America needs to back away from giving out welfare

[WillowTree]

Twenty trillion dollars of debt that's where we're headed at breakneck speed. Yay for demoncraps.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So...what about those who have LONG-TERM unemployment?? Are you really so disconnected that you think Detroit, or California, can get to 100% employability in 6 months to two years?

Matthew, study the issue before starting a thread, mmmkay?

Wait a second, I thought Obama saved Detroit

 

[WillowTree]

Now you're just being a dick. You have no clue about what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about?! Hell, I'm trying to figure out your garbled nonsense. You make it sound like all welfare recipients have access to free drugs if they like. And in a way you might be right, though probably not as you intended. But hell, your argument is anyone's guess.

Then let me spell it out for you.
You are rushing to judgment in making the assumption that if a welfare recipient tests positive for drugs then they are using welfare funds to support their habits when you have no clear evidence that that is, indeed, the case. The only thing that may be positively said without equivocating is that some welfare recipients use drugs. Anything beyond that is based on supposition alone.

I know I used some big words in there... try to keep up.[/QUOTE]

I really dislike condescending schmucks intensly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No worries, Greece is collapsing, as is Spain, etc. It's all bullshit... there aren't enough rich prople to fund this Fabian Nanny-State that the left so loves.

It's all over but for the crying....

 

[candycorn]

Of course like all idiotic red-state proposals, it's aimed at the adults but will hit their kids who are not on drugs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CA is going to raise taxes on those 1%ers, that'll fix their problems

 

[oldernwiser]

What I'm talking about?! Hell, I'm trying to figure out your garbled nonsense. You make it sound like all welfare recipients have access to free drugs if they like. And in a way you might be right, though probably not as you intended. But hell, your argument is anyone's guess.

Then let me spell it out for you.
You are rushing to judgment in making the assumption that if a welfare recipient tests positive for drugs then they are using welfare funds to support their habits when you have no clear evidence that that is, indeed, the case. The only thing that may be positively said without equivocating is that some welfare recipients use drugs. Anything beyond that is based on supposition alone.

I know I used some big words in there... try to keep up.[/QUOTE]

I really dislike condescending schmucks intensly.

With the unthinking comments he's made so far, condescension is all it deserves.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Of course like all idiotic red-state proposals, it's aimed at the adults but will hit their kids who are not on drugs.

WTF???????

Translation on isle 9!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

CA is going to raise taxes on those 1%ers, that'll fix their problems

Prediction: All that will happen is there wil be fewer 1%ers... just ask NY.

 

[Meathead]

What I'm talking about?! Hell, I'm trying to figure out your garbled nonsense. You make it sound like all welfare recipients have access to free drugs if they like. And in a way you might be right, though probably not as you intended. But hell, your argument is anyone's guess.

Then let me spell it out for you.
You are rushing to judgment in making the assumption that if a welfare recipient tests positive for drugs then they are using welfare funds to support their habits when you have no clear evidence that that is, indeed, the case. The only thing that may be positively said without equivocating is that some welfare recipients use drugs. Anything beyond that is based on supposition alone.

I know I used some big words in there... try to keep up.[/QUOTE]

I really dislike condescending schmucks intensly.

Yeah, it's scary. Imagine that by his own implied admission he was even stupider when younger. He wants us to believe that drug-using welfare recipients don't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Come on now, that's really fucking funny!

 

[oldernwiser]

Twenty trillion dollars of debt that's where we're headed at breakneck speed. Yay for demoncraps.

I'd like to remind you that spending has been increasing since 1948, as you can see here:
U.S. Federal Government Size, as Measured by Spending, by President/Political Party » truthful politics

This obviously has no correlation to political party when you look at it that way.

But, the debt to GDP ratio tells a different story. This one says that every time a Republican took office after Carter, the economy got worse. You can see that here:
National Debt Graph by President

Comparing the 2, since spending growth has been fairly consistent since 1948 (and excluding the depression near-miss in 2008) you can see that beginning with Reagan, Republicans have depressed business outputs resulting in LESS products being sold during their terms which means less revenue to address the growing debt with.

 

[RoadVirus]

I think we MUST scale back on welfare for abled adults. There's no way we can afford to give everyone welfare as it's economically impossible and will lead to lower living standards. Yep, double edge sword as we can't have a strong economy with everyone feeding off of it.

We need to only give such to people that lost their jobs or for a short term thing. If we're going to do anything we need to improve our educational system.

Get the unemployment rate down to 4% and then talk about scaling down welfare

Then it'll never hapen because we'll never see that number in this administration (unless they cook the numbers).

 

[oldernwiser]

Then let me spell it out for you.
You are rushing to judgment in making the assumption that if a welfare recipient tests positive for drugs then they are using welfare funds to support their habits when you have no clear evidence that that is, indeed, the case. The only thing that may be positively said without equivocating is that some welfare recipients use drugs. Anything beyond that is based on supposition alone.

I know I used some big words in there... try to keep up.[/QUOTE]

I really dislike condescending schmucks intensly.

Yeah, it's scary. Imagine that by his own implied admission he was even stupider when younger. He wants us to believe that drug-using welfare recipients don't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Come on now, that's really fucking funny!

Maybe they do. All you can say is "MAYBE". To say anything more requires evidence that simply does not exist. Your implication is that ALL recipients testing positive are using government funds to support their habits. That's a logically unsupportable position.

And yeah - I was a lot stupider when I was younger. You'll come to the same realization as you grow up too.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, it's scary. Imagine that by his own implied admission he was even stupider when younger. He wants us to believe that drug-using welfare recipients don't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Come on now, that's really fucking funny!

Maybe they do. All you can say is "MAYBE". To say anything more requires evidence that simply does not exist. Your implication is that ALL recipients testing positive are using government funds to support their habits. That's a logically unsupportable position.

And yeah - I was a lot stupider when I was younger. You'll come to the same realization as you grow up too.

Been there, done that. However, I don't recall being self-righteously delusion enough to think, much less utter that drug-using welfare recipients didn't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Even at my "stupidest", such crap never escaped my lips.

Hell, I was young and stupid, but never that stupid. If you're older and wiser now, your definition of stupidity has to be on a sliding scale. It makes one shudder to think what must have been.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here's the deal. I'll support ending of all corporate welfare if you support ending of all welfare for the poor.

Deal?

 

[oldernwiser]

Maybe they do. All you can say is "MAYBE". To say anything more requires evidence that simply does not exist. Your implication is that ALL recipients testing positive are using government funds to support their habits. That's a logically unsupportable position.

And yeah - I was a lot stupider when I was younger. You'll come to the same realization as you grow up too.

Been there, done that. However, I don't recall being self-righteously delusion enough to think, much less utter that drug-using welfare recipients didn't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Even at my "stupidest", such crap never escaped my lips.

Hell, I was young and stupid, but never that stupid. If you're older and wiser now, your definition of stupidity has to be on a sliding scale. It makes one shudder to think what must have been.

Again - your argument was that recipients who use drugs are using their government funds in order to buy them. You make that assertion without proof of any kind. I've also heard the same thing about recipients who wear fairly nice clothes, have a phone (even if they aren't entitled to Medicare, so don't Obama-phone me on this), or some set of personal electronics. To assume that they are using government funds to buy or obtain any of this is just that - an assumption and nothing more.

I outgrew SOME of my stupidity, can you show that you have too?

And to my friend willowtree, it doesn't bother me even a little to be thought of as you did when you felt the need to pull rep. I certainly can be a condescending schmuck when the situation calls for it and you can pull my rep to zero and have no impact at all on that.

 

[Meathead]

Been there, done that. However, I don't recall being self-righteously delusion enough to think, much less utter that drug-using welfare recipients didn't use their entitlements to purchase drugs. Even at my "stupidest", such crap never escaped my lips.

Hell, I was young and stupid, but never that stupid. If you're older and wiser now, your definition of stupidity has to be on a sliding scale. It makes one shudder to think what must have been.

Again - your argument was that recipients who use drugs are using their government funds in order to buy them. You make that assertion without proof of any kind. I've also heard the same thing about recipients who wear fairly nice clothes, have a phone (even if they aren't entitled to Medicare, so don't Obama-phone me on this), or some set of personal electronics. To assume that they are using government funds to buy or obtain any of this is just that - an assumption and nothing more.

I outgrew SOME of my stupidity, can you show that you have too?

You really expect anyone to believe that those on welfare with drug problems do not directly or indirectly use those funds to acquire drugs. It's like asking me to prove that I use my income on food. Seriously kid, idealism is the privilege of youth, stupidity is not. Since you claim to be older, you don't even have that excuse.

Now, if you're worried about them taking away you entitlements, I could sort of understand a stupidly fallacious argument in one's self-interest. That would argue that despite the absurdity of your position, it is at least calculated and thereby indicating an iota of intelligence.

 

[oldernwiser]

Again - your argument was that recipients who use drugs are using their government funds in order to buy them. You make that assertion without proof of any kind. I've also heard the same thing about recipients who wear fairly nice clothes, have a phone (even if they aren't entitled to Medicare, so don't Obama-phone me on this), or some set of personal electronics. To assume that they are using government funds to buy or obtain any of this is just that - an assumption and nothing more.

I outgrew SOME of my stupidity, can you show that you have too?

You really expect anyone to believe that those on welfare with drug problems do not directly or indirectly use those funds to acquire drugs. It's like asking me to prove that I use my income on food. Seriously kid, idealism is the privilege of youth, stupidity is not. Since you claim to be older, you don't even have that excuse.

Now, if you're worried about them taking away you entitlements, I could sort of understand a stupidly fallacious argument in one's self-interest. That would argue that despite the absurdity of your position, it is at least calculated and thereby indicating an iota of intelligence.

I must admit that when we began this, I had hoped that you had enough sense to understand that maybe you misunderstood your position a little. But now, I'm afraid that I'm arguing with ignorance and that you'll never admit that you were wrong - even when it's clearly shown.

Me, I'm just a condescending schmuck who never even had the opportunity to collect entitlements. I'm tired of whipping you logically now - you have nothing new.

 

[Meathead]

You really expect anyone to believe that those on welfare with drug problems do not directly or indirectly use those funds to acquire drugs. It's like asking me to prove that I use my income on food. Seriously kid, idealism is the privilege of youth, stupidity is not. Since you claim to be older, you don't even have that excuse.

Now, if you're worried about them taking away you entitlements, I could sort of understand a stupidly fallacious argument in one's self-interest. That would argue that despite the absurdity of your position, it is at least calculated and thereby indicating an iota of intelligence.

I must admit that when we began this, I had hoped that you had enough sense to understand that maybe you misunderstood your position a little. But now, I'm afraid that I'm arguing with ignorance and that you'll never admit that you were wrong - even when it's clearly shown.

Me, I'm just a condescending schmuck who never even had the opportunity to collect entitlements. I'm tired of whipping you logically now - you have nothing new.

Quitting with you tail between your legs isn't exactly graceful. I guess you had to do that or admit to the abject stupidity of your position. You never struck me as a class act anyway. Oh, and as to the older-but-wiser bit, sorry, once a self-righteous punk - always a self-righteous punk. Some things don't change.

 

[Claudette]

Here's the deal. I'll support ending of all corporate welfare if you support ending of all welfare for the poor.

Deal?

I agree. Get rid of all tax loopholes, subsidies, tax breaks, Welfare and Medicaid.

You'd be surprised how quickly folks can take care of themselves when the free ride comes to a screeching halt.

If a company needs all the loopholes etc to survive then perhaps they shouldn't survive and there is always some other company waiting to fill that niche.