Pheloniousmunk
13 years ago
Hey BobbyScott, you throw around a lot of opinions as if they are fact. Let's see some substantiation by verifiable fact.

I know people on welfare, SSI disability, and even military medical retirement and see what a scam too much of it is. I now work with a guy who after 15 years in the Navy was retired with his time bridged, not discharged, because he has sleep apnea. I also dated a woman who I found out was getting over a grand a month in foodstamps in addition to child support, unemployment, and job training benefits, atleast she didn't go for the WIC, probably wasn't enough in it for her. I also see the apparently healthy but fat twenty somethings in the grocery stores on the 1st and 15th buying steaks and seafood in addition to boatloads of junkfood with their EBT cards, are you going to tell me this isn't what I'm really seeing, as a few other bleeding heart apologist liberals have tried to do? So I can't trust my own eyes, i must accept what the libs tell me as the truth?

People are having abuse of the systems meant to give a hand up, shoved in their faces. It may not happen this November because the RNC still doesn't understand what the people want and they continue to push elitist or moron candidates, but a revolution IS coming. If Obama is re-elected, it will only be that much more severe when it happens.
Pheloniousmunk
13 years ago

........However, he was the first African American President...........

SMGBobbyScott wrote:



That's the problem! He's the African American President, not the United States of America President. He's the most divisive president that I can remember in my 51 years on this earth.
8trackdisco
13 years ago

Eh, I wouldn't go THAT FAR! However, he was the first African American President and

:-k

SMGBobbyScott wrote:



You are wrong about that. We all learned in the media that Bill Clinton was the first black president.
SMGBobbyScott
13 years ago
Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggheads!
8trackdisco
13 years ago

OK, I tend to be a tad mean-spirited but I think its far better to give corporations a break (so long as the jobs they create remain stateside) than subsidize generation upon generation of dysfunctional, exponentially breeding sociopaths.

DadZilla3 wrote:



I've always subscribed to Trickle Down Economics. Not any more.

The top 2% is paying a lower rate than they did previously. So the rich have the extra money. Which they are reinvesting in the econmoy by hiring more people. THAT is why the unemployment rate is so low and everyone that wants a job, has one.

THANK YOU RICH PEOPLE AND TRICKLE DOWN!

Yeah.... we're getting trickled on, alright.
victor809
13 years ago



Yeah.... we're getting trickled on, alright.

8trackdisco wrote:



^ok... that made me giggle at work.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
teedubbya
13 years ago
enshrined in the black hills?
Stinkdyr
13 years ago
Half of all babies born in America today are on some form of welfare (food stamps, tsxpayer subsidized housing etc)



END WELFARE OF ALL TYPES.


don't breed em, if you can't feed em.


🍺
DrafterX
13 years ago
Feed them Brawndo.. the Thirst Mutilator... 😟
victor809
13 years ago

Half of all babies born in America today are on some form of welfare (food stamps, tsxpayer subsidized housing etc)

END WELFARE OF ALL TYPES.

don't breed em, if you can't feed em.

Stinkdyr wrote:



Definitely.
We should kill half of all babies born today (and tomorrow, etc). Do we just kill the 50% (or are we using 47%? I'm kinda confused on this... but heck, what's 3% among friends) from the lowest incomes? Or are we killing whatever percentage are from the higher incomes, but not paying taxes, as well as the remaining percentage from lower incomes?

tailgater
13 years ago

Definitely.
We should kill half of all babies born today (and tomorrow, etc). Do we just kill the 50% (or are we using 47%? I'm kinda confused on this... but heck, what's 3% among friends) from the lowest incomes? Or are we killing whatever percentage are from the higher incomes, but not paying taxes, as well as the remaining percentage from lower incomes?

victor809 wrote:



Once we identify the gay gene, we'll just kill those babies.
DrafterX
13 years ago

Once we identify the gay gene, we'll just kill those babies.

tailgater wrote:




[-x just the males....
Stinkdyr
13 years ago

[-x just the males....

DrafterX wrote:




good point.


🍺
DadZilla3
13 years ago
Just end all forms of Welfare support for everyone but the TRULY needy. Eliminate the comfortable and profitable option to spawn yet more dependents in exchange for even more freebies. Eliminate the option to spend an entire life not working and not contributing to anything but the local McDonalds franchises and future episodes of COPS.

And oh yeah, my favorite...no vote while you're on the dole. Let's see how many truly compassionate liberals there are left in government after they realize they can no longer pander to that particular bloc by handing out entitlements in exchange for votes.
pdxstogieman
13 years ago

Half of all babies born in America today are on some form of welfare (food stamps, tsxpayer subsidized housing etc)



END WELFARE OF ALL TYPES.


don't breed em, if you can't feed em.


🍺

Stinkdyr wrote:




Tell the Republicans in congress and at the state level to quit trying to make it harder to get contraceptives or an abortion and you won't have to tell their offspring to piss off instead of eating government cheese. And don't even go to the "don't screw if you don't want kids" argument.
DrafterX
13 years ago
when contraceptives are outlawed, only outlaws will have contraceptives... 😟
pdxstogieman
13 years ago
New York Times

It Takes One to Know One

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: September 19, 2012 498 Comments

As I watched a video of Mitt Romney scolding moochers suffering from a culture of dependency, I thought of American soldiers I’ve met in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don’t pay federal income tax while they’re in combat zones, and they rely on government benefits when they come back.

Even if they return unscathed, most will never pay lofty sums in federal income taxes. No, all they offer our nation is their lives, while receiving government benefits — such as a $100,000 “death gratuity” to their wives or husbands when killed.

Maybe I’m being unfair, for I’m sure that when Romney complained in that video about freeloaders, he didn’t mean soldiers. But the 47 percent (more accurately, 46 percent) of American families whom he scorned because they don’t pay federal income taxes includes many other modestly paid workers or retirees who have contributed far more meaningfully to America than some who can shell out $50,000 to attend a fund-raiser like the one where Romney spoke in May.

What about the underpaid kindergarten teacher in an inner-city school? What about young police officers and firefighters? What about social workers struggling to help abused children?

One lesson is the narcissism of many in today’s affluent class. They manage to feel victimized by the tax code — even as they sometimes enjoy a lower rate than their secretaries and ride corporate jets acquired with the help of tax loopholes.

While self-pitying Republicans focus on federal income taxes (mostly those paid by the rich), what’s more relevant is the overall tax bill — including state, local and federal taxes of all kinds. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the majority of American families pay more than one-quarter of incomes in total taxes — and that may be more than Romney pays.

Romney is a smart man and, his friends say, a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, so what possessed him to say these things? There’s an underlying truth there — we do have a problem with entitlements and with freeloaders — and he inflated it beyond recognition. Perhaps he has passed so much time in a Republican primary bubble, hearing moans about the parasitic 47 percent, that he didn’t appreciate how obtuse and arrogant such comments appear.

The furor also reflects the central political reality today: the Republican Party has moved far, far to the right so that, on some issues, it veers into extremist territory.

Jeb Bush noted earlier this year that even conservative icons like President Ronald Reagan wouldn’t fit easily into today’s Republican Party. President Richard Nixon, who founded the Environmental Protection Agency, would be a lefty. This year, Republican primary voters have been further purging the party of centrist remnants, like Senator Richard Lugar, a foreign policy heavyweight who deserves America’s thanks for helping make us safer from loose nukes.

When I was growing up in Oregon, it was Democrats who were typically the crazies. Gov. George Wallace (“segregation forever”) tapped into populist resentments in his presidential campaigns. Lyndon Larouche was a cult leader seeking the Democratic nomination.

Oregon’s senators then were Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood, both Republicans of a kind that barely exist today. Hatfield was a strong opponent of the Vietnam War, and Packwood supported abortion rights. Oregon’s governor at the time, Tom McCall, was a Republican and a leading environmentalist.

I called up Packwood and asked him if he and Hatfield would be Republicans if they were starting over. “We both wondered about that,” he said.

Packwood noted that the Republican Party once attracted union support, black support, urban and bicoastal support. “Historically, the Republicans have been geniuses at throwing away advantages,” he said.

The Republican shift shows up in polling. In the 1960s, more than two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans alike expressed trust in government. That has fallen to about one-third for Democrats — and to just 5 percent for Republicans.

For me, the saddest polls are those about facts. A Dartmouth poll this year found that Republicans believe, by a ratio of more than 3 to 1, that “Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003.”

The same poll found that Republicans believe, almost by a 3-to-1 ratio, that President Obama was born in another country. Democrats also suffer from self-deception (such as a reluctance to credit improvements under a Republican president), but today’s Republicans seem disproportionately untethered to reality.

Another illustration of radicalizing self-delusion comes when the son of a governor and corporate chief executive says that “everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way, and that’s by hard work.”

Romney has proved himself right: We manifestly do have a problem with people who see themselves as victims even as they benefit from loopholes in the tax code.

One is running for president.

rumraider
13 years ago
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

It's disputable whose quote I'm stealing there but, it certainly seems apt for our current situation. The class warfare will continue, too many extremists and not enough pragmatists. I still marvel at a republican candidate debate in the not too distant past when they were asked if they would accept a deal that offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased taxes. They all, every one of them, said "no". Unbelievable "my way or the highway" thinking.
DrafterX
13 years ago

Study: Number of 'able-bodied' adults on food stamps doubled after stimulus change
Published September 20, 2012

A new government study found that the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps nearly doubled after Washington used the stimulus law to lift a key work requirement.

The report from the Congressional Research Service was sent last week to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor. It comes as House Republicans prepare Thursday to try and block a separate work requirement waiver being sought by the Obama administration for welfare recipients.

The CRS study dealt with the work requirement for a particular class of food-stamp recipients -- "able-bodied adults" between 18 and 49 years old who have no dependents. Typically the food stamp program requires that group to work or participate in a training program at least 20 hours a week to continue receiving benefits after three months. The stimulus law, though, allowed states to suspend the rule from April 2009 to October 2010 -- and most states did.

In that time, the number in that group surged.

The CRS study showed that in fiscal 2010, the last year for which data was available, the number of food-stamp recipients in that group was at nearly 3.9 million. That's up from 1.9 million in 2008.

Though food-stamp enrollment was already rising at the time in part due to the recession, the study noted the number in this group "increased more rapidly than the overall caseload."

Their percentage of that caseload grew from 6.9 percent in 2008 to 9.7 percent in 2010.

The total number of people on food stamps -- formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- has grown to 47 million this year, with the "able-bodied" group making up just a fraction of that.

The findings of the CRS, report, though, feed Republican concerns that lifting work requirements can encourage benefit recipients to simply stay in the programs.

The separate proposed change in the work requirement for welfare was announced in July by the Department of Health and Human Services. The department said the states may seek a waiver from the work component in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said.

But Republicans accused the administration of going too far, claiming the move would "gut" the work requirement from the landmark Clinton-era welfare reform package.

The latest CRS report noted that while the stimulus law lifted the food stamp work requirement until late 2010, the law allowing extended unemployment benefits likewise allowed most states to waive those work requirements in 2011 and 2012. Statistics were not available, though, for that population during those two years


Film at 11.... 😟
Users browsing this topic