The residents of Pittsburg, Kansas are up in arms that they're losing their local Social Security field office. Social Security management explains to them that they have to close offices because of lack of funding. Pittsburgers complain that they weren't consulted. Social Security management doesn't give the obvious answer so I'll give it. Kansas is a solidly Republican state, giving 60% of its vote to Romney over Obama and electing only Republicans to Congress. You were consulted on this and other cuts you don't like, Pittsburg, and you voted for them, so shut up.
It has nothing to do with Kansas being a Republican state. There have been office closures across the country. None of these closures involved a public meeting or discussion with interested individuals/organizations beforehand.
ReplyDeleteat 9:34 AM
ReplyDeleteThe point is the Republicans have consistently refused to fund SSA at sufficient levels. CTH's point is that if you vote Republican, you're voting for cuts in governmental services.
The stupidity of the cause/effect connection for this post is self-evident. For those democrat states or congressional districts that vote to reduce funding for the military, should we likewise reduce any military protection for those areas? For those states and cities that have policies that encourage illegal immigration, should we eliminate all funds and personnel related to enforcement of immigration laws there and devote those funds elsewhere? For those states and congressional districts that oppose Obamacare, can that law not apply to them and all Obamacare costs be paid for by the states and congressional districts that support Obamacare? If a rural area with lakes and rivers and streams wants to use their water for recreation and farming as they decide instead of following state and federal rules to send or store it to supply the needs of cities and suburbs, can they do so?
ReplyDeleteYes, a majority of Kansans voted for Republicans who always want tax and budget cuts, and this is the result. But a lot of Kansans vote against the Republicans, and I don't think they should give up their right to complain just because they live in a "red" state.
ReplyDeleteThe contradiction amongst certain type of republican voters states the obvious.
ReplyDeleteIf fiscal conservatism is at issue
they would'nt complain about reductions to social security
and medicare.
But their concerns may or may not lie with social conservatism,moving the country backwards when people of color was second class citizens,stopping immigration and so on. With comments like"we going to take our country back"the facts are clear.
Fyi,i am a black reader.
Figures. Since you're trying to bring race into it, it seemed pretty obvious. But it's not racism when you do it, right?
DeleteRe: 4:02 pm: I suppose it is likewise obvious why it is obvious to you.
DeleteObviously
DeleteAt least two conservative principlas involved with being a republican.
ReplyDeleteEither fiscal or social conservatism. Conservative to me means either,restriction,limit,or keeping things as is.
Poor republican voters(majority are white as i understand it)do not want their social security and medicare reduced as i unstand the matter.
So logical deduction means maybe they are social conservatives.
Perhaps meaning,limiting or stopping immigration and returning this country to the "jim crow,segragation era".
Facts in good faith are rarely racist.
signed,
2:01 PM, November 06, 2013
Conservative does not mean restricting or limiting or keeping "as is"...so right off the bad you were wrong.
DeleteYou're also stereotyping which apparently is okay if you liberal.
Wow, things just aren't getting any better around here.
Watch the circa 1970 film "Joe." Think of the rich NY businessman as the traditional Republican and Peter Boyle (Joe) as the Tea Party Republican. Although the film obviously didn't use those terms, it was ahead of its time (or maybe nothing has really changed except the "labels" we use). Seriously, watch the film
ReplyDeleteI should add, Kansas is getting what it deserves. It is called Karma, Golden Rule, or whatever term one wishes.
DeleteIn fact, I have no objection to Sen. Coburn's idea to take everyone off SSDI and SSI and make them reapply again, so long as Oklahoma is used as the pilot program for the first state to do it. May they have a "blessed" day.
But alas, as I sit on my Lazyboy in my double-wide smoking my 16th cigarrette of the day, having kicked my dog and woman (in church I call her wife but she is my lady friend with whom I live to spend her SSI check for her bipolar kid), I rest my legs after doing some, you know, honest work under the table for a contractor friend of mine, I watch my Fox News and am angered by people who keep getting their SSI while I keep getting denied mine. I know I'm 45 with a bad liver and COPD, but "everyone I know" gets their SSI , especially the minorities. Where's my SSI! I want my country back! I blame Obama!
DeleteSo much for the left being "the better man".
DeleteKansas deserves everything they get. They sent us Sebelius...
ReplyDeleteIf you were Kansas, wouldn't you want to get rid of Sebelius if possible.
ReplyDelete13 offices in KS 72 offices in NY
ReplyDelete"13 offices in KS 72 offices in NY", strange did we just figure out that population size drives office location... Wow, score one for the Gipper..
ReplyDeleteAgree-give Kansas and other red states what they want -- smaller government. Let the rich get richer, and let the poor have more children they can't afford to feed in Kansas and other red states (because they oppose reproductive rights there too, except for the rich, who can travel to blue states to get whatever they can't find in their own).
ReplyDeleteWhy abortion? Why kill an innocent child. I vote sterilization for these "blue state baby factories"!
Delete