GOPer: We Must 'Divide And Conquer' People On Public Assistance

[piasabird]

This is what happens when we import everything from China.

 

[piasabird]

Takes two parents to have a child, last I checked.

 

[nehalem256]

Takes two parents to have a child, last I checked.

According to the Supreme Court the choice to have a child rests entirely with the woman. Last time I checked Roe v. Wade had not been overturned.

 

[boomerang]

I think as far as welfare goes the state should go after the fathers.

If the woman doesn't name the father, she does not get dime one.

You can't get blood out of a turnip. When you reward people for making babies, it should come as no surprise that people are making babies.

 

[piasabird]

We want to take people's IRS refund money if they don't have medical insurance but we don't hold men responsible for their welfare children. Take the men's money and take their IRS refunds also.

 

[nehalem256]

We want to take people's IRS refund money if they don't have medical insurance but we don't hold men responsible for their welfare children. Take the men's money and take their IRS refunds also.

We don't hold poor women responsible for their children either. In fact quite the opposite we actually send them money.

 

[BoberFett]

People "shouldn't" smoke, or drink, or listen to loud music, or play video games instead of working, or drive anything but fuel-efficient minivans (or better yet, public transit), or eat anything but cheap vegetables and beans, or do any of a billion less-than-optimally-efficient things, but everyone does, because life sucks sometimes and we have to relax somehow or we'll go insane. Depression doesn't make for productive decision-making either. You can choose which vice you want, but literally everyone has vices and "wastes" money. It's completely unrealistic to expect the poor (who are also usually the least educated) to be 100% rational economic-bots when literally no human being has ever acted that way. I don't like anyone smoking, including the poor, but having a cigarette doesn't make you inhuman and your children undeserving of food and education.

I'm all for people doing whatever they want. On their own dime. Smoking does in fact make you undeserving of food, if you choose to spend your money on cigarettes instead of food. That's a choice.

Shit, if I don't get a fucking Lamborghini, I'll go insane. Give me free food and housing so that I can spend my money on an exotic car.

No, having laws and policies because they're Christian would be a bad thing, but some Christian ideals stand on their own merits - particularly, serving the poor and infirm above ourselves, not casting judgment, and being a good neighbor. It's doubly ironic for those who do profess that we should have policies because they're Christian to argue against the most central and valuable teachings of Christ.

Get your religion out of my government, you right wing freak.

 

[piasabird]

Quote:
Originally Posted by piasabird
Takes two parents to have a child, last I checked.

According to the Supreme Court the choice to have a child rests entirely with the woman. Last time I checked Roe v. Wade had not been overturned.

This is an idiotic reference to the supreme court. This only applies to killing children before they were born. Once they are born there is a whole different set of rules. Otherwise no men would be forced to pay by the court money for support.

Use a little common sense.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm all for people doing whatever they want. On their own dime. Smoking does in fact make you undeserving of food, if you choose to spend your money on cigarettes instead of food. That's a choice.

But technically it isn't fraud!

So clearly there is no abuse of government assistance programs :sneaky:

 

[Oldgamer]

What part of "people who make bad choices" do you not understand? Sense when is getting older a "bad choice"?



Depends, are they living that way because of something outside their control, or are they able bodied and just not willing to do what is needed to earn their keep?


I agree with this 100%. Helping those in need = good. Those who make bad choices of their own accord, not so much. As it is, a lot of people dislike welfare etc because they lump all those who abuse the system or are simply lazy/stupid together with those who have real needs. We need to make sure we realize there's a big distinction between those two groups.



Truth.

Problem not found, just the usual liberal blathering.

Obviously you missed my sarcasm in your first sentence here. In addition granny and grandpa paid all their working lives into the social security system and are in fact entitled to reap the rewards of their investment. Cutting it or killing it is wrong on many levels. Must elderly can no longer work, some won't even get hired because of their age, and they have many many health issues, so they need the SS income.

Secondly, the disabled are just that disabled. Are some able to work sure, but they might be able to find only minimum wage jobs or even get paid less than that as in the case of Goodwill paying pennies an hour to the severely disabled. They need the disability money to live.

I know people who are disabled such as my family member who could not get a job if their life depended on it, and we can't afford to do much more for him since we are already getting drained dry of funds trying to keep him afloat. We need that disability income for him to help keep up with his living arrangement and with his medical bills. I speak from experience. On the outside he looks pretty normal, and you would think he was if you talked to him, except when it comes to cognitive processing and other tasks that he cannot function very well at. Being disabled isn't just looking like your disabled either, many many disabled are mentally ill. I am damn tired of folks like this congressman that want to paint them lazy and not worthy of societies help and who want to take away their only form of assistance!

Thirdly, are you saying you are all in favor of pitting poor, elderly , and disabled against each other? That causing confusion and chaos is ok, and throwing out misinformation is ok? So it's ok to you to have people like this judging one another having no real knowledge of each others personal life issues, circumstances, and health issues? Your a nut, go crawl back into the cave you have been living in seriously. That is ridiculous. We have enough judging and stigmatizing already in this country.

This isn't about bad choices, this is about people in need, and stop trying to paint all poor, disabled, and elderly as if it's all about bad choices.

Truth.

Problem found, the usual hypocritical Republican conservative retard response here.

 

[nehalem256]

This is an idiotic reference to the supreme court. This only applies to killing children before they were born.

The child is only born if the woman CHOOSES not to abort. She has 100% control over whether there is a child or not. Time to start holding her responsible for that choice.

Once they are born there is a whole different set of rules. Otherwise no men would be forced to pay by the court money for support.

Use a little common sense.

Seems like you are admitting that the rules of the game change depending on what is convenient for your ideology.

Men are ordered to pay child support because misandrists like you want to use men as slaves to pay for women's choices.

 

[PokerGuy]

Obviously you missed my sarcasm in your first sentence here. In addition granny and grandpa paid all their working lives into the social security system and are in fact entitled to reap the rewards of their investment. Cutting it or killing it is wrong on many levels. Must elderly can no longer work, some won't even get hired because of their age, and they have many many health issues, so they need the SS income.

Secondly, the disabled are just that disabled. Are some able to work sure, but they might be able to find only minimum wage jobs or even get paid less than that as in the case of Goodwill paying pennies an hour to the severely disabled. They need the disability money to live.

And thus, they would fall in the category of "need". Maybe you need to re-read his comments and this time, try to comprehend what you're reading. He's saying there's no problem with those who are in need, the problem is with those who are not in need, those that abuse the system or simply make stupid choices. We shouldn't have to pay for them forever when they can pay for themselves. Those who are not able to support themselves are in need.

I am damn tired of folks like this congressman that want to paint them lazy and not worthy of societies help and who want to take away their only form of assistance!

Again, that's not at all what he's saying. In fact, it's the opposite of what he's saying. He's saying someone in that scenario is deserving of support.

Thirdly, are you saying you are all in favor of pitting poor, elderly , and disabled against each other?

Nope, not at all, that's not what I'm saying and that's not what he was saying. Go back and re-read.

So it's ok to you to have people like this judging one another having no real knowledge of each others personal life issues, circumstances, and health issues?

Sigh. You must have trouble with reading and comprehension. He's not judging anyone, he's saying we need to support those who need help, and not support those who don't need it but are just lazy or make stupid choices. It's that simple. He's right.

 

[BoberFett]

Thirdly, are you saying you are all in favor of pitting poor, elderly , and disabled against each other? That causing confusion and chaos is ok, and throwing out misinformation is ok? So it's ok to you to have people like this judging one another having no real knowledge of each others personal life issues, circumstances, and health issues? Your a nut, go crawl back into the cave you have been living in seriously. That is ridiculous. We have enough judging and stigmatizing already in this country.

This isn't about bad choices, this is about people in need, and stop trying to paint all poor, disabled, and elderly as if it's all about bad choices.

/facepalm

Who said anything about pitting the elderly and disabled against each other?

If the elderly and disabled don't want their assistance dwindling even though they have earned it or actually need it, they should be against wasteful spending on people that don't need it.

Ask people around here. I sat around on unemployment for almost two full years back in 2010-2011 because it was fun. I trolled ATP&N, rode my motorcycle, played video games, drank beer. Look for a job? Screw that! The government was paying me NOT to work!

Oh but wait, I must not have actually done that, because some of you say abuse of government programs doesn't exist. Nevermind, carry on.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I outright reject the claim that welfare fraud exists in large numbers. I also don't give a shit how scummy your friends are. I know lots and lots of professors, I guess PhDs exist in vast numbers in the US and we should base policies around the assumption that everyone goes to grad school.

There are millions of PhD holders in the United States, so, yes, they do exist in large numbers. If welfare fraud occurs on the same scale as people getting a PhD, we should absolutely look into it. I never said we should paint all people on welfare with the brush of "abuser," but it's beyond absurd to act as though no abuse occurs. Calling for reform of the welfare system is not tantamount to saying we need to get rid of public assistance for people in need; stop acting as though any change to welfare stems from a desire to demonize the poor.

 

[berzerker60]

Get your religion out of my government, you right wing freak.

If you stripped the clause "The Bible says..." and argued what Jesus actually put forward on its own merits, you would pretty much be labelled a hippie socialist liberal. Any idea good enough to follow doesn't require saying that so-and-so suggested it. (That's also why it's dumb to see people worship the Constitution and use "the Founding Fathers wanted..." as an argument, as if it matters at all what some old dead guys wanted. It's about what ideas are still good and applicable today.)

 

[Jimzz]

Funny thing is many republican voters are on the handout as well.

Look how fast the tea party crowd revolts when you want to cut THEIR hand outs.
Voters from both parties get money from the gov. Trying to cut just from those that don't vote for you is hypocrisy.

 

[bshole]

You can't get blood out of a turnip. When you reward people for making babies, it should come as no surprise that people are making babies.

Reality check, teenage pregnancy and abortion rates just hit a RECORD low! All during the time of welfare. Go figure.

http://www.boston.com/health/2014/0...storic-lows/ZNVyKpwErZgE1PMlUyUd8O/story.html


The states that help their poor the least, have the most problems. Go figure

There’s good news for the Commonwealth and New England, too. Massachusetts had one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates at 37 per 1,000 teenage women. The lowest rates were our neighbors New Hampshire (28 per 1,000) and Vermont (32 per 1,000). On the other end of the spectrum, New Mexico had the highest teen pregnancy rate (80 per 1,000 women), followed by Mississippi (76 per 1,000), and Texas and Arkansas (73 per 1,000).

The Conservative christian solution to the poor and unemployed is "let the fuckers starve". That is a rather brutal and dark ages approach to say the least. Why is it always Christian conservatives who demand that we stop lending a helping hand to the downtrodden and their children? Is there something in the Bible commanding them to have no empathy, compassion or humanity?

 

[BoberFett]

Funny thing is many republican voters are on the handout as well.

Look how fast the tea party crowd revolts when you want to cut THEIR hand outs.
Voters from both parties get money from the gov. Trying to cut just from those that don't vote for you is hypocrisy.

You're right, it is.

So can I put you down for cutting everything drastically?

 

[BoberFett]

If you stripped the clause "The Bible says..." and argued what Jesus actually put forward on its own merits, you would pretty much be labelled a hippie socialist liberal. Any idea good enough to follow doesn't require saying that so-and-so suggested it. (That's also why it's dumb to see people worship the Constitution and use "the Founding Fathers wanted..." as an argument, as if it matters at all what some old dead guys wanted. It's about what ideas are still good and applicable today.)

What's your point?

If you want a religious government, move to Iran.

 

[dainthomas]

What part of "people who make bad choices" do you not understand? Sense when is getting older a "bad choice"?



Depends, are they living that way because of something outside their control, or are they able bodied and just not willing to do what is needed to earn their keep?


I agree with this 100%. Helping those in need = good. Those who make bad choices of their own accord, not so much. As it is, a lot of people dislike welfare etc because they lump all those who abuse the system or are simply lazy/stupid together with those who have real needs. We need to make sure we realize there's a big distinction between those two groups.



Truth.

Problem not found, just the usual liberal blathering.

So you support big government deciding whether the choices you've made are good or bad? Who's in charge of compiling the list of bad choices? What kind of appeals process would there be if an individual disputes that their choices are bad? How much will that cost? What if a wife makes bad choices but her husband and kids didn't? Do they still get to receive benefits?

 

[berzerker60]

There are millions of PhD holders in the United States, so, yes, they do exist in large numbers. If welfare fraud occurs on the same scale as people getting a PhD, we should absolutely look into it. I never said we should paint all people on welfare with the brush of "abuser," but it's beyond absurd to act as though no abuse occurs. Calling for reform of the welfare system is not tantamount to saying we need to get rid of public assistance for people in need; stop acting as though any change to welfare stems from a desire to demonize the poor.

The point is that anecdotes don't mean anything.

Of course some abuse occurs. That will literally never stop being true in any possible system. No business can prevent 100% of theft, they just put in economical measures to make it minimal and anticipate the losses as breakage. Same thing with welfare. There will always be some breakage, which we should work to prevent, but only if it's economical - that's why drug testing for welfare is dumb, because it costs more than it saves. The question is how MUCH and what the cost will be to prevent what remains: not just cost in terms of tax dollars, but cost in terms of legitimately needy people (including, overwhelmingly, children) who don't get what they need.

Do you have actual evidence of high levels of welfare abuse?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm
There's the Department of Labor estimating in 2001 (so a while ago, before any measures resulting from this testimony) that unemployment insurance fraud was 1.9% of payments.

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(accounting) (citing National Retail Security Survey (2009) University of Florida), "The total shrink percentage of the retail industry in the United States was 1.52% of sales in 2008 according to the University of Florida's, National Retail Security Survey.[1] In Europe, shrinkage was about 1.27% of sales, and the same figure for Asia Pacific was 1.20% according to the Global Retail Theft Barometer 2008.[2]"

So that's pretty reasonable, altogether. Not ideal, obviously, and we can always look at ways of doing better, but hardly a reason to gut the program.

What's your point?

If you want a religious government, move to Iran.

My points are:
1) We should base our society around the principles of serving others above ourselves and being kind and non-judgmental to our neighbors, and
2) Self-professed Christian Republicans are hypocrites.

 

[Oldgamer]

And thus, they would fall in the category of "need". Maybe you need to re-read his comments and this time, try to comprehend what you're reading. He's saying there's no problem with those who are in need, the problem is with those who are not in need, those that abuse the system or simply make stupid choices. We shouldn't have to pay for them forever when they can pay for themselves. Those who are not able to support themselves are in need.


Again, that's not at all what he's saying. In fact, it's the opposite of what he's saying. He's saying someone in that scenario is deserving of support.



Nope, not at all, that's not what I'm saying and that's not what he was saying. Go back and re-read.



Sigh. You must have trouble with reading and comprehension. He's not judging anyone, he's saying we need to support those who need help, and not support those who don't need it but are just lazy or make stupid choices. It's that simple. He's right.

He says that because he is trying to not look like a turd. He knows what he is doing, he wants to pit the poor, the elderly and the disabled against each other. Divide and conquer is what he is saying and that is an awfully disgusting approach. You and others who think like this guy are not offering real solutions your just trying to create more problems and pit people against each other. Like I said crawl back under a rock and stop trying to dress this guy up as some "good guy" who has the peoples interests at heart.

 

[BoberFett]

He says that because he is trying to not look like a turd. He knows what he is doing, he wants to pit the poor, the elderly and the disabled against each other. Divide and conquer is what he is saying and that is an awfully disgusting approach. You and others who think like this guy are not offering real solutions your just trying to create more problems and pit people against each other. Like I said crawl back under a rock and stop trying to dress this guy up as some "good guy" who has the peoples interests at heart.

Put the tin foil down...

 

[blake0812]

put the tin foil down...

he's got tin foil, everyone run D:

 

[nehalem256]

The point is that anecdotes don't mean anything.

Of course some abuse occurs. That will literally never stop being true in any possible system. No business can prevent 100% of theft, they just put in economical measures to make it minimal and anticipate the losses as breakage. Same thing with welfare. There will always be some breakage, which we should work to prevent, but only if it's economical - that's why drug testing for welfare is dumb, because it costs more than it saves. The question is how MUCH and what the cost will be to prevent what remains: not just cost in terms of tax dollars, but cost in terms of legitimately needy people (including, overwhelmingly, children) who don't get what they need.

Would hope that children would overwhelmingly test clean for drugs :sneaky:

Do you have actual evidence of high levels of welfare abuse?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm
There's the Department of Labor estimating in 2001 (so a while ago, before any measures resulting from this testimony) that unemployment insurance fraud was 1.9% of payments.

Funny, that the question was about welfare and you bring up unemployment insurance.

And its easy to find low levels of abuse when you define everything as non-abusive

Buy cigarettes when you are on food stamps... not abuse!

Use your food stamps to buy gift baskets... not abuse!

etc