Re: “Social programs have poor record of results,” Monday:
Mark Levin came in ahead of me in rebutting Nick Smith’s usual socialist propaganda. I can’t even touch the …
Junk-food stamps and irresponsible parent payouts
Junk food stamps and irresponsible parent payouts
Re: “Social programs have poor record of results,” Monday:
Mark Levin came in ahead of me in rebutting Nick Smith’s usual socialist propaganda. I can’t even touch the journalistic prowess of Mr. Levin, but I will do my best.
Social programs are like labor unions. They start out meek and well-intentioned, but then greed and corruption takes over and they destroy themselves, our society or both.
A perfect example of the taxpayers’ welfare resources at work: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps. Read the following eligible foods carefully. “Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible. Seafood, steak and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items.”
How in the world did the word “nutrition” qualify as part of this title? I believe it would be more accurate if the name was shortened from SNAP to SAP.
One wonders how much money was paid to soft drink industry lobbyists for the soda inclusion. Any nutritionist will tell you that a soda pop is about as nutritious as a dose of arsenic. I envy these SNAP recipients; I wish I could afford $20 a pound Alaskan crabmeat and Black Angus filet mignon.
Another example: Child support. Innocent babies brought into this world by irresponsible and promiscuous women is at the epidemic level and by far the greatest social problem facing this nation. If this irresponsibility was stopped, the crime rate would be greatly reduced. The taxpayers spend billions of dollars throwing money at this absurdity, but nothing is solved.
The very moment a teenager or any promiscuous and irresponsible woman sticks her head in the welfare office holding a new baby expecting the taxpayers to provide for their wellbeing, the baby should be placed in an orphanage until at least at such time when the mother can show evidence of sufficient fiscal, physical and mental support and responsibility for the child. Don’t pass the child on to Grandma or Aunt Mary. In most instances, that is a charade to keep the welfare flowing.
What say thou, Mr. Smith, and ye social program pundits?
Labels, party lines impede progress
Re: “Responsible arguments are supported by facts,” Tuesday:
Joan Boykin has put forth an informed opinion backed up with an educational background that adds to its validity.
Unfortunately, letters to the editor don’t require an informed opinion, merely an opinion. No matter how misguided and inept the thought process behind the opinion, it may be expressed. Most seem to be just parroted labels and expressions of a biased media. I applaud the Times for rising above the lowly standard of tabloid television.
Which led me to thinking of the labels we place on the subjects upon which we opine.
For example: What is a liberal? What is a conservative? What do we really mean when we use such terms?
I can quote dictionary definitions till I’m blue in the face, but it won’t make any difference to the undereducated or those underinformed by facts. Normally they don’t like to be confused by facts — real or alternative.
What is really important to you and to us as a country?
What would your priorities be if you were president?
Let’s see: If you had control of the discretionary budget for the United States, out of every $100, how much would you spend for the following?
I am of the opinion that our biggest problem is that we’re stuck in a two-party system. That concept dates back as far as the Whigs and the Tories. Beating the other party is more important to politicians than the citizens they supposedly represent. That’s wrong. And that is what keeps me an independent.
Try, I beg you, to get beyond the labels. Get to the truth of your beliefs. Your fellow Americans are not your enemy. Your political party just may be.
Trump’s falsehoods further cut credibility
Re: “Republican leadership from WWII to 9/11” by Bill O’Boyle, Monday:
Ditto to Bill and Linda.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave as we practice to deceive,” a most appropriate statement to sum up the Trump administration’s activities to date. We Democrats accept that Trump is president, although he didn’t win the popular vote.
He lost by 3 million votes, and his approval rating verifies that position, remaining in the low 40 percentile. Yes,we Democrats are disappointed, but take comfort that we didn’t elect this Frankenstein, you Republicans did.
Lies and deception have been this president’s, his advisers and selected Cabinet members’ hallmarks from the start. In the last 40-plus days in office he has made, let’s say 114 and growing, false statements — all recorded, verified and posted on Google, or any legitimate site.
• Claim: Trump said he called for the largest increase in defense spending in American history.
• Fact: The 10 percent historical increase is actually quite average.
• Claim: The murder rate in the U.S. is the highest it has been in 47 years.
• Fact: The homicide rate is near historic lows; in 2014 and 2015 it was the lowest in 40 years.
These kinds of misleading statements are common to Trump’s dissertation, look at his flimflam: To divert suspicion of wrongdoing with him and his administration and the Russians, he fabricated the story that President Obama wiretapped his political headquarters in the Trump Towers, so sad.
It is time our president goes forth engaging our Congress under oath to disprove this boondoggle with the Russian government. In this respect, the president needs to release present and past tax returns, an action that could expel those doubts hanging over him and his administration.