Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[wil]

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

( SAINT_X is descended from the Frenchies and holds them in high regard... )

Ahhhh... that explains alot.

[SAINT_X]

.............................. ............

[helpmespock]

Perhaps something needs to be done to fix welfare so it doesn't reward people for sitting around. But good luck with that since it won't be too long before there are more people getting benefits than there are actual taxpayers.

absolutely wil....but before yall start blaming this on Obama, Bush had 8 years and didn't change this problem one bit. I swear if a presidential nominee ran on a platform of making welfare recipients here in America work for their money or get none I think i'd vote for him regardless of any other consideration.


The biggest thing though about Obama for me is that already relations have thawed towards America from so many different countries. Americans have no real comprehension about how much business America has lost over the last eight years due to other countries being treated badly and huge amounts of bad-will being built up.

I agree totally ckn. One of the big reasons I went with Obama, as I think this will come to fruition. Bush unfortunately acted as president like the spoiled kid he was. You don't want to play the game his way he's taking his toys and going home. His foreign relations stance was about as childish as it gets. It also added fuel to the international myth that most americans are spoiled immature ignorant brats...

[wil]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

Perhaps something needs to be done to fix welfare so it doesn't reward people for sitting around. But good luck with that since it won't be too long before there are more people getting benefits than there are actual taxpayers.

absolutely wil....but before yall start blaming this on Obama, Bush had 8 years and didn't change this problem one bit. I swear if a presidential nominee ran on a platform of making welfare recipients here in America work for their money or get none I think i'd vote for him regardless of any other consideration.

Sheesh man... Did I blame it on Obama????? My comment on welfare people soon outnumbering taxpayers refers to our progressive taxation plan. Sure I believe Obama's policies are going to add to that, but I'm certainly not so blinded by party ideology to blame it on one man. Do I come off like that? Do I really come off like the Bush-haters who tend to blame everything on Bush? I didn't think I did but of course I could be wrong in my own self-assessment.


Oh yeah... The welfare state is not Bush's fault either btw. He may not have put an end to it, but it has been around for a long time. And as long as there are folks who don't have a problem with taxing successful people because we need to spread the wealth, it will just keep on growing.

[helpmespock]

I didn't say u did wil...I said "before you start" because yes that has been the tendancy here to blame such things on Obama, though he just got into office yesterday...and yes you do come off like that, as you claim Bush haters do, in fact you couldn't help but go on...


And as long as there are folks who don't have a problem with taxing successful people because we need to spread the wealth, it will just keep on growing.

an obvious reference to obama.

And yes wil, I understand it has been around a long time. The point I am making is that although folks like yourself will undoubtably, predictably as you did above make the statements that you just did, you can not run from the fact that Bush had 8 years of presidency and 4 years of the house in republican hands and yet did not change the welfare system with all its flaws one bit.

so yes it will continue to flourish under the hated Obama as it flouriushed under the beloved Bush.

[griffo2]

Here we go agaaaiiinnnnnnnnnnnn

We have too much interlect to let this thread implode,don't we?

[gYmgIrL]

I was thinking too, Obamas in now, right, nothing you could do about it if you didnt want him there. But I think it would make everyone happier if they tried to keep positive about the situation. No need to dwell on "what if Obi-Wan-Bama screws it moar?" or "What if he cant fix it!?!" Everyone here is watching him on TV and going "lets hope this man can help" or "this might be it, everythings going to be ok". Yeah ok he cant fix the world instantaneously, but hope that he will and belief that he will try is what will make our daily lives happier

Its my first serious political post! so you must listen! :P

[wil]

Well, even though I have said on many occasions that I didn't like everything Bush did I am obviously just some cool-aid drinking knuckle-dragging republican who looooooves Georgie Boy and will dislike Obama just because he's got a D after his name. Thanks for reminding me of that spock.


And now... just for GG...

Obama is the coolestest half-black dude in the history of half-white dudes, and I really do hope* he does some good things for the USA.












* in my mind, hoping something will happen is not necessarily the same thing as having faith that it will happen

[burnt_thru]

a return to pre-welfare state times seems a pretty brutal solution to our current issues. the shame of victorian england was the shocking treatment of our underclasses, a situation that had been going on for some time. child labour, slave wages, highly unsafe working conditions, rampant prostitution (of men, women, and children), all while we ruled the waves and enjoyed vast national wealth and power.

[linemanpaul]

I did not see the "Executive Orders" section on the Obama Agenda page, but it doesn't matter

Executive Order
Critics fear that the president could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in particular has criticized the generalization since World War I of the use of executive orders or decrees by all Western democracies, declaring that this tends toward the constitution of a "permanent state of exception." The presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation.

I must have missed Congress debating the closing of Gitmo, thanks BHO for the clarification of Congress's intent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...(United_States)

[linemanpaul]

Now we go from Holy Sh@t to We are Screwed

YouTube - Explosive Video Reich, Obamas economic...

[helpmespock]

[quote=wil;711990]Well, even though I have said on many occasions that I didn't like everything Bush did I am obviously just some cool-aid drinking knuckle-dragging republican who looooooves Georgie Boy and will dislike Obama just because he's got a D after his name. Thanks for reminding me of that spock.


And now... just for GG...
Obama is the coolestest half-black dude in the history of half-white dudes, and I really do hope* he does some good things for the USA.


Wil changing another man's argument to make it more easily defeated is a really lame way to debate. Read my post again and it is obvious I said nothing of the sort. What you do however, is attack Obama on issues that you gave George a pass on. Thats what I am saying. Never said anything else. Please don't twist my words so they sound less rational. If you want to debate what I say....great....but keep it to what I say!

I think gymgirl makes a great point. Lets stop whining and try to create a positive approach.



OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA......ok thats a bit much....

[wil]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

Wil changing another man's argument to make it more easily defeated is a really lame way to debate. Read my post again and it is obvious I said nothing of the sort. What you do however, is attack Obama on issues that you gave George a pass on. Thats what I am saying. Never said anything else. Please don't twist my words so they sound less rational. If you want to debate what I say....great....but keep it to what I say!

Sure, let's keep the debate to what was actually said. Here are the posts from when I got involved in this debate again...

YOU said this in a response to something linemanpaul posted...

as far as immigration fixing our labor problem....I once asked the owner of the construction company that built my current home why he used so many mexicans laborers....his answer...

"Young Americans don't want to work this hard for the kind of money this job pays... they'd rather collect welfare and sit at their mommy's house playing x box all day....These mexicans bust their ass for the money..."

Perhaps that is the heart of the situation.

The bolded part revved up my disgust at how the US has become a welfare state. So I then made this comment, in essence agreeing with your observation about the lazy punks living on the public dole...

Perhaps something needs to be done to fix welfare so it doesn't reward people for sitting around. But good luck with that since it won't be too long before there are more people getting benefits than there are actual taxpayers.

Now could someone who is not taking on the role as an Obama apologist show me where I slammed Obama in that comment...

Because unless my eyesight is failing me, I did not mention any specific president, governor, or congressman. My comment was about our welfare state. My disgust is directed at our gov't who gives handouts to as many as they can in order to get votes. This has been happening for a long time and it will continue to happen. It is true that I believe it will continue with president Obama, but I also believe it would have under a president McCain as well, because they are both typical politicians.

So now, I hope I have cleared up what the intent of my first post was. I basically agree with you helpmespock in the disgust we apparently both share when someone would rather collect welfare because it pays more than some jobs. I added my pessimistic view of politicians not changing it because they would lose a lot of those ever-precious votes. Then you jumped on me for somehow insulting the honor of Obama.

But thank you for explaining to me that I am a hypocryte. I'll try my best to change my ways.

[helpmespock]

thanks for your response wil. I agree with it all except the self flagellating final remark. I am not saying this so you really don't need to put that in my mouth. If you read my response to your comment on the welfare issue, I did not indict YOU specifically, here is what I said...


absolutely wil....but before yall start blaming this on Obama,

Yall....a slang term originating in the South to refer to a group of people...short for "You all".


Wil I was referring to the group of posters who seem to blame everything on Obama....perhaps that is an exxageration, but you yourself make the same exaggeration when referring to the group of posters who blame everything on Bush. One might assume you belong to the former and I to the latter based on our posts here, though we would both of course dispute that. So did I include you in that group? Yes I did, and I agree it is probably hyperbole on my part, but you most certainly would include me in the "Bush hater" group, which would be equal hyperbole on your part.


I am glad we both agree that the welfare state, started by the Dems, but continued by all admin since, is killing our society. I have often wondered if it were not some general political scheme, none too accidental. What I mean is most of our politicians do not want a well educated mass of citizens. If we were all educated, we would not be so easily swayed by the typical political bull both parties spew. What better way to keep your voters ignorant than to support such a program that encourages the growth of the poorest least educated segment of society, and punishes families that try to do the right thing(work for a living and pay for private insurance and education).

I have often wondered if all the top dog politicians aren't quite happy with the welfare state and how it has redistributed the classes.

[wil]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

thanks for your response wil. I agree with it all except the self flagellating final remark. I am not saying this so you really don't need to put that in my mouth.

So... when I inferred that you think I'm a hypocrite, I was putting words in your mouth? Hmm...

Originally Posted by helpmespock

Wil changing another man's argument to make it more easily defeated is a really lame way to debate. Read my post again and it is obvious I said nothing of the sort. What you do however, is attack Obama on issues that you gave George a pass on. Thats what I am saying. Never said anything else.

What else could the part of 'your own words' that I underlined from 'your own post' mean?






Oh... I'll end on an agreeable note... I absolutely believe this theory you posted - and I apply it to politicians on both sides.

Originally Posted by helpmespock

I have often wondered if all the top dog politicians aren't quite happy with the welfare state and how it has redistributed the classes.

[BlackMagicPanther]

Wil and Spock, I know at least one of you read Burnt_Thru's post above, cuz spock thanked it. The last part about prostitution is the bell ringer for me. History has shown that everyone will do what ever they need to do to survive. Our crime rates are already fairly high as it is. If you take away the welfare system, you have a lot of people who could become criminals who otherwise would not be. Do I believe that our system is broken and needs tweaks? Absolutely, but at this point it is a deterrant for something far worse. Necessary evil is the best way to describe welfare.

[helpmespock]

Originally Posted by BlackMagicPanther

Wil and Spock, I know at least one of you read Burnt_Thru's post above, cuz spock thanked it. The last part about prostitution is the bell ringer for me. History has shown that everyone will do what ever they need to do to survive. Our crime rates are already fairly high as it is. If you take away the welfare system, you have a lot of people who could become criminals who otherwise would not be. Do I believe that our system is broken and needs tweaks? Absolutely, but at this point it is a deterrant for something far worse. Necessary evil is the best way to describe welfare.

BMP, I disagree. I am not advocating we suddenly abolish welfare. I am talking about restructuring it so as to motivate those on it to seek regular jobs, which as per the contractor I quoted above are actually available, just not desirable in the face of "free money". I had elsewhere hinted at my ideas here. There would be no free lunch in my world. If you were unable to find work and applied for welfare, you would be granted it, and if you pass a physical put to work picking up trash on highways, cleaning state parks, helping in nursing homes. You would have transportation provided by other welfare recipients with clean driving records who were paid their welfare check to drive those without transportation to work. Jobs to oversee all this would be created. Quality daycare would be available(ie more jobs) for those who had children so they too could work for their check. If these type of jobs were unpleasant for the welfare recipient they could opt for job training, something with a definate end point like 6 months to train for a job they desired more, then out of school and back to work. No one progresses in life if the spirit of life is removed by a handout. No one can develop work skills sitting on their couch drinking a 40. If unwilling to work you do not get a check. If people choose not to work, and engage in criminal behavior, we have police and jails for them.

No slave labor, jobs for everyone, money for everyone who is willing to work. no prostitution needed. The Indians have lived on a welfare type system for over 100 years. What is the result? Very high alcoholism, diabetes, and obesity. Very high school dropout rates and suicide, depresion.....

yeah, I think the jury was out long ago. Welfare doesn't work. It needs major reform.

The rest of us have to work for a living so why not the welfare recipient?

Wil, I would have agreed with "politically biased" I feel hypocrite was a strong word.

[wil]

Originally Posted by BlackMagicPanther

Wil and Spock, I know at least one of you read Burnt_Thru's post above, cuz spock thanked it. The last part about prostitution is the bell ringer for me. History has shown that everyone will do what ever they need to do to survive. Our crime rates are already fairly high as it is. If you take away the welfare system, you have a lot of people who could become criminals who otherwise would not be. Do I believe that our system is broken and needs tweaks? Absolutely, but at this point it is a deterrant for something far worse. Necessary evil is the best way to describe welfare.

I'm not saying we should abolish all welfare. Some people definitely need help and I don't have a problem with them receiving it. I do have a problem with the people who take advantage of the system. I see them in my area. Too many women popping out babies so they can get a bigger welfare check... too many of the aforementioned slackers who would rather take the free money than actually do a dirty job. Plus I wonder how many of said slackers are collecting welfare AND involved in criminal behavior??

[pliny_2001]

Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the "Welfare Queen" driving her "Welfare Cadillac" has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.

As a bit of class warfare, however, it was brilliant. It diverted public attention from insider traders in their limousines to Welfare Queens in their Cadillacs, even though the former were stealing thousands of times more from the American people than the latter. Just one example of the cost of white collar crime would become apparent a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money -- enough to fund 20 years of federal AFDC.

Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency.

Figures provided to the 1994 Green Book, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Sorry my info's 15 years out of date, but Clinton (and Newt!) redid welfare in the mid-1990's, greatly reducing the number of people drawing on it, also reducing its budget. But I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people on the rolls has gone up during the, say, 2001-2009 period.

If you want to talk about welfare and fraud, I'd love to enter into a discussion about ArcherDanielsMidland, the US banking system, and other corporate entities. (not really - they're just taking up a lot more money in corporate welfare than some poor people ever did. People who complain about welfare to the poor are so blinded by rhetoric that they appear unable to prioritize issues)

[ckn]

Welfare is out of control in the USA. Banks through bailouts, companies through state tax "bribes" to the point that only the stupid big companies pay fair taxes, top 1% of earners through more tax cuts in the last 8 years than under Reagan, politicians on lobbyist money... I could go on all day.

The UK used to have a very good welfare system where there were two classes of benefits. The best unemployment benefits went to anyone who had worked for two out of the last three years, had paid full national insurance premiums AND were not voluntarily unemployed, this was a non means tested sum that everyone got because they'd paid for it (as with all other insurances). Subsistence class benefits went to everyone else and were enough for survival with few luxuries.

Since about 2000 though, the top class benefits have been cut and cut while means-testing has been added to the point that it's useless claiming it if you have any savings at all. In the mean time, standard benefits have been rising along with a rise in the working tax burden meaning it's easier to live on the benefits while it's harder to get a job that will give you more than the benefits. A whole generation of people are growing up wondering why they should work when the state gives them money... what's worse is that they see it as their "right" to get the money.

Good intentions from the Labour lot but good intentions mixed with their sheer incompetence never works.