Mr. President

[-EnVus-]

You agreed today to give $1.8 Billion in aid to Egypt and Tunisa for the next few years. You already agreed to continue the support to Pakistan which just reach $68 Billion in recent 12 years. Yet we have 4-5 known States here that are broke who can't help the needed,closing health departments and food drives.
They can't even fix roads or pay city workers to do their jobs and begging for assistance to only be denied and told the government is broke "Sorry"...

Well all I can say is when you turn your back on your own people for other countries and basically say "fuck you" to all of us Americans. Just cause you want them Arabs to stay quiet about Oil and weapon sales. What you see on tv all the protesting in the middle east and now in Spain,Greece over Reform and government miss handling of Money. Those won't compare to when the hundreds of thousands of Angry American citizens are at the white house door looking for you....
Don't think we would never rise up and revolt against you its what our country was founded on just ask England

[Xrated O.G.]

I see it happening everyday. I couldnt agree more with your comments.

[Total_Blender]

Did you just threaten the President? Please. elaborate.

[bu villain]

While I agree that the homefront is in great need right now I completely disagree that he is turning his back on the American people or in any way saying fuck you to us by giving money to other countries.

You imply that he is giving money to other countries for nefarious reasons. I believe that he is spending that money because he thinks it is America's best interest. A great many people in the Arab region do not like us and yet we still need to work with them whether it be for oil or for fighting terrorism. You think Egypt is going to let us keep military resources in their country for nothing? Money can be a necessary lubricant for those negotiations which serve America's interests abroad.

I can tell you are not a fiscal conservative republican because most of them are completely against "bail outs". They believe if an entitity is in fiscal trouble, it's their own fault and they should suffer the consequences. I'm waiting for the calls of "communist", "spreading the wealth", and "goverment doesn't create jobs" to come.

I understand you are upset but you probably won't get much sympathy on these boards.

[CSquared]

While I agree that the homefront is in great need right now I completely disagree that he is turning his back on the American people or in any way saying fuck you to us by giving money to other countries.

You imply that he is giving money to other countries for nefarious reasons. I believe that he is spending that money because he thinks it is America's best interest. A great many people in the Arab region do not like us and yet we still need to work with them whether it be for oil or for fighting terrorism. You think Egypt is going to let us keep military resources in their country for nothing? Money can be a necessary lubricant for those negotiations which serve America's interests abroad.

I can tell you are not a fiscal conservative republican because most of them are completely against "bail outs". They believe if an entitity is in fiscal trouble, it's their own fault and they should suffer the consequences. I'm waiting for the calls of "communist", "spreading the wealth", and "goverment doesn't create jobs" to come.

I understand you are upset but you probably won't get much sympathy on these boards.

Yeah well your face looks like my ballsack if I glued googly eyes to it and drew a mouth with a sharpie.

[-EnVus-]

While I agree that the homefront is in great need right now I completely disagree that he is turning his back on the American people or in any way saying fuck you to us by giving money to other countries.

You imply that he is giving money to other countries for nefarious reasons. I believe that he is spending that money because he thinks it is America's best interest. A great many people in the Arab region do not like us and yet we still need to work with them whether it be for oil or for fighting terrorism. You think Egypt is going to let us keep military resources in their country for nothing? Money can be a necessary lubricant for those negotiations which serve America's interests abroad.

I can tell you are not a fiscal conservative republican because most of them are completely against "bail outs". They believe if an entitity is in fiscal trouble, it's their own fault and they should suffer the consequences. I'm waiting for the calls of "communist", "spreading the wealth", and "goverment doesn't create jobs" to come.

I understand you are upset but you probably won't get much sympathy on these boards.

Yeah we bailed out Greece and now they are asking for $60billion more to keep them from going under lol WTF
It's sad the senate has to try to pass a vote to stop them from giving any more money to the EU.
Spain is next on the list of crimping economy and want money.
I guess if we want money we should move to Europe or the middle east.
Oh and if we are getting funds for our use then take a look at Detroit it's looking like a scene from an apocoylpse.
Many cities are turning to ghost towns and rundown cause the government is with holding funds.
If we have to pay to have our troops sit over seas to miss Thier families and get killed well that's just smart spending...

[bu villain]

Yeah we bailed out Greece and now they are asking for $60billion more to keep them from going under lol WTF
It's sad the senate has to try to pass a vote to stop them from giving any more money to the EU.
Spain is next on the list of crimping economy and want money.

I thought it was the IMF and EU who are bailing out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc. not the US. They aren't doing it out of the good of their hearts either. They are doing it to avoid a domino effect.

I guess if we want money we should move to Europe or the middle east.

Who is we? Wanting money is not a good enough reason for giving money to someone. If anyone wants money, they have to trade something for it. The middle east countries trade oil, use of thier land, and intel. The Europen situation is different in that they are basically holding the rest of the Euro zone hostage. Either way, the money going to these places is not a "charity". How would the rest of the country be better off for "bailing out" Detroit?

Oh and if we are getting funds for our use then take a look at Detroit it's looking like a scene from an apocoylpse.
Many cities are turning to ghost towns and rundown cause the government is with holding funds.

Is your entire argument that Detroit is a shitty city so therefore we should give them money? What makes Detroit so special, or do you think we can and should bail out every city and state that has fiscal problems?

If we have to pay to have our troops sit over seas to miss Thier families and get killed well that's just smart spending...

I actually agree with you we should not be spending so much of our resources over there. I was against Iraq from the beginning. I'm not defending that part, I'm just saying some people truly believe that it is necessary.

[bu villain]

Yeah well your face looks like my ballsack if I glued googly eyes to it and drew a mouth with a sharpie.

Your terse, vivid imagery and sensitivity to the common man transform a simple simile into an ageless masterwork. Bravo! You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

[BanginJimmy]

I thought it was the IMF and EU who are bailing out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc. not the US.

US contributes about 18% of the IMF's total funds.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

Find the US and look at SDR's. That is the number of dollars the US contributed.

They aren't doing it out of the good of their hearts either. They are doing it to avoid a domino effect.

Agreed. It hurts the US in the long run if the Euro collapses.

Who is we? Wanting money is not a good enough reason for giving money to someone. If anyone wants money, they have to trade something for it.

I guess you only mean this in foreign relations discussions? In the US, people are handed money for nothing more than being stupid and lazy every 1st and 15th.

The middle east countries trade oil, use of thier land, and intel.

Much of that money pays for access and influence. The oil trade and foreign aid are 2 very different things.

Is your entire argument that Detroit is a shitty city so therefore we should give them money? What makes Detroit so special, or do you think we can and should bail out every city and state that has fiscal problems?

We agree here. If a city or state is poorly run then they should be allowed to default. Maybe then they will wake up to reality and get their fiscal house in order. The only grey area in this are unfunded federal liabilities. If the fed govt or regulators pass a financial liability onto a state govt, the feds should be the ones to pay for it.

I actually agree with you we should not be spending so much of our resources over there. I was against Iraq from the beginning. I'm not defending that part, I'm just saying some people truly believe that it is necessary.

As has been pointed out on MANY occasions by me and others, Iraq and Asscrackistan arent even the start of the problem. When speaking of the fiscal issues in this country discretionary spending, including defense, could be cut to $0 for the next year and Obama's last 2 budgets would not be in the black.

[CSquared]

Your terse, vivid imagery and sensitivity to the common man transform a simple simile into an ageless masterwork. Bravo! You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

A wasted attempt to defer from unproductive political discourse. Anyway... does anyone want to see a picture of said imagery?

[bu villain]

US contributes about 18% of the IMF's total funds.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

Find the US and look at SDR's. That is the number of dollars the US contributed.

But partially funding a group that gives money to a country is not the same as giving the money to that country directly. The OP stated he was upset we bailed out some European countries as opposed to partially funding the group who bailed them out. If his position is that we should leave the IMF, that was not clear.

I guess you only mean this in foreign relations discussions? In the US, people are handed money for nothing more than being stupid and lazy every 1st and 15th.

No I don't only mean in foreign relations. In the US, some people are handed out money and many of them may be lazy and/or stupid but that's not WHY they are given money. They are not required to fail an IQ test, or prevented from working hard in order to receive that money. There are a multitude of reasons for welfare programs but supporting laziness and stupidity are not among them. Those are just side effects.

Much of that money pays for access and influence. The oil trade and foreign aid are 2 very different things.

But they are both valuable and thus worth paying a certain price for are they not? The OP's implication was that no value is received for the money we spend there.

[bu villain]

A wasted attempt to defer from unproductive political discourse. Anyway... does anyone want to see a picture of said imagery?

Well despite the allure and productiveness of your offer, I prefer to spend my time on politcal discourse as opposed to looking at pictures of dressed up nutsacks. However, I can only speak for myself.

[BanginJimmy]

But partially funding a group that gives money to a country is not the same as giving the money to that country directly.

The United States is the only country that can singly veto any proposal in front of the IMF. It takes 85% of votes for them to act and the US controls about 18%. That said, we are in agreement concerning Greece. It was in our best interests to see them propped up. Just like it is in Germany's interest to prop them up again.

No I don't only mean in foreign relations. In the US, some people are handed out money and many of them may be lazy and/or stupid but that's not WHY they are given money. They are not required to fail an IQ test, or prevented from working hard in order to receive that money. There are a multitude of reasons for welfare programs but supporting laziness and stupidity are not among them. Those are just side effects.

Just because the consequences were not intended doesnt make them any less real. People arent prevented from working, but because of welfare programs they simply choose not to. Why work for your money when tax payers will pay you to do nothing?

But they are both valuable and thus worth paying a certain price for are they not? The OP's implication was that no value is received for the money we spend there.

I agree. Value or not though, the money we spend there is inconsequential to our overall budget problems. We MIGHT have spent 200B in foreign aid, not considering natural disaster relief. That amount isnt even 1/8th of the deficit for this year alone.

[Echonova]

A wasted attempt to defer from unproductive political discourse. Anyway... does anyone want to see a picture of said imagery?

In for pics.

[bu villain]

Just because the consequences were not intended doesnt make them any less real.

We already both agree there are people that do not deserve money are getting it so we don't need to argue that point. Just like the IMF and the European bail outs, we don't only give money to people because they deserve it, we do it because it's better than the alternative.

People arent prevented from working, but because of welfare programs they simply choose not to. Why work for your money when tax payers will pay you to do nothing?

You should ask the 100+ million people who chose to work instead of living off welfare. I think you will find a large variety of compelling reasons. Motivation is complex and personal.

We should strive to constantly improve all our policies. But just because there are some abuses doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you have a good alternative to the current welfare system that wouldn't result in a significant increase of crime or the number of children going hungry, and protects those who are truly unfortunate rather than just lazy, I would be glad to discuss it.

[BanginJimmy]

You should ask the 100+ million people who chose to work instead of living off welfare. I think you will find a large variety of compelling reasons. Motivation is complex and personal.

Discount every one of those 150mil+ people that make more than 150% of welfare. That likely discounts around 90% of them. The rest of it is motivation. Some people are willing to work hard to gain a higher station in life. Others are happy to just live off the system.

We should strive to constantly improve all our policies. But just because there are some abuses doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you have a good alternative to the current welfare system that wouldn't result in a significant increase of crime or the number of children going hungry, and protects those who are truly unfortunate rather than just lazy, I would be glad to discuss it.

This is easy.

1. Require random drug tests to get a check.
2. Require eligible men and women join the military (does not apply to single mothers or fathers)
3. Spend the money up front and pay those receiving welfare money go to school or some other type of job training. Govt pays, or guarantees, 100% of bills for 4 years of college. This can be waived to 5 years if acceptable progress is made.
4. Cap length of time you can be on welfare. This does not apply to those also receiving disability benefits.


The college part would be expensive in the short term, but in the long term I believe it would pay for itself in the form of combined higher tax revenue and lower rolls. The vast majority of those on welfare right now are 2nd and third generation. We, as a society, need to break that cycel of dependence.

[bu villain]

Discount every one of those 150mil+ people that make more than 150% of welfare. That likely discounts around 90% of them. The rest of it is motivation. Some people are willing to work hard to gain a higher station in life. Others are happy to just live off the system.

I'm not sure why you would discount the motivation for people making 150% of welfare. And what do you mean the rest of it is motivation? Are you saying that what motivates those people couldn't motivate those on welfare?

I agree with your last two statements but I'm not sure what conclusion you want me to reach from it.

This is easy.

1. Require random drug tests to get a check.
2. Require eligible men and women join the military (does not apply to single mothers or fathers)
3. Spend the money up front and pay those receiving welfare money go to school or some other type of job training. Govt pays, or guarantees, 100% of bills for 4 years of college. This can be waived to 5 years if acceptable progress is made.
4. Cap length of time you can be on welfare. This does not apply to those also receiving disability benefits.

The college part would be expensive in the short term, but in the long term I believe it would pay for itself in the form of combined higher tax revenue and lower rolls. The vast majority of those on welfare right now are 2nd and third generation. We, as a society, need to break that cycel of dependence.

While I think these are good ideas in theory they all have a number of challenges and several would be cost prohibitive. I'm surprised to hear you would recommend the government just giving people jobs (supposedly government can't create jobs anyways) and creating additional beauracracy.

Also, and this is the crux of the matter, quite a few people would not meet these standards. They would fail their drug test, find college to be too difficult, fail basic training, etc. What do you think would happen to these people?

If you came upon a starving man on the street, would you require him to take a drug test and enroll in college before you gave him something to eat? We house, cloth, give healthcare and feed inmates 24/7, 365 days a year usually at a cost of tens of thousands per person per year. Should we treat the lazy, unfortunate, and stupid worse than them?

[-EnVus-]

If you came upon a starving man on the street, would you require him to take a drug test and enroll in college before you gave him something to eat? We house, cloth, give healthcare and feed inmates 24/7, 365 days a year usually at a cost of tens of thousands per person per year. Should we treat the lazy, unfortunate, and stupid worse than them?

On that note i was watching a program on tv just lastnight about how much we are spending on inmates these days. I knew it was a lot but i was shocked at how much.
I say the /government should look into this more with a fine tooth comb then raising taxes so much. IMO we could crack down more on sending illegals back to mexico and use prisoners for the slack in work detail the immigrants did then charge a small fee for housing and board for prisons. This way work gets done and we make a profit at same time.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not sure why you would discount the motivation for people making 150% of welfare.

If you make 150% or more of welfare, the work then becomes 'profitable' whereas someone making just over what welfare pay has nothing to gain from working.

And what do you mean the rest of it is motivation? Are you saying that what motivates those people couldn't motivate those on welfare?

The remaining 10% of people it comes down to their motivation. Do they want to sit on the welfare rolls their entire life, or are they willing to do the grunt work and over time gain more 'profitable' employment.

I agree with your last two statements but I'm not sure what conclusion you want me to reach from it.

For those on welfare, in most cases it is their motivation to get off welfare that sets them apart from others. Those that work to get off welfare are who the system was designed for, not the ones that use welfare as a job.

While I think these are good ideas in theory they all have a number of challenges and several would be cost prohibitive.

I agree it would take a massive commitment but IMO it would be worth it over time.

I'm surprised to hear you would recommend the government just giving people jobs (supposedly government can't create jobs anyways) and creating additional beauracracy.

Where did I say that?

They would fail their drug test,

That is their problem. If you have the money to purchase drugs, then you obviously dont need taxpayer money to pay your bills.

find college to be too difficult,

this is why I mention other job training programs. I understand that not everyone is college material, but there are plenty of community colleges that offer a variety of programs that focus only on job specific tasks.

fail basic training, etc.

ANY able bodied man or woman in the US can get through basic training for their chosen service.

What do you think would happen to these people?

As with everything else, you have to take it on a case by case basis. If you CHOOSE to do drugs, CHOOSE to flunk out of college, or CHOOSE to flunk out of basic training, then you reap the rewards of your choices. Welfare programs were designed to be a temporary safety net, not the career path those programs have become.

If you came upon a starving man on the street, would you require him to take a drug test and enroll in college before you gave him something to eat?

A man on the street and a welfare sponge are 2 different things. There are MANY soup kitchens and homeless shelters for those that choose to go to them.

We house, cloth, give healthcare and feed inmates 24/7, 365 days a year usually at a cost of tens of thousands per person per year.

This is what I love about Sheriff Arpiao out in Arizona. He keeps his prisoners in conditions that are barely above state and federal requirements. They work on chain gangs, the only TV they get is 'G' movies and the weather channel. They get to wear pink clothes. Oh, and his system has saved millions a year just in feeding the prisoners. The estimates, confirmed by snopes, is $.40 a meal. Maybe if we can get more of these types of prisons started we could really see some savings.

Oh, my favorite part. The Sheriff's Office started a shelter for abused animals at a condemned jail. Those animals have soft bedding and air conditioning while the prisoners have cots with no pillow and no AC.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp

Should we treat the lazy, unfortunate, and stupid worse than them?

Not worse, but if you choose to not take care of yourself, why should I take care of you?

[ahabion]

...if you choose to not take care of yourself, why should I take care of you?

PREACH Preachah!!!

I'm a product of the system and it's a shame that second and third generation welfare kids even exist. What's worse is that there is no aspiration of hope. Hope and Change! They saw the vision but decided that welfare was better... D'oh!

[bu villain]

If you make 150% or more of welfare, the work then becomes 'profitable' whereas someone making just over what welfare pay has nothing to gain from working....

The motivation is the same as people who work free internships. Better to start climbing the ladder at the bottom than not at all. Anyways, we are getting a little off the focus here. Every person has different motivations and no system will convince everyone to work hard, and be upstanding productive citizens.

Where did I say that?

You said they should be forced to join the military which is being given a job by the government. You also advocated drug testing and school/training assistance. That will require additional beauracry to administer.

If you CHOOSE to do drugs, CHOOSE to flunk out of college, or CHOOSE to flunk out of basic training, then you reap the rewards of your choices. Welfare programs were designed to be a temporary safety net, not the career path those programs have become.

Except that we all reap the "rewards", not just the individual. What happens to the kids of those who CHOOSE to do drugs? How do you expect them to grow up any better? How many more people would get robbed and killed on the street if we didn't have a welfare system? What is an acceptable ratio of leechers to deserving people? I won't claim to know all the answers but I know how we handle it affects us all (some more than others).

A man on the street and a welfare sponge are 2 different things. There are MANY soup kitchens and homeless shelters for those that choose to go to them.

Many of those "welfare sponges" would simply become men on the street if you took away their welfare. There wouldn't be anywhere near enough homeless shelters and soup kitchens if we stopped all welfare tomorrow.

Not worse, but if you choose to not take care of yourself, why should I take care of you?

So I won't rob someone. But seriously, we do treat them worse, that's my point. Maybe you personally have railed against how much we spend on prisoners but in general the cry is a hell of a lot louder for how much welfare recepients receive than how much prisoners get. The reality is people are afraid of criminals so they are willing to pay to keep them away but people aren't afraid of welfare recipients.

[BanginJimmy]

Im not ar a computer right now so no drawn out responses. What I will say is that it has been proven on several occasions that removing the safety net forces people to take care of themselves.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

Im not ar a computer right now so no drawn out responses. What I will say is that it has been proven on several occasions that removing the safety net forces people to take care of themselves.

No study needed. If someone isn't taking care of you then by definition, you are forced to take care of yourself. The question is, what is the best arrangement for society? A non exhaustive list of pros and cons may look as follows:

Possible Pros of Welfare:
Moral imperative to help those who can not help themselves
Encourages entreprenurial risk taking
Decreases desire (need?) for theft

Possible Cons of Welfare:
Requires taxation to fund
Discourages working
Decreases self reliance

The pros and cons on a welfare system must be weighed to determine if or how to implement a welfare system. That is a difficut task because it depends on assumptions, personal ethics, and imperfect science. There will never be complete consensus on such a topic but I hope we can at least agree that weighing pros and cons differently doesn't necessarily make either of us lazy, mean, stupid, etc.

[BanginJimmy]

Possible Pros of Welfare:
Moral imperative to help those who can not help themselves

CANNOT is the imperative word. I have no problems helping those that are simply incapable of helping themselves. I have a very long list of problems helping those that are simply too lazy to work or those who made continuous bad choices that left them unhirable.

Encourages entreprenurial risk taking

This simply isnt true. You may find failed entrepreneurs that that end up on welfare roles, but you will not find a meaningful number of those that struck out on their own BECAUSE of the welfare safety net.

Decreases desire (need?) for theft

There is absolutely no evidence to back this up.

Possible Cons of Welfare:
Requires taxation to fund
Discourages working
Decreases self reliance

We are in agreement here.

The pros and cons on a welfare system must be weighed to determine if or how to implement a welfare system. That is a difficut task because it depends on assumptions, personal ethics, and imperfect science. There will never be complete consensus on such a topic but I hope we can at least agree that weighing pros and cons differently doesn't necessarily make either of us lazy, mean, stupid, etc.

Welfare is a difficult subject because there is an obvious need for it. The only real question is whether it should be a temporary safety net or a career path.

[-EnVus-]

Here we go again headed toward another bail out i guess we will be the answer always for europe and Greece. I understand a default would be tragic but damn ppl learn what the issue is and fix the shit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_873003.html

Obama Encourages Europe, Pledges U.S. Aid For Greece Crisis

[bu villain]

CANNOT is the imperative word. I have no problems helping those that are simply incapable of helping themselves. I have a very long list of problems helping those that are simply too lazy to work or those who made continuous bad choices that left them unhirable.

I have a hard time believing that there is a significant portion of the population who gets excited about helping lazy people or people who continually make bad choices. Who do you think is arguing we should actively try and support such behavior?

This simply isnt true. You may find failed entrepreneurs that that end up on welfare roles, but you will not find a meaningful number of those that struck out on their own BECAUSE of the welfare safety net.

And if you asked skydivers why they jump out of planes they would say because of the thrill or feeling of freedom but it's hard to argue they would still do it if parachutes didn't exist. People are motivated by success not failure but that doesn't mean the consquences of failure don't matter.

Btw, there is a significant number of people who say they would try to start their own business but they are afraid of losing their health insurance from their company. Certainly having food to eat and shelter is at least as important as health insurance.

There is absolutely no evidence to back this up.

Nor is there evidence to show that it doesnt. It's a philosophical argument for the most part. That's why I labeled these as a "possible" pros and cons. Full facts are not available on most of these items.

Welfare is a difficult subject because there is an obvious need for it. The only real question is whether it should be a temporary safety net or a career path.

I don't think that is the question at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it should be a career path. At most, the so called "career path" aspect of it is considered an unfortunate byproduct. Who wouldn't love for every single able person to take care of themselves financially and contribute to society? If you think the argument is between responsible tax paying citizens and lazy, greedy, leeches, you are wrong.

[5speed]

May I ask if anyone in here has been on welfare or lived in such a state that they would probably qualify but didn't ask for it or didn't get it for some stupid reason? I must that I have. I have lived on the streets, in a Sable with my mom and 2 brothers, and the shittiest trailer park on this planet. All because of my dads decision to get on drugs and blow all of his success away on it. ONE person can put a family in crisis. We got to the point where my brothers and I would share one Totinos Pizza a day. One split between us. I dropped to 130lbs because of that. I should have been at 160 minimum. My mom filed for foodstamps and what not. Apparently she made too much to get it. I knew plenty of people who were on welfare. It is not acceptable for someone to drive and Escalade and be on welfare. Most I have encountered in my life have been down right shitty people. Sure some were by products of how they were raised. I had a bad childhood too but thats no excuse. You won't see me robbing people and wanting to stay in those type of conditions. Yet, I saw so many who thought it was ok. Thinking that the government should pay for them because the government is keeping them down. NO the fuck they are not.

My family went from really poor to having over 100k a year income under my dad alone all because of his hard work since he was 16 in southside Chicago. He just ruined it for himself. My family suffered the consequences with no help from the government when it was just me, my mom, and brothers. It pisses me off more than anyone to see the majority that I came across who did not hold jobs, who dealed drugs(even the kids), and have no desire to move forward because the government "owes" them. My mom continued working. I never saw her unless she came home to sleep. Even after a really bad car accident where she couldnt afford to go to a doctor she continued to work. For us to not get help??? Tax paying and contributing citizens? She didnt file until we were literally malnourished enough to where it would probably kill us.

Sorry for the rant. That is all.

[-EnVus-]

May I ask if anyone in here has been on welfare or lived in such a state that they would probably qualify but didn't ask for it or didn't get it for some stupid reason? I must that I have. I have lived on the streets, in a Sable with my mom and 2 brothers, and the shittiest trailer park on this planet. All because of my dads decision to get on drugs and blow all of his success away on it. ONE person can put a family in crisis. We got to the point where my brothers and I would share one Totinos Pizza a day. One split between us. I dropped to 130lbs because of that. I should have been at 160 minimum. My mom filed for foodstamps and what not. Apparently she made too much to get it. I knew plenty of people who were on welfare. It is not acceptable for someone to drive and Escalade and be on welfare. Most I have encountered in my life have been down right shitty people. Sure some were by products of how they were raised. I had a bad childhood too but thats no excuse. You won't see me robbing people and wanting to stay in those type of conditions. Yet, I saw so many who thought it was ok. Thinking that the government should pay for them because the government is keeping them down. NO the fuck they are not.

My family went from really poor to having over 100k a year income under my dad alone all because of his hard work since he was 16 in southside Chicago. He just ruined it for himself. My family suffered the consequences with no help from the government when it was just me, my mom, and brothers. It pisses me off more than anyone to see the majority that I came across who did not hold jobs, who dealed drugs(even the kids), and have no desire to move forward because the government "owes" them. My mom continued working. I never saw her unless she came home to sleep. Even after a really bad car accident where she couldnt afford to go to a doctor she continued to work. For us to not get help??? Tax paying and contributing citizens? She didnt file until we were literally malnourished enough to where it would probably kill us.

Sorry for the rant. That is all.

This is really gonna piss you off then cause it did me...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_locald...of-food-stamps

[5speed]

This is really gonna piss you off then cause it did me...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_locald...of-food-stamps

Holy fuck it does! How in the hell is this ok? This is what I mean. He KNOWS he doesn't need it and makes the choice to continue using it. And fuck the state of Michigan. I agree with earlier posts that they should suffer the consequences of a poorly run state. It use to be absolutely beautiful in Detroit. Amazing architecture and all. The people ran it down. They don't deserve anything good if they couldn't even keep what they had good. Another problem I have with poor people and ghetto fucks. Just because you are poor doesnt mean you shouldnt take care of your shit.

[Browning151]

May I ask if anyone in here has been on welfare or lived in such a state that they would probably qualify but didn't ask for it or didn't get it for some stupid reason? I must that I have. I have lived on the streets, in a Sable with my mom and 2 brothers, and the shittiest trailer park on this planet. All because of my dads decision to get on drugs and blow all of his success away on it. ONE person can put a family in crisis. We got to the point where my brothers and I would share one Totinos Pizza a day. One split between us. I dropped to 130lbs because of that. I should have been at 160 minimum. My mom filed for foodstamps and what not. Apparently she made too much to get it. I knew plenty of people who were on welfare. It is not acceptable for someone to drive and Escalade and be on welfare. Most I have encountered in my life have been down right shitty people. Sure some were by products of how they were raised. I had a bad childhood too but thats no excuse. You won't see me robbing people and wanting to stay in those type of conditions. Yet, I saw so many who thought it was ok. Thinking that the government should pay for them because the government is keeping them down. NO the fuck they are not.

My family went from really poor to having over 100k a year income under my dad alone all because of his hard work since he was 16 in southside Chicago. He just ruined it for himself. My family suffered the consequences with no help from the government when it was just me, my mom, and brothers. It pisses me off more than anyone to see the majority that I came across who did not hold jobs, who dealed drugs(even the kids), and have no desire to move forward because the government "owes" them. My mom continued working. I never saw her unless she came home to sleep. Even after a really bad car accident where she couldnt afford to go to a doctor she continued to work. For us to not get help??? Tax paying and contributing citizens? She didnt file until we were literally malnourished enough to where it would probably kill us.

Sorry for the rant. That is all.

Situations like this are what gov't assistance programs were designed for IMO. I don't think anyone would argue against a temporary safety net for people. The biggest problem with these programs today is that they have become too far reaching and a way of life for too many people.

Gov't assistance programs should provide for the basic necessities that people need to live, if you are on gov't assistance and can afford a cell phone/cable tv/ internet etc, then you don't need to be on any assistance, you need to take the money that you spend on luxuries and provide yourself or your family means to live. To me it's absolutely ridiculous that someone can receive gov't assistance and still have all kinds of luxury items.

As far as that asshole that won the lottery and still uses food stamps, that's exactly the kind of sorry piece of shit leeches that make people turn against gov't assistance programs and exposes the glaring flaws in the system that allow people to abuse it.

[BanginJimmy]

Who do you think is arguing we should actively try and support such behavior?

Every politician who speaks out against welfare reforms, SS reforms, Medicare reforms. In my eyes, these are one in the same. A govt safety net that is being used by those that do not qualify, should not qualify, or simply dont need it to continue their lifestyle.

I've laid out what I would do with welfare, as far as I know, I agree with Paul Ryan's medicare plan, and If you would like, I can lay out a few things that I would do with SS if I had that power.

And if you asked skydivers why they jump out of planes they would say because of the thrill or feeling of freedom but it's hard to argue they would still do it if parachutes didn't exist.

This is probably the worst analogy I have ever heard.

People are motivated by success not failure but that doesn't mean the consquences of failure don't matter.

I agree.

Btw, there is a significant number of people who say they would try to start their own business but they are afraid of losing their health insurance from their company. Certainly having food to eat and shelter is at least as important as health insurance.

Because health care costs are so high you are right, health insurance is just as important as food and shelter.

I don't think that is the question at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it should be a career path. At most, the so called "career path" aspect of it is considered an unfortunate byproduct. Who wouldn't love for every single able person to take care of themselves financially and contribute to society? If you think the argument is between responsible tax paying citizens and lazy, greedy, leeches, you are wrong.

Politicians looking for votes have turned welfare into a career. There is no mechanism to help them get off welfare. There is no penalty, in fact there is a reward, for having additional kids while already on welfare. There is not even a way to make sure people on welfare are hirable because they dont do simple things like a drug test.

[-EnVus-]

I think there should be a limit to how many kids you must have and to many to have for welfare. I am tired of seeing people on welfare running around spitting out kid after kid. If they was working for a living they would keep the damn legs closed and pocket that money. I am glad we have a safety net and hope we continue to have it. We just need to adjust the regulations and etc to obtain it. To many take advantage when so many really need and rely on it and can't help it.

[bu villain]

Every politician who speaks out against welfare reforms, SS reforms, Medicare reforms. In my eyes, these are one in the same. A govt safety net that is being used by those that do not qualify, should not qualify, or simply dont need it to continue their lifestyle.

This is too much of a blanket statement. It depends on the details of the reforms. Some reforms may be a good idea, others are not. But I hope you don't immediately condemn someone just for speaking out against any reform regardless of their reasons for doing so. Also "should not qualify" is a matter of opinion.

I've laid out what I would do with welfare, as far as I know, I agree with Paul Ryan's medicare plan, and If you would like, I can lay out a few things that I would do with SS if I had that power.

Welfare was already off topic enough, let's not get into social security too.

This is probably the worst analogy I have ever heard.

Well if you are gonna accuse me of making terrible analogies you could at least explain why? Point is simple, someone says they started a business to make more money doesn't mean having a safety net is not also a piece of the puzzle.

I agree. Because health care costs are so high you are right, health insurance is just as important as food and shelter.

And yet you stated having a safety net is not related to encouraging entrepreneurial risk taking.

Politicians looking for votes have turned welfare into a career. There is no mechanism to help them get off welfare. There is no penalty, in fact there is a reward, for having additional kids while already on welfare. There is not even a way to make sure people on welfare are hirable because they dont do simple things like a drug test.

Ah the coveted broke, lazy people demographic. If there is one thing welfare queens do besides sit on their ass and collect government checks, its voting.

Saying that paying for kids is a reward is one sided. Having a kid is not simply fun or easy. Even if you take the cynical view and say that the only reason for having a kid is to get more money from the government, is it acceptable to do nothing to try and help that child?

Also on drug testing. In theory sounds great but you need numbers to make it convincing. How much would the testing cost taxpayers? Would it be a net cost or a net savings? What percentage of welfare recipients are drug users? How often would it be done? Is it one strike and you are out forever? Would it actually stop anyone from using drugs? We can't make every policy on principal alone. We need real data to validate the consquences.

[bu villain]

I am glad we have a safety net and hope we continue to have it. We just need to adjust the regulations and etc to obtain it. To many take advantage when so many really need and rely on it and can't help it.

I agree with this sentiment and think we should always look to make the system better. We just need to be careful and not make knee jerk reactions. It is a complex issue and to treat it as a simple problem is doing a disservice.

[Echonova]

As long as there is a "system" there will be people that find loop-holes to take advantage of it. This goes for Welfare, Tax Breaks, Social Security etc etc etc... There will never be a perfect system that makes everyone happy.

[Total_Blender]

The same people who are against "Wlefare mothers" and "people who have kids while on welfare" etc etc are the ones trying to restrict access to abortions, promote stupid ass "abstinence only" sex ed, and cut funding to planned parenthood. Theres not any principle or logic to these arguments, its only the conservative meme is that the poor deserve to suffer.

Paul Ryan and Gov. Walker have poisoned the well for the GOP in Wisconsin. Medicare recipients, union members, and public employees are gonna be out in force at the polls for the recall elections and those stupid, unconstitutional "voter suppression" laws aren't going to hold them back.

[Vteckidd]

The problem isnt that black and white to me.

Its not as extreme as you are making it out to be. Im pro choice personally, but i am against GOVT funding for places like Planned Parenthood who do offer abortions. That is the job of the PRIVATE sector.

I understand things happen, people make mistakes, but part of life is living with those mistakes. I do not feel that tax payers should be providing funding for people to have abortions. If you cant afford to have an a kid, then you should be proactive in making sure you dont have one. There is NO EXCUSE in this day an age not to use protection or birth control. Im more for providing FREE birth control , than providing abortions.

Its like smoking. If you get cancer from smoking, then im sorry, that really sucks, but YOU KNEW what would happen, no one in this day can honestly say "i didnt know smoking 2 packs a day would cause cancer".

I do not think the govt should be involved in abortions or funding for places to do abortions. I believe if you want to be involved in it, then maybe they should offer some type of "non profit" clinic, or some variance and allow some doctors to operate as a charity. I dont think they should just dole out billions to places that are OBVIOUSLY extremely corrupt.

There is no denying a problem exists. But to do NOTHING , is the same as doing the other extreme which is totally eliminating it. There has to be middle ground.

As much as the dems bitch about tax breaks for the rich for republicans, the reoublicans bitch about the dems and their pet projects they get kick backs in the billions from. So both are wrong.

[Vteckidd]

The politicians have made it

If you are for welfare REFORM you HATE the poor. Simply not true.
If you are for Medicare/Medicaid REFORM, you HATE the elderly. Simply not true.
If you are for lowering taxes on small businesses, you are in the pocket of corporate America and hate "main street". simply not true.

Welfare serves a good purpose, but dont argue its not grossly abused. People have figured out through welfare and foodstamps you can work 10 hours a week, squeeze out 3 kids, and basically through all govt assistance make $42,000 a year. Dont believe me ask my friend who works for the IRS.

The problem with helping the poor and unfortunate (which i am NOT AGAINST) is you encourage the lazy ignorant scumbags to take advantage of the system. So there needs to be rules in effect that weed out one group while helping sustain the people that really need it.

take 5speeds case, doing "mandatory drug tests" for people on welfare or unemployment would not have kept his mother from seeking help for her children, it would have kept the guy looking for a $300 handout a week from doing so.

The 2 million dollar lottery winner , thats another use of the system. They need to enact policies that intelligently fix that issue. The lady driving an escalade with foodstamps im not going to bitch about because what if she bought that car, paid for it in full , lost her job, has trouble finding a new job and thats just her car. Sure she could sell it and downgrade, but im not going to sit here and say the govt should tell her that, or we start basing food stamps on what kind of car you drive. Thats a little far fetched.

it is totally possible to serve both causes though if people are reasonable

[BanginJimmy]

Theres not any principle or logic to these arguments, its only the conservative meme is that the poor deserve to suffer.

Not going to get into the abortion debate as its both useless and insignificant. This part made me giggle though. It must be nice to live in a dream state.

Paul Ryan and Gov. Walker have poisoned the well for the GOP in Wisconsin. Medicare recipients, union members, and public employees are gonna be out in force at the polls for the recall elections

The unions will be out simply because they only do what their union masters say and really have no clue what they are actually talking about. My guess is that Walker and Ryan walk away from the recall elections with a grin on their face.

and those stupid, unconstitutional "voter suppression" laws aren't going to hold them back.

This also made me laugh. By "voter suppression laws" do you mean those laws that require you to have an ID to vote in 2012? Stupid question, how does a law that takes effect in 2012 suppress votes in 2011? Or maybe its the requirement that you live in the district you are voting in for 28 days?


If I had my way a state or federally issued ID would be required to vote and you must be a legal resident of the district you are voting in for at least 1 year. Having a 10 day minimum just opens the flood gates for corruption in a highly charged special election like this.




Maybe you should be more concerned with Unions bussing in voters to skew the ballot. Or how about voter intimidation that Unions are known for? But no, you are worried about someone having to show an ID and actually prove they are allowed to vote.

[bu villain]

I agree with almost everything vteckidd said but I disagree about with his stance on funding planned parenthood. Planned parenthood is given money because they perform services (sex education, contraception, family planning, disease screening, etc) that help all of society. They are specifically prohibited from using federal funding towards abortions (abortions only make up about 2% of their expendatures anyways).

If it were left up to the private sector, a great number of people would either not be able to afford the services or choose not to use in order to save money. This would lead to an increase in ignorance on sex education and family planning and an increase in the spreading of disease. In turn, this would lead to more money being spent on welfare programs including medicaid. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Just because you have a moral problem with a very small (and completely legal) slice of what an organization does, is not a good reason to withhold all public funding in my opinion.