GOOD DEAL. People need the safety net Welfare provides. Kuddos to them if they get it done.

Larry

Welfare has proven to be one of the most damaging initiatives to our society in the history of governmnet legislation.

In 1996, the Republican congress and a reluctant Bill Clinton instituted true reform to this attrocity and made the program a lot less bad. The structure of the program was changed to get people OFF welfare is quickly as possible as opposed to the old structure of trying to keep people ON welfare for as long as possible; not the least of which creating financial incentive for women to have as many kids as possible out-of-wedlock. Of all of the various social and political factors that we can look toward to explain the skyrocketing out-of-wed birthrates since 1964, I argue that the institution of welfare is by far the biggest factor.

The '96 welfare reform, by most accounts has proven successful. Even the most liberal media sources have sheepishly admitted as such.

Now, the Democrats, via stealth (of course - they always try to hide their true agenda these days), seek to undo all of that progress and thus causing more generational harm to our society.

Fuck the Democratic party.

GOOD DEAL. People need the safety net Welfare provides. Kuddos to them if they get it done.

Yeah! Let's see if we can drive out-of-wed birthrates among African Americans to 90%!

Let's see if we can cause more than 50% of our society to be completely dependent upon the government dole for financial sustenance.

To hell with self-reliance! Maybe we can ALL become dependent on the state for money!

-new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients

So, as a country, America should just let children go hungry in "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" instead of implementing an emergency aide package?

Fuck the GOP, and the assholes they rode in on.

(no need to thank me, Jeffy. just trying to get your thread rolling)

I am so sick of people hiding behind their children! I thought only terrorists use their children as shields. Why should we, as a society in these very trying times, be forced to pay for someone else's children when we can barely afford our own right now? What of personal responsibility? Move these children into foster homes of people who can afford to take care of them and stop paying people just to have children.

You obviously have no clue JeffJ. You do not live in a reality based community. Many people would love nothing more than to go to work but they can't because of a variety of reasons. This Country is losing their asses and You declare that Welfare is the problem with the lack of responsible black fathers. That's bunk too. Too many racists still in society that have troubles giving a shot out to minorities. Oh and don't give Me that God damned bullshit about minorities are encouraged to apply bullshit. When the rubber meets the road who do they hire?? WHO DO THEY HIRE?? Oh and You declare that Welfare has devistated America. That simply poppycock to the nth degree. If it wasn't for welfare many of the recipents of welfare would not make it and wind up either dead or in prison. My God JeffJ get a clue. Welfare has saved countless lives and helped people get through this thing called Life. WAKE UP JEFFJ.

Larry

Yeah! Let's see if we can drive out-of-wed birthrates among African Americans to 90%!

Let's see if we can cause more than 50% of our society to be completely dependent upon the government dole for financial sustenance.

To hell with self-reliance! Maybe we can ALL become dependent on the state for money!

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Do You support Outsourcing?? As I recall You do. If You don't then tell Me. If You do You really have no business talking about Welfare. That is if You believe in it.

Larry

Ah, yes. Darwinian America. Survival of the fittest citizens only.

Sorry, natural selection and financial selection are not the same thing. But I guess 50 years of "Red Scare" tactics have made some people so paranoid of becoming Evil Socialists or Goddamn Communists that they no longer hold the concept of the American people as One Nation, sovereign under law.

To hell with self-reliance! Maybe we can ALL become dependent on the state for money!

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Tis funny You bring up this Self Reliance when we are losing 500,000 Jobs a month. How fucking funny is that JeffJ.

Larry

(no need to thank me, Jeffy. just trying to get your thread rolling)

:-)

The problem is a matter of cause-and-effect - unintended consequences.

I firmly believe that the thought-process behind welfare was well-intended.

Seriously, who doesn't want to help the poor, particularly children of struggling families?

However, when we institute a program where we drive up out-of-wed birthrates it has serious, no, devastating societal consequences. Not too long ago I saw a statistic whereby 90% of those who are in prison grew up largely in the absence of a father. Through our own policies we are creating a dysfunctional society.

The original structure of welfare was not one of a safety net. It was one of permanent dependence on the state coupled with financial incentives to drive dad out of the house and for women to have as many children as possible out-of-wedlock. The multi-generational damage this one initiatve has caused is staggering.

The '96 version of the program is structured as a safety net: Provide short-term assistance to help the unforunate through a tough time and then put the onus back on the unfortunate to eventually provide for themselves.

What is so bad about the reformed version that we have to go back to the original version?

Larry,

I've laid out logical reasoning to back my assertions.

Thus far your replies are little more than an emotive "Nuh uh!".

Yes, I recognize that my initial post was a bit emotoinally-charged and likely to receive a like response. So, I followed it up with a calmer and more reasoned response, hopefully you can reply in a similar manner sans emotional outbursts.

Blah, blah, blah.... Great Society programs saved millions of people from death, starvation, and poverty.

But of course, any attempt to give some aide to American workers during great economic crisis is cynically viewed by GOP'hers as a slippery Domino slope to unnatural communistic tendencies.

What a load unmitigated bull manure.

Ahhh...a stimulus bill to stimulate welfare.
Great idear....more voters for dems.

Tis funny You bring up this Self Reliance when we are losing 500,000 Jobs a month. How fucking funny is that JeffJ.

It's not funny at all.

I have no wish to tear up the safety net - just to be more responsible with how it's structured.

I spent half of 2001 unemployed and received unemployment benefits during that time.

Unemployment benies can't be collected forever - they have a time-limit. They are in place to give a hand-up during hard times until one can get their feet back under them. This is smart policy.

Reformed welfare is relatively smart policy.

The original welfare system was an attrocity.

What a load unmitigated bull manure.

How about responding to my comments on point, in lieu of simply casting them off as "bull manure."

Pay particular attention to my follow-up posts.

I know that I am asking alot, but I am sure you can do it if you try.

PS - One fundamental change I'd like to see in our tax code is a larger child tax credit for 2 parent houeholds (and that includes those of homosexual households) than for single-parent households.

This would provide incentive for Dad to remain in the home and could be structured in a manner to offset the financial incentive welfare provides to drive Dad out of the home.

Translation I got nothing but BULLSHIT right wionged Greed fuck to spew. It's the same shit when this topic comes up with You JeffJ. You don't believe in welfaqre because You don't believe the Governments Job is to help the leswsers of society. You could give a fuck less what happens to them just don't get onto Governmental Welfare. Corky's number 13 is spot on. Republicans do not believe in welfare because they don't want to be forced into having to do their fucking duty. It's the same song and dance JeffJ. You on the right hate welfare. IT'S OBVIOUS. While the rest of us see the valuable need for it.

Larry

I expect fear mongering about welfare in general when there is emergency aide required, but normally just from GOP hacks who are paid to write such drivel.

Fuck the Democratic party.

Posted by JeffJ

I feel the same way about you. The reform really hurt some families. I saved the taxpayers a few dollars while hurting children the people welfare should really be hurting. So I guess children should be punished for parents mistake?

PS - One fundamental change I'd like to see in our tax code is a larger child tax credit for 2 parent houeholds (and that includes those of homosexual households) than for single-parent households.

This would provide incentive for Dad to remain in the home and could be structured in a manner to offset the financial incentive welfare provides to drive Dad out of the home.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NICE PUNISHMENT for the Single Parent households where the absentee Parent is an abusive one and the one stuck holding the bag is punished for getting out of an abusive Relationship.

Larry

"Ah just wish ah could hug ever one of em embryos!! If only we pick wich ones ar bein birthed (the ones what aint our kind) the world wud be a better place. Takin car of em an makin sure theys ok after an all aint my dootie"

-The Religious Right

Welfare is good for the economy. Poor people will spend the money. Giving money to the banks so they can stick it in their vaults and have lavish parties in pure stupidity.

Give ALL the stimulus money to those making less than 50,000 a year, and you will see stimulus all over the place.

Of course, republicans would rather see the money spent on a war that is supposedly protecting their sorry asses from Osama bin Laden, than on poor Americans. JeffJ makes their case

I lay out a case why I feel that reformed welfare is vastly superior to original welfare and am treated to nothing but attacks in response.

You clowns are intellectual midgets on this topic.

Where in the hell did Kanrei go?

At least he can be relied upon to have an intelligent discussion in lieu of simply attacking the messenger.

You don't believe in welfaqre

Reading is fundamental, Larry.

Reformed welfare is relatively smart policy. - JeffJ

LMAO Typical Right Winger. Oh well You are still a GREAT Friend JeffJ. Never chage.

Larry

The message here is that America can't try to take care of it's own in a financial emergency without a bunch of social Darwinist GOP assholes trying to make it about welfare in general; fear mongering the notion that if we help each other in an emergency, we are going to slide back into the old version of welfare.

As long as you promote such crap, you'll be called on it.

Surprisingly, sometimes when your first post on a thread contains the words "fuck the Democratic party" it may not always be viewed as an invitation to civil discourse.

AU,
How laughable it is for you to mock the religious right. Imagine if they stopped all charity work. Close down all the food banks, shelters etc. sponsored and paid for by churches. Maybe they should start billing the Government for part of emergency welfare money. I would wager they waste less time and money for the same services provided by the Government. The current system is wrought with waste, incompetence, lack of information, over billing, you name it. Yet as ususal the answer is to just throw money at it instead of fixing the current problems.

The message here is that America can't try to take care of it's own in a financial emergency..

Oh bullshit.

The stimulus package is a sack-of-shit because the Dems are taking advantage of a financial meltdown, clamoring for the government to do something and then use these tough economic times to fill the package with windfalls for all sorts of liberal, non-stimulative initiatives and special interests.

As long as you are going to label and and all criticisms of your beloved stimulus plan, expect to be called out as a partisan hack.

Also, you are way off-base in terms of the discussion of this thread. My purpose is limited - argue the pros and cons of original welfare vs. reformed welfare. That's it.

So let's not falsely assign positions to me as an excuse to change the subject.

Surprisingly, sometimes when your first post on a thread contains the words "fuck the Democratic party" it may not always be viewed as an invitation to civil discourse.

Agreed and I acknowledged such a few posts later.

The message here is that America can't try to take care of it's own in a financial emergency without a bunch of social Darwinist GOP assholes trying to make it about welfare in general; fear mongering the notion that if we help each other in an emergency, we are going to slide back into the old version of welfare.

As long as you promote such crap, you'll be called on it.

Posted by Corky at 2009-02-13 11:11 AM | Reply

You're fucking A correct. AMEN

Larry

Giving money to the banks so they can stick it in their vaults and have lavish parties in pure stupidity.

Agreed - which is one of the many reasons I've been so opposed to these stimulus bills.

#27 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Ditto.

I lay out a case why I feel that reformed welfare is vastly superior to original welfare and am treated to nothing but attacks in response.

You clowns are intellectual midgets on this topic.

How else do you expect them to respond? You provide information and a realistic opinion. Of course you are a racist repub. Ask Bill Cosby. He was treated the same way when providing stats.

So Corky,

are you pleased with billions of dollars going to Wall Street and large, poorly run corporations?

Ask Bill Cosby. He was treated the same way when providing stats.

As was Juan Williams, a liberal Democrat, when he wrote a Cosby-esque book.

Crisp,

You know it's a difficult thread when the only person offering a reasoned response is BuffaloBob.

fill the package with windfalls for all sorts of liberal, non-stimulative initiatives and special interests.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Such as......

link?

MUCH of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform.

Posted by JeffJ

Your crocodile tears aside, and to quote Romeo Crennel, "They are just what we thought they were!"

Ditto.

Which I frickin' acknowledged.

Twice.

Sue me for being a little bit angry over our government not only raping our treasury under the auspice of 'stimulus' but providing very little stimulus in the process. Going further, sue me for being angry over the Democrats very quietly attempting to roll-back good and meaningful reform to a program that was in desperate need of good and meaningful reform.

Such as......

link?

It's been posted countless times over the last couple of weeks, Bbob.

So Corky,

are you pleased with billions of dollars going to Wall Street and large, poorly run corporations?

#35 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff,
That is all they have to offer. They can't or don't want to accept the facts. It is funny every time they post something that doesn't refute your post.

-So Corky,

are you pleased with billions of dollars going to Wall Street and large, poorly run corporations?

wtf has that got to do with the premise of the article you posted, that emergency relief to American workers is a sinister Commie pinko fag plot to bring back welfare as we knew it?

JeffJ is a reprehensible man and yet I get attacked more than him. I can't understand why I am always mistreated wen my views fall in line with the liberal ideology.

Because you are to liberalism what takeitez is to Christianity, jackass.

MUCH of the "stimulus" bill is devoted to a backdoor undoing of one of Washington's greatest achievements of recent years - welfare reform.

Posted by JeffJ

Except that's not the argument I am making.

You know when one is losing a debate when their only tactic is to falsely assign a position to another.

If making up my arguments for me is all you can muster, you may consider asking yourself why that is, Cork.

"Why should we, as a society in these very trying times, be forced to pay for someone else's children when we can barely afford our own right now? "

I agree. We should abolish child tax credits. If people want children, fine, let them pick up the entire tab, and not expect a subsidy from the taxpayer.

People who self-righteously act like they are the only onese offended by having to spend so much money are nearly as obnoxious as those who originally caused us to have to spend so much money.

And coming from those who advocated and voted for corporate deregulation, it would be laughable were the situation not so sad.

wtf has that got to do with the premise of the article you posted

Excuse me, but it was YOU who moved the goalposts and now you're getting all huffy when I have the temerity to address non-related issues that YOU brought up???

The message here is that America can't try to take care of it's own in a financial emergency without a bunch of social Darwinist GOP assholes trying to make it about welfare in general; fear mongering the notion that if we help each other in an emergency, we are going to slide back into the old version of welfare.

As long as you promote such crap, you'll be called on it.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-13 11:11 AM

I construed that you were accusing the author of this article AND me of using welfare-fear mongering as an excuse to attack the stimulus bill.

If I misconstrued you in any way, please clarify. I certainly wouldn't want to falsely assign a position to you.

It is not a measure of reduced need. Quite the contrary: according to the Department of Health and Human Services, by 2000 only half of those poor enough to be eligible for aid received it (about eighty percent did so in the 1980s and early 1990s)

JeffJ is a reprehensible man and yet I get attacked more than him. I can't understand why I am always mistreated wen my views fall in line with the liberal ideology.

#45 | Posted by rastaninja

FF!

-Except that's not the argument I am making.

"Now, the Democrats, via stealth (of course - they always try to hide their true agenda these days), seek to undo all of that progress and thus causing more generational harm to our society.

Fuck the Democratic party.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ"

Not the argument you are making? Too bad about this "on record", stuff, eh?

JeffJ is a reprehensible man and yet I get attacked more than him. I can't understand why I am always mistreated wen my views fall in line with the liberal ideology.

Posted by rastaninja at 2009-02-13 11:29 AM | Reply

You are so full of shit Jackass. You are rotten to the very core. JeffJ on the other hand is a great person. So sorry that You do not understand this. Of course I think You do You're just a piece of shit that loves spewing strife and hurting people. So fuck off asshole.

Larry

I agree. We should abolish child tax credits. If people want children, fine, let them pick up the entire tab, and not expect a subsidy from the taxpayer.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian

Except that just about all of the social programs you favor need modest population growth (future tax-payers) in order to maintain solvency.

We have a huge bulge in our population coming close to retirement and will drastically drive up the medicare and social security benefits being paid out. Our best hope toward NOT having these programs eventually bankrupt our entire nation is to increase the ratio of workers to non-workers.

We have only 2 ways of achieving this: Rampant immigration and more children.

"Now, the Democrats, via stealth (of course - they always try to hide their true agenda these days), seek to undo all of that progress and thus causing more generational harm to our society.

What I was saying was that the Democrats appear to be stealthily attempting to undo reformed welfare and revert back to welfare in its original form.

That's it.

If I was unclear, then I apologize.

-What I was saying was that the Democrats appear to be stealthily attempting to undo reformed welfare and revert back to welfare in its original form.

Which is unmitigated bullshit. That they are trying to do is to provide emergency funds to American workers caught up in the worst financial crisis in modern times, and what they don't need is GOP fear mongering on the subject.

One of the most important changes of the Clinton-era reform law was replacing the individual entitlement to welfare with a block grant to the states. In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people become self-supporting.

But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients."

Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work.

This is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses.

In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform.

And this is just for "cash assistance" welfare, or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the bill also dramatically expands other forms of welfare.

For example, it would spend $87 billion to subsidize state Medicaid costs. As a result, still more of the middle-class would be shifted on to welfare.

It also boosts spending on food stamps by 12 percent to $16.5 billion; hikes funds for the federal school lunch program by $150 million; adds $500 million to the Women, Infants & Children nutrition program, and even throws in $50 million for the surplus-commodity (free government cheese) program.

And it gives income tax "cuts" to people who don't pay income taxes - payments that are, in fact, simply another form of welfare.

By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending, another $6,700 for every poor man woman and child in this country, along with the erosion of the 1996 reforms. It can be counted on to "stimulate" the loss of another generation to welfare dependency.

If people want children, fine, let them pick up the entire tab, and not expect a subsidy from the taxpayer.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian

That is a pretty strong endorsement for eliminating any welfare at all.

Which is unmitigated bullshit.

Really?

That they are trying to do is to provide emergency funds to American workers caught up in the worst financial crisis in modern times, and what they don't need is GOP fear mongering on the subject.

So, being critical of a massive spending bill - By some estimates, the stimulus bill contains roughly $250 billion in welfare spending - is tatamount to fear-mongering?

That is a pretty strong endorsement for eliminating any welfare at all.

#59 | Posted by eberly

Excellent point.

What say you, Null?

Cork,

Excerpted from the article:

But, as The Post's Charles Hurt has reported, slipped into the stimulus bill is a provision establishing a new $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government footing 80 percent of the cost for the new "clients."

Plus, the bill would reward states for increasing caseloads, even if the growth came because the state had loosened its requirements for recipients to work.

This is radical change. States that succeed in getting people off welfare would lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And states that make it easier to stay on welfare (by, say, raising the time limit from two years to five) would get rewarded with more taxpayer cash. The bill would even let states with rising welfare rolls still collect their "case-load reduction" bonuses.

In short, the measure will erode all the barriers to long-term welfare dependency that were at the heart of the 1996 reform.

Do you have any more specific refutation for this than simply calling it fear-mongering?

No, it is just that, a twisted, obviously partisan perspective that allows the author to cry Wolf! while hoping to derail the help that many Americans need.

"That is a pretty strong endorsement for eliminating any welfare at all."

Who is talking about welfare? We're talking about tax credits, which go to taxpayers. I though you conservatives didn't like government engaging in social engineering, which is what a tax credit is.

Who is talking about welfare? We're talking about tax credits, which go to taxpayers. I though you conservatives didn't like government engaging in social engineering, which is what a tax credit is.

We are talking about payments coming from the govt to anybody with children because they have children.

Sounds like you don't like any of that.

We're talking about tax credits, which go to taxpayers.

Where do welfare payments go?

Eberly's point is that since welfare benefits are increased for each child the program is financially-incenting welfare recipients to have more children.

The same holds true for child tax credits.

Eberly's point was valid.

Sounds like you don't like any of that.

Except that, to the best of my knowledge, Null supports welfare.

This is precisely why I am having a difficult time with his position on this.

No, it is just that, a twisted, obviously partisan perspective that allows the author to cry Wolf!

Which is just a different way of saying that it is fear-mongering.

Can you refute any of the re-produced excerpts on point?

What I was saying was that the Democrats appear to be stealthily attempting to undo reformed welfare and revert back to welfare in its original form.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

You are arguing with nothing but opinion. Neither you or this article have provided any facts that demonstrate the stimulus bill to be anything, other than emergency spending at a time of extraordinary need. This makes your point and the point of the author, almost exclusively rhetorical in the eyes of anyone who reads it.

fixed italics

Damn it!

You're comparing apples and oranges. Taxpayers who can afford more children regardless of tax credits, are not the same as those on welfare who probably can't afford to take care of those children. I don't want to hurt the children, just stop subsidizing those who can afford children without it.

Under the provisions in the stimulus bill, states will once again be paid a bounty for expanding their welfare rolls. As reported by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, the federal government will now pay states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they sign up for welfare. That means that states will get $4 for every $1 they spend. This will leave the main welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with a funding mechanism similar to the one that supports Medicaid. As Brian Blase argues here, Medicaid's funding ratio, which gives states $1 to $3 for every dollar they spend, has caused state Medicaid spending to skyrocket. If Medicaid's dollar-for-dollar model has proved ruinous, Obama's new $4-to-$1 ratio for welfare will prove, in all likelihood, four times so.

#71 | Posted by nullifidian

Fair enough.

How about this:

I agree. We should abolish child tax credits. If people want children, fine, let them pick up the entire tab, and not expect a subsidy from the taxpayer.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian

Except that just about all of the social programs you favor need modest population growth (future tax-payers) in order to maintain solvency.

We have a huge bulge in our population coming close to retirement and will drastically drive up the medicare and social security benefits being paid out. Our best hope toward NOT having these programs eventually bankrupt our entire nation is to increase the ratio of workers to non-workers.

We have only 2 ways of achieving this: Rampant immigration and more children.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 11:40 AM

Taxpayers who can afford more children regardless of tax credits, are not the same as those on welfare who probably can't afford to take care of those children.

Tax credits for children are offered to families who earn less than $110K AGI so we are only talking about incomes at that level or less.

Oops. I forgot to provide a source for #72.

It's funny how those who attack welfare get all defensive when their particular government handout (child tax credits, student loans, etc.) gets criticized.

Jeffy

The thread heading is, "Stealth Rollback of Welfare Reform".

Which is cynical GOP fear mongering, trying to stop this stimulus Bill any way they can.

It's funny how those who attack welfare get all defensive when their particular government handout (child tax credits, student loans, etc.) gets criticized.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian

I vehemently oppose welfare in its original form for reasons already stated. I don't have much of a problem with reformed welfare.

Care to address my point regarding the need for population growth?

The thread heading is, "Stealth Rollback of Welfare Reform".

Which is cynical GOP fear mongering

Except that the article then lays out some specifics to substantiate the headline - specifics which you have STILL yet to address.

You have now used 3 different posts to say the exact same thing.

Specific what?

Specific nonsense which substantiates nothing but the obvious, that this is a partisan hack trying to derail any help to American workers any way he can.

It's been posted countless times over the last couple of weeks, Bbob.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-02-13 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag

Then one more wouldn't hurt. When you meet someone new, and are discussing a subject---do you say---you know I wrote a paper on that--look it up. No. You repeat the information. If it has been posted before, you obviously said what you are saying now what you said then. Since you've already said it once---why should you ever repeat it?

Now---LINK???

"Care to address my point regarding the need for population growth?"

On a finite planet, any program that requires infinite growth of the work force is unsustainable in the long run.

that this is a partisan hack trying to derail any help to American workers any way he can.

#79 | Posted by Corky

This is an apt description of what Jeff has increasingly become since November 4th.

On a finite planet, any program that requires infinite growth of the work force is unsustainable in the long run.

That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

BuffaloBob --

Your "Riverdance monkeys" video -- I never laughed so hard!

And you know it.

"That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write."

Perhaps, but it's not nearly as stupid as the stuff you post here everyday, Jacque.

Specific nonsense which substantiates nothing but the obvious, that this is a partisan hack trying to derail any help to American workers any way he can.

4 times now you've repackaged your same attack without addressing specifics; specifics which I've provided.

On a finite planet, any program that requires infinite growth of the work force is unsustainable in the long run.

Which is precisely why so many social programs are criticized - they are unsustainable in the long-run.

their particular government handout (child tax credits, student loans, etc.) gets criticized.

How is a reduction in tax paid a handout?

How is a loan that must be re-paid a handout?

Then one more wouldn't hurt. When you meet someone new, and are discussing a subject---do you say---you know I wrote a paper on that--look it up. No. You repeat the information. If it has been posted before, you obviously said what you are saying now what you said then. Since you've already said it once---why should you ever repeat it?

Fair point.

Now---LINK???

I am starting to mix-in housework with blogging. I will eventually honor your request, but probably not until a bit later. Too much to do and too little time to do it.

Perhaps somebody else can help me out - this information is readily accessible.

Perhaps, but it's not nearly as stupid as the stuff you post here everyday, Jacque.

Ooooh.

The wit and erudition continue.

This is an apt description of what Jeff has increasingly become since November 4th.

I've provided reasoning and factual representation for every argument I've made on this thread.

If that is what constitutes being a 'partisan hack' then guilty as charged.

Mao,

I thought Null made a legitimate comment - can you expound on your disagreement to it?

It didn't say anything.

If that is what constitutes being a 'partisan hack' then guilty as charged.

Don't forget racists, hate mongering, selfish...

"The wit and erudition continue."

On Jeff's part, who is making a legitimate argument, yes. You, not so much, Jacque.

Except I didn't claim to be making an argument.

I'm just laughing at your sophistry.

Its kinda like making up funny new catergories of "flags" when you cut and re-paste them---but a little more entertaining for the reader.

You know what I mean, don't you Bill?

You know what I mean, don't you Bill?

I don't know what you mean.

Don't forget racists, hate mongering, selfish...and mean spirited...

"Except I didn't claim to be making an argument."

True, you didn't make an argument. You just called my post "stupid". Very witty. Very erudite. Dumbshit.

Why doesn't the gov't subsidize grocery stores, rental properties, and mass transportation to such a degree that it all becomes free to the public.

Instead of giving people money, their food, housing and transportation is totally free.

Give the money to those that provide these services.

Money should be used for luxuries only. Everything else should be free.

Then, throw in the flat tax. With food, housing and trans free, there's no tax on it - saving the poor.

Tax everything else that isn't a need.

How about a penny tax on every exchange made in the stock market. Exchange a million shares, the tax is one million pennies ($10,000). The stock market is for the rich - let them fund it all.

True, you didn't make an argument. You just called my post "stupid". Very witty. Very erudite. Dumbshit.

I called your post "stupid" because it was indeed stupid. A string of incoherent equivocation about "finite planets" or some such. A remarkable sentence of sophistry that said absolutely nothing.

As for "witty" and "erudite", that was my chracterization of your response.

Except I was being sarcastic.

Dumbshit.

"I called your post "stupid" because it was indeed stupid. "
...
#101 | Posted by Jacque_Se_Mao

You didn't make any argument. You just called it stupid, stupid. That's not an argument. That's just stupid.

......fact is a lot of jobs are closing down that will never come back.......

......unless we want more bag ladies pushing shopping carts down the street, we need some form of social assistance.......

.......if the consesus is that we want to live like they do in Mexico...with people rummaging through garbage dumps to survive.....well then lets open the border, eliminate welfare, unemployment insurance and the minimum wage.......and join Mexico, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in the race to the bottom........

You didn't make any argument

I didn't claim to make an argument.

I'm just laughing at your sophistry.

Seems like I said that before...

A remarkable sentence of sophistry that said absolutely nothing.

I disagree.

While I certainly feel that claims regarding human over-population at this point are ridiculous; I don't feel it's at all illogical to argue that at some point human population could reach a level where this planet won't have enough resources to sustain all of us. Granted, we are a long way off from reaching that point, but...

"I didn't claim to make an argument."

But you made on anyway. You claimed my post was stupid, without backing it up. That's stupid, stupid.

"Seems like I said that before..."

True with just about everything you say. You're as much a broken record as Murphy.

Ok I just called the Welfare department and they declared that most of the time the Man leaves the home so that the Woman can receive more food stamps/Cash assistance. If the Man is in the home their food stamp./Cash assistance is greatly reduced. Hence the reason so many of the recipients are in fact single parent households.

Larry

You claimed my post was stupid, without backing it up. That's stupid

No, Bill.

I claimed your post was stupid, and then I told you why.

Now, that's till not an argument per se---but again, I never said it was.

Whatever, Jacque. I have better things to do than play semantics with you.

If the Man is in the home their food stamp./Cash assistance is greatly reduced. Hence the reason so many of the recipients are in fact single parent households.

Bingo! You've just discovered my biggest beef with welfare - it effectively drives dad out of the house.

The family unit - 2 parents + kid(s) living under one roof - is the bedrock to our society.

Responsible social policy should be geared toward encouraging/incentivizing the creation and maintainance of the family unit. Welfare does the opposite, which is why I am so opposed to it. This is also why I recommend a higher child tax-credit for 2-parent households than single-parent households.

You cited this as a 'punishment' against single parents. It's not a punishment. I am not arguing that single parents shouldn't get a child tax-credit. I am arguing that greater reward should go to the family unit as it's critical to the long-term prosperity of our country.

You also cited incentivising keeping an abusive parent in the home. I'd counter, what if it's the abusive parent who gets custody of the kid(s) in a single-parent home?

Larry,

It's not the financial assistance aspect of welfare that I have a problem with, it's the social-fallout based upon how it's structured.

Ok I just called the Welfare department and they declared that most of the time the Man leaves the home so that the Woman can receive more food stamps/Cash assistance. If the Man is in the home their food stamp./Cash assistance is greatly reduced. Hence the reason so many of the recipients are in fact single parent households.

Why doesn't the man get a fucking job and support his family? Or does that make too much sense. How about a drug/alcohol test each month before their checks go out? Maybe you support the Government paying for someones addiction. Imagine if all that wasted money was channeled to those who really need it.

Well change welfare to do away with punishing the Father for being there. As for rewarding fostering 2 Parent Households with greater tax bennies why should the single Parent get less than the Two Parent Household?? You would think it should be equal or the opposite. Giving a greater amount of Tax credit to the single Parent because they sacrifice MORE than the two Parent Household.

What destroys the society isn't Welfare it is corporate greed that dictates that a person starting out shouldn't receive a living wage. A person with no skills at all shouldn't expect to survive in todays society because they are a lesser and not a big wig. Too much emphasis on how much money can a boss make instead of how much the company as a whole can make. There is far too much greed in todays society which is why we are in the fix that we are in. Oh and for fuck sake quit outsourcing jobs. You want to eliminate the need for welfare then support fining companies who outsource to china vietnam etc etc. THAT is what is killing America and American SOciety. NOT Welfare.

Larry

Why doesn't the man get a fucking job and support his family? Or does that make too much sense. How about a drug/alcohol test each month before their checks go out? Maybe you support the Government paying for someones addiction. Imagine if all that wasted money was channeled to those who really need it.

#112 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-02-13 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Have You looked at the Unemployment rate Crispee or is that beyond Your mental capacity?? Where are they going to work when companies are outsourcing shutting down and moving the whole ball of wax to China Vietnam etc etc etc.

Larry

What destroys the society isn't Welfare it is corporate greed that dictates that a person starting out shouldn't receive a living wage. A person with no skills at all shouldn't expect to survive in todays society because they are a lesser and not a big wig.

So you want thos unfortunate people to handle machines they are not qualified to do for the sake of a living wage? Would you also stop all technological advances that eliminate jobs?

Have You looked at the Unemployment rate Crispee or is that beyond Your mental capacity??

You sure you want to question someones mental capacity larry?

So you want thos unfortunate people to handle machines they are not qualified to do for the sake of a living wage? Would you also stop all technological advances that eliminate jobs?

#115 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-02-13 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Not all Jobs have machines. So that is a strawman argument. I am for the Preservation of Jobs Crispee in whatever way that entails. Too much automation for My tastes.

Larry

You sure you want to question someones mental capacity larry?

#116 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-02-13 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey I may be a Freak but I can guarantee You that I can understand whats going on around Me. Now the question is can You??

Larry

It's funny how those who attack welfare get all defensive when their particular government handout (child tax credits, student loans, etc.) gets criticized.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian

I hope you aren't referring to me Null. I have criticized neither welfare nor child tax credits. You, OTOH, have criticized one when it seemingly mirrors the other. You think it is okay to take away tax breaks for middle and lower income folks.

I didn't write the damn tax code Null. Nor do I complain about it. You are just complaining about tax breaks for people who have children because you have none and thus, no break. I empathize with your position but the world is full of unfairness and inequities.

Not all Jobs have machines. So that is a strawman argument. I am for the Preservation of Jobs Crispee in whatever way that entails. Too much automation for My tastes.

So it is a strawman agrument but you are against automation? Maybe if you owned a company and had shareholders your opinion may be different. I for one understand you can't stop the advances of technology. Either you get on board or you are left behind. Long Beach Port tried to update their systems and the union complained that they would have to bring in outsiders to run the new system. Should the Port remian as is and keep the union happy? Or should the Port be allowed to upgrade and remove those no longer needed?

"I hope you aren't referring to me Null."

I wasn't referring to you, Eberly.

"You are just complaining about tax breaks for people who have children because you have none and thus, no break."

No, I just don't think the state should subsidize procreation, at least not at present.

JeffJ

I don't know if you realise it, but lots of people are losing their jobs--over 500,000 last month. That means that lots of these people will require assistance. That means they will apply to their homestate for help. That means the home state will have a much higher load tha usual and may not be able to make these payments. That sets of a domino effect that could be catastrophic.

You seem to think that states go out and actively recruit poor people so they can get more federal money. I haven'tseen many ads from any states searching for welfare people to sign up.

You should find some solace in that if Bush hadn't allowed the economy to deteriorate so much,this wouldn't be happening. No---Bush didn't di it himself--but he was the decider as to whose job it was to keep an eye on the economy. He failed. The republican mantra of free market trade has been disproven once again---just as it did with Standard Oil at the beginning of the last centuey, and again with the Depression. The banks need strict control---how many times do we have to learn? The Gramm Leach Bliley Act was the major cause of this economy---the thought that less regulation was best for the economy.

Your concept of not feeding the poor and they'll just go away won't work.

Your concept of not feeding the poor and they'll just go away won't work.

Do you want to really know what my concept is?

I'll share it with you anyways...

Scrap most of the social safety net. Instead, institute a negative income tax. If we need to put tax-payer money into the hands of the poor, this is the most efficient way to do so. It comes with much less beaurocratic waste and simply puts money into the hands of those who need it most. The amount of the negative tax must be below a living wage. Paying people to be non-productive forever is a recipe for disaster. Hence the reason I put "most" in bold. Maintain a short-term, scaled-down safety net for this who come on hard-times. A quick hand-up until they get back on their feet. That's it. Beyond that, if help is needed private charity, family, friends and local communities can fill any remaning void where assistance is needed.

Another benefit to this is personal responsiblity. Give the poor some money structured in a way where they still have to work in order to make ends meet. Don't try and insulate people from the consequences of bad decisions. Doing so only encourages more and more bad decisions.

Basically, making the income tax more progressive and greatly eliminating entitlements removes a fair amount of Washington's ability to dangle the fruits of the treasury as a means of buying votes. Granted, this takes away considerable power from those who crave power, but tough cookies.

Also, eliminate corporate welfare. All of it. A market-based society only works if poor business models are allowed to fail. Let the chips fall where they may.

That is my concept, and nowhere within said concept do I oppose feeding the poor, be it through private charity or the taxpayers' dime.

Your concept of not feeding the poor and they'll just go away won't work.

#122 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Fair enough, however your concept of paying the poor to stop being poor just won't work either.

I'll gladly concede that this is a difficult issue but I can't support not feeding people...especially children.

Fair enough, however your concept of paying the poor to stop being poor just won't work either.

I'll gladly concede that this is a difficult issue but I can't support not feeding people...especially children.

#124 | Posted by eberly at 2009-02-13 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

You still don't get it. The half million who lost their jobs last month, and the millions who have lost their jobs in the months before that, and the millions who may lose their jobs are not deadbeats. They are hard working Americans who would rather be working than receiving bare subsistance money from the goverment. They are like you and your family if you all lost your jobs and investments. The States simply can't handle the overflow of jobs lost, and don't have the cash to make the payments. The government has to step in with the stimulus package, and the money given these people won't go to Wine an Drugs. It will go to pay their bills and attempt to keep their family together. It will stimulate the economy.

Scrap most of the social safety net.

Yes, society needs no safety---the money must be protected. The people are scondary to potection of cash.

"Instead, institute a negative income tax. If we need to put tax-payer money into the hands of the poor, this is the most efficient way to do so."

Good advice--in an economy where there are no jobs to be had. Oh wait....

It comes with much less beaurocratic waste and simply puts money into the hands of those who need it most.

The people who need it most are the people with jobs? Interesting. I'm starting t see why you voted for Bush

The amount of the negative tax must be below a living wage. Paying people to be non-productive forever is a recipe for disaster.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government paying people for their whole lives. NOTHING. Some people just can't work. You fail to face reality. A republicasn failing that is one of the basic reason of becoming a republican. Republicans think every body can work--no-that is wrong. Republicans think everybody SHOULD work---no---that is wrong. I know you don't have much imagination, or we woul't be having this conversation, but facts are, some people are too ugly to hire--believe it---some people are too fat to hire---believe it--some people are too stupid to hire. Some people have babies at home and no way to care for them if they work. The jobs that hire very ugly, very fat, and very stupid people are always filled. As much as republicans try---you can't fit everyone into the same mold.

Hence the reason I put "most" in bold.

Do you think people will get less ugly or stupid over time, and that the condition is temporary?

Maintain a short-term, scaled-down safety net for this who come on hard-times. A quick hand-up until they get back on their feet.

ome don't have feet aymore---lost them to diabetes. Maybe they'll becomefamous mountain climbers in republican world after their "hand-up".

That's it. Beyond that, if help is needed private charity, family, friends and local communities can fill any remaning void where assistance is needed.

Like these resources won't be affected by the recession.

Another benefit to this is personal responsiblity. Give the poor some money structured in a way where they still have to work in order to make ends meet. Don't try and insulate people from the consequences of bad decisions. Doing so only encourages more and more bad decisions.

Like taking a job that gets axed. Bad decision. Like investing in businesses that go bankrupt. Bad decision. Like getting in a car accident and getting paralyzed. Bad decsion.

Basically, making the income tax more progressive and greatly eliminating entitlements removes a fair amount of Washington's ability to dangle the fruits of the treasury as a means of buying votes. Granted, this takes away considerable power from those who crave power, but tough cookies.

Republicans have no concept of government---they want none. Government is of the people--by the people--and FOR THE PEOPLE. Republicans disagree.

Also, eliminate corporate welfare. All of it. A market-based society only works if poor business models are allowed to fail. Let the chips fall where they may.

You forgot to add---and fuck the people who work there.

"Scrap most of the social safety net."

We tried that once. That's why we have a social safety net.

Who was it that said those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it?

Who was it that said those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it?

We damn sure know it wasn't a modern-day Republican....

"We damn sure know it wasn't a modern-day Republican...."

You mean the "Tax cuts will save us, despite the proof of the last 8 years" crowd?

My two cents-
I worked in social services for over a decade, particularly in CALWORKS (California Welfare to Work) Stages 1, 2 and 3. I had a staff of 35 people and a grant of 10 million dollars for my department.

What I can tell you is that most women on the program were white 30 year old women who's husband has just left and they found themselves with no marketable skills. There urgent need was childcare so the could work or train in order to get off welfare.

The whole fallacy of the welfare queen was nothing more than institutional racism by republicans attempting to turn white America away from the most critical safety net in America by associating it with lazy minority cheats.

Plain and simple.

Here is another view-

Welfare recipients stimulate the local economy.

Think it through without bias and you will see I am speaking the truth.

CORKEY: "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression"

Instead of believing the rhetoric, check the stats and you'll find that at this time we are not as bad as the recession of the early 80s. I do not blame you, many just recite what they hear. Long way from the Great Depression [unless you listen to the Dems' speeches].

basically welfare reform only got rural poor white people of welfare-durin late 90's for the first time in us history there were more blacks on welfare than whites
jasman

Instead of believing the rhetoric, check the stats and you'll find that at this time we are not as bad as the recession of the early 80s. I do not blame you, many just recite what they hear. Long way from the Great Depression [unless you listen to the Dems' speeches].

#132 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-02-13 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag

Don't tell people to "check the stats".

Post a link.

Prove your point.

That's how it is done.

Right now you are simply full of shit, and talking out your ass.

Simple isn't it.

LINK?????

basically welfare reform only got rural poor white people of welfare-durin late 90's for the first time in us history there were more blacks on welfare than whites
jasman

#133 | Posted by newjasman at 2009-02-13 10:12 PM | Reply

Don't make blanket statements with no basis in reality.

Post a link.

Prove your point.

That's how it is done.

Right now you are simply full of shit, and talking out your ass.

Simple isn't it.

LINK?????

Bbob,

You so fundamentally misconstrued the context of my post on so many levels that I find it hard to believe that I communicated my thoughts that poorly.

Given that, I believe you are simply looking to be combative.

It's Friday night and I am not in the mood to delve into such depths, and if my perception is wrong and your gross mis-representation of my viewoint(s) truly is the product of shitty communication on my part; I lack the inclination at this late hour to clarify my position(s) to the extent that you misconstrued them.

Yes, heaven forfend that ordinary people should benefit rather that the jerkwads who've been receiving corporate welfare.

To hell with self-reliance! Maybe we can ALL become dependent on the state for money!

---------------

When you republifuckers start voting to remove the government created corporate person, government protection for patents and copy writes(intellectual property fascism), and stop bailing out banks: THEN AND ONLY THEN DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT WELFARE FOR THE POOR.

Until such time as the above corporate welfare programs are disbanded: GO FUCK YOURSELF!

where i live(?) you an adult without children can only get Foddstamps. whet they used to call "Welfare" or a "check" you must have children... so it is the children they are giving cash to/for.

i hope then redress that so that adults without children can get cash help to.

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
+++
Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you allhe is the greatest."

btw, Jeff, maybe next time start with your terms defined. define "stimulus" and then define "bankrupt" as in states and municipalities --sure, do all the philosophical back-peddling all you like... you lost and will never win... lest your change your attitude.

so, you might take a look at your own moral bankruptcy as well.
define "moral." i suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, equity, and, yes, character (not others' -- mine & yours).

For he who is least among you all he is the greatest."

#139 | Posted by ichiro

What absolute nonsense. This is nothing more than the promotion of mediocrity in its purest form.

"I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

SLUGGO swallows:
"For he who is least among you all he is the greatest."
#139 | Posted by ichiro
What absolute nonsense. This is nothing more than the promotion of mediocrity in its purest form.

in the context which that is: child or childlike, i'd say you must be an over-bloated adult whose chance at living has all butt[head] completely farted itself out.

good luck with that weight.

--comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

this is just now making the news AFTER THE VOTE

if barry wants to look at real bipartisan government all he has to do is look to bill clinton and the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS on this issue

YES I AM GIVING CLINTON CREDIT FOR THIs
even if he was forced into it...

and now the dems are seeing to it that the states put as many people BACK ON the welfare rolls as possible

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES STRIKES AGAIN

or is it?????? unintended that is

what groups are the most dependable voters OF THE DEMOCRATS???

homeless
illegal aliens
people on welfare.

"Scrap most of the social safety net."

We tried that once. That's why we have a social safety net.

Who was it that said those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it?

#127 | Posted by Danforth

Reading is fundamental.

Instead of a bunch of beaurocratically-laden social programs, put money into the hands of those who need it most via a negative income tax (google it, if you are unfamiliar with the term).

IMO, it's a different AND far more effective way of achieving the same ends.

"Instead of a bunch of beaurocratically-laden social programs, put money into the hands of those who need it most via a negative income tax (google it, if you are unfamiliar with the term). "

I've advocated a negative income tax for years, though perhaps in a more expanded version than Milton Friedman advocated.

"Instead of a bunch of beaurocratically-laden social programs"

Social Security and Medicare---the two biggest social safety nets by far---are the envy of the world for the efficient way they're run (though not envied for the Ponzi-scheme setup of SS). Add to that, the known fact a lot of the poor and ignorant need assistance to sensibly use the safety net...if it were just money, and we expected everyone to budget properly and only buy those services the cash was supposed to provide, the problems would only exacerbate.

I'm not trying to denigrate the poor and ignorant, just facing reality. Familiarity with history is fundamental, too.

"put money into the hands of those who need it most via a negative income tax "

You do know, don't you, the Republican party is four-square against this...I believe their talking point is "people who don't pay taxes" (as if sales, gasoline, property, excise, utility, and payroll taxes aren't really taxes). But your point is well-taken: The EITC has proven to be a very efficient way to help folks.

"My two cents-
I worked in social services for over a decade, particularly in CALWORKS (California Welfare to Work) Stages 1, 2 and 3. I had a staff of 35 people and a grant of 10 million dollars for my department.

What I can tell you is that most women on the program were white 30 year old women who's husband has just left and they found themselves with no marketable skills. There urgent need was childcare so the could work or train in order to get off welfare.

The whole fallacy of the welfare queen was nothing more than institutional racism by republicans attempting to turn white America away from the most critical safety net in America by associating it with lazy minority cheats.

Plain and simple."

Says the retard from a State that is $42 BILLION in the hole. $39 BILLION before this 'recession' ever started. & you wokred for said State Govn't. Errrr .... sorry if we don't take advise from you on how 'social programs' should be run. Kinda like taking Banking advise from John Thain.

When you can at least get CLOSE to balancing your own state budget, then maybe we can listen to some govn't schlub from Cali. Until then, take your bankrupt state & all it's advise on how to run things & let adults make some decisions.

I'm not trying to denigrate the poor and ignorant, just facing reality.

Understood, but I disagree. We are enabling dysfunctionalism and a lack-of self-reliance with many of these programs. Sometimes people need to be 'forced' into becoming responsible adults - tough love and all that.

Social Security and Medicare

Both of which have zero chance of ever being shut-down precisely due to their Ponzi-setup. Shutting them down would require an entire generation to pay into the programs and not be able to receive benefits when reaching retirement age. Our society isn't self-sacrificing enough to do this and I am realistic about this. In short, I wasn't including these 2 programs as part of the social safety net - they are different from programs such as welfare on many fronts.

I've advocated a negative income tax for years

I know, and it took me by surprise the first-time I saw you advocate it. As you are a statist, this takes a lot of power away from the state! Everything is ruined for me - I can't in good conscience continue to refer to you as Stalin if you are advocating policy that actually reduces the scope and power of the federal government in regards to controlling the flow of money.

"We are enabling dysfunctionalism and a lack-of self-reliance with many of these programs."

But you can't deny some will inevitably fall between the cracks. What do you do with those...just write them off, or ignore they exist?

"In short, I wasn't including these 2 programs as part of the social safety net"

They swamp all other forms of welfare put together...except maybe Wall Street Welfare.

What do you do with those...just write them off, or ignore they exist?

When you cant take care of yourself year after year, eventually it becomes a lifestyle choice...

" As you are a statist, this takes a lot of power away from the state!

You ever take the political compass test? I'm in the left-libertarian quadrant, which isn't surprising since I've described my politics as left-libertarian for years. So you're not going to hang that "statist" label around my neck, Mussolini. :)

Hahaha. Since neo-Marxism earned its pejorative status, Nulli hides under the libertarian label. We're all libertarians now.

Everyone who is familiar with the history of the term knows that libertarian was originally, and remains in Europe, a term of the left. U.S. "libertarians," who are more accurately called "propertarians," hate it when that fact is pointed out.

But you can't deny some will inevitably fall between the cracks. What do you do with those.

Allow me to answer with an analogy...

Some of our laws and regulations regarding criminal prosecution are cemented in the notion of keeping the innocent from being wrongfully convicted, which is always tragic whenever it happens. Having said that, violent criminals getting off because they weren't read their Miranda Rights (that such an absurdity was found to be 'enumerated' in the Constitution is ridiculous, but I digress) to go back out into society and create 1.5 new victims of violent crime (rape, murder, etc) before being caught again; is also tragic. In my opinion, if our laws create a ratio of preventing 1 wrongfully accused from being convicted with not convicting 10 violent criminals who then victimize a cumulative of 15 innocent people....the law needs to be changed.

Same thing goes for the social safety net - Remember, I am advocating using tax-payer money to help the poor, just that the poor are then expected to responsibly use said money; and if not, then they are going to have to turn to charity, community, friends and family. Yes, what I am advocating would inevitably result in a few individuals falling through the cracks; which would be tremendously unfortunate. However, the positive tradeoff would be a significantly greater degree of responsible decision-making and self-reliance among our poor because their decisions wouldn't be insulated from consequence.

I completely understand what you are saying but I view the tougher-love approach to be more beneficial overall. Seriously, some of our social policy treats people in a manner that almost all parents would never adopt when dealing with their own, grown children.

There you go again with your Marxist labels.

Later, boys.

It's Valentine's Day and I have other priorities tonight.

Thanks for the discussion and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

"There you go again with your Marxist labels."

Another non-retort from Ray. Refute my history of the term "libertarian" or shut up, Ray.

By your logic, the Federalists with a capital F were truly federalists with a small f, when they were in fact anti-federalists or nationalists.

The root of libertarian is liberty, the very antithesis of neo-Marxism, false labels notwithstanding. In all my decades of reading libertarian literature, I never heard of the word "propertarian" until you. That would be because neo-Marxists hate property ownership.

In Wonderland, a word means what you think it to means when you say it. Libertarians are propertarians and neo-Marxists are libertarians. We've been over this before ad nauseam.

A swing and a miss, Ray. "Libertarian" is a word coined by the left, leftwing anarchists in particular. That's a fact, Jack.

You can spin all you want, but the fact is that U.S. rightwingers hijacked the term "libertarian" and applied it to themselves. It does sound better than "reactionary" or "propertarian" you know. And as pot smokers, "libertarians" needed to distinguish themselves from those fuddy duddy GOP conservatives.

"When you cant take care of yourself year after year, eventually it becomes a lifestyle choice..."

Ahhh...write them off AND pretend they don't exist. That's Matthew 25:40, isn't it?

" However, the positive tradeoff would be a significantly greater degree of responsible decision-making and self-reliance among our poor because their decisions wouldn't be insulated from consequence."

But the vast majority of folks truly needing help wouldn't even understand that sentence. You're assuming most, if not all, are as intelligent as you. They're not. IIRC, the two most common companions of ignorance are poverty and an uneducated single parent. My maternal grandfather was a pharmacist. My father was the first in his line to graduate college, and because of that he sacrificed everything so his kids could get the best education possible. My mother taught me to read at 2. I can't imagine how different my life would be without those advantages. And I used to believe everyone had the same opportunities. I know now that's not the truth, and while I intellectually believe everyone should be self-reliant, it's obvious not everyone is as lucky as you or I. I'm just not ready to write them off. I wish there were an easier way to separate the needy from the gamers, but I don't believe turning one's back on them all is the answer.

So what's the fix? Eventually everyone will figure out that it doesnt pay to work....the problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money..

"Eventually everyone will figure out that it doesnt pay to work..."

Have YOU figured that out yet? Or do you already know it and work regardless?

In socialsm, it doesnt pay..

"In socialsm, it doesnt pay.."

Your point is only valid if you quit ASAP.

I think every registered Democrat should support at least one Octo-mom. They can spread the wealth all they want by supporting a litter of kids. Maybe they should change the babies diapers too. They seem to enjoy giving crap to the rest of us.

I think every registered Democrat should support at least one Octo-mom. They can spread the wealth all they want by supporting a litter of kids. Maybe they should change the babies diapers too. They seem to enjoy giving crap to the rest of us.

--------------

Every registered Republifucker already is supporting MANY registered octopuses: they are called corporations.

The fact that you don't seem to understand that corporate welfare does the same thing on a MUCH larger scale than the 'welfare mommy' you seem to hate is testimony to your systematic brain malfunction; largely due to a masochistic desire to suck more corporate cock.

As much as the GOP has tried to make the image of a Welfare recipient a fat black woman with 10 kids who drives a Cadillac, the truth is that states with the highest percentage on public assistance are red states, and the vast majority of those recipients have white skin.

Besides welfare, just wander into a small southern town and you'll find a host of pickup drivin' rednecks on SSDI (federal disability) because of 'bad backs' or something.

Here is what happens why the people are given something for nothing (welfare):

But there HAS to be some incentive for people/families to get OFF welfare.

----------

Apply the same incentives to get the wealthy off corporate welfare or go fuck yourself.

The largest welfare programs in America are: the government created corporate person(veil of secrecy), and government protection for intellectual property.

And the biggest recipients of such are Wall St. and the Central 'Fed' Bank. And when even THAT much protection isn't enough for these criminal cocksuckers WE ARE FORCED TO BAIL THE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT!!!

They are the real welfare whores, and they always have been.

Really Shawn ... really? How much is spend on public entitlements vs Corp Welfare?

You are a moron for even posting what you did. With that said, I agree, end ALL Corp welfare/subsidies. I would be 100% ok with that, matter of fact, I would embrace that.

But, they are not the SAME situation either. People on welfare provide WHAT to society? Anything ... anything .... Bueler ....

Corp Welfare, while disgusting imo, at least they provide SOMETHING to society .... like Jobs & Tax revenue & a whole host of other things.

Hey, Congress CREATED Freddie/Fannie & they are 2 of the BIGGEST Copr Welfare cases .... shut those fuckers DOWN right Shawn??

You should close your piehole, adults are speaking =P

No fuckhead, you are dead wrong.

Wall St. provides nothing more than a confidence scam to keep those in power in power.

For if they did actually provide something more than that, we wouldn't have to bail them out over and over and over again.

The fact that you believe that the men in the monkey suits deserve more ration coupons than people just barely getting by is testimony to your complete religious style imbecility.

And I use the word 'imbecile' meaning you are beyond stupid. Stupid men learn. Imbeciles just keep drinking the poisoned water over and over and over, until someone pities them enough to put them out of their misery.

Inbred imbecilic motherfuckers.

Sorry Shawn, I don't beleive wall st or corp america deserve anything. I would be MORE than happy if they had to survive, fail, or prosper off their own body of work.

I worked in Corp America for 13 yrs, made good amounts of money, but you are correct, it was/is corrupt. One thing more corrupt is Govn't, Dem lead, GOP lead, doesn't matter, THEY are the ones that allow Corp American to do what it does.

Since leaving the corp world, I started my own business 4 yrs ago, make better money, control my own destiny & don't have near as much stress. I keep 20 or so people employeed, make a good living & do everything within legal limits to lower the amount the BS govn't steals from me. Could see this mess comming 3 yrs ago, prepared for it & we will be just fine, hell, even last yr we were able to grow by 12% while maitaining margins.

I get to watch from the sideline while the fools eat each other. Strong/smart companies will survive, people like you will be on the govn't tit & return to serf-dom. But at least you will have big bad govn't to prop your broken ass up ..... good luck with that.

Enjoy it when the dollar you make today is worth less than $.25 in about 3 yrs. My money will be insulated & I will be able to buy up all the shit 'smart' people like you can no longer afford.

Let me know when govn't solves your problems .... fun dream to cling to. Too bad you will be taking that dream all the way to your coffin. 'Cause just like your deadbeat dad who abandoned you, govn't isn't 'coming home' anytime soon.

HOPE & CHANGE ...... ok .... let me know how well that works :)

Ugh. Beyond clueless.

I suppose I could try to explain to this imbecile how just about every invention in America is done with public money, and then distributed to corporate cocksuckers so that they can profit off it.

I suppose I could try to explain to this imbecile how infrastructure ultimately has to put under the public domain even when the "private" sector tries to run it(see phone mafia mess, cable too).

I could try to explain to this imbecile that corporations are really nothing more than government without pubic input. As if you could remove the people from the corporation and it would continue to function. i.e. the 'private sector' is a complete scam.

But in the end you are an imbecile. The kind that will start believing in global warming the second the water hits your porch monkey ass, AND NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE THAT TIME. And when the water does hit your house HOPE & CHANGE i.e. prayer is about all your imbecilic ass will be able to do.

So I will simply identify you as the village idiot, and ignore you.

don't give a starving man a bowl of rice or teach him to fish

give it all to the banks instead

the rightie tighties

Well then Shawn, the govn't should get into the business of making things. 'Cause they are SOOOOoo good at having a BLACK leger right. This is why you FAIL Shawn, you have complete faith in govn't. The simple facts are this, the kids, such as yourself, who finished no better than middle of the road in their education, those are the fools running govn't. Those are the life long govn't employees. The smart people, the ones that know how to build something, they go into private enterprise ... 'cause they are smarter than everyone else.

Mark Cuban got it right a couple months ago. Pres Obama has surrounded himself with all the Corp Big Wigs, yet he doesn't have a single guy on his economic team that knows what it takes to start something from nothing & BUILD it into a solid company. Paul Volker is brilliant, as is Buffett, yet both will take you they don't know what it takes on the ground to build ANYTHING. The Google CEO, the GE CEO, the IBM & Honeywell CEO's, they didn't BUILD those companies, they came in to 'manage' them. The heavy lifting was already done. Jack Welch .... now that is a guy that could help the President, as could Cuban, they know what it takes to BUILD something, to grow it, to make it a huge success. What do all these college professors or NYTimes writers know about ANYTHING. They have been too chicken their entire lives to but any blood/sweat/personal risk into creating jobs or building something. No, they sit on the sidelines & write white papers .... crunch numbers & play fortune teller.

You know, you & your pro-Govn't cronnies should just start taking what ever wealth American's have ... you know, "greater good" & all. YOU should come try to get mine from me. That would be a hoot!!! :)

$13Trillion of American wealth sitting on the sidelines in funds, investments & other nations banks that the U.S. Gov CAN NOT touch. You want things to improve & improve quick, Pres Obama just needs to make it so those funds to be invested back into American markets & into American business. If he doesn't, when the US Gov can no longer fuction, that $13T will STILL BE THERE. You will be eating bread crumbs. The people who have smartly seperated themselves from the American dollar & U.S. markets will survive, rebuild & prosper.

You & your kind are the intellectual/fiscal dino's. Enjoy the 6 mile wide finacial asteroid the U.S. Govn't is creating for you :)

don't give a starving man a bowl of rice or teach him to fish

give it all to the banks instead

the rightie tighties

------

Yup. Bail out the rich: FUCK THE POOR.

Might makes right: Roman Eagle

SOP.

SHAWN - I guess your believe screw the the 'screw the productive', take what they have earned and give onto those who do not produce. Another way to state in what you believe is:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need "

Better known as the Philosophy of Karl Marx. He would be your idol if alive today.