Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Pianoforte Links http://www.de.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

I don’t think I can find enough charitable help to meet Josh’s needs. Josh applied for and was deemed eligible to access funding to pay for service facilitation (the State’s cut), personal support services, therapy, training and adult day care. Only a portion is paid to me. And I pay taxes on what I get. The total monthly allotment cannot exceed 3x SSI.

I am fighting the corruption and government growth that this program is breeding. That’s my focus. And that’s what I need help to do. I was stupid and naïve. Now, I know better. Your points are all well taken. Can you tell me how to stop what I believe to be a good program from being decimated by a corrupt Governor and the slimy SEIU?

In a perfect world, all this would be taken care of by VOLUNTARY donations because people would see a need and fulfill it. Unfortunately, an imperfect world causes imperfect solutions.

And this is EXACTLY what many politicians and union bosses want. Make no mistake, this is the OLD school approach to a communist takeover.

SEIU will destroy state budgets

If you have ANY doubt about this, take a peek at the benefits/wages package the UAW has beaten out of the (not-so)Big 3 automakers in the US. While certainly not the only cause, the unions are a major cause of the straits the auto makers found themselves in long before the latest economic burp.

means that I can compel that charitable help from others by force of law.

Needed to amend that. Sorry for the sloppy post but I’m not feeling so hot today.

I’m not sure where your bitterness is coming from. But surely you know that there are some people in every society who NEED HELP. I’m not talking about deadbeats or welfare crooks. But there is a part of society that needs special help. Can you at least acknowledge that? I don’t believe in redistribution either. And I am a staunch conservative, as you know from reading my posts. But you are coming across as extremely harsh when perhaps a little more understanding is in order. Why is that?

Agreed. And herein lies the dilemma: he’s right on all points. I think what is lacking is compassion.
This is where I’ve always said the Liberal goes wrong (and it’s trite but so very true)–I believe as a Christian that I have a moral obligation as an individual to help the Josh’s (or, in my case, my niece with Down Syndrome) but I do not believe that moral obligation on me (as family first) and then my community means that I can compel that charitable help by force of law.

The Liberal hears that (at least the truly well-intentioned ones) and thinks, “Oh no! If we leave it up to ‘anybody’ that means NOBODY will help the helpless so we MUST ENSURE help by forcing others via the law” and if you disagree with the Liberal, you are heartless and bitter.

I still believe in the old way: assistance to those who are truly in need of our help by means of charity. That solves the problem without erring on the side of heartlessness or government coercion.

On October 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, MarcoPolo said:

I’m not sure where your bitterness is coming from. But surely you know that there are some people in every society who NEED HELP. I’m not talking about deadbeats or welfare crooks. But there is a part of society that needs special help. Can you at least acknowledge that? I don’t believe in redistribution either. And I am a staunch conservative, as you know from reading my posts. But you are coming across as extremely harsh when perhaps a little more understanding is in order. Why is that?

On October 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am, Joshsmompam said:

Marcopolo: It’s ok, Josh doesn’t want your sympathy.

Wow – that could be a post on DU. This couldn’t:

I too voted for Harry Browne.

I absolutely understand that Josh doesn’t need my sympathy, because as long as I can be forced to cough up the tax money, it’s all good for Josh.

My kids aren’t nearly as deserving of my money as he is. In fact, it’s not really even my money, is it? (The government only allows me to keep some of it, so it must actually be theirs.)

Josh doesn’t want sympathy, but rest assured that’s the card that wins him the funding. Country teetering on bankruptcy? Not a concern to him, even though these are the exact programs are driving it. The Constitution doesn’t provide for specific welfare? That’s only for other programs we oppose – not this one though, because it makes us feel good to support Josh. He’s one of us, you know.

Here’s my deal – government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth, because there are no saints. No matter how sympathetic the intention, the underlying principle of wealth redistribution attracts so much corruption, not to mention takes away economic freedom, the negatives always end up outweighing the positives.

Medicare and government funded medical programs provide the best examples of that. But while we’re pretending to be for small government while supporting these monstrosities, we deserve to lose elections.

This does entail giving up paid employment to provide care, however, and common sense says they should be compensated.

Sorry, Josh, but your Mom is a welfare queen. I’m betting you get SSDI too, right? This is just a little somethin-somethin on the side?

Ya’ll can and apparently do feel good thinking that we’re helping the poor, but the overwhelming social and economic evidence is that in the long-term these programs cause astronomical amounts of damage to American values, and they are breeding grounds for corruption and government growth. This story only touches on that point.

How in the world we can crab that the GOP hasn’t cut back a single entitlement, when we clearly don’t even want them to? Or do we really just want them to take away somebody else’s slice of the pie? That’s laughable!

There’s no doubt that it’s all complicated, and government is very, very adept at serving their own self-interests. Making sure that little subsets of us are quite dependent on the hands that feed us is a blatant part of that game.

I know it’s unpopular, and it won’t win elections, but I’m ideologically pure. I can’t help it. It’s just who I am. If Josh’s Mom lived next door, I’d be the neighbor who helped her cut the grass, fix the roof and paint the garage. But all that would stop the first time she told me she was entitled to it.

I say put the bankruptcy on the backs of the social liberals, where it belongs.

Can we call them unpatriotic now?

On October 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am, Joshsmompam said:Permitting family members to become paid caregivers addresses the problem so many states encounter: the scant availability of workers to provide personal care/personal assistance. Relatives also generally know and care about the person and in turn, are familiar to and trusted by the person

We went through this with my Mother when she became very ill and went in a hospice program. She desperately wanted to stay in her own home as long as possible, plus, it would save a lot of money for the state. So, we managed to do it, with the help of in-home health-care workers who came a couple times a week. The rest of the time, we (her four kids) took turns being with her, cooking for her, washing her clothes, etc. She only had to go into a nursing home for the last four weeks of her life. We DID get hospice help and it was a godsend. But no one from the government interferred with us. I’m sure that will change with the libs in charge. I find their interferrence completly immoral…just the opposite of how they portray themselves!