4 more years!

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
Marenta
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:34 pm
Car: 2008 Mopar Crap AND '91 Isuzu Impulse RS

Post

szh wrote:But, one exception does not make the norm.
Thank you! That's what I'm trying to say! There has never been a study done on the % of legitimate cases of necessity of welfare in comparison to the % of cases of abuse. Because you *see* the abuse cases doesn't mean that it is the norm.

I'm all for reducing the time on welfare (which, by the way, when I was on SNAP benefits, I was offered a whole whopping 12$/month for TANF) and increasing the amount of requirements. If you have no job, you should have to submit a job application listing every week, just like you were on UI in order to receive welfare. The amount of money that people get for welfare is just not that much. I will say that more people get a lot more money for food than they do for welfare.

And, isn't the time limitation for welfare 3 years max lifetime, anyway?


User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

This is segwaying back into the plan I pushed a couple months ago. Using temp agencies to distribute welfare, while continuing to try and place the recipient into a job, eventually setting their employment to such that the exceed the need for benefits.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Marenta wrote:
And, isn't the time limitation for welfare 3 years max lifetime, anyway?
From some quick research it looks like a state can waive just about any requirement. Each state varies with it's rules, but generally each state can regulate as it see's fit. Hard to nail down any set of rules.

Drug testing people that receive Gov funds is a great idea imho. If you can afford drugs, you can afford to get off welfare.
stebo0728 wrote:This is segwaying back into the plan I pushed a couple months ago. Using temp agencies to distribute welfare, while continuing to try and place the recipient into a job, eventually setting their employment to such that the exceed the need for benefits.
Wouldn't that be adding another level of government bureaucracy though? Do we use temp agencies that exist already? Who monitors those agencies for fraud? Real easy to say Joey Baganachos is working at the Flipngril while paying out funds for that person to sit home and the agency will still collects their monthly fee's. I see corruption everywhere man. If it can be abused, it will be.

Just talking out loud here.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

WDRacing wrote: Drug testing people that receive Gov funds is a great idea imho. If you can afford drugs, you can afford to get off welfare.
The only problem with that involves unwarranted search an seizure, and the way around that is to guarantee the results are inadmissible in court. Make that distinction, and I'm on board.
WDRacing wrote: Wouldn't that be adding another level of government bureaucracy though? Do we use temp agencies that exist already? Who monitors those agencies for fraud? Real easy to say Joey Baganachos is working at the Flipngril while paying out funds for that person to sit home and the agency will still collects their monthly fee's. I see corruption everywhere man. If it can be abused, it will be.

Just talking out loud here.
No, the government would contract with private, pre-existing temp agencies. Here's a brief rundown again of my plan

1. John needs help.
2. John registers with TempAmerica, who is one of 3 to 5 welfare contracted temp agencies.
3. John immediately begins receiving qualified benefits.
4. TempAmerica immediately begins job placement proceedings for John.
5a. TempAmerica places John into a position paying less than qualified benefits. John continues to receive the difference in benefits.
5b. TempAmerica places John into a position paying at or higher than the qualified benefits. Congratulations John, you now a fully functional citizen again. Benefits end.
6. John turns down or is legitimately terminated from 2 or more jobs in an established period of time. John loses benefits for 1 year.

The only draw back I can think of, is the kick back for administration that TempAmerica receives for handling John's case has to be less than the kick back TempAmerica would receive from a private employer. We don't want to create an incentive to keep people on the public dollar.

EDIT - Of course also, government would retain the rights to oversight, random audits and the like. The government seems much more apt to audit when they are auditing private sector organizations.

Also, let me add, this model is already being used in health care, in many states. Medicare and medicaid is being outsourced to private insurance agencies, but there is still oversight.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

I can't find anything to argue about with that plan, make it so!

User avatar
Marenta
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:34 pm
Car: 2008 Mopar Crap AND '91 Isuzu Impulse RS

Post

But, see Brian, we already have UI offices in-place that do this thing for people getting UI benefits. Yes, the State's UI offices would have to be expanded and they'd have to hire on more people, but it wouldn't be building another section in the welfare program and expanding it and bloating it. It would be using the resources available to us already.

Each State's UI office is run by the state, just like the welfare offices are.. if it's mandated federally and offered up to the states to control how they see fit, giving them leeway over their own standards... that's an idea that Republicans would bat at least a .988 for. The only drawback would be the broadening scope of the UI program to cover the additional people from the welfare program. But, my bet is that most people who get welfare also get UI as well, but, that's just a guess.

After re-reading stebo's plan, I like it there's just 1 hitch I found. Temp agencies as a general rule do temp work, so a job that will only hire you for 3 weeks doesn't do much good for Joe. It gets him employment, yes, temporarily. But, it'd have to be temp hire places that would be exclusively for temp-to-hire.
Last edited by Marenta on Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

I forgetted to discuss the drug testing. Why is it unwarranted? They apply for a benefit. In applying it's understood that in order to receive said benefit they must pass drug testing requirements.

I do agree that people can't be prosecuted for a positive result.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Marenta wrote:But, see Brian, we already have UI offices in-place that do this thing for people getting UI benefits. Yes, the State's UI offices would have to be expanded and they'd have to hire on more people, but it wouldn't be building another section in the welfare program and expanding it and bloating it. It would be using the resources available to us already.

Each State's UI office is run by the state, just like the welfare offices are.. if it's mandated federally and offered up to the states to control how they see fit, giving them leeway over their own standards... that's an idea that Republicans would bat at least a .988 for. The only drawback would be the broadening scope of the UI program to cover the additional people from the welfare program. But, my bet is that most people who get welfare also get UI as well, but, that's just a guess.

After re-reading stebo's plan, I like it there's just 1 hitch I found. Temp agencies as a general rule do temp work, so a job that will only hire you for 3 weeks doesn't do much good for Joe. It gets him employment, yes, temporarily. But, it'd have to be temp hire places that would be exclusively for temp-to-hire.
I know several people collecting UI, they don't get any help with finding a job. The offices are just places to call and "say" you're looking for work. The office then decides if they want to verify your references, which they don't. Are you saying UI agencies are actively looking for work for people? If so I don't think your correct...but I'm admittedly ignorant on this topic.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

WDRacing wrote:I forgetted to discuss the drug testing. Why is it unwarranted? They apply for a benefit. In applying it's understood that in order to receive said benefit they must pass drug testing requirements.

I do agree that people can't be prosecuted for a positive result.
I dont mean unwarranted in the general sense, I mean it in the legal sense. A warrant is required for the legal acquisition of any evidence when building a prosecution case. If the DA walks down 2 doors and pulls a folder, throws a copy in his own folder, that evidence was not acquired by warrant.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Marenta wrote:But, see Brian, we already have UI offices in-place that do this thing for people getting UI benefits. Yes, the State's UI offices would have to be expanded and they'd have to hire on more people, but it wouldn't be building another section in the welfare program and expanding it and bloating it. It would be using the resources available to us already.

Each State's UI office is run by the state, just like the welfare offices are.. if it's mandated federally and offered up to the states to control how they see fit, giving them leeway over their own standards... that's an idea that Republicans would bat at least a .988 for. The only drawback would be the broadening scope of the UI program to cover the additional people from the welfare program. But, my bet is that most people who get welfare also get UI as well, but, that's just a guess.

After re-reading stebo's plan, I like it there's just 1 hitch I found. Temp agencies as a general rule do temp work, so a job that will only hire you for 3 weeks doesn't do much good for Joe. It gets him employment, yes, temporarily. But, it'd have to be temp hire places that would be exclusively for temp-to-hire.
Temp agencies ARE unemployment offices. The only difference is the administration of public benefits. My plan is just basically privatizing UI offices, which automatically addresses waste and efficiency issues.

User avatar
Marenta
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:34 pm
Car: 2008 Mopar Crap AND '91 Isuzu Impulse RS

Post

I know the VEC in Virginia actually helps you find work. You have to register on state job posting boards, you have to attend job expos and job classes to continue to receive your benefits. I don't know if all states are like that, but I hope they are.

I know that temp agencies are UI offices that are just privatized, but, they do wh0re out work on temporary basis and it's really hard to find a for-hire job from a temp agency. I just know that state run UI offices already have job search reporting actually in-place. Plus, I figure the people have to show initiative and report that they're looking for jobs, whereas most Temp agencies do the looking for you and call you in when they have something. My reasoning for using the state UI office would be to ensure that the people are putting forth at least the minimum effort to keep their benefits instead of just letting them use the temp agency to do the looking for them. It's really removing the burden of them actively looking for jobs. Unless, these temp agencies also did UI as well, where it was a requirement that they submit weekly claims of job applications they put in?

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

You know why that is? How about a company having to carry benefits? How about a company having to keep a job open for maternity leave? Companies are resorting to hiring through temp agencies, because it helps them bypass all these requirements. If a mother goes into labor, and she was a temp, the company can have another person at her station tomorrow. I projected a while back that we might see a large trend toward high amounts of temp based work because of this. Its yet to trend that way, but there's still time.

But just taking your statement at face value. What's wrong with wh0ring someone out to whatever comes along first? If it gets them working and off OUR dime, I dont care what kind of job it is. Full time if preferrable, but anything is better than nothing.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Yes of course the temp agency, as part of being contracted as a UI provider, would have to provide consistent feedback on the status of the recipient.

User avatar
Marenta
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:34 pm
Car: 2008 Mopar Crap AND '91 Isuzu Impulse RS

Post

Oh stebo, don't trample on women's issues. It's not a safe place.

But, with those last 2 comments, you're showing that you support the companies right to abuse labor over that person's ability to move past their current position. Therein lies my issue with what you said.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

It's an individuals responsibility to further themselves, not the companies. Getting people off of welfare is THE most important thing here. When you muck it up with interpreted fairness you bog down the idea. Life isn't fair.

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

Hey Romney people. Here's a nugget for you to chew on. Maybe the forehead got cheated? :gapteeth:

Yeah, computerized voting machines, great idea. it's not like hackers can make a computer do anything they want or something.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhCw7dbDKZ0&noredirect=1[/youtube]

User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

Rumor mill ......

Romney to the be added on as a business consultant to the Obama team.....

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

It would make sense. Obama hates business, he hates Romney, perfect! Romney was an investment banker which would give Obama more chances to say "You didn't build that."

User avatar
s0m3th1ngAZ
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:11 am
Car: 96' Miata
2014 Focus ST

Post

Shut up bill. Just...shut up.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPD ... detailpage[/youtube]
Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent? Yeah, Red ones yah damn bigot.

S13_love
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:00 am
Location: PNW

Post

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote: Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent?
Ok, I'll bite.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states-wi ... nding.html

1) Florida
2) Louisiana
3) South Carolina
4) Hawaii
5) Virginia
6) Mississippi
7) North Dakota
8) Delaware
9) Texas
10) Maryland

Image

Image

I would share my speculations...but at this point, I think I'll refrain from doing so.

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:Shut up bill. Just...shut up.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPD ... detailpage[/youtube]
Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent? Yeah, Red ones yah damn bigot.
Um, he's right, though. People want stuff and Obama is more likely to give it to them. Sorry if you can't handle that truth. :poke:

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote: Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent? Yeah, Red ones yah damn bigot.
S13_love wrote:
s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:
Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent?
Ok, I'll bite.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states-wi ... nding.html

1) Florida
2) Louisiana
3) South Carolina
4) Hawaii
5) Virginia
6) Mississippi
7) North Dakota
8) Delaware
9) Texas
10) Maryland

Image

Image

I would share my speculations...but at this point, I think I'll refrain from doing so.
That's just what states receive the most federal money, not what the money is spent on. Find me a graph that supports your point that actually applies to the topic. What states receive the most welfare type benefits, or better yet, what counties. I'm betting the ones that receive the most historically vote blue.

User avatar
Hijacker
Posts: 15759
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:57 am
Car: '92 240sx Convertible
'94 F-150
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

Post

themadscientist wrote:
s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:Shut up bill. Just...shut up.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPD ... detailpage[/youtube]
Guess which states, on average, receive more in federal money per tax dollar spent? Yeah, Red ones yah damn bigot.
Um, he's right, though. People want stuff and Obama is more likely to give it to them. Sorry if you can't handle that truth. :poke:
I want my phone. But seriously, O'reilly and Palin were both flapping their jaws yesterday saying that rubbish. My takeaway from both of them is that they feel 50% of the country feels entitled. No. Just because you voted for Obama does not mean you feel entitled to handouts. Did I appreciate some help from the VEC when I was pushing to get back in school after the USAF let me go? Yes. Did I stay on unemployment all the way until my benefits were exhausted? No. I utilized the benefits just long enough to make sure my family had some food on the table and once my schooling started back up and I was no longer pounding the streets looking for work, I let my benefits stop.

People abusing the system are a vocal minority. I have known plenty of people who have used welfare in some way shape or form over the past decade, but only one person who was abusing the system for monetary gain. I'm not saying that the system could use some overhaul and better monitoring, but as soon as anyone would try to shore up enforcement, people like O'Reilly, Palin, and Coulter would be screaming about increased government regulation and unnecessary enforcement. It's a lose-lose situation.

To reign in my mini rant, my issue with what Papa Bear and Eskimo-kisses McGee is that they are willing to write off anyone who supported the democratic party. It's wrongful generalization and it shows how sore of losers they are. We survived 8 years of Bush bumbling around with his head up Rove's a**, we'll survive 8 years of Obama. If Romney had won, I'd be saying we'd survive 8 years of Romney. Presidents come and go. However, Congress gets to continue f*** s*** up for everyone with a free pass because the media focus is on the POTUS and he gets to take the blame for a lot of bi-partisan bickering happening across town on the Hill.

User avatar
AppleBonker
Posts: 17313
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:40 am
Car: Useful: 2011 Black Nissan Titan Pro-4x
Daily: 2003 Accord EX-L Coupe
Hers: 2014 Rogue SL AWD
Location: NW Indiana

Post

WDRacing wrote:What states receive the most welfare type benefits, or better yet, what counties. I'm betting the ones that receive the most historically vote blue.
Welfare-type benefits including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Are Social Security and Medicare a welfare benefit? Do they fit into the topic? No you say...right then, no it is. Funny that you include Medicaid in the same category as Social Security and Medicare. SS and Medicare are earned and contributed to throughout an individuals working life span and not available until 65. Medicaid is available to pour people at any time and requires no contribution.

We're referring to benefits that aren't earned. Things like TANF, utility assistance, food stamps, child welfare assistance and housing assistance.

This doesn't make me against these programs btw, it's just part of the conversation.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Hijacker wrote: I'm not saying that the system could use some overhaul and better monitoring, but as soon as anyone would try to shore up enforcement, people like O'Reilly, Palin, and Coulter would be screaming about increased government regulation and unnecessary enforcement. It's a lose-lose situation.
Um...no dude. Just no. There isn't a Conservative on the planet that is going to get in the way of entitlement reform.

Besides, who gives a crap what any of those 3 think? You and I can agree that reform is needed. That's the only thing we should care about. We need to cast aside the right and left wing s*** and press on with fixing the country. O'Reilly gets none of my respect ever since he started bashing Community College and anyone that attended one a few years back. Hello! We're not all rich you pompous motherfvcker!
Hijacker wrote:
To reign in my mini rant, my issue with what Papa Bear and Eskimo-kisses McGee is that they are willing to write off anyone who supported the democratic party. It's wrongful generalization and it shows how sore of losers they are. We survived 8 years of Bush bumbling around with his head up Rove's a**, we'll survive 8 years of Obama. If Romney had won, I'd be saying we'd survive 8 years of Romney. Presidents come and go. However, Congress gets to continue f**king s*** up for everyone with a free pass because the media focus is on the POTUS and he gets to take the blame for a lot of bi-partisan bickering happening across town on the Hill.
The wrongful generalizations swing both ways brosef. I'm a Conservative...probably not that Moderate either. But I'm not writing off the Democrats entirely, just the nutjobs that support increasing taxes without major cuts in spending. I mean right now spending cuts btw, not cuts that start in 10 fvcking years. Which is all the Dems EVER offer. That s*** isn't going to float dude. If you're going to take more of peoples money, then you need to quit blowing it NOW...not later.

Here's the thing, we're not surviving after 8 years of Bush. Look at it like this, the Nation is a person that is badly wounded. Under Clinton we rode a false bubble into prosperity, under Bush the bubble popped. But rather then stop the bleeding and seek medical attention that dumbass started donating blood out of one arm and plasma out of the other. Now we're just a fvcking husk lying in a coma being kept alive by machines breathing for us. Obama isn't administering any medicine either buddy, he's selling off organs...

We're running out of s*** to sell.

Don't worry about what the pricksvcking people of the world say man. Worry about your kids and the mess we're leaving for them.

User avatar
AppleBonker
Posts: 17313
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:40 am
Car: Useful: 2011 Black Nissan Titan Pro-4x
Daily: 2003 Accord EX-L Coupe
Hers: 2014 Rogue SL AWD
Location: NW Indiana

Post

Does a senior who hasn't worked their entire life receive SS/Medicare benefits? My grandmother pretty much never worked a day in her life (typical stay-at-home mother for the time) yet received both until the day she passed. That's earned? Money was collected from MY paycheck to pay for my grandmother's SS and Medicare, not collected from hers and banked until she needed it. Is that not how all these other programs you mention work? Additionally, I pay into all of those "un-earned" programs you just mentioned. If I fall on hard times and start collecting from them, would you argue that I haven't "earned" that benefit?

Edit: should mention my grandfather obviously worked.

User avatar
Hijacker
Posts: 15759
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:57 am
Car: '92 240sx Convertible
'94 F-150
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

Post

WDRacing wrote:Um...no dude. Just no. There isn't a Conservative on the planet that is going to get in the way of entitlement reform.

Besides, who gives a crap what any of those 3 think? You and I can agree that reform is needed. That's the only thing we should care about. We need to cast aside the right and left wing s*** and press on with fixing the country. O'Reilly gets none of my respect ever since he started bashing Community College and anyone that attended one a few years back. Hello! We're not all rich you pompous motherfvcker!
The issue isn't how you perceive the windbags. They have an audience that listens to them and use those opinions to form political alliances. They do affect voting, that can't be denied. A fairly educated person can easily understand that the verbal diarrhea being projected from them is just that, but unfortunately, there are quite a few people who take it more as gospel. Thankfully, the reality of politics isn't as extreme as what the pundits on the media would let us believe.

As for a conservative getting in the way of entitlement reform, I didn't mean for it to come off like that. What I fear happening is that if there were to be some form of reform, it would be seen as increased regulation which is what hard liners would protest. I agree that entitlement needs an overhaul in some way, but bipartisan politics keeps any meaningful discourse from happening.
WDRacing wrote:The wrongful generalizations swing both ways brosef. I'm a Conservative...probably not that Moderate either. But I'm not writing off the Democrats entirely, just the nutjobs that support increasing taxes without major cuts in spending. I mean right now spending cuts btw, not cuts that start in 10 fvcking years. Which is all the Dems EVER offer. That s*** isn't going to float dude. If you're going to take more of peoples money, then you need to quit blowing it NOW...not later.

Here's the thing, we're not surviving after 8 years of Bush. Look at it like this, the Nation is a person that is badly wounded. Under Clinton we rode a false bubble into prosperity, under Bush the bubble popped. But rather then stop the bleeding and seek medical attention that dumbass started donating blood out of one arm and plasma out of the other. Now we're just a fvcking husk lying in a coma being kept alive by machines breathing for us. Obama isn't administering any medicine either buddy, he's selling off organs...

We're running out of s*** to sell.

Don't worry about what the pricksvcking people of the world say man. Worry about your kids and the mess we're leaving for them.
I attack the Fox News s*** bags because they're a big target, but I know that the s*** piles high on the left side, too. The biggest issue is that nobody wants to collaborate. Hell, they won't even compromise. The issue isn't just in the muckity mucks in the system, but it's also an issue on the ground level. How can we expect our elected officials to play nicely while there are equally bickering morons putting said officials in office?

The country is in a massive spiral, and we're almost at the drain. There's no easy fix, but I don't like seeing our government help speed the process. I care about what happens to this country as I don't want to leave a pile of s*** for my kids to inherit. But what I was getting at is that I hate hearing EVERY Presidential cycle how the country is going to die on 7 January if candidate X is voted in. But we're still here and kicking. For how long, I can't say.

User avatar
R/T Hemi
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:11 am
Car: 2010 Challenger R/T
2012 TSX
Location: Sandy Eggo.

Post

Before and after the Ohio call. Fox news.

Image

Come on... I don't care who you are, that's funny.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

AppleBonker wrote:Does a senior who hasn't worked their entire life receive SS/Medicare benefits? My grandmother pretty much never worked a day in her life (typical stay-at-home mother for the time) yet received both until the day she passed. That's earned? Money was collected from MY paycheck to pay for my grandmother's SS and Medicare, not collected from hers and banked until she needed it. Is that not how all these other programs you mention work? Additionally, I pay into all of those "un-earned" programs you just mentioned. If I fall on hard times and start collecting from them, would you argue that I haven't "earned" that benefit?

Edit: should mention my grandfather obviously worked.
If you never worked you can't collect SS. You need 40 quarters of employment to be eligible for SS benefits. Your GM might have received SSDI, which is different, but still requires work credits. She may also have received your GF's SS once he passed. I'm pretty sure the amount of SS you receive monthly is also tied to the amount you paid into the fund.

Here's a link.

Regardless, like I already said, we're not referring to SS nor Medicare as a welfare benefit.

Also, slow down speed racer, no one said you don't deserve anything. No one said to get rid of anything either. We ALL pay taxes, therefore we ALL pay into the system. The problem is, the system is bankrupt. I'm trying to fix it, where as you're complaining about the effect of fixing it. The country IS going to feel the pain...we've put it off for way too long already. Is your idea to simply keep ignoring it? If I fall on hard times I have a savings account. I live within my means and save monthly. I buy used etc.

Try this, examine our current budget deficit, it's over 1 trillion, give or take a touch, in the red annually. We have to trim that much money from our out going before we can come close to balancing things. That's before we even work on the 16 trillion dollars we already owe. We spent 119 Billion dollars in Afghanistn in 2011. So lets get rid of that so we can no longer blame the wars for our economy problems. That leaves about 880 billion dollars that we need to cut from the rest of the budget. I'm all ears dude. Find me 880 billion in cuts that aren't going to hurt. These are all very inaccurate numbers just for conversational topic mind, the true numbers are quite a bit worse.

What are YOUR suggestions. Rather then point out the so called "unfairness" or "mean spiritedness" in everything I say, why don't you offer up some solutions. Right now we're on track to implode, that's just fact man. Over 6 billion a day gets added to our budget because of the debt alone. Who's going to provide for the needy when America totally fails economically? In reality, I'm doing my best to help those that need it by trying to save the country. So far you've offered up nada except for criticism.

While you're worrying about the needy and the unfortunate we dropped 360 billion bucks on interest payments on our already accrued debt. This number goes up daily because we borrow money on a constant basis just to have a functioning Gov. For perspective, we invested 57 billion in our own education.

So you'll have to excuse me if I've taken off my rose colored glasses Apple.
Hijacker wrote: The issue isn't how you perceive the windbags. They have an audience that listens to them and use those opinions to form political alliances. They do affect voting, that can't be denied. A fairly educated person can easily understand that the verbal diarrhea being projected from them is just that, but unfortunately, there are quite a few people who take it more as gospel. Thankfully, the reality of politics isn't as extreme as what the pundits on the media would let us believe.
Are you seriously going to talk to me about the media swaying the vote? I hate to break it to ya bud, but if you want to consider things that are based on fact rather then bias, the rest of the main stream media was completely up Obama's a**. Fox is a news network that is pro Republican, nobody is going to deny that. But getting uppity about it while you ignore that the rest of the main stream was in bed with Obama for the last 4 years is just silly dude. Cmon..if you're going to judge, judge all of them. Else you're just another one of "them".

Media outlets are FOR profit organizations, leave the rhetoric and bias they constantly portray, take the facts and develop your own opinion. I watch all the channels anymore, it's the only way.


Return to “Politics Etc.”