Limbaugh's "dumpster dive" suggestion only latest salvo in his war on the poor
Rush Limbaugh has suggested that hungry children who can't afford food this summer go "dumpster div[ing]." This is only the most recent instance in which Limbaugh has mocked or derided the plight of the poor.
Limbaugh suggests that hungry children "dumpster dive" to find food
Limbaugh suggested that "kids losing weight because they're starving to death" is a benefit of school being out for the summer. On the June 16 edition of his radio show, referencing a report that children "face a summer of hunger" because "[w]hile classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals ... [b]ut they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by" the federal government, Limbaugh stated that "a summer off from government eating might be just the ticket" to curbing childhood obesity. He later characterized children "starving to death out there because there's no school meal being provided" as "one of the benefits of school being out."
Limbaugh to children: Can't find food? "There's always the neighborhood dumpster." Also on his June 16 show, Limbaugh challenged Summer Food Service programs by criticizing children for not knowing how to find food. Limbaugh first suggested that children should "try your house," and "if that doesn't work, try a Happy Meal at McDonald's." He concluded, "There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster." From the show:
LIMBAUGH: I think, you know what we're going to do here, we're going to start a feature on this program: "Where to find food." For young demographics, where to find food. Now that school is out, where to find food. We can have a daily feature on this. And this will take us all the way through the summer. Where to find food. And, of course, the first will be: "Try your house." It's a thing called the refrigerator. You probably already know about it. Try looking there. There are also things in what's called the kitchen of your house called cupboards. And in those cupboards, most likely you're going to find Ding-Dongs, Twinkies, Lays ridgy potato chips, all kinds of dip and maybe a can of corn that you don't want, but it will be there. If that doesn't work, try a Happy Meal at McDonald's. You know where McDonald's is. There's the Dollar Menu at McDonald's and if they don't have Chicken McNuggets, dial 911 and ask for Obama.
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
Limbaugh posted a transcript of the segment on his website, and launched a "Where to Find Food Program." The day after Limbaugh suggested "dumpster div[ing]" for food, his website featured what Limbaugh called "EIB's Where to Find Food Program." Limbaugh is shown in a graphic pointing to a refrigerator next to a grocery bag with the words "WHERE TO FIND FOOD" written on it. The front page of the website teases the story by stating: "It's the 'Summer of Hunger'? El Rushbo wants to help." From the website:
Limbaugh frequently derides the plight of the poor as well as programs to aid them
Limbaugh: "Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge?" Responding to reports that one in 50 American children experiences homelessness, Limbaugh called the statistic "bogus." He questioned the validity of the statistic by asking his listeners: "Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge?" From the March 25, 2009, edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
RUSH: This question -- you know he didn't have any questions last night from the dean of the drive-bys. No Wall Street Journal. No New York Times. No Washington Post. No -- um -- some other big newspapers did not get questions. Los Angeles Times. Instead, some guy from Ebony magazine, which is a pop culture magazine. That's like having somebody from People magazine in there. And this guy asked the strangest question. This bogus statistic that one out of 50 American children are homeless. What do you -- what are you gonna do -- I want to see the facts on that. Just like how we had the "2-3 million people homeless" during the late '80s and early '90s. Mitch Snyder and his bogus homeless numbers. I mean that was obviously huge, a bogus discussion about homeless children, just after Obama got animated about cutting charitable deductions. He got happy. So he's happy, he can't wait to cut the charitable deduction, and he gets a question about one in 50 kids being homeless? If that were true why would somebody want to cut charitable donations? I think a caring person would want to triple the deduction in order to reduce the bogus number of one in 50 children who are homeless and living under bridges. Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge? I wanna hear from somebody who's seen it. Because that's the way the question was framed out there.
Limbaugh criticized homeless for having cell phones, blames "giant welfare state." When Michelle Obama visited a homeless shelter and was photographed with a man taking a picture of her with his cell phone, Limbaugh noted in disbelief that "the homeless and the poor are showing up taking pictures of her with their cell phones." Limbaugh classified the fact that a homeless man had access to a cell phone as a product of the "giant welfare state that's in the process of being manufactured." However, advocates have stated that cell phones are a "lifeline" for the homeless and noted the importance of having a stable phone number in trying to find a job. From the March 6, 2009, broadcast:
LIMBAUGH: In fact, there's a great picture out there. Michelle, my belle, Obama, once again sleeveless. Was it Time magazine or Newsweek did a story this week -- maybe The New York Times -- on how you, too, can have highly toned arms like Michelle Obama. After the State of the Union show, a bunch of stories -- "Now, you, too, can have highly toned arms and get rid of the" -- whatever they call these flab things under there. Wings, whatever.
There's a picture of Michelle Obama at a homeless shelter in Washington. She's on the other side of the glass, you know, where the server would be serving McNuggets at McDonald's. And she's serving food to the homeless. And the homeless and the poor are showing up taking pictures of her with their cell phones. Yeah, I just saw the picture. We'll put it at RushLimbaugh.com. This is the poor and the War on Poverty.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is a giant welfare state that's in the process of being manufactured, that the Democrat Party will preside over forever. Because everybody or enough people are going to need the goodwill of Democrats in power in order to get by. Like, you're going to have to see the first lady behind the counter at McDonald's when you go in there as your poverty-stricken day drags on -- take a picture with your cell phone while you go in there and get your McNuggets or whatever's being handed out that day.
Limbaugh called a UNICEF fundraising campaign "one of the biggest scams on the face of the earth." On the August 29, 2006, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh disparaged the United Nations Children Fund's (UNICEF) "Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF" campaign by calling it "[o]ne of the biggest scams on the face of the Earth." Limbaugh claimed that UNICEF itself is a scheme "to get everybody thinking the United Nations is feeding poor people." He went on to say that we have been "beat over the head" with images of "babies with the extended tummies, the walking skeletons, told that kids can't learn unless they're fed." He further claimed that "[w]e've been guilted into pouring resources on the problem."
Limbaugh said Bush administration "is killing the poor with too much food." Also on his August 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh stated, "I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government. Food stamps, all those-- you know, I'm gonna tell you people a story. I -- just, well, the government, you could say, is killing these people because we know obesity kills, and the government's killing the poor. The Bush administration is killing the poor with too much food."
Rush asked: "How can you be a resident if you're homeless?" On the October 7, 2009, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh criticized a stimulus program aimed at helping homeless and low-income residents of Detroit, calling it "nothing but redistribution." Limbaugh attacked provisions of the program, including the specification that applicants must be residents of Detroit, asking, "How can you be a resident if you're homeless?" Limbaugh further criticized the program by claiming that the applicants were "going down there thinking they're going to get 3,000 bucks" and because they have to fill out an application "they are dealing with potential riots."
Limbaugh criticized Democrats for being "armed with compassion to fight homelessness." Limbaugh railed against Democrats for programs aimed at assisting the homeless. From the November 24, 2009, edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
RUSH: And of course you've got the homeless running around there, picking up every bottle and can they can find to redeem it. That's gotta be paid off. And then you've got to get the homeless shopping carts to put the bags and the bottles and stuff in there, because Democrats call that compassion.
"Oh yeah, see that homeless guy, we love him! You conservatives, you hate the homeless. Look what we do, we give him a shopping cart."
"Oh yeah, for what?"
"Well it's their home."
"Oh, that's compassion?"
"Yeah, yeah, and we produced videos on teaching them how to properly dive in dumpsters for refuse food."
Dumpster diving: given and created by liberals. Armed with compassion to solve homelessness. Yes, I've seen the videos. We've played them on my TV show. Dumpster diving. This is compassion. Teach these people how to go into a dumpster and find the stuff that hasn't fully rotted so they don't get sick eating it. And that's called compassion.
Limbaugh mocked those unable to afford health care
Limbaugh called the story of a woman who wore her dead sister's dentures because she couldn't afford her own the "sob story of the day." On the February 25 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh called the plight of a woman who couldn't afford dentures a "sob story." From the broadcast:
RUSH: Now, here's Louise Slaughter. Sob story of the day. She's a congresswoman from New York.
SLAUGHTER [audio clip]: Think about what's absolutely important here. Not nit-pick, but think about all the people out there every single day, the number of people with excess debt because they have no health insurance. I even had one constituent -- you will not believe this, and I know you won't, but it's true. Her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth, which of course were uncomfortable and did not fit. Do you ever believe that in America, that that's where we would be?
RUSH: That pretty much sums up the way the Democrats have been approaching this today. While the Republicans have been asking the Democrats, "What the hell does this mean here in your bill?" "She's having to wear her dead sister's teeth. And of course it's uncomfortable and they don't fit. Do you believe that would happen in America?" Yeah, when Obama's running things, absolutely I believe it. And it's only going to get worse, Congresswoman Slaughter.
Limbaugh: "So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?" Limbaugh further mocked the story by suggesting that the woman eat applesauce instead of using dentures. He stated that the story is "so stupid" and asked "what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth?" He likened it to recycling, stating, "Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what?"
Limbaugh told a caller who couldn't afford treatment for a broken wrist, "You shouldn't have broken" it. On the August 20, 2009, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh took a call from a listener who told him that he couldn't afford the medical care for his broken wrist, which cost $6,000. Rush responded, "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." He added: "You know why it costs $6,000? Because you, technically, aren't paying for it. An insurance policy's paying for it, backed up by some government insurance policy, or what have you."
Limbaugh mocked story of transplant patient on Medicare who would have to pay his own bills after three years. On February 26, referring to a story Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recounted at President Obama's health care summit, Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: This patient was about to receive a transplanted organ -- Clyburn didn't specify what it was -- and the horror -- he's gonna get a -- he's gonna get a totally paid-for transplant. The horror is that he was going to have to start paying his post-op bills in three years.
If this is the worst we can say about American medicine, are we really in that bad a shape after all?
I have a different observation on this. I mean, look at where we are with this. This guy is -- he about had an emotional breakdown 'cause he was told he's gotta start paying his own medical bills after three years. He gets a free transplant; he gets a free after-care for three years and then he's on his own, and he's mad and thinks he's getting screwed.
Although his "dumpster dive" comment overflows with arrogance and insensitivity, it isn't the thrust of what he is trying, and failing actually, to say.
As I said, he couldn't help himself from peppering it with inflammatory rhetoric as he always does in order to push the provocative meter upward, and his egomaniacal stupid attention-getting mouth rears its head every time only at the expense of any point he tries to make. If he would grow up he might realize that. But then, he really doesn't care.
We let their kids starve?
Government has the responsibility to ensure that children thrive. If the parents are doing their jobs well, then the gov't doesn't need to and won't step in. But for those parents who can't/won't do their jobs well, we protect the children with gov't intervention!
This isn't rocket science!
Rush pretends that the issue of hungry children is overstated, but ANY children going hungry is TOO many. That's first. Secondly, he mocked successful gov't programs as though they're bad things, and the evidence disproves his assertion that they don't contain much more good stuff than bad!
It IS the government's job to protect the innocent, the vulnerable and those who are unable to protect themselves.
In fact, that's the whole role of government - they build roads since we can't have a successful nation without them. They create and support an army to protect our nation and our interests. They regulate the airwaves because no individual can control them on their own. I could go on and on.
And it's the government's job to feed hungry kids, since they're innocent, vulnerable and unable to protect themselves - they fit all three categories I listed above!
Fine. Then charge and/or imprison the parent/s for Endangering the Welfare of a Child if they refuse to do their part. I would much rather pay the taxes to support a program that at least attempts to help the children, than pay taxes to support a parent who has no intention of doing so.
Anyone involved with actual supervision of programs to protect children will tell you that even if parents aren't perfect, in most cases it preferable that children stay with those parents. So, that means that it'd be bad for the kids to imprison those parents. And if they're too poor already to provide for their kids, why would we want to fine them?
I swear, you fools need to THINK THROUGH your debate points before you make them to root out these fatal logical fallacies! Really!
And then, on top of that, you're ONLY saying this because YOU think that it's not right that the richest country in the history of the world NOT support their needy, regardless of the reason for that neediness. Your retaining of every penny of your wealth that you can desperately hold onto is more important.
Well, the American people don't agree with you. In voting for representatives, in polls, etc, they've told us that they think it's right to help those who can't/won't/don't help themselves.
Parents have the primary responsibility, but government ALSO has a responsibility.
As I said above - the post that Dave replied to, as a matter of fact, the post that STARTED this string, fool
No, parents only have PRIMARY responsibility. They aren't the ONLY ones with responsibility.
Government has the responsibility to ensure that children thrive. If the parents are doing their jobs well, then the gov't doesn't need to and won't step in. But for those parents who can't/won't do their jobs well, we protect the children with gov't intervention!
This isn't rocket science!
All you're doing is again showing everyone that you want to PRETEND that we can't see ALL the previous posts on this topic!
If you can't see the difference, then stop commenting.
Of course it is. But you refuse to address what is to be done when the parents don't live up to that responsibility?
What kind of "emergency safety net" would you like to see?
Would the children be removed from their homes and made wards of the state?
Would parents be punished somehow in order to try and modify their behaviour? If so, what type of punishment?
How does sex ed figure into this? Or are you of the belief that "abstinence only" education is sufficient?
What do you want? Welfare proposals? Strict limits on welfare benefits, no increases because of more children, dollar for dollar tax credits for contributions to private charities, that's a start.
As for punishment, no more rewarding parents who continue to have children they cannot afford. I am not for yanking children from their parents but discouraging welfare and not making it a reward will encourage people to act responsibly.
If you don't accept these fine, I don't expect you too. We need to ween this country off of dependency on government, it's not easy but it can be done over time. We are the most giving country on the planet, our private charities have always stepped up.
You asked.
So if they do have more children, the kids will have to do with less if their parents don't get the message?
Yes yes, they all want to have as many children as possible so they can be "rewarded" by state support.
I also see you don't address the issue of single parents (usually mothers). Should absentee fathers (or mothers) not be coerced by the state to support children they've sired?
Seems you think these types of things will modify bad behaviour. I don't think that is the case. It also only seems to address the parents role but if they don't change their ways, they will still have neglected children.
And none of that does anything to try and decrease the number of children born to unfit parents to start with.
As for parents who don't support their children, mostly deadbeat fathers, absolutely they should be coerced, to the highest legal extent possible. I find parents who shirk their responsibility the lowest of the low, they should be hunted down and jailed if they can. No punishment is severe enough.
Look, the problems will not go away overnight, and I don't blame kids, they didn't choose to be born to crappy parents, they are the innocent victims here. But we need to create a culture of more personal responsibility and less government dependence. And yes, a big part of that is clamping down on deadbeat parents, forcefully.
I disagree – it’s not that simple.
As an example - there are people who have lost absolutely everything due to addictions, yet they continue the cycle of addiction.
There are also people punished severely in the judicial system that never change their ways and end up behind bars permanently.
I think most people that would be affected by the limits you propose are already most likely trying their best to change their situation. Other people have behaviours so ingrained or have other issues such as mental health problems that the sort of remedies you proffer wouldn't really change their behaviour.
Anyway - have a good weekend.
A rich person can call an accountant, sit on a couch for two years, and see his money double.
A middle class person can set some money aside, get some education, and pound the pavement in search of a better job. Or they can get a loan and try to start a business.
A poor person is screwed. They pay more for the basics than anyone, their money evaporates in an instant, and they can't cobble together the least breathing space to make a change. Any break they get comes from the government.
So a starving child's parents' "responsibility" is to be screwed and stay that way.
They do not. They don't pay income tax. They are, because of BO, going to get free health care for them and their family, and I'm also going to cover this huge debt that BO bestowed upon us. I did not see the bill that charges the poor more than the average person. How do they pay more than I do? I'm guessing I pay more than they do.
There are more things about having money than taxes.
Do you give a damn about something that is not money? You only complain about how you need to pay income taxes, like if they were the only kind of taxes that existed or mattered.
I do, however, love the fact that the right-wing now wants the government to jail bad parents. Wonderful solution. That's what this country needs. More prisoners. Could you be more anymore detached from reality?
The above was an attempt at humor and sarcasm. Not to be taken seriously.
people that really need help because they have exhausted all else.
rush is telling these people. to go f themselves.
If they have exhausted all else, that to me, makes them sound like go getters. Its the ones who have taken the aid for a year or two that make me skeptical.
You are right though, he isn't conservative, he is an entertainer, like Olbermann used to say. His only motivation is being a provocateur, politics is just a convenient vehicle for that. If only the idiots in the Republican party who are afraid to go against him would realize that.
If he makes, or tries to make, a decent point then I prefer to focus on that. If others don't, so be it.
Pointing out that offensive comments that Rush made are offensive comments is NOT an insult! Pointing out his obnoxious behavior is NOT getting down in the mud with him.
That's YOUR strawman argument - and it's not true in any way!
Far easier to say how fat Rush is and what a drug addict he is.
There's not a single lefty who posted in THIS string who made ONE comment about Rush's weight or drug use.
That is why your post went unanswered, it was plain stupid.
You KNOW that no one believes you.
The people in THIS thread did NOT talk about Rush's weight or his drug use, yet YOU brought it up. THIS thread is where YOU brought it up without ANY reason for doing so.
Do you STILL think that people can't see the previous posts on this thread? Really?
My post wasn't "plain stupid". What was "plain stupid" was YOUR bringing up what you did, and I caught you at that. I understand that it must be frustrating to not get away with the stuff you used to get away with - too bad, so sad!
And YOU failed to reply to my post, because there WAS no reply to my post - and that's why when I pointed OUT that there was no possible rebuttal to what I said, your only recourse was to pretend that there was NOTHING to rebut, since you couldn't actually refute the obvious truth that YOU were totally off-base and off-topic for bringing up Rush being insulted!
Actually, you were advocating arresting the parents that "dave" believes are "bad" and putting them in prison. I think that is a wonderful platform for the right-wing. Enjoy.
Meanwhile, those of us HERE will discuss the actual topic here - Rush's obnoxious and offensive comments! That's what's constructive on THIS site!
This isn't a site designed to solve the plight of children who are neglected by their parents or raised by parents who can't afford to help them thrive!
The right has been claiming for years they're the right to life people. They're the right to fetal life only.
After you're born you have no rights whatsoever that might interfere with corporate greed.
If that is the case, then this is exactly trying to create equal opportunity. This is because it is well know the importance of diet and nutrition in the development of children and young adults. Those children, for whatever reason, who don't have proper nutrition while growing may not have equal opportunity as adults. In additon, the state already plays a role when parents are neglectful or abusive to their children, up to and including removing children from such situations and making them wards of the state.
Are you contending the government has no role whatsoever in trying to ensure children have the ability to mature into functioning and contributing adult memebers of society?
Today he's on to new topics.
No, no, he does sometimes return to a previous day's thread to further his silly notions. Oh and to hurl invective and claim I am embarrassing myself.
Argue amongst yourselves about me until I decide whether or not to indulge you further on this topic.
When you make troll posts that are clearly not intended to further ANY debate AND don't contain anything but invective, already debunked talking points, etc, then YES, you should simply be ignored.
We want honest debate. You virtually never give us that, and so they were MOCKING you!
And if you DO come back and reply, you won't be "induldging" us, fool, and EVERYONE knows that.
Some want you to go away, some want to mock you and some actually think you have valid opinions. Just a rainbow of different opinions on the "left".
Your defense of Limbaugh and your attempt to give him credibility is nothing less than comedic.
I still get the impression that you believe the battle begins and ends with junk food marketing via television, but it continues outside the home as well.
Like WHO?
Who is proposing that the government follow parents to the grocery store and step in for you when your kids start begging for junk food adorned with their favorite cartoon characters?
Who is proposing that the government ride in your car with you and intervene when your kids see a McDonald's and start begging for the crap that the happy clown tempted them with?
Who is advocating taking the responsibility for these battles away from parents?
Who do you think believes it's even remotely possible or practical?
Seriously, WHO ARE THEY? Can you quote any of them?
But if you got evidence show it.
Fail and goodbye. You brought nothing and you aren't getting another chance.
To anyone else who might believe that MMFA (or someone else) is doing something repeatedly wrong, here's what you do. You find the clearest, most obvious example of the wrongdoing that has absolutely no wiggle room or space for argument. (Since there are supposedly many examples, there is room for choice.) You then write it the F down and challenge the supporters.
If you come with zero examples, like the Pedestrian did here, you fail and you are out. If you lead with a murky, unclear example, you fail and you are out. If you come with a dozen scattershot examples, we will pick the first one only (because you don't get to play darts with the truth) and knock it out.
We don't play games here, because we've already won them all.
But spaced pedestrian still gets a participant's trophy, right?
He meant that you were going to be excluded from ongoing discussions on THIS topic - that he wasn't going to follow you down the path you started on, since it clearly was NOT a path that was intended to be part of an active participation in a fair and reasonable debate.
And you are too ignorant to even figure that out, so here's your sign, doofus!
YOU can say ANYTHING you want, but YOU will not be pulled into the debate by someone responding to your troll post! Got it?
She is becoming irrelevant and will be yanked soon enough because her temper is her undoing. Pay her no mind. She is like a gnat.
In addition, I was NOT outed at LuvLuLu last week - I debunked that JUST LIKE I debunked your assertion that I called bintx a liar, or that I was outed as a person posting under two different screen names or any number of your paranoid delusions!
Your personal animus towards me is somewhat understandable - you reigned around here as a reasonable righty who got credibility and respect before until I came around at the end of last summer, and it must be terribly frustrating to have lost ALL that credibility and respect.
Too bad, so sad.
The person who has become irrelevant and who has continually shown his temper has been YOU, doofus - if you think you're fooling anyone, you're much more ignorant than most people here think!
I appreciate your interest in my posts lately, but I've found your replies to be most often either an erroneous representation of what I said, an interruption of a conversation I am having with another poster, or too offhandedly dismissive to warrant a reply. Offer some meaningful rebuttal and we can talk. Until then I will not be replying.
For examples of better interactions, look at jediknight or worrieking's posts.
When I need advice from you on how to behave, I'll be sure to let you know.
And I haven't called you a single name. I've accurately described your behavior. It's not namecalling to call Son of Sam a murderer, and it's not namecalling to call YOU a doofus, doofus! If you stop being confused (or pretending to be confused) by simple things, then I won't identify you by that type of ignorant behavior that you exhibited.
And you did TOO mention being banned from this site, doofus - re-read your own post!
And I HAVE seen your participation in a variety of threads - you act as though I have MISSED some valuable contributions on your part, and that's just not a representative description of your posts here!
If you didn't know it, you aren't smart enough to hang with us. I'm trying to help others know better, but it's too late for you.
rush doesn't know what he is talking about and neither do you.
fail is what you have accomplished. he is a racist, and misogynist and hateful. he hasnt said it in awhile but he cam up with a very nice term for women who disagree and stand up to him.....he calls them feminazis.
calls the president a black man child? (thats because he cant say BOY)
you got your retraction for the other day.....but only then. and as for today. well you not only failed. you faceplanted yourself. if i were you i wouldnt plant my flag on being a rush defender.
Yes, I am raising two children, and if you need to know we spent about 8 months on food stamps about seven years ago. I secured gainful employment and at no small cost. Now we work for an urban school system in which 85% of children qualify for free or reduced lunch, and fully 50% are English Language Learners. The issue of poverty and having enough to eat is not some fantasy across the tracks from me. Many of these kids are in fact overweight and the parents drive Escalades to the supermarket to load their carts with free food before returning to their subsidized housing with big flat screen televisions and expensive gaming systems. They collect SSI disability and have every child in their home tested for Special Ed to maximize the benefits. Part of my job is to GO INTO THE HOME so do not tell me this isn't true.
I understand empathy for those families who actually have to endure a very low standard of living but they are far fewer in reality than it appears on paper and I see it first hand. That is where my worldview has taken a turn to the right. Believe me, out of college I was just as liberal as all of you...until I began working in my field.
Of course, it's really easy to get SSI Disability, don't you know? That's why there are ads on TV for lawyers that will help you get SSI after you've been turned down - because they just give it out willy-nilly!!! NOT! It's HARD as heck to get SSI, and so the people who get it really need it in almost all cases.
Yet the doofus above wants us to think that those people getting SSI are, for the most part, cheaters and simply lazy people who are gaming the system
And that's really offensive of that poster!
Fraud and abuse of government programs is a problem. Ask Bill Clinton, he knew as much and helped the situation. He never buried his head in the sand.
Really? You "know" this? I then assume you have reported these charlatans to their governing body, right?
If you have not you are complicit in such scamming.
If not, why not?
That's better.
Of course I would report a doctor engaged in unethical and/or criminal behaviour.
From what I understand the only possible issue for someone in such a situation as you describe would be a possible breech of confidentiality. And I think most of these oversight bodies have a way to report ethics violations anonymously. Not to mention the state which is being defrauded in such an instance.
But I can tell now from your responses that you are making this up and you have not personally been involved in a scenario similar to the on you portrayed here.
So, I went too far with the F in WTF? Or do you think it's my accusation that he's making this up?
Many of these kids are in fact overweight and the parents drive Escalades to the supermarket to load their carts with free food before returning to their subsidized housing with big flat screen televisions and expensive gaming systems. They collect SSI disability and have every child in their home tested for Special Ed to maximize the benefits. Part of my job is to GO INTO THE HOME so do not tell me this isn't true.----Space Pedestrian
What does this person offer up to prove his claims of widespread abuse? Statistics? Confirming articles and/or studies? None of that. We havbe to take his word that "he/she" "knows". The impression this person wants to leave us with is not backed up by anything but their belief and you read how nasty it was.
The whole Escalade nonsense reminds me of a time Stossel did a report where he walked along a line of people waiting for help from a food bank and asked those on line if the owned things like a VCR, microwave etc. That was then used as proof that these people were not in fact poor but rather making bad choices.
I mean even leaving aside the psychiatrists nonsense, I think every state agency providing entitlements has a way to report abuses. So the Escalade scenario should have elicted a call by the spaced pedestrian to the lcoal welfare agency to report the abuse. I have worked in similar type of agency and there was "tips hotline" where anyone could anonymously leave messages reporting suspected abuse.
That is simply ridiculous. My mother did home visits for years. That was her job. To pretend as if these people are faking so they can drive Escalades and live the high life is delusional. This is nowhere near reality. These are the rantings of a madman. And, that is why you will see zero evidence to support his nonsense.
That is simply ridiculous. My mother did home visits for years. That was her job. To pretend as if these people are faking so they can drive Escalades and live the high life is delusional. This is nowhere near reality. These are the rantings of a madman. And, that is why you will see zero evidence to support his nonsense.
You suppose? You are in some sort of professional position that comes into contact with situations like you describe and you DON'T know that you could anonymously report ethics violations? See, it's things like that which damage your "credibility" on such an issue. And hence why I don't believe you.
Pardon my passion on this issue, but it's a hot button with me. Not too long ago, the school department used threats of DSS intervention to bully me into agreeing to medication that I didn't believe my child needed. There was a doctor quite willing to prescribe the medication. Between the doctor, the school and the Dept of Social Services, they convinced me that I was harming my child by refusing the medication and threatened to remove him from my home if I didn't give it to him. I caved--and my son went through two years of absolute he11ish side effects on a medication that actually induced the symptoms it was supposed to treat. So yeah, if you think this child was misdiagnosed through neglect/greed or whatever, and has been prescribed meds that he shouldn't be taking, you should flipping well report it to the appropriate authorities.
You said "Many of these kids are in fact overweight and the parents drive Escalades to the supermarket to load their carts with free food before returning to their subsidized housing with big flat screen televisions and expensive gaming systems. They collect SSI disability and have every child in their home tested for Special Ed to maximize the benefits."
And I said that YOU said that, for the MOST PART, you are claiming that they're not actually eligible for SSI Disability, and that's demonstrably an untrue statement from you. First off, you are NOT qualified to judge their disability, and secondly, it's really hard to get SSI, and that's undeniable too!
You seem like a very angry person.
im curious if you have children.......would you tell them that if you couldnt afford to feed them?
didn't think so.
Hospitals could save a lot of money if they made foreigners, such as those living in Costa Rica, pay more for food and drugs.
Why should our health care system support outsiders?
Don't we have enough to do in getting Walter Reed in shape?
Shouldn't our servicemen come first?
Why were you silent on this issue?
Clifford Spencer
That is, if Swift had really meant it
Yeah! So let's make their children suffer! That'll teach 'em to be born to "bum parents".
And pull up those boot straps!
It was about how economic imbalance (where 3% of the country had 95% of the wealth) led to anger and easy manipulation of the masses there. The wealthy were the bankers and business owners (this was Capitalism at its extreme).
Anyway the clip showed an open chauffeur driven car moving through the street. The fat cat riding in the back looked an awful lot like Rush. He was throwing pennies out the back to dozens of denizen children begging and following behind the car.
Those sick bastards!
http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/rushclass.html
And here's another unrelated fragment, detailing his "skills" as a political analyst:
http://claslib2.tripod.com/lh/rushanalyst.html