Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='mykevermin']You've *never* been able to stay even remotely on topic, Bob.[/QUOTE]

I oh-so-apologize, Myke. I'm just trying to figure out what your all-mighty self would consider to be "evidence" that people commit welfare fraud. Because you're in a thread posted about Tea Party protesters and racial comments talking about how there's no evidence of welfare fraud.
 
Of course. Easing on the brakes and gently turning your steering wheel to turn right is the same thing as slamming on the brakes and jerking the wheel as quickly as possible at the last moment.

Conversations flow and evolve. Your posts are *always* hamfisted attempts to yank the entire flow of a conversation in a whole other direction, typically one predicated by your improbable apples to purple analogies.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course. Easing on the brakes and gently turning your steering wheel to turn right is the same thing as slamming on the brakes and jerking the wheel as quickly as possible at the last moment.

Conversations flow and evolve. Your posts are *always* hamfisted attempts to yank the entire flow of a conversation in a whole other direction, typically one predicated by your improbable apples to purple analogies.[/QUOTE]

Translation:
HissyFit.jpg
Whaa... I don't get to be the center of attention if the conversation isn't going exactly the way I want it to. If it's not about me, I'll just start throwing around curse words and insults until either everyone is focused on me again or the topic dies.

Get over yourself, Myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']3) Your argument of people "with their hand out" is something you again have no evidence of. It's something you believe, something based off of the racist-and-sexist Reagan vision of the "welfare queen." You want to believe it exists because it helps reinforce your ideology. But you, by believing this, clearly don't look at welfare trends.[/QUOTE]

While Myke doesn't expressly say "Welfare Fraud is non-existent", here, he either claiming there is no evidence or he is being disingenuous.
 
To me he's saying that your prejudice is leading you to believe that there must be people "with their hand out."

But i don't want to put word's in the mouth of a Professor of Murder.
 
Or, rather, that they're a large portion of overall people who usurp the bulk of resources allocated to welfare funds. Which they are not.

Yes, this is demonstrably true, and no, I don't have time to find you the data. I'm neck deep in grading on a Sunday. You want to go tete-a-tete, then back up your belief and Knoell's belief that welfare fraud is rife. We've been down this path before, and yet you people still cling to your long-disproven phantoms. It's about time you put up or shut up; demonstrate what a problem welfare fraud is and we'll talk. Make baseless claims like you've continued to do at this point, spending plenty of time hemming and hawing and zero time supporting your claims, and you can get the fuck out of here and go stock my Doctor Thunder.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']To me he's saying that your prejudice is leading you to believe that there must be people "with their hand out." [/QUOTE]

You're correct. Just like my prejudice leads me to believe that the sky is blue.

Now, we can argue and debate the details of what, exactly, constitutes as welfare fraud, but I'm sure all reasonable people can agree that there is *some* amount of welfare fraud going on. For anyone to come on here and post "You have no evidence of welfare fraud." with a straight face is nothing more than disingenuous posting.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Doctor Thunder percent.

Your parrying skills are for shit.[/QUOTE]

And you are doing a wonderful job at staying on topic! Good show, man!
 
Of course there is some amount, i just said i know of at least one case, but do you believe those fraud cases are the majority or minority? For something like that you need some hard proof, not just assumptions.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Of course there is some amount, i just said i know of at least one case, but do you believe those fraud cases are the majority or minority? For something like that you need some hard proof, not just assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Where did Knoell say that cases of fraud were a majority?
 
I have no idea, i've had him on ignore for the last week or so.

I simply asked you a question. Lets just go from here assuming they aren't the majority if you're comfortable with that, then what is the problem? Most people receiving benefits aren't committing fraud to get them, what's the problem? Is it a problem with the idea of welfare programs period?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I have no idea, i've had him on ignore for the last week or so.

I simply asked you a question. Lets just go from here assuming they aren't the majority if you're comfortable with that, then what is the problem? Most people receiving benefits aren't committing fraud to get them, what's the problem? Is it a problem with the idea of welfare programs period?[/QUOTE]

Since you've had him on ignore, then you've missed out on the conversation. Welfare programs is one area he'd like to see reformed. I've not called for the absolute abolishment of the entire welfare system, nor have I seen him call for it. Any more than your or Myke has called for the absolute abolishment of all defense and military spending.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bob doesn't answer questions.

His debating technique is the Socratic method meets Down's syndrome.[/QUOTE]

myke.jpg
 
But what is there to reform? Spend less on it? That's hurting those who need it. It may be possible to weed out the fraud some more, but you'll never get rid of it completely.

What kind of reform would you to see? I'm assuming it's the cost of the programs that bother you. What kind of reform could we have that would make the programs more cost efficient while not reducing benefits?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']But what is there to reform? Spend less on it? That's hurting those who need it. It may be possible to weed out the fraud some more, but you'll never get rid of it completely.

What kind of reform would you to see? I'm assuming it's the cost of the programs that bother you. What kind of reform could we have that would make the programs more cost efficient while not reducing benefits?[/QUOTE]

So reform is too hard? is that what your getting at?

How about making funds available to people who actually need them not just saying "Hey some of our money is going to people who dont need it, but its ok we will just give the taxpayers a bigger bill next year"

The most common types of welfare fraud include failing to report additional income, failure to disclose information regarding household family members, or supplying false information about an inability to work. There have also been instances were people feigned illness or injury to manipulate the welfare system.

These may be difficult to find evidence of or to stop but I wont accept the "youll never find it all!" excuse.

Also this is partially unrelated, but I know of 3 people who have actually got fired from their jobs on purpose, just to get the sweet sweet benefits of unemployment, which is up to what 71 weeks? Now I am not saying unemployment isnt helping anyone, because it most certainly is, but there is no incentive to get off of it before it ends. I was on unemployment for a short period of time after losing my job awhile back, and the unemployment office didnt hassle me to look for a job once! (at least in new york) gone are the days of having to go to the unemployment office once a week to tell someone what you are doing to look for a job, and having to find interviews to go to.

I guess what I am getting at is that we are disincentivising getting off said programs. Instead of encouraging people to get off these programs when they are able and make a living on their own, which in alot of cases people do, we have alot of people who have become dependent on these programs, which is not what they were for.

When the incentive to not work and not be productive is greater than actually having a job, we have a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']this is literally the million(s) dollar question.[/QUOTE]

In general terms they love military spending just on general principle, it can do no wrong.

So that's a no go, plus they want to keep the trillion dollar bush era tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax things that are currently blowing holes in the side of the budget.

IMHO their bitching about the deficit and the budget is almost entirely political, most don't give a shit and wouldn't except they were told to be outraged.

Case in point, Knoell in particular and the tea crowd/conservatives never actually define welfare and like myke was saying about not adjusting for inflation without that the numbers are worthless.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So reform is too hard? is that what your getting at?

How about making funds available to people who actually need them not just saying "Hey some of our money is going to people who dont need it, but its ok we will just give the taxpayers a bigger bill next year"

The most common types of welfare fraud include failing to report additional income, failure to disclose information regarding household family members, or supplying false information about an inability to work. There have also been instances were people feigned illness or injury to manipulate the welfare system.

These may be difficult to find evidence of or to stop but I wont accept the "youll never find it all!" excuse.

Also this is partially unrelated, but I know of 3 people who have actually got fired from their jobs on purpose, just to get the sweet sweet benefits of unemployment, which is up to what 71 weeks? Now I am not saying unemployment isnt helping anyone, because it most certainly is, but there is no incentive to get off of it before it ends. I was on unemployment for a short period of time after losing my job awhile back, and the unemployment office didnt hassle me to look for a job once! (at least in new york) gone are the days of having to go to the unemployment office once a week to tell someone what you are doing to look for a job, and having to find interviews to go to.

I guess what I am getting at is that we are disincentivising getting off said programs. Instead of encouraging people to get off these programs when they are able and make a living on their own, which in alot of cases people do, we have alot of people who have become dependent on these programs, which is not what they were for.

When the incentive to not work and not be productive is greater than actually having a job, we have a problem.[/QUOTE]People should certainly be motivated to find work in the case of unemployment benefits, not saying they shouldn't. I said you wont catch them all because you won't, there will always be someone out there taking advantage of some way to get benefits without needing them. Take food stamps for example, based off your income. My uncle is self employed and cheats on his taxes, he simply doesn't turn in all his income so he and his family get food stamps. Now that doesn't just involve the food stamp system, but the IRS too, which makes it all that more complicated than someone just gaming the food stamp system.

I guess what i'm saying is that there is no such thing as a perfect program, the only way to stop the fraud completely would be to eliminate the programs completely. Lots of people cheat on their taxes every year, but i never seem to see anyone complaining that tax cheats aren't caught more than they are.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']People should certainly be motivated to find work in the case of unemployment benefits, not saying they shouldn't. I said you wont catch them all because you won't, there will always be someone out there taking advantage of some way to get benefits without needing them. Take food stamps for example, based off your income. My uncle is self employed and cheats on his taxes, he simply doesn't turn in all his income so he and his family get food stamps. Now that doesn't just involve the food stamp system, but the IRS too, which makes it all that more complicated than someone just gaming the food stamp system.

I guess what i'm saying is that there is no such thing as a perfect program, the only way to stop the fraud completely would be to eliminate the programs completely. Lots of people cheat on their taxes every year, but i never seem to see anyone complaining that tax cheats aren't caught more than they are.[/QUOTE]

The programs we have now are bloated and ineffective. Reform is badly needed, and I still won't accept the "there will always be fraud" arguement.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Lots of people cheat on their taxes every year, but i never seem to see anyone complaining that tax cheats aren't caught more than they are.[/QUOTE]

*raises hand* I'll complain right now. Anyone who cheats on their taxes deserves whatever the IRS can legally throw at them.

BTW, I like your new avatar.
 
I think the point about welfare is that cutting spending on it doesn't equal "reform." You need to crack down on fraud, which, if anything, would probably cost more money in the short term (though less in the long term if successful). And to further Jake's point - you will never eliminate fraud entirely, so there would have to be a defined goal that you're going for, not something vague like "only giving money to people who need it."
 
Sigh...

What measure are you using to get this:
[quote name='Knoell']
I guess what I am getting at is that we are disincentivising getting off said programs.

When the incentive to not work and not be productive is greater than actually having a job, we have a problem.[/QUOTE]

So that you can apply it to this:

[quote name='Knoell']
How about making funds available to people who actually need them [/QUOTE]

You continue to offer solutions based on an incomplete ideology. Define your terms and you might have a point. This approach will net your argument more credibility than your current approach, namely trying to force ideologies and thoughts onto hard to define people, groups, and terms, and then believing that you can fix your perceived problems with the brunt of an fiscally conservative beating stick. The only problem is that you seem to be inadequate is honestly answering peoples question. You still have not answered JJ's question on what reforms you want to see. You instead jumped the starting line and listed the your favorite outcomes. I am actually still personally waiting for your list of possible reforms.

Also your use of comparing two unlike things to beg the question is getting really annoying.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Sigh...

What measure are you using to get this:


So that you can apply it to this:



You continue to offer solutions based on an incomplete ideology. Define your terms and you might have a point. This approach will net your argument more credibility than your current approach, namely trying to force ideologies and thoughts onto hard to define people, groups, and terms, and then believing that you can fix your perceived problems with the brunt of an fiscally conservative beating stick. The only problem is that you seem to be inadequate is honestly answering peoples question. You still have not answered JJ's question on what reforms you want to see. You instead jumped the starting line and listed the your favorite outcomes. I am actually still personally waiting for your list of possible reforms.

Also your use of comparing two unlike things to beg the question is getting really annoying.[/QUOTE]

....sigh when I get specific you guys tell me that those specific things wont fix the whole problem, and when I talk about the whole picture you tell me I cant name specific items that might help welfare.

Here are a few well known items such as:

Break the law and be convicted and you are off government aid.
Drug testing for anyone who receives government aid.
No free ride, if they arent putting in an 8 hour day somewhere, they dont get a check.

Now here is when you all argue how "it wont be fair for that heroin addict", and "sometimes people break the law on accident!"
 
[quote name='Knoell']....sigh when I get specific you guys tell me that those specific things wont fix the whole problem, and when I talk about the whole picture you tell me I cant name specific items that might help welfare.
[/QUOTE]

So you dislike it when people make you flesh out an argument? Talk about intellectual laziness. I haven't heard a statement like this since last month when I visited my local welfare queen.

[quote name='Knoell']
Break the law and be convicted and you are off government aid.
Drug testing for anyone who receives government aid.
No free ride, if they arent putting in an 8 hour day somewhere, they dont get a check.[/QUOTE]

Agree with point 1 if it is a felony, however this should also extend to businesses. Strengthen OSHA a bit.

On point 2 you want to spend more testing the person than you pay him is benefits?

Point three, agreed, but where do the jobs come from. If you cut govt. you cut jobs. Once the local govt has filled all of its positions where will you send the masses to find work? China? Outsource our unhirable? I realize I am taking it to the extreme, but even if you argue it would be community service, it is still a job that the govt is funding. I still find it funny that you push for reduced govt spending but your third solution relies upon increased spending.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Point three, agreed, but where do the jobs come from. If you cut govt. you cut jobs. Once the local govt has filled all of its positions where will you send the masses to find work? China? Outsource our unhirable? I realize I am taking it to the extreme, but even if you argue it would be community service, it is still a job that the govt is funding. I still find it funny that you push for reduced govt spending but your third solution relies upon increased spending.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. These people could simply volunteer somewhere 40 hours a week. Most people on welfare for long periods of time have no skills, but that is a formality. If we stop feeding poor people, the problem of feeding them ends quickly. They either curl into a pauper's grave or curl their hand around whatever weapon can be found and get to work.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not at all. These people could simply volunteer somewhere 40 hours a week. Most people on welfare for long periods of time have no skills, but that is a formality. If we stop feeding poor people, the problem of feeding them ends quickly. They either curl into a pauper's grave or curl their hand around whatever weapon can be found and get to work.[/QUOTE]
Look all I am saying is that if I volunteer for the govt. I expect me some state health care and a state retirement plan, preferably one from calpers. My ditch digging skills are worth it.
 
Knoell, how would you get rid of 100% of the fraud in any given government program? Please explain how there would be absolutely no fraud at all.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So you dislike it when people make you flesh out an argument? Talk about intellectual laziness. I haven't heard a statement like this since last month when I visited my local welfare queen.



Agree with point 1 if it is a felony, however this should also extend to businesses. Strengthen OSHA a bit.

On point 2 you want to spend more testing the person than you pay him is benefits?

Point three, agreed, but where do the jobs come from. If you cut govt. you cut jobs. Once the local govt has filled all of its positions where will you send the masses to find work? China? Outsource our unhirable? I realize I am taking it to the extreme, but even if you argue it would be community service, it is still a job that the govt is funding. I still find it funny that you push for reduced govt spending but your third solution relies upon increased spending.[/QUOTE]

I dont mind fleshing out an arguement at all, but what I was saying is when I do go into lengths about a topic, you all completely discount it with hardly a debate, and when I keep the topic more broad you all complain I dont provide specific solutions.

But enough of that, I want to hear more about extending this felony thing to businesses? what do you mean by this?

Also the random drug testing would not cost more than the government is paying out to people that arent contributing anything back. Once again I seem like the evil person condemning a poor welfare recipient for living, but come on just like fraud, are we going to let the drug problem slide because we cant fix it completely?

Low paying Jobs are everywhere, people just don't want to work them because it isnt worth it to them.

I like how fatherofcaitlyn put it, as long as he wasnt being sarcastic :D
 
There's some real discussion going on here - I like it.

To throw in my own two cents on a few points.

First - I agree with drug testing welfare recipients. Drug testing actually doesn't cost *that* much. If most large employers can do it for potential new hires, then our government can do it. The reason I want to see this is two-fold. First, taxpayer money shouldn't be going toward illegal drugs and Second, if someone's on illegal drugs, it's going to decrease their ability to get a job and get off welfare.

That brings me to my second point - outside of certain situations (completely disabled individuals, children, short-term disability etc.), welfare shouldn't just be about helping people via free money/food/housing. Welfare should include things like job skills training (i.e.: you attend an 8-hour seminar/job fair and get your welfare check at the end of the day), advanced education (part-time classes at the local community college or vocational school) and volunteer time (Can't find a job? That's fine. Go down to your local soup kitchen and ladle soup for 8 hours).

Third - you're not going to eliminate 100% of fraud - that's a given and I don't think anyone is making the claim that they can.

Fourth - low paying jobs. How often have you heard about people who quit their jobs/don't work because they can get more free money from the government than they can make at their job/with a job they can get with their current skills? If you're an able-bodied individual, welfare should simply be a supplement toward your income (which would include temporary unemployment benefits). Go flip burgers at McDonald's or stock the Doctor Thunder at Walmart, then get a supplemental check from taxpayers.

Finally (for now) disagree with the idea of "break the law, lose your welfare". If someone's caught speeding, they shouldn't be thrown to the wolves. Now, this isn't a bad *idea*, but there would have to be a happy medium here.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Drug testing actually doesn't cost *that* much. If most large employers can do it for potential new hires, then our government can do it.[/quote]
They receive a tax break for doing it. Employers don't pay the tab. You do.
welfare shouldn't just be about helping people via free money/food/housing. Welfare should include things like job skills training (i.e.: you attend an 8-hour seminar/job fair and get your welfare check at the end of the day)
Click to expand...
Talk about a program that would be easily gamed and defrauded.
advanced education (part-time classes at the local community college or vocational school)
Click to expand...
Who's picking up the tab for an ever increasing tuition and book bill? The American taxpayer? That's more than a slippery slope towards socialism. And how could you possibly incentivize doing it yourself when Uncle Sam would be handing out free higher education? I sure as hell wouldn't have worked to put myself through school.
and volunteer time (Can't find a job? That's fine. Go down to your local soup kitchen and ladle soup for 8 hours).
Click to expand...
I got no problem there.
Fourth - low paying jobs. How often have you heard about people who quit their jobs/don't work because they can get more free money from the government than they can make at their job/with a job they can get with their current skills?
Click to expand...
I never see it outside of an anecdote like yours. Maybe I just don't hang around enough welfare recipients.
If you're an able-bodied individual, welfare should simply be a supplement toward your income (which would include temporary unemployment benefits). Go flip burgers at McDonald's or stock the Doctor Thunder at Walmart, then get a supplemental check from taxpayers.
Click to expand...
That's capital S Socialism, dude.
Finally (for now) disagree with the idea of "break the law, lose your welfare". If someone's caught speeding, they shouldn't be thrown to the wolves. Now, this isn't a bad *idea*, but there would have to be a happy medium here.
Click to expand...
I agree.

You sound farther to the left than I ever thought you would. Some of your ideas perfectly describe the most socialist platform ideas around. The really surreal thing is that if we implemented your ideas, welfare spending would go through the roof.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I dont mind fleshing out an arguement at all, but what I was saying is when I do go into lengths about a topic, you all completely discount it with hardly a debate, and when I keep the topic more broad you all complain I dont provide specific solutions.

But enough of that, I want to hear more about extending this felony thing to businesses? what do you mean by this?

Also the random drug testing would not cost more than the government is paying out to people that arent contributing anything back. Once again I seem like the evil person condemning a poor welfare recipient for living, but come on just like fraud, are we going to let the drug problem slide because we cant fix it completely?

Low paying Jobs are everywhere, people just don't want to work them because it isnt worth it to them.

I like how fatherofcaitlyn put it, as long as he wasnt being sarcastic :D[/QUOTE]

So you want to create a bigger bureaucracy around drug testing. Because as soon as the first person fails, your going to get a lawsuit. Then there going to have to be retesting, to rule out if it wasn't a fluke (because legal drugs also cause positive tests). Also in the eventual case when a company is found dry labing heads will roll and suits will follow. Also as speed racer stated, its highly subsidized in the first place. Court costs will rise and all you do is shift costs to the judicial branch.

Business thing? Maybe not felonies, but when there is proof a company is systematically violating govt. laws, cut off funding. Systematic OSHA violations, doing business with enemies of the United States, repeatedly violating laws of the country, stop all support to said companies. No more govt supported health care subsidies, deny land appropriations in the future to said companies, stop things like tip grants (actually these should be stopped outright), stop minority and diversity subsidization, impose fines to cover the natural subsidies such as govt. cleaned water that companies use, and getting rid of all unfunded mandates. There are plenty of subsidies our govt uses to help companies stay competitive and profitable, so why cant we take it away if they refuse to follow the laws of the country.
 
[quote name='Knoell']But enough of that, I want to hear more about extending this felony thing to businesses? what do you mean by this?[/QUOTE]

If a business commits a felony, it loses any tax breaks. An employer in Louisville called Charter Communications gets a tax credit for every person they hire. Once a year, they purge hundreds of workers just to rehire people for the tax credit. If Charter were to commit any felony, that tax credit would go bye bye. In the current system, Charter loses nothing.

[quote name='Knoell'] Also the random drug testing would not cost more than the government is paying out to people that arent contributing anything back. Once again I seem like the evil person condemning a poor welfare recipient for living, but come on just like fraud, are we going to let the drug problem slide because we cant fix it completely?[/QUOTE]

And what do we do with the drug user? Treatment or prison? Removing any aid they receive will very likely lead them to commit crimes. Both treatment and prison cost more than welfare. Furthermore, the War on Drugs is almost as fraudulent as the War on Terror.

[quote name='Knoell'] Low paying Jobs are everywhere, people just don't want to work them because it isnt worth it to them. [/QUOTE]

Somehow, I doubt that. Fake unemployment is about 10%. Real unemployment is about 20%. I have a hard time accepting 1 in 5 people just won't work. Then again, maybe they are engaged in nonviolent protest.

[quote name='Knoell'] I like how fatherofcaitlyn put it, as long as he wasnt being sarcastic :D[/QUOTE]

You feel having people starve to death or attack you to keep from starving is an improvement over the current system.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If a business commits a felony, it loses any tax breaks.[/QUOTE]

Here's a better idea - let's take away all tax breaks from all businesses and individuals.

[quote name='speedracer']You sound farther to the left than I ever thought you would. Some of your ideas perfectly describe the most socialist platform ideas around. The really surreal thing is that if we implemented your ideas, welfare spending would go through the roof.[/QUOTE]

I'll touch upon some of your responses when I have more time, but yes, I do acknowledge that some of my ideas would, in the short term, increase welfare spending. I do feel, however, that our current system is set up in a way that not only encourages individuals to stay on welfare, but it creates a repeating cycle where the children of welfare recipients end up as lifers on welfare. This needs to be acknowledged and fixed.

[quote name='JolietJake']Knoell isn't buying the "there will always be fraud" idea, so he must think there is a way to completely eliminate it.[/QUOTE]

I thought you had him on ignore anyway... :p
I don't want to speak for him, but I take his point of view as the "There will always be fraud" idea as a lame excuse not to bother trying to reform the welfare system, etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, for fuck's sake, lifers don't exist. The ultraconservative Clinton imposed lifetime term limits on welfare in 1996.[/QUOTE]

Resisting my urge to post the MykePhoto, in spite of the fact that you have once again failed to respond without cursing...

When I refer to "welfare", I should probably be using the word "entitlements" - including, but not limited to, Social Security, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Section 8 and other similar housing assistance programs, etc., etc. Hope that clears things up for you, sir.
 
No, you moving your target doesn't "clear things up." Say what you mean the first time around.

You've got to be a troll.

Also, this whole conversation is preposterous when there are more realistic sources for larger spending cuts than whatever Bob means this hour as "welfare." Yet so many of you fall suspect to the trite rhetoric of "deserving" and "undeserving" in the eyes of government funds, hemming and hawing over a miniscule percentage of poor people who receive a portion of a small amount of overall government spending instead of keeping your eyes on the price of cutting spending where it would matter more: defense.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, you moving your target doesn't "clear things up." Say what you mean the first time around.

You've got to be a troll.

Also, this whole conversation is preposterous when there are more realistic sources for larger spending cuts than whatever Bob means this hour as "welfare." Yet so many of you fall suspect to the trite rhetoric of "deserving" and "undeserving" in the eyes of government funds, hemming and hawing over a miniscule percentage of poor people who receive a portion of a small amount of overall government spending instead of keeping your eyes on the price of cutting spending where it would matter more: defense.[/QUOTE]

I didn't delve all that deeply but it appears as if knoell and whoever he considers an authority is including SS etc. as "welfare". The word welfare carries the connotation of brown baby machines sucking off the public teat for life instead of say a program albeit social in nature that mostly has people who paid into the system for decades withdrawing benefits.

Like I said before cutting defense spending is a no-no among cons and they want to keep trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts almost exclusively for the wealthy while fighting a war on two fronts.

Hence the reticence to show work or speak beyond anything but the vaguest nonsense.
 
Aw, shoot I slept for a few hours and missed all the fun, now I have to go to work. Ill be back to respond tomorrow but I would like to know if you guys dont think drug testing, and making people stay clean in order to be a better candidate for jobs, schooling, and overall health is a good idea, then what do you think should be done about the drug problem, assuming your going to admit there is a drug problem...

Oh and SpazX Im think im fine with the term limits on welfare now. From what I see 60 months is the federal limit, and state limits vary but dont go over 60 months. Also these term limits dont count food stamps and other programs like that. Maybe I would add time limits for the other programs? From what I hear food stamps is consistently abused by people who dont need them, but Im not sure how much the food stamp program costs.
 
^ I support the idea of spending tens of millions of dollars because I want to see the government spend less money.

herp derp.

Also, back on motherfuckin' topic:

Duke: Tea Party people are called racist because the vast majority wants to stop the massive non-European immigration that will turn America into a crumbling tower of Babel. Most Tea Partiers believe that we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture, just as every nation has that human right. The vast majority of Tea Party activists oppose affirmative action and diversity, which are nothing more than programs of racist discrimination against white people. The vast majority of Tea Party enthusiasts despise Hollywood and the mass media.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeNBsD8iRc

Is David Duke trolling the Right? Sure seems like it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's a better idea - let's take away all tax breaks from all businesses and individuals.



I'll touch upon some of your responses when I have more time, but yes, I do acknowledge that some of my ideas would, in the short term, increase welfare spending. I do feel, however, that our current system is set up in a way that not only encourages individuals to stay on welfare, but it creates a repeating cycle where the children of welfare recipients end up as lifers on welfare. This needs to be acknowledged and fixed.



I thought you had him on ignore anyway... :p
I don't want to speak for him, but I take his point of view as the "There will always be fraud" idea as a lame excuse not to bother trying to reform the welfare system, etc.[/QUOTE]
I never said that it was. It's not even an excuse, it's the truth.

And i either had to read the posts or not understand what i was arguing against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top