Sean Penn and Danny Glover can go to hell

by Wordly Andre 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  Chavez is a danger to his own people, a danger to the region, and a dictator.

  But is that not what Bush is being seen as around the world now? A danger to his own people? Imprisoning media because they won't divulge sources, illegal wiretapping and surveillance, invoking executive privilege 300 times to 'stay the course', privatizing medicare so that the elderly now have to scrape up money to pay for their health care; keeping border guards in prison who shouldn't be there; implementing the SSP program without a referendum; war, occupation of another country; fighting against a minimum wage that hasn't been raised in 50 years; cutting the FDA by half so that there is no security in our food stuffs; trying to sell off the port security to Middle East; allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the USA after he knew the connection between 9/11 and the family but then imprisoning hundreds of suspects illegally; giving his 'God told me to bomb Iraq' speech as a reason for the war - ----

  I wouldn't want the job of running any country nor would I want to live in Venezuela or Korea or China - every leader is suspect around the world by media spin so I have no doubt that has much as one can make the comment about those leaders, there are many loyal people in those countries that say the same thing about others.

  Social programs are not a bad word and they can exist alongside capitalism. Chavez has linked up with Cuba in regards to educating thousands of doctors. They receive free education in both countries and then work for a time in some of the poorer regions to establish better health services. Believe it or not, I believe there are Americans that have studied there as well. He has in fact improved the housing for many of the poorest so that areas without electricity and water have been rebuilt. I have a guy living in a metal shed at the end of my road here - does that make us any better?

  I think if people ignore celebrities that do this sort of thing, they will eventually just fade into the woodwork because who really cares? Neither of those actors represent the USA - they only represent themselves and their opinions. sammieswife.
• 

  Who are you?

  Social programs are not a bad word and they can exist alongside capitalism

  excellent point sammieswife!

  Federal aid programs expand at record rate

  By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care.

  A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. (Related: Federal entitlements have changed)

  It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

  Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending. Enrollment growth was responsible for three-fourths of the spending increase, according to USA TODAY's analysis of federal enrollment and spending data. Higher benefits accounted for the rest.

  The biggest expansion: Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. It added 15 million beneficiaries over five years to become the nation's largest entitlement program.

  Not a factor: Social Security and Medicare. Those retirement programs will not see their enrollment explode until 79 million baby boomers start to become eligible for Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011.

  Programs that grew over the past five years are aimed at the under-65 population, especially families earning less than $40,000 a year. For example, the number of mostly low-income college students receiving Pell grants rose 41% over five years to 5.3 million.

  Robert Greenstein, head of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says the growth in the number of people in many programs is due to a rise in the poverty rate from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004, the most recent year available. "It's certainly better that people falling into poverty can get Medicaid, but I'd prefer fewer poor people and employers not dropping medical coverage," he says.

  Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a conservative Republican from Minnesota, says the number of people in entitlement programs should not be growing when unemployment is near a record low. "It's probably time to revisit food stamps and its goals and costs," says Gutknecht, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees food stamps. Food stamp enrollment climbed from 17.2 million in 2000 to 25.7 million in 2005.

  USA TODAY found three major causes for soaring enrollment in government programs:

  •Expanded eligibility: Congress has expanded eligibility for programs in ways that attracted little attention but added greatly to the scope and cost of programs. Congress added food stamp eligibility for 2.7 million people by ending a rule that disqualified people from receiving food stamps if they had a car or truck worth $4,650 or more. The change, one of a series of expansions in 2001 and 2002, was designed to make it easier for food stamp recipients to work.

  •Increased participation: The government has made applying for benefits easier, prompting more eligible people to get them. Forms have been shortened, office visits reduced and verification streamlined.

  •Welfare reform: 996 overhaul pushed millions of people off cash assistance and into the workforce. Congress expanded eligibility for benefits to support people with low-wage jobs.
• 

  sammielee24

  The real cost of welfare: The programs we are talking about are really, really inexpensive. All welfare programs for the poor add up to less than $200 billion. Out of a budget of $2.7 trillion, we're talking a relatively small percentage. Welfare programs for the middle and upper classes, though, add up to nearly a trillion dollars. If we eliminated every welfare program for the poor, you would not, in any way, notice the difference in your taxes, even if all of the money was refunded.

  Interestingly enough, we spend millions upon millions of dollars in welfare - to prison inmates - those who committ crimes, while at the same time people don't hesitate to bemoan a smaller pecentage of tax dollars going to the poor who have committed no crimes. So many interesting thoughts...sammieswife.
• 

  Who are you?

  The real cost of welfare: The programs we are talking about are really, really inexpensive. All welfare programs for the poor add up to less than $200 billion

  The entire GDP of Venezuela for 2006 was $186 billion. I guess they might consider the $1.3 trillion we spend on social programs and $200 billion on welfare programs a lot.
• 

  heathen

  Chavez may appear to be a tyrant but I think the globalist are the real tyrants. Our whole country is run on borrowed money and then we get an idiot president that spends like a mad man on attacking Iraq just to control it's oil reserves .Chavez to date has not attacked any other country that I know of but of course he fears the tyrants of washington considering the circumstances.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  WA,

  Sean Penn and Danny Glover can go to hell:

  Whats up with these people going to hang out with Hugo Chavez? Why not go tour North Korea, hell just leave America and go live there!

  Get a life dude.