Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Is Feeding People Who Are Drug Users Further Enabling Them?
If you think those, heartless and selfish words are the words of one of those "evil, racist, tea-baggers", you would be WRONG.
No this caring message brought to you by a woman giving a health committee report at the Occupy Baltimore encampment.
Funny isn't it? When taxpayers try to have laws passed requiring welfare recipients to have drug tests they are portrayed as evil, uncaring people.
Another said that “there are people who feel we’ve over extended ourselves … instead of demanding that the city provide more money to shelter the homeless, we are sheltering the homeless.”
Really? I think I remember someone else who said that. See if you recognize this famous quote from a fictitious character:
Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
If you said that sounds like Scrooge, well then you're smarter than a fifth grader, congratulations!
Funny isn't it? Just a few days ago the liberal media was fawning over the Occupy movement for feeding the homeless and the poor.
It may be interesting to note the following stats brought to you by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University:
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition
So much for the 99% because it doesn't seem as though the part that's camping out in the parks is "doing their fair share" now does it.