Giving away more "no strings attached" taxpayer money

[Sweet Willy]

Willy the loser bitching aobut the government doing shit that is constitutional - providing for the common defense - while giving them a pass doing stuff they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

As usual bitching about the 20% and letting the 80% slide.

Oh and now we are bailing out the local drug dealers good call.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with defense and most people with half sense know that. I haven't seen yet one ounce of evidence that we were under any threat from Iraq at all.

Drug dealers? WTF are you talking about? Oh....I see, all poor people are drug dealers. And Saddam had WMDs. You are quite gullible, aren't you?

Actually, Iraq was a threat to the US, just not the threat they claimed it to be, that was just double talk from the politicians ... what do you expect?

What kind of threat was Iraq?

 

[RadiomanATL]

You fuckers will line up and support billions and billions of dollars to kill people half a world away but you won't support helping your fellow man, impoverished school children even, to live here at home.

Go fuck yourselves.

Strawman much?

 

[Sweet Willy]

You fuckers will line up and support billions and billions of dollars to kill people half a world away but you won't support helping your fellow man, impoverished school children even, to live here at home.

Go fuck yourselves.

Strawman much?

Don't see any strawman. The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money". We've spent billions and billions half way around the world to destroy shit. I see no problem with spending a few million on our own people.

Tell you what, instead of dropping bombs on people, suppose we drop the actual value of the bombs in cash? Cash bombs. Probably get much better results and we don't have to rebuild everyhting we destroy or pay Haliburton to do it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Don't see any strawman. The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money".

Wrong on both counts.


And FWIW, I opposed Bush's little revenge escapade. I was called a liberal for most of '02, '03, and '04 by the kool-aid drinkers, even though I am conservative.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

 

[Sweet Willy]

Don't see any strawman. The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money".

Wrong on both counts.


And FWIW, I opposed Bush's little revenge escapade. I was called a liberal for most of '02, '03, and '04 by the kool-aid drinkers, even though I am conservative.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

The topic of the way the government spends money and opinions on whether it's worth while? Casue all you have here is some opinions on some money spent.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Don't see any strawman. The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money".

Wrong on both counts.


And FWIW, I opposed Bush's little revenge escapade. I was called a liberal for most of '02, '03, and '04 by the kool-aid drinkers, even though I am conservative.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

The topic of the way the government spends money and opinions on whether it's worth while? Casue all you have here is some opinions on some money spent.

Wrong again.

Keep trying. Eventually you might stumble on to the actual topic.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Wrong on both counts.


And FWIW, I opposed Bush's little revenge escapade. I was called a liberal for most of '02, '03, and '04 by the kool-aid drinkers, even though I am conservative.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

The topic of the way the government spends money and opinions on whether it's worth while? Casue all you have here is some opinions on some money spent.

Wrong again.

Keep trying. Eventually you might stumble on to the actual topic.

Sorry pal, the only one wrong here is you.

The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money".

 

[RadiomanATL]

The topic of the way the government spends money and opinions on whether it's worth while? Casue all you have here is some opinions on some money spent.

Wrong again.

Keep trying. Eventually you might stumble on to the actual topic.

Sorry pal, the only one wrong here is you.

The topic is "no strings attached taxpayer money".

Nope.

Keep trying.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?

Back to school spree: Billionaire, feds give out $175M to aid neediest students around the state


If they actually use it on school supplies, great. I applaud them and congratulate them on wanting a better life for their children.

If had stopped there you'd be an all right guy.

However, since people on welfare usually have the poorest track record of managing their financial situation, I doubt that little more than half go to school supplies. And I'm being generous.

Where did you get this information? Can you support it? I doubt so. My grandmother recieved welfare for years and it was absolutely amazing how well she managed such a meager amount of money. You should try providing food and shelter for $268 a month. YOu'd probably learn a thing or two about money management.

A better way would for the government to partner with office supply stores and general stores such as WalMart and give out vouchers to these stores only. Not quite sure if this is logistically possible, but I would like to see at the very least an attempt at such a thing rather than this.

Wow. The government should chose just a couple businesses, mega chains, to recieive this business. I guess mom and pop should go ahead and close up shop with you in charge.

I don't see much at all here except some whining about how the government spent some money and some disgraceful generalizations about people with no basis in fact.

Go do your homework junior.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?

Back to school spree: Billionaire, feds give out $175M to aid neediest students around the state


If they actually use it on school supplies, great. I applaud them and congratulate them on wanting a better life for their children.

If had stopped there you'd be an all right guy.

However, since people on welfare usually have the poorest track record of managing their financial situation, I doubt that little more than half go to school supplies. And I'm being generous.

Where did you get this information? Can you support it? I doubt so. My grandmother recieved welfare for years and it was absolutely amazing how well she managed such a meager amount of money. You should try providing food and shelter for $268 a month. YOu'd probably learn a thing or two about money management.

A better way would for the government to partner with office supply stores and general stores such as WalMart and give out vouchers to these stores only. Not quite sure if this is logistically possible, but I would like to see at the very least an attempt at such a thing rather than this.

Wow. The government should chose just a couple businesses, mega chains, to recieive this business. I guess mom and pop should go ahead and close up shop with you in charge.

I don't see much at all here except some whining about how the government spent some money and some disgraceful generalizations about people with no basis in fact.

Go do your homework junior.

You lose:

Brooks says aid program flawed | democratandchronicle.com | Democrat and Chronicle

 

[Sweet Willy]

However, since people on welfare usually have the poorest track record of managing their financial situation, I doubt that little more than half go to school supplies. And I'm being generous.

Can you support this or not? Show us that people on welfare usually have the poorest track record of managing their financial situation. Can you? Or is that just a bunch of smoke you're blowing out of your ass?

Let's take it real slow, one part at a time. Show us the facts to support your statements.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Let's take it real slow, one part at a time. Show us the facts to support your statements.

Sure thing.


They.....are.....on.....welfare.


Slow enough for you?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Let's take it real slow, one part at a time. Show us the facts to support your statements.

Sure thing.


They.....are.....on.....welfare.


Slow enough for you?

Ok. Let's make sure I uinderstand you. Being on welfare indicates that you are poor at managing your financial situation. Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Let's take it real slow, one part at a time. Show us the facts to support your statements.

Sure thing.


They.....are.....on.....welfare.


Slow enough for you?

Ok. Let's make sure I uinderstand you. Being on welfare indicates that you are poor at managing your financial situation. Is that what you are suggesting?

Nope.

I said it USUALLY indicates that. Which means that it is not so in every case.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Sure thing.


They.....are.....on.....welfare.


Slow enough for you?

Ok. Let's make sure I uinderstand you. Being on welfare indicates that you are poor at managing your financial situation. Is that what you are suggesting?

Nope.

I said it USUALLY indicates that. Which means that it is not so in every case.

Ok.....I asked you to support your claims and you responded "they are on welfare".

Now you say no, it's not that they are on welfare, just usually that is the case. Can you cite for us where this information comes from? I mean, can it be that usually people on welfare manage their meager finances well enough to eventually get off welfare? Can that be the case? And if it is the case that usually people on welfare manage to leave the system after a period of time then where does your claim come from?

Why do you sayn that people recieving welfare are usually poorest at managing their money?

Do more gamblers visit Vegas and Atlantic city every year than people on welfare? Is gambling poor money management? Could we say that usually gamblers are the poorest managers of their money? How exactly does being poor and getting help equate to poor financial management? Are people in the hospital usually poor health managers?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ok.....I asked you to support your claims and you responded "they are on welfare".

Now you say no, it's not that they are on welfare, just usually that is the case.

No. You asked me to support my claim that welfare recipients are usually poor managers of money. I said that the fact that they are on welfare proves that they have poor skills at fiscal responsibility. Just because you were not able to follow the posts does not mean the story changed.

Why do you sayn that people recieving welfare are usually poorest at managing their money?

Because they are.

Do more gamblers visit Vegas and Atlantic city every year than people on welfare?

I don't know. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Is gambling poor money management?

Yes. Absolutely.

Could we say that usually gamblers are the poorest managers of their money?

Not all the time. If after gambling they still have the money and income to provide for themselves and their families without going to the government for help, then they are not the poorest. Poor money managers, yes, but not the poorest.

Are people in the hospital usually poor health managers?

Usually? Probably not. Some of them? Ah-yup.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Ok.....I asked you to support your claims and you responded "they are on welfare".

Now you say no, it's not that they are on welfare, just usually that is the case.

No. You asked me to support my claim that welfare recipients are usually poor managers of money. I said that the fact that they are on welfare proves that they have poor skills at fiscal responsibility. Just because you were not able to follow the posts does not mean the story changed.

Prove it. Prove that being on welfare means you are a poor manager of money. This is like claiming that being on disability proves you are careless.

Why do you sayn that people recieving welfare are usually poorest at managing their money?

Because they are.

I keep asking you to support this. " I said so" doesn't hold water hoss.



Not all the time. If after gambling they still have the money and income to provide for themselves and their families without going to the government for help, then they are not the poorest. Poor money managers, yes, but not the poorest.

How about "usually"? That seems to be the relevant term here.

Are people in the hospital usually poor health managers?

Usually? Probably not. Some of them? Ah-yup.

So needing help with your financial situation usually demonstrates poor management but needing health care only sometimes indicates poor health management.

Do you have any facts to support what you have stated? How many people are on welfare, how many are good enough maney managers to get off, the circumstances that led them to be on welfare, etc? Do you have any facts? Or just your personal generalizations?

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ok.....I asked you to support your claims and you responded "they are on welfare".

Now you say no, it's not that they are on welfare, just usually that is the case.

No. You asked me to support my claim that welfare recipients are usually poor managers of money. I said that the fact that they are on welfare proves that they have poor skills at fiscal responsibility. Just because you were not able to follow the posts does not mean the story changed.

Prove it. Prove that being on welfare means you are a poor manager of money. This is like claiming that being on disability proves you are careless.

Dude, if you can't grasp that where you are in life is the cumulative result of the decisions that you have made throughout your life, I can't help you. People on welfare usually are poor managers of money because of the poor decisions that they have made throughout their life. Sometimes they are born into poverty and welfare helps them climb out of it. Great. However after a quick and dirty search, the recidivism rate for welfare from 1978 to 1991 is 57%. That is a majority, and clearly supports the "usually" in my statement. You feel like ponying up a more recent statistic that shows the recidivism rate from '91 till '09, be my guest.

Welfare recipiency and welfare recidivism: An analysis of the NLSY data

Not all the time. If after gambling they still have the money and income to provide for themselves and their families without going to the government for help, then they are not the poorest. Poor money managers, yes, but not the poorest.

How about "usually"? That seems to be the relevant term here.

I was pretty clear in my statement. But I will spell it out for you: If the gamblers are still able to provide for themselves and their family, then they are not "the poorest" money managers, which is what you asked. They are poor money managers, but not the poorest.

Are people in the hospital usually poor health managers?

Usually? Probably not. Some of them? Ah-yup.

So needing help with your financial situation usually demonstrates poor management but needing health care only sometimes indicates poor health management.

Yup. Now you're getting it.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Radio, how about Bernie Madoff clients? Could they be the poorest financial managers? Lost a shit load of money, didn't they?

How about stock market investors? When they lose are they poor money managers?

How is it that people who have nothing, never have had anything, are the poorest money managers? Aren't there a whole lot more people who have had good money but lost it? If we quantify this with the amount of money lost through poor management, do you think people on welfare have lost more money through bad choices or do you think there is another group of people who have lost more money through poor management? Maybe people who actually had something to lose are the poorest financial managers?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radio, how about Bernie Madoff clients?

Depends on how much they invested. If they invested everything or nearly everything, then hell yeah they are poor money managers. You balance your portfolio.

How about stock market investors? When they lose are they poor money managers?

Depends on how much of their net worth they lost. See above.

How is it that people who have nothing, never have had anything, are the poorest money managers?

Because USUALLY they have nothing or never had anything because of the cumulative impact of the decisions that they have made in their life. If they have nothing, then those decisions were pretty damn poor.

Aren't there a whole lot more people who have had good money but lost it?

Don't know the comparative numbers between the two groups. Not even sure any could be produced.

Maybe people who actually had something to lose are the poorest financial managers?

Well hell yes they are the poorest money managers. If you have millions then there is a lot more room for error. And if those people lose it all then damn skippy they are the poorest money managers. However, this doesn't negate the point that people on welfare are usually poor at managing their money.