let the bipartisan games begin....

*yawn*

a reply to: Aliensun

I wouldn't say he's outnumbered so much as this was the only way that people had to clearly tell TPTB to since nothing else seemed to be getting the message across.

As soon as times get fatter, they'll switch back to his side again like they usually do.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I am certainly not against giving monies to the Native American tribes as is their due, however, when we vote for a bill, or ask our congressional representatives to vote for a bill, we do, as Americans, expect those monies to go where it is supposed to go - where we voted for it to go initially.

So what you are saying here is that Native Americans are not tax paying US citizens? Native Americans living on tribal lands only escape state payroll and/or property taxes. They do not escape federal taxation. Oh and they are US citizens whose system of governance is run jointly through the tribe and the federal government through separate entities unlike the states. In other words, that is why that 2% of the appropriated funds was specifically allocated to the tribal entities that would be representative of the same things for the rest of the US. It's a different type of bureacracy.

And while yes, Native American tribes have children, they don't have the same type of oversight of funds, so there is no promise that child care funds will go to their own child care improvements. Its why funding of tribal and reservation lands is usually separate from other public funds earmarked for specific things.

No proper oversight? I don't think you've ever read any tribal papers. The level of distrust of many tribal members for their government rivals the level of distrust for the US government and they really don't mess around. We're talking fairly small communities who know EXACTLY where their politicians live and their politicians don't have tons of armed guards. A few years back, Pres. Shelley of the Navajo Nation got accused of misuse of funds because he renovated the small ranch home that is the equivalent of the Navajo White House. We're not talking a big place. A ranch house. People came unglued. People notice when you get a new truck, too.

The difference between the reservations and state governments? Well, we bicker around the coffee pot about politics while ignoring the governor driving by in the new pick up truck. Out there? lol, everyone would see him and nobody is going to assume that he bought it with his own money. Heck no, that politician with a new truck is going to be put under investigation for possible misuse of funds. And god forbid something happens that is disagreeable too enough because then the capitol will explode in a riot. With gunfire. **

Lived out in the Navajo Nation capitol for 7 years.

**Plus accusations and threats of witchcraft, which happens, a lot.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

Honestly, if I had to do it, my first thing would be to change subsidies to pay-outs.

Those of us who earn our money have to figure out how to budget, so why don't the poor have to do it, too?

Instead of paying their bills for them with subsidies for housing, daycare, utilities, etc., why don't we just figure out what the amount of that support is and make it a yearly block grant disbursed in 12 monthly payments? If we did that, we could basically eliminate the need for all the support bureaucracies that oversee all the other agencies currently in place to administer those subsidies.

The poor would still get their accustomed support, and we'd save a ton of money by cutting out the administrators.

Then, I'd start means testing so that the amount of support tapers with the amount of self-support a family on aid takes in. Right now, it's all or nothing. Make too much and you lose all your aid which makes it hard to get off the dole. Taper the support incrementally so it's not so hard to start working for your independence and require people to find jobs or enter job programs and maybe more people would actually start working toward independence.

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

Nice usage of stereotypes. Really shows how much you actually know about the tribes. Did you know that alcohol on some tribal lands is strictly prohibited? That's right. Prohibition still exists in some areas of the US and if you want to be the subject of rumors and malicious gossip, have a glass of wine at the nearest border town (where it's legal) with your dinner at the next tribal entity dinner. By the next day, every one you know in the tribe will be talking about your "drinking problem". Seen it happen. No joke. One glass of wine can really soil a reputation. Being more at risk of death due to alcoholism does not make every member of a tribe an alcoholic. Most don't drink.

The Ogala Sioux just lifted their prohibition against alcohol on the reservation. It had been in place by the tribe for 124 years.

a reply to: Hefficide

i just look at it this way--he is a walking advert for his own level of ignorance in the subject among other things. Never expected anything better from him to be honest.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

Honestly, if I had to do it, my first thing would be to change subsidies to pay-outs.

Those of us who earn our money have to figure out how to budget, so why don't the poor have to do it, too?

Instead of paying their bills for them with subsidies for housing, daycare, utilities, etc., why don't we just figure out what the amount of that support is and make it a yearly block grant disbursed in 12 monthly payments? If we did that, we could basically eliminate the need for all the support bureaucracies that oversee all the other agencies currently in place to administer those subsidies.

The poor would still get their accustomed support, and we'd save a ton of money by cutting out the administrators.

Then, I'd start means testing so that the amount of support tapers with the amount of self-support a family on aid takes in. Right now, it's all or nothing. Make too much and you lose all your aid which makes it hard to get off the dole. Taper the support incrementally so it's not so hard to start working for your independence and require people to find jobs or enter job programs and maybe more people would actually start working toward independence.

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

Nice usage of stereotypes. Really shows how much you actually know about the tribes. Did you know that alcohol on some tribal lands is strictly prohibited? That's right. Prohibition still exists in some areas of the US and if you want to be the subject of rumors and malicious gossip, have a glass of wine at the nearest border town (where it's legal) with your dinner at the next tribal entity dinner. By the next day, every one you know in the tribe will be talking about your "drinking problem". Seen it happen. No joke. One glass of wine can really soil a reputation. Being more at risk of death due to alcoholism does not make every member of a tribe an alcoholic. Most don't drink.

The Ogala Sioux just lifted their prohibition against alcohol on the reservation. It had been in place by the tribe for 124 years.

a reply to: Hefficide

i just look at it this way--he is a walking advert for his own level of ignorance in the subject among other things. Never expected anything better from him to be honest.

That was a completely different post you are quoting which was NOT about Native Americans.
See the casino post, that one was about American Indians.

Nice try twisting your undies in a bundle over nothing.

Edit to add reflection....
Look at all those stars you got for responding to the incorrect post. Your post is utterly meaningless yet amasses so much stars....incredible but indicative of sheeple who do things without thinking. It's like a lifelong Democrat who takes his whole family to the polls and orders them to pull the lever for all Democrats.

a reply to: Aliensun

I'll give credit where it's due. Now define "socialism" for me and show me how incorrect your statement actually is. If one wants to use buzzwords, one should know what they mean.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Obama was elected in a knee jerk reaction to Bush and his failed policies. Now this midterm we see the same knee-jerk again. Meanwhile the ferris wheel that is Washington DC spins on, never changing. The red map doesn't scare me because it's red. It scares me because it shows how well led the American people are by the media.

In 2016 we'll see a strong right wing election. And when nothing changes after that? We'll simply return to the same argument we're having now.

It never changes. The power brokers have proven exactly how easily led we, as a nation, are.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hefficide

Honestly, if I had to do it, my first thing would be to change subsidies to pay-outs.

Those of us who earn our money have to figure out how to budget, so why don't the poor have to do it, too?

Instead of paying their bills for them with subsidies for housing, daycare, utilities, etc., why don't we just figure out what the amount of that support is and make it a yearly block grant disbursed in 12 monthly payments? If we did that, we could basically eliminate the need for all the support bureaucracies that oversee all the other agencies currently in place to administer those subsidies.

The poor would still get their accustomed support, and we'd save a ton of money by cutting out the administrators.

Then, I'd start means testing so that the amount of support tapers with the amount of self-support a family on aid takes in. Right now, it's all or nothing. Make too much and you lose all your aid which makes it hard to get off the dole. Taper the support incrementally so it's not so hard to start working for your independence and require people to find jobs or enter job programs and maybe more people would actually start working toward independence.

The majority would spend it all on Vodka, while the child abuse shelters would overflow but on the good side of the money column their livers wouldn't hold out long so payments would be shortened.

Nice usage of stereotypes. Really shows how much you actually know about the tribes. Did you know that alcohol on some tribal lands is strictly prohibited? That's right. Prohibition still exists in some areas of the US and if you want to be the subject of rumors and malicious gossip, have a glass of wine at the nearest border town (where it's legal) with your dinner at the next tribal entity dinner. By the next day, every one you know in the tribe will be talking about your "drinking problem". Seen it happen. No joke. One glass of wine can really soil a reputation. Being more at risk of death due to alcoholism does not make every member of a tribe an alcoholic. Most don't drink.

The Ogala Sioux just lifted their prohibition against alcohol on the reservation. It had been in place by the tribe for 124 years.

a reply to: Hefficide

i just look at it this way--he is a walking advert for his own level of ignorance in the subject among other things. Never expected anything better from him to be honest.

That was a completely different post you are quoting which was NOT about Native Americans.
See the casino post, that one was about American Indians.

Nice try twisting your undies in a bundle over nothing.

Thank you for the clarification. I saw you were going back and forth with Heff and considering that accusations of alcoholism being a rampant problem for all tribal members, I'm sure you can understand why I observed it was stupid. Glad we agree that you don't think native americans are a bunch of child abusing drunks.

In regards to your post, not all tribes have casinos. The tribe that I lived with, the Navajo Nation, did not have a casino up until a few years ago. They had been voting it down for decades as being an unhealthy thing (for tribal members and non-tribal members) that was completely against maintaining hozho (balance). What finally got them to break was that there was simply not enough money for all the things that the tribe needed. Poverty is pretty prolific out there because of limited opportunity and BIA controlled lands. Hence why when somebody gets a new pickup truck, everybody and their brother knows about it. They do not pour the money for childcare into casino building funds. That would be a misappropriation of funds that would both threaten the continuing receipt of those monies as well as a whole lot of ticked off Navajo families beating down your door (and no secret service either).

Some of the promises that were made to the Navajo to assure the passage of the casino bill was additional funding for the schools on the tribal lands. The schools out there struggle far more than many of those off the reservations. Better funding for the schools was one of those primary goals. I actually did work with the schools out there and I can tell you, every bit of money that came through for the children was spent for the children.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: StarGazer77

Lincoln would qualify as a Democrat or liberal in every sense of the word in the modern world. The parties have shifted positions many times over since 1865.

No he would be labeled a socialist and Marxist. A true advocate for centralized federal power if there ever was one.

a reply to: Hefficide

People are waking up to the destructive policies that are coming out of Washington.

Red, blue, republican, democrat is irrelevant.

Any policy or policies that attempt to destroy the freedoms that we still marginally have, is going to be met with resistance.

a reply to: beezzer

Would you agree that Citizens United is such a policy?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Obama was elected in a knee jerk reaction to Bush and his failed policies. Now this midterm we see the same knee-jerk again. Meanwhile the ferris wheel that is Washington DC spins on, never changing. The red map doesn't scare me because it's red. It scares me because it shows how well led the American people are by the media.

In 2016 we'll see a strong right wing election. And when nothing changes after that? We'll simply return to the same argument we're having now.

It never changes. The power brokers have proven exactly how easily led we, as a nation, are.

The media has been in the hip pocket of Obama this whole time, so you cannot claim the media has led the voters away from the Democrats.
Unless you want to place the lone MSM outlet that is blacklisted by Obama, FOXNEWS, as having more influence than the entirety of the Media conglomeration amassed in Obamas courtyard literally kissing the ground he walks on?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

Would you agree that Citizens United is such a policy?

You mean THIS group?

Citizens United's stated mission is to restore the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security." To fulfill this mission, Citizens United undertakes various marketing projects, including television advertising and feature-length documentaries.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...(organization)