Other - Politics & Government - December 2006

Current Social Security and state aid laws deny financial assistance if a person has more than $3,000 in assets. That also includes a car, stock, bonds, life insurance, etc. Therefore, a disabled person must sell everything he owns and spend that money before he/she can apply for assistance (which can take 2 years to receive) I may be wrong but, it sounds like the government is trying to selectively remove the disabled from society. Hmmm...I was just thinking...If I own a refrigerator that keeps my food cold, I'd have to sell it before I could apply for assistance to buy food. Does anyone see a trend here? I think our president made a mistake. He should believe in the "trickle-down" theory, not the "trickle-on" theory. Anyone suggest anything?

2006-12-31 09:57:59 · 9 answers · asked by Pelican 2

2006-12-31 09:51:47 · 12 answers · asked by thomas_jefferson 1

2006-12-31 09:49:07 · 10 answers · asked by Angin 1

2006-12-31 09:45:55 · 8 answers · asked by thomas_jefferson 1

2006-12-31 09:45:36 · 6 answers · asked by Kate the Saint 1

There are apparently something like 4.5 million people in the UK who are of working age but don't work for one reason or another.
Then there are all the other benefits (too many to list) which are increasingly taking a larger share of Government spending. Apparently only the budget for the NHS is larger, but not by much. Can we carry on like this?

2006-12-31 09:27:06 · 21 answers · asked by Roaming free 5

2006-12-31 09:23:25 · 4 answers · asked by ray s 1

This is a secular nation so no beliefs or religions should be pushed (1st amendment). Also putting "In God We Trust" on money violates the Constitution. This is clearly unconstitutional and should be removed!

The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Thomas Jefferson

2006-12-31 09:13:57 · 15 answers · asked by keaton f 2

Abortion never gets outlawed, TVs and movies get raunchier, that gay marriage amendment never actually comes up on the federal level, video games get more violent, the out-of-wedlock birth rate continues to rise, violent crime is up; yet Bush's followers continue to rabidly support Bush against their own economic self-interest because, in their words, "BUSH IS A GOOD CHRISTIAN MA-YAN".

When are they going to realize the GOP is using them for their votes while laughing about them behind their back?

2006-12-31 09:06:51 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

What do people of Sinagpore think about their present goverment (PAP) that still rullig Singapore for 42 years in 2007. Do Singaporean think that they do not have the opportunity to change the way the younger generation is thinking for the human rights. Also about the over inflation in their country. Example, the COE for car prices, the housing, the power supply bills, the CPF contribution that the goverment and policy, and etc.

2006-12-31 08:55:09 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I find murder, suicide, capital punishment distasteful. Your boy Bush obviously does too. he has said he anguishes at each report of a US service man's death. -- Maybe that's why he didn't want any coffin pictures shown during this war.

Why are people looking to be entertained by the worst thing that can happen to anyone, all of a sudden?

Put your troll toys away, and use the muscle in your skull answering this one. Thanks in advance.

2006-12-31 08:22:36 · 5 answers · asked by SheiksOnAPlane 2

there are generations of familys that just sit on their lazy azzez and collect welfare. They are living off us!

2006-12-31 08:10:21 · 12 answers · asked by Daniel J 2

Now I know everyone has been caught up with this war and terrorism and politics, but can't we set aside that for a much bigger problem that can kill everyone? If you get my point, then you'll know the answer.

2006-12-31 07:52:22 · 5 answers · asked by stephaine215 1

Seriously, why do people talk about them needing to pay "their fair share" when they already pay a much higher percentage of their income than the rest of us?

2006-12-31 07:29:55 · 27 answers · asked by n_arent 3

I heard that the European Union was going to expand in the future because certain countries were going to unite. Which ones?

2006-12-31 07:19:09 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

How much do you think he will do before he leaves office? How much worse could it possibly get? What do you say Americans? Has he done a good job or not?

2006-12-31 07:13:58 · 43 answers · asked by Marie 7

Who killed it?

2006-12-31 06:59:33 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.SaveWolves.org

If you will support please send follow the instructions. I feel that if they want to control the wolf population they could do this in less barbaric manner do you agree?

2006-12-31 06:59:04 · 9 answers · asked by unanon_99 2

Why mess up one Country when you can mess up lots

2006-12-31 06:53:54 · 35 answers · asked by The Questioner 5

I wonder what really kills you if you get hanged?

2006-12-31 06:45:00 · 10 answers · asked by menguchita1 1

How do you suppose we should punish a man for using experimental biological weapons on the people of his own country? Killing thousands for no reason what so ever? At least Hitler had a theory "if i kill all the jews, life will be better"... Saddam did it for the fun of it!!!

The only way i could see Saddam paying for what he's done in life other then being hung is to be tortured every way imaginable for 23hrs a day, 6 days a week.... the sixth day he can sit down for a break in a catholic church for service.

2006-12-31 06:39:57 · 14 answers · asked by TJ815 4

2006-12-31 06:20:40 · 5 answers · asked by ? 4

I'm not talking about Saddam's execution, which I'm sure that you will agree that he deserved to be hanged. In my opinion, no one has a right to take away another person's life, whatever he has done. I do agree that a criminal, dictator need to be punished, but not by taking their lifes.

Death penalty doesn't prevent future murders. A person who lose his family member because they're killed, or raped, or bombed maybe wish that those who committed to the crime be killed. It's all about vengeance, but laws is not made by a vengeance.

Death penalty is fact a of "an eye for an eye" law. If Saddam was hanged because he is bastard, he killed his own people, then Bush should deserve the death penalty as well for at least, all the innocent women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of the "democracy" that he gave to them, if you believe that democracy could be built in Irad and Afghanistan by an invasion and destruction.

That's what I think. What's your opinion?

2006-12-31 06:15:43 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

How can Westerners help to bring about a peaceful solution, since we are the ones who determined the military policy and settlements, it is time we went beyond and helped these people on both sides by creating a peaceful solution to their problems.

2006-12-31 06:14:24 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I also understand that they continue to receive rather a large salary too. MONKEYFOXXE

2006-12-31 05:36:43 · 14 answers · asked by MONKEYFOXXE 1

Ok. To make my question for detailed, I hate the President for one simple reason. He has been keeping this war going for too long. I used to be on his side after 911 until I went onto that website HunttheBoieng.com. I could not find a single trace of evidence a plane had crashed into that building. It's not a conspiracy theory to doubt what was told that happend. I had cut and pasted a Global Hawk (a military aircraft) onto one of the five frames released. (the one showing the "smoke or plane" and it's a perfect match. It's not very understandable also for the government to confiscate the video footage from the different area's covering the "plane" hitting the building. Plus a warning for the employee's not to discuss what they saw. And then they release 5 frames that clearly don't show you anything. And then the 3 buildings of the WTC come down due to a "fire" and then Larry Silverstein who owned the WTC admitted to bringing down WTC 7 two days later. This stuff just does not add up.

2006-12-31 05:33:14 · 20 answers · asked by star 2

we put people in office to take care of this country and they give it away to other countries like germany and japan china that own most of all the busniess in this country and then give them tax breaks to open a busniess for a few years then they sell it to another family menber so they never have to pay taxes!!! will us as americans ever get a chance to do that? no and we are born and raised here this is our land wy give them the breaks. they are the people that said that they can not beat us in war but they will kill us in econics and guess what we let our politicans give them a chance to do what they told us they were going to do.(germany and japan) so why can't us as americans (me also) stand up and band together to back somebody like Ross Perot that is against what is going on hey some thing has to be done but we want somebody else to do something! i am asking this to me also not to make somebody feel bad . maybe to just wake us all up to what is going on in this country of ours

2006-12-31 05:26:16 · 9 answers · asked by charles h 1

Sounds about on par for the course.

2006-12-31 05:25:14 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-31 05:22:40 · 15 answers · asked by tomfrank t 1

It seems that the Patriot Act in its endeavor to protect us from terrorism has given the Government power not granted by the Constitution, and in some cases appears to have placed a limit on freedoms granted by the Bill Of Rights.

2006-12-31 05:13:59 · 8 answers · asked by The Watcher 3