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

[helpmespock]

People who complain about welfare to the poor are so blinded by rhetoric that they appear unable to prioritize issues)


sorry Pliny you haven't a clue what you are talking about and don't friggin patronize me.

I am not listening to rhetoric and i don't give a damn what you read in a book or learned in a class. I experience this shit first hand every mother fucking day. As an ER doc in a lower income(think trailer park city) community, 80% of my patients are on "access" medical and welfare. There is no "rhetoric" about it. They abuse drugs and alcohol, procreate like rabbits(cause it is profitable for them) have no respect for society, are often times too damn lazy to fill out their paperwork once every 6 months to keep their medical coverage, but they don't care because they know fools like yourself are more then happy to keep on paying their bill with your own higher premiums, spread disease with their indiscriminant sexual relations and break the law repeatedly, all the while walking around with an attitude that working society owes them.

Yeah white collar crime sucks too. Its a different freaking animal for Christ's sake. you know what else sucks? Communism...not sure what the point is though. the Dallas Cowboys suck as well....don't think it has much bearing on a debate on welfare.

sorry i'm not swayed by your argument. but tonite when i treat my next meth head mom for her 7th miscarriage of her 12th pregnancy in 10 years, who forgot to fill out her access forms last month because she was busy scoring some crank I'll be sure to tell her your pulling for her.

Rhetoric my ass.

[RunningMan27]

My wife is a teacher at a low income school. The things I hear from her about some of her kids disgusts me - not because of the kids, they're doing all they can and are amazing for doing so, but the parents (if you can even call them parents). Some of these people have 7 kids and shouldn't have had 1 kid. They do nothing to support their families. They do very little to actually support themselves through working for a living because they expect their welfare check and that is fine for them.

They get their check and instead of spending money on something meaningful like real food such as meat, vegetables, and milk some buy a few bags of Dorritos and some packs of Coke... Others hit the bar and drink away half the check. It is terrible. Some of my wife's students come to school without eating dinner for days / weeks...the only food they get is the breakfast and lunch the schools serve. Often these kids barely eat anything at all over the weekend...other than chips and Coke....if that's even considered food.

There are good people who deserve wellfare income - which I have seen listed in this thread. So I am not advocating the removal of this system - but it clearly needs serious revisiting. People who make no effort whatsoever (like some of the parents I referred to above) should be put to work to earn their liquor instead of us giving it to them because they have a certain amount of kids. Other groups need to step in (Social workers and others) to ensure their kids get treated for the medicine, food, and shelter that is required for them to live.

A story that comes to mind often when I think about this type of issue happened to a family friend of mine. The husband and wife were walking to dinner one night and were approached by someone for money. The husband offered this person $20 if the person would pick up a piece of trash 10 feet away and put in a trash can at the end of the block. The person's reply was it was stupid for him to have to throw away someone else's trash. (The irony behind that statement needs no further comment on my end.) The husband and wife continued onto dinner and ignored the guy from then on...

[pliny_2001]

Best numbers (legit accuracy, recentness, and same year, so, in this case 2006) I found: non-medical [so; food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC) - the single largest portion, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, while excluding veterans' payments] welfare accounted for $117 Billion in welfare spending. Corporate welfare accounted for between $57B and $92B (depending on if you like the Department of Commerce's or the Cato Institute's numbers -- Cato's are probably better, but I'll put them both out there).

I'll make the argument that the $117B number probably contains more social utility. Previous studies suggest that social welfare programs contain about 5% fraud (either through the near-mythical welfare queen or various governmental errors), so that's what - about $5.7B dollars of waste a year on social welfare? Whereas in 2007 the government subsidized ethanol production alone to the tune of $7.3B. Let alone the bank bail-outs that we've been hearing about recently.

So, yes, I'd say that people aren't understanding the scale of these two welfare problems. And why would anyone think that I like poor people? I don't. I'm that sick bastard that thinks that being poor indicates some flaw of character that will ideally not be transferred to future generations. I'd just rather waste some money in an effort to help those legitimate few who do need a hand that continue to run the subsidized, risk-less system of capitalism that seems so en vogue right now. So If I'm prioritizing problems, I'd care more about getting rid of the $100B problem than the $5B one -- like, about twenty times more.

Originally Posted by helpmespock

procreate like rabbits(cause it is profitable for them)

I'd love to see a study of how this is actually profitable absent fraud. And don't think that I've never been in the shit, doing your pro bono requirements with legal aid isn't a great way to restore your faith in humanity.

[helpmespock]

well thats a good point Pliny, no doubt the corporate welfare thing is ridiculously out of control. It doesn't change the fact that the welfare system denegrates society. It needs reforming. I have been against the corporate bailouts from the get go, but it seems the problem is so deep into our financial structure there is no other way. I was hoping a vote for Obama may be a small move in the right direction there.

[wil]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

well thats a good point Pliny, no doubt the corporate welfare thing is ridiculously out of control. It doesn't change the fact that the welfare system denegrates society. It needs reforming. I have been against the corporate bailouts from the get go, but it seems the problem is so deep into our financial structure there is no other way. I was hoping a vote for Obama may be a small move in the right direction there.

Wait... what... you think Obama will change direction on corporate welfare?

Interesting.


BTW... He has just added foreign abortion providers to the list of corporate welfare recpients.

General News - Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding

[linemanpaul]

Another "Executive Order"

Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy
A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Obama signed the executive order, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's Wednesday announcement on ethics rules and Thursday signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Obama is also expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), probably in the next federal budget. Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.

[JimmymonFreddy]

[linemanpaul]

A must read, Great stuff from the Hawk

iowahawk: The Idiossey

[helpmespock]

Wait... what... you think Obama will change direction on corporate welfare?


Yeah.....

forgive me I am a brainless Obama voter...whats your point wil?

[helpmespock]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

A must read, Great stuff from the Hawk

iowahawk: The Idiossey

sorry LMP, when I'm that bored I prefer to look at the Fitness Babes forum....

[wil]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

Wait... what... you think Obama will change direction on corporate welfare?


Yeah.....

forgive me I am a brainless Obama voter...whats your point wil?

Oy...

All I meant was that Obama - like every other politician - is not going to get rid of corporate welfare. He might make a few shifts as far as which industries get more money, but he won't get rid of it. Politicians live a breath to get votes. Welfare - corporate and individual - is how they pay for a lot of those votes.

[burnt_thru]

campaign finance reform may seem like the most deadly dull subject on the face of it, but i reckon it would transform our democracies from the corporatism they are currently mired in.

[helpmespock]

I'm gonna bail out of the political discusion alltogether. It seems we get no where. We are all rather opinionated and very unlikely to listen to anyone elses opinion, nor change our minds one iota, so it is an apparently useless endeavor to "debate" these topics. I guess that is true just about everywhere, not just here. No point in yelling at one another, none of us will ever change our opinion one bit.

I'll see ya in the "babes" section

Cheers.

[linemanpaul]

Laughter is always good

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive Sunday Funnies

[linemanpaul]

This is our Commander in Chief showng his true colors

President Obama Does First Formal TV Interview as President with Al-Arabiya

January 26, 2009 6:29 PM

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

Political Punch: President Obama Does First Formal TV Interview as President with Al-Arabiya

[mavgrad99]

Im surprised Griffo hasn't blown up this thread yet

[griffo2]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

I'm gonna bail out of the political discusion alltogether. It seems we get no where. We are all rather opinionated and very unlikely to listen to anyone elses opinion, nor change our minds one iota, so it is an apparently useless endeavor to "debate" these topics. I guess that is true just about everywhere, not just here. No point in yelling at one another, none of us will ever change our opinion one bit.

I'll see ya in the "babes" section

Cheers.

Well aint that the bloody truth.

Politics and religion....like flogging a dead horse.

[linemanpaul]

The horse ain't dead yet

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wilders and Limbaugh--> BEFORE and After?

This Past weekend, President Obama decided to get into the trenches with Rush Limbaugh

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. NY Post

Rush Limbaugh is a media giant, I am the last person from whom he needs support, I will leave his defense in his own capable hands. I find the spat between the President of the United States and the Dean of Conservative Talk Radio quite disturbing on a different level. Folks this is the first step of the ruling Democratic party controlling speech in America.

The President's comment was immediately joined on by the rest of his Party. Democratic congressional campaign committee chairman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said in a statement:

Rush Limbaugh's reprehensible remark that he 'hopes' President Obama fails to meet the extraordinary economic challenges Americas face has no place in the public discourse.

Mr. Limbaugh's comments politicize the economic struggle of millions of hard working Americans. With the unemployment rate over seven percent, today's news that 62,000 more Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, and millions of Americans struggling to keep their health care and homes, all Americans, regardless of their ideology, hope that President Obama succeeds in getting people back to work and turning our economy around.

This was followed with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launching an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to "fail."
Some people think that the democratic response to Rush is the first stop to bringing back the fairness doctrine. I believe that their goals are much more nefarious--more like what Robert Spencer described today:

......The White House website pledges that “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation…” The problem with this, of course, is that “hate” is in the eye of the beholder, so “hate crime” laws are essentially tools for enforcing officially-endorsed views. It’s another form of censorship. “Hate crimes” legislation begets “hate speech” legislation. A cautionary tale is unfolding in the Netherlands this week about how dangerous those can be.

“The insult of Islamic worshippers”? The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse -- and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If insulting someone is a crime, can those who are insulted by hate speech laws bring suit against their framers?

The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

But of course, it couldn’t happen here: freedom of speech could never disappear in America, right? After all, we have the First Amendment. But the Fairness Doctrine initiative shows that its protections can be chipped away. And “hate speech” laws could be justified by a declaration that free speech is still a constitutional right, but after all, every right has its limits: “hate speech” will be specifically exempted from its protections -- and “hate speech” will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism, unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

For to speak of such things in any other way would be to “insult” Muslims, as has Geert Wilders.

Lovers of freedom should be watching the Wilders case very closely -- as President Obama is already making abundantly clear -- it could happen here. Source Robert Spencer Jailed For An Insult?

I disagree with Spencer on this one, its not that it could happen here..if we don't stop it now it WILL happen here, Geert Wilders today----Rush Limbaugh tomorrow.

YID With LID: Wilders and Limbaugh--> BEFORE and After?

[linemanpaul]

I thought we were not allowed to say the "M" word when speaking about the "Messiah"

Steven Edwards: Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots
Posted: January 28, 2009, 10:45 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, U.S. Politics, Steven Edwards

During the U.S presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s handlers vigourously pointed out his Christian faith whenever the misconception arose he may be Muslim (even though the politically correct response should have been his religion doesn’t matter).

The handlers also roundly denounced any conservative commentator who might mention (mischievously, admittedly) his Arabic middle name, Hussein.

They charged that such usage was "fear mongering."

Once elected, however, he personally insisted on his middle name being spoken at his swearing-in ceremony.

And now – in a gesture to the Muslim world – he has not only granted the first sit-down interview of his presidency to a pan-Arab television network, but uses the occasion to gush about his Muslim ties.

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries," Obama tells Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, which is based in Dubai.

Indeed, Obama’s Kenyan father, Barack Sr., was born into a Muslim family – though he became an atheist before arriving in Hawaii, where Obama Jr. was later born.

Obama also famously spent four years as a boy in Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country.

All that’s fine, except why was no one allowed to talk much about it before he snagged the Electoral College majority?

Obama’s unprecedented decision to shun American domestic networks over his first sit-down appeared aimed at sending a signal to the Muslim world that his administration marks a distinct break with that of George W. Bush.

Like we didn’t get that message from his pledge to close the detention camps at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba without so much as a plan for where he’ll transfer its terror suspects.

But much of the interview, broadcast Tuesday, offered troubling stuff for anyone who believes the West isn’t to blame for the Islamic world’s wrath.

Obama agreed with Melhem’s inference that Bush’s use of terms like "war on terror" and "Islamic fascism" demonized all Muslims.

"I think you’re making a very important point, and that is the language we use matters …" Obama said.

"We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name."

True. But there was nothing particularly Bushist about the "war on terror" term, and a helpful Wikipedia entry explains how it dates at least to the 19th century.

Obama confirmed he intends to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital during the first 100 days of his presidency, but resisted Melhem’s bid to know which one.

Of course, the smart money is on the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, while you can pretty much rule out Baghdad.

"You're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility," he said.

Obama explained he is going to educate people in both the United States and the Muslim world on how to get along.

"My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives," he said.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

So that’s the simple formula we’ve been we’ve been missing. Stay tuned to the new president for a couple of deftly worded, and theatrically delivered speeches – and centuries of Western-Islamic division will miraculously disappear.

Citing Iran’s threats towards Israel, and its "pursuit of a nuclear weapon," Obama said the Islamic republic had "acted in ways that [were] not conducive to peace and prosperity."

"But I do think it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran," he added.

Better hurry. Iran will have enough uranium to make a single nuclear weapon later this year, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies said Tuesday at the launch of its annual global review of military powers.

The fact is there have been plenty of talks, incentive packages and UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions.

After the interview was broadcast Tuesday, Iran responded to the "extended hand" Obama said he was offering the Islamic republic.

"We are awaiting concrete changes from new U.S. statesmen," said an Iranian government spokesman. "On several occasions our president has defined Iran’s views and the need for a change in U.S. policies."

Even by Obama’s account, there will be no effective "change in U.S. policies." Washington and the West will still want to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Hence, don’t expect Tehran to see the offer of "more diplomacy" to be anything more than a gift of the time they still need to perfect the nuclear process.

Key parts of Obama’s interview to the Muslim world were a collective mea culpa.

"We sometimes make mistakes; we have not been perfect," he said as one explanation as to why there is so much hate in the Muslim world for the United States.

In other words, it’s America’s and, by extension, the West’s fault we’ve been under attack these past years.

He offered a similar apology when explaining his instruction to George Mitchell, the former Senator he appointed to begin seeking a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating …" he said. "So let’s listen."

Oddly, the interviewer Melhem came across as the most honest of the pair when he admitted that, throughout the Muslim world, there was a "demonization of America" that’s become "like a new religion" – complete with "converts and high priests."

That’s the sort of reality Obama needs to get his head around – instead of saying the equivalent of: "We’re wrong, you’re right."

National Post

Steven Edwards: Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots - Full Comment

[linemanpaul]

Some video

YouTube - AC360: Barack Obama's Interview With...