Fundraising reports show Mark Warner far ahead in U.S. Senate race

I totally understand, and I also totally agree with you. I admit I believe there is some level of fraud within our own Social Services, and I have previously commented on that, but they are few in number compaired to the larger picture. Taking advantage of the system is one thing, needing it is something else. It believe it could benefit all states to more closely monitor their Social Services depts. PD, I am on your side!

I cannot disagree with your premise on the closed mindedness issue, but there is enough fault that runs both ways-for differing reasons. The main problem I have is with this mindset that welfare is a bad thing and people on it are all lazy baby pushers. It is not an easy task to get people off welfare and into jobs that can afford them to stay off of support. Why? Low pay, low or no benefits, childcare costs, education or re-training, etc. There has been much success as I noted in an earlier post and there is more to do. But what some fail to recognize is what happens if we just yank all support. The homeless numbers would swell, intake hospitals would become swamped even worse than they are now, crime rates would likely increase, etc. These have both monetary and societal costs. One must think of the consequences before making judgements. The cost savings on the front side may be drowned out by the cos

The fact is that some rightwing's want to rant and rave about welfare, and any other program they can think of and seem to think it's all the Democrats fault. The porblem with that is that's all they can think of. Every time a Democrat is leading and most likely will win that's the topic Repubs will harp on. You cannot debate this with them because they have a totally closed mind. My Father use to say, trying to talk to a Republicon is like trying to talk to a drunk. All they want to do is argue, and think they are always right. Why can't they look in the mirror and see how much spending Bush had done and the deficit our grand children will be paying? Why can't they look and see this country is in an economic desaster? When it comes to looking at themselves Republicons look the other way. Good luck with all of that!

I do not know why I even try to have a reasoned debate with some people. I am not pandering to "baby pushers" and never said so. Do you even know what recipients receive? You are so deep in your hatred of other people that you will not even consider that you could perhaps be mistaken. I have admitted there is fraud but to what degree I do not know. And I have said several times before on this issue that those people need to be weeded out. But I have no time for people who take the worst example and make it like that is the whole system in general and say so with not one ounce of verification as to what degree of truth belongs to their statements. I do research to find data and others apparently use opinion and sterotypes. I cannot have a debate anymore in that setting or mindset.

Yes I said there were "massive" amounts of welfare families that have 5+ children and I said that no one said that the "masses" have 5+ children. Get over this pandering of the baby pushers and word play. Just face the facts that wefare is being used and abused as a way of life for more than you care to admit.

I am playing word games. You just said no one is saying there are massive amounts of 5+ children families, yet you said in an eariler post: "What I was referring to was the massive amount of children that are being born to idle baby pushing mothers of whom produce 5+ kids ...." You just contradicted your own statement. Sorry I pointed you out wrong. I have never agreed with welfare as a lifestyle. And reform has reduced the rolls: since 1995 the after inflation median state benefits down 18%; children living in families below poverty that receive benefits down from 61.5% to 28.9%; and children in families receiving benefits down from 9.5 million to 3.7 million. The program helps many who are in need temporarily so that they can get back to work, get retrained, etc. The abusers need to be weeded out but you seem to believe that we should eliminate it all due to a few bad apples.

PD, no one said that there were the masses of welfare families that have 5+ kids but you have to admit that there are enough to be alarmed about. Yes, a little embellishment but the point is still there. If you need it spelled out, here it is. If you cannot support "yourself" by "yourself" and require the public to care for you, you have no business bringing more people into the world that YOU cannot support by "yourself". Cut and dried. Stop playing word games and just face the facts.

You failed to look at the con-serative's and how funny they are. We are all impressed with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the list goes on. Try as you will, you cannot overlook the ignorance of our current leaders, but nice attempt. Sorry it didn't work!

Either way there are not the masses of 5+ children families out there as you originally stated. So we can stop questioning my math and question yours now. I am waiting.

.. "REALLY funny"...

Quite true. Nothing funnier than a Democrat politician. Jimmuh Cawtuh, Walter Mondull, Dukakis in the tank, Bill "what IS is Clinton, John Flip-flop Kerry, Elliot Spitzer (aka Client numbet 9), Gary Hart-pence & and the good ship Monkey Business, the Hillary cackle laugh, Obama & the preacher man, Howard HEE-YA! Dean, Nancy Botox Pelosi and the list goes on.... Your right though.. REALLY funny.

Why would it be good for me to have less money in my paycheck each week? I say... Vote Warner if you want to have a decrease in your take home pay! Vote Warner if you want to continue to pay $4.00 (or more) for a gallon of gas! Vote Warner if you want to continue the redistribution of wealth! Vote Warner if you want a Limousine Liberal representing Virginia! I say we should send these socialist's packing! I say we don't need less money in the hands of the people and more in the coffers of Kaine and company or Pelosi and pals! I say I earn it so let me keep it! I put in the effort for it so let me keep it! I say I sweat for it so let me keep it!

Let us use some simple math here PD. You or the book states that 42% have one and 30% have 2. 42+30=72 or do you disagree. Now that leaves 28% that have 3 or more so we can add 30% to the 28% and viola, we have 58% who have 2 or more children. It is REALLY easy to use statistics to paint a different picture. I now take a bow and await your reply.

The book states (from govt sources) that 42% have 1 child and 30% have 2. Where do you read 58% have two or more? That figure puts 75% with 2 or less. The way I figure it that if one is going to criticize govt programs and policies one ought to have at least a working knowledge of the realities and the facts before passing judgements. Going on opinion and sterotypes is no way to enter into a valid debate on an issue.

Since the state reimburses the localities for revenue lost on car taxation, how does that translate to actual lost revenue to the localities? We used to, and still do, write a check for car taxes to the city treasurer. Upon reciept, I don't know if that money is shared with the state or not but let's assume that the city keeps it all and the state makes up the difference. Where is the loss, unless the state is not paying the localities? Now, the local governments did not really "raise" taxes, they just did not lower the real estate rate enough to offset the assessment boom to a reasonable inflation adjusted percentage. One could argue that is an increase but in reality what they did was sneakily kept quiet and spent the new money until the citizens raised a ruckus. That is when VB "lowered" the rate but still realized a significant influx of new money. Correct me if I am wrong some how.

I too am tired of paying for deadbeats, however this really is the wrong thread to discuss it. I don't care what the stats are as long as they do not get my money. I like C.B. am tired. It seems I could afford my life easier if I did nothing and went on the dole. On one note though C.B.

"Local taxes have jumped over 100% in just a few short years as well."

This has been my point. By reducing the amount to the local goverments in areas away from the car tax, the locals then increased your taxes. It trickles down from the Feds, to the state, to the city. Your taxes were never decreased, siply moved around. You in fact do not pay less taxes than before the car tax cut. You just don't pay it in a "car tax." Vote Mark Warner for fiscal conservative values. Only vote Obama if you are still waiting for Peter Pan to come take from your bedroom to Neverland.

I don't think that one must seriously do "research" to prove that not all wefare "families" have 5+ kids. A bit naive to think that is necessary and cause one to write a book to cry "myth". However, it is interesting that 58% of welfare families do have 2 or more children by the books own admission. Now that is alot of "family" living on alot of my dollar. Once again, how many of these kids live in single parent homes with "boyfriend" in tow and do not share the same last name as their siblings?

"It would be nice if they (Repubs) would tell the truth, but hey, what do you expect look at the "truth" we get out of Bush/Cheney."

Yes, I can't wait for a return to the good old days when a Democrat was in the White House. I look fondly back at the Clinton years - he always told the "truth." Except when he didn't, of course. What is the meaning of "is"?

Incidentally, the Democrats have controlled Congress for over a year now and the latest Gallup polling has the Congressional approval rating at 12 percent. Twelve. Makes Bush look down right popular.

About that mythical baby pusher: "Jill Duerr Berrick and Anne Marie Cammisa address these myths in their books "Faces of Poverty: Portraits of Women on Welfare" and "From Rhetoric to Reform," respectively. Berrick specifically addresses the two myths that women on welfare have many children and that they continue to have children so they can get additional money every month (Pg. 15). Cammisa also addresses the same myth. Both authors rebut this myth with statistics saying that the average woman on welfare in fact only has two children. (Berrick, Pg. 15 & Cammisa, Pg. 16) In fact, Berrick notes that only one child is found in the families of forty-two percent of recipients. Thirty percent of AFDC recipients have two children" That makes about 3/4 of recicpients with 2 or less children. Some people continue to buy into falsehoods.

"And to say babies with no known last name are democrats is just purely ignorant."

Talk about ignorant. That is not what I said. What I was referring to was the massive amount of children that are being born to idle baby pushing mothers of whom produce 5+ kids by different boyfriends so the children live in single "family" welfare homes and none of them share the same last name. We are already a welfare country pushing free lifestyles to baby pushers and illegal immigrants. Oklahoma has a great idea for starters, that is to cut off the teet.

"Besides, I'd rather have MW in the Senate making believe he matters to anything, than doing something else harmful, like running for governor again. If we're real lucky, he'll have a macaca moment."

This is just too funny, and clearly shows the defensive and desperation mode of republicons. I'm sorry, but it REALLY is funny!