| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2012 07:06:17 PM · #76 |
This article, in my opinion, accurately describes Mitt Romney and the whole stinking lot of them.
"...about 30 years ago, a new breed of âconservativeâ slithered onto the political scene. Stealing the moniker of conservatism, this new breed embraced the inequality of traditional conservatism (driving it skyward) while unburdening itself of the responsibility for others and the public good.
This new breed has proved itself to be self-centered, greedy and indifferent to the public good.
John Kenneth Galbraith cut to the essence when he described this âmodernâ conservative as engaged in âthe search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 11:00:33 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
This article, in my opinion, accurately describes Mitt Romney and the whole stinking lot of them. |
In the comments section of the article there are some responses. I lean with "jerky".
Further - what about bailing out state pensions? Liberals and unions have placated themsleves into bankruptcy. Am I supposed to pay more tax to pay for those who can't follow a budget?
I really do believe in helping people - specifically people who want to help themselves. Or those who literally can't help themselves (physically/mentally). But those who can and don't - sorry. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 03:11:11 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
This article, in my opinion, accurately describes Mitt Romney and the whole stinking lot of them. |
In the comments section of the article there are some responses. I lean with "jerky".
Further - what about bailing out state pensions? Liberals and unions have placated themsleves into bankruptcy. Am I supposed to pay more tax to pay for those who can't follow a budget?
I really do believe in helping people - specifically people who want to help themselves. Or those who literally can't help themselves (physically/mentally). But those who can and don't - sorry. |
+1....I am still in favor for a working welfare and drug tests.....Make the people that dont want to work....work for their check
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 03:33:40 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
This article, in my opinion, accurately describes Mitt Romney and the whole stinking lot of them. |
In the comments section of the article there are some responses. I lean with "jerky".
Further - what about bailing out state pensions? Liberals and unions have placated themsleves into bankruptcy. Am I supposed to pay more tax to pay for those who can't follow a budget?
I really do believe in helping people - specifically people who want to help themselves. Or those who literally can't help themselves (physically/mentally). But those who can and don't - sorry. |
+1....I am still in favor for a working welfare and drug tests.....Make the people that dont want to work....work for their check |
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare?
(edited to fix quotation marks)
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 15:34:35. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 03:52:46 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare? |
Having lived in some places where that is a way of life, I can say "Yes", for all too may people. The practice of having children to get more money is a common theme.
You really think the welfare system is not heavily abused?
ETA: Though I almost *never* agree with anything cowboy says, I certainly am right there with him on drug testing for welfare recipients. There's no good reason not to do so.
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 15:55:14.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:00:17 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare? |
Having lived in some places where that is a way of life, I can say "Yes", for all too may people. The practice of having children to get more money is a common theme.
You really think the welfare system is not heavily abused?
ETA: Though I almost *never* agree with anything cowboy says, I certainly am right there with him on drug testing for welfare recipients. There's no good reason not to do so. |
I am not super naive, I just don't like kicking those who are down. drug test teachers and cops, it matters if they are high. If I was on welfare I'd be taking something to dull the pain.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:00:51 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare? |
Having lived in some places where that is a way of life, I can say "Yes", for all too may people. The practice of having children to get more money is a common theme.
You really think the welfare system is not heavily abused?
ETA: Though I almost *never* agree with anything cowboy says, I certainly am right there with him on drug testing for welfare recipients. There's no good reason not to do so. |
^-- Totally true.
What I find strange is that there seems to be a rather large number of people who are completely ignorant about this. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:02:54 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare? |
Having lived in some places where that is a way of life, I can say "Yes", for all too may people. The practice of having children to get more money is a common theme.
You really think the welfare system is not heavily abused?
ETA: Though I almost *never* agree with anything cowboy says, I certainly am right there with him on drug testing for welfare recipients. There's no good reason not to do so. |
I am not super naive, I just don't like kicking those who are down. drug test teachers and cops, it matters if they are high. If I was on welfare I'd be taking something to dull the pain. |
FFS man. Really? You're actually OK with paying to support the drug habits of people who, without their drug habits, would likely be working and supporting themselves? |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:17:04 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
You really think "not wanting to work" is the sole, or even biggest factor, in receipt of welfare? |
Having lived in some places where that is a way of life, I can say "Yes", for all too may people. The practice of having children to get more money is a common theme.
You really think the welfare system is not heavily abused?
ETA: Though I almost *never* agree with anything cowboy says, I certainly am right there with him on drug testing for welfare recipients. There's no good reason not to do so. |
I am not super naive, I just don't like kicking those who are down. drug test teachers and cops, it matters if they are high. If I was on welfare I'd be taking something to dull the pain. |
FFS man. Really? You're actually OK with paying to support the drug habits of people who, without their drug habits, would likely be working and supporting themselves? |
No. But fraud is fraud, my opinion is that all this "test welfare recipients" is a shrouded form of discrimination.
Its part of a larger "survival of the fittest style" claim that there should be no welfare at all.
Drug use is not the major reason people are on welfare, it probably is proportionate to society as a whole. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:32:03 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
No. But fraud is fraud, my opinion is that all this "test welfare recipients" is a shrouded form of discrimination.
Its part of a larger "survival of the fittest style" claim that there should be no welfare at all.
Drug use is not the major reason people are on welfare, it probably is proportionate to society as a whole. |
My position is that a huge number of recipients are recipients either because they have found this to be easier and more comfortable than working, or because they can smoke pot while on welfare without having to face a urinalysis, like they would have to if they were working.
Face the facts, drug testing has had an effect such that it's actually easier to be on welfare than it is to work if you are a heavy drug user. I don't know what makes you think it's in line with the general population, but even if it is, then the fact remains that drug use makes you less likely to want to work, and keeps you reasonably happy despite your circumstances.. I don't see either of those as a positive thing, please explain how you see those factors as being beneficial, to society, to me as a tax payer, or even to those who are wasting their lives in the system... |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:50:18 PM · #86 |
There is a large population of people that are on welfare here in Louisiana that are abusing the system. There are families where 3 or 4 generations have never worked. Because of this Louisiana has enacted a child cap. I am not sure but I believe the cap is 4.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 04:58:29 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There is a large population of people that are on welfare here in Louisiana that are abusing the system. There are families where 3 or 4 generations have never worked. Because of this Louisiana has enacted a child cap. I am not sure but I believe the cap is 4. |
I have visited families in the mountains of West Virginia where those in the 30ish yo population do not remember their families NOT being on welfare.
Here in the mountains of NC, I know several kids that can't remember their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents working -- they just always drew welfare.
*THAT's* what needs to be changed. Sure, welfare if you *need* it to help you get going, but multi-generations of poverty isn't going to be solved just by giving them money. There are entire attitudes, beliefs and paradigms that have to shift. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:03:32 PM · #88 |
In essence, no one would agree with lazy people doing drugs instead of working. So we are in agreement. I also am not fond of paying taxes at all, let alone to support lazy shiftless drug addicts.
But how you view this in your priority of problems says a great deal about your politics.
eta: I am not for hurting the children whose parents are in the system. That perpetuates the problem. We need to have better education and resources, not less.
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 17:05:42. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:05:52 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
In essence, no one would agree with lazy people doing drugs instead of working. So we are in agreement. I also am not fond of paying taxes at all, let alone to support lazy shiftless drug addicts.
But how you view this in your priority of problems says a great deal about your politics. |
I don't know that we got into where I view it...
Frankly, it's just another drop in the bucket, but each drop adds up to an overflow eventually, and frankly, at this point overflow isn't even the word for it. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:11:42 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
eta: I am not for hurting the children whose parents are in the system. That perpetuates the problem. We need to have better education and resources, not less. |
See, this is where it all goes to hell.
Ok, so you're not for 'hurting' the children... Ok, cool, they're innocent, I get that.
But, in reality, we can't save everyone - yet we continue to talk about subjects like this with the feeling that it's possible... Frankly it's a disease of an idea that we've unfortunately gotten pretty comfy with.
We can't save everyone, at some point it really does need to be sink or swim, and the harsh reality is that entire families may sink, but that is the reality of reality, not everyone can win all the time, and those who try harder will statistically come out ahead.
In ecology it's known as the "Red Queen's Hypothesis" - effectively that every animal is trying just as hard as it can just to keep up and stay in the game. Why shouldn't we be subject to a version of the same rules at some point? |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:37:39 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
eta: I am not for hurting the children whose parents are in the system. That perpetuates the problem. We need to have better education and resources, not less. |
See, this is where it all goes to hell.
Ok, so you're not for 'hurting' the children... Ok, cool, they're innocent, I get that.
But, in reality, we can't save everyone - yet we continue to talk about subjects like this with the feeling that it's possible... Frankly it's a disease of an idea that we've unfortunately gotten pretty comfy with.
We can't save everyone, at some point it really does need to be sink or swim, and the harsh reality is that entire families may sink, but that is the reality of reality, not everyone can win all the time, and those who try harder will statistically come out ahead.
In ecology it's known as the "Red Queen's Hypothesis" - effectively that every animal is trying just as hard as it can just to keep up and stay in the game. Why shouldn't we be subject to a version of the same rules at some point? |
We are humans, not animals. We are supposedly the "best and wealthiest country in the world." If thats the case, we don't turn our backs and give up. Plus, I would rather focus on schools than build more prisons and hospitals.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:45:55 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I would rather focus on schools than build more prisons and hospitals. |
Just jumping in here to say that "building schools" and/or spending more taxpayer money on education has not / does not yield any positive results. Education is not a money issue. Chicago spends something like $13k per student on education and has a 50% graduation rate. Many other cities have similar stats. It cost me ~$9k/yr to educate my son in private school compared to my state's $12k/yr cost. I couldn't afford to (nor did I think to) do that many years earlier with my older kids, none of whom graduated.
So, to summarize my tangent on education: Vouchers, PLEASE. (aka Pro Choice!)
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 17:46:18. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 05:51:53 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
We are humans, not animals. |
Ahh, see THAT is where we disagree.
You think we are somehow above the laws of nature and reality. I do not.
ETA: In general, I see all of this as an ecology problem, not a political problem. The same rules apply to us as to any animal, we eat, we shit, we die, we can pretend to not be subject to this reality, but that doesn't change anything.
The faster we realize this, as a species, the better off we will be.
Honestly, your response avoided my question, and didn't take on the core question, animal or not, what makes you think that we aren't subject to the same rules?
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 17:57:06. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 06:09:58 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
eta: I am not for hurting the children whose parents are in the system. That perpetuates the problem. We need to have better education and resources, not less. |
See, this is where it all goes to hell.
Ok, so you're not for 'hurting' the children... Ok, cool, they're innocent, I get that.
But, in reality, we can't save everyone - yet we continue to talk about subjects like this with the feeling that it's possible... Frankly it's a disease of an idea that we've unfortunately gotten pretty comfy with.
We can't save everyone, at some point it really does need to be sink or swim, and the harsh reality is that entire families may sink, but that is the reality of reality, not everyone can win all the time, and those who try harder will statistically come out ahead.
In ecology it's known as the "Red Queen's Hypothesis" - effectively that every animal is trying just as hard as it can just to keep up and stay in the game. Why shouldn't we be subject to a version of the same rules at some point? |
Ah, you mean like the bankers. Like how they were left to sink or swim.
Meanwhile they aren't using the money we gave them (for the second time) to pay bonuses to their traders rather than lend to businesses to fund investments that might help growth.
Of course, the answer is to ensure that the people who have little have less and that those who created the myth of the boom economy are paid to rip us all off again.
Put money in the hands of the poor and they will spend it and contribute to growth; put it in the hands of the rich and they will put it somewhere where the tax man can't reach it and just wait for the markets to show it is on the way up again. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 06:17:37 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Ah, you mean like the bankers. Like how they were left to sink or swim. |
Don't think I could have picked a better illustration of the idea myself.
It's simply healthy to thrive or fail based upon the merit of the individual.
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 18:18:34. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 06:21:19 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There is a large population of people that are on welfare here in Louisiana that are abusing the system. There are families where 3 or 4 generations have never worked. Because of this Louisiana has enacted a child cap. I am not sure but I believe the cap is 4. |
I have visited families in the mountains of West Virginia where those in the 30ish yo population do not remember their families NOT being on welfare.
Here in the mountains of NC, I know several kids that can't remember their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents working -- they just always drew welfare.
*THAT's* what needs to be changed. Sure, welfare if you *need* it to help you get going, but multi-generations of poverty isn't going to be solved just by giving them money. There are entire attitudes, beliefs and paradigms that have to shift. |
I completely agree. This is why I am for working welfare. It 1st of all would hopefully teach a work ethic.2nd of all it may keep people in school so that they can succeed in life and not always be dependant
|
|
|
|
10/01/2012 06:26:30 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There is a large population of people that are on welfare here in Louisiana that are abusing the system. There are families where 3 or 4 generations have never worked. Because of this Louisiana has enacted a child cap. I am not sure but I believe the cap is 4. |
I have visited families in the mountains of West Virginia where those in the 30ish yo population do not remember their families NOT being on welfare.
Here in the mountains of NC, I know several kids that can't remember their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents working -- they just always drew welfare.
*THAT's* what needs to be changed. Sure, welfare if you *need* it to help you get going, but multi-generations of poverty isn't going to be solved just by giving them money. There are entire attitudes, beliefs and paradigms that have to shift. |
I completely agree. This is why I am for working welfare. It 1st of all would hopefully teach a work ethic.2nd of all it may keep people in school so that they can succeed in life and not always be dependant |
Such a sensible idea. Earn your keep. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 09:36:25 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Such a sensible idea. Earn your keep. |
... all in favour of this idea as long as it applies across the board. Ever hear of corporate welfare... trust me it does exist.
While you folks are in the cutting mood, do take the time to look at your absolutely bloated defence budget and the amount of money that drains out of your economy.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/02/2012 09:51:12 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
While you folks are in the cutting mood, do take the time to look at your absolutely bloated defence budget and the amount of money that drains out of your economy.
Ray |
Just to play devils advocate, do you think there is nothing to fear from Iran and N. Korea? Their UN speeches were really eye openers.
The US has led this world into an unprecedented time of relative peace between nations (yes, the US, not the UN). A lot of this is because we have the greatest military force in history, and yet use it so sparingly. Ever heard the term "speak softly, but carry a big stick"? Well, our stick is the military.
I do agree that there are many inefficiencies in our military though... if we are going to do something to the military budget, hunt those down, but I do not see any benefit to reducing the size of our military. |
|
|
|
10/02/2012 10:14:12 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Ah, you mean like the bankers. Like how they were left to sink or swim.
Meanwhile they aren't using the money we gave them (for the second time) to pay bonuses to their traders rather than lend to businesses to fund investments that might help growth.
Of course, the answer is to ensure that the people who have little have less and that those who created the myth of the boom economy are paid to rip us all off again.
Put money in the hands of the poor and they will spend it and contribute to growth; put it in the hands of the rich and they will put it somewhere where the tax man can't reach it and just wait for the markets to show it is on the way up again. |
I don't think we've just given banks any money (unless you're talking about tax credits)... however we have given them low-interest loans. However, I'm in some agreement here, that the government probably shouldn't have meddled... let fail what may fail. |
|
