This is discouraging for me.

It's discouraging alright. Should a person be exonerated of a crime due to the number of children they have. I hate it for his wife....bad choice, but not the fault of society. There have been many mothers imprisoned due to crimes they've committed. Your point?

What?

Quick question: How were you able to post the video? What commands did you use?

To answer the OP all I have to say is that she is an irresponsible parent and is teaching her kids to be irresponsible and dependent citizens of this country.

World’s Biggest Corporation is a Welfare Queen
May 30, 2004 Posted by Staff under Progress Report, The Progress Report
9 Comments
World’s Biggest Corporation is a Welfare Queen

Wal-Mart Has Received More Than $1 Billion in Economic Development Subsidies

A new report finds widespread corruption across state and local governments that funneled taxpayer money to Wal-Mart.
New Scandal Hits Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, has benefited from more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments across the United States, according to a new study by Good Jobs First, a Washington, DC-based research center.

The study is freely available at www.goodjobsfirst.org. For the executive summary, click here (PDF format).

“Wal-Mart presents itself as an entrepreneurial success story, yet it has made extensive use of tax breaks, free land, cash grants and other forms of public assistance,” said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the study.

The study found more than 240 cases in which the construction of a new Wal-Mart facility was assisted by taxpayers. Apart from 160 retail outlets, the study found subsidies at 84 distribution centers, representing more than 90% of the network of huge warehouses Wal-Mart has built to facilitate its expansion. Mattera stressed that the $1 billion figure is necessarily an understatement, given that public disclosure of subsidies is severely limited.

The value of subsidies for individual distribution centers ranged as high as $48 million (with an average of $7.4 million), while for retail outlets the largest was $12 million (average: $2.8 million). Subsidy deals were found in 35 states, with the most in California, Illinois, Missouri, Texas and Mississippi. In dollar terms, Louisiana, Florida and New York also ranked high.

“That a company with $9 billion in profits can wrest subsidies from state and local governments shows that the candy store game is out of control,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First. “The subsidies to Wal-Mart are particularly troubling, given that it uses taxpayer dollars to create jobs that tend to be poverty-wage, part-time and lacking in adequate healthcare benefits.”

The study recommends that states prohibit subsidies to retailers except in distressed areas that lack adequate retail outlets for necessities such as food. It also recommends that any retailer — like any corporation — receiving subsidies should be required to pay a living wage.

Good Jobs First is a non-profit research center promoting corporate and government accountability in economic development.

Also see the WWW’s most-visited site on Corporate Welfare:
The Corporate Welfare Shame Site

Taxpayers Deserve to Know How Their Money is Squandered
November 1, 2006 Posted by Staff under Progress Report, The Progress Report
2 Comments
Taxpayers Deserve to Know How Their Money is Squandered

Transparency Bill Would Decrease Corruption, Corporate Welfare

If every corrupt government deal leading to corporate welfare were listed publicly so that citizens could see how much was being stolen from them, we think that government would become more honest. It’s worth a try. Please support this legislation.
A Letter to the United States Senate: Support a Full Accounting of Federal Grants

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the millions of taxpaying citizens represented by the groups signed below, we strongly urge you to support S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and co-sponsored by colleagues John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Tom Carper (D-DE), would direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create a publicly-available website that would list every entity receiving federal grants or contracts and the totals awarded for the last ten fiscal years. Such a website would entail very little cost and would greatly increase transparency in the distribution of government funding. At last, those who most deserve to know about this process – the American people – would have the tool they need to conduct their own evaluations of Washington ’s priorities.

It is essentially impossible for the average citizen to obtain such an accounting today. According to the General Services Administration, the federal government provides roughly $300 billion in grants to 30,000 organizations, ranging from rail and transit security to youth theater troupes. Information is spread across innumerable agencies, frequently lacks specificity, and is not always available to the public. All too often, one must resort to filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act to truly determine the extent or duration of funding. Americans should not be forced to navigate the treacherous waters of bureaucracy just to find out who is receiving their tax dollars.

In the past, it was not feasible to have a centralized listing of the kinds of organizations and activities that received government monies. The effort needed to calculate, coordinate, and print such a listing would have been enormous, and the final product may well have required a forklift to transport. But today, with incredible increases in computing power and the advent of the Internet, such an undertaking is far less daunting. In fact, a precedent has been set by ExpectMore.gov, a website launched by the OMB to monitor the performance of more than 800 federal programs. ExpectMore.gov has made program review more transparent and accessible to the public.

Advocates from all points on the spectrum of opinion share the common notion that transparency of and public access to government information is vital to the health of our political system. It is for this reason that S. 2590 has broad appeal. Budget watchdogs can support the legislation because it would reveal duplicative or superfluous federal funding. Environmentalists can support it because it would detail exactly how much federal money goes to organizations and practices they deem to be ecologically harmful. Traditional values groups can support the legislation because it would allow them to track funding for causes they hold to be inimical to their own. The list of those with a stake in S. 2590, from civil libertarians to defense and foreign-policy reformers, goes on and on. Reasonable people of all political viewpoints should unite in support of S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, in the interest of good governance.

Sincerely,

John Berthoud, President National Taxpayers Union

Danielle Brian, Executive Director Project On Government Oversight

Jon Coupal, Chairman American Tax Reduction Movement

Tom Devine, Legal Director Government Accountability Project

Steve Ellis, Vice President of Programs Taxpayers for Common Sense

Matt Foreman, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Patrick C. Guerriero, President Log Cabin Republicans

Doug Kagan, Chairman Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom

Michelle Korsmo, Executive Vice President Americans for Prosperity

William Lauderback, Executive Vice President The American Conservative Union

Jeff Mazzella, President Center for Individual Freedom

Thomas McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs Family Research Council

Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director American Association of Physicians and Surgeons

Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Director Liberty Coalition

Richard O. Rowland, President Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Gary Ruskin, Director Congressional Accountability Project

Thomas A. Schatz, President Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder Eagle Forum

Samuel M. Slom, President Small Business Hawaii

William Westmiller, National Chairman Republican Liberty Caucus

Timothy M. Wise, President Arlington County Taxpayers Association

Also see:

Congressional Pork-Barrel Spending Left New Orleans Vulnerable
http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs189.htm

Our two-party system has reached a dead-end
http://www.progress.org/vote20.htm

Imitating the Gestapo, Imitating Stalin
http://www.progress.org/wordpress/imitating-the-gestapo-imitating-stalin/

Maybe. What's the context? All you've posted is an excerpt of a news report. You haven't provided enough information for me to know whether this is irkworthy or not.

Best I can do Joe: google search

The idea is that some people have absolutely no idea of what personal responsibility is. This is a prime example of why people like me get upset about social programs.

So many people take examples of a few to tar and feather an entire segment of the population.

Irony much?

Lets just tar and feather those that deserve it instead of worrying about entire segments of people. Do you think that "someone" should be held responsible for her 12, I mean 15, oops, 16 kids?

I didn't read the story.

Very true. People don't come in bunches like grapes.

Damn. Didn't you read the rightwing clowns who signed that letter?


John Berthoud, President National Taxpayers Union

Danielle Brian, Executive Director Project On Government Oversight

Jon Coupal, Chairman American Tax Reduction Movement

Tom Devine, Legal Director Government Accountability Project

Steve Ellis, Vice President of Programs Taxpayers for Common Sense

Matt Foreman, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Patrick C. Guerriero, President Log Cabin Republicans

Doug Kagan, Chairman Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom

Michelle Korsmo, Executive Vice President Americans for Prosperity

William Lauderback, Executive Vice President The American Conservative Union

Jeff Mazzella, President Center for Individual Freedom

Thomas McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs Family Research Council

Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director American Association of Physicians and Surgeons

Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Director Liberty Coalition

Richard O. Rowland, President Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Gary Ruskin, Director Congressional Accountability Project

Thomas A. Schatz, President Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder Eagle Forum

Samuel M. Slom, President Small Business Hawaii

William Westmiller, National Chairman Republican Liberty Caucus

Timothy M. Wise, President Arlington County Taxpayers Association

Also see:

Congressional Pork-Barrel Spending Left New Orleans Vulnerable
http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs189.htm

Our two-party system has reached a dead-end
http://www.progress.org/vote20.htm

Imitating the Gestapo, Imitating Stalin
http://www.progress.org/wordpress/imitating-the-gestapo-imitating-stalin/

So you get ALL your information from the top ten urls chosen for you from how your search history is profiled. If you think that means nothing you don't remember what happened to Rick Santorum on google.

You think you are googling. what you are is Santorumizing your brain.


Santorum’s Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/

By Amy Bingham

Mar 1, 2012 3:38pm

Google’s algorithm may now be on Rick Santorum’s side, but the vile re-definition of ”Santorum” that topped the search engine’s results for over six years, is here to stay.

Spreading Santorum, the website created by gay rights activist Dan Savage to propagate a nasty anal-sex related definition of “Santorum,” appears further down on the first search results page for some users, and even further down on page 2 for other users.

But Savage says the vulgar definition isn’t going away any time soon.

“The damage is done,” he said. “Toxic e-mission accomplished.”

Savage said that between the widespread coverage of Santorum’s “Google problem” in the media, and the disgusting definition’s salvos on comedy shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, his definition has become a part of pop culture.

“Nobody has to rush to Google,” he said. “Everybody gets it. Our Google ranking isn’t that important anymore.”

And Savage’s definition is still front and center.

Coming in among the page 1 results during a search today, are Santorum’s Wikipedia page, the Wikipedia link about Savage’s re-definition, and Santorum’s official campaign website. There is also a link to Urban Dictionary, which spells out Savage’s description in all its “frothy” and “fecal” glory.

“Careful what you wish for though,” Savage said, adding that the Urban Dictionary link is “a much more disgusting return than ours.”

Google insists they did not specifically make the switch, although they did tweak their algorithms in ways that could have affected the result.

“We make more than 500 changes to our algorithms in a typical year, and with each of those changes, sites will shuffle to different positions in our search results,” a Google spokesman said. ”We have not manually taken action to change the ranking of the site.”

Google points out that it made 40 algorithm changes in February, some of which went into effect on Monday and Tuesday, right before Spreading Santorum fell down in the search results.

One tweak that may have done the trick is adjusting their top-secret Google formula so “official” pages are pushed to the top of search results. In announcing the changes on the Google Search blog, the company said the change will lead to “more accurate identifications” and push “many pages that were previously misidentified as official” out of the top results.

Santorum has been demanding that Google remove Spreading Santorum from the top search result for months. In September Santorum publicly denounced the search giant for not stepping in.

“If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country,” he told Politico. “To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle but I suspect that’s not true.”

The “joke,” as Savage calls it, began in response to comments Santorum made in a 2003 interview where he equated gay sex with bestiality and polygamy.

“There’s this one interview where this anti-gay bigot said really disgusting things almost a decade ago and now because of the site he’s still being asked to answer for it,” Savage said.

Describing the interview, Savage said Santorum “equated consensual adults same-sex love to raping dogs.”

“It’s all about making sure he could never run away from this,” Savage said. “LGBT people, we just don’t get punched in the face anymore without us punching back. You can say vile things about us and were going to say vile things about you.”

Don't bother. Mcgentrix thinks finding an anomaly who just happens to be black (when the average welfare client is white by a large margin) he is making a big statement about "waste" because feeding, clothing, sheltering people is Jesus' work, not society's.

He can ignore more than a half billion dollars worth of brand new air tankers the Pentagon DID NOT want that are mothballed in Arizona, half of them flown and mothballed in Afghanistan before being recommissioned and then flown to Arizona.

Welfare doesn't even meet 3% of the budget. Eliminating it would solve not a ******* thing. What is he looking for? Reinstatement of work houses and debtor's prisons with beggars and the dying in rags on the streets?

Almost all of those sites are right-wing blogs, which suggests to me that Angel Adams has become something of a cause celebre among the conservative dittoratti. Not surprising, I suppose, since the only things that they probably know about her are that: (1) she's black; (2) she has 15 kids; (3) the father of some of those kids is in jail; and (4) she stated something along the lines of "somebody has to pay for all these kids" on camera, which was then broadcast on local TV and then posted (in edited form some two years later) on YouTube. And that's when the feces hit the rotating air circulation device:

Source

I'm not sure why conservatives aren't applauding her. After all, they're the ones touting "family values," and I can't think of many people who are more family-oriented than someone who has given birth to 15 children. Likewise, it seems that she is not a believer in either birth control or abortion, so that should count for something among the conservative commentariat. No, there must be something else that would explain the right's lack of enthusiasm for Adams's situation.

Granted, she has lots of children with multiple fathers, but with 15 kids she should probably be the star of her own reality show. The Gosselins, remember, had only eight kids, and they got their own show, while the Duggars got a show when their brood numbered only 17. If there's an injustice here, it is the fact that Adams has been blatantly ignored by cable TV producers while others, equally or less fecund, have gone on to fame and fortune.

I gather that her biggest problem is the perception among many that she lacks gratitude and has a "sense of entitlement" to government benefits. I don't know anything about the facts of her case, but if she is, in fact, entitled to government benefits, then I don't blame her for having a sense of entitlement. That's why they're called "entitlements" - because someone's entitled to them. I'm far more offended by a rich, pampered white kid at Princeton whining about how "oppressed" he is than I am by someone claiming government benefits that are rightfully hers. And if she lacks a proper sense of gratitude to the state, maybe the fact that the state just jailed her spouse/boyfriend has something to do with it, or the fact that the same legislators who are doing everything to make sure she carries every pregnancy to term are the ones who are voting to cut funding for day care and pre-school. Were I in her position, I might be feeling a bit churlish too.

Oh, and she's black. That's a big problem too.


Why do you think she has no idea of what personal responsibility is? She works, her boyfriend/spouse worked until he got arrested. She had successfully kept her family intact. She has availed herself of certain government programs, but no one is accusing her of taking anything except that to which she is entitled. What's the problem?

Not sure what your problem is, but feel free to do your own research. Not gonna change who she is or what she says.

You sure read a lot into what isn't said. I have a good friend who I roomed with in college who was the oldest of 15 kids. They were white though so all the kids only had one dad and he wasn't in jail and both parents worked and weren't on Welfare. They did, however, receive some assistance from the local community.

I notice that you said "she was black" often. I know that all conservatives are racist. That's been proven over and over because we didn't vote for Obama.

You make it sound like black people aren't capable of personal responsibility Joe. Do you think that black people are some how less then everyone else? Is that why you keep referring to her color? Find me some video of a white person saying the same thing. Then I will wonder where their personal responsibility is as well.

If Angela's point of view and demand to be taken care of doesn't discourage you, not even a little bit,. then I think you're faking it. Trying to play the part of the white knight. Good for you. {last line deleted for taste}

Have you forgotten that conservatives are only interested in unborn children. Once their born screw them.

But telling someone to google search is not enough to substantiate your position. Otherwise whats the point of bringing it up?