Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If any of you ever had to be in a position where you had to live off WIC or any other social program you'd think differently. I've grown up in New Mexico, and many of my friends grew up on welfare. It's not all rosy and easy like you guys seem to paint it. One friend in particular, their dad died when we were in middle school, and their mother worked 2 jobs to try and stay afloat. People on these programs ARE NOT moochers like you guys are painting them to be. It's really easy to say you're anti-welfare when you have a comfortable job and aren't at risk of getting into that hole. Well, shame on you. I for one got inoculated at La Casa. Without things like medicaid and La Casa TONS of children and adults would not even have the most basic medical care. Take a walk in someone else's shoes for a day. Go work a Peanut Plant for 10 hours then go clean several churches late at night, whilst making sure three kids at home have something to eat. Then, see what happens when you take away those programs. The ratio of people that take advantage of the system are 100:1 ,if that. So, 100 families truly benefitting and living to 1 person who takes advantage and you guys want to undo an entire system? That's just insane. It's this type of rhetoric that's driving my family from the GOP into the Independent category, and why i'm a Democrat. I for one would like to see this state be a nice place for everybody, not just the fat cats and the people who retire here from god knows where. People move here and complain about our poverty and the number of people on welfare, yet, they vote to remove welfare and just hammer more people into poverty? It's just cruel and wrong and it just doesn't work. No Tejana Susana, Viva Diane!
And herein lies the delineation between the two philosophies in this country. I don't believe government has any role in helping the poor, especially in a state the size of New Mexico. How can a government based out of Santa Fe cater to the individual needs and communities over the space of 121,500 square miles. My idea of sympathy is having the aforementioned people you speak of no longer having to rely upon a detached, impersonal government give them meager subsistence. That's not the idea of how this country was founded. That's why we are different globally than other nations. The statement that Richard Jackson coined about those who are willing to sacrifice personal liberty in exchange for security deserve neither is especially relevant today.
Call me synical, but I believe that "hand outs" to the "lower classes" are done to maintain stability and keep the peace, and are of great benefit to the "upper classes". Politicians support programs that will maintain a subsistence living for all, to keep the truly desperate from taking matters into their own hands, and taking what they need.
Economic instability and class warfare are not conducive to capitalism, so it's a price the ruling class is willing to pay to insure their ongoing well being. The dole in ancient Rome was along the same lines, appease the masses, and insure prosperity for the ruling class.
We have gotten a little off topic, so to return to the topic, what is Martinez' position on federal spending in NM? As a conservative, will she support reduced spending if it's to the detriment of NM, or will she push for more federal spending in this state (LANL, WSMR, etc.)?
If any of you ever had to be in a position where you had to live off WIC or any other social program you'd think differently. I've grown up in New Mexico, and many of my friends grew up on welfare. It's not all rosy and easy like you guys seem to paint it. One friend in particular, their dad died when we were in middle school, and their mother worked 2 jobs to try and stay afloat. People on these programs ARE NOT moochers like you guys are painting them to be. It's really easy to say you're anti-welfare when you have a comfortable job and aren't at risk of getting into that hole. Well, shame on you. I for one got inoculated at La Casa. Without things like medicaid and La Casa TONS of children and adults would not even have the most basic medical care. Take a walk in someone else's shoes for a day. Go work a Peanut Plant for 10 hours then go clean several churches late at night, whilst making sure three kids at home have something to eat. Then, see what happens when you take away those programs. The ratio of people that take advantage of the system are 100:1 ,if that. So, 100 families truly benefitting and living to 1 person who takes advantage and you guys want to undo an entire system? That's just insane. It's this type of rhetoric that's driving my family from the GOP into the Independent category, and why i'm a Democrat. I for one would like to see this state be a nice place for everybody, not just the fat cats and the people who retire here from god knows where. People move here and complain about our poverty and the number of people on welfare, yet, they vote to remove welfare and just hammer more people into poverty? It's just cruel and wrong and it just doesn't work. No Tejana Susana, Viva Diane!
Too many illegals and their familes are on it.
I have seen americans denied food stamps and welfare, why? We need to help OUR OWN people.
NO, MY TAXES WILL NOT GO TO FEED THEM, they should work, like everyone else. NO, I WILL NOT LET MY STATE FALL APART ANY LONGER. NO, I WILL NOT LET MY MONEY SUPPORT ILLEGALS FOR ANYTHING.
People need to work. I have worked since I was 13, I busted my ass through school and have become what I am today.
Diane sounds like a damn texan, why would I want that? This is New Mexico.
Call me synical, but I believe that "hand outs" to the "lower classes" are done to maintain stability and keep the peace, and are of great benefit to the "upper classes". Politicians support programs that will maintain a subsistence living for all, to keep the truly desperate from taking matters into their own hands, and taking what they need.
Economic instability and class warfare are not conducive to capitalism, so it's a price the ruling class is willing to pay to insure their ongoing well being. The dole in ancient Rome was along the same lines, appease the masses, and insure prosperity for the ruling class.
Rep points coming your way. I couldn't agree with this post more. I really mean that. I wish this was not the case, but as I grow older, I am afraid you are right.
The inference here is that providing for others
should be a priority over national defense.
Unfortunately, another inference is that ANY spending
on national defence ALWAYS makes us "safer."
Three aircraft carrier groups is good? Well then, twelve
is better! ( Anyone against twelve hates America. )
OnTopic: It's like school spending; any spending is good
for the chilluns and "education cuts don't heal ... "
More is better - more is better - more is better ... < Snort! >
My mother emigrated here legally, and it burns her to see that while she had to wait 5 years to be a citizen, people are agitating for fastracking a preferred group over others.
It's not fair. And what part of "we have no more money" don't these statists understand?
Susana for me. She knows we can't afford to spend on entitlements, unless we want to go the same way as California, which is bankrupt because of illegals!
^California is bankrupt because of illegals?? It doesn't have anything to do with the housing bubble crash which decimated the flow of taxes to state government (and did the same to conservative states such as Arizona and moderate states such as Florida)? News to me....
I guess you can also explain to me why the Texas economy is doing so well (relatively), despite the large number of illegal immigrants in that state as well?
“If Denish can keep her high level support with Democrats, turn them out, and win over undecided DTS [decline to state affiliation] voters, it’s difficult to see a clear path to victory for Martinez given the way registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in New Mexico."
Unfortunately, another inference is that ANY spending
on national defence ALWAYS makes us "safer."
Three aircraft carrier groups is good? Well then, twelve
is better! ( Anyone against twelve hates America. )
OnTopic: It's like school spending; any spending is good
for the chilluns and "education cuts don't heal ... "
More is better - more is better - more is better ... < Snort! >
I really love this post. I feel that we should cut defense at some point or another... But Education needs to be completely revamped. I also don't know if throwing MORE money at it will help when there's so many fundamental issues to be addressed.
“If Denish can keep her high level support with Democrats, turn them out, and win over undecided DTS [decline to state affiliation] voters, it’s difficult to see a clear path to victory for Martinez given the way registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in New Mexico."
Why, exactly, should anyone believe a poll conducted by a PAC that supports Denish, especially since a poll conducted by the Denish campaign itself showed Martinez up by 5%?
Your quote is applicable to any statewide election in New Mexico, written by the same PAC that supposedly conducted the poll you cited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
