Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Losing Benefits? Let Congressman Reed Know

January 26, 2014

To the Readers’ Forum: Do you know someone who is or has been unemployed? I do. You probably do too, since there are more than 7,700 unemployed adults in our county....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(80)

Regelski

Feb-26-14 12:13 PM

Reed is responsive only to his TeaRepublican ideology. I'm absolutely amazed that voters don't see how his votes in Congress (if they even know or care) are against the moderate members of our community?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-26-14 12:12 PM

Reed is responsive only to his TeaRepublican ideology. I'm absolutely amazed that voters don't see how his votes in Congress (if they even know or care) are against the moderate members of our community?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-18-14 12:18 PM

Maybe this commentary is why I receive blank messages from Reed's computer service. Twice in as many weeks. Just a glitch or an unwillingness to confront facts. Let's note the protest being planned against his policies. I wish I could be there.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-17-14 12:29 PM

I await commentary from the Reed machine. So far, his computer has generated no feedback to me. The question is, whether the benefits promised by law and civility will be fulfilled or the laws changed to short-change the needy. It's easy to blame the needy for their plight; not so easy to show Christian charity for the social injustice that is the result of our economic system (which, by the way, is not the case in other enlightened countries that are our allies). Where people care about their neighbors and don't criticize them as lazy or "takers." It's odd: those who complain about this now are the next ones who will need it (how's your mortgage doing?). Read about the decline of the middle class and how we're losing ground to the .001% who control everything. You think you're upstanding: sorry, you're next in the line of needy. Just a matter of time.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-14-14 11:54 AM

Reed,in his last website fails to recognize, inaccurately and misleadingly, that employer provided heath benefits will opt out--perhaps, instead of working 60 hours a week, to start their own business or be free to take care of of family who need home care. He misses entirely--and perhaps he will answer to this, but the last two messages I got from him were empty, with no text at all--the situation --to put it simply--who are work because they need employed-based insurance, are not FREE to CHOOSE. Their choices,NOW, as it turns out, means that those who leave that job market have opened up jobs for the rest. I'd like to see a response to this from Reed because his website on this is BS, political, and ideological, and not in the interests of his constituency. Bottom line: if all these people leave the job market because they're now covered by ACA, those jobs are available for others. And you listen to this politician who's interested in keeping his job?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-12-14 12:09 PM

(cont. from below) you're a Tearepublican candidate, like Reed, interested in an ideology that shuts out ordinary people and extols the greed of the "free" market. Do you feel "free" s to your place in the economy? If not, let Congressman Reed know with your votes against his viral ideology. I challenge him to detail to us how he departs from Ryan/Rand and in favor of the common man and woman. In these page where we can comment and not be subject to the propaganda on his website.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-12-14 12:05 PM

Congressman Reed, if you examine his voting record, supports an ideology that is contrary to the best interests of most of his constituents--except for the very rich among us. Are you among them? Are you all really "takers"--lazy, unmotivated, welfare queens, or are you an ordinary citizen whose lot in life has not been being born on 3rd base and is a struggle? Reed's ideology favors the rich. And, to the degree his votes represent those of Paul Ryan's conservative economics, they represent the atheism of the libertarian saint, Ayn Rand, who proclaimed "selfishness" to be a virtue. Google that name and tell me you think what she advocated is in the best interests of Americ; you! It's easy to get caught up in her novels' portrayal of the "underdog" against the state but ignores the subjugation of the common good to Wall Street, over Main Street. Do some research before you decide. Google "objectivism" and see whether you agree. If so, your

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-11-14 11:46 AM

Back on target, Reed's position, as advertised on his website (If you'll read them) are decidedly right-wing, close to Tearepublican excess and out of sync with both the greater good of America and the people he's supposed to be representing. Notice the loss in the benefits you pay taxes for?For him, it's your fault: you're lazy and a 'taker' not a 'maker.' Wake up and think of your own circumstances, if not the Christian charity owed to all.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-11-14 11:42 AM

Loneriderr1: You are alone in your own echo chamber. Try to reason with a fool and he calls you foolish. If you disagree, don't consult facts, just paint the whole thing away with accusations about libs. Descriptions of Reed's right-wing ideology get dismissed by name-calling. Your contribution to these pages are, by any measure, bar room rhetoric. I read not evidence, no argument, and--as usual in these pages--you hide who you are, as though you'd be ashamed to be identified with these comments if publicly confronted. That lack of honesty, alone, means your comments are worthless because you're not man enough to stand behind them with your name. Coward.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-09-14 3:30 PM

Is this tripe what you want Congressman Reed to know. What I want him to know that, while his district is conservative and he can preach to the choir, there is a rising objection to the polarization created within the GOP between moderates, of whom there are*****few, and the right-wing nuts among the Teapublican zealots. The latter don't represent me, and if people would look beyond ideological bumper sticker and barroom rhetoric they might figure out that their votes are against their own best interests. Pay attention Reed.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-06-14 12:05 PM

(cont. from below) morality. How many readers feel that the fraction of the 1% is working in your favor? What is the source of the political ideology that works against Christian charity? I ask, "What would Jesus say/do"?, and there is no Biblical evidence for what the right wing is arguing for. Jesus was a progressive, in conflict with the conservative practices (social, political, and economic status quo). In fact, his teaching started a new religion. How have those teachings been lost, in favor of ideologies that would have been foreign to Him? What is the Biblical justification for, e.g., not helping the poor and downtrodden? Why assume they're lazy: He didn't. Why deny them a living wage? He didn't? And if you think your reading of scripture justifies your ideology, what about the sin of hubris?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-06-14 11:45 AM

In politics, there are three variables: the history/situation at stake, the facts, and the moral judgment based on the previous two. Representative Reed does not I hope represent the latter position of the community that he says he is representing. His position--teach a man to fish--is contrary to the Bible, to Christian charity and ethics. And now, people are to be denied Christian charity. Again, from the Christian perspective, "charity" is not a hand-out, but the redressing of injustice of an economic, social, and political system that works against most while benefiting the 1%. Given: .00001% owns 85% of the world's value. Charity is a gesture of justice, least likely from the fractional 1%. What is the sense of engaging in ideological warfare (as in Congress) when the stakes are so clear: the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is disappearing, and the 'top dogs' are reeling in profits galore at everyone else's expense. So why defend Reed's right wing moral

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Oelwyn

Feb-06-14 9:23 AM

We can expect a rise in fees for Fishing Permits.If you are "losing benefits?Let Congressman reed know.It will 'make his day.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-05-14 12:17 PM

Sherman and apologetics now: Your interpretation of the Bible flaunts all other views of these stories as models of Christian charity by Jesus. Your attempt to distinguish the "poor" from the "hungry" is totally without merit. The hungry are hungry because they are poor: that's the usual understanding. They're not the well-to-who came unprepared for nutrition. They were the "people." The stories of the miracles of the division of fish and bread cannot be explained away on such a ridiculous interpretation--though the latter is all too common with the Bible. Before you cite or disagree with references to the Bible, you ought to own up to your own lack of understanding of two of the most profound teachings of scripture, as acknowledged by generations of readers. Admit it; you don't know what you're talking about.! In the meanwhile the original position remains: Rep. Reed want to give fishing poles to the crowds rather than observe the Biblical model Jesus

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shermanman

Feb-01-14 9:26 PM

Interesting how when libs lose an argument they always resort to name calling! Thanks Regel.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-01-14 12:21 PM

To address the point under consideration, Reed's silly argument that to teach someone to fish, rather than give them fish, is discredited by the Bible story. In the Bible, Christian charity is connected to what today is called 'welfare' with a negative connotation. In theology, Christian charity is closely aligned with the question of justice: not a hand-out, but a social and religious responsibility to care for those less fortunate. It is not judging them for their condition, as with right wing politics; it is a matter of trying to balance the needs of those less fortunate with those more fortunate. In our world 85 people control 1/2 of all the wealth! Is that what Jesus was concerned with when he banished the money lenders (today's bankers) from the temple? Try to understand the old teaching with modern conditions. The "market" is not "main street" and if you don't understand that, you're lost in Sherman.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-01-14 12:09 PM

(cont. from below) accountable for your views--in this case, in your own church, whatever it is in Sherman. Someday, according to your own beliefs, you will be accountable for eternity. I don't think God pays much attention to these columns. But if s/he does, there will be a lot of accounting for, on the basis of scripture and religious teaching, that show you and your kind to come up short. Not my judgment. Your worry! Meanwhile, either admit that you were misinformed or give some other spin on your interpretation. You'll be swimming upstream against the usual insights to be gained from these stories. God bless you because you need it.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-01-14 12:00 PM

Shermanman: Feeding the hungry who had come to him, and feeding the poor? What difference. This is the problem with you Bible thumpers: you can interpret whatever agrees with your social ideology. I fear that you might teach your interpretations to the impressionable young as "The Bible." You are obviously unprepared. You asked me to cite verse for my position against yours: I did and you can't even admit that you were wrong! You change the topic from "hungry" to "the poor." How clumsy. Are you even beginning to argue that Jesus was uninterested in the poor and only interested in feeding the flocks who came to hear him preach? Is that the point you want to make? Christian charity is based in the story of Jesus, yet you want to ignore or downplay it. You prefer to believe that Christian charity is welfare misplaced. How Calvinistic (look it up). And, as a teacher of religion or the Bible, you hide behind a screen name rather than stand up and be ac

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Oelwyn

Jan-31-14 8:51 AM

"Losing Benefits?"Thank Congressman REED-He FEELS YOUR PAIN-He is nothing without it.Send him along a 'little something'-He doesn't apparently have a 'form letter' to answer 'cash' in an envelope,but in his heart you know he cares for his priveledged communication.He doesn't respond because his position is already Paid for and vetted by people with more money than he can imagine.I can imagine he 'deserves his cut' and earns it with no sense of having actually Worked at anything,save un-stuffing envelopes.What does the poisoned beyond reclamation BADGER MUNITIONS site have to do with W.New Yorkers and REEDS web site?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FedUpL8ly

Jan-30-14 10:45 PM

IT'S surreal how some people want to vote Dems in because they'll give people longer unemployment benefits and that shows they care more than Republicans. Dems constantly throw up roadblocks to energy production which costs many tens of thousands of jobs and then complain about people not being able to pay their heating bills because of the high cost of energy. They pass Obamacare which already has resulted in major reductions in full-time jobs to part-time, insurance costing more and a downgrade of the healthcare industry in regards to future viability. Look around this country. Take a good, hard look. Just about every state that is in deep financial trouble has been run by Democrats. Our country's debt has been increasing faster since 2006 when the Dems took over both houses of Congress. Wake up and start to realize the real effects of policies and what (and who) will really create better times.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-30-14 6:05 PM

agree 110%!!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-30-14 4:35 PM

i'd be interested to know if the author of this article, an educator, would be willing to tie benefits into the attendance record, & to a lesser extent performance, of the children of the parents receiving them.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

patriotsfan

Jan-30-14 10:58 AM

Sorry I almost forgot Mr.Reed How can a man fish if you take away his fishing pole??

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

patriotsfan

Jan-30-14 10:42 AM

I for one will not be voting for Reed. He just votes along party lines anyway.What the repubs are whining about is they think everyone on extended benifits have been unemployed for 100 weeks or more. Nothing could be further from the truth.A majority have only unemployed 40 or more weeks not 100 plus as republicans are saying. I do feel 100 weeks is extreme. But a 52 week extension for everyone should be adequate for anyone to find a job.. I know people who are just 26 weeks who had the ladder kicked out from under them. So vote Reed and the repubs out and put sombody who is actually for the peoplle in.. Tell Reed to help these people so they dont end up on welfare..

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

Jan-29-14 10:25 PM

Shermanman, you made good points in responding. The people were hungry. Just because you are hungry doesn't mean that you are poor. Reg reads into the word hungry a meaning that is not there.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 80 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web