Again. Another libtard replying with no facts just slander.
[QUOTE=Esten; 420871]OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!
That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!
We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.
OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?[/QUOTE]Here is a fact. I fired a libtard today because I got tired of listening to his crap for 1. 5 years. I didn't even see this guy unless it was inspection time or on Wednesday whe he came in to get his check. He renovates properties for me but thinks he has banking hours and voted for Obama. His wife has 3 kids that aren't his and he supports them all. Well maybe not for the next few months! I felt so good firing his dumb ars.
Here is a fact from Obama mouth and then a few more.
[quote]"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."[/quote]He's absolutely right. The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.
Still waiting for Runner Up's answer
[QUOTE=Runner Up;420896]The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]This is a cut-and-paste from the Heritage Foundation. Just more short, slanted right-wing messaging.
Notice the comparison of apples (poverty rate) to oranges (total spending). Guess what, the US population has almost doubled since the 1960s. So of course spending will increase even with a flat poverty rate. The 13X reference needs investigation, it is most likely a distortion to support the Heritage Foundation's right-wing agenda. An apples-to-apples per capita comparison is needed.
We already had significant welfare reform in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This added a workforce development component to welfare legislation. This reform has been hailed as a great success by Republicans.
But once again, Republicans are banging the drum that we still have a huge problem.
No doubt there is still [i]some[/i] waste and inappropriate incentives in our welfare system, as Runner Up and Obama have said. The real question is quantifying and addressing the "some". If Republicans are banging the drum for action, the onus is on them to present a plan of action.
What will Republicans do? Cut the single biggest component of welfare - Medicaid? Good luck. Polls show most Americans are against Medicaid cuts, by wide margins.
So what else can be done? How do we distinguish appropriate welfare from inappropriate welfare? And how much money will that really save?
Runner Up provides no answers to these questions, but that's par for the course from people like him.
Another Conservative with no answers
And now we have Doppelganger, yet another conservative complaining about welfare, but with no answers. No details on what should be cut.
Truly UNBELIEVABLE.
Doppel, the simple answer to your question is this. The Great Society had some initial success. But over the long run, government efforts have been inadequate to counter the forces of free-market capitalism, which have increasingly concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. Surely you are not so naive as to think legislation from the 1960s is the sole or even main factor influencing the poverty rate today.
According to the Economic Policy Institute. 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation's total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%. The bottom 60% lost 7.5% of the gains.
[url]http://www.epi.org/publication/large-disparity-share-total-wealth-gain/[/url]
In general, conservative policies strongly support this type of extreme economic inequality. It is pretty much bottom --> up wealth redistribution. Similar though less extreme statistics exist for income as well. When liberals look at these statistics and propose to do something about it, conservatives march out their Wall-Street friendly messaging and propaganda:
"But the rich EARNED their money. It's wrong to take it away."
"Redistribution of wealth is morally wrong."
"Don't punish success."
And so the trend continues.
I started this thread to have dialog about the election, it has turned in the other thread
The same name calling and blind nonsense disconnected from reality. Jackson-please close both political threads and let's just agree to disagree.
-
I was saddened to see Mitt on TV trying to win over the right wing of the grand old party:" I was a severely conservative governor."
Mitt and the democract were almost in a dead heat until Mitt became part of the who is the most conservative conservative contest:
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html[/url]
-
Now a true social conservative has to be against birth control. Mr Rick made the Sunday morning new talks shows and told the world that he personally is against the use of birth control regardless of who pays for it. I am sure the Mr Rick would make a great leader for maybe 25% of the USA whose moral conviction play out as abstinence if sex is not for making babies. I am sure that all the members here would applaud this as social policy in the good old USA.
I call him Mr rick because he looks like the dashing gay blade who used to cut one of my X's hair who was called Mr Rick in his salon.
The general poplulation doesn't buy this stuff no matter whatever the republican primaries might say:
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html[/url]
_________________________________________________________.
The president demonstrates problems with the basic job skills while the republicans play a game as to who can tame the far right wind of the grand old party[that represents maybe 25% of the electorate. ]
While the country self destructs-I can imagine bill clinton play sax with the rolling stones while mick sings honky tonk women-a modern equivalent of nero playing the fiddle while rome burns
Mr Rick patroling the bedrooms of the USA to stop ungodly acts, calls others "intolorent"
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-calls-occupy-movement-intolerant-protestors-interrupt-him-001541619.html[/url]
I guess rick doesn't like BBBJ. Rick when you visit the privados in baires ask for bucal sin
Dopple: intelligent people can & do have different points of view
Unfortunately, that is almost never acknowledged on this site. Politics doesn't belong here. The divisions in the contemporary USA will not be resolved here. This forum serves a better purpose to share what we can share about things.
I think we all agree that the "social conservatives" would want 99. 999999% of the membership here stoned and flogged in public as an example to the youth that we are all ungodly perverts. Maybe mr rick would bring back the guillotine to cut off jackosn's head during half-time of next years superbowl.
NO the guillotine is french and well all know how those "social conservatives "generally feel about all things french.
It is unfortunate that the current republican candidates have to pander to the social conservatives. A "moderate republican" can beat the president, but the party base apparently is in revolt and mitt is now a severely conservative guy and was a severely conservative governor.
The mitt of the past who I was assuming I would vote for is getting sliced and diced in the sausage machine and coming out severely conservative at the end of the assembly line.
Staying on-topic for Bob, at least for a moment
A Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar.
The bartender says, "Hey Mitt !"
Esten-you and douppie should get a room-your arguements are like foreplay
You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.
After newt loses the primaries and gets thrown out of clalista's bed, he should join ap and take sweet jazmin and her girlfriend carla for a weekend with TL's love drops supplied via iv. Newt could liven up this board and if he really had the balls to ask his wife with cancer for an open marriage,
He would fit right in here: there is no substitute for class.
Well back on point-don't want to confuse anyone-I have not been reading the political boards because all the nasty name calling and dumb repition was boring. I am re-reading your on-going dialog and it is a "reasonable discourse" my comments should not apply to the two of you. I stand corrected.
I for one miss WW. He actually would research and think through his postings even if I found him to have the sensitivity of gengus khan and the mongol hoard
