PILOT SPIN

Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on March 13, 2016, 09:56:54 AM

Title: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 13, 2016, 09:56:54 AM
In my mind, liberals are mostly very good people with very good goals and intentions.

Just like liberals, I wish everyone had a decent income and could afford things like education and healthcare.  I donate to various charities that I respect.

The problem is that liberals have is "unintended (but highly predictable) consequences"
They don't want to admit that human nature is not only an immutable fact of nature, but that human nature varies with each human.

If the law were able to make everything fair, it wouldn't be long before people figure out how to once again garner more than their fair share.

If you make things easy for people, SOME people will quit trying and make a life out of the easy pickings.

Humans are not going to just settle for their fair share.  Whether it is the rich people that always want more and will work (or lie or cheat) to get it, or the poor people that are going to try to get as much as they can without working or producing at all.

So I like liberals.  But they need to figure out that the ONLY thing we should give the poor is opportunity.  And this country provides that in abundance, even if there is still prejudice, discrimination and greed.  Those things will always be there as long as there are humans.  We should strive to eliminate that as much as possible while acknowledging that it exists.  It is up to the individual to rise to limits of their ability and potential.  It is up to the rest of us to help take care of those with no ability or potential.  Lack of  personal responsibility does not qualify.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 13, 2016, 09:59:17 AM
Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 13, 2016, 10:16:06 AM
What is a "fair share" (of anything) and who determines it?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 13, 2016, 10:25:17 AM
Thank you for starting this thread.  I was thinking about starting one called "Make Me Want to Be a Liberal," for the sole purpose of getting some perspectives on why a person would want to sign on for what is coming to look like a very failed ideology, despite media attempts to hide it.  The failure shows in the Democrats' two weak and fatally flawed candidates, the lack of a youthful and energetic component in their presidential lineup, the Trump phenomenon, a general surge of awareness that the Obama era did not improve things and in fact compromised our country on many fronts, and oh so much more.

Of course, one can say many negative things about the Republicans, but as an ideology, conservativism tends to start with from-the-ground-up, sound principles of fiscal and social responsibility and cuts through the fallacies of socialism.  If we could just have a president who would exercise said principles, I believe we would see a turnaround. 

Dav8or threw out in another thread that my idea that balance can be achieved reflects my desire for "meaningless debate" to "entertain myself with."  Not true.  I don't want to be a liberal, per se, but what if I'm missing something?  I'd like to know what drives them.  I do not come to PilotSpin for echo chamber giggles or schadenfreude.

It isn't easy to enter discussions with an open mind, but that is what I try to do.  Can I leave my obvious penchant for conservative principles aside whilst considering other viewpoints?  Yes, but if the other viewpoints fail to past rigor tests, out they go as valid.

I read very closely all threads here, looking for the truth between the lines.  I especially focus on posts from Steingar, asechrest and FastEddie, who challenge my thinking.  But the conservatives who post here also make devastatingly accurate observations that I value. 

The problem with liberals?  They've gone too far left; some call the problem the "illiberal left," because they've actually abandoned actual useful elements of liberalism in the thirst for power and control.

 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 13, 2016, 11:07:17 AM
Rainbows, and unicorns.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 13, 2016, 02:16:48 PM
Rainbows, and unicorns.


(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/eSNCcbkXJBuIubeHq1ampg--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NjA0O3E9OTU7dz0xMDAw/http://20px.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/unicorn_pooping_a_rainbow_20px.jpg)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 13, 2016, 06:47:52 PM
A hand up, not a hand out.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 14, 2016, 08:07:35 AM
I have always found that the problem with liberals ( just like academics ) is that they often insists upon forcing their concept of morality on everyone else, then exempting their own from compliance. That sort of double standard trickles all the way down to the street, where progressive liberals rant and rave about man made global warming, while driving Escalades, buying McMansions, and sporting the most obvious products made from petrochemicals.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 14, 2016, 08:09:13 AM


Can't believe nobody put this gem up yet.

Drops mic.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 14, 2016, 08:25:11 AM
Well, maybe decades ago Liberals weren't ignorant....  but today there certainly are a lot of liberals that are indeed grossly ignorant.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 14, 2016, 12:03:00 PM
Today's liberals are brainwashed.  They believe what they've been taught in school and heard from the media. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 14, 2016, 12:19:32 PM
Thank you for starting this thread.  I was thinking about starting one called "Make Me Want to Be a Liberal," for the sole purpose of getting some perspectives on why a person would want to sign on for what is coming to look like a very failed ideology, despite media attempts to hide it.  The failure shows in the Democrats' two weak and fatally flawed candidates, the lack of a youthful and energetic component in their presidential lineup, the Trump phenomenon, a general surge of awareness that the Obama era did not improve things and in fact compromised our country on many fronts, and oh so much more.

Of course, one can say many negative things about the Republicans, but as an ideology, conservativism tends to start with from-the-ground-up, sound principles of fiscal and social responsibility and cuts through the fallacies of socialism.  If we could just have a president who would exercise said principles, I believe we would see a turnaround. 

Dav8or threw out in another thread that my idea that balance can be achieved reflects my desire for "meaningless debate" to "entertain myself with."  Not true.  I don't want to be a liberal, per se, but what if I'm missing something?  I'd like to know what drives them.  I do not come to PilotSpin for echo chamber giggles or schadenfreude.

It isn't easy to enter discussions with an open mind, but that is what I try to do.  Can I leave my obvious penchant for conservative principles aside whilst considering other viewpoints?  Yes, but if the other viewpoints fail to past rigor tests, out they go as valid.

I read very closely all threads here, looking for the truth between the lines.  I especially focus on posts from Steingar, asechrest and FastEddie, who challenge my thinking.  But the conservatives who post here also make devastatingly accurate observations that I value. 

The problem with liberals?  They've gone too far left; some call the problem the "illiberal left," because they've actually abandoned actual useful elements of liberalism in the thirst for power and control.
Thank you for teaching me a new word today: schadenfreude
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Jaybird180 on March 14, 2016, 07:06:39 PM
Thank you for teaching me a new word today: schadenfreude
...if only I could get the pronunciation correct.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 15, 2016, 03:57:29 AM
...if only I could get the pronunciation correct.

just like it is spelled...
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 15, 2016, 07:15:48 AM
...if only I could get the pronunciation correct.

sha den froid ah.  Bit of emphasis on first syllable.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 15, 2016, 08:28:45 AM
Some things never change:



Some of the references are a bit dated, but it gets the point across.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 15, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
Ummm... I guess if a blank black screen is the point. I see nothing in your post.??
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 15, 2016, 10:37:53 AM
Sorry.

Shows an embedded YouTube video on my iPad running Safari.

Maybe click on or copy/paste this link:


http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw (http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 15, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
Sorry.

Shows an embedded YouTube video on my iPad running Safari.

Maybe click on or copy/paste this link:


http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw (http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw)

I could see it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Steingar on March 16, 2016, 01:57:59 PM
The problem really isn't with liberals.  Liberals want equal opportunity.  Liberals see that opportunity isn't equal in many segments of our society.  Conservatives are completely, utterly, and inescapably blind to this viewpoint.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 16, 2016, 02:33:21 PM
Liberals want equal opportunity. 

No they don't: they want equal OUTCOMES.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 16, 2016, 02:52:33 PM
No they don't: they want equal OUTCOMES.

They want class warfare and chaos.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 16, 2016, 02:53:57 PM
The problem really isn't with liberals.  Liberals want equal opportunity.  Liberals see that opportunity isn't equal in many segments of our society.  Conservatives are completely, utterly, and inescapably blind to this viewpoint.

maybe Conservatives are blind to it because it is complete utter happy horse manure
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on March 16, 2016, 02:57:51 PM
The problem really isn't with liberals.  Liberals want equal opportunity.  Liberals see that opportunity isn't equal in many segments of our society.  Conservatives are completely, utterly, and inescapably blind to this viewpoint.

Nope, conservatives find ways to overcome obstacles rather than place blame, demand that someone else "fix" the problem, or give excuses.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 16, 2016, 03:32:28 PM
The problem really isn't with liberals.  Liberals want equal opportunity.  Liberals see that opportunity isn't equal in many segments of our society.  Conservatives are completely, utterly, and inescapably blind to this viewpoint.

You're joking, right?

Because if you're not, and you really believe your own statements, you are incapable of informed dialogue, and as such are an integral part of the problems our country currently faces.

Would you not scoff at such a statement as "Liberals are completely, utterly and inescapably blind to this viewpoint?"

Labeling and generalizations are killing us.  Elevating, nurturing and stroking dysfunctional people is killing us. 







Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 17, 2016, 04:49:14 PM
The problem really isn't with liberals.  Liberals want equal opportunity.  Liberals see that opportunity isn't equal in many segments of our society.  Conservatives are completely, utterly, and inescapably blind to this viewpoint.

That is the fabrication of the century.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 17, 2016, 09:57:25 PM
Conservatives want equal opportunity.  Liberals want equal outcomes, which in inherently impossible. and unsustainable.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Steingar on March 18, 2016, 07:38:31 AM
No, everyone wants equal opportunities.  But if you think that the opportunities seen by an impoverished person from Appalachia are the same as a middle class resident of one of the surrounding metropoles, I disagree.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 18, 2016, 07:44:15 AM
No, everyone wants equal opportunities.  But if you think that the opportunities seen by an impoverished person from Appalachia are the same as a middle class resident of one of the surrounding metropoles, I disagree.
But if you place a middle class person from the surrounding area deep into Appalachia, the opportunities equalize and in some cases benefit the local more than the newcomer.  The point being, most poor people are poor due to poor choices made in life.  Remaining in an area without opportunity and bellyaching about lack of opportunity can be remedied by packing up and moving.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Steingar on March 18, 2016, 07:48:23 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 18, 2016, 07:56:39 AM

Being born poor is not a life choice.

Being addicted to government handouts, and refusing to work for less than the government freebies, is a life choice.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 07:59:36 AM
But if you place a middle class person from the surrounding area deep into Appalachia, the opportunities equalize and in some cases benefit the local more than the newcomer.  The point being, most poor people are poor due to poor choices made in life.  Remaining in an area without opportunity and bellyaching about lack of opportunity can be remedied by packing up and moving.

This does not accurately portray the difficulty of upward social and economic mobility. Poverty begets poverty (and riches beget riches) for a large percentage of the population. In fact, we've fallen significantly behind as the Land of Opportunity. And it's not just because all those poverty-stricken babies are making poor choices.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 18, 2016, 08:09:44 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.

no kidding Dick Tracey.

Do you think someone shouldn't be able to buy his children the best education he can afford?    Would you limit what a parent can do for his child?

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 18, 2016, 08:11:05 AM
This does not accurately portray the difficulty of upward social and economic mobility. Poverty begets poverty (and riches beget riches) for a large percentage of the population. In fact, we've fallen significantly behind as the Land of Opportunity. And it's not just because all those poverty-stricken babies are making poor choices.

ah, the rich get richer fallacy.

Do people think that rich people never go broke?

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: CharlieTango on March 18, 2016, 08:11:13 AM
... we've fallen significantly behind as the Land of Opportunity. And it's not just because all those poverty-stricken babies are making poor choices.

Maybe it has to do with our refusal to enforce borders or immigration laws? 

Bad trade deals that permit the Chinese to steal our intellectual property with impunity could be part of the reason too?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 08:22:09 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.
But remaining poor, largely is.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 08:31:48 AM
ah, the rich get richer fallacy.

Do people think that rich people never go broke?

Is that question related to what I said?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
This does not accurately portray the difficulty of upward social and economic mobility. Poverty begets poverty (and riches beget riches) for a large percentage of the population. In fact, we've fallen significantly behind as the Land of Opportunity. And it's not just because all those poverty-stricken babies are making poor choices.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because the rich keep doing the things that make them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

And government subsidies make it possible, and often preferable, for people to continue to do the things that make them poor and prevent them from doing the things to make them rich (or at least self sufficient).

I know a woman who's daughter is pregnant with her 4th child from a 4th father.  When asked how she is able to afford it, the answer was a predictable "government subsidies".  In fact, she is eligible for a larger apartment because of the extra kid.
This is what begets poverty.


Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 18, 2016, 09:11:34 AM
Is that question related to what I said?

The fact that I quoted your post should be a clue.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
The fact that I quoted your post should be a clue.

Did I say rich people never go broke?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 10:36:31 AM
Did I say rich people never go broke?
Well you did say "poverty begets poverty and rich begets rich" (or something like that).  That sort of suggests that rich people don't get poor.  But then again, I am the one that rants against people changing other people's words around.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on March 18, 2016, 10:50:49 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.

Suggesting everyone born poor is sentenced to a life of poverty is insulting to all who have struggled and succeeded in lifting themselves up.  When you eliminate the possibility of failure, the opportunity for success is also reduced or eliminated.  Able-bodied adults need freedom and the right to choose, not you or anyone else limiting them to your worldview.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 11:10:35 AM
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because the rich keep doing the things that make them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

And government subsidies make it possible, and often preferable, for people to continue to do the things that make them poor and prevent them from doing the things to make them rich (or at least self sufficient).

I know a woman who's daughter is pregnant with her 4th child from a 4th father.  When asked how she is able to afford it, the answer was a predictable "government subsidies".  In fact, she is eligible for a larger apartment because of the extra kid.
This is what begets poverty.

What you are missing is the damage done in the formative years, during which time kids have little ability to "make good decisions" that lift them out of their situation. These children experience the damaging effects of poverty in many ways, from social stresses to poor nutrition and increased lead toxicity issues to stunted learning progress. It's easy to just chalk it up to "making poor choices", which is code for "they're fucking lazy". But some of the issues appear to be biological and long-lasting, which may explain why it is so difficult to climb out of the lower class. Americans generally overestimate the poor's ability to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.

I am of the opinion that we could better facilitate America's upward social mobility, which has fallen substantially behind other countries. And I don't necessarily mean piling on more traditional welfare. Somehow we've got to help the kids (think of the kids!), which is a difficult thing to do when you can't just yank them away from the shitty parents and raise 'em right.

But, yannow, I'm a liberal, so it is probably no surprise that this is how I feel.  ;)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
Well you did say "poverty begets poverty and rich begets rich" (or something like that).  That sort of suggests that rich people don't get poor.  But then again, I am the one that rants against people changing other people's words around.

You don't have to guess what I said since you quoted it: "Poverty begets poverty (and riches beget riches) for a large percentage of the population."
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 18, 2016, 11:36:56 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.
Who stated or even implied being born poor is a life choice?  After being born, behaviors and decisions (often one in the same) play the primary part in relegating a person to being poor.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 18, 2016, 11:41:29 AM
This does not accurately portray the difficulty of upward social and economic mobility. Poverty begets poverty (and riches beget riches) for a large percentage of the population. In fact, we've fallen significantly behind as the Land of Opportunity. And it's not just because all those poverty-stricken babies are making poor choices.
I disagree.  Without obtaining a government grant (maybe Michael can help me apply for one) to study the choices, yes choices, made by those who are poor and those who are not, it can only be concluded via observed evidence that it is in fact, choices, that relegate one to being poor.  You may also notice I never stated or implied this was universal but is certainly true for the vast percentage of poor folks.
The land of opportunity is alive and well assuming one isn't sitting on the sofa eating bonbons while smoking camels with a cold beer in their lap (hyperbole intended).
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 18, 2016, 11:45:13 AM
What you are missing is the damage done in the formative years, during which time kids have little ability to "make good decisions" that lift them out of their situation. These children experience the damaging effects of poverty in many ways, from social stresses to poor nutrition and increased lead toxicity issues to stunted learning progress. It's easy to just chalk it up to "making poor choices", which is code for "they're fucking lazy". But some of the issues appear to be biological and long-lasting, which may explain why it is so difficult to climb out of the lower class. Americans generally overestimate the poor's ability to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.

I am of the opinion that we could better facilitate America's upward social mobility, which has fallen substantially behind other countries. And I don't necessarily mean piling on more traditional welfare. Somehow we've got to help the kids (think of the kids!), which is a difficult thing to do when you can't just yank them away from the shitty parents and raise 'em right.

I think inner city minorities are stuck in a geographical, and cultural cycle that is difficult to emerge.  They are definitely at a disadvantage.  They do not have the same opportunities as suburban white or black kids for that matter.  Surprised?  I don't have an answer as to how to fix it though.  I think government has done more to harm than to help. 

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 18, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
What you are missing is the damage done in the formative years, during which time kids have little ability to "make good decisions" that lift them out of their situation. These children experience the damaging effects of poverty in many ways, from social stresses to poor nutrition and increased lead toxicity issues to stunted learning progress. It's easy to just chalk it up to "making poor choices", which is code for "they're fucking lazy". But some of the issues appear to be biological and long-lasting, which may explain why it is so difficult to climb out of the lower class. Americans generally overestimate the poor's ability to pick themselves up by the bootstraps.

I am of the opinion that we could better facilitate America's upward social mobility, which has fallen substantially behind other countries. And I don't necessarily mean piling on more traditional welfare. Somehow we've got to help the kids (think of the kids!), which is a difficult thing to do when you can't just yank them away from the shitty parents and raise 'em right.

But, yannow, I'm a liberal, so it is probably no surprise that this is how I feel.  ;)
Walking to the store to buy camels and a lotto ticket isn't lazy.  It is a poor use of resources and a piss poor choice however.

I was raised in a family with an alcoholic father.  Guess that means I missed out on the formative years of having a sober role model ergo I'm also an alcoholic.  But guess what, I'm an adult who made choices, yes choices, to not follow in that aspect of my father's personality trait.  Damn those choices.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 11:51:23 AM
I disagree.  Without obtaining a government grant (maybe Michael can help me apply for one) to study the choices, yes choices, made by those who are poor and those who are not, it can only be concluded via observed evidence that it is in fact, choices, that relegate one to being poor.  You may also notice I never stated or implied this was universal but is certainly true for the vast percentage of poor folks.
The land of opportunity is alive and well assuming one isn't sitting on the sofa eating bonbons while smoking camels with a cold beer in their lap (hyperbole intended).

Do you suggest that babies, toddlers, and primary-school aged children have an ability to "make choices" that will lift their families out of poverty? Do you reject the idea that being brought up in poverty causes structural and biological deficiencies that may affect social mobility? And since studies have shown that those brought up with wealth have a far greater chance of maintaining wealth in their own adulthood (and vice versa), do we conclude that there is a causal link between the amount of money your parents have and how lazy you will be later in life?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 11:57:07 AM
Do you suggest that babies, toddlers, and primary-school aged children have an ability to "make choices" that will lift their families out of poverty? Do you reject the idea that being brought up in poverty causes structural and biological deficiencies that may affect social mobility? And since studies have shown that those brought up with wealth have a far greater chance of maintaining wealth in their own adulthood (and vice versa), do we conclude that there is a causal link between the amount of money your parents have and how lazy you will be later in life?
Do you reject that government programs that pay single women to have more and more babies, and penalizes them if they actually do get a job, doesn't contribute to the "generational poverty" that is rampant?

Safety nets = good.
Government enabling and encouraging of poverty = bad.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 12:09:30 PM
Do you reject that government programs that pay single women to have more and more babies, and penalizes them if they actually do get a job, doesn't contribute to the "generational poverty" that is rampant?

Safety nets = good.
Government enabling and encouraging of poverty = bad.

I don't doubt the system could be much better. But that's certainly not all the answer, and we're back to my original point.

PS - Please answer my question.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 12:18:50 PM
No, everyone wants equal opportunities.  But if you think that the opportunities seen by an impoverished person from Appalachia are the same as a middle class resident of one of the surrounding metropoles, I disagree.

I'm curious now,  what, in your mind,  constitutes an "equal opportunity".
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Steingar on March 18, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
I'm curious now,  what, in your mind,  constitutes an "equal opportunity".

A very good question.  I think everyone should be able to rise to the to the limit of their abilities.  If that were the case, we Americans would be putting our own people to the best use in our society.

Maintaining an underclass is a dangerous proposition in any society.  Disenfranchised people have very little to loose, and there are a lot more of them than rich folks.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 12:47:00 PM
Do you suggest that babies, toddlers, and primary-school aged children have an ability to "make choices" that will lift their families out of poverty? Do you reject the idea that being brought up in poverty causes structural and biological deficiencies that may affect social mobility? And since studies have shown that those brought up with wealth have a far greater chance of maintaining wealth in their own adulthood (and vice versa), do we conclude that there is a causal link between the amount of money your parents have and how lazy you will be later in life?
No.  I don't reject those things at all.  Poverty is definitely an obstacle that needs to be overcome.  But overcoming obstacles takes effort.  That may require effort over generations so that each new generation has more opportunities than their previous generation.  Making excuses for failure makes failure easier.

I remember when I was a kid and my widowed mother with three boys would depend on our church to bring groceries.  I remember my mother working two or three jobs, usually coming home as we were waking up.  I remember buying a 50 cent bag of cheetos and a box of baggies and selling a dozen bags of cheetos at school for a dime each so I could buy lunch. 

So dont' tell me about poverty.  I lived it. I know about safety nets and what they are good for.

I remember pumping gas, waiting tables and making pizzas between classes so I could graduate from a good State school while paying in-state tuition.  Yes, it took me eight years to get my 4 year degree.  And yes, I know tuition is higher now than it was.  But I earned it and I am proud of it.  And I do know kids today that are working and going to school without running up tons of debt.

I know other kids that chose a different path.  They thought they were cool because they dropped out of school.  Some of them even got a job.  The lucky ones are still working that same job and complaining about how the rich keep getting richer and they are still poor.

Yeah, being born into poverty sucks.  Some people are happy to use that as an excuse.  It takes work to get out of poverty.  But if you don't have to put in the effort, you will never get out of it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 12:48:33 PM
A very good question.  I think everyone should be able to rise to the to the limit of their abilities.  If that were the case, we Americans would be putting our own people to the best use in our society.

Maintaining an underclass is a dangerous proposition in any society.  Disenfranchised people have very little to loose, and there are a lot more of them than rich folks.

I agree with the highlighted.   I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the rest of your answer.   

I still think everyone has the ability to rise to the limit of their abilities in this country now,  although we could argue that it may be more difficult to do so now than it was in the past.  I think the endless regulations emanating from government is putting up more and more walls to some people trying to rise.   But rising is hard work, and I firmly believe that most people, not all, but most complaining about the inability to rise, haven't, or are not willing to put in the work to do this.  I can think of multiple reasons people may not succeed.  Substance abuse rises to the top of the list for me, followed by choosing to have a good time over applying one's self.  While the ability to rise is a life long opportunity, the times to do it more easily than other times occur in very specific windows.  Some of those times are during school, the next, if done properly, would be after graduation from high school and transition into college or a trade.  Most people blow it during theses times, mostly through their own actions and it becomes very difficult to recover from these blown opportunities. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 12:59:22 PM
No.  I don't reject those things at all.  Poverty is definitely an obstacle that needs to be overcome.  But overcoming obstacles takes effort.  That may require effort over generations so that each new generation has more opportunities than their previous generation.  Making excuses for failure makes failure easier.

I remember when I was a kid and my widowed mother with three boys would depend on our church to bring groceries.  I remember my mother working two or three jobs, usually coming home as we were waking up.  I remember buying a 50 cent bag of cheetos and a box of baggies and selling a dozen bags of cheetos at school for a dime each so I could buy lunch. 

So dont' tell me about poverty.  I lived it. I know about safety nets and what they are good for.

I remember pumping gas, waiting tables and making pizzas between classes so I could graduate from a good State school while paying in-state tuition.  Yes, it took me eight years to get my 4 year degree.  And yes, I know tuition is higher now than it was.  But I earned it and I am proud of it.  And I do know kids today that are working and going to school without running up tons of debt.

I know other kids that chose a different path.  They thought they were cool because they dropped out of school.  Some of them even got a job.  The lucky ones are still working that same job and complaining about how the rich keep getting richer and they are still poor.

Yeah, being born into poverty sucks.  Some people are happy to use that as an excuse.  It takes work to get out of poverty.  But if you don't have to put in the effort, you will never get out of it.

Great job, and I mean that. Despite your poverty, it sounds like your mother was a great role model. Let us endeavor to understand whether there are structural changes we can make so that those born into poverty without role models, and not as intrinsically well-prepared for success, may join our ranks. That's what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 01:15:46 PM
Great job, and I mean that. Despite your poverty, it sounds like your mother was a great role model. Let us endeavor to understand whether there are structural changes we can make so that those born into poverty without role models, and not as intrinsically well-prepared for success, may join our ranks. That's what I'm getting at.
One start would be to provide assistance to young "couples" with kids.  In my opinion, one of the greatest failings of government is forcing the fathers of young children to leave the family so that the single mother can qualify for assistance.  But the assistance should be limited in both scope and longevity.  Give them basic foodstuffs like beans and rice (both are healthy).  Provide BASIC shelter for a limited amount of time.  But don't just give them money.  And make them earn what assistance they are given.  Providing child care for other working couples comes to mind.  Even picking up trash in their neighborhood can be productive and give the residents something to be proud of.  I hated my neighborhood when I was a kid because it was filthy and I was embarrassed to bring my friends home.  I wanted to get out of that neighborhood so bad I was willing to work for it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 01:40:44 PM
One start would be to provide assistance to young "couples" with kids.  In my opinion, one of the greatest failings of government is forcing the fathers of young children to leave the family so that the single mother can qualify for assistance.  But the assistance should be limited in both scope and longevity.  Give them basic foodstuffs like beans and rice (both are healthy).  Provide BASIC shelter for a limited amount of time.  But don't just give them money.  And make them earn what assistance they are given.  Providing child care for other working couples comes to mind.  Even picking up trash in their neighborhood can be productive and give the residents something to be proud of.  I hated my neighborhood when I was a kid because it was filthy and I was embarrassed to bring my friends home.  I wanted to get out of that neighborhood so bad I was willing to work for it.


I like those ideas. I also think we have to look beyond the welfare issue. It's one thing to change assistance programs to be geared toward getting people to work vs. perpetually on assistance. But many of these areas have drastically too-few jobs for the population, and those jobs that do exist are minimum wage or just above, leaving the children of the folks we're pushing into those jobs perhaps worse off than when Mom was at home.

I think we need to completely reimagine how we help people, and it doesn't all have to be by giving folks money. I think we need to get in these communities and effect change in new ways to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I admit I don't have all the answers.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Steingar on March 18, 2016, 01:47:06 PM
I myself would like to see heavily subsidized (if not outright free) but heavily regulated child care.  Put qualified members of the community to work caring for children so that the mothers can find productive work.  To my mind if someone is willing to work full time I'd like to assist them to at least maintain a subsistence level of existence.  Can't say I know what I would want to do with those that won't work, but it shouldn't be pretty.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 01:50:39 PM
What about not having children until you can afford them,  you know, personal responsibility?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 18, 2016, 01:55:49 PM

What about not having children until you can afford them,  you know, personal responsibility?

RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 01:57:51 PM
What about not having children until you can afford them,  you know, personal responsibility?

What is your idea?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 01:58:26 PM
RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL,  nope, that comment applies to all races.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 01:59:28 PM
What is your idea?

That was my idea, it solves lots of problems.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 02:00:45 PM
What about not having children until you can afford them,  you know, personal responsibility?
That should be made a national priority.
I am not saying you have to be rich to have kids.  But you need to at least be able to support yourself.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 02:01:21 PM
That was my idea, it solves lots of problems.

Ok. Is it working in these communities? Doesn't seem like it. So I wondered what your idea was to fix that.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 02:12:12 PM
Ok. Is it working in these communities? Doesn't seem like it. So I wondered what your idea was to fix that.

Is what working in these communities?  Not having children until you can afford it?  It actually works very well, millions upon millions do this to great results.  It starts with family and a stable family unit that teaches responsibility for actions and teaches that actions have consequences. 

We've had decades of sex education, and safety nets that some consider jobs now, you get a paycheck when you have a baby.  We need to look at these programs and figure out why they don't work.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 18, 2016, 02:13:33 PM

Ok. Is it working in these communities? Doesn't seem like it. So I wondered what your idea was to fix that.

The funny thing is, being a single parent is the most preventable way to avoid poverty by any measure. Given the vast accessibility to birth control, the ability to close your legs, or just say NO, and your chances of avoiding poverty skyrocket. 

I think you asked about people who don't have roll models. If the government can fill THAT role, I'm sure it can pull off stopping the unwed mother rate.

Some people think we are just uncontrollable breeding animals. We are not. We are actually human beings who can control ourselves. I don't understand why people don't give their fellow human beings more credit.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 02:23:35 PM
I don't understand why people don't give their fellow human beings more credit.

It's not about credit, it's about reality. Just saying "personal responsibility!" is a platitude. My question is how we get that applied and working within these communities.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 18, 2016, 02:57:59 PM
It's not about credit, it's about reality. Just saying "personal responsibility!" is a platitude. My question is how we get that applied and working within these communities.
Simple, reduce benefit payouts for every child born after initial benefit eligibility.  Mo' babies = less monies, less bennies.  See how simple that was?

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 03:10:26 PM
Simple, reduce benefit payouts for every child born after initial benefit eligibility.  Mo' babies = less monies, less bennies.  See how simple that was?

'Gimp

This solution predicated on a supposition that we have an epidemic of people having babies for welfare benefits. I'd like your data on that, please.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 03:16:30 PM
This solution predicated on a supposition that we have an epidemic of people having babies for welfare benefits. I'd like your data on that, please.
Just because a lot of the evidence is anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 18, 2016, 03:17:45 PM
This solution predicated on a supposition that we have an epidemic of people having babies for welfare benefits. I'd like your data on that, please.

Whether they have them for welfare benefits or whether they have them then need welfare really doesn't matter.  The point is if they can't afford the consequences they shouldn't be putting themselves in the position  where they can get pregnant.   Personal responsibility.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 18, 2016, 03:21:09 PM
I myself would like to see heavily subsidized (if not outright free) but heavily regulated child care.  Put qualified members of the community to work caring for children so that the mothers can find productive work.  To my mind if someone is willing to work full time I'd like to assist them to at least maintain a subsistence level of existence.  Can't say I know what I would want to do with those that won't work, but it shouldn't be pretty.

MOTHERS should be caring for their young children full time.

FATHERS should be providing income full time.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 18, 2016, 03:22:11 PM
This solution predicated on a supposition that we have an epidemic of people having babies for welfare benefits. I'd like your data on that, please.

Then what's with all the teen baby-mamas?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 18, 2016, 03:55:15 PM
This solution predicated on a supposition that we have an epidemic of people having babies for welfare benefits. I'd like your data on that, please.
Not all, only that you asked for a solution to employ in communities, I gave one.  Reduce bennies for each additional child born while on the dole, that is a disincentive to have more babies for which there is no or insufficient income - are you or are you not concerned about kids born into poverty?

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 18, 2016, 04:38:19 PM
Just because a lot of the evidence is anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't valid.

It kinda does. Not that it might not be true, just that anecdotes by themselves don't take you to any valid conclusion.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Gary on March 18, 2016, 04:49:05 PM
Then what's with all the teen baby-mamas?

Perhaps that is just your perception.

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html

Pretty clear decline over the last twenty years.  Still too high, the causes of which are pretty varied; education, culture, family life, even where you may live (found the geographical distribution interesting).  Can't argue that personal responsibility is important, don't believe it is the only issue.

Gary
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 18, 2016, 04:55:40 PM

Not all, only that you asked for a solution to employ in communities, I gave one.  Reduce bennies for each additional child born while on the dole, that is a disincentive to have more babies for which there is no or insufficient income - are you or are you not concerned about kids born into poverty?

'Gimp
You're going to take food out of the mouth of babies. You won't let them have abortions, yet you won't support the babies. You're an EVIL REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 18, 2016, 04:58:12 PM
Perhaps that is just your perception.

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html

Pretty clear decline over the last twenty years.  Still too high, the causes of which are pretty varied; education, culture, family life, even where you may live (found the geographical distribution interesting).  Can't argue that personal responsibility is important, don't believe it is the only issue.

Gary

Knowing that Uncle is going to pay for formula and diapers removes a lot of the incentive to keep your legs crossed.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 18, 2016, 06:54:21 PM
Lock up the gang bangers, thus removing them from role model status.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 18, 2016, 07:47:22 PM
You're going to take food out of the mouth of babies. You won't let them have abortions, yet you won't support the babies. You're an EVIL REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!
No I am not, but I used to be... ;^)

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 18, 2016, 08:01:59 PM
Not all, only that you asked for a solution to employ in communities, I gave one.  Reduce bennies for each additional child born while on the dole, that is a disincentive to have more babies for which there is no or insufficient income - are you or are you not concerned about kids born into poverty?

'Gimp

Fine, but I assume you have some data upon which you base your belief that this solution will solve anything. For example, you may have data that shows families on welfare have an appreciably higher average number of children than those families not on welfare. This would support the belief that welfare mother are having kids for benefits. I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 18, 2016, 09:58:05 PM
According to the liberal Brookings Institute, there are three simple rules to greatly increasing your chances at not remaining poor:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Wait until you're married to have children

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 19, 2016, 07:33:01 AM

According to the liberal Brookings Institute, there are three simple rules to greatly increasing your chances at not remaining poor:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Wait until you're married to have children

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

You obviously don't understand what it's like to be "down with the struggle." 

;)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 09:38:55 AM
Being born poor is not a life choice.

No of course not, but if you are born poor, you are expected to rise above that and claw your way out of the ghetto even though you have no one to help you do that, no mentors to help you, no good schools, or teachers, no financial means and very little in your surroundings to inspire you. You're also expected to fight off the lure of the criminal world, even though many of your friends have joined and reject government welfare.

Basically if you are born poor, you are expected to work harder on your own than anyone else just to make it to the middle.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 09:49:40 AM
Simple, reduce benefit payouts for every child born after initial benefit eligibility.  Mo' babies = less monies, less bennies.  See how simple that was?

'Gimp

What happens when the babies come anyhow? You are asking the least responsible folks in society to somehow become responsible citizens and resist biology and act proper because they are poor. When the birth control doesn't work, or some one has a lapse in judgement and they get pregnant and they can't afford it, and the government isn't giving out money anymore and you can't have an abortion, what are they to do?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 19, 2016, 09:51:30 AM
When the birth control doesn't work, or some one has a lapse in judgement and they get pregnant and they can't afford it, and the government isn't giving out money anymore and you can't have an abortion, what are they to do?

Get a job or two.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 09:55:10 AM
According to the liberal Brookings Institute, there are three simple rules to greatly increasing your chances at not remaining poor:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Wait until you're married to have children

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

Wow! What an amazing, insightful break through! They should go tell the folks in the Ghetto this! I think it could really help!!  ::)

The lack of understanding of how the cycle of poverty actually works amongst the supposed educated class is astounding.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 10:04:38 AM
Get a job or two.

Oh brilliant!! So, she'll just drop the kid off at the free daycare center and go and take her ignorant ass that barely can make a proper sentence, with no skills whatsoever over to all the local employers that will no doubt be thrilled to have her join their working team.

How many ignorant, single moms with poor work habits have you hired? I personally avoid them. Even McDonalds has standards.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 19, 2016, 11:02:31 AM
According to the liberal Brookings Institute, there are three simple rules to greatly increasing your chances at not remaining poor:

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Wait until you're married to have children

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins
Hey, those points were raised from looking at WHAT CAUSES POVERTY.  Do those three things and AVOID POVERTY.  This is a massively effective observation that cannot be dismissed just because getting people CURRENTLY in poverty out of poverty RIGHT NOW can't be done instantly by applying what should have been applied long ago BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.  All of the points above (HOW TO STAY OUT OF POVERTY) are personal choices.  The government will never and should never:

1) Control personal choices
2) Reward bad personal choices

I do see exceptions for babies and children because THEY ARE INNOCENT.  But (gird yourselves) what do we do when we as a government support babies and children who are the result/victims of bad choices?  WE DILUTE THE AGONIZING AND MOTIVATING FORCE WITHIN A HUMAN BEING THAT MOVES THEM TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR OFFSPRING.

Thus creating an ever expanding number of such offspring. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 19, 2016, 11:14:34 AM
Oh brilliant!! So, she'll just drop the kid off at the free daycare center and go and take her ignorant ass that barely can make a proper sentence, with no skills whatsoever over to all the local employers that will no doubt be thrilled to have her join their working team.

How many ignorant, single moms with poor work habits have you hired? I personally avoid them. Even McDonalds has standards.
YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.  One problem with liberalism is that it has created a bunch of lazy-ass people.  When have you taken extreme action to re-examine your life and choices?  WHEN YOUR SURVIVAL IS IN PERIL OR YOUR CHILDREN NEED SOMETHING VITAL.

Look, people do not change until they become uncomfortable.  That's why politicians of all ilk have kicked the can of real turnaround down the road for decades.  They think "comfortable" and "handouts" get votes.  Trump is doing a little number on that.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 19, 2016, 11:19:24 AM

Oh brilliant!! So, she'll just drop the kid off at the free daycare center and go and take her ignorant ass that barely can make a proper sentence, with no skills whatsoever over to all the local employers that will no doubt be thrilled to have her join their working team.

How many ignorant, single moms with poor work habits have you hired? I personally avoid them. Even McDonalds has standards.
Then you know what?  Life is going to suck. At least until such time as they learn this thing called a "work ethic" is something that is needed to exist in this world.

But until people stop coddling and making excuses for such people, nothing will change, and the cycle continues.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 19, 2016, 11:57:04 AM

Then you know what?  Life is going to suck. At least until such time as they learn this thing called a "work ethic" is something that is needed to exist in this world.

But until people stop coddling and making excuses for such people, nothing will change, and the cycle continues.

This is the result of coddling and excuse making. This kid was shot after breaking into a home. And what did the thug's relatives say?

"You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. You have to understand, how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point of view,” Nautika Harris, Johnson’s cousin stated."

http://conservativetribune.com/woman-shoots-thug-robbing/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FederalistPapers&utm_content=2016-03-18&utm_campaign=manualpost
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 12:34:38 PM
Then you know what?  Life is going to suck. At least until such time as they learn this thing called a "work ethic" is something that is needed to exist in this world.

But until people stop coddling and making excuses for such people, nothing will change, and the cycle continues.

Show me one country on the planet where this tough love for the poor has actually resulted in less poor. Actually, is there a country where there really is no poor and how did they achieve that?

When life sucks for poor people and there is little opportunity for them either because of their own choices or external factors, you know what they do? They get high and then they turn to crime to continue getting high. Someone should run an accounting, which is cheaper? Simply paying poor people to keep them relatively content at subsistence level, or incarceration? Most of the first world industrialized nations have adopted the former. Also by placating large numbers of poor, you can avoid occasional uprisings and revolutions.

IMO, the real solution to poverty in this country would require a suspension of the constitution to achieve. Basically to break the cycle of poverty, all the children under a very young age need to be taken from their parent/parents/guardian to a whole different local where they can learn and be educated in supportive environment. Basically grow up to not be ghetto kids. Meanwhile, the mothers need to be on birth control of some kind so the choice to have children or not is out of their control. In a generation's time, poverty would be a pale shadow of itself in the country, but this is all crazy talk. All very Big Brother, so carry on with the "up by the bootstraps" rhetoric.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 19, 2016, 01:53:53 PM
The big issue here is that the current path we are on is unsustainable.  You can't have more people on assistance than you have working.  In fact if you have more than a few percent of a given population expecting handouts  things start to go downhill.  The money we are giving away is being borrowed from our children.  It is a sick situation and the progressive solution is always give away more and make the problem bigger.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 19, 2016, 01:56:35 PM

Show me one country on the planet where this tough love for the poor has actually resulted in less poor. Actually, is there a country where there really is no poor and how did they achieve that?

When life sucks for poor people and there is little opportunity for them either because of their own choices or external factors, you know what they do? They get high and then they turn to crime to continue getting high. Someone should run an accounting, which is cheaper? Simply paying poor people to keep them relatively content at subsistence level, or incarceration? Most of the first world industrialized nations have adopted the former. Also by placating large numbers of poor, you can avoid occasional uprisings and revolutions.

IMO, the real solution to poverty in this country would require a suspension of the constitution to achieve. Basically to break the cycle of poverty, all the children under a very young age need to be taken from their parent/parents/guardian to a whole different local where they can learn and be educated in supportive environment. Basically grow up to not be ghetto kids. Meanwhile, the mothers need to be on birth control of some kind so the choice to have children or not is out of their control. In a generation's time, poverty would be a pale shadow of itself in the country, but this is all crazy talk. All very Big Brother, so carry on with the "up by the bootstraps" rhetoric.

One country?  Sure. The United States of America, after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, before Obama eviscerated it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Gary on March 19, 2016, 02:29:29 PM
One country?  Sure. The United States of America, after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, before Obama eviscerated it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Just how did President Obama gut PRWOA?  From your reference:

In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[12] According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.[13]

The change has been questioned by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who requested further details from HHS over concerns that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA.[11] Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, PolitiFact stated that Romney's claim was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating.[14] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false.[15] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[16]


Would seem the President gave the states more flexibility, isn't giving states more powers to direct programs a conservative ideal?  There were a few on the right side of the isle that did criticize this.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Gary
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 19, 2016, 04:36:42 PM
Gary, Politifact is often biased.  Here is another look at TANF:

http://www.politifactbias.com/2012/09/politifact-and-gutting-of-welfare-reform.html

"Romney's claim is entirely accurate. Partisans can argue about whether or not it's misleading, or if it's a reasonable summation of Obama's policy. But Romney's statement that a person could still receive a welfare check without working or training is unarguably based on fact. Attempts to claim otherwise are pure editorial spin.

This is how the non-non-partisans at PolitiFact have always operated, though in the past they did better at keeping their campaign chaff out of their research wheat. They must be getting antsy, or perhaps they're getting cocky. Either way, their unabashed defense of liberal policies is less and less camouflaged as the election nears."
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 19, 2016, 05:49:39 PM
So poor people must remain poor forever.  Someone forgot to tell Oprah and Dr. Carson and the many more that made a wonderful and successful life for themselves.  Just lucky I guess.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 19, 2016, 06:40:47 PM
Would seem the President gave the states more flexibility, isn't giving states more powers to direct programs a conservative ideal?  There were a few on the right side of the isle that did criticize this.
Please cite for me where the President is given the power to give the states more flexibility. While you do that, I'll just leave this little guy here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 07:49:17 PM
One country?  Sure. The United States of America, after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, before Obama eviscerated it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Are you suggesting that from 1996 to 2008 poverty was in decline and then Obama reversed that trend? That's certainly not what I remember. During a portion of that time frame, I lived and worked among the poor and they did not appear to me to be moving up the economic ladder one bit.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 19, 2016, 08:28:19 PM
So poor people must remain poor forever.  Someone forgot to tell Oprah and Dr. Carson and the many more that made a wonderful and successful life for themselves.  Just lucky I guess.

No they don't and clearly some succeed every year in getting out. The problem is, fro every Oprah, or Carson, there are probably 2x more poor added to the poverty pool. It's kind of like expecting every single one of the middle class to become upper class millionaires in their lives. Of course the path and opportunity is there if they are gifted and motivated, but few are at that level, or ever will be.

We have to remember that there was a time before welfare and in that time, the only way out of poverty was motivation and self help. There was no end in sight back in those days for ending poverty and we have to assume from all accounts that life really sucked for those poor people. Just having life suck was not enough to get people up and out. Also this was a time when illegal immigrants couldn't be blamed for stealing all the entry level jobs and driving the wages down.

Basically, welfare as we know it was created because the "Just suck it up and better yourself!" mantra of the past wasn't working at all. Having said all this and now 90 percent of this forum is convinced I'm a total communist with pictures of Lenin in my living room, I will also say that I ;too believe that just handing out money isn't enough, or effective at ending poverty. It does however raise what we call "poverty" well above what other third world countries and even our own country 100 years ago called poverty. Poor people in this country have it way better than poor people in other places.

Sadly, I see no practical solution to poverty in this country. The Left's big hand out gravy train is proven to not lift many up and the Right's tough love, lift yourself up on your own, sink or swim ideals have been tried and never worked before. As a person who was born into a family of engineers, I see solutions, they just wouldn't be popular, or constitutional. So yeah, the poor will be with us for a good long while.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:19:30 AM
No of course not, but if you are born poor, you are expected to rise above that and claw your way out of the ghetto even though you have no one to help you do that, no mentors to help you, no good schools, or teachers, no financial means and very little in your surroundings to inspire you. You're also expected to fight off the lure of the criminal world, even though many of your friends have joined and reject government welfare.

Basically if you are born poor, you are expected to work harder on your own than anyone else just to make it to the middle.

The culture must change. Throwing money at it solves nothing. Never has.

Obama blew his chance. But he never really wanted to elevate  "his people" anyway.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:21:42 AM
What happens when the babies come anyhow? You are asking the least responsible folks in society to somehow become responsible citizens and resist biology and act proper because they are poor. When the birth control doesn't work, or some one has a lapse in judgement and they get pregnant and they can't afford it, and the government isn't giving out money anymore and you can't have an abortion, what are they to do?

Get a liberal to "adopt" each one. They encourage such behavior. Let them pay.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:24:13 AM
The government will never and should never:

1) Control personal choices
2) Reward bad personal choices



LMAO! That's what they DO!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 20, 2016, 07:46:39 AM
Oh brilliant!! So, she'll just drop the kid off at the free daycare center and go and take her ignorant ass that barely can make a proper sentence, with no skills whatsoever over to all the local employers that will no doubt be thrilled to have her join their working team.

How many ignorant, single moms with poor work habits have you hired? I personally avoid them. Even McDonalds has standards.

This kind of defeatist nonsense is spouted most often by people who desperately want these things to stay that way because it insures future elections. It is a typically liberal response to try to get everyone to throw up their hands and declare things non-fixable, to avoid allowing the poor to become self reliant, and risk losing their unwavering vote.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 07:59:53 AM
Sadly, I see no practical solution to poverty in this country. The Left's big hand out gravy train is proven to not lift many up and the Right's tough love, lift yourself up on your own, sink or swim ideals have been tried and never worked before. As a person who was born into a family of engineers, I see solutions, they just wouldn't be popular, or constitutional. So yeah, the poor will be with us for a good long while.
I want to expound on this without creating a new thread with a poll.
I do agree with this:
Quote
The Left's big hand out gravy train is proven to not lift many up

But I want to know how many on this board really feel this way:
Quote
the Right's tough love, lift yourself up on your own, sink or swim ideals

I for one think there is a middle ground, but that middle is closer to the "sink and swim" side than the "gravy train" side.  Sure, people on the bottom need help.  They need to learn how to stop digging their own hole.  They need to learn how to become self sufficient.  But supporting them is a comfortable life style is not going to motivate them.

We need to give them hope (with apologies to Obama) and support.  But we also need to show them that the status quo is not an option either.

I think giving money directly to  the poor is the worst thing we can do.  We can give them basic shelter, we can give them food, we can give them training and an education.  I'm even good with providing free child care so that they can get a productive job, AND free birth control.  But we should also give them the knowledge that if they want more, they have to work for it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Gary on March 20, 2016, 08:16:27 AM
Gary, Politifact is often biased.  Here is another look at TANF:

http://www.politifactbias.com/2012/09/politifact-and-gutting-of-welfare-reform.html

"Romney's claim is entirely accurate. Partisans can argue about whether or not it's misleading, or if it's a reasonable summation of Obama's policy. But Romney's statement that a person could still receive a welfare check without working or training is unarguably based on fact. Attempts to claim otherwise are pure editorial spin.

This is how the non-non-partisans at PolitiFact have always operated, though in the past they did better at keeping their campaign chaff out of their research wheat. They must be getting antsy, or perhaps they're getting cocky. Either way, their unabashed defense of liberal policies is less and less camouflaged as the election nears."

Any website, news site, fact checker... etc. will have a bias.. They are all written by people who inherently have their own bias built in.  That being said, I've found that Politi-fact to be one of the more accurate and least partisan ones out there.  They never struck me as unabashedly liberal.  Your opinion may differ.  ;D

Gary
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 08:19:46 AM
Any website, news site, fact checker... etc. will have a bias.. They are all written by people who inherently have their own bias built in.  That being said, I've found that Politi-fact to be one of the more accurate and least partisan ones out there.  They never struck me as unabashedly liberal.  Your opinion may differ.  ;D

Gary
The more liberal you are, the less liberal they look.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Gary on March 20, 2016, 08:25:09 AM
The more liberal you are, the less liberal they look.

Believe the reverse is also true!  ;D

Guess if one is way out there on the right, everyone looks liberal.

Gary
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 08:27:03 AM
Believe the reverse is also true!  ;D

Guess if one is way out there on the right, everyone looks liberal.

Gary
Of course,
but we were talking about Politifact as an unbiased source.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 08:50:18 AM
Get a liberal to "adopt" each one. They encourage such behavior. Let them pay.

What a load of bull crap. Biology encourages such behavior. Look around your red state with a critical eye. I know you will find plenty of children born out of wedlock. Many of them church goers. I say let the Conservatives adopt them, since they are the ones so against abortion in all cases.

The Liberals say abort 'em if you don't want 'em. I agree with the liberals on this one. The planet has too many people already. Forcing people to have babies they don't really want just makes the problem worse, including poverty. So suck it up you angry evangelicals, start helping by adopting all those unwanted black babies you wanted to be born so badly.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 08:57:09 AM
We can give them basic shelter, we can give them food, we can give them training and an education.  I'm even good with providing free child care so that they can get a productive job, AND free birth control.  But we should also give them the knowledge that if they want more, they have to work for it.

Uh, oh... you're starting to sound like a moderate. You had better be careful, the true conservatives here will start calling you a liberal, or a socialist soon. There was an awful lot of "give" and "free" in there and seriously... birth control??? Come on man!! They will strip away your conservative status with that kind of talk!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 09:01:19 AM
Believe the reverse is also true!  ;D

Guess if one is way out there on the right, everyone looks liberal.

Gary

That does seem to be the case. With conservatives it seems to be an all or nothing proposition. You're either with them, or you're against them. If you disagree with one of the conservative platforms, your are then labeled a liberal. So yeah, a lot of people look liberal to a true conservative that would never consider themselves a liberal.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 20, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
That does seem to be the case. With conservatives it seems to be an all or nothing proposition. You're either with them, or you're against them. If you disagree with one of the conservative platforms, your are then labeled a liberal. So yeah, a lot of people look liberal to a true conservative that would never consider themselves a liberal.

Basic Constitutional principals can not be compromised.  That's what the liberal/progressives want to do.  Take away the underpinnings what the U.S. has always meant.  They want to essentially re-write the Constitution through judicial interpretation.  That's just plain wrong.  No, I will not compromise with that.  All it gets you is another step closer to totalitarianism.   
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 20, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
No they don't and clearly some succeed every year in getting out. The problem is, fro every Oprah, or Carson, there are probably 2x more poor added to the poverty pool. It's kind of like expecting every single one of the middle class to become upper class millionaires in their lives. Of course the path and opportunity is there if they are gifted and motivated, but few are at that level, or ever will be.

We have to remember that there was a time before welfare and in that time, the only way out of poverty was motivation and self help. There was no end in sight back in those days for ending poverty and we have to assume from all accounts that life really sucked for those poor people. Just having life suck was not enough to get people up and out. Also this was a time when illegal immigrants couldn't be blamed for stealing all the entry level jobs and driving the wages down.

Basically, welfare as we know it was created because the "Just suck it up and better yourself!" mantra of the past wasn't working at all. Having said all this and now 90 percent of this forum is convinced I'm a total communist with pictures of Lenin in my living room, I will also say that I ;too believe that just handing out money isn't enough, or effective at ending poverty. It does however raise what we call "poverty" well above what other third world countries and even our own country 100 years ago called poverty. Poor people in this country have it way better than poor people in other places.

Sadly, I see no practical solution to poverty in this country. The Left's big hand out gravy train is proven to not lift many up and the Right's tough love, lift yourself up on your own, sink or swim ideals have been tried and never worked before. As a person who was born into a family of engineers, I see solutions, they just wouldn't be popular, or constitutional. So yeah, the poor will be with us for a good long while.

So that $22T we've spent on the "War on Poverty" has bought us so much.   :o
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 09:51:21 AM
That does seem to be the case. With conservatives it seems to be an all or nothing proposition. You're either with them, or you're against them. If you disagree with one of the conservative platforms, your are then labeled a liberal. So yeah, a lot of people look liberal to a true conservative that would never consider themselves a liberal.
But then it's the liberals that think that if you are against illegal immigration, you
hate  all immigrants.
And it is the liberals that think that if you want to reduce regulations, you are promoting anarchy.
and it is the liberals that if you are for reducing welfare, you want kids and old people to starve to death.
And it is the liberals that think that if you want to reduce tax rates that you want tax revenue to go down.
And it is liberals that think trying to keep radical Muslim terrorists out of the country means you hate all Muslims.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 10:26:51 AM
Basic Constitutional principals can not be compromised.  That's what the liberal/progressives want to do.  Take away the underpinnings what the U.S. has always meant.  They want to essentially re-write the Constitution through judicial interpretation.  That's just plain wrong.  No, I will not compromise with that.  All it gets you is another step closer to totalitarianism.   

Sure, progressives do want to reinterpret, or even re-write the constitution, that's part of the progression, or progress they want to make, but not every issue facing the country has to do with the constitution.  The constitution is a relatively short document and purposely leaves space governance. There are lots of issues that conservatives have a position on that aren't directly addressed by the constitution. If you oppose any of these positions, you will likely be labled a liberal.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 20, 2016, 10:31:00 AM

But I want to know how many on this board really feel this way:


I don't think it (liberal "vs" conservative) is about what help is provided, but rather who is the provider of the help.

The liberal seems to always be about the Government providing the help (or the whatever).  It's as if the liberal is a one-trick pony, "MORE GOVERNMENT" is the solution, now let us find the problem...

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
But then it's the liberals that think that if you are against illegal immigration, you
hate  all immigrants.
And it is the liberals that think that if you want to reduce regulations, you are promoting anarchy.
and it is the liberals that if you are for reducing welfare, you want kids and old people to starve to death.
And it is the liberals that think that if you want to reduce tax rates that you want tax revenue to go down.
And it is liberals that think trying to keep radical Muslim terrorists out of the country means you hate all Muslims.

Sure. Some make blanket statements and snap judgments, but my point is, you can oppose the position of a liberal and they won't automatically label you a conservative, or right wing lunatic. The liberals are much more comfortable with shades of grey and alternative points of view than conservatives are.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 10:49:53 AM
I don't think it (liberal "vs" conservative) is about what help is provided, but rather who is the provider of the help.

The liberal seems to always be about the Government providing the help (or the whatever).  It's as if the liberal is a one-trick pony, "MORE GOVERNMENT" is the solution, now let us find the problem...

I guess that is because nobody else is stepping in to do anything about poverty. If they were we wouldn't need/want or desire the government to be involved. If the government got out of the poverty business, who would then do anything to help these people? Like I said before, government not being involved was tried before. The hands off approach did nothing to alleviate poverty. I guessing from your post that you believe that poverty really isn't a problem at all and that the government got involved with a solution that wasn't needed? Is that right? 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 10:58:08 AM
So that $22T we've spent on the "War on Poverty" has bought us so much.   :o

The money has been misspent. There has been great reluctance to change strategy in how to aid and spend that money for sure. In all fairness though, that money has bought our nation's poor people a pretty high standard of living when compared with the rest of the world. That in turn has bought us stability and apathy among the poor. You should be grateful because an angry poor population has been known to bring about chaos, anarchy and revolution. It also creates even more voting Democrats than it already does.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 20, 2016, 11:29:41 AM
Any website, news site, fact checker... etc. will have a bias.. They are all written by people who inherently have their own bias built in.  That being said, I've found that Politi-fact to be one of the more accurate and least partisan ones out there.  They never struck me as unabashedly liberal.  Your opinion may differ.  ;D

Gary
Sure.  But how do you see a thoughtful analysis that takes apart a "True" rating, clearly showing the falseness of a statement, and assign it any bias at all?  It's just an analysis.  I follow the thinking.  It's clear, if you read the PolitiFactBias article, which I feel fairly sure you didn't.

BTW, I never said PolitiFact was "unabashedly liberal."  I said they were often biased.  Big difference, and I don't appreciate your spin. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 20, 2016, 11:33:22 AM
Sure. Some make blanket statements and snap judgments, but my point is, you can oppose the position of a liberal and they won't automatically label you a conservative, or right wing lunatic. The liberals are much more comfortable with shades of grey and alternative points of view than conservatives are.
ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING!!!  EYE ROLL!!! 

SO not true, in my experience.  I'm a right-leaning moderate, and EVERY LIBERAL I talk with jumps instantly to labeling, even when I try to introduce the thought that labels are a problem!! 

"Alternative points of view?"  Try "Shut down the discussion," and you'll be more accurate.

The PROBLEM is that moderates and conservatives TRY to go into the "Shades of Gray" mode to get along with liberals and show that we are FULLY CAPABLE of nuance.  AND WHERE HAS THAT GOTTEN US?   Look around.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 20, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
I guess that is because nobody else is stepping in to do anything about poverty. If they were we wouldn't need/want or desire the government to be involved. ....

Wow, just wow.

I guess charities never existed before the Government got in the business of pissing money away without results.


Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 20, 2016, 11:42:45 AM
Sure. Some make blanket statements and snap judgments, but my point is, you can oppose the position of a liberal and they won't automatically label you a conservative, or right wing lunatic. The liberals are much more comfortable with shades of grey and alternative points of view than conservatives are.

All the anti-conservative protests, all the "safe zone" stuff, is evidence to the contrary

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: CharlieTango on March 20, 2016, 11:48:24 AM
The money has been misspent. There has been great reluctance to change strategy in how to aid and spend that money for sure. In all fairness though, that money has bought our nation's poor people a pretty high standard of living when compared with the rest of the world. That in turn has bought us stability and apathy among the poor. You should be grateful because an angry poor population has been known to bring about chaos, anarchy and revolution. It also creates even more voting Democrats than it already does.

The misspent money goes far beyond the current debt.  I am not the least bit grateful, a small government results in opportunity.  The poor are far better off with economic opportunity than a lifetime of handouts.  Either way won't result in a 'french' revolution.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
Wow, just wow.

I guess charities never existed before the Government got in the business of pissing money away without results.

Wow. Just wow... If charities were effective at lifting people out of poverty, there wouldn't have ever been a need for government programs in the past or now. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to stopping charity from getting people out of poverty right now! Charities are ineffective and while they are great to have and do their best, the results show they are not enough.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 20, 2016, 01:34:56 PM
Wow. Just wow... If charities were effective at lifting people out of poverty, there wouldn't have ever been a need for government programs in the past or now. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to stopping charity from getting people out of poverty right now! Charities are ineffective and while they are great to have and do their best, the results show they are not enough.
Why is it anybody other than the individual's responsibility to be lifted out of poverty?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 20, 2016, 02:04:41 PM
Wow. Just wow... If charities were effective at lifting people out of poverty, there wouldn't have ever been a need for government programs in the past or now. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to stopping charity from getting people out of poverty right now! Charities are ineffective and while they are great to have and do their best, the results show they are not enough.

wow just wow right back at you.

If the Government was effective at charity, then the billions and billions and billions pissed away would have had some impact (other than trying to buy votes for the democrat pukes)

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 20, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
Why is it anybody other than the individual's responsibility to be lifted out of poverty?

Because kids have no choice but to be mired in the misery, and few can escape it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 20, 2016, 03:11:27 PM
The money has been misspent. There has been great reluctance to change strategy in how to aid and spend that money for sure. In all fairness though, that money has bought our nation's poor people a pretty high standard of living when compared with the rest of the world. That in turn has bought us stability and apathy among the poor. You should be grateful because an angry poor population has been known to bring about chaos, anarchy and revolution. It also creates even more voting Democrats than it already does.

What it has brought us is a segment of the population that is willing to stay on the Democrat plantation as long as they have their EBT card and cellphone while they live in their section 8 housing and sees no reason to try and work their way out of that.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 20, 2016, 03:34:26 PM
Because kids have no choice but to be mired in the misery, and few can escape it.

So we've been doing this welfare thing for over 50 years,  time to do something else.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 20, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
So we've been doing this welfare thing for over 50 years,  time to do something else.
No, no, no.


You need to think like a liberal.  If something hasn't worked, that just means you haven't dumped enough money into it yet.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 20, 2016, 03:43:37 PM
So we've been doing this welfare thing for over 50 years,  time to do something else.

Sounds great. Let's hear more than platitudes and moral lectures.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 20, 2016, 04:12:37 PM
Sounds great. Let's hear more than platitudes and moral lectures.

Safety net, not a career.  I can't make it any more simple.  I'll add that people who are physically handicapped, severely mentally ill or mentally handicapped  AND unable to work should be supported.  Those able bodied, should not be supported any longer than a short period of time.  If  you want to support others, be my guest, do it yourself, or better yet organize all your like minded compatriots and do it on your own.   You could call it Able Bodied Welfare.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Sounds great. Let's hear more than platitudes and moral lectures.
I've mentioned my ideas a couple of times, and nobody commented except for Dave to tell me that I will lose my conservative creds.

In a nutshell,
1. do not give poor people money or food stamps.
2. Do give them food, basic shelter, education and child care if they have a job. Also provide free birth control.
3. Do not try to make them "comfortable" in their poverty.  Emphasize that if they want nice things they have to work for it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 20, 2016, 04:29:26 PM
I've mentioned my ideas a couple of times, and nobody commented except for Dave to tell me that I will lose my conservative creds.

In a nutshell,
1. do not give poor people money or food stamps.
2. Do give them food, basic shelter, education and child care if they have a job. Also provide free birth control.
3. Do not try to make them "comfortable" in their poverty.  Emphasize that if they want nice things they have to work for it.

How is that not conservative?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 20, 2016, 05:26:02 PM
How is that not conservative?
I used the words "give" and "free" more than once.

And I didn't even address the situation with the invalids and incapacitated, which would need to be addressed.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 20, 2016, 06:15:54 PM
I've mentioned my ideas a couple of times, and nobody commented except for Dave to tell me that I will lose my conservative creds.

In a nutshell,
1. do not give poor people money or food stamps.
2. Do give them food, basic shelter, education and child care if they have a job. Also provide free birth control.
3. Do not try to make them "comfortable" in their poverty.  Emphasize that if they want nice things they have to work for it.

Actually in post #57 I told you I liked your ideas.

My ideas lately are centered around breaking the cycle of poverty by focusing on kids. Tonight on Sixty Minutes there was a powerful story (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-newark-school-st-benedicts-scott-pelley/) about Newark's St. Benedict's Prep. This is the kind of thing I'd love to see more of. Kids are an open book and, I believe, one of the keys to helping break the vicious cycle. That's where our focus should be, because that's where we can stage an intervention of sorts
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 07:05:41 PM
Why is it anybody other than the individual's responsibility to be lifted out of poverty?

I think you are asking the question all wrong. By you asking that question, I have to assume you are just fine with a percentage of the American populace being poor. I'm guessing you look at it as just the natural order of things. So given this, I have to ask-


So I believe the better question is, is there a net benefit to the whole of American society if there are fewer poor among us? I believe there is and I believe there is value in trying to achieve this. It's not a responsibility to help poor people move up, it's a project, like building a dam, or a highway. It's for the betterment of all.

You may disagree with me on this, millions around the world do. In many other countries, poverty is just believed to be part of the natural order and little if any effort is given to aiding those born into poverty. I just disagree with this notion.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 20, 2016, 07:15:19 PM
I think you are asking the question all wrong. By you asking that question, I have to assume you are just fine with a percentage of the American populace being poor. I'm guessing you look at it as just the natural order of things. So given this, I have to ask-

  • How large should the population of the poor be?

The taxpaying producers shouldn't have to support (provide health care, food by EBT, or otherwise, accommodations, and all the other free stuff to more than about four percent of the population, including those who actually need it, as opposed to those who live off the handouts as a career move. As long as they are not government supported, I don't care how many classify as poor, anymore than i care how many classify as middle class, rich, or super rich. At no point do i include retirees, and/or those collecting SSI for which they contributed for their entire working lives.

  • Is there a point at which they become too large?

Once the percentage goes over five, the drag on the economy begins to be felt, as it has for several generations, now.


  • What part do the poor play in the bigger American society?

No more than any other demographic. Other than giving rise to the ghettos, and criminal underbelly of America, through robbery, murder - particularly black on black murder and crime, and skyrocketing drug abuse and general mischief.

  • Are the poor a help, a hinderance, or do they just not even matter either way?

Jesus said, "the poor shall be with you always." The existence of poor people is not a reflection of anything but the general health, or lack thereof of any society. Out of the ranks of the poor have come great artists, innovators, inventors, doctors, researchers, athletes, and every other kind of success story, just like they do out of the ranks of the middle class and rich.

  • Would the country as a whole, be better off if there were much fewer poor, worse off with fewer poor, or it just doesn't matter?

This is a trick question. The poor WILL be with us always. Fewer poor people would mean a healthier and prosperous  country, but liberals are never going to let people rise out of poverty and endanger their power.

[/list]

So I believe the better question is, is there a net benefit to the whole of American society if there are fewer poor among us? I believe there is and I believe there is value in trying to achieve this. It's not a responsibility to help poor people move up, it's a project, like building a dam, or a highway. It's for the betterment of all.

You may disagree with me on this, millions around the world do. In many other countries, poverty is just believed to be part of the natural order and little if any effort is given to aiding those born into poverty. I just disagree with this notion.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 20, 2016, 08:18:55 PM
I think you are asking the question all wrong. By you asking that question, I have to assume you are just fine with a percentage of the American populace being poor. I'm guessing you look at it as just the natural order of things. So given this, I have to ask-

  • How large should the population of the poor be?
  • Is there a point at which they become too large?
  • What part do the poor play in the bigger American society?
  • Are the poor a help, a hinderance, or do they just not even matter either way?
  • Would the country as a whole, be better off if there were much fewer poor, worse off with fewer poor, or it just doesn't matter?

So I believe the better question is, is there a net benefit to the whole of American society if there are fewer poor among us? I believe there is and I believe there is value in trying to achieve this. It's not a responsibility to help poor people move up, it's a project, like building a dam, or a highway. It's for the betterment of all.

You may disagree with me on this, millions around the world do. In many other countries, poverty is just believed to be part of the natural order and little if any effort is given to aiding those born into poverty. I just disagree with this notion.
No, I asked the question the way I wanted to ask it. Your assumptions are also false.

It is not the responsibility of anybody (including the government) to lift people up. It is up to the individual to do that themselves. Children born into a poor family may be poor as children but they don't have to remain that way their entire lives. This is where equal opportunity vs. equal outcomes comes into play. Liberals believe in equal outcomes. In other words, we should lift the poor up into the middle class so they can have a chance at bettering themselves because they're on the same level as everyone else. Conservatives believe that this country provides equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Everyone has the opportunity to make themselves and their families better and it is their responsibility to do so. Failure to do so is not the fault of government, but your own. Poor people who make poor decisions will remain poor.

Personally, I would find it embarrassing, as a man, if I could not provide for my family. I would resist signing up for welfare as much as possible. I would work as many jobs as needed, as many hours as needed, to provide for my family. If it came down to my family starving or me signing up for welfare, I would sign up to ensure they were able to eat, but as soon as I was able, I would be back off of it. Welfare was meant as a stop-gap measure to provide assistance to those who need it most, not as a means to maintain a lifestyle because you're too lazy or don't care enough to get a job. After all, why should you? The government will take care of you, so there's no need for you to do it.

It's about personal responsibility and the choices you make in life.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 20, 2016, 09:08:59 PM
wow just wow right back at you.

If the Government was effective at charity, then the billions and billions and billions pissed away would have had some impact (other than trying to buy votes for the democrat pukes)

The government has been more effective at charity than any other organization ever. You may consider the billions pissed away because poverty as we define it hasn't been illuminated as promised, but if you look at the living conditions of our poor and compare it to that of the poor in other countries, or better our own country say 80 years ago when we really did nothing about poverty, you can see that the quality of life is much better for the poor than it was. If nothing else it has helped curb the spread of disease.

I can't stress enough that I agree that money has been wasted, management has been lousy and corruption has set in with industries set up to benefit from it. Welfare reform in our country is long over due and the Democrats have impeded any changes for decades. It is in their interest to always have a pool of poor people to vote for them. All of this is true, but giving up and scraping welfare is not the way to go. A better idea would be for Republicans to take ownership of welfare programs and be the new champions for the poor with programs that actually gets results.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 20, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
A better idea would be for Republicans to take ownership of welfare programs and be the new champions for the poor with programs that actually gets results.

Gingrich's Congress did that with WORKfare, but B.O decimated it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Anthony on March 21, 2016, 04:51:44 AM
FDR, and his packed court succeeded in prolonging and deepening the Depression.  It took WWII to get us out.  However, I did like his programs such as the CCC and NRA which put men to work to build infrastructure.  I would have preferred this be run through private companies, and contracts, but it did put men to work instead of just giving them money.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 06:43:42 AM
It is not the responsibility of anybody (including the government) to lift people up. It is up to the individual to do that themselves. Children born into a poor family may be poor as children but they don't have to remain that way their entire lives. This is where equal opportunity vs. equal outcomes comes into play. Liberals believe in equal outcomes. In other words, we should lift the poor up into the middle class so they can have a chance at bettering themselves because they're on the same level as everyone else. Conservatives believe that this country provides equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Everyone has the opportunity to make themselves and their families better and it is their responsibility to do so. Failure to do so is not the fault of government, but your own. Poor people who make poor decisions will remain poor.
Reality disagrees with your position. We have child poverty rates that rank much worse than many other wealthy nations. Being born into poverty is, by definition, unequal opportunity. Persistent childhood poverty is detrimental to the long-term health of a child -- as I mentioned earlier, there is evidence it causes biological changes. The longer they remain in poverty as a child, the more likely they are to fail to climb out of it in adulthood.

It is a worthwhile endeavor to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I think a better focus on the kids, like St. Benedict's Prep School I mentioned earlier, is somewhere we could do better.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 09:23:52 AM
Wow, just wow.

I guess charities never existed before the Government got in the business of pissing money confiscated from producers away without results.

FTFY
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 21, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a179/KahunaGrande/FeeltheBern_zpscd8esmxi.jpg)

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 09:59:48 AM
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a179/KahunaGrande/FeeltheBern_zpscd8esmxi.jpg)

'Gimp

Friggin' four-year-olds always refuse to make a living.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 21, 2016, 10:04:12 AM
Friggin' four-year-olds always refuse to make a living.
Are you suggesting that there exists today direct welfare/aid payments from USG to 4-yr olds?  That would seem downright irresponsible but it would explain at least some of the waste.  Do tell.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 21, 2016, 10:43:24 AM
Reality disagrees with your position. We have child poverty rates that rank much worse than many other wealthy nations. Being born into poverty is, by definition, unequal opportunity. Persistent childhood poverty is detrimental to the long-term health of a child -- as I mentioned earlier, there is evidence it causes biological changes. The longer they remain in poverty as a child, the more likely they are to fail to climb out of it in adulthood.

It is a worthwhile endeavor to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I think a better focus on the kids, like St. Benedict's Prep School I mentioned earlier, is somewhere we could do better.

St. Benedict's is inspiring!  The Catholics are really good at this sort of thing.  And they never require that you become Catholic to access their programs.  A true adherence to Catholic principles requires that we value life and love our neighbor.  Falling short of that, or adjusting it to our convenience, is a failing we must continually resist.  (No, I'm not Catholic, but strangely enough, I have in the last few months been inexplicably drawn to studying it.) 

The issue of poverty is a good example of how spiritual principles can help corporeal life.  If one lays down the "liberal" and "conservative" labels (as one MUST do, because they approach these issues so differently; one from the feeling only side, and one from the more pragmatic side), it is clear that a middle course of caring enough to create changes in society, and to work TOGETHER to achieve it (in other words, have a common goal outside our differences) is critical.  Spiritual principles play a large role in this, but they are often abandoned in favor of self-gratification.

I firmly stand on the position that children are innocent when subjected to suffering caused by their parents' bad choices.  The issue of poverty has been tugging at me for a while now, and I'm starting to become aware of areas locally where I might be able to apply some time and talent to the problem. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 21, 2016, 10:46:51 AM
Friggin' four-year-olds always refuse to make a living.
A better point would be the taking of extra money from a producer who perhaps would be donating it to an EFFECTIVE charity of their choice, or even helping a family or families that they personally know, versus having that money confiscated by the government, which we all know does a piss-poor job of managing it.

You can say truthfully that the government can achieve some things individuals can't, but apparently stopping poverty is not one of them.  We must work together on that, in our communities and in our lives.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
Are you suggesting that there exists today direct welfare/aid payments from USG to 4-yr olds?  That would seem downright irresponsible but it would explain at least some of the waste.  Do tell.

'Gimp

I like to use a common phrase in the course of my duties in management: "Come with a problem, come with a solution." To your credit, you had one solution earlier; reduce welfare payments for each additional child born. I solicited additional data from you to understand where that suggestion was coming from, but you didn't reply. The fact is that there is no evidence poor mothers are having babies for welfare money. Family size is not appreciably larger for the group of people on welfare than for those not on welfare. So I am skeptical that your solution will make any difference.

Now you're back in the thread with cool Bernie pic. The fact is that many liberals feel just as conservatives do about able-bodied people living off of government handouts. What they're concerned about are the kids. (Cue the "for the children!" mocks.) Kids born into poverty have no choice, no ability to change their circumstances, and an immediate and long-lasting impediment to their success. Right now the USG tries to tackle that by welfare to the parent(s), because as you rightly point out, giving four-year-olds direct aid isn't likely to accomplish much. Though the suggestion that it does nothing for the children is also no accurate.

So, I wonder what your solution is? We've got to get the KIDS out of the cycle. I'd love direct aid to them, but how do you do that? More programs -- and perhaps a re-direction of some welfare moneys -- like St. Benedict's sound great. What do you think?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Friggin' four-year-olds always refuse to make a living.

Bullshit diversion.


The four-year-olds' PARENTS need to be responsible.

We shouldn't be supporting four living generations from cradle to grave.

Those of us who actually pay taxes work half the year to give 100% of those earnings to various governments. That is TYRANNY.

Don't you DARE tell me I have to pay more.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 21, 2016, 11:02:27 AM
I like to use a common phrase in the course of my duties in management: "Come with a problem, come with a solution." To your credit, you had one solution earlier; reduce welfare payments for each additional child born. I solicited additional data from you to understand where that suggestion was coming from, but you didn't reply. The fact is that there is no evidence poor mothers are having babies for welfare money. Family size is not appreciably larger for the group of people on welfare than for those not on welfare. So I am skeptical that your solution will make any difference.

Now you're back in the thread with cool Bernie pic. The fact is that many liberals feel just as conservatives do about able-bodied people living off of government handouts. What they're concerned about are the kids. (Cue the "for the children!" mocks.) Kids born into poverty have no choice, no ability to change their circumstances, and an immediate and long-lasting impediment to their success. Right now the USG tries to tackle that by welfare to the parent(s), because as you rightly point out, giving four-year-olds direct aid isn't likely to accomplish much. Though the suggestion that it does nothing for the children is also no accurate.

So, I wonder what your solution is? We've got to get the KIDS out of the cycle. I'd love direct aid to them, but how do you do that? More programs -- and perhaps a re-direction of some welfare moneys -- like St. Benedict's sound great. What do you think?
I did not reply to the request for data because it was not part of your request for suggestions (moving goalposts in debate vernacular). 

I don't believe that a majority of poor people have more kids because they want more money but I do believe it may be for some.  The reasoning behind my suggestion is to provide a disincentive for adding passengers to the poverty train you are concerned about.

Aid should be subsistence only, not cable and WiFi, not fancy phones and TV's, not nice housing.  People on aid should have to make the exact same decisions about 'how will I pay for fill_in_the-blank' that those of us who are actually responsible for ourselves and families have to make. 

If they did, everyone would have more disposable income to do with as they please, including not just the folks at the bottom you are worried about, but those of us in the middle and on the top who actually drive the overall economy.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 11:14:49 AM
I

Aid should be subsistence only, not cable and WiFi, not fancy phones and TV's, not nice housing.  People on aid should have to make the exact same decisions about 'how will I pay for fill_in_the-blank' that those of us who are actually responsible for ourselves and families have to make. 
'

RACIST!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 12:14:57 PM
St. Benedict's is inspiring!  The Catholics are really good at this sort of thing.  And they never require that you become Catholic to access their programs.  A true adherence to Catholic principles requires that we value life and love our neighbor.  Falling short of that, or adjusting it to our convenience, is a failing we must continually resist.  (No, I'm not Catholic, but strangely enough, I have in the last few months been inexplicably drawn to studying it.) 

The issue of poverty is a good example of how spiritual principles can help corporeal life.  If one lays down the "liberal" and "conservative" labels (as one MUST do, because they approach these issues so differently; one from the feeling only side, and one from the more pragmatic side), it is clear that a middle course of caring enough to create changes in society, and to work TOGETHER to achieve it (in other words, have a common goal outside our differences) is critical.  Spiritual principles play a large role in this, but they are often abandoned in favor of self-gratification.

I firmly stand on the position that children are innocent when subjected to suffering caused by their parents' bad choices.  The issue of poverty has been tugging at me for a while now, and I'm starting to become aware of areas locally where I might be able to apply some time and talent to the problem.

I agree. The children are innocent. I watched live the 60 Minutes piece about St. Benedict's and it truly was powerful. The kids come from broken areas and homes, and are given the opportunity and the power to control their own destinies. They have role models, they are responsible to their brothers. The results? Ninety-eight percent graduation rate, and 85% go on to earn a college degree. That's breaking the cycle. The problem is that space is limited, and tuition is $6k/yr. Tuition is heavily subsidized by way of grants and donations.

So I really think the kids are the key. They are the point at which we can intervene and change the trajectory of generational poverty. The devil is in the details, though.  I'd be absolutely fine with a re-direct of welfare assistance to somehow be applied toward that direct intervention in kids' lives. I don't entirely know how to do it, though.

[Edit] - Grammar
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 12:15:13 PM
Bullshit diversion.


The four-year-olds' PARENTS need to be responsible.

We shouldn't be supporting four living generations from cradle to grave.

Those of us who actually pay taxes work half the year to give 100% of those earnings to various governments. That is TYRANNY.

Don't you DARE tell me I have to pay more.

You have to pay more.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 21, 2016, 12:21:06 PM
I did not reply to the request for data because it was not part of your request for suggestions (moving goalposts in debate vernacular).

That's called a conversation, not moving the goalposts. Though you're certainly free not to respond.

I don't believe that a majority of poor people have more kids because they want more money but I do believe it may be for some.  The reasoning behind my suggestion is to provide a disincentive for adding passengers to the poverty train you are concerned about.

I believe I understood your reasoning, now I'm trying to discuss how and whether it would work.

Aid should be subsistence only, not cable and WiFi, not fancy phones and TV's, not nice housing.  People on aid should have to make the exact same decisions about 'how will I pay for fill_in_the-blank' that those of us who are actually responsible for ourselves and families have to make.


If they did, everyone would have more disposable income to do with as they please, including not just the folks at the bottom you are worried about, but those of us in the middle and on the top who actually drive the overall economy.

'Gimp

I agree.

Now, how do we break the cycle of poverty?
Title: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 21, 2016, 12:31:28 PM
I agree. The children are innocent. I watched live the 60 Minutes piece about St. Benedict's and it truly was powerful. The kids come from broken areas and homes, and are given the opportunity and the power to control their own destinies. They have role models, they are responsible to their brothers. The results? Ninety-eight percent graduation rate, and 85% go on to earn a college degree. That's breaking the cycle. The problem is that space is limited, and tuition is $6k/yr. Tuition is heavily subsidized by way of grants and donations.

So I really think the kids are the key. They are the point at which we can intervene and change the trajectory of generational poverty. The devil is in the details, though.  I'd be absolutely fine with a re-direct of welfare assistance to somehow be applied toward that direct intervention in kids' lives. I don't entirely know how to do it, though.

[Edit] - Grammar

Yet liberals are the FIRST to demand an end to vouchers where children get the opportunity to break the cycle and go to a Catholic or other parochial or private school.

Why is that?  Aside from loyalty to the teachers unions, it seems that the big government loyalists would prefer widespread mediocrity. 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 21, 2016, 12:49:48 PM
That's called a conversation, not moving the goalposts. Though you're certainly free not to respond.

I believe I understood your reasoning, now I'm trying to discuss how and whether it would work.

I agree.

Now, how do we break the cycle of poverty?
We've been through this multiple times.  It is not rocket science.

Means and drug testing required for all assistance, period.  Fail a test, out on your ass. 

Assistance limited to subsistence level only, essentially 3 hots and a cot, basic medical care to include non invasive birth control (e.g., condoms, diaphragms, the pill OK but no abortion). 

Food assistance ineligible for junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. - food only.  Unused aid is not transferable but can carry over to next period.

Able to work, evidence you looked for work every week.  You will be required to work around the shelter if nothing else.

Public/Private partnership for daycare for poor working mothers/families with a sliding scale to pay whatever a mother/family can pay.  Working in this daycare would count as workfare for those who are able.  Thinking programs like Catholic Charities, Rainbows United, etc.

There are already enough education and job training resources, use them more effectively (largely private charities).

Repeal Obamacare and return to previous approach.  Provide Medicare/Medicaid for those ineligible for open market insurance.

Aggressive paternity testing and outright brutal enforcement against deadbeat dad's.

Set English as the official AND ONLY language for education, commerce and government in the US.

Remove restrictions on government funds being used with faith-based organizations (less than $2B a year currently) for organization that focus specifically and in a non-proselytizing way on anti-poverty and early childhood.

NO BENEFITS OF ANY KIND FOR ILLEGALS AND THEIR CHILDREN - GET CAUGHT GO HOME.  SHOW UP AT EMERGENCY ROOM, GET LIFE SAVING TREATMENT ONLY - GO HOME.

The aforementioned reduction in bennies for mothers/families on aid when a new child is added.

And the safety net has a limited duration, say something like unemployment.

Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 01:05:41 PM
You have to pay more.

You BASTARD!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 01:07:04 PM
The results? Ninety-eight percent graduation rate, and 85% go on to earn a college degree. That's breaking the cycle. The problem is that space is limited, and tuition is $6k/yr.

Sounds great. How many have you personally sponsored?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 21, 2016, 01:42:02 PM

We've been through this multiple times.  It is not rocket science.

Means and drug testing required for all assistance, period.  Fail a test, out on your ass. 

Assistance limited to subsistence level only, essentially 3 hots and a cot, basic medical care to include non invasive birth control (e.g., condoms, diaphragms, the pill OK but no abortion). 

Food assistance ineligible for junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. - food only.  Unused aid is not transferable but can carry over to next period.

Able to work, evidence you looked for work every week.  You will be required to work around the shelter if nothing else.

Public/Private partnership for daycare for poor working mothers/families with a sliding scale to pay whatever a mother/family can pay.  Working in this daycare would count as workfare for those who are able.  Thinking programs like Catholic Charities, Rainbows United, etc.

There are already enough education and job training resources, use them more effectively (largely private charities).

Repeal Obamacare and return to previous approach.  Provide Medicare/Medicaid for those ineligible for open market insurance.

Aggressive paternity testing and outright brutal enforcement against deadbeat dad's.

Set English as the official AND ONLY language for education, commerce and government in the US.

Remove restrictions on government funds being used with faith-based organizations (less than $2B a year currently) for organization that focus specifically and in a non-proselytizing way on anti-poverty and early childhood.

NO BENEFITS OF ANY KIND FOR ILLEGALS AND THEIR CHILDREN - GET CAUGHT GO HOME.  SHOW UP AT EMERGENCY ROOM, GET LIFE SAVING TREATMENT ONLY - GO HOME.

The aforementioned reduction in bennies for mothers/families on aid when a new child is added.

And the safety net has a limited duration, say something like unemployment.

Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are.

'Gimp

Send deadbeat dads to sheriff Joe and I'll write in Gimp for President.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 21, 2016, 01:51:01 PM
Send deadbeat dads to sheriff Joe and I'll write in Gimp for President.
I will not seek, nor shall I accept, the nomination.

;^)

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 21, 2016, 02:47:01 PM
I will not seek, nor shall I accept, the nomination.

;^)

'Gimp

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 21, 2016, 03:09:55 PM

I will not seek, nor shall I accept, the nomination.

;^)

'Gimp
If nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 21, 2016, 03:24:46 PM
And then this famous line: "Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 21, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
Reality disagrees with your position. We have child poverty rates that rank much worse than many other wealthy nations. Being born into poverty is, by definition, unequal opportunity. Persistent childhood poverty is detrimental to the long-term health of a child -- as I mentioned earlier, there is evidence it causes biological changes. The longer they remain in poverty as a child, the more likely they are to fail to climb out of it in adulthood.

It is a worthwhile endeavor to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I think a better focus on the kids, like St. Benedict's Prep School I mentioned earlier, is somewhere we could do better.
Explain how you think it is "unequal opportunity". While the child is certainly not at fault, their parents are. It is the responsibility of the parents to raise their children. When a child begins going to school, it's up to them if they want to learn and succeed or not.

Poor people often make poor decisions. Such decisions include, but are not limited to, spending money on unnecessary things such as cigarettes (or other forms of tobacco), alcohol and sometimes drugs. True, not every poor person smokes or drink but a lot do. I'm tired of the argument that government is the solution to all problems, because it's not. And frankly I don't trust the government to spend the money properly on children anyway. Partly because it's government in general and partly because it would be a great way to indoctrinate children at a very early age to liberalism.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 22, 2016, 06:12:33 AM

Poor people often make poor decisions. Such decisions include, but are not limited to, spending money on unnecessary things such as cigarettes (or other forms of tobacco), alcohol and sometimes drugs.

Add lottery tickets to that list.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2016, 07:04:19 AM
Now, how do we break the cycle of poverty?

Stop all forms of assistance/welfare to able bodied adults and see how fast (after the riots) people 'discover' they can do the jobs liberals constantly claim that no one will do.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 07:08:54 AM
Add lottery tickets to that list.
Or as I refer to them, the Innumeracy Tax.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2016, 07:35:18 AM

Or as I refer to them, the Innumeracy Tax.

Hey, that's my retirement plan you're messing with!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 22, 2016, 07:50:09 AM
Stop all forms of assistance/welfare to able bodied adults and see how fast (after the riots) people 'discover' they can do the jobs liberals constantly claim that no one will do.

See how fast the crime rate goes even higher and watch the jails fill to the bursting point. Which is easier, go to school, get an education, apply for many jobs, then finally get a job and work a 40-50 hour week, or rob people with gun, or just sell drugs? I guess if there is rampant crime going on, then it might be OK for the cops to just start shooting everybody and maybe that's the end goal?

The ignorance of what the inner cites is really like and who actually lives there is just staggering in this thread. Clearly not a lot of conservatives give this problem much thought. I guess because your imaginary friend Jesus is rumored to have said "The poor will always be with us", that you view poverty as a normal and inevitable condition, therefore not much need be done. God must have made them poor for a reason, so screw the lazy bastards!  ::)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 07:56:45 AM
We've been through this multiple times.  It is not rocket science.

It is not rocket science, but it is difficult and complicated.

Means and drug testing required for all assistance, period.  Fail a test, out on your ass.

Welfare is already means tested. We could probably do a better job. Drug testing sounds fine, and some states already do this. The actual cost savings for doing so is in question, ranging from negligible savings to substantially increased cost, though there is perhaps a moral reason to drug test.

Assistance limited to subsistence level only, essentially 3 hots and a cot, basic medical care to include non invasive birth control (e.g., condoms, diaphragms, the pill OK but no abortion).

Sounds fine, but should include emergency contraception and long-term birth control like the IUD. Federal assistance already will not pay for abortion.

Food assistance ineligible for junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. - food only.  Unused aid is not transferable but can carry over to next period.

Fine on alcohol and cigarettes. Policing the poor's shopping cart for junk food is neither cheap nor easy, nor is there evidence they are more prone to junk food than families not on assistance. Some states have come up with a plan to model their welfare junk food exclusions on Minnesota's program that taxes junk food. It's a difficult thing, though, due to the wide array of available products and ingredients. None of those programs were implemented as far as I know.

A better idea may be to further incentivize healthy eating habits. We already do some of this by way of SNAP's Farmer's Market incentivizing program, for example.

Able to work, evidence you looked for work every week.  You will be required to work around the shelter if nothing else.

Sounds fine, but ignores the fact that there aren't enough jobs in areas of severe poverty.

Public/Private partnership for daycare for poor working mothers/families with a sliding scale to pay whatever a mother/family can pay.  Working in this daycare would count as workfare for those who are able.  Thinking programs like Catholic Charities, Rainbows United, etc.

I like this idea. Daycare services should include extended hours and an education component.

There are already enough education and job training resources, use them more effectively (largely private charities).

Good.

Repeal Obamacare and return to previous approach.  Provide Medicare/Medicaid for those ineligible for open market insurance.

Previous approach sucked. This is for another discussion.

Aggressive paternity testing and outright brutal enforcement against deadbeat dad's.

I don't know anything about how we currently handle this. Sounds like a state issue?

Set English as the official AND ONLY language for education, commerce and government in the US.

Unclear how this helps break the cycle of poverty. Also typically the purview of states, most of which already have legislation denoting English as the official language.

Remove restrictions on government funds being used with faith-based organizations (less than $2B a year currently) for organization that focus specifically and in a non-proselytizing way on anti-poverty and early childhood.

I am not aware of this restriction. Faith based organizations only need to have the initiatives for which they want federal money separate from their religious activities. I assume it functions like that in practice. But, anyway, I like this idea, given my notes above about St. Benedict's. However, equal support should be given to all faith and non-faith based organizations when possible.

NO BENEFITS OF ANY KIND FOR ILLEGALS AND THEIR CHILDREN - GET CAUGHT GO HOME.  SHOW UP AT EMERGENCY ROOM, GET LIFE SAVING TREATMENT ONLY - GO HOME.

Unclear how this breaks the cycle of poverty.

The aforementioned reduction in bennies for mothers/families on aid when a new child is added.

Unclear how this would break the cycle of poverty when welfare mothers don't have kids for benefits in the first place. If benefits are not a deciding factor in having kids, the reduction of benefits likely wouldn't either.

And the safety net has a limited duration, say something like unemployment.

Unclear how this would break the cycle of poverty.

Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are.

'Gimp

Most of your ideas seem centered on the typical Conservative (big C) approach to changing welfare. Which is fine, actually, and a valid point. I think moving back in that direction for welfare has many merits, and a lot of them are fiscal. What I am not confident of, though, is that this approach will magically lift millions out of poverty. I think we need more ideas like your public/private childcare partnership and a better focus on initiatives that stage a direct intervention in the lives of poverty-stricken children.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2016, 08:00:36 AM

I guess because your imaginary friend Jesus is rumored to have said "The poor will always be with us", that you view poverty as a normal and inevitable condition, therefore not much need be done. God must have made them poor for a reason, so screw the lazy bastards!  ::)

Uncalled for.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2016, 08:48:50 AM
See how fast the crime rate goes even higher and watch the jails fill to the bursting point. Which is easier, go to school, get an education, apply for many jobs, then finally get a job and work a 40-50 hour week, or rob people with gun, or just sell drugs? I guess if there is rampant crime going on, then it might be OK for the cops to just start shooting everybody and maybe that's the end goal?

The ignorance of what the inner cites is really like and who actually lives there is just staggering in this thread. Clearly not a lot of conservatives give this problem much thought. I guess because your imaginary friend Jesus is rumored to have said "The poor will always be with us", that you view poverty as a normal and inevitable condition, therefore not much need be done. God must have made them poor for a reason, so screw the lazy bastards!  ::)

Besides your out of the box bigotry, and magical thinking with regards to your expectation of how the poor will react to actually having to earn their way, there is very little wrong with your diatribe....
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 22, 2016, 10:00:51 AM
To asechrest:

Disagree with your statement that pre-ACA healthcare "sucked."  Eighty-five percent of the populace was fine with their healthcare.  Indigents were not turned away from ERs but were treated, state/federal funds used.

Issues that should have been addressed:   Pre-existing conditions, corruption/collusion within the system, resulting in price gouging.  Period. 

'Gimp said to you, "Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are."

Worth thinking about, and actually doing.  Need a government that actually wants to solve problems, though.


Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2016, 10:52:44 AM
I guess if there is rampant crime going on, then it might be OK for the cops to just start shooting everybody and maybe that's the end goal?

Just consider it really-late-term abortion.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2016, 10:54:14 AM
Uncalled for.

Amen, and theologically incorrect to boot.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 11:08:38 AM
To asechrest:

Disagree with your statement that pre-ACA healthcare "sucked."  Eighty-five percent of the populace was fine with their healthcare.  Indigents were not turned away from ERs but were treated, state/federal funds used.

A different thread is warranted, perhaps?  :D

Issues that should have been addressed:   Pre-existing conditions, corruption/collusion within the system, resulting in price gouging.  Period. 
And completely opaque cost structures, and poor outcomes for the cost outlay, and number of uninsured, and...

'Gimp said to you, "Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are."

Worth thinking about, and actually doing.  Need a government that actually wants to solve problems, though.

Definitely worth thinking about. And I work for a living, so I'm just as pissed as the next guy or gal about able-bodied folks living off Uncle Sam with my tax dollars. But I also think it takes a bit more study than grabbing two or three random items from a long list and trying it for a generation or two.

Returning to the "safety net" strategy that the moniker implies may be fiscally and morally responsible.  But does it substantially affect poverty, and if so, how? As Dav8or mentions, few of us understand the horror of the situation in the inner cities. Few here have acknowledged how children are permanently altered by poverty, choosing instead to pretend we all have equal opportunity rah rah! So I wonder where are 'Gimp's initiatives to break the cycle of poverty? And why couldn't those initiatives be tried in concert with his typical-right welfare changes?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2016, 11:14:04 AM
A different thread is warranted, perhaps?  :D
And completely opaque cost structures, and poor outcomes for the cost outlay, and number of uninsured, and...

Definitely worth thinking about. And I work for a living, so I'm just as pissed as the next guy or gal about able-bodied folks living off Uncle Sam with my tax dollars. But I also think it takes a bit more study than grabbing two or three random items from a long list and trying it for a generation or two.

Returning to the "safety net" strategy that the moniker implies may be fiscally and morally responsible.  But does it substantially affect poverty, and if so, how? As Dav8or mentions, few of us understand the horror of the situation in the inner cities. Few here have acknowledged how children are permanently altered by poverty, choosing instead to pretend we all have equal opportunity rah rah! So I wonder where are 'Gimp's initiatives to break the cycle of poverty? And why couldn't those initiatives be tried in concert with his typical-right welfare changes?
I gave you a laundry list of initiatives that I believe would do exactly that.  I could expand on my rationale for each of them but I expected that it would be obvious, I might try and explain it further once home from the office, already spent too much time on the board today.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
I gave you a laundry list of initiatives that I believe would do exactly that.  I could expand on my rationale for each of them but I expected that it would be obvious, I might try and explain it further once home from the office, already spent too much time on the board today.

'Gimp

I'd be interested in hearing an overall rationale. You don't need to expand on each. I read your initiatives as fairly typical ideas for welfare reform from a right perspective. They're focused on a few broad ideas: Get off your ass if you can, if you aren't eligible for welfare you don't get it damnit, don't even think about using the money for stuff I consider a luxury, and don't expect your support to last long. In short, they're focused on pulling back support and limiting duration.

Fine ideas. Plenty of arguments in favor of all of them.  But I wonder why you believe those changes will alter the course of the poor? Is it because you belief welfare causes poverty?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2016, 01:34:23 PM
I'd be interested in hearing an overall rationale. You don't need to expand on each. I read your initiatives as fairly typical ideas for welfare reform from a right perspective. They're focused on a few broad ideas: Get off your ass if you can, if you aren't eligible for welfare you don't get it damnit, don't even think about using the money for stuff I consider a luxury, and don't expect your support to last long. In short, they're focused on pulling back support and limiting duration.

Fine ideas. Plenty of arguments in favor of all of them.  But I wonder why you believe those changes will alter the course of the poor? Is it because you belief welfare causes poverty?
See my highlight - ding ding ding we have a winner.

You get more of what you incentivize, and less of what you disincentivize, it is pure human nature. 

I think you or Dav8or asked 'which is easier' when referring to working and getting an education or sucking off the work of your fellow citizens via crime or welfare in another post as if all 3 are morally, practically or financially equivalent - they are not, on all 3 fronts.  And since when is life supposed to be 'easy'?

I work not because I like to, not because it is expected of me, but because I have to.  I have a family to support, and a growing Yak to feed.  I do it because I cannot survive without it - would I prefer to just lounge at the hangar and fly all day - sure would and as soon as I figure out how I am all over it, but nobody owes me jackshit - I made MY plane happen, I made MY career happen, I made MY family, I am responsible for me and mine.

I have been employed since I was 13 (started in a family restaurant), with a grand total of 6 months of unemployment, in 33 years.  I don't take vacations like regular folks since there is always too much to do and never enough time because in addition to my job I have to help others do theirs as well because if I don't things don't get done.  I have sacrificed time with friends and family that I will never make up, so that my wife and daughter would have a roof over their head and three squares a day - at times working 1,000 miles way from them just to remain employed.

I have a child in college, I pay full freight, qualifying for no assistance of any kind, nice that she picked a less expensive community college for her first couple years but soon it gets more expensive, who pays I do.  Now, you and others think I should pay more, not for my child, but for somebody else's - not for my housing but for somebody else's.  If after all that I don't have enough for the movies or a new car, tough shit - work harder. 

I have had a business fail, been victimized by fraud and theft, lost a home and even been laid off a couple times but I always have found and continue to find a way because I am a man and that is what men fucking do.

When asked how much more I should pay there is no specific answer, only more - as if confiscating roughly half of my total income is not already enough.

Well fuck you (not you specifically, said for effect).

Yes, I believe with a less comfy safety net people would find a way to earn the lifestyle they desire, but with a comfy safety net there is no reason to. 

Dirtiest of the dirty little secrets about welfare and the New Deal - unemployment NEVER recovered to pre-Great Depression/pre-New Deal levels.  NEVER.  Unemployment in 1929 was 3.2%, Under Roosevelt it never dipped below 14% and averaged closer to 20% - only WWII caused the eventual recovery.

Want to end poverty?  End welfare, period.  But I recognize that cannot happen overnight and that is why I made the list of suggestions I made.  If it were up to me it would be sink or swim for anyone who is not demonstrably physically or mentally UNABLE to work.  We're all in this boat together, but 47% don't have their oars in the water.

'Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 01:46:53 PM
Is it because you belief welfare causes poverty?
Econ 101 says that whatever you choose to subsidize, you get more of.


Subsidize people not working, and you get more people not working.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 02:31:53 PM
'Gimp: Thanks for your passion.

'Gimp & JeffDG: If welfare causes poverty, I'd be interested in your opinion on poverty metrics following government initiatives to address the issue. For example, the decline in poverty rates following Johnson's Great Society reforms.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 05:45:39 PM

Want to end poverty?  End welfare, period.  But I recognize that cannot happen overnight and that is why I made the list of suggestions I made.  If it were up to me it would be sink or swim for anyone who is not demonstrably physically or mentally UNABLE to work.  We're all in this boat together, but 47% don't have their oars in the water.

'Gimp

Also, does this include SS and Medicare? If not, why not?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 22, 2016, 06:02:59 PM
Also, does this include SS and Medicare? If not, why not?

SS and Medicare are NOT welfare.
 
I paid for mine.  In fact, I am still paying. It isn't my fault they didn't charge me enough to cover costs, and it isn't my fault they give it to people (like immigrants) who never paid in.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 06:18:47 PM
SS and Medicare are NOT welfare.
 
I paid for mine.  In fact, I am still paying. It isn't my fault they didn't charge me enough to cover costs, and it isn't my fault they give it to people (like immigrants) who never paid in.

They surely are welfare. And you didn't pay for yours, you paid for others. Your kids and grand-kids are paying for yours. Isn't welfare great? So if welfare causes poverty, let us get rid of it all.

PS - You're wrong about immigrants; legal immigrants, certainly, and even illegal immigrants, who pay billions into SS.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 22, 2016, 06:49:59 PM
They surely are welfare. And you didn't pay for yours, you paid for others. Your kids and grand-kids are paying for yours. Isn't welfare great? So if welfare causes poverty, let us get rid of it all.

PS - You're wrong about immigrants; legal immigrants, certainly, and even illegal immigrants, who pay billions into SS.

You realize that it is only that way because fucking Congress stole the money and spent it.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 07:48:03 PM
You realize that it is only that way because fucking Congress stole the money and spent it.
No, it's that way because the law was always set up that way.


In fact, that's the only way it was legal.  The only way Social Security was deemed legal was the same reason the ACA was deemed legal:  That is, it was a tax on income, coupled with a spending program.  It was never designed as a savings account.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 07:51:26 PM
And thus it begins. My welfare is the best, but the welfare of those poor minorities has to go. It's making them lazy!  ::)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2016, 08:25:45 PM
They surely are welfare. And you didn't pay for yours, you paid for others. Your kids and grand-kids are paying for yours. Isn't welfare great? So if welfare causes poverty, let us get rid of it all.

PS - You're wrong about immigrants; legal immigrants, certainly, and even illegal immigrants, who pay billions into SS.

The operative term is YOU PAID. Therefore, not welfare.

Aren't people of a certain age COMPELLED to sign up for SS and Medicare?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2016, 08:29:03 PM
...- I made MY plane happen, I made MY career happen, I made MY family, I am responsible for me and mine.

If this guy was a regular schmo and walked up to you on the street and said this to your face, you'd kick him right in the stones (or in his case, pebbles)

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 22, 2016, 08:40:41 PM
The operative term is YOU PAID. Therefore, not welfare.

Aren't people of a certain age COMPELLED to sign up for SS and Medicare?

Now you're getting it. Of course you're compelled to pay taxes for welfare.  ;)  If you don't want your welfare once you become age eligible, you may gift it to the FedGov.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: LevelWing on March 22, 2016, 08:52:23 PM
One way to solve the social security nonsense is to privatize it. Or at the very least, allow those who want to privatize it to do so.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 08:54:42 PM

The operative term is YOU PAID. Therefore, not welfare.

Aren't people of a certain age COMPELLED to sign up for SS and Medicare?
Just like you paid all your other taxes.

And when you apply for welfare, the government cuts a cheque.  Really no different.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: acrogimp on March 22, 2016, 08:56:14 PM
Also, does this include SS and Medicare? If not, why not?
In a word, no, not welfare.

I see SS and Medicare differently.  Even though they are not adequately funded they are, in principle, a benefit that has been earned/paid for in the form of payroll taxes by and for an individual. Welfare as in aid payments, is not paid for or ‘earned’.

That SS and Medicare have outlived their intended funding mechanism due in part to ever expanding life expectancy was a foreseeable issue that the wizards of smart who created failed to take into account (giving potentially a lot of credit there), and also since Congress has been raiding the SS trust fund for decades.

If I were in a position to, I would allow folks under a certain age, maybe 40-45 to opt out of SS, and would make no public replacement for folks younger than that (tax credits for retirement investments), consider a government insurance like FDIC coverage at banks if necessary - but folks over the opt out or cutoff age who have paid in should get the benefits they were promised.

SS is a nonviable Ponzi scheme that must end as it is unsupportable as it exists.  SS currently consumes 1 out of every 4 dollars of Federal spending, almost $1T a year.  Putting it into perspective, SS is the single largest line item in the Federal budget, 50% more than national defense spending, and more than 5 times all spending on Veterans' benefits.

Medicare/Medicaid are not what I consider to be semi-efficient uses of federal monies, they too constitute massive spending (5th largest line item).  However, there are legitimate reasons for something like them to exist, in particular if I propose Obamacare was repealed. 

I would look to put the 85% of the population who used to have the coverage they wanted or not (able to opt out) back out in the open market (but cross state lines and the other good ideas for improving health insurance), and look to use Medicare/Medicaid to provide coverage for those who want coverage but can’t get it and those currently eligible.

Collectively SS and Medicare represent half of all government spending, and they represent unfunded liabilities that range from more than $60T to as much as $120+T depending on whose numbers you use.

It is unsustainable.

‘Gimp
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 22, 2016, 09:00:14 PM
No, it's that way because the law was always set up that way.


In fact, that's the only way it was legal.  The only way Social Security was deemed legal was the same reason the ACA was deemed legal:  That is, it was a tax on income, coupled with a spending program.  It was never designed as a savings account.

That is not the way it was sold, nor the way people were led to expect it would work.  Including the annual statements that show what your earnings were, what your projected benefits were.  Somebody apparently LIED.  Not my problem. 

I paid in, you damn well better live up to what you promised.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 09:03:53 PM

That is not the way it was sold, nor the way people were led to expect it would work.  Including the annual statements that show what your earnings were, what your projected benefits were.  Somebody apparently LIED.  Not my problem. 

I paid in, you damn well better live up to what you promised.
Do you believe everything politicians tell you?

If I were at my computer (on iPad right now) I could cite the case where the Feds went before the Supreme Court and made very clear that Social Security is not a "contribution" but a tax and spend program.  You have no ownership interest in the taxes you've paid for SS, it's just another tax based on income.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 22, 2016, 09:19:20 PM
Do you believe everything politicians tell you?

If I were at my computer (on iPad right now) I could cite the case where the Feds went before the Supreme Court and made very clear that Social Security is not a "contribution" but a tax and spend program.  You have no ownership interest in the taxes you've paid for SS, it's just another tax based on income.

Be that as it may, see what happens if ANYBODY tries to go back on their promises.  They are already raking seniors over the coals by jiggering the data on cost-of-living so as to not have to give seniors the increases that were promised, and screwing up the interest paid on lifetime savings.  Seniors VOTE.

I am well aware that Social Security has been a bait-and-switch Ponzi scheme from its inception, with one exception:  Ponzi schemes are usually entered into by the sucker voluntarily; this one was mandatory.  So I intend to demand it live up to its promises.

The program does indeed need to be changed for future retirees if it is to survive.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 22, 2016, 09:24:56 PM
Be that as it may, see what happens if ANYBODY tries to go back on their promises.  They are already raking seniors over the coals by jiggering the data on cost-of-living so as to not have to give seniors the increases that were promised, and screwing up the interest paid on lifetime savings.  Seniors VOTE.

They don't call it the Third Rail of Politics for nothing...
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 22, 2016, 09:29:34 PM
They don't call it the Third Rail of Politics for nothing...

I am well aware that Social Security has been a bait-and-switch Ponzi scheme from its inception, with one exception:  Ponzi schemes are usually entered into by the sucker voluntarily; this one was mandatory.  So I intend to demand it live up to its promises.

The program does indeed need to be changed for future retirees if it is to survive.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Number7 on March 23, 2016, 12:44:53 AM
And thus it begins. My welfare is the best, but the welfare of those poor minorities has to go.

That is utter nonsense. PC nonsense, designed to end discussion before it gets close to the truth, and playing the race card to pretend moral superiority which is the last refuge of liberal, but still simple nonsense.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2016, 03:32:19 AM
'Gimp: Thanks for your passion.

'Gimp & JeffDG: If welfare causes poverty, I'd be interested in your opinion on poverty metrics following government initiatives to address the issue. For example, the decline in poverty rates following Johnson's Great Society reforms.
How about "welfare perpetuates and expands poverty"?

My wife was a manager in HR for a company of about 2,000 people.  During the recession they had to either lay off or fire hundreds.  The truly amazing thing was how most of them could not find a job, until unemployment ended.  When it was 13 weeks it took most of them 14 weeks to find a job.  When it was 26 weeks, it took 27 weeks to find a job.  When it was 99 weeks, guess what: nobody wanted to hire someone that couldn't find ANY JOB in almost two years, so they are still unemployed.  But they don't count as unemployed because they don't draw unemployment benefits any more and have basically given up looking for real work because unemployment insurance has made them unemployable.  Now they live on what assistance they can and work under the table, without paying tax.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 23, 2016, 05:52:00 AM

That is, it was a tax on income, coupled with a spending program.  It was never designed as a savings account.

But...but...

(https://fefferfit.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/lockbox.gif?w=748)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 23, 2016, 06:06:25 AM

In fact, that's the only way it was legal.  The only way Social Security was deemed legal was the same reason the ACA was deemed legal:  That is, it was a tax on income, coupled with a spending program.  It was never designed as a savings account.

You mean various posters in the POA SZ lied to us about SS trust funds and the like?

I'm shocked.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2016, 06:15:26 AM
Social Security is one of the few entitlements, along with the pay for the actual productive government workers, like the armed forces, law enforcement and educators.

Welfare, foodstamps, section 8 housing, etc is charity.

I feel entitled to receive the Social Security that I have been promised for all these years, and have been forced to pay into, and in two years when I start drawing it, the first thing I am going to buy with your money is a power tow.  The Bonanza is just getting too heavy to push into the hangar these days.  So I will say thanks to all you young people that buy that for me.  I really do feel entitled to it.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 06:22:23 AM
That is utter nonsense. PC nonsense, designed to end discussion before it gets close to the truth, and playing the race card to pretend moral superiority which is the last refuge of liberal, but still simple nonsense.

Hi FC.  :)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 07:44:21 AM
Social Security is one of the few entitlements, along with the pay for the actual productive government workers, like the armed forces, law enforcement and educators.

Welfare, foodstamps, section 8 housing, etc is charity.

I feel entitled to receive the Social Security that I have been promised for all these years, and have been forced to pay into, and in two years when I start drawing it, the first thing I am going to buy with your money is a power tow.  The Bonanza is just getting too heavy to push into the hangar these days.  So I will say thanks to all you young people that buy that for me.  I really do feel entitled to it.

You're welcome. I'm glad you feel entitled to my money. Welcome to the left wing!  ;)

PS - Your image of welfare recipients is wrong. I will use food stamps -- now called SNAP -- as an easy example. Of families receiving benefits, a majority work while receiving them, and more than 80% work in the year prior or year after receiving them. For families with children who receive benefits, more than 60% work while receiving benefits, and over 90% work in the year before or after. That's right, tax-paying members of our consumer economy.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2016, 08:28:20 AM
You're welcome. I'm glad you feel entitled to my money. Welcome to the left wing!  ;)

PS - Your image of welfare recipients is wrong. I will use food stamps -- now called SNAP -- as an easy example. Of families receiving benefits, a majority work while receiving them, and more than 80% work in the year prior or year after receiving them. For families with children who receive benefits, more than 60% work while receiving benefits, and over 90% work in the year before or after. That's right, tax-paying members of our consumer economy.
What part of my post was wrong.  I said welfare is charity.  Some charities are very worthwhile.  I happily donate to many charities.  Among them are UCP (Cerebral Palsey) and Meals on Wheels.  I am a "big brother" (more like a big grandfather, but I still spend time and money on several disadvantaged kids).  And I regularly support the Salvation Army and Boys and Girl Scouts.

I have no problem with Charity.  I also have no problem with government safety nets.
My problem is that the Federal Government wastes too much money on unnecessary programs and their ineffectiveness CAUSES more problems than it cures. (NO, I don't have any statistics on that).

And I don't think my tax dollars should be going to support families that have had kids they can't afford.  I'd rather see the kids taken away from them and put in an old fashioned orphan shelter and the parents sterilized. (Ok, maybe that is going too far).  But at least, this way the kids could be given a chance rather than incentivizing their parents to keep making bad choices.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 23, 2016, 09:21:12 AM
You have another baby your check gets cut by xx%.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 23, 2016, 09:22:48 AM
If the liberals are so interested in helping the poor children, then find a way to get the charity dollars directly to the children and not siphoned off by the parent(s) to buy booze, drugs, etc.

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 23, 2016, 10:01:43 AM
Welfare is not charity; charity is freely given from one person to another, expecting nothing in return.

Welfare is forced WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2016, 10:19:25 AM
Welfare is not charity; charity is freely given from one person to another, expecting nothing in return.

Welfare is forced WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
If you look up almost any word in a dictionary or thesauraus, you will find several methods of describing it.  Welfare can be described in several ways.  But IMHO, "entitlement" is not one of them.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 10:46:27 AM
If the liberals are so interested in helping the poor children, then find a way to get the charity dollars directly to the children and not siphoned off by the parent(s) to buy booze, drugs, etc.

I think you missed the last three pages of the thread. That's what I've been trying to talk about.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 11:06:25 AM
What part of my post was wrong.  I said welfare is charity.  Some charities are very worthwhile.  I happily donate to many charities.  Among them are UCP (Cerebral Palsey) and Meals on Wheels.  I am a "big brother" (more like a big grandfather, but I still spend time and money on several disadvantaged kids).  And I regularly support the Salvation Army and Boys and Girl Scouts.

I have no problem with Charity.  I also have no problem with government safety nets.
My problem is that the Federal Government wastes too much money on unnecessary programs and their ineffectiveness CAUSES more problems than it cures. (NO, I don't have any statistics on that).

And I don't think my tax dollars should be going to support families that have had kids they can't afford.  I'd rather see the kids taken away from them and put in an old fashioned orphan shelter and the parents sterilized. (Ok, maybe that is going too far).  But at least, this way the kids could be given a chance rather than incentivizing their parents to keep making bad choices.

You seemed to be delineating a difference between SS and what you are calling welfare by suggesting you are entitled to your SS because you "paid in", but folks getting welfare are just taking charity. It is wrong to pretend SS isn't welfare. It is. It is also wrong to suggest that everyone on welfare is taking "charity" and giving nothing back. In point of fact, huge numbers of people on assistance are working and paying taxes just like everyone else. That was the point of my response.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 23, 2016, 11:47:26 AM
You seemed to be delineating a difference between SS and what you are calling welfare by suggesting you are entitled to your SS because you "paid in", but folks getting welfare are just taking charity. It is wrong to pretend SS isn't welfare. It is. It is also wrong to suggest that everyone on welfare is taking "charity" and giving nothing back. In point of fact, huge numbers of people on assistance are working and paying taxes just like everyone else. That was the point of my response.
I understood the point of your response.  You apparently completely misunderstood the point of my post.

I had money deducted from my paycheck for nearly 50 years for something called the "Federal Insurance Contribution Act".  For all that time the promise was that upon reaching a certain age, I would be paid an amount based on my contributions.

THAT is NOT charity.  No way; no how.  Do you consider it charity if your house burns down and your insurance policy pays you to rebuild it?  NO.  How about if you have no insurance and your house burns down and the neighbors chip in to give you money and a place to live?  THAT is charity.

And I repeat; charity is not a bad thing.  The only bad thing is the way the government administers it.

When people accept money or assistance for no reason other than they NEED it, THAT is charity.
Nowhere did I say that nobody on assistance is working or paying taxes.  You invented that.  But to me, that is irrelevant.  If they are taking money from the general fund base strictly on their need, that is charity.

I don't even call unemployment benefits charity because that is funded by a specific tax, even though that tax is paid for by the employer, or even if I think the system is predictably abused.  If you tell people that you will pay them if they don't find a job, guess what; they won't try so hard to find a job.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 23, 2016, 12:43:40 PM
Part of the problem is that we try to put templates over the whole situation to try and "solve" it.

Most issues involving humans require more cellular approaches.  When people live in groups of a size (generally determined to be 150 or so) that they can all interact and know each other, they tend also to help one another.

The federal government is notoriously incapable of precision targeting actual cases of need, versus cases of bad choices and fraudulent claims.  It is too big.

Interestingly, one of the major causes of poverty is the high divorce rate, which Wikipedia says causes a "feminization" of poverty.  A strong family unit is probably one of the best bulwarks against poverty.  Strong family units can't be legislated, but we don't have to reward behaviors that destroy family units.

It's not the helping of people truly in need that bothers most of us, I perceive.  It's the political manipulation, waste, abuse and fraud. 

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 04:48:26 PM
I understood the point of your response.  You apparently completely misunderstood the point of my post.

I had money deducted from my paycheck for nearly 50 years for something called the "Federal Insurance Contribution Act".  For all that time the promise was that upon reaching a certain age, I would be paid an amount based on my contributions.

THAT is NOT charity.  No way; no how.  Do you consider it charity if your house burns down and your insurance policy pays you to rebuild it?  NO.  How about if you have no insurance and your house burns down and the neighbors chip in to give you money and a place to live?  THAT is charity.

And I repeat; charity is not a bad thing.  The only bad thing is the way the government administers it.

When people accept money or assistance for no reason other than they NEED it, THAT is charity.
Nowhere did I say that nobody on assistance is working or paying taxes.  You invented that.  But to me, that is irrelevant.  If they are taking money from the general fund base strictly on their need, that is charity.

I don't even call unemployment benefits charity because that is funded by a specific tax, even though that tax is paid for by the employer, or even if I think the system is predictably abused.  If you tell people that you will pay them if they don't find a job, guess what; they won't try so hard to find a job.

I am sorry you were fooled, truly. You had no account that you paid into, and despite your comparison to an insurance policy, SS is nothing of the sort.

But let's do a thought experiment. I'm thinking of a program wherein people pay taxes, and people get benefits. Now, tell me whether I'm thinking of SS or SNAP. The fact that I could be talking about either program is testament to my point. Your semantic assertion that folks accepting SNAP benefits, for example, are accepting charity, while your accepting of SS benefits is something you're entitled to because...you are, is lost in the reality of the issue. And, frankly, I've lost track of why you're making the delineation between the two welfare programs.

Let me be clear that I am not saying you shouldn't get your SS benefits. What I am hedging against is the hypocrisy of feeling entitled to one welfare program while being dismissive of another. And, especially, I take issue with proposing that one group has "earned" their welfare while another group hasn't. That was the point in my earlier citing of SNAP statistics, to attest to the fact that one of our biggest problems is the working poor, which is in contrast to the image (built by some) of welfare recipients as some group of leeches who take but never give.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 23, 2016, 06:38:17 PM
Isn't the difference that pretty much anyone can get SNAP if they qualify, but to get ss retirement benefits one must have paid into the program for at least  40 quarters?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 23, 2016, 06:49:43 PM
It seems like Social Security is more of a "social contract".

In consideration of you giving the gov't x% of your salary over your working lifetime, the gov't agrees to give you x dollars a month starting at a certain age, for the rest of your life. Contribution or tax, it's still a contract.

SNAP seems to lack that element.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 07:09:43 PM
Isn't the difference that pretty much anyone can get SNAP if they qualify, but to get ss retirement benefits one must have paid into the program for at least  40 quarters?

So you're saying that you can get one type of welfare if you qualify, vs. the other type of welfare which you can get if you...qualify?  (SNAP has employment requirements. Not all are eligible.)
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 07:36:29 PM
It seems like Social Security is more of a "social contract".

In consideration of you giving the gov't x% of your salary over your working lifetime, the gov't agrees to give you x dollars a month starting at a certain age, for the rest of your life. Contribution or tax, it's still a contract.

SNAP seems to lack that element.

It does seem like that, but there is no such contract. Granted, you're required to obtain 40 credits to receive your welfare. But, likewise, an able-bodied adult is required to meet employment requirements to receive SNAP.  Is the former more social-contracty? Maybe, if you squint one eye. And then, of course, there is the fact that SS recipients receive far more in benefits than they ever paid in SS taxes, to the tune of about an inflation-adjusted 30% return on investment. Must be nice!

So again, my broad point is that we shouldn't clutch our "special" welfare from on high and look down upon the lesser, which is how it feels in some of these types of threads. An honest liberal will admit we have a debt and unfunded liabilities problem, and an even more honest liberal will admit that taxing the rich cannot be the answer -- mathematically. So let's talk about welfare reform, but let's include all welfare in the conversation.

[EDIT] - Clarity
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 23, 2016, 08:06:29 PM
So you're saying that you can get one type of welfare if you qualify, vs. the other type of welfare which you can get if you...qualify?  (SNAP has employment requirements. Not all are eligible.)

No, that's what you said.  I said to qualify for SS retirement benefits you have to pay in via payroll deduction for 40 quarters.  That's not welfare, please use terms correctly.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 08:25:28 PM
No, that's what you said.  I said to qualify for SS retirement benefits you have to pay in via payroll deduction for 40 quarters.  That's not welfare, please use terms correctly.

It is welfare, by definition. Just has a requirement to collect. Same as lots of welfare.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 23, 2016, 09:33:14 PM
And then, of course, there is the fact that SS recipients receive far more in benefits than they ever paid in taxes, to the tune of about an inflation-adjusted 30% return on investment. Must be nice!



Fuck that.

My wife worked all her life paying SS tax along with her employers.  When she died in 2013 she had received TWO   YEARS in Social Security payments.  Where's the rest of her money??

If she had instead been allowed to invest all those payments into a 401k, IRA, or other personal, private account, the money would be intact for her heirs and widower.  STFU.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 10:16:33 PM
Fuck that.

My wife worked all her life paying SS tax along with her employers.  When she died in 2013 she had received TWO   YEARS in Social Security payments.  Where's the rest of her money??

If she had instead been allowed to invest all those payments into a 401k, IRA, or other personal, private account, the money would be intact for her heirs and widower.  STFU.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. If you'd like me to link you the SS statistics, let me know.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Mase on March 23, 2016, 10:29:04 PM
I'm sorry to hear about your wife. If you'd like me to link you the SS statistics, let me know.

Show me the statistics that indicate what all her taxes over the years would have done if invested in the S&P 500.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 23, 2016, 10:58:17 PM
Show me the statistics that indicate what all her taxes over the years would have done if invested in the S&P 500.

No thanks. Is your point that we need welfare reform? If so, I agree.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 24, 2016, 03:59:05 AM
So you're saying that you can get one type of welfare if you qualify, vs. the other type of welfare which you can get if you...qualify?  (SNAP has employment requirements. Not all are eligible.)

if you contribute...

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: PaulS on March 24, 2016, 05:00:24 AM
It is welfare, by definition. Just has a requirement to collect. Same as lots of welfare.

It's welfare by your definition, it's a forced retirement ponzi scheme by mine.  Welfare has no requirement to pay in before you collect. 

This is why problems don't get solved, too many people making shit up to justify their beliefs.  Just confuses and muddles the issues.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2016, 07:06:16 AM
It's welfare by your definition, it's a forced retirement ponzi scheme by mine.  Welfare has no requirement to pay in before you collect. 

This is why problems don't get solved, too many people making shit up to justify their beliefs.  Just confuses and muddles the issues.

Problems don't get solved because some people want to implement welfare reform on the backs of the poor while clutching their own sacred government checks. The interesting thing is, a bunch of you are complaining about SS as being a forced retirement Ponzi scheme anyway. So I don't know what your problem is with including it in the welfare reform discussion.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on March 24, 2016, 07:10:48 AM
Problems don't get solved because some people want to implement welfare reform on the backs of the poor while clutching their own sacred government checks. The interesting thing is, a bunch of you are complaining about SS as being a forced retirement Ponzi scheme anyway. So I don't know what your problem is with including it in the welfare reform discussion.

How old are you?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2016, 07:40:42 AM
How old are you?

Old enough to have obtained my 40 credits and more.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 07:58:31 AM
Old enough to have obtained my 40 credits and more.
I have no idea what credits I have...problem is I have to apply the Social Security-Canada Pension Plan treaty to my calculations.  Retirement is going to be a huge pain in the ass for me, because I have both.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 24, 2016, 08:02:53 AM
I have no idea what credits I have...problem is I have to apply the Social Security-Canada Pension Plan treaty to my calculations.  Retirement is going to be a huge pain in the ass for me, because I have both.

Then don't retire.   Save yourself the pain   ;-)

Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 08:05:27 AM
Then don't retire.   Save yourself the pain   ;-)
That's my current plan!
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 24, 2016, 10:58:07 AM
Reality disagrees with your position. We have child poverty rates that rank much worse than many other wealthy nations. Being born into poverty is, by definition, unequal opportunity. Persistent childhood poverty is detrimental to the long-term health of a child -- as I mentioned earlier, there is evidence it causes biological changes. The longer they remain in poverty as a child, the more likely they are to fail to climb out of it in adulthood.

It is a worthwhile endeavor to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I think a better focus on the kids, like St. Benedict's Prep School I mentioned earlier, is somewhere we could do better.
Sounds like the solution is means testing for child bearing.  If you cannot support yourself and child in womb, the government will offer you $250 for an abortion.  If you decline the abortion you also decline all future welfare.  Seems like something both the right side and left side of the aisle can endorse.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on March 24, 2016, 11:06:34 AM
Sounds like the solution is means testing for child bearing.  If you cannot support yourself and child in womb, the government will offer you $250 for an abortion.  If you decline the abortion you also decline all future welfare.  Seems like something both the right side and left side of the aisle can endorse.

Nope... speak for yourself.  I will never support state sanctioned/funded abortion.  If you want to kill your unborn child, that is on you.  I, nor anyone else should be forced to finance your morality, or lack thereof.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 24, 2016, 11:08:35 AM
Nope... speak for yourself.  I will never support state sanctioned/funded abortion.  If you want to kill your unborn child, that is on you.  I, nor anyone else should be forced to finance your morality, or lack thereof.
See, you support the latter part of the equation but not the former.  A liberal will be around next to support the former but not the latter.  Hence, the win-win.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 24, 2016, 11:12:20 AM

See, you support the latter part of the equation but not the former.  A liberal will be around next to support the former but not the latter.  Hence, the win-win.

Not if you're the baby.

Is this what we've come to?  A baby's life is a political bargaining chip?
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Not if you're the baby.

Is this what we've come to?  A baby's life is a political bargaining chip?

Has been for over 40 years.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: pilot_dude on March 24, 2016, 11:17:59 AM
Not if you're the baby.

Is this what we've come to?  A baby's life is a political bargaining chip?
To quote my liberal friends, it's not a baby but rather a mass of tissue.


There really needs to be a sarcastic icon on here
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on March 24, 2016, 12:05:10 PM
Has been for over 40 years.

It certainly has created a bitter and divided population, but to this point I don't know if state sanctioned abortion has been a bargaining chip in any serious political negotiation.
Title: The problem with liberals.
Post by: nddons on March 24, 2016, 12:27:42 PM
It certainly has created a bitter and divided population, but to this point I don't know if state sanctioned abortion has been a bargaining chip in any serious political negotiation.

You haven't heard the screaming about the right needing to "compromise"?

It's not sufficient for the left to have won the war in Roe v Wade, wherein next to nothing can be done to legally limit abortions.

No. The left now wants the right to abandon any mention of the word abortion. They want the right to fully accept and celebrate the right of a mother to kill her baby. And if we don't embrace it wholly and completely, we are the out-of-touch radical Christians who are on par in their minds with radical Islamists.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Gary on March 24, 2016, 05:10:21 PM
It does seem like that, but there is no such contract. Granted, you're required to obtain 40 credits to receive your welfare. But, likewise, an able-bodied adult is required to meet employment requirements to receive SNAP.  Is the former more social-contracty? Maybe, if you squint one eye.

I can see, at the 20,000 foot conceptual level that social security and SNAP (to use these two examples) are much the same as welfare - they are both government benefits paid by taxation.  There are some things that do differentiate them however.  Social Security (as well as Medicare, unemployment benefits) have dedicated taxes to fund them, SNAP is paid out of the general fund.  SNAP is need-based, yes, there are hoops to be jumped through, but the qualifications are considerably different than Social Security, which is not need based.  There is an "account" for each person, although I do understand this isn't much more than accounting.  I can go to the SS website to see my expected benefit.  Personally, I think of SS as a pre-paid annuity, with the full knowledge that the Congress could vote to change it or eliminate it at any time..


 
then, of course, there is the fact that SS recipients receive far more in benefits than they ever paid in SS taxes, to the tune of about an inflation-adjusted 30% return on investment. Must be nice!

I'll take your word on the 30% return, still seems a bit low for a 30-50 year term.

So again, my broad point is that we shouldn't clutch our "special" welfare from on high and look down upon the lesser, which is how it feels in some of these types of threads. An honest liberal will admit we have a debt and unfunded liabilities problem, and an even more honest liberal will admit that taxing the rich cannot be the answer -- mathematically. So let's talk about welfare reform, but let's include all welfare in the conversation.

Ok - we are on the same page here - well said.  If we are ever going to start turning the corner on the budget and reducing the public debt, we do need to include Social Security and Medicare.

Gary
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 24, 2016, 06:57:08 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100770452
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2016, 08:14:54 PM
I can see, at the 20,000 foot conceptual level that social security and SNAP (to use these two examples) are much the same as welfare - they are both government benefits paid by taxation.  There are some things that do differentiate them however.  Social Security (as well as Medicare, unemployment benefits) have dedicated taxes to fund them, SNAP is paid out of the general fund.  SNAP is need-based, yes, there are hoops to be jumped through, but the qualifications are considerably different than Social Security, which is not need based.  There is an "account" for each person, although I do understand this isn't much more than accounting.  I can go to the SS website to see my expected benefit.  Personally, I think of SS as a pre-paid annuity, with the full knowledge that the Congress could vote to change it or eliminate it at any time..

I'll take your word on the 30% return, still seems a bit low for a 30-50 year term.

Ok - we are on the same page here - well said.  If we are ever going to start turning the corner on the budget and reducing the public debt, we do need to include Social Security and Medicare.

Gary

That is a reasoned response and I won't quibble. Thanks.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Dav8or on March 24, 2016, 08:47:18 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100770452

Yep. There are ways to reform Social Security.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 25, 2016, 10:08:49 AM
Problems don't get solved because some people want to implement welfare reform on the backs of the poor while clutching their own sacred government checks. The interesting thing is, a bunch of you are complaining about SS as being a forced retirement Ponzi scheme anyway. So I don't know what your problem is with including it in the welfare reform discussion.
Oh, I definitely agree we need to reform SS.
I just don't think it would be right to change the rules of the game after someone has paid into it their whole life.

I think the main change that needs to be made is to delay retirement age.  And not just the month or two push back ever few years.

If someone has retired or will retire in the next couple of years, you can't just change the rules they may have used to plan their future for decades.

But if someone is ~5 years away, tell them the goal posts are now 2 or 3 years further back.
If somene is ~10 years away, or ~20 or more years away, let them know now that they will not be able to draw SS till they are about 70-75.  And if lifespans keep increasing, then the pay-out date increases.

I could even also see a LONG TERM plan to shut the system down eventually, but the problem with that is that we be asking the kids to pay into a system that will not be there for them.  I don't think that would go down well.

But again, to tell people that have been promised this income their for their whole life, and forcing them to pay into it that whole time that it was a lie just aint right 
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: asechrest on March 25, 2016, 10:48:02 AM
Oh, I definitely agree we need to reform SS.
I just don't think it would be right to change the rules of the game after someone has paid into it their whole life.

I think the main change that needs to be made is to delay retirement age.  And not just the month or two push back ever few years.

If someone has retired or will retire in the next couple of years, you can't just change the rules they may have used to plan their future for decades.

But if someone is ~5 years away, tell them the goal posts are now 2 or 3 years further back.
If somene is ~10 years away, or ~20 or more years away, let them know now that they will not be able to draw SS till they are about 70-75.  And if lifespans keep increasing, then the pay-out date increases.

I could even also see a LONG TERM plan to shut the system down eventually, but the problem with that is that we be asking the kids to pay into a system that will not be there for them.  I don't think that would go down well.

But again, to tell people that have been promised this income their for their whole life, and forcing them to pay into it that whole time that it was a lie just aint right

I agree, it's not right, but tough decisions have to be made. What I can't fathom is why the conversation about reform always begins by focusing on assistance to poor people. I am young enough that I have basically written off SS. I have to plan for the future with the assumption that it will not be there for me, despite the fact that I've "paid into" it all my working life. It sucks, yes. But I won't stand here and demand I get my government check while suggesting other people shouldn't get theirs. Especially when those people are the group who can least afford to lose the assistance. Hopeless liberal? Maybe. But let us all endure the unfairness together.
Title: Re: The problem with liberals.
Post by: Little Joe on March 25, 2016, 01:18:59 PM
I agree, it's not right, but tough decisions have to be made. What I can't fathom is why the conversation about reform always begins by focusing on assistance to poor people. I am young enough that I have basically written off SS. I have to plan for the future with the assumption that it will not be there for me, despite the fact that I've "paid into" it all my working life. It sucks, yes. But I won't stand here and demand I get my government check while suggesting other people shouldn't get theirs. Especially when those people are the group who can least afford to lose the assistance. Hopeless liberal? Maybe. But let us all endure the unfairness together.
Do you agree or believe that you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you penalize?
That seems pretty self evident to me.

Now, do you believe that subsidizing unemployment increases unemployment,
or that subsidizing poverty breeds more poverty?
Those things may be less self evident, at least when wording it that way.

And do you believe that those that contribute should receive some compensation for that, and that the compensation should be somewhat relative to the contribution?
If not, you are more than the bleeding heart liberal you profess to be and should probably be voting for Bernie.