British Columbia Politicians Day Care Crisis: Necessity or Luxury?

by Barry ORegan | August 31, 2008 at 05:52 am
631 views | 33 Recommendations | 24 comments

Photos

British Columbia Politicians Day Care Crisis: Necessity or Luxury?

British Columbia Politicians Day Care Crisis: Necessity or Luxury?

see larger image

uploaded by Barry ORegan

Opinion

Barry Artiste

As far as I am concerned, if you live in a million dollar home, drive a Beemer, have 2.5 kids, and complain you can either not afford the high cost of after school care for your kid, or cannot find a place to put your kid, then you have a choice, we all have choices, sell your Beemer, or buy a cheaper house, brew your own coffee, instead of Starbuck Lattes, move to another school district which has school openings for your kid, that way you will have money to pay for daycare, or two, you will be able to afford to have one parent stay at home to care for your kid.

Relying on the Government to bail your sorry asses out, so you will be able to keep all your stuff, in order to get taxpayers to subsidize your daycare smacks of idiocy and you're obvious "Everyone owes me a living mentality" most likely garnered from your Hippy Drug Smoking Parents.

The Government didn't "Stick their Dink in your wife", you did!  You, both as parents are responsible for your kid, cause "Parent Responsibility doesn't end with Conception", regardless what the lefty society, and Vote Sucking Bandwagon jumping Politicians tell ya! If you thought otherwise, perhaps mentally you are not mature or wise enough to have kids.

Perhaps our lefty society as a whole led you to believe that "Hey pop em out as fast as you can", and we'll provide for your kids, while you can use that money of yours to live in luxury and drive that Range Rover. Hello Give your Head a Friggin Shake!

One easy answer is one of you to downsize, one of you can give up a career to care for your kid and two stop having more kids if you cannot care for them.

If you think Politicians and their lefty grandiose schemes to promise more after school care for your kid, subsidized or otherwise will magically appear if you elect them, well then you are as stupid as a politician who promises that dreamy dream, cause you should know by now Politicians will tell you what you want to hear, that is what they do. It's called "Stand and Never Deliver"!

Single parents, low income parents struggling to make ends meet need "FREE Daycare"!!

Two parent families regardless of their income, living in $500,000 homes should have thought about their finances before "Slappin that baloney pony into the corral". Cause once it's in there is no turning back, you're stuck with that kid till 18.

So keep the funding for single families in dire straits, after all that is what it should be meant for, not the families of Jericho, and other luxury burgs. If you are having problems finding a school for your kid, then move!

I raised three kids as a single parent, struggled put them through University, and didn't need subsidized anything!

So, you can see why as a single parent, why I take exception as a taxpayer, cause I ain't paying for your lifestyle you can ill afford, and won't be voting for any Politicians who promises you the moon.

Now here is an "Inconvenient Cultural Truth"  I volunteer at area senior homes from time to time, you know, it is pretty rare to see  an Asian, East Indian, Native Senior  living in these homes.  These Seniors for the most part are Grandparents with all their Mental faculties and fit.  One other thing, they are WHITE AND ABLE SENIORS!  The biggest complaint I get from the Seniors is they see their kid and grandkids perhaps once a week.  I can only surmise their own Flesh and Blood, perhaps do not want Grandma and Grandad who raised them to live with them, who could more than care for their own Grandchildren, but don't because their Kids most likely feel their elderly parents would cramp their Kids Frappe Latte Lifestyle!

Wanna know something else, the reason why East Asians and First Nations Elderly are not frequent residents of Seniors homes?

Cause their Friggin Kids take care of their parents who raised them with love and caring, a love and caring which carried over to the children, who in return would be horrified to leave their elderly parents in a Seniors home. 

These Kids Moral Compass and Correct Upbringing  ensure their Mom and Dad live at home with them, and allow the Grandparents a role in their Grandchildren's lives, thus benefiting the children, the grandparents and the Parents.

There is a reason why these Cultural Families have large Honking Homes, they need it for their growing families and Grandparents.  A Culture Western Society used to have but lost, cause we like all our stuff, and don't want GrandMa and GrandPa Kettle to touch it or  inconvenience our "Groovy Lifestyle"!

The downside not having your parents living with you, is you will send your child to be cared for by perfect strangers for the right CHEAP price, or plop them in front of the TV or computer, hence, why your wonder why your kid today is so screwed up, or susceptible to pedophiles, drugs, gangs etc,,, cause you didn't pay close personal attention to your kid. A kid who needs you to care enough to raise him  or her with their own family members, or at least one of you to stay at home and raise them as good kids with a good loving upbringing to carry them on to young adults. There is a reason why they call kids suffering from Attention Deficit Disorders, cause you are not paying attention to them!

So next time when you look at your kid, look at your parents, know what goes around, comes around! Cause you know, if you raise your kid the way you are supposed to, you'll have a great kid, if you don't, you're kid when they are married with children, will be picking your seniors home for ya!


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=9f8e36c9-7b00-4a3f-a427-2d0dae197d22&p=1

After-care isn't a luxury, it's a necessity Families struggle to find programs to care for their children after the bell rings

Denise Ryan, Vancouver Sun

Published: Saturday, August 30, 2008

It is less than a week before six-year-old Sacha Goldman starts Grade 1. His mother, Karen Shaw, isn't thinking about new shoes or school supplies or that photo she'll take when he sets off for his first day of grade school.

Instead of celebrating an important rite of passage, she's still trying to figure out which Vancouver public school he'll attend.

Shaw needs to find a school -- preferably within her catchment district -- that can also provide her with affordable, on-site after-care.

Like 70 to 80 per cent of parents in Vancouver, she goes to work each day. After-school care is not a luxury for her family, it is a necessity. It's not for lack of trying -- she signed on to waiting lists last April. "I don't have a child-care space confirmed anywhere yet," she said.

Shaw was hoping Sacha will get into French immersion at Jules Quesnel, but if she gets the call this week that he's got a space, she may be forced to turn it down.

The on-site after-care program at Jules Quesnel is full, as are the two other local providers that serve Quesnel's students. "My second choice is also dependent on where I can get after-care," she said. If Shaw can't get Sacha in to French immersion, she'd like him to be in her neighbourhood school, Bayview.

But their Jericho Kids Club after-care has a waiting list, too. Lack of space in schools for before- and after-care programs is one of the main reasons children can't be accommodated, according to advocates.

The result in the Metro Vancouver region is long waiting lists and growing frustration for working parents who can't be there when the bell rings. "Any parent who believes their child-care issues are over once they reach school age had better think again," said Susan Harney, chairwoman of the Coalition of Childcare Advocates of B.C.

After three decades as a child-care advocate, she does not see programs getting better, Harney said. "If anything, they're getting worse."

A dire situation There is no central organization running Vancouver's school-age before- and after-care programs, fees vary from program to program, running from about $250 a month to $450, and waiting lists are the norm.

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
Uwe Paschen
Uwe Paschen
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 07:10 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I would not worry about the Residence that can afford the Million Dollar mansion and the Beemer, those can pay, yet those are usually also the once that know every trick to bleed the Public treasury some more. I do worry about those that have the 8 or 10 dollar an Hour Jobs and get taxed to death for they do not even know how to get some of their taxes back nor can afford a good tax accountant. The low income once need day care publicly funded.

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks Paschen for the comment and flag, my point exactly, but as we all know the ones who have money have the politicians ears, the low income rarely do when it comes to the government doing anything.

djermano
djermano
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 07:13 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Yep Barry very intersting story. What I can't figure is if they have that much money, why is there a problem in finding daycare, or a babysitter? Yes in China Grandparents are a big factor in watching the little ones, but here in China they also have boarding schools, where they are looked after all the time, so parents can work. There are not many old folks nursing homes, but the ones they have are big, spacious, new and quite comfortable. I have seen them. they put USA ones to shame.

I always hated seeing them put Grandma Evans in the Nursing Home. My Grandma died before my Great Grandmother so perhaps the health issues and the stress are the blame. Granted its nice to have children take care of you when older, but who is to say whether care is better or worse? I have no way to guage that factor. People seem to think family is better, but I have seen where it is not...And besides if you really consider the truth we are all but one big family really anyway.

My story is different Barry. I married my chinese wife who already had two children. They were quite destitute when I found them. No father, who was killed in a Coal Mine Accident in North China. And Chinese men will not marry a widow with children. So my dear wife was in tough shape when I met her. I got the kids in school and pay their way, even though they are not really mine. The tough thing is we can't have our own. Why because the Chinese Government turned my wife off so to speak so she couldn't have anymore children.It is because of the One Child policy. The one child policy is really for parents in the city, but in the country you can have more than one child because the government thinks they will work on the farms growing food. The more the better they think. So although I can't have my own....perhaps it is a blessing. I don't have to go through the crying, and the wiping and changing diapers....My kids are good kids. I am happy and proud of them. If in the USA I think I would be one sorry unhappy camper with kids getting into trouble.

As far as BC daycare a luxury or necessity.....it depends on who it helps. It may help a person who needs a job to watch the kids, forget about junior for awhile. If it is a luxury then the parents should be able to afford it without Governement footing the bill. On the other hand it depends on how they may manage it. If a lot of parents request and they say they will pay for it, without have saying single people or people who already raised their kids pay for it, I think it would be OK.  It's like in New York when Gov. Pataki said old people and people who already raised their kids, need not pay school taxes anymore. It is how they handle the managing of  it. And who knows if it is successful they could turn it into a DayCare Management Program giving classes and intelligent ways to take care of kids, without making tax payers pay for it. Things like that are possible.

Take Care Barry....nice story and thought here.... God Bless.

Rev. Jermano

 

Rhonda J Mangus
Rhonda J Mangus
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 07:26 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks Rhonda for visiting and reading my story

0
Rhonda J Mangus

You are very welcome, Barry.

SOLARLIFE
SOLARLIFE
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 07:27 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. "Day Care Crisis", your proposal a new family generation model to avoid day care crises and senior homes isolation.

[Wanna know something else, the reason why East Asians and First Nations Elderly are not frequent residents of Seniors homes? Cause their Friggin Kids take care of their parents who raised them with love and caring, a love and caring which carried over to the children, who in return would be horrified to leave their elderly parents in a Seniors home." ]

My comment will be not very popular, I accept. Dare care was invented during high industrialisation to get the women into work for manufacturing cars etc. Today this work has gone to India-China. The day care centers are a horror for intelligent children adapting to the stupidity of the mass, all sort of diseases are mass transmitted back into the families, as lice, scabbies and so on. The day care centers in the South of France remember me more a prison, but everybody wants it, Appartments are to expensive, to small for children, so outsource them, as later they will us outsource as worthless industrial junk parents. Could we change it, yes we can this article is a base for it:; I am also referring to Hopenow's recent article about FabLabs to replace consumerism by Invention thinking. FabLabs from MIT is a factory laboratory to make out of ideas products with home manufacturing. No bad Idea. I accept almost all women will hate me for my comment, saying this guy has no idea what children mean. I can understand  this point too.

Let's just mention the Prad Pit family,  living with 5 children in Southern france, they get Euro 1500 / $ 2000 per month from the french government for child care. To be rich allows you to have children, isn't that also true?

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks Solar for your comments, certainly another side of the coin to ponder and discuss.

In Quebec, the Quebec government is pretty generous with families and pay a premium higher than anywhere else in North America.  But then Quebec does not have the density British Columbia does, the economy or the Jobs.  But Quebec manage. Here in BC everyone wants to live in specific areas, and when the majority of the population of non kid families are also living there, everything is expensive and less kid friendly. Where as other areas need families but since these areas are Not as Hip and Groovy, they remain relatively under used and populated.  As for parents who have big bucks, and want  subsidies  so they wont have to sell their stuff or downsize or move, I say screw em.


0
Barry ORegan

Thanks djermano for your commentary and flag, certainly China's one child policy has been an utter failure as it will result in a more male dominated society, when males are preferred over females, and only males run the society and government, hence why many males look for wives abroad.


In BC finding daycare or school spaces is a problem, a problem which the public for the most part brought upon themselves by choosing to live in specific districts, resulting in other districts with declining enrollment to close their schools. As for daycare, pretty much the same thing, when you saturate an a desirable area, you will certainly have problems from housing, schools, daycare and even parking and transit with overcrowding. Politicians here promise the friggin moon in order to get elected, and when they do, they look at the "inbox" of the previous government and Go Holy Crap, What a friggin mess.

Some Politicians go ahead with their program agenda, and then the taxpayers who do not benefit from it, Go, Hey, I'm no paying for that! Higher property and income taxes etc.

They will demand that the few who use it, pay for it~! The NDP for example and built Billion dollar ferries only to find out it disturbed rich peoples homes on the ocean shoreline, not to mention its suction pipes could suck up sea creatures the size of a Buick and grind them out and spit them out into the ocean, making it look like a veritable bloodbath in the ocean. Then they tried to sell these two ferries to recoup their billion dollar investment we taxpayers paid for.  Yeah, good luck with that!  Eventually a US company bought both for 20 million dollars, what a friggin bargain eh?

In short Special interests want everyone to pay for their niceties, cause if they were forced to pay it through user fees, it would be a non issue.


0
djermano

Thanks djermano for your commentary and flag, certainly China's one child policy has been an utter failure as it will result in a more male dominated society, when males are preferred over females, and only males run the society and government, hence why many males look for wives abroad. ....not sure what you mean here Barry. Are you saying that the one child policy only produces males? Is it genetically proven that more males are born before/over females?  The reason the Chinese have a one child policy is because they don't do that many abortions, That becomes their means to limiting population without taking life to do it. America on the other hand legalizes abortion, which kills an innocent child for no reason. The child didn't rape the mother.

I hear you Barry about what you think is over-crowding and rich people squawking about the ferries. I don't understand why they didn't put metal bars on the suction pipes so it couldn't suck in seals or otters or whatever? That would have stopped the bloody water mess. Pretty expensive ferries if you ask me....I would be complaining they spent that much for them...It is kind of like the housing crisis in the US home after home after home is being foreclosed because they are upside down in the note...Meaning the loan the people are paying on it more than the house is worth, so they don't want to be caught spending all that money on a house that isn't worth that much. The banks are taking more than a big hit in the pants over this.. I have no sympathy for the banks...they are the greediest bunch out there.

 

 


0
azzayindia

dear Barry excellent post.i completely agree with what you say.I think consumerism is to be blamed for this.every room should have tv and every kid should have laptop increases the pressure on parents.

In india the elderly are taken care by their parents and their children are looked after by their grand parents.Keeping grand parents in elderly homes is still considered taboo.Although their are cases where the elderly parents are harrased and illtreated but general feeling is of living together.It is feasable economically too.

the  consumerist individualism is responsible for this i believe so.We are social beings and will only survive in close knit bonds of families.

me and my brother live together with our wives and it makes sense.it provides security to the elderly parents in these times of crime and the burden of running the house is shared. 

0
Barry ORegan

Thank you Azzay for your commentary and flag. Though I am sure sometimes there are problems, such as conflict between grandparents and parents on disciplining a child for instance etc.  All in all is the child that gets the love and attention needed by all family, instead of shuffled off to complete strangers like cattle in a pen full of other people children penned in a yard or basement watching cartoons.

rumana husain
rumana husain
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 20:21 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff. yes, true, in South Asia by and large we still have the joint family system - which is not without its own problems - but children of working women are taken care of at home by some family member or the other or (like in my case, although my in-laws live in the same house but both times they were away for long periods when my children were young) the mother wont start working (if it is affordable to do that) until the children are old enough to start school. it is quite common for low-income poor families for an older sibling to look after the younger ones.

0
Barry ORegan

Thank you Rumana for your commentary and flag. Of course there will be problems, but at least problems adults can deal with, versus problems a child cannot.  I do thank you for visiting Rumana, much appreciated.

Mikasi
Mikasi
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 21:07 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks Mikasi for the flag and dropping by.

BigT
BigT
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 21:39 on August 31st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I guess a complete reversal of cultural decay isn't impossible. Well, it's right next to impossible.

When you have a confluence of events like government provided care for children, care for the elderly, care for the poor, care for the out of work, care for everyone, really, you get a bunch of people who don't have to worry about the boring intricacies of life.

Intricacies like caring for your children or your parents because, hell, why should you spend time caring for people the government can care for? And you don't have to save and live a frugal life because if you have hit the genetic lottery and live to be 101 the government gets the tab! It's completely awesome DUDE! You don't have to save for your golden years because the government is already hard at work preparing nice digs for you and the Mrs.

Unfortunately for all of us who live in these completely unsustainable countries (i.e. the West) our chickens, to borrow a phrase from a pastor I've heard on TV, will come home to roost. Eventually our governments are going to have so many obligations (health care, child care, elderly care, welfare, etc.) that they are going to fail. And guess what the knee jerk reaction is going to be - Yup, higher taxes.

Right as we need growth the most our governments are going to jack our taxes off and scare away every businessman in the world. Frick, I live in California and this is already happening. Businesses are leaving and our state government continues to spend money like it grows on trees.

The only solution that has a shot in hell at working is drastically cutting the size of the government and by that I mean our welfare state. No more of this schools raising kids from 7am to 7pm, no more of this having gran'pa 'n' gran'ma living on the government's dime, no more of any of this crap.

I'm serious about this. Just take a look at Wikipedia's page on the US Budget, it's a shocking read. Or you could just look at the charts. Within the next couple of decades the party is going to end. Mandatory spending (spending on welfare programs) is going to outstrip government revenues sometime in the '30s.

It makes me cringe whenever I hear a politician say that our biggest problem is climate change because it is now basically just code for "we must kill growth." Has anyone thought about what will happen to our economy if we dramatically curb CO2? How can we possibly have a country with little to no growth, thanks to draconian cuts on growth from global warming legislation, pay for exploding costs attributable to the welfare system?

I know that your story here is just one story but, as you may have figured out, I feel passionately about this. It is nice to have the government care for those who cannot care for themselves (although that is debatable and I would rather leave that up to community organizations like churches or those groups Obama used to work for).

But we've gone way beyond that at this point and the growth of our welfare state is far greater than our country's economic growth. Unless something drastic happens we're all going to be in for a heaping of pain not too far off into the future.

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks BigT, to borrow a JFK phrase "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" certainly lost on a generation who feel the government owes them a living (Welfare).


Social Programs were set up to help the truly needy, not career aspirations to be taken advantage by those who feel it's all about ME, ME, ME!

Thanks for the great commentary Big T, really appreciated.


0
djermano

I think Mr. T is a bit confused when it comes to understanding Big Government. I certainly find no problem supporting efforts in helping people in Domestic Programs. What I can't accept is our World War Machine that thinks it has the right to invade other countries, and assert its God given right to exploit their resources for our use. The Military has got to be the biggest mega buck welfare program on the planet. They produce nothing except killing innocent people. People take up arms to stop the rogue USA from killing more innocent people and the US automatically claims the people defending themselves are terrorist..This vicious cycle goes on and on and on.

Anything that will take money out of the Military Complex to help ordinary good people at home...I am all for.

The US out spends on its military more than the total of the 194 countries combined in the world. How many atomic bombs do we have? And how much is one? The biggest lie out there is that poor want to live on the government..The truth is the Military wants to live on the government because they can do any darn thing they want...even kill innocent people and get away with it.

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/world/131888/

Rev. Jermano..............I say God Bless Daycare and Domestic Programs.

 


0
Barry ORegan

Thanks for your comments djermano, though I do not know what War has to do with daycare. I believe social programs should be for those in dire need financially. Those in million dollar homes, certainly do not qualify

0
BigT

Rev,

Have you ever looked at America's budget? I love these talking points responses about how "the military takes up most of the spending the government does" and "that without the military we would be much better off."

Well, first I'll attack the latter point. The only people who think that America having a strong military is a bad thing are people who thinks it is better having a multi-polar world. By that it is meant having a world where countries like Russia and China have as much sway in international circles as America has. And all I can say about that is that you really need to think about where the world would be without America. It would be a much worse place.

As a side note, it is despicable that you say the only thing the military produces is the killing of innocent people. That's just disgusting, a lie, and any fair person would condemn what you just said. And how are we exploiting the resources of countries we had a war with? I just saw that China got the first oil contract in Iraq. I don't think we control China, do we?

Now onto your other point about how we don't spend enough on the poor. Take a look here. What you will see is that we spend more on two categories than we do on the military's budget. Those two categories are "Health and Human Services" and "Social Security." And guess what! The spending increases on those two categories are rising faster than spending on the military.

Wouldn't that mean we're spending more and more and more on welfare than we are on the military? I think so. And, unless something is done about it, that out of control spending will sink America.

I just have one question. Why, if you're a rev, don't you think you should take care of your fellow man? Instead, you try and foist that responsibility on the government and use their coercive power to take money away from everyone (including the poor) so that they can provide pathetic services for the poor. If you really cared about the poor you would work to wrest that power away from the government so that you can spend that money in a more constructive way. But I'm thinking that it's more about advancing statist philosophy for you than helping out the poor.

Pat Garcia
Pat Garcia
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 05:13 on September 1st, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff. Interesting read ! Our system and traditions are so different. Generally our old people are not sent to senior homes , it is considered ungrateful and shameful. We don't have subsidized anything, oh yes gas, and health care if you pay the social security fee, no welfare or anything of that kind.

0
Barry ORegan

Thanks Pat for your comments and flag, I think your gas and health, are not subsidized if your government collect taxes from the citizens on everything from soup to nuts, to gas to health care. THe government just wants you to believe it is coming from their pockets.

0
djermano

Rev,

Have you ever looked at America's budget? I love these talking points responses about how "the military takes up most of the spending the government does" and "that without the military we would be much better off."

I have Mr.T....and people have so many versions of it, that no one really knows what kind real budget there is in concern to domestic America.

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

http://www.truemajority.org/bensbbs/

Well, first I'll attack the latter point. The only people who think that America having a strong military is a bad thing are people who thinks it is better having a multi-polar world. By that it is meant having a world where countries like Russia and China have as much sway in international circles as America has. And all I can say about that is that you really need to think about where the world would be without America. It would be a much worse place.

That is totally your opinion Mr. T. Where and who gave you the notion that America is and should decide for the rest of the world. In fact that is the trouble with America, having always followed that script by invading and killing and taking land. They can not prove they are better. In fact the USA is killing the world, with its hegemony policies, and global warming neglection. Your opinion represents your arrogance.

As a side note, it is despicable that you say the only thing the military produces is the killing of innocent people. That's just disgusting, a lie, and any fair person would condemn what you just said. And how are we exploiting the resources of countries we had a war with? I just saw that China got the first oil contract in Iraq. I don't think we control China, do we?

.....Case in point America has killed more innocent people in Iraq than Saddam did. If you want a fair person I will call up WhiteNoise and Moonwolf to set you straight. China did not get the first Oil contract in Iraq and you know it. Halliburton and the American Oil Conglomerates along with BP and others have that snugly under wraps. Whatever they give to China is to off set the huge debt that China financed for America's War in Iraq. No you don't....China controls the USA at the moment....

Now onto your other point about how we don't spend enough on the poor. Take a look here. What you will see is that we spend more on two categories than we do on the military's budget. Those two categories are "Health and Human Services" and "Social Security." And guess what! The spending increases on those two categories are rising faster than spending on the military.

......Your chart is about as real as saying Bush had nothing to do with 911.

Wouldn't that mean we're spending more and more and more on welfare than we are on the military? I think so. And, unless something is done about it, that out of control spending will sink America.

.......In case you didn't know America is already sunk.....You mention nothing about the mortgage housing crisis....I suppose all those people were welfare sucking bums right?

I just have one question. Why, if you're a rev, don't you think you should take care of your fellow man? Instead, you try and foist that responsibility on the government and use their coercive power to take money away from everyone (including the poor) so that they can provide pathetic services for the poor. If you really cared about the poor you would work to wrest that power away from the government so that you can spend that money in a more constructive way. But I'm thinking that it's more about advancing statist philosophy for you than helping out the poor.

......I do think taking care of each other is paramount. If people want to organize their own means and ways of doing it so be it. If they call it a Government or a Church so be it.  If people do not want to support the poor....they don't anyway...with their tax shelters, and the whole nine yards in hiding their money in out of country accounts. It happens all the time. One guy has billions stashed away and says its all his....and he ain't given noth in to no BODY..I call that quite sad and irresponsible. Especially when he controls the job outlook and keeps minimum wage people as slaves to his employment.

I don't foist anything onto the government. If I had a choice I would kick you out of my government and start my own, make my own rules, and you can go off into your own pardigm. One way to make it better for the poor is to end Unemployment checks that never amount to finding anyone a new job. That money should go in toward creating new jobs for people, so when they lose a job, another job is immediately available.

What I don't like is how people like you force the military down our throats and force us to pay taxes so John Boy GI Joe can sit on post smoking pot, and using crack while he's walking around an airplane all night.  The military are the biggest welfare free loaders there ever was......and I dare say the President's salary is a suck face welfare payment as well.....when he veto's bills that would help thousands, while he sits in his cozy office, snorting cocaine, and getting drunk, or screwing some intern. Don't tell me about what is big govenment and what isn't. I wasn't born yesterday....

There it is ...This is Rev. Jermano......God Bless.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from