Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[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]

It's odd - I bet if you'd spend more than a few seconds skimming my posts and then looking for the next insult of curse words to throw out, you probably would have noticed that I've said several times I believe that defense/military spending needs to be cut - deeply. Instead, with you, it's
myke.jpg
 
The fact that you'd rather have a tete-a-tete over a miniscule portion of government spending that should be cut shows that you're simply being dishonest there. You're saying it to avoid being called out on it, but as I said the other day, anyone who doesn't embrace defense cuts as the necessary, primary cornerstone of any realistic cut in consumer spending is not someone I take seriously.

Deficit peacocks, not deficit hawks.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Yesterday. Bring them home. Bring about 90% of the troops home (that number just being one I threw out there - I support the idea of sending troops to help in, say, Haiti. Bring home troops in Saudi Arabia).

But that doesn't change the fact that the fundamentals of our welfare entitlement system need to be reformed. Oddly enough, can you find anywhere I've ever said that we spend too much on welfare?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']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.[/QUOTE]

"One of these things is not like the other."
"One of these things does not belong."

Social Security is far from welfare. Look at what comes out of your paycheck.

[quote name='mykevermin']The fact that you'd rather have a tete-a-tete over a miniscule portion of government spending that should be cut shows that you're simply being dishonest there. You're saying it to avoid being called out on it, but as I said the other day, anyone who doesn't embrace defense cuts as the necessary, primary cornerstone of any realistic cut in consumer spending is not someone I take seriously.

Deficit peacocks, not deficit hawks.[/QUOTE]

Hold the phone. Necessary, yes. Primary? No. Entitlement reform is the primary cornerstone in any realistic cut in government spending. Reining in defense spending is vitally important, but not the most important part.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"One of these things is not like the other."
"One of these things does not belong."

Social Security is far from welfare. Look at what comes out of your paycheck.[/QUOTE]

Eh.... if it were a 1:1 ratio (or a 1:1+Interest ratio), then I'd completely agree with you. But it's set up so that some people pay in more than they get and some people get more out than they pay in.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"One of these things is not like the other."
"One of these things does not belong."

Social Security is far from welfare. Look at what comes out of your paycheck.

[/QUOTE]

Im not sure if we are disagreeing here, because Im not quite sure what you are saying but Social Security covers a number of other things besides retirement, so in part I would have to include in the government handouts area. Especially since the government is robbing our (or mine at least depending on how old you are) future retirement fund for pet projects.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The fact that you'd rather have a tete-a-tete over a miniscule portion of government spending that should be cut shows that you're simply being dishonest there. You're saying it to avoid being called out on it, but as I said the other day, anyone who doesn't embrace defense cuts as the necessary, primary cornerstone of any realistic cut in consumer spending is not someone I take seriously.

Deficit peacocks, not deficit hawks.[/QUOTE]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget Miniscule huh? Funny I dont think that the entitlement programs are miniscule.

I also find this one funny, $260 billion - Interest on National Debt wheres the outrage about this? You all get all pissy about $515 billion in defense spending, but you dont get pissy about throwing $260 billion in the garbage...


[quote name='mykevermin']^ 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:
[/QUOTE]

Spending tens of millions of dollars to actually solve the problem, and make these programs not seem so enticing to stay on? If thats your proof of the estimate of the costs of establishing these new rules lol, then yes :applause:

I also find it funny that you would rather get back on board talking about supposed racism rather than talking about real issues the tea party supports.

Of course why even bother trying to root out racism in America, we will never get rid of it all! :roll:
 
How do you reconcile random drug testing as a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Is there a presumption of guilt when taking welfare? Are poor people a second class of citizen?

And, once again, somebody is a drug addict and random drug testing detects him or her. We take away the safety net. Then what? Do we treat the drug addict, incarcerate the drug addict or leave the drug addict to his or her own devices for survival?
 
Knoell, neither you nor anybody else has been able to demonstrate the existence of "lifers" on welfare programs. Not even a quick link to wikipedia, replete with a lack of effort to discover what "other mandatory spending" means in the welfare category, can save you now.

Interest payments certainly bothers me - but perhaps you could explain how we're going to stop paying that. Can the Fed apply for a deferment to China? Jesus, kid.

So put up or shut up: show that lifers exist on a time-limited entitlement program, or get off your high horse. Empirical evidence, please - no anecdotes. That one guy who worked with your one friend at that one job eleven years ago is not evidence of widespread abuse to waste effort on.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How do you reconcile random drug testing as a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Is there a presumption of guilt when taking welfare? Are poor people a second class of citizen?

And, once again, somebody is a drug addict and random drug testing detects him or her. We take away the safety net. Then what? Do we treat the drug addict, incarcerate the drug addict or leave the drug addict to his or her own devices for survival?[/QUOTE]

You are getting government assistence to survive. I dont believe it is violating anyones rights to make sure that government assistance does not go towards illegal activities.

Regardless of what some people think, drugs are a detriment to somebodys life, creating another way in which not doing drugs would make life better for you would be a good thing wouldnt it?

I know you think they are already lost causes, but how would you help these people? Throwing them a welfare check, and letting them be is just throwing them to the wolves with just a little more money in their pocket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really see a particular rights violation with the drug testing, but what exactly do you do when they test positive?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How do you reconcile random drug testing as a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Is there a presumption of guilt when taking welfare? Are poor people a second class of citizen?

And, once again, somebody is a drug addict and random drug testing detects him or her. We take away the safety net. Then what? Do we treat the drug addict, incarcerate the drug addict or leave the drug addict to his or her own devices for survival?[/QUOTE]

I don't see it as a violation of the fourth amendment at the point you're asking for the government to help you get by in life. If you don't want to take the drug test, you always have the option of not seeking handouts.

Personally, I envision a "two strikes" rule with required drug treatment and further drug testing after the first strike. But, again, it would depend on the individual situation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Knoell, neither you nor anybody else has been able to demonstrate the existence of "lifers" on welfare programs. Not even a quick link to wikipedia, replete with a lack of effort to discover what "other mandatory spending" means in the welfare category, can save you now.

Interest payments certainly bothers me - but perhaps you could explain how we're going to stop paying that. Can the Fed apply for a deferment to China? Jesus, kid.

So put up or shut up: show that lifers exist on a time-limited entitlement program, or get off your high horse. Empirical evidence, please - no anecdotes. That one guy who worked with your one friend at that one job eleven years ago is not evidence of widespread abuse to waste effort on.[/QUOTE]
Who is talking about lifers?

And I certainly do not think the solution to the interest payments is to encourage china to buy more of our debt.....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.42a44b0f5d9cf5c9762e80574e79a3d5.831&show_article=1
Shouldnt we be cutting spending then?

"We have to incur more debt. It would not be in China's interest if we were unable to get our economy moving again." That is going to be a favorite clinton quote for awhile.
 
Great thoughts, Knoell and UncleBob.

We have a drug addict on welfare. He has tested positive and admitted to being a drug addict. Now what?

Treatment? Incarceration? Let him loose on the country?
 
Frankly, Knoell, you haven't really specified anything about your target of concern except for your gut feeling that welfare is abused (whatever your current definition of welfare is, since your idea of what it includes and does not shifts like it were a doppelganger).

Cindersphere challenged you to specify what you're talking about yesterday - you punted on that question, and still have the gall to come back here and assert that you deserve to be here debating issues and talking with grown ups.
 
Fine, Myke - Take total control of this thread. Tell us, do you feel our Entitlement system is perfect? If not, what steps do you propose to take to reform it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Frankly, Knoell, you haven't really specified anything about your target of concern except for your gut feeling that welfare is abused (whatever your current definition of welfare is, since your idea of what it includes and does not shifts like it were a doppelganger).

Cindersphere challenged you to specify what you're talking about yesterday - you punted on that question, and still have the gall to come back here and assert that you deserve to be here debating issues and talking with grown ups.[/QUOTE]

man, I have not seen you make a comment besides attacking what Unclebob, or I say at every turn. Try contributing something to the conversation instead trying to bash us at every turn.

It is very easy to not throw any opinion out there, while hanging back to criticize everyone elses. It is you who is not having the adult conversation, and it is also you who does not understand that these issues are bigger than your quarrals with me because I am conservative.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Great thoughts, Knoell and UncleBob.

We have a drug addict on welfare. He has tested positive and admitted to being a drug addict. Now what?

Treatment? Incarceration? Let him loose on the country?[/QUOTE]

You have a false question here, because any answer I give will be taken the wrong way.
If I say treatment, you will say it costs to much,
if I say let them go without assistence, you will say they will turn rabid,
If I say incarcerate them, you will say that is inhumane.

My question to you is, if not drug testing then what? Isnt doing nothing keeping them down more but again with a little more money in their pocket? This is also assuming that you believe there is a drug problem.
 
You can both throw your hands up in the air and give up. Given what you've posted thus far, I'm fine with that - neither of you change your reliance on the myopic world around you, your gut instinct, and ideology to support your worldview.

1) Eliminate capitalism from our military. No more contractors profiting at our expense - not KBR shipping food loaves or lobsters to our bases abroad, nor lockheed martin making our bombs. Destroy the military industrial complex; removing a vested capitalist interest in a perpetual state of war will balance the budget by itself.

2) Eliminate capitalism from our prisons. See above - even down to KBR's food loaves; good enough for our soldiers, good enough for our inmates. A financial interest in keeping citizens captive is antithetical to freedom and antithetical to a fiscally responsible government

3) Foldover financial regulatory agencies into a new branch of the criminal justice system; incarcerate offending corporations (e.g., Massey Energy) and execute (e.g., Goldman Sachs) others based on the degree of harm they cause. We, as individual criminals, face a criminal justice system; it's flagrant class war that the ultra wealthy are merely fighting against "regulatory oversight" when they need a full scale CJ system. That should keep them in line and stabilize the economy.

4) Soak the rich. Get tax brackets back in line with what they looked like when we had a balanced budget:
brackets.jpg


There. How's that? More than either of you deserve given what you've contributed thus far. Go back to whining about that one guy you knew who got fired from Charlie's Chicken Hut so he could soak the government of $300 a month for a year to get high and watch Merrie Melodies.

fucking babies.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You have a false question here, because any answer I give will be taken the wrong way.
If I say treatment, you will say it costs to much,
if I say let them go without assistence, you will say they will turn rabid,
If I say incarcerate them, you will say that is inhumane.

My question to you is, if not drug testing then what? Isnt doing nothing keeping them down more but again with a little more money in their pocket? This is also assuming that you believe there is a drug problem.[/QUOTE]

Treatment would be cheaper than prison or letting the drug addict commit acts of violence or spread STDs. Besides, letting the drug addict go rabid will lead to prison anyways.

Rather than drug testing, how about a conversation? Every month, sit down with a case worker for ten minutes or so and develop a plan with the welfare recipient towards getting off of welfare.
 
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule

Who's with me?
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule

Who's with me?[/QUOTE]

Are you rich?

Most of the people around here who feel that way make about nine dollars an hour.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule
poor people suck, rich people rule

Who's with me?[/QUOTE]

Well if that weren't true, most people wouldn't be trying to be rich.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you rich?

Most of the people around here who feel that way make about nine dollars an hour.[/QUOTE]

Hell yeah I'm Rich.

I just built a 5,000 square foot home in a brand new subdivision that used to be a municipal landfill.

I got my buddy, the loan officer who has another buddy who does appraisals to grossly overestimate the market value of my home so I could free up some cash to furnish the whole house and get a lexus! He said my mortgage loan has an "ARM", not sure what that means.

I have a discover card, visa, master card and a nordstrom. If I agree to keep a balance on them I get "rewards".

I don't even have to work. Some baller on the internet taught me how to trade options online. I can get rich regardless of market conditions. Whoo!

I HATE POOR PEOPLE, THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT! ;)
 
can i come live in your garage? i even promise to wait until after this current bout of intestinal oozing i'm dealing with.
 
[quote name='Strell']can i come live in your garage? i even promise to wait until after this current bout of intestinal oozing i'm dealing with.[/QUOTE]

garage? Are you kidding me?

Strell doesn't stay in the garage, he stays in one of my 4 spare bedrooms. I will make sure guadalupe puts the nice mario sheets on the bed.
 
you tell her to cut the crust off my goddamn grilled cheese too. corto crustos en el queso frito. she'll know what it means
 
[quote name='mykevermin']fucking babies.[/QUOTE]

That mostly all sounds really nice. I mean, it doesn't answer either question I posed to you in any way, shape or form. I really liked the idea of returning tax rates to the levels they were when we had a balanced budget. I'd like to one-up that by suggesting we return the tax rates to the levels they were at when our nation had a $0 National Debt. Anywhoo, yeah, you made some good points, failed to address either question I posed, then ended on you usual
myke.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can both throw your hands up in the air and give up. Given what you've posted thus far, I'm fine with that - neither of you change your reliance on the myopic world around you, your gut instinct, and ideology to support your worldview.

1) Eliminate capitalism from our military. No more contractors profiting at our expense - not KBR shipping food loaves or lobsters to our bases abroad, nor lockheed martin making our bombs. Destroy the military industrial complex; removing a vested capitalist interest in a perpetual state of war will balance the budget by itself.

2) Eliminate capitalism from our prisons. See above - even down to KBR's food loaves; good enough for our soldiers, good enough for our inmates. A financial interest in keeping citizens captive is antithetical to freedom and antithetical to a fiscally responsible government

3) Foldover financial regulatory agencies into a new branch of the criminal justice system; incarcerate offending corporations (e.g., Massey Energy) and execute (e.g., Goldman Sachs) others based on the degree of harm they cause. We, as individual criminals, face a criminal justice system; it's flagrant class war that the ultra wealthy are merely fighting against "regulatory oversight" when they need a full scale CJ system. That should keep them in line and stabilize the economy.

4) Soak the rich. Get tax brackets back in line with what they looked like when we had a balanced budget:
brackets.jpg


There. How's that? More than either of you deserve given what you've contributed thus far. Go back to whining about that one guy you knew who got fired from Charlie's Chicken Hut so he could soak the government of $300 a month for a year to get high and watch Merrie Melodies.

fucking babies.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Wow you actually brought up some good points, I agree with the prison systems being ridiculous.

Although I think you give to much credit to the private contracters for the military, We would have to spend a whole bunch more to make these things by ourselves, but at the same time you want to cut the dod budget and if you try to say we wont need them if private contracters dont exist, then you are naive. The difference between this is that welfare reform should put more people to work, or at the very least get them on there feet. Which would decrease the cost over time. Your eliminating the private contracters would never decrease the cost of our military, it would increase it, and conflict in the world will never end.

too bad you had you had to go back to the tax bracket thing, you almost had a complete solid debate, well according to your analysis we should raise the taxes on the lowest class as well, because in the past they were at 20%!!!

not to mention, what were the taxes brackets between 90% and 20% in the 1950s and 1960s? if there were none, I would be pretty unhappy because my pay would go from about $21,000 net to about $6,000 net....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/21/211620/homeless-mother-15-says-she-needs-help-justice/

Of course, I'm only posting this because I'm racist.[/QUOTE]

These two quotes go hand in hand as the real issue. These people think the government owes them something. But as you say Unclebob what do I know, Im just a racist jerk.

"What do I do?" she said earlier in the day. "I have no answers. My family has been railroaded. Someone needs to pay.
"Nobody's helping me."

"The 12 kids are the youngest of 15 altogether, she said. Three have "aged out," meaning they have turned 18 and are on their own, no longer a part of the child welfare system.
"I can have as many as I want to," she said. All her kids, she added, "are gifts from God."
The 37-year-old mother doesn't work. "This is my work," she said gesturing toward the bunch. "I do this all by myself. I don't know what I'm going to do. This is a revolving door going nowhere."
"
 
[quote name='Knoell']Although I think you give to much credit to the private contracters for the military, We would have to spend a whole bunch more to make these things by ourselves, but at the same time you want to cut the dod budget and if you try to say we wont need them if private contracters dont exist, then you are naive. The difference between this is that welfare reform should put more people to work, or at the very least get them on there feet. Which would decrease the cost over time. Your eliminating the private contracters would never decrease the cost of our military, it would increase it, and conflict in the world will never end.
[/QUOTE]

If we ended the perpetual state of war since 1941, we wouldn't need to make as many weapons. Even if public industry costs twice as much to make weapons, there would still be a net savings when you're only making 1/4th as many weapons.

Of course, private mercenaries cost more than public soldiers.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

http://tangledwing.wordpress.com/20...million-in-secretive-global-security-program/

"But with average pay of $500 to $600 a day, he said, the money was also a big draw for him and his buddies. He said he planned to work for Blackwater for three years to save up cash for retirement — and a sailboat."

$500 pay/work day X 250 work days/year = $125,000 pay

$125,000 pay / 12 months = $10,416 pay / month.

Each mercenary costs about the same as between an O-5 with 40 years of experience to an O-8 with over 6 years of experience.

The average mercenary is an enlisted man. So, private industry is costing more than public industry.

Whether or not private contractors are involved, we've been in a conflict for almost the last 70 years. I don't understand where you think private industry is making things better and the world safer.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your eliminating the private contracters would never decrease the cost of our military, it would increase it, and conflict in the world will never end.[/QUOTE]

You're right, there will always be some crap going down in some parts of the world. Our military should pretty much focus on one part though. If Israel and Iran want to nuke each other off the map, let 'em.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If we ended the perpetual state of war since 1941, we wouldn't need to make as many weapons. Even if public industry costs twice as much to make weapons, there would still be a net savings when you're only making 1/4th as many weapons.

Of course, private mercenaries cost more than public soldiers.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

http://tangledwing.wordpress.com/20...million-in-secretive-global-security-program/

"But with average pay of $500 to $600 a day, he said, the money was also a big draw for him and his buddies. He said he planned to work for Blackwater for three years to save up cash for retirement — and a sailboat."

$500 pay/work day X 250 work days/year = $125,000 pay

$125,000 pay / 12 months = $10,416 pay / month.

Each mercenary costs about the same as between an O-5 with 40 years of experience to an O-8 with over 6 years of experience.

The average mercenary is an enlisted man. So, private industry is costing more than public industry.

Whether or not private contractors are involved, we've been in a conflict for almost the last 70 years. I don't understand where you think private industry is making things better and the world safer.[/QUOTE]

I didnt say the private industry is making things better or the world safer by themselves. I said that you guys thinking they are the problem with the world is naive. If we get rid of them the government is still going to need what they offered, and will have to produce it themselves. If the private industry stopped doing anything for the military today, would the government have to increase funding to the DOD?

as mykevermin pointed out, we arent just talking about soldiers.
 
Privatization is bollocks. Sometimes it works, but for almost every time you find a good case for it, if you look hard enough you still find abuse, fraud, and mismanagement. Cities and States are plagued with this stuff all of the time, when private construction jobs go over budget, are done with cut corners, and fail to meet specified criteria. Further more privatization is usually preceded by a large govt firing, in essence just shifting workers off of govt jobs.

Secondly the main problem with the woman isn't she expects people to help her, its the religion. Anybody who believes children are gods little gifts should be sterilized.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I didnt say the private industry is making things better or the world safer by themselves. I said that you guys thinking they are the problem with the world is naive. If we get rid of them the government is still going to need what they offered, and will have to produce it themselves. If the private industry stopped doing anything for the military today, would the government have to increase funding to the DOD?

as mykevermin pointed out, we arent just talking about soldiers.[/QUOTE]
You're back tracking now.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I didnt say the private industry is making things better or the world safer by themselves. I said that you guys thinking they are the problem with the world is naive. If we get rid of them the government is still going to need what they offered, and will have to produce it themselves. If the private industry stopped doing anything for the military today, would the government have to increase funding to the DOD?

as mykevermin pointed out, we arent just talking about soldiers.[/QUOTE]

If we stop perpetual war, we won't need as much as they can produce.

What weapon systems were generated just by public industry and how much did they cost compared to private industry?

Limit your search to the beginning of World War II.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']You're back tracking now.[/QUOTE]

How exactly? and for all your guys insisting on solutions, I would like you all to give me a solution as to how we are going to end the "perpetual state of war"? besides establishing an isolationist policy.

Im beginning to see the US is raising a generation of people who feel too safe. You are all stuck in your ideals that the world would be a much safer place if the US didnt stick their heads in everything. Yet if we withdrew what would happen? do you even know? or does it sound good to take up this isolationist policy? We are a victim of our own success, and we get too comfortable, now the things we fought for 70 years ago, we take for granted today and then some. Another world war is not impossible, get that through your heads at least.
We are becoming the equivalent of the Romans, fat and comfortable until everything comes crashing down.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']You're back tracking now.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone remember the healthcare "debate" I had with knoell?

He is a one trick pony and shameless in how he tries to move goalposts.
 
whoa look out there. how will we maintain our endless arrogant superiority complex if we are isolationist? you guys won't be able to win arguments by referring to all the good will we do out in the world, because it so easily balances out how much we fuck it up.

think about taking the wind out of those sails!
 
Let me remind you all that isolationist policy means that we wont help haiti either....Still waiting on that legitimate solution to war...
 
[quote name='Knoell']Let me remind you all that isolationist policy means that we wont help haiti either....Still waiting on that legitimate solution to war...[/QUOTE]

No - an isolationist policy means our government won't help Haiti.

We'll still be able to donate via private organizations and relief efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top