Lubbock's Congressman among the riche...

Lubbock's Congressman among the richest in TX and U.S.

There are 19 comments on the KCBD-TV Lubbock story from Aug 2, 2010, titled Lubbock's Congressman among the richest in TX and U.S.. In it, KCBD-TV Lubbock reports that:

One of the richest people in the entire U.S. Congress is our very Lubbock Congressman Randy Neugebauer.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCBD-TV Lubbock.

peewee

Brownfield, TX

#1 Aug 2, 2010
The rich get richer and the poor never get elected to office. So you thought it by chance the poor is a victim of unfortunate circumstance? Could it be the deck has been stacked against them from the git go?
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#2 Aug 4, 2010
peewee wrote:
The rich get richer and the poor never get elected to office. So you thought it by chance the poor is a victim of unfortunate circumstance?
The "Less fortunate or unfortunate" phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility.

If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren't we?

Neal Boortz
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#3 Aug 6, 2010
peewee wrote:
The rich get richer and the poor never get elected to office. So you thought it by chance the poor is a victim of unfortunate circumstance? Could it be the deck has been stacked against them from the git go?
The protection of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not guarantee an equal result only the equal opportunity to pursue it.

I love beating up on liberals. It is soooo easy!
Lubbockjoe

Pflugerville, TX

#4 Oct 10, 2010
SanAngelo.com on Rep. Neugebauer's campaign yacht request: "West Texas rep seeks FEC blessing for party boat campaigning"

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/38951
The Voice of Common Sense

Lubbock, TX

#5 Oct 10, 2010
You know how the right wing, go on and on and on about "the governement shouldn't be spending tax payers money on providing for the poor, worthless feckless individuals" etc blahh blahh blahh.

No they think that "individuals and churches" should help others.

Well in this case, where is the "Randy N- homeless shelter"?

The truth is most R Wing, Republican's - Tea Party - Blue Dog Democrats, are very happy to live off the sweat of their workforce, happy to buy things made by slave labor in China, but very reluctant to do what they spout forth and help others. A set of selfish people as far as I can see.

I love beating up on the Foaming Republican's "It's so easy".

Regards TVOCS
Lubbockjoe

Pflugerville, TX

#6 Oct 10, 2010
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
The protection of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not guarantee an equal result only the equal opportunity to pursue it.
I love beating up on liberals. It is soooo easy!
An EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist in this country.
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#7 Oct 11, 2010
The Voice of Common Sense wrote:
You know how the right wing, go on and on and on about "the governement shouldn't be spending tax payers money on providing for the poor, worthless feckless individuals" etc blahh blahh blahh.
We aren't just spending taxpayers money as 41 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed and that must be addressed by future generations.

I guess you are OK financing our government on the backs of future generations, I'm not.
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#8 Oct 11, 2010
Food Stamp Nation:

41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.

A seventh of the nation cannot even feed itself.

If you would chart America's decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.

Yet, no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.

Get Pat Buchanan's classic, "The Death of the West," autographed at low price

The Food Stamp Act became law half a decade after J.K. Galbraith in his best-seller had declared 1950s America to be the world's great Affluent Society.

Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.

By the time he left office in 1974, the food-stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.

Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food-stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.

Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.

Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America's deadbeat dads.

The war on poverty declared 40 years ago is still not working.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php...
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#9 Oct 11, 2010
Lubbockjoe wrote:
<quoted text>
An EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist in this country.
Well you actually have to work for it. It isn't another government hand out.
The Voice of Common Sense

Lubbock, TX

#10 Oct 11, 2010
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
We aren't just spending taxpayers money as 41 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed and that must be addressed by future generations.
I guess you are OK financing our government on the backs of future generations, I'm not.
The bulk of the money being spent at the moment, is simply to stimulate the economy which was left in a total utter mess, under Bush because of failed capitalism and lack of regulation of the financial market.

And we do not tax those who can pay anywhere like enough, no we would rather the poor pay sales tax, on esential items. Pay them peanuts and tax them untill they squeek, whilst giving tax breaks to those who can afford to pay.

Don't tax future generations tax fairly those who can pay.

TVOCS

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11 Oct 11, 2010
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you actually have to work for it. It isn't another government hand out.
A 1979 Carnegie study ("Small Futures: Children, Inequality, and the Limits of Liberal Reform", Richard de Lone principal investigator) found that a child's future to be largely determined by social status, not brains. Consider Bobby and Jimmy, two second-graders, who both pay attention in the classroom, do well, and have nearly identical I.Q.s. Yet Bobby is the son of a successful lawyer; Jimmy's works infrequently as custodial assistant. Despite their similarities, the difference in the circumstances to which they were born makes it 27 times more likely that Bobby will get a job that by time he is in late 40s will pay him an income in the top tenth of all incomes in this country. Jimmy had about one chance in eight of earning even a median income.

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/strat.html
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#12 Oct 12, 2010
Lubbockjoe wrote:
<quoted text>
A 1979 Carnegie study ("Small Futures: Children, Inequality, and the Limits of Liberal Reform", Richard de Lone principal investigator) found that a child's future to be largely determined by social status, not brains. Consider Bobby and Jimmy, two second-graders, who both pay attention in the classroom, do well, and have nearly identical I.Q.s. Yet Bobby is the son of a successful lawyer; Jimmy's works infrequently as custodial assistant. Despite their similarities, the difference in the circumstances to which they were born makes it 27 times more likely that Bobby will get a job that by time he is in late 40s will pay him an income in the top tenth of all incomes in this country. Jimmy had about one chance in eight of earning even a median income.
http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/strat.html
Wow 1979.

You show me a family that values education and I will show you a successful family. You show me a family that does not value education and I will show you a family at a disadvantage.

The protection of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not guarantee an equal result only the equal opportunity to pursue it.
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#13 Oct 12, 2010
The Voice of Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
The bulk of the money being spent at the moment, is simply to stimulate the economy which was left in a total utter mess, under Bush because of failed capitalism and lack of regulation of the financial market.
And we do not tax those who can pay anywhere like enough, no we would rather the poor pay sales tax, on esential items. Pay them peanuts and tax them untill they squeek, whilst giving tax breaks to those who can afford to pay.
Don't tax future generations tax fairly those who can pay.
TVOCS
Oh yes the stimulus package, the one that Obama said if it didn't pass that unemployment would go above 8% that one?

The top 1% today pay 40% of all income taxes, double what it was 40 years ago, so it sounds like we are taxing those that pay. Meanwhile 47% of this country pay zero income taxes and many are eligible for refunds even when they don't pay any.

The top 5% pay more than the bottom 95%. But in your mind I am sure they still don't pay enough do they?
Lubbockjoe

Pflugerville, TX

#14 Oct 12, 2010
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow 1979.
You show me a family that values education and I will show you a successful family. You show me a family that does not value education and I will show you a family at a disadvantage.
The protection of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not guarantee an equal result only the equal opportunity to pursue it.
An EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist in this country.
For a more recent study about inequality in America: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodg...
I couldnít agree more with your assertion about the value of a good family. However, your illustration presumes a family. Many, of whom you would probably judge, did not have the privilege of experiencing a family.
An EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist in this country.
JDC

Copperas Cove, TX

#15 Oct 13, 2010
Lubbockjoe wrote:
<quoted text>
An EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist in this country.
I believe the following list of people would strongly disagree wtih you:
Liz Murray
Chris Gardner
H. Wayne Huizenga
Oprah Winfrey
Henry Ford
Warren Buffett
Sam Walton
Lewis Ranieri
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
Steve Wozniak
William Hewlett and David Packard
Sergey Brin/Larry Page
Jerry Yang and David Filo
Mark Zuckerberg

I came from a middle class family with very little. I worked my way through college, started various businesses and have literally employed hundreds of people. I had many 18 hour work days, but it was worth it. I am in my early 50's and free to do as I wish. Life is what you make of it. If you look at the glass half empty, you will have a pessimistic view like yourself. I on the other hand, see the glass as half full.
Lubbockjoe

Pflugerville, TX

#16 Oct 13, 2010
Iím sure your story is a true rags to riches story. Youíre probably a very good person. Iím glad for you that you are enjoying the fruits of your hard labor and good choices. Life has been good for you, hasnít it?

It is wrong to assume however, that those for whom life has not gone well are sinners and cursed. More than two possibilities exist.

It could also be that you have no understanding what itís like to walk in someone elseís shoes, under totally different circumstances from those that youíve experienced. Iím sure your life had its difficulties.

Sometimes itís wise to be humble and withhold judgment. You must have experienced some mercy in your lifetime.

The list of people shows a good example of some people, yourself included, who in your opinion have obtained happiness. It does not show an EQUAL opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Pit Bull owner

Huntington Station, NY

#17 Oct 13, 2010
The Voice of Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
The bulk of the money being spent at the moment, is simply to stimulate the economy which was left in a total utter mess, under Bush because of failed capitalism and lack of regulation of the financial market.
And we do not tax those who can pay anywhere like enough, no we would rather the poor pay sales tax, on esential items. Pay them peanuts and tax them untill they squeek, whilst giving tax breaks to those who can afford to pay.
Don't tax future generations tax fairly those who can pay.
TVOCS
Could you provide a basis for your claims
because I have to disagree with you

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to those propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

AT THE TIME:
* The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

* The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

* The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

* George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

REMEMBER THE DAY...
* January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the
House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the
Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what
part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS!(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac????
OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???
OBAMA and the Democratic Congress

So when some one tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Set the record straight on Bush! Place responsibility where it belongs.

"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" - Ronald Reagan
The Voice of Common Sense

Lubbock, TX

#18 Oct 14, 2010
Pit Bull Owner,

You make a good point about the Democrats being in charge in 2007. And I'm not a big Democrat fan either, Far too Right Wing for me, Republican's Light.

However, the Economic crisis was many years in the making, it was about irrisponsible lending by un-controlled greedy bankers chasing bonus payments, un-regulated during Bush and probably Clinton's time. A systamatic failure of capitalism.

The whole political system failed, and we have to suffer for it, and the poor suffer worse than the rich.

I see a place for the mixed economy, neither capitalism or socalism have got it right. But the emphsis should be on the welfare of the normal man in the street not the top 1%.

We live in a country where, if you earn the average wage, you are having to think, about if you can afford your prescribed drugs, because co pays are creaping up.

The Obamacare is not socilised medicine, it's based on the profits of insurance companies.

We should nationlise health care and run if for the people by the people.

Regards VOCS.
Lubbockjoe

Pflugerville, TX

#19 Oct 14, 2010

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Randy Neugebauer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Congress wants billions from Fed's piggy bank (Nov '15) Nov '15 Your Ex 15
News Cruz, eight Texas reps urge justices to let sta... (May '15) May '15 Tazo 1
News Family loses one son in Iraq, the other in Afgh... (Jul '06) Aug '14 swedenforever 9
News Littlefield makes plans to open facility for il... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Impeach Obama 1
News In a SNAP, Republicans turn backs on veterans (Nov '13) Nov '13 Ex NRA member 3
News Fracking Texas: Water Woes Go On (Nov '13) Nov '13 Nick 1
News Park rangers call Rep. Randy Neugebauer's outbu... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Brainiac of Beaco... 1
More from around the web