100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Welfare agencies boost voters | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with more people exercising their right to vote, as long as they are legal. I don't either. But how they vote could be a disaster to our economy. Such as more entitlements and higher taxes for those who work. 1 in 7 now on welfare. Should it be 1 in 8, or 1 in 9? Higher? 
lol , yes,, it should be higher and unemployment should be lower,,, But isn't the problem, we are creating more welfare voters and fewer job voters? we dont 'create' voters but we are creating more need for welfare because we have fewer jobs,,, The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. So what happens when more new voters want more subsidy and entitlements and have more votes than people who work and pay taxes?
a misunderstood concept,, these arent NEW voters they already could/did vote as members of the employed and will continue to vote as members of the unemployed however, there may be new registrations in both the group of employed citizens AND the group of unemployed citizens the people who influence votes are much more often those with money for campaigns than those with a signature, and the money people will never support a public interest in more personal subsidies because it would take from their own,,,, I think that you misunderstand. If these aren't NEW voters, then why are voter registration applications being taken at welfare agencies? Why not at banks or Credit Unions? Places where those who do choose to work deposit their checks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with more people exercising their right to vote, as long as they are legal. I don't either. But how they vote could be a disaster to our economy. Such as more entitlements and higher taxes for those who work. 1 in 7 now on welfare. Should it be 1 in 8, or 1 in 9? Higher?
lol , yes,, it should be higher and unemployment should be lower,,, But isn't the problem, we are creating more welfare voters and fewer job voters? we dont 'create' voters but we are creating more need for welfare because we have fewer jobs,,, The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. So what happens when more new voters want more subsidy and entitlements and have more votes than people who work and pay taxes?
a misunderstood concept,, these arent NEW voters they already could/did vote as members of the employed and will continue to vote as members of the unemployed however, there may be new registrations in both the group of employed citizens AND the group of unemployed citizens the people who influence votes are much more often those with money for campaigns than those with a signature, and the money people will never support a public interest in more personal subsidies because it would take from their own,,,, I think that you misunderstand. If these aren't NEW voters, then why are voter registration applications being taken at welfare agencies? Why not at banks or Credit Unions? Places where those who do choose to work deposit their checks? I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... but why target welfare agencies? There must be a reason? Don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... but why target welfare agencies? There must be a reason? Don't you think? To me, it's a way to say, " come get your welfare checks, here vote for us. Take care of us and we'll take care of you. Isn't that a conflict of interest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... but why target welfare agencies? There must be a reason? Don't you think?
there are several reasons one, because they are HIGHLY POPULATED (Thats why they 'target' wal mart and the DMV instead of the local mom and pop store too) and two, because its a demographic which may not frequent any other highly populated businesses as often, except maybe the walmarts,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Ms, you seem to have all the answers to most topics. Me? I got to go to work now. How bout you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Ms, you seem to have all the answers to most topics. Me? I got to go to work now. How bout you?
I am working,,,my current JOB is from home and on my own computer,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... but why target welfare agencies? There must be a reason? Don't you think?
One positive note. The ones who are just sitting on the welfare and too lazy to get off their deadbutts and get a job are gonna' be too lazy to get out and vote. That would mean showing incentive, which they have none of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt misunderstand. I explained exactly that. THere are NEW voters, but there are always NEW voters. They arent NEW just because the become unemployed though. registration workers are at all types of highly populated places, including walmarts and grocery stores and malls too... but why target welfare agencies? There must be a reason? Don't you think?
One positive note. The ones who are just sitting on the welfare and too lazy to get off their deadbutts and get a job are gonna' be too lazy to get out and vote. That would mean showing incentive, which they have none of. thats true. lazy people probably dont vote often,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures. Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way. An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups. Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008. The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants. The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08. Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters." Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud. "With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says. What happens when there are more voters on welfare than voters that work?
maybe then we address the issue of jobs and employment,,, But what if more voters would prefer not to work and stay on welfare?
thats not the nature of american culture to be satisfied with 'basics' provided in welfare when they could 'work' and buy all those nice things...... ?? not gonna happen most voters would prefer an INCOME That permitted some type of LIFE,,,beyond mere existence But what if American culture has changed? If politicians promise all those nice things with not having to work,just to get elected. They would vote for him(or her). wouldn't they?
lol, yeah,, just like the rich would vote for them if they promised to provide them with endless hard working servants/free labor but those what ifs are fairly improbable .... politicians take place in history by mere virtue of holding office,,none want to be written off as having made such broad , unreasonable, unattainable promises,,, Politicians want to get elected, first and foremost, As I have seen many of them, will promise what will get them elected. Saying that they won't is not being realistic and there are many who believe them. Promises aside, if there are more voters on welfare than those who are not. Who will prevail? The people who work or the people on welfare? What will the people who get up and go to work want to do? Hell I want to be elected. 175K salary, 67 paid holidays and 3 weeks paid vacation. Yes please! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures. Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way. An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups. Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008. The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants. The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08. Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters." Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud. "With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says. What happens when there are more voters on welfare than voters that work?
maybe then we address the issue of jobs and employment,,, But what if more voters would prefer not to work and stay on welfare?
thats not the nature of american culture to be satisfied with 'basics' provided in welfare when they could 'work' and buy all those nice things...... ?? not gonna happen most voters would prefer an INCOME That permitted some type of LIFE,,,beyond mere existence But what if American culture has changed? If politicians promise all those nice things with not having to work,just to get elected. They would vote for him(or her). wouldn't they?
lol, yeah,, just like the rich would vote for them if they promised to provide them with endless hard working servants/free labor but those what ifs are fairly improbable .... politicians take place in history by mere virtue of holding office,,none want to be written off as having made such broad , unreasonable, unattainable promises,,, Politicians want to get elected, first and foremost, As I have seen many of them, will promise what will get them elected. Saying that they won't is not being realistic and there are many who believe them. Promises aside, if there are more voters on welfare than those who are not. Who will prevail? The people who work or the people on welfare? What will the people who get up and go to work want to do? Hell I want to be elected. 175K salary, 67 paid holidays and 3 weeks paid vacation. Yes please! perhaps you should go for it,, invest in the 'right' experience and knowledge, prepare to be under a microscope and to have everything you say written in history,,,, and to have 300 million people all expecting you to make their life personally 'better' .....with some of the views posted about the jobless, Im sure the campaign will go swimmingly,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Thu 07/05/12 09:48 AM
|
|
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures. Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way. An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups. Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008. The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants. The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08. Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters." Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud. "With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says. What happens when there are more voters on welfare than voters that work?
maybe then we address the issue of jobs and employment,,, But what if more voters would prefer not to work and stay on welfare?
thats not the nature of american culture to be satisfied with 'basics' provided in welfare when they could 'work' and buy all those nice things...... ?? not gonna happen most voters would prefer an INCOME That permitted some type of LIFE,,,beyond mere existence But what if American culture has changed? If politicians promise all those nice things with not having to work,just to get elected. They would vote for him(or her). wouldn't they?
lol, yeah,, just like the rich would vote for them if they promised to provide them with endless hard working servants/free labor but those what ifs are fairly improbable .... politicians take place in history by mere virtue of holding office,,none want to be written off as having made such broad , unreasonable, unattainable promises,,, Politicians want to get elected, first and foremost, As I have seen many of them, will promise what will get them elected. Saying that they won't is not being realistic and there are many who believe them. Promises aside, if there are more voters on welfare than those who are not. Who will prevail? The people who work or the people on welfare? What will the people who get up and go to work want to do? Hell I want to be elected. 175K salary, 67 paid holidays and 3 weeks paid vacation. Yes please! perhaps you should go for it,, invest in the 'right' experience and knowledge, prepare to be under a microscope and to have everything you say written in history,,,, and to have 300 million people all expecting you to make their life personally 'better' .....with some of the views posted about the jobless, Im sure the campaign will go swimmingly,,,,
You fail to realize that I wouldn't use that as a negative. I would embrace it. I would run as a non politician. Someone who doesn't say what he thinks he wants people to hear. I tell people what I believe. Our system is broken and it need to be completely overhauled. I won't buy votes with lies and I won't be bought out by lobbyists. It's not so much about winning but starting a movement. Maybe inspire other young people with similar ideals to take up the torch. Things will never change as long as people play the political game. Also what 300 million people? I said Congress not president. I would only representative a state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures. Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way. An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups. Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008. The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants. The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08. Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters." Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud. "With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says. What happens when there are more voters on welfare than voters that work?
maybe then we address the issue of jobs and employment,,, But what if more voters would prefer not to work and stay on welfare?
thats not the nature of american culture to be satisfied with 'basics' provided in welfare when they could 'work' and buy all those nice things...... ?? not gonna happen most voters would prefer an INCOME That permitted some type of LIFE,,,beyond mere existence But what if American culture has changed? If politicians promise all those nice things with not having to work,just to get elected. They would vote for him(or her). wouldn't they?
lol, yeah,, just like the rich would vote for them if they promised to provide them with endless hard working servants/free labor but those what ifs are fairly improbable .... politicians take place in history by mere virtue of holding office,,none want to be written off as having made such broad , unreasonable, unattainable promises,,, Politicians want to get elected, first and foremost, As I have seen many of them, will promise what will get them elected. Saying that they won't is not being realistic and there are many who believe them. Promises aside, if there are more voters on welfare than those who are not. Who will prevail? The people who work or the people on welfare? What will the people who get up and go to work want to do? Hell I want to be elected. 175K salary, 67 paid holidays and 3 weeks paid vacation. Yes please! perhaps you should go for it,, invest in the 'right' experience and knowledge, prepare to be under a microscope and to have everything you say written in history,,,, and to have 300 million people all expecting you to make their life personally 'better' .....with some of the views posted about the jobless, Im sure the campaign will go swimmingly,,,,
You fail to realize that I wouldn't use that as a negative. I would embrace it. I would run as a non politician. Someone who doesn't say what he thinks he wants people to hear. I tell people what I believe. Our system is broken and it need to be completely overhauled. I won't buy votes with lies and I won't be bought out by lobbyists. It's not so much about winning but starting a movement. Maybe inspire other young people with similar ideals to take up the torch. Things will never change as long as people play the political game. Also what 300 million people? I said Congress not president. I would only representative a state. you didnt actually specify congress and you probably could win in certain conservative states,,, David Duke represented enough of the views of the Louisiana constituency to win a seat in its House of Representatives,, and Helms represented enough of the honest views of NC... you are right, america is diverse with many views , finding someplace with people who think like us probably isnt hard to do,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I speak of welfare leeches, I refer only to those who refuse to earn their own way.
There are plenty to go around. I am all for helping honest folks who are out there and on their way up and out of the welfare role. They have ethos and eyes set on the prize. Those, I would trust to vote wisely. The, I won't work cuz it don't pay enough lack ethics and deserve nothing. They would vote the way that would benefit them and their type of welfare-addict. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters. Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures. Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way. An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups. Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008. The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants. The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08. Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters." Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud. "With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says. What happens when there are more voters on welfare than voters that work?
maybe then we address the issue of jobs and employment,,, But what if more voters would prefer not to work and stay on welfare?
thats not the nature of american culture to be satisfied with 'basics' provided in welfare when they could 'work' and buy all those nice things...... ?? not gonna happen most voters would prefer an INCOME That permitted some type of LIFE,,,beyond mere existence But what if American culture has changed? If politicians promise all those nice things with not having to work,just to get elected. They would vote for him(or her). wouldn't they?
lol, yeah,, just like the rich would vote for them if they promised to provide them with endless hard working servants/free labor but those what ifs are fairly improbable .... politicians take place in history by mere virtue of holding office,,none want to be written off as having made such broad , unreasonable, unattainable promises,,, Politicians want to get elected, first and foremost, As I have seen many of them, will promise what will get them elected. Saying that they won't is not being realistic and there are many who believe them. Promises aside, if there are more voters on welfare than those who are not. Who will prevail? The people who work or the people on welfare? What will the people who get up and go to work want to do? Hell I want to be elected. 175K salary, 67 paid holidays and 3 weeks paid vacation. Yes please! perhaps you should go for it,, invest in the 'right' experience and knowledge, prepare to be under a microscope and to have everything you say written in history,,,, and to have 300 million people all expecting you to make their life personally 'better' .....with some of the views posted about the jobless, Im sure the campaign will go swimmingly,,,,
You fail to realize that I wouldn't use that as a negative. I would embrace it. I would run as a non politician. Someone who doesn't say what he thinks he wants people to hear. I tell people what I believe. Our system is broken and it need to be completely overhauled. I won't buy votes with lies and I won't be bought out by lobbyists. It's not so much about winning but starting a movement. Maybe inspire other young people with similar ideals to take up the torch. Things will never change as long as people play the political game. Also what 300 million people? I said Congress not president. I would only representative a state. you didnt actually specify congress and you probably could win in certain conservative states,,, David Duke represented enough of the views of the Louisiana constituency to win a seat in its House of Representatives,, and Helms represented enough of the honest views of NC... you are right, america is diverse with many views , finding someplace with people who think like us probably isnt hard to do,,, My fault. I had this every discussion earlier with someone talking about Congress and confused the 2. And yes usually the competition for Congress isn't so steep either. But honestly, real citizens who really want to help this country is what we need, not career politicians. Even if they don't share similar views I think this is what we need IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Thu 07/05/12 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An old engineer just said something at my office I would like to share. "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of OTHER people's money"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An old engineer just said something at my office I would like to share. "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of OTHER people's money" and were almost there... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An old engineer just said something at my office I would like to share. "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of OTHER people's money" seems like that would be a HUGE incentive,,,,, to figure out how to help more people earn their own money,,,, so long as you have a larger percent doling in than taking out, its not going to 'run' out anytime soon but there needs to be as much done as possible to help maintain a large number of those doling in,,,or in other words, EARNING SUFFICIENT INCOME |
|
|
|
|
