Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed "right to privacy "

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Blackmail them with flight delays on purpose, even though they could have remedied this situation. 

     

     

    Oh, and this line is total, unadulterated BS.

    Stop making s**t up.

     

     




    I don't think he was making anything up.  I listened to NPR this yesterday morning on Daine Raines as they interviewed Lahood on the Flight backup debacle.  He was getting blasted by various journalist guests and think tank guests who said in deed the FAA had latitude but they chose to hit their personnel budget with a 5% (10% over 6 months) across the board cut which is requiring one furlough day per two week pay period.

    They could have determined that flight controllers were essential personnel and taken more drastic cuts elsewhere.  Congress in their infinite stupidity didn't allow any cuts to capital programs when all it would have taken was delays to construction capital programs that were rolling out this spring; in fact the delays should have started right after the failiure to address sequester at the start of the fiscal year.

    Yes all of this could have been avoided.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    I believe that since he was married and most likely it was benefits for his family that their expectation of privacy is still intact.

     

     



    Right.  A terrorist blows up a marathon, protect his rights, as if that's really an issue.  An honest, law abiding citizen gets a gun permit, put their name, address, number off guns up on a web site so everyone can steer clear, and the. Government sham try to shame them for exercising their rights.

     

    the liberals have made this an upside down world.



    As a supposed Conservative you should want to protect everyone's rights.  But you would prefer that government pick and choose who's rights can be infinged if the reason "is good enough".  So your rants in favor of rights and against big government are fraudulent.  Some people deserve more rights than others...

    And the gun permit information SHOULD be confidential too.  Nosy outsiders should not have access to personal financial information or whether you have a gun or not.  Access to this kind of information is detrimental to the individual and his rights in BOTH regards.  

    See the difference: liberals actually believe in rights (for all people) and conservatives of your ilk don't.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    "I do believe there is right to privacy that is Constitutional in scope.But you like to amend rights when it serves your own selfish purposes."

    There is no Supreme Court decision stating that welfare recipients have a complete privacy right in their receipt of benefits. Especially IF THEY ARE DEAD.
    Comparing taxes paid to free money received , not a good analogy.
    We pay for welfare recipients, like we pay for public employees.

    It is you that abuses the Constitution for your partisan beliefs.
    Nice to imagine a Constitution which conveniently exists just to please leftwing atheists, and deny 'rights' to those you dont like...

    Your Constitutional right to privacy will no doubt conveniently ignore certain 'privacy rights' of politically incorrect people you may not like, say gun owners , whose privacy is compromised by allowing displays of a map showing gun owners' addresses. Or those who signed a petition for a ballot question about traditional marriage, they have no privacy rights, their businesses can be harassed and threatened.

    But a welfare recipient, hey the Constitution allows them benefits without anyone knowing and no questions asked, and no one the wiser.



    Sure.  Comparing personal financial information supplied by welfare recipients to the government to personal financial information supplied by tax payers to the government is a terrible analogy.  Radically different concepts...  Sure.  What a fraud you are. 

    Your motivation seems to be one of the following:

    1.  Poor people are leeches and don't deserve rights: they should be exposed and shamed by the public.

    2.  The government should be able to pick and choose when to reveal confidential information and you "trust" the government to make good decisions in this regard.  In other words no one has rights.

    Either version is morally corrupt. 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    "I do believe there is right to privacy that is Constitutional in scope.But you like to amend rights when it serves your own selfish purposes."

    There is no Supreme Court decision stating that welfare recipients have a complete privacy right in their receipt of benefits. Especially IF THEY ARE DEAD.
    Comparing taxes paid to free money received , not a good analogy.
    We pay for welfare recipients, like we pay for public employees.

    It is you that abuses the Constitution for your partisan beliefs.
    Nice to imagine a Constitution which conveniently exists just to please leftwing atheists, and deny 'rights' to those you dont like...

    Your Constitutional right to privacy will no doubt conveniently ignore certain 'privacy rights' of politically incorrect people you may not like, say gun owners , whose privacy is compromised by allowing displays of a map showing gun owners' addresses. Or those who signed a petition for a ballot question about traditional marriage, they have no privacy rights, their businesses can be harassed and threatened.

    But a welfare recipient, hey the Constitution allows them benefits without anyone knowing and no questions asked, and no one the wiser.

     



    Sure.  Comparing personal financial information supplied by welfare recipients to the government to personal financial information supplied by tax payers to the government is a terrible analogy.  Radically different concepts...  Sure.  What a fraud you are. 

     

    Your motivation seems to be one of the following:

    1.  Poor people are leeches and don't deserve rights: they should be exposed and shamed by the public.

    2.  The government should be able to pick and choose when to reveal confidential information and you "trust" the government to make good decisions in this regard.  In other words no one has rights.

    Either version is morally corrupt. 



    On each and every issue , you work yourself up in a lather, and proudly conclude you are a moral paragon, and anyone who disagrees is "morally corrupt."
    Good luck with that.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    Oops, the Globe itself has violated the Constitution as well as the Mass Welfare Dept, by leaking the welfare benefits the terrorists and their families received. The Globe is "morally corrupt", right, Reubie? Straight to hell they will go.

    "Anzor and Zubeidat received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, commonly known as food stamps, from October 2002 to November 2004, when Dzhokhar would have been about 8 to 10 years old and Tamerlan 15 to 17. The family also received them from August 2009 to December 2011, according to the letter.

    Anzor was also a Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children grantee from January 2003 to March 2003, and again from August 2009 to June 2010.

    Tamerlan’s wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, also received food stamps and welfare benefits from September 2011 to November 2012, according to the letter. "

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    "I do believe there is right to privacy that is Constitutional in scope.But you like to amend rights when it serves your own selfish purposes."

    There is no Supreme Court decision stating that welfare recipients have a complete privacy right in their receipt of benefits. Especially IF THEY ARE DEAD.
    Comparing taxes paid to free money received , not a good analogy.
    We pay for welfare recipients, like we pay for public employees.

    It is you that abuses the Constitution for your partisan beliefs.
    Nice to imagine a Constitution which conveniently exists just to please leftwing atheists, and deny 'rights' to those you dont like...

    Your Constitutional right to privacy will no doubt conveniently ignore certain 'privacy rights' of politically incorrect people you may not like, say gun owners , whose privacy is compromised by allowing displays of a map showing gun owners' addresses. Or those who signed a petition for a ballot question about traditional marriage, they have no privacy rights, their businesses can be harassed and threatened.

    But a welfare recipient, hey the Constitution allows them benefits without anyone knowing and no questions asked, and no one the wiser.

     



    Sure.  Comparing personal financial information supplied by welfare recipients to the government to personal financial information supplied by tax payers to the government is a terrible analogy.  Radically different concepts...  Sure.  What a fraud you are. 

     

    Your motivation seems to be one of the following:

    1.  Poor people are leeches and don't deserve rights: they should be exposed and shamed by the public.

    2.  The government should be able to pick and choose when to reveal confidential information and you "trust" the government to make good decisions in this regard.  In other words no one has rights.

    Either version is morally corrupt. 

     



    On each and every issue , you work yourself up in a lather, and proudly conclude you are a moral paragon, and anyone who disagrees is "morally corrupt."
    Good luck with that.

     



    If the shoe fits.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Oops, the Globe itself has violated the Constitution as well as the Mass Welfare Dept, by leaking the welfare benefits the terrorists and their families received. The Globe is "morally corrupt", right, Reubie? Straight to hell they will go.

    "Anzor and Zubeidat received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, commonly known as food stamps, from October 2002 to November 2004, when Dzhokhar would have been about 8 to 10 years old and Tamerlan 15 to 17. The family also received them from August 2009 to December 2011, according to the letter.

    Anzor was also a Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children grantee from January 2003 to March 2003, and again from August 2009 to June 2010.

    Tamerlan’s wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, also received food stamps and welfare benefits from September 2011 to November 2012, according to the letter. "



    If someone in the government improperly released confidential information then they broke the law. As you well know (but pretend otherwise) the Press has different rules, rights and responsibilities.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    This "issue" isn't material to the bombing.  Tamerlan's wife received benefits for a little over a year.  So what does that mean?  Does it mean anything?  She is an american and if she were out of work and and demonstrated need, what is the issue? 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Well the righties have convinced me, there is no right to privacy as alluded to in the Constitution....but that only holds true when they want to go on a witch hunt.

    Of course if it concerns say, a certain senator from Kentucky talking loud enough to be recorded from a public vantage point then that is against the law.

     

    I wonder if we just stopped welfare to everyone if that would stop all the terrorists?

    Some on this thread seem to think so.



    So I guess you get to be facetious??? Sigh...good to have you back Airborne!!!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Blackmail them with flight delays on purpose, even though they could have remedied this situation. 

     

     

    Oh, and this line is total, unadulterated BS.

    Stop making s**t up.

     

    BS? Tell that to the people waiting four hours on a Tarmac, all so Obama can have a little hissy fit over the people wanting him to trim spending.

     



    Yes, BS.  It's disingenuous to say the effects were purposeful.

    When you use a meat cleaver to hack the budget instead of a scalpel, this is what happens.

     

    Of course, nobody cares about the workers themselves, eh, only those poor, misunderstood people who can nevertheless afford airline tickets.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    "Of course, nobody cares about the workers themselves, eh, only those poor, misunderstood people who can nevertheless afford airline tickets."

    Contempt for the public that pays public employee's salaries.....you would fit in well behind the counter at the Post Office.

    Nobody cares about public employees? Why, public employee unions have their own pet political party, the Party of Government, formerly known as the Democratic Party.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Government refuses to disclose welfare benefits , based on dead terrorist's supposed

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "Of course, nobody cares about the workers themselves, eh, only those poor, misunderstood people who can nevertheless afford airline tickets."

    Contempt for the public that pays public employee's salaries.....you would fit in well behind the counter at the Post Office.

    Nobody cares about public employees? Why, public employee unions have their own pet political party, the Party of Government, formerly known as the Democratic Party.




    You have contempt for most everyone not just like you.  Quite the life you lead.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share