Let's put things into perspective, shall we?

There are approximately 10 active members on the politics forum. Out of those 10, 50% are entitled per O'Reilly and Palin..
So, 5 of the members on this forum feel they are entitled. We'll just say that those 5 members are: bigbadberry, Applebonker, telco, R/T, and myself.
Of those 5 members, we can assume that 50% of the total population is on some sort of government assistance. So, we'll say those same 5 people, since they feel entitled are also those on government assistance.

And if fraud is soooooo rampant with those assistance programs, we'll just assume 3 of the 5 are abusing the system.

Which 3 of us 5 are the abusers?

Marenta wrote:And if fraud is soooooo rampant with those assistance programs, we'll just assume 3 of the 5 are abusing the system.

Which 3 of us 5 are the abusers?

well lets see:
1. bigbadberry has gold teeth aka grillez. his car has a $2,000 system that he "found". he couldnt pass a drug test if he tried. he's been arrested multiple times and somehow or another paid his fines a couple times. he drives a 2003 Cadillac escalade with 24inch rims that "his aunt bought from him." his "female" has 'jewrey' just about on every finger and wrist and ear. she 'got her hur did & she nails did' last week.

2. Applebonker has a rap sheet that includes drugs, theft, but he's been good for the last year or so. thinking of going to nursing school but cant right now, because he'd fail a piss test

3. R/T just got busted for drug sales in his welfare house and $20,000 in cash, 2 guns, and a pound of pot was seized. oh did i mention that he also cooked his kid on the bbq-grill and continued to collect the welfare checks for the kid?
go ahead and google that:
"A Detroit couple accused of trying to cremate their dead 2-year-old son on a barbecue grill, and then hiding
the remains while collecting welfare benefits for the child, were both sentenced to prison today. Nickella Reid, 23,
pleaded guilty last month in Wayne County Circuit Court to involuntary manslaughter and welfare fraud in connection with
the death of her son, Deuntay Miller. She was sentenced today by Judge Michael Callahan to 10 to 15 years."

Marenta wrote:Let's put things into perspective, shall we?

There are approximately 10 active members on the politics forum. Out of those 10, 50% are entitled per O'Reilly and Palin..
So, 5 of the members on this forum feel they are entitled. We'll just say that those 5 members are: bigbadberry, Applebonker, telco, R/T, and myself.
Of those 5 members, we can assume that 50% of the total population is on some sort of government assistance. So, we'll say those same 5 people, since they feel entitled are also those on government assistance.

And if fraud is soooooo rampant with those assistance programs, we'll just assume 3 of the 5 are abusing the system.

Which 3 of us 5 are the abusers?

First, that makes no sense at all. People being on welfare has nothing to do with fraud in the system. Also, you can't use such a small demographic in a "study".

What point are you trying to make?

Are you going to argue that we don't have more people dependent on Gov subsistence now then we've ever had in history? Is it just convenient that Obama ran on taxing the rich to save the poor?

If you disagree with something, prove it to me with something solid. Not some crazy hypothetical.

Generalizations are bad. That's the point.

You can't tag 50% of a population for some broad sweeping statement and then not expect the same characteristics to continue into smaller groups of the same population.

I don't make assumptions about people because it's RARELY ever the case.

Generalizations ARE bad. But are you saying that most people that receive welfare in one of it's many forms don't support Democrats first? I can't speak for everyone but if I am correct, 50% of the people talking about this subject right now have collected some assistance and are Democrats. Coincidence? Maybe...just saying.

WDRacing wrote:Generalizations ARE bad. But are you saying that most people that receive welfare in one of it's many forms don't support Democrats first? I can't speak for everyone but if I am correct, 50% of the people talking about this subject right now have collected some assistance and are Democrats. Coincidence? Maybe...just saying.

LMFAO ^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!

WDRacing wrote:If you never worked you can't collect SS

Hence my added edit at the bottom of that post.

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

This is my point. You're not referring to SS/Medicare as welfare, but I am. Falls under the same umbrella, IMO. And while a large number on the right wants to rail against "welfare", they try hard to avoid any mention of SS/Medicare since they all plan on collecting that at some point in the future. The same people who are so gung-ho about saving SS/Medicare (because it economically benefits them personally) are the ones who typically complain the loudest about "liberals" mooching off of Uncle Sam and voting democrat in order to save their paycheck. Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

Take O'Reilly, for example. In last night's talking points memo, he made a comment about how BO managed to get reelected. He mentioned that roughly 50% of US households are receiving some form of governmental assistance with "some earned and some unearned". Bob Beckel was on the show later and called him out on this spin because that number would have to include SS/Medicare. O'Reilly tried to change the topic to focus on something more trivial. If O'Reilly is trying to claim that welfare/entitlement/safety-net spending is out of control, SS/Medicare MUST be included in this discussion, hence me including them as "welfare".

WDRacing wrote:Also, slow down speed racer, no one said you don't deserve anything. No one said to get rid of anything either.

Actually, you kind of did. You called many of these assistance programs "un-earned". How does one "earn" food stamps/etc? This isn't my point, but you made the distinction, not me.

WDRacing wrote:I'm trying to fix it, where as you're complaining about the effect of fixing it.

Also not true. Sorry if I was unclear. I'm not complaining about the effects of trying to fix the system. I'm trying to point out that there are more things that need to be considered.

WDRacing wrote:The country IS going to feel the pain...we've put it off for way too long already.

To this point, by "country" it appears you mean "impoverished" or people getting "unearned" handouts from the government. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's just how it is coming off.

The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to me as I don't disagree. We do need to drastically cut spending. The issue I'm trying to highlight is that there are basically two factions working hard against each other. For simplicity's sake, let's pretend the country has the following make-up:

50% wage earners who are more-or-less generating all of the tax revenue (split voting between party A and party B)
25% on "unearned" assistance (vote overwhelmingly for party A)
25% on "earned" assistance (vote overwhelmingly for party B)

One group favors lowering expenditures on "unearned" assistance, but party A rallies the troops saying "that group is taking away your income!"
One group favors lowering expenditures on "earned" assistance, but party B does the opposite of above.

Stagnation. Gridlock. Roughly our political system. Everyone fights hard for what is best for them personally at the potential expense of others rather than fighting for what's best for the whole and maybe sacrificing a little of what's best for them.

You want my rough idea on a path forward? Group ALL assistance into the same category. Don't have special deductions from my paycheck for SS/Medicare/Medicaid/whatever. Have an "assistance" deduction. Don't pull money out of federal income taxes to pay for any of these assistance programs. Reform the whole damn system to work for EVERY person who requires that assistance. Cut across the board as evenly as possible.

I've been paying into SS since I first started working (roughly 10 years or nearly 40 quarters). Do I feel like I've "earned" or "deserve" some SS payments when I retire? Probably. However, I'm definitely not counting on that. I'm not planning on seeing a penny from SS. It sucks, but fine. If that's the price I need to pay, so be it. I've done decently well in the country, so I don't have a huge complaint about helping those who have been less fortunate. Take my SS away if it'll help those who are more in need. Please don't sacrifice the needy at the expense of my SS. I'd rather feed my family now than have some retirement benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... -benefits/

Brian, I'm pretty sure at some point in time you might have lived on my dime. Nobody is beyond reproach, nobody.

I'm not a Dem, by the way. Oh, and my parents, very staunch Republicans have spent most of the Bush years on SSDI, Medicaid, Welfare, and SNAP. They both believe firmly that they are entitled to those programs. It wasn't until about 1/2 way through the Obama term that they went back to work. Now, they're doing better, but, they still believe that they deserve to have those programs.

Marenta wrote: my parents, very staunch Republicans have spent most of the Bush years on SSDI, Medicaid, Welfare, and SNAP. They both believe firmly that they are entitled to those programs. It wasn't until about 1/2 way through the Obama term that they went back to work. Now, they're doing better, but, they still believe that they deserve to have those programs.

AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE PROGRAMS. they put in the money, so why are they not allowed to use that money when they need it? the difference here is that they put the money into the programs at one point in time & when they felt they were able to return to work - they stopped accepting the programs. thats the difference between democrats & republicans. democrats hardly every put anything into the system, and then never get off the system once on it.

WDRacing wrote: 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.

Never said that CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS were above the muck either. They're in just as deep up to their heads in pandering to their "demographic". I don't watch Fox, but I can name a good portion of their anchors and contributors. I think I know three or four names of anchors and contributors of the other networks. Fox just happens to be very vocal, which puts them on people's radars a lot easier.

Hijacker wrote: Fox just happens to be very vocal, which puts them on people's radars a lot easier.

and liberals fear the truth/statistics/or anyone thats "vocal". because being vocal, and speaking the truth or about obvious social issues often times makes people of certain faith or race look bad... and even if its 100% true = they find it "racist". god forbid the truth is spoken about.... no-no-no... that would be RACIST!!!!!!!!! politically correct dummies.

Earned = SS/Medicare
Unearned = Welfare
You can't put the two in the same category because one has people paying for it their entire life, where as the other is just a hand out. There is no hypocrisy here. One is being paid into, it's not something they "benefit from" it's something they bought. It's also NOT something the right wing people don't want to see cut, it's something no one wants to see cut.

AppleBonker wrote:
To this point, by "country" it appears you mean "impoverished" or people getting "unearned" handouts from the government. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's just how it is coming off.

By country I mean country. As in the entire Nation and everyone in it. By cutting the budget enough to actually balance it, taxes will have to increase across the board. That means everyone, not just the rich people. Deductions will have to be removed, no child care credit, no charity credit, no college credit etc. People that make the least should still pay into the system, albeit much less then the top tier earners. At the same time we're going to have to seriously reform welfare programs. All of these things will have to stay in effect until the debt is paid to zero.

Once we get the debt paid down we can't allow it to go back up. I suggest a law that says any form of legislation has to be paid for in full and be verified as Constitutional. No more borrowing. It's OUR money, not the Govs. They have done nothing but prove they are utterly inept at management at all levels. People need to start be accountable for their actions.

AppleBonker wrote: The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to me as I don't disagree. We do need to drastically cut spending. The issue I'm trying to highlight is that there are basically two factions working hard against each other. For simplicity's sake, let's pretend the country has the following make-up:

50% wage earners who are more-or-less generating all of the tax revenue (split voting between party A and party B)
25% on "unearned" assistance (vote overwhelmingly for party A)
25% on "earned" assistance (vote overwhelmingly for party B)

That doesn't make any sense. The people receiving SS/Medicare, the "earned" assistance, aren't paying hardly any taxes, they are retired. The 50% of the population paying the taxes are broke up into more or less 2 parties. However, we actually agree on a lot of things. The Gov needs to cut spending and raise taxes to fix the problem. How deep the cuts go and to where is in the point of contention, but we generally agree that we're fvcked and the Gov is totally broken.

AppleBonker wrote:
You want my rough idea on a path forward? Group ALL assistance into the same category. Don't have special deductions from my paycheck for SS/Medicare/Medicaid/whatever. Have an "assistance" deduction. Don't pull money out of federal income taxes to pay for any of these assistance programs. Reform the whole damn system to work for EVERY person who requires that assistance. Cut across the board as evenly as possible.

I'd have to disagree with your approach entirely, but that's ok. I'm not that smaht and my opinion doesn't change the fact that we're trying to reach the same goal. I don't want money pulled from my paycheck to pay for those in need. In this instance I'm probably the polar opposite in opinion as you are. I don't think we hold people accountable for their actions nearly enough. I don't think it's fair that I should have to support other people that make bad decisions. Charity allows me to choose where my donations go and who they help. I don't claim charitable donations on my taxes either. Again, that's just me. If people want to willingly donate to an "assistance" fund run by the Gov, they can go ahead and do so.

AppleBonker wrote:
I've been paying into SS since I first started working (roughly 10 years or nearly 40 quarters). Do I feel like I've "earned" or "deserve" some SS payments when I retire? Probably. However, I'm definitely not counting on that. I'm not planning on seeing a penny from SS. It sucks, but fine. If that's the price I need to pay, so be it. I've done decently well in the country, so I don't have a huge complaint about helping those who have been less fortunate. Take my SS away if it'll help those who are more in need. Please don't sacrifice the needy at the expense of my SS. I'd rather feed my family now than have some retirement benefits.

That's your own personal choice. If you want to give your money away you're more then welcome to. However, you can't use your situation and personal feelings to draft regulations for everyone else. I don't know if that's what you're suggesting, I'm just saying...not this kid. I'll keep my money thanks. The needy don't concern me.

ImStricken wrote:

Hijacker wrote: Fox just happens to be very vocal, which puts them on people's radars a lot easier.

and liberals fear the truth/statistics/or anyone thats "vocal". because being vocal, and speaking the truth or about obvious social issues often times makes people of certain faith or race look bad... and even if its 100% true = they find it "racist". god forbid the truth is spoken about.... no-no-no... that would be RACIST!!!!!!!!! politically correct dummies.

See, I don't agree with you on this. Media outlets all skew the truth to an extent, but in the past 10-12 years I've watched a far majority of it come from Murdock's camp. I don't trust a single thing politically until it's been fact checked, and even still, I only trust certain fact checkers that have been proven to show as little bias as possible.

Megyn Kelly summed it up perfectly Tuesday night when she looked at Rove while he was trying to convince everyone not to call Ohio for the dems and asked him "Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?" I don't judge too harshly and everyone is allowed to vote for who they believe is the better candidate, but don't believe for one second that any of the news outlets, especially Fox, spouts unbiased truth and fact.

(NBC Fired Producer For Misleading Edit Of Zimmerman 911 Call. The edited version of the 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he shot Trayvon Martin made it appear Zimmerman immediately told police Martin was black, but the full recording reveals that the neighborhood watch captain mentioned the teen’s race only when responding to a question posed by the dispatcher.)

I don't agree that you would consider Fox to be reporting truth and statistics. They're just as twisted as the other 24/7s, twisting facts to match the narrative they want to report. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative view and being a mouth piece for that aspect of politics, especially when there are so many other outlets that focus on the liberal viewpoint, by the way.

Hijacker wrote:I don't agree that you would consider Fox to be reporting truth and statistics. They're just as twisted as the other 24/7s, twisting facts to match the narrative they want to report. There's nothing wrong with having a conservative view and being a mouth piece for that aspect of politics, especially when there are so many other outlets that focus on the liberal viewpoint, by the way.

oh i agree. every media is gonna twist, thats without a doubt. and i dont mind it, i think people need to be smart and look past the twisting and stretching.

WDRacing wrote:Earned = SS/Medicare
Unearned = Welfare
You can't put the two in the same category because one has people paying for it their entire life, where as the other is just a hand out. There is no hypocrisy here. One is being paid into, it's not something they "benefit from" it's something they bought. It's also NOT something the right wing people don't want to see cut, it's something no one wants to see cut.

So I'm currently paying into welfare. Does that mean I've earned some sort of welfare payout? By your definition it should. Also, entire life or 40 quarters?

SS isn't exactly something I'm paying into like my 401k or whatever. It's a pay-as-you-go plan, so I'm paying directly for the previous generation's retirement. Unless the number of retired people decreases over time, this is not fiscally sound. And, if the workforce decreases in number (say during a recession) the income from current workers drops and payments do not. I believe I read somewhere that SS actually was in the red for 2011 and will be for 2012. Sounds like a problem to me.

WDRacing wrote:I'd have to disagree with your approach entirely, but that's ok. I'm not that smaht and my opinion doesn't change the fact that we're trying to reach the same goal. I don't want money pulled from my paycheck to pay for those in need. In this instance I'm probably the polar opposite in opinion as you are. I don't think we hold people accountable for their actions nearly enough. I don't think it's fair that I should have to support other people that make bad decisions.

What is the alternative, though? Say someone has made some terrible decisions in their life. They now have no money, and are unable to find a job. Where do they live? What do they eat? They can't afford to pay for these things, so what options do they have? It seems like rolling over and dying is one, but the alternative is crime? Am I missing something else? At what cost to society is the crime they become involved with? I don't have an answer to these questions, just stating them. How do you suggest we "hold people accountable" for their choices? What is the "punishment"? (Note: not being a smartass, legitimately wondering)

WDRacing wrote:That's your own personal choice. If you want to give your money away you're more then welcome to. However, you can't use your situation and personal feelings to draft regulations for everyone else. I don't know if that's what you're suggesting, I'm just saying...not this kid. I'll keep my money thanks. The needy don't concern me.

No, I don't want to give my money away. In fact, I'd love to be able to keep all of it and not pay any taxes. That isn't realistic, though.

I should also point out, if we are trying to hold people accountable for their choices, wouldn't we want them to self-fund their own retirement? Why rely on the government to cover your retirement if you can do it yourself? At a relatively low contribution of $2,500 per year and at a 5% rate of return (very conservative), 40 years of saving will net $300k for retirement.

On one hand, you say "you can't use your situation and personal feelings to draft regulations for everyone else" but you follow that up with "I don't think it's fair that I should have to support other people that make bad decisions. The needy don't concern me." as a reason for drastically cutting welfare programs. Doesn't quite compute.

Hijacker wrote:Papa Bear and Eskimo-kisses McGee

haha!

Marenta wrote:Let's put things into perspective, shall we?

There are approximately 10 active members on the politics forum. Out of those 10, 50% are entitled per O'Reilly and Palin..
So, 5 of the members on this forum feel they are entitled. We'll just say that those 5 members are: bigbadberry, Applebonker, telco, R/T, and myself.
Of those 5 members, we can assume that 50% of the total population is on some sort of government assistance. So, we'll say those same 5 people, since they feel entitled are also those on government assistance.

And if fraud is soooooo rampant with those assistance programs, we'll just assume 3 of the 5 are abusing the system.

Which 3 of us 5 are the abusers?

Don't forget the one robotic guy who wants godless anarchy and doesn't care when people suffer, or so I've been defined as.

AppleBonker wrote:

WDRacing wrote:Earned = SS/Medicare
Unearned = Welfare
You can't put the two in the same category because one has people paying for it their entire life, where as the other is just a hand out. There is no hypocrisy here. One is being paid into, it's not something they "benefit from" it's something they bought. It's also NOT something the right wing people don't want to see cut, it's something no one wants to see cut.

So I'm currently paying into welfare. Does that mean I've earned some sort of welfare payout? By your definition it should. Also, entire life or 40 quarters?

SS isn't exactly something I'm paying into like my 401k or whatever. It's a pay-as-you-go plan, so I'm paying directly for the previous generation's retirement. Unless the number of retired people decreases over time, this is not fiscally sound. And, if the workforce decreases in number (say during a recession) the income from current workers drops and payments do not. I believe I read somewhere that SS actually was in the red for 2011 and will be for 2012. Sounds like a problem to me.

WDRacing wrote:I'd have to disagree with your approach entirely, but that's ok. I'm not that smaht and my opinion doesn't change the fact that we're trying to reach the same goal. I don't want money pulled from my paycheck to pay for those in need. In this instance I'm probably the polar opposite in opinion as you are. I don't think we hold people accountable for their actions nearly enough. I don't think it's fair that I should have to support other people that make bad decisions.

What is the alternative, though? Say someone has made some terrible decisions in their life. They now have no money, and are unable to find a job. Where do they live? What do they eat? They can't afford to pay for these things, so what options do they have? It seems like rolling over and dying is one, but the alternative is crime? Am I missing something else? At what cost to society is the crime they become involved with? I don't have an answer to these questions, just stating them. How do you suggest we "hold people accountable" for their choices? What is the "punishment"? (Note: not being a smartass, legitimately wondering)

WDRacing wrote:That's your own personal choice. If you want to give your money away you're more then welcome to. However, you can't use your situation and personal feelings to draft regulations for everyone else. I don't know if that's what you're suggesting, I'm just saying...not this kid. I'll keep my money thanks. The needy don't concern me.

No, I don't want to give my money away. In fact, I'd love to be able to keep all of it and not pay any taxes. That isn't realistic, though.

I should also point out, if we are trying to hold people accountable for their choices, wouldn't we want them to self-fund their own retirement? Why rely on the government to cover your retirement if you can do it yourself? At a relatively low contribution of $2,500 per year and at a 5% rate of return (very conservative), 40 years of saving will net $300k for retirement.

On one hand, you say "you can't use your situation and personal feelings to draft regulations for everyone else" but you follow that up with "I don't think it's fair that I should have to support other people that make bad decisions. The needy don't concern me." as a reason for drastically cutting welfare programs. Doesn't quite compute.

I'm not going to explain social security to you again. Google it, educate yourself on how it works. You're not paying into welfare and you're not going to get any welfare payout. I never used any form of my own definition, I'm telling you how it works, you either understand or you don't.

When a person makes a bunch of bad decisions, why is it my responsibility to pay for them? Where do they go, what do they eat? We can start with, not my fvcking problem. They can go to a homeless shelter, they can eat at a soup kitchen. All things run by charity. They have options, they don't have to lie down and die. How do the Amish do it? How do people live off the land in Alaska? They can fish, live in a tent...they can do whatever they choose to. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "don't worry about fvcking your life up, someone will pay your way for you." Why do I need to pay for them to have an apartment, food, cable and whatever else they piss there money away on? f***. If you care so much, get together with all the other people that give a f*** and start a commune. Leave me out of it and stay out of my pocket in the process.

What doesn't compute about me not allowing your personal feelings to regulate my actions? People are free to donate their money and take care of the needy if they so choose. On the other hand, people are free not to. One involves a choice, the other forces people to do something. If that doesn't compute I can't help you. When we come to a crossroads the choice should always swing towards the side of personal freedom. Btw, I never said my reason for drastically cutting welfare was because I don't care about the needy. It's because we're broke or are you forgetting everything I said about the budget?

For the record. I never said we should get rid of Welfare. I said it needs reform. The help can be there. Me not having any compassion for people that continually make bad decisions with their lives isn't driving my idea's for reform.

WDRacing wrote:I'm not going to explain social security to you again. Google it, educate yourself on how it works. You're not paying into welfare and you're not going to get any welfare payout. I never used any form of my own definition, I'm telling you how it works, you either understand or you don't.

I fully understand. My wealth is being redistributed to the retired members of our country. The fact that they may have paid into the same program in years past is completely irrelevant. I'm failing to see how I can explain this better.

Scenario A: I was working 10 years ago. At that time, the government was taking X% of my paycheck and giving it to people who needed it. I got arrested for drug possession and spent some time in jail. I lost my job because of it. I maxed out my credit while not working and can no longer afford financing for anything. After searching for a job for a month or so I gave up since no one wanted to hire me due to my record. Currently, I am receiving payment from the government that is being taken out of a current workers' checks.

Scenario B: I was working 10 years ago. At that time, the government was taking X% of my paycheck and giving it to people who needed it. I retired. Currently, I am receiving payment from the government that is being taken out of a current workers' checks.

Scenario A is "unearned" and B is "earned". Save the underlined part, they sound remarkably similar.

Don't let the separate line item on your paycheck stub fool you. For welfare programs and SS, the government is taking money from your paycheck and giving it to someone else.

Lest you forget, I mentioned SS was running a deficit, but you seem ok with ignoring that because the payouts are "earned". Anything running a deficit is going to be a problem when our budget is out of control. Even completely eliminating welfare AND unemployed health benefits fails to balance the budget.

WDRacing wrote:When a person makes a bunch of bad decisions, why is it my responsibility to pay for them?

The only way to end up on welfare is to make poor decisions? Got it.

WDRacing wrote:If you care so much

I'm assuming that "you" wasn't directed at me personally. But if it was, don't let my playing devil's advocate help you determine where I stand on these issues.

WDRacing wrote:What doesn't compute about me not allowing your personal feelings to regulate my actions? People are free to donate their money and take care of the needy if they so choose. On the other hand, people are free not to. One involves a choice, the other forces people to do something.

Like forcing people to completely change their current lifestyle because you think they didn't earn it

WDRacing wrote:For the record. I never said we should get rid of Welfare. I said it needs reform. The help can be there. Me not having any compassion for people that continually make bad decisions with their lives isn't driving my idea's for reform.

And, for the record, I never said Welfare didn't need reform. I'm just pointing out other places that are equally in need of said reform.

Just to expand on my above post without ninja editing, I don't hold everyone that's "down on their luck" in the same class. There is a huge difference between someone that is a parasite on society and someone that needs 3 months worth of help to get back on with their otherwise productive lives. I don't mind lending someone a hand when they fall down. But the ones that continually screw themselves...they can stay down.

AppleBonker wrote:
I fully understand. My wealth is being redistributed to the retired members of our country. The fact that they may have paid into the same program in years past is completely irrelevant.

It's relevant only in the fashion that at least people collecting SS have contributed to the fund. The amount of SS they collect correlates to the amount they paid into the fund. I acknowledge that it's insolvent.

AppleBonker wrote:
Scenario A: I was working 10 years ago. At that time, the government was taking X% of my paycheck and giving it to people who needed it. I got arrested for drug possession and spent some time in jail. I lost my job because of it. I maxed out my credit while not working and can no longer afford financing for anything. After searching for a job for a month or so I gave up since no one wanted to hire me due to my record. Currently, I am receiving payment from the government that is being taken out of a current workers' checks.

Scenario B: I was working 10 years ago. At that time, the government was taking X% of my paycheck and giving it to people who needed it. I retired. Currently, I am receiving payment from the government that is being taken out of a current workers' checks.

Scenario A is "unearned" and B is "earned". Save the underlined part, they sound remarkably similar.

Don't let the separate line item on your paycheck stub fool you. For welfare programs and SS, the government is taking money from your paycheck and giving it to someone else.

Lest you forget, I mentioned SS was running a deficit, but you seem ok with ignoring that because the payouts are "earned". Anything running a deficit is going to be a problem when our budget is out of control. Even completely eliminating welfare AND unemployed health benefits fails to balance the budget.

I know that we're paying for both. I get it. I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it's easier to cut something that people haven't already paid into their entire lives. I say entire lives because you can't collect until your 62. People like my wife and have been paying into it for 44 years between the both of us. So the difference is loud and clear to me, so is the relevance. I don't collect welfare, nor do I plan to. I do however plan to collect SS because I've paid into it. Cutting welfare eliminates an expense. That's why I see them as different. SS/medicare isn't a sacred cow. It can be reformed so it isn't insolvent. Welfare can't be made insolvent. See the difference?

AppleBonker wrote: The only way to end up on welfare is to make poor decisions? Got it.

No, I never said that. Your example was someone that continues to be a parasite. Those people can't be helped with a few months of welfare assistance.

AppleBonker wrote:
I'm assuming that "you" wasn't directed at me personally. But if it was, don't let my playing devil's advocate help you determine where I stand on these issues.

Why don't you just speak honestly? Why do I have to decipher whether your playing devils advocate or not? That's a fvcking stupid way to have a conversation. From what I can tell from reading this thread and others you're not playing DA at all. You're one of those that truly care for all the people that are in need. There's nothing wrong with that either, I never said there was. I just said don't push that POV on me.

AppleBonker wrote:
Like forcing people to completely change their current lifestyle because you think they didn't earn it

I'm not forcing people to do anything. Where do you even get that from. How am I forcing someone to completely change their lifestyle?

AppleBonker wrote: And, for the record, I never said Welfare didn't need reform. I'm just pointing out other places that are equally in need of said reform.

And we agree, we're just arguing over the minutia.

Marenta, you're so silly sometimes.

One in 5 coke bottles are winners, but you can't expect to go buy 10 and get 2 winners. Life doesn't work that way.

Rush now fumigates the airwaves on my local talk station. I listen, objectively. He did have an interesting idea yesterday though, an experiment. Split the country down the middle, say at the Ms. River, and give the liberals control of one side, and conservatives control of the other, then see which side's residents try to get back to the other side more. All the takers would end up on one side, with a few givers maybe, but not enough to sustain everyone. Most of the givers would be on the other side, but with only a few takers, well, which side would prosper you think? How long until a european leader started stumping for us to "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!" ?

WDRacing wrote:I'm saying it's easier to cut something that people haven't already paid into their entire lives.

And this is the heart of my point. You say it's easier because a cut to SS is a cut to your future paychecks. A cut to welfare doesn't really affect you in any immediate sense, but for those who depend on it, it can be a tough pill to swallow. My issue through all of this is the instant response from most conservatives that welfare spending needs to be curtailed. It's quite easy to say that when you don't depend on it. But that is where the battle lines are drawn. Everyone wants to take, but no one wants to give. It is a major contributing factor to the gridlock in Washington.

WDRacing wrote:Welfare can't be made insolvent. See the difference?

Completely. And I can't disagree, though there are many governmental programs that are entirely insolvent. The point I'm trying to make is that you can only cut so deep. If you trim too far, you eventually reach a point where the trimming adds expense (be it financially/environmentally/whatever).

WDRacing wrote:No, I never said that. Your example was someone that continues to be a parasite. Those people can't be helped with a few months of welfare assistance.

It just comes off that way many times (though you did clarify with the previous post). And when it comes off harsh, people will be less inclined to negotiate.

The real problem becomes trimming the fat without hurting those that actually need it (or, dare I say, deserve the help). I'd love for someone to present viable options for this. Currently, I have none. Just saying.

WDRacing wrote:Why don't you just speak honestly? Why do I have to decipher whether your playing devils advocate or not?

What difference does it make? Devil's advocate or not, these are still legitimate issues and questions. Balancing the budget can't be done effectively until these questions are answered. You (or maybe it was someone else) started the conversation by saying tyou want to get people off of welfare and lessen the welfare budget. While this is a great idea, I'm trying to figure out the how of it.

WDRacing wrote:From what I can tell from reading this thread and others you're not playing DA at all. You're one of those that truly care for all the people that are in need. There's nothing wrong with that either, I never said there was. I just said don't push that POV on me.

Not pushing my opinion. In fact, I fully agree that those who are parasites really need to be dealt with. Again, trying to figure out how. Beyond that, punishing them (or however you want to word it) does little to solve the problem. The mindset needs to be corrected. That would be the final solution, since there are people who are not on welfare that are wholly incapable of taking responsibility for anything (I dislike my generation more and more everyday because of this).

FWIW (adding this to the bottom of the post since it is mostly off-topic), I play DA in order to more fully understand my position. Sometimes arguing the other side can give you a clearer understanding of what you believe and what you are up against. TBQH, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on a lot of issues. I'm like John Kerry in that I bounce back and forth often. It just pains me to see the constant butting of heads where nothing gets done. We've tried that for the past who knows how many years and it clearly didn't work. I feel the solution is somewhere in the middle, and as a country we need to gravitate towards that.

SS isn't an issue for Conservatives, it's an issue for everyone. You simply can't say it's conservatives that don't to bend on SS. That's just not true at all. Ask Telco and RT how they feel about cutting SS/MEDICARE.

I have PAID for my SS. I don't depend on, I bought it. It can also be made solvent, like we agree on. So it's obvious why welfare gets picked on more, no one wants to sacrifice something they already bought. It's the low hanging fruit. It sucks that people depend on it but that doesn't change anything.

If you're going to play DA, then play it the whole time, don't flip flop in the same thread.

There is no cure for some problems man. Parasites can't be fixed.

I give this thread another 6 hours before lock.

stebo0728 wrote:Rush now fumigates the airwaves on my local talk station. I listen, objectively. He did have an interesting idea yesterday though, an experiment. Split the country down the middle, say at the Ms. River, and give the liberals control of one side, and conservatives control of the other, then see which side's residents try to get back to the other side more. All the takers would end up on one side, with a few givers maybe, but not enough to sustain everyone. Most of the givers would be on the other side, but with only a few takers, well, which side would prosper you think? How long until a european leader started stumping for us to "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!" ?

Sounds like El Rushbo borrowed a little something from "John J. Wall" (can't believe someone young enough to be in law school circa 2010 would refer to Jane Fonda as Hanoi Jane), or at the very least was inspired by it. This was circulating a lot in 2010, I imagine it's been dusted off and racking up internet frequent flyer miles after Tuesday night.

John J. Wall wrote: DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, Social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be The difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You Are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

--We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and over sized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

--You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors.

--We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right.

--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

--We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and An American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbra Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

My question is, did Rush cite his source of inspiration?

dress warm!

that was for all the guys who are moving to canada.

he cant get elected again. so just pretend like you have our best interest in mind and lets get something done. *cough* congress!