"MISSING: $400 PURSE HOLDING $800 CASH, PLUS FOOD STAMP CARDS"

[WhiskeyGirl]

I know working people who have never owned, nor could they afford, a $400 purse. 

A traveling friend sent me an item clipped from a Georgia newspaper that reads, in its entirety:

A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before 5 P.M. Sunday.  The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive.  The woman said the car had been locked, and the purse was in the back seat.

The purse was valued at $400, her wallet was valued at $200, and she said there was $800 cash in the purse, according to the police report.  Also missing were the woman’s food stamp cards.

(Emphasis mine.)  The sad part is that the food stamp cards were probably worth more than the purse, wallet, and cash.

The value of welfare has actually exceeded more than just entry-level paychecks.  The Heritage Foundation recently published a report showing “the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable income of $32,446.”  According to Heritage’s calculations, “government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.”

read more here - http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/07/missing-400-purse-holding-800-cash-plus-food-stamp-cards/

Something wrong when people on welfare have $400 purses and working people shop at the thrift store.

[WhiskeyGirl]

""Fairness" and Phil Mickelson"

So we're spending 3.5 trillion dollars a year and only two trillion of it do we actually have.  The rest we're borrowing or printing.  And yet here comes Keith Ellison, "Yeah, Phil Mickelson needs to pay more so that we can continue to invest in infrastructure. So that we can make sure that groundbreaking research in medicine is paid for."  The government doesn't do any of that.  Drug companies engage in their own R&D.  But let's say the government did pay for it, the government's spending all that anyway.  The government's spending all of that and more, but they're not spending much in infrastructure.  What they're spending it on to me is irrelevant here.

What Keith Ellison is doing is trying to make it sound like we're cutting back on all these items. We're cutting back on infrastructure.  We're not.  We're cutting back on research and development.  We're not cutting back.  We're not cutting back on college education.  It's getting more expensive.  It's not becoming more affordable.  Phil Mickelson's money and everybody else's tax money is being irresponsibly spent.  In fact, the point of raising taxes any more is not even about the money.  It's about punishment.  It's about punishing success.  It's about making sure that people do not become wealthy.  It's about making sure that people cannot build a nest egg.  That's the purpose of taxation.

Here we have a member of Congress who actually wants to make the case that it is patriotic that somebody should only keep 37 cents of every dollar that they earn under all of these false premises that we're not spending on infrastructure, that we're not spending enough on medicine, that we're not spending enough on infrastructure, and we're not spending enough on tuition. And it's Phil Mickelson's fault to boot, and therefore Phil Mickelson would be patriotic and he would agree that it's necessary that he should pay 63 cents of every dollar so that these expenses don't get cut.

emphasis added

Growing poverty...not wealth.  How is it that the most elite keep getting wealthier?

read more here http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/02/06/fairness_and_phil_mickelson