Like your lives are gonna change

BearMtnHIB wrote: Yea I don't know where he came up with the racist thing. Have I said anything racist? I think not.

And it wasn't welfare I was referring to - it was the welfare state. Much larger than 15%

You're a racist because he says you are...that's a progressive for you.

Colorado is a government welfare state.

It is I agree. We do have a disproportionate amount of government in Colorado. I expect a full 60% or more of the jobs here are realated to government in one way or another.

BearMtnHIB wrote: It is I agree. We do have a disproportionate amount of government in Colorado. I expect a full 60% or more of the jobs here are realated to government in one way or another.

Boulder city is the largest welfare state in Colorado when you compute the number of students getting fed backed loans and the number of employees that are government paid. Colorado Springs is a close second and may even surpass Boulder.

Large contingent of federal government employees in Boulder.
Several major government contractors.
Federally backed government loans for the students funds the university.

Colorado as a whole....
http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp ... &nodeid=12

Eight of the top 10 ..are federal government or contractors.
Federal government is the largest customer to all of the hospital systems in Colorado

Vice Lord wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: For someone that runs thier mouth, calls Veterans P&^%$#, calls first responders all kinds of the things, whines like a 2 year old, thinks he knows all, but knows nothing, now stomping his feet because the elections didn't go his way. VL go sit in the corner you are now in time out.

Your theory doesn't hold water because I live in Colorado and my guys, Bennet and Hickenlooper won....You didn't know? Its in all the papers

Holds tons of water. I could care less where you live, and "ya think" considering I voted for Bennet as I did not think someone like Buck was right for the US Congress. I knew he won this morning after it he was declared the winner this morning.

Vice Lord wrote:

BearMtnHIB wrote: My vote goes to the candidate who will do me the least amount of damage. Our lives do change - depending on who is in government. If you don't think so - you are living under a rock.

My primary purpose is to protect my own self interest.
I believe in earning my own way - and I don't expect government to help me - I do expect them not to hurt me.

Second in importance is what I believe is best for the citizens - and keeping with the founders original intent.

Last in importance are the lazy, the welfare state, the looters.

Walfare is less than 3% of the fedral budget..Non issue, youre a racist

End of subject

You calling someone racist, damn bet you had to thing a long time about that. Someone goes against your way of lack of thinking and they are a racist. From things that you have put on here, the racist is you. Since you seem to use the word pretty loosely, that would put you in the catagorey

BearMtnHIB wrote: Yea I don't know where he came up with the racist thing. Have I said anything racist? I think not.

And it wasn't welfare I was referring to - it was the welfare state. Much larger than 15%

lol -Your credibility just went into negative numbers- Turn off the AM radio

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.

navycpo7 wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

BearMtnHIB wrote: My vote goes to the candidate who will do me the least amount of damage. Our lives do change - depending on who is in government. If you don't think so - you are living under a rock.

My primary purpose is to protect my own self interest.
I believe in earning my own way - and I don't expect government to help me - I do expect them not to hurt me.

Second in importance is what I believe is best for the citizens - and keeping with the founders original intent.

Last in importance are the lazy, the welfare state, the looters.

Walfare is less than 3% of the fedral budget..Non issue, youre a racist

End of subject

You calling someone racist, damn bet you had to thing a long time about that. Someone goes against your way of lack of thinking and they are a racist. From things that you have put on here, the racist is you. Since you seem to use the word pretty loosely, that would put you in the catagorey

No, it's a non issue..It's not the money because its less than 1% of the budget, its the people that get it that bothers him/her. Either that or he's just really stupid to worry about the 1%....Stupid, or racist..I'm guessing a combonation of the two, but mostly racist

navycpo7 wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: For someone that runs thier mouth, calls Veterans P&^%$#, calls first responders all kinds of the things, whines like a 2 year old, thinks he knows all, but knows nothing, now stomping his feet because the elections didn't go his way. VL go sit in the corner you are now in time out.

Your theory doesn't hold water because I live in Colorado and my guys, Bennet and Hickenlooper won....You didn't know? Its in all the papers

Holds tons of water. I could care less where you live,

You said "(I was) stomping his feet because the elections"...We won, so it doesn't make sense

Lesson #1

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 2010, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget.

Lesson 2

To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs. In 2010, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to 12 percent of the combined budget. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.

If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 2010, these expenditures comprised 32 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner: