‘I Am a Welfare Mom and I Can Tell You: It’s a Nightmare Come True’

[RandomGuy]

With #NoShameParenting, Yahoo Parenting is telling the inspiring, funny, honest, and heartbreaking true stories of families around the country in an effort to spark conversation, a little compassion, and change the way we think about parenting forever.

Three years ago, my husband abandoned my two young children and me. As a stay-at-home mom, my grief was pushed to the side by the overwhelming realization that I had absolutely no way to provide for my kids. With no family to help me, an empty bank account, no job of my own, and two kids relying on me, I was terrified that we were going to end up homeless and hungry on the streets.

As much as I was ashamed to admit it, welfare seemed to be my only option.

It was a Tuesday morning when I gathered up the courage to walk into the Department of Human Services looking for help. I got there right when the office opened, not realizing that people routinely show up hours before then to get in line. I waited six hours with a crying baby in my arms and a restless toddler clinging to my leg before I finally saw a social worker.

With my house in foreclosure and no money for an apartment, I was devastated to learn that the housing assistance program, known as section 8, had a waiting list that was more than five years long and was closed to new applicants. There was nothing the social worker could do except give me information for a shelter that offered up to six weeks of residency — when they had room.

If I made less than $400 a month, I was eligible for a small amount of cash assistance — less than $100 a week for a family of three — but I was also required to volunteer 20 hours a week or participate in job training. While I was not against that, with two young kids I was unable to do either as the waiting list for a daycare assistance program was six months long.

There were also hurdles to getting food stamps (also known as SNAP), thanks to an in-office paperwork delay of six months for new applicants, so I signed up for the “Women, Infant, and Children” program (WIC), which gives low income mothers vouchers to buy specific food items. But I soon abandoned that completely because I didn’t have childcare for the time-consuming classes the program required, and it proved too difficult to find the WIC-approved food items in the end. While I’m in no position to be complaining, if I wanted to keep a job, I couldn’t spend two full days a month sitting in a WIC office with my children, only to find out that none of my local stores carried the very specific items that WIC approves.

Eventually we were approved for food stamps, but despite the fact that my kids and I live far under the poverty line, a state budget crisis means that our benefit amount is so low that I am left standing in line at the food pantry just to be able to feed my kids.

The first big stepping stone in truly building a better future came when we were finally approved for subsidized daycare and I was able to begin working in what amounts to a minimum wage job. But even though I was only making $8.50 an hour, I was now disqualified from cash assistance.

Still, I was one of the lucky ones. Due to budget deficits, many lawmakers have cut childcare assistance funding and left financially unstable parents with no way to better their lives. In Illinois, for example, 90 percent of applicants don’t qualify, even if they only make $665 a month. But childcare costs as much as (or more than) college tuition in many states; which nearly cancels out any money earned from a minimum-wage job.

As my kids grew older, and the care required for their special needs intensified, my biggest struggle has been relying on the so-called “free health insurance” provided to welfare recipients. We may have “free” health insurance, but the Affordable Healthcare Act has flooded the system with so many Medicaid patients that there simply aren’t enough doctors to see us. With two young kids who get sick often, I was crushed to learn that the pediatrician Medicaid assigned to us is based several hours from our home. Recently, even our local hospital was moved out-of-network. My son is in desperate need of specialized care, but has been on the waiting list to see a specialist for 18 months now — a list the office receptionist told me he would probably never make it to the top of because privately insured patients would be moved ahead of him.

We have free health insurance, but that doesn’t mean we have healthcare. In a country as developed as America, it sickens me to know that medical care is often unavailable to my children.

I’m in no position to be complaining about the assistance I receive, but because of how broken the system is, it’s not only leaving us hungry, sick, and stressed, it’s failing to help me get to a more stable place.

I want to get my family out of the system, but at this point I can’t figure out how. If I make even $100 more per month, my children and I will no longer qualify for public assistance and I will need to be able cover the full amount of my children’s daycare, food, and health insurance costs. I would obviously like to support my own family, but when welfare cuts people off for having a savings account, how can I ever prepare for that? And if I can’t plan ahead, how can I essentially triple my income to cover my costs in one month’s time?

I have no idea and because of that, I’m trapped. The government has given me no wiggle room, no opportunity to grow, no sliding scales that I can work with while I dig myself out of this hole. I’m stuck in a broken system that I can’t get out of, I’m a debt on society, and I’m forever surrounded by the stigma of being a “welfare mom.”

I am a welfare mom and I can tell you, it’s a nightmare come true.

America, the land of the free… homeless, hungry, sick, and trapped.

-----------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/i-am-a-welfare-mom-1318466351882294.html

[boutons_deux]

govt/publc health insurance paid by a percentage of all revenues is part of the answer.

another part is no-profit govt health

No matter who designed the current welfare system, the Repugs are ideologically committed to fucking it up more, and screw over the Ms of ladies like the one above.

[Wild Cobra]

There is no way to help everyone. What was designed as a safety net can no longer catch those with a sudden change in lifestyle, and they should be the ones first served. The "breeders" should be cut off as more deserving people need help.

[Winehole23]

maybe we should cut back on giveaways to people who don't really need it:


The federal tax code allows homeowners to write off mortgage interest payments from their income before calculating their tax bill. Although it’s old news for tax- and housing-policy wonks that homeowners are getting federal subsidy payments, it may surprise others who assume that the federal government’s housing assistance goes mostly to low-income renters.


The mortgage interest deduction adds up to a lot of money – an estimated $131 billion in 2012. That dwarfs total spending by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (under $50 billion). The biggest tax benefits go to high-income homeowners who’ve taken out big mortgages for expensive homes. Recent results (http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412099-mortgage-deduction-reform.pdf) from the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Model show that means affluent white families living in the suburbs, not the low- or moderate-income people who are struggling to buy homes or make ends meet or the central city neighborhoods that need reinvestment.

http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/who-gets-biggest-housing-subsidies

[rmt]

How about we stop letting in thousands of illegals and refugees and take better care of our own?

[boutons_deux]

How about we stop letting in thousands of illegals and refugees and take better care of our own?

illegal immigrants are a net gain to the economy, over $1B+.

[boutons_deux]

maybe we should cut back on giveaways to people who don't really need it:

http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/who-gets-biggest-housing-subsidies

If SS contrib can be capped, certainly mortgage deductions can be capped. Like no deduction at all for homes priced at 2x the regional median home price.

[DMC]

There are a lot of issues with the welfare system. A lot of it is abuse by people who game the system and have for most of their lives. Another problem is that it's run by the federal government instead of a private agency who could better streamline the process. Eventually though it will come down to who we mean when we say "we". When we want to help others, are the others part of the "we" or they just part of the "others"? If they are the former, then they should also have the same criteria for being "we" as we do, and if they are the latter, then their citizenship shouldn't matter and it's going to be a bleed out.

What doesn't need to happen is fleecing of people who've climbed out of that situation on their own just to feed the beast of welfare.

It almost always comes down to the fact that you cannot legislate human behavior, only punishment for the undesirable type. Punishment cost money, and when you spend money on something you're trying to get money from, you're getting a double whammy.

[boutons_deux]

"cannot legislate human behavior"

typical rightwingnut conviction that people deserve to be poor because they are bad people, God doesn't love them, when a very large proportion of people on public assistance are employed in shitty paying jobs because Repugs refused to raise the Fed minimum wage to a living wage level, and so many (Repug) businesses are based on paying exploitative, poverty wages.

A lot of mothers want to work, but day care is so expensive their shitty wages don't pay for day care and other cost of living (and cost of working)

[DarrinS]

There are people who really need it, but, like anything else, it's horribly abused.

[boutons_deux]

There are people who really need it, but, like anything else, it's horribly abused.

are you equally upset by BigCorp hiding $Ts offshore?

[Wild Cobra]

illegal immigrants are a net gain to the economy, over $1B+.

OOICU812...

[Wild Cobra]

If SS contrib can be capped, certainly mortgage deductions can be capped. Like no deduction at all for homes priced at 2x the regional median home price.

I don't think mortgages should be a tax write-off, but then I think all income write-offs need to be eliminated.

[Wild Cobra]

maybe we should cut back on giveaways to people who don't really need it:


Maybe we should find a means of stopping a second abuse of women having children who cannot afford them.

Exchange subsidies for tube tying. Same with the father. If he cannot provide for the child he makes, require he have his tubes tied too, for subsidies to the mother.

[Winehole23]

state subsidized sterilization after means-testing people for parental suitability?

hard to believe you'd bring this up again, but then again, it's not.

[Winehole23]

(this comment has been endorsed by Libertarians for State Regulation of Human Fertility)

[rmt]

They need to go after the scumbag husband, garner his wages, force him to support his kids and give her alimony. This poor woman should contact some of the bigger churches in her area - they sometimes have ministries to help people in her situation.

[Winehole23]

How about we stop letting in thousands of illegals and refugees and take better care of our own?that immigrants are a drain on resources is a very common premise, but one that is seldom backed up with empirical support.
even if it were, it would be difficult to show that helping one precludes helping the other.

Or is the USA morally and economically not up to the challenge?

[Winehole23]

There are people who really need it, but, like anything else, it's horribly abused.another common premise. can you offer anything besides anecdotal support for it? just how widespread and horrible is the abuse?

[DMC]

"cannot legislate human behavior"

typical rightwingnut conviction that people deserve to be poor because they are bad people, God doesn't love them, when a very large proportion of people on public assistance are employed in shitty paying jobs because Repugs refused to raise the Fed minimum wage to a living wage level, and so many (Repug) businesses are based on paying exploitative, poverty wages.

A lot of mothers want to work, but day care is so expensive their shitty wages don't pay for day care and other cost of living (and cost of working)




Human behavior includes knocking up women and never paying child support. You can arrest guys and put them in jail for failure to pay child support, but you're still not getting any money from them and now you're paying more yourself to house and feed the bums.

The solution to these issues isn't palatable so it won't be used in our lifetimes. China had the answer with only allowing one child per couple. You should not be allowed to have a child if you're a habitual drug user. In order to get welfare a person should be forced to get birth control, not just the pill that requires they comply daily, but a way to stop pregnancy until such time as the individual becomes self sufficient.

There are a lot of human rights issues with doing a lot of the necessary things to reduce or eliminate poverty, so if anyone here wants to go down that road understand that's the fire you're starting.

However once again Croutons Douche misreads. I am atheist, voted Democrat in the last election (last two actually) and was born dirt poor. That doesn't give me any exclusive insight, however my family never relied on welfare or subsidies. I was lucky enough that my parents cared about each other and were hard workers. Lazy, drug and alcohol abusing uneducated people who produce offspring like a fucking factory producing widgets are going to load any welfare system and their kids aren't going to have the same impetus to climb out of it as I had, since it's now possible to have an entire generation of families totally dependent on welfare and illegal revenue from drug sales.

[DMC]

another common premise. can you offer anything besides anecdotal support for it? just how widespread and horrible is the abuse?
Along that same note, do you have the ability to do anything about it if you were given that data? If not, why do you need it? Do you just want to be right?

[Winehole23]

it's not my hobby horse. I wouldn't do anything with it. I don't think welfare fraud, even if it were common -- which I tend to doubt -- is a good reason to curtail assistance to folks who need it.

[DarrinS]

are you equally upset by BigCorp hiding $Ts offshore?

I hide as much as I can be n my 401k.

[baseline bum]

She should go work in a gas station or something where she can get paid straight cash by the habib running the place tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Here’s an amazingly simple way to cut poverty

l: In 2013, 15 percent of people eligible for food stamps (http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/charges-against-snap-miss-the-mark) didn't get them — down from a whopping 31 percent in 2007. In 2012, 20 percent of people eligible for the earned income tax credit (https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/Participation-Rate)(EITC) didn't get it.

an experiment in conjunction with the IRS in which they sent mailings to 35,050 tax filers in California who didn't claim the EITC in 2009, despite their tax returns indicating that they were eligible and despite an initial reminder notice from the IRS. Collectively, these filers had left $26 million to which they were entitled on the table.

Overall, 22 percent of people getting the survey responded and claimed their money.

What would really make a difference, and unlock billions in currently unclaimed money, is a system of automatic dispersal.

The IRS typically knows most people's wage income from W-2s filed by employers, and so can probably guess who's eligible for the EITC and file those people's returns for them, ensuring they get the benefits.

Hell, the IRS could file returns for everybody (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/15/8420257/taxes-IRS-automatic-turbotax)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/14/10111732/eitc-mailing-study-experiment

[DMC]

it's not my hobby horse. I wouldn't do anything with it. I don't think welfare fraud, even if it were common -- which I tend to doubt -- is a good reason to curtail assistance to folks who need it.
Sure it is. Anytime you take from the well, the well has less water. It doesn't matter how you take from it, legal or not.

[DMC]

Here’s an amazingly simple way to cut poverty

l: In 2013, 15 percent of people eligible for food stamps (http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/charges-against-snap-miss-the-mark) didn't get them — down from a whopping 31 percent in 2007. In 2012, 20 percent of people eligible for the earned income tax credit (https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/Participation-Rate)(EITC) didn't get it.

an experiment in conjunction with the IRS in which they sent mailings to 35,050 tax filers in California who didn't claim the EITC in 2009, despite their tax returns indicating that they were eligible and despite an initial reminder notice from the IRS. Collectively, these filers had left $26 million to which they were entitled on the table.

Overall, 22 percent of people getting the survey responded and claimed their money.

What would really make a difference, and unlock billions in currently unclaimed money, is a system of automatic dispersal.

The IRS typically knows most people's wage income from W-2s filed by employers, and so can probably guess who's eligible for the EITC and file those people's returns for them, ensuring they get the benefits.

Hell, the IRS could file returns for everybody (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/15/8420257/taxes-IRS-automatic-turbotax)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/14/10111732/eitc-mailing-study-experiment



So you think people who can file an income tax return are welfare burden? Or that the federal government guessing who gets what is the answer to poverty in a nation where the number 1 health issue is obesity and it's most prevalent among the poor? Somehow I don't think you're on the right track.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/social-mobility-memos/2015/01/08-childhood-obesity-social-mobility-reeves/08_childhood_obesity_fig4.png?la=en



Poverty here isn't the same as it is elsewhere it seems. We're focused in the wrong area. It's not survival that's the issue here, but standard of living and the poor, by nature almost, sacrifice their financial futures for immediate returns thus overeating and over-indulgence in just about anything they can over-indulge in.

[boutons_deux]

Somehow I don't think you're on the right track.

... which is evidence that I am

[DMC]

... which is evidence that I am

Sure, let the federal government decide who gets their own money back, because that extra 200 dollars will go a long way toward getting a real education for the 5 kids left at home under age 10 while mom is twerking at the club.

[Winehole23]

Sure it is. Anytime you take from the well, the well has less water. It doesn't matter how you take from it, legal or not.welfare fraud is overhyped. If you have a problem with public assistance per se, that's something else entirely.

[boutons_deux]

Holiday Season Giving to Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos, the CEO and founder of Amazon, is routinely touted in the media as an entrepreneurial genius. That assessment may well be correct. After all, Amazon has made huge breakthroughs not only in internet marketing, but also in promoting the spread of e-books, and more recently as a new source of television shows.

But however brilliant Bezos may be, the public should recognize that his success has come with a huge helping hand from the taxpayers. He has received in the neighborhood of $4 billion in subsidies from taxpayers over the last two decades to help his business grow.

If you missed that line item in the budget, it's probably because the media have mostly chosen not to give it much attention. The basic point is a simple one: The brick and mortar retailers with whom Amazon competes are required to collect state and local sales taxes on the products they sell. For most of its existence, Amazon was exempted from this requirement in most of the states it did business.
This amounts to a massive subsidy to Amazon at the expense of both big chains and tiny family operated business.

For example, in a state like New York, where combined state and local sales taxes average over 8 percent, Amazon could charge a price that was 1 percent below its brick and mortar competition, and still have an additional profit of 7 percent on everything it sold.

That is a huge deal in an industry where profits are often just 2-3 percent of revenue.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34017-holiday-season-giving-to-jeff-bezos

[rmt]

Holiday Season Giving to Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos, the CEO and founder of Amazon, is routinely touted in the media as an entrepreneurial genius. That assessment may well be correct. After all, Amazon has made huge breakthroughs not only in internet marketing, but also in promoting the spread of e-books, and more recently as a new source of television shows.

But however brilliant Bezos may be, the public should recognize that his success has come with a huge helping hand from the taxpayers. He has received in the neighborhood of $4 billion in subsidies from taxpayers over the last two decades to help his business grow.

If you missed that line item in the budget, it's probably because the media have mostly chosen not to give it much attention. The basic point is a simple one: The brick and mortar retailers with whom Amazon competes are required to collect state and local sales taxes on the products they sell. For most of its existence, Amazon was exempted from this requirement in most of the states it did business.
This amounts to a massive subsidy to Amazon at the expense of both big chains and tiny family operated business.

For example, in a state like New York, where combined state and local sales taxes average over 8 percent, Amazon could charge a price that was 1 percent below its brick and mortar competition, and still have an additional profit of 7 percent on everything it sold.

That is a huge deal in an industry where profits are often just 2-3 percent of revenue.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34017-holiday-season-giving-to-jeff-bezos




There is nothing stopping these other companies from doing what Amazon is doing - it's available to them too. If they choose to stay in a high tax state like NY, then they have to suffer the consequences and pay up. How this can be seen as tax subsidies to Amazon is beyond me - more like those companies' stupidity.

See Uber - either the taxi industry innovates or declines.

[rmt]

So you think people who can file an income tax return are welfare burden? Or that the federal government guessing who gets what is the answer to poverty in a nation where the number 1 health issue is obesity and it's most prevalent among the poor? Somehow I don't think you're on the right track.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/social-mobility-memos/2015/01/08-childhood-obesity-social-mobility-reeves/08_childhood_obesity_fig4.png?la=en

Poverty here isn't the same as it is elsewhere it seems. We're focused in the wrong area. It's not survival that's the issue here, but standard of living and the poor, by nature almost, sacrifice their financial futures for immediate returns thus overeating and over-indulgence in just about anything they can over-indulge in.

Part of the problem could be that healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are very expensive while the more unhealthy food like hot dogs and soda are dirt cheap - so the top income bracket has less obesity. And also more education in nutrition.

[boutons_deux]

Part of the problem could be that healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are very expensive while the more unhealthy food like hot dogs and soda are dirt cheap - so the top income bracket has less obesity. And also more education in nutrition.

yes, fresh food is more expensive than food-like packaged substances from BigFood, but also, ignorance about nutrition, esp how shitty the BigFood shit is, plays a huge role.

[rmt]

yes, fresh food is more expensive than food-like packaged substances from BigFood, but also, ignorance about nutrition, esp how shitty the BigFood shit is, plays a huge role.

Wow, boutons, I like when we agree :-) It's so nice not to be insulted.

[Splits]

yes, fresh food is more expensive than food-like packaged substances from BigFood, but also, ignorance about nutrition, esp how shitty the BigFood shit is, plays a huge role.

And when you're working two or more jobs you do not have as much time to cook, so not only is it cheaper but much more efficient to drive through some crap joint every night.

[mingus]

yes, fresh food is more expensive than food-like packaged substances from BigFood, but also, ignorance about nutrition, esp how shitty the BigFood shit is, plays a huge role.

Are there any studies you can point to that support that? I've a really hard time believing people need help in this day and age to figure out what junk food is. You'd have to be living under a rock.

[DMC]

welfare fraud is overhyped. If you have a problem with public assistance per se, that's something else entirely.

another common premise. can you offer anything besides anecdotal support for it?

I don't have a problem with public assistance in the true definiton of that term, which needs to be adhered to. Public assistance is when the public helps someone. It's not when someone taps into the coffer for a generation of payments for what the see as a viable "work free" lifestyle.

I also don't agree with the concept that people accepting public assistance should not have their lives tightly controlled. What individual would invest in a corporation and not have any control over the direction? Why would the pubic invest money into the maintenance of a group of humans who do nothing but provide need for more assistance? There has to be some level of control so that the return on investment is attractive. It don't mean financially, not per capita of course. I mean that people who use the welfare system should be closely monitored and their progress recorded. If they aren't moving forward, they should be cut off. Sucks to be kids of these people, but sucks worse being born in Somalia or Mexico. We still have CPS and if the parent(s) of the children are not going to step up to the plate on raising them, why should we keep paying? Reserve the funds for those who will benefit from them, where eventually society benefits from these people. Right now we are funding inner city gang farms.

What human right encompasses the right to live by the work of someone else?

[boutons_deux]

Are there any studies you can point to that support that? I've a really hard time believing people need help in this day and age to figure out what junk food is. You'd have to be living under a rock.

packaged dead food-like substances and industrial junk food are everywhere, convenient, low-cost, high-calorie, engineered by scientists to be irresistable, habit-forming.

Doctors aren't educated on nutrition, why do you think uneducated, poor people, esp blacks and Hispanics, would know about healthy nutrition?

TV shows have plenty of overweight and obese people as "acceptable" characters.

The govt-approved S.A.D. Standard American Diet is pathogenic, too many carbs, too much meat and dairy (as dictated by subsidized BigFood/BigAg).

Even sit-down "casual dining" restaurants put way too many calories on the table, to give people their "money's worth".

One has to be quite "radical" to resist, to escape from the pathogenic BigFood toxic, pathogenic universe. There's even pejorative terms for people who are conscientious eaters: "foodie" and orthorexic.

Poor people in shitty environments are under never-ending financial, social stress, where food really is stress-relieving, comfort food.

When 150M+ people in USA are overweight, obese, it becomes the accepted, implicit norm, the way "average" people should look.

[DMC]

packaged dead food-like substances and industrial junk food are everywhere, convenient, low-cost, high-calorie, engineered by scientists to be irresistable, habit-forming.

Doctors aren't educated on nutrition, why do you think uneducated, poor people, esp blacks and Hispanics, would know about healthy nutrition?

TV shows have plenty of overweight and obese people as "acceptable" characters.

The govt-approved S.A.D. Standard American Diet is pathogenic, too many carbs, too much meat and dairy (as dictated by subsidized BigFood/BigAg).

Even sit-down "casual dining" restaurants put way too many calories on the table, to give people their "money's worth".

One has to be quite "radical" to resist, to escape from the pathogenic BigFood toxic, pathogenic universe. There's even pejorative terms for people who are conscientious eaters: "foodie" and orthorexic.

Poor people in shitty environments are under never-ending financial, social stress, where food really is stress-relieving, comfort food.

When 150M+ people in USA are overweight, obese, it becomes the accepted, implicit norm, the way "average" people should look.
You're an expert at saying a lot without answering the question.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Woman in the op is full of shit here is what you get in Texas just in free food http://yourtexasbenefits.hhsc.texas.gov/programs/snap/

http://i.imgur.com/DG5AsdG.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

They need to go after the scumbag husband, garner his wages, force him to support his kids and give her alimony. This poor woman should contact some of the bigger churches in her area - they sometimes have ministries to help people in her situation.

X2. This must not have been in Texas or the attorney general would have hammered the ex-husband. I have one employee I withhold an average of $1600 a month and send it directly to the AG for the ex.

[DarrinS]

People in this thread complaining that healthy food is expensive, must not ever go to a grocery store. :lol


And you know what's cheaper than drinking soda? Water

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually fresh produce is pretty damn expensive. The new food tracking laws are a big contributing factor. Every vegetable now has to be individually tracked from grower to grocery cart.

[boutons_deux]

Actually fresh produce is pretty damn expensive. The new food tracking laws are a big contributing factor. Every vegetable now has to be individually tracked from grower to grocery cart.

Even before tracking, the cost of fresh produce leaving the farm has always been a small fraction of the shelf price.

[mingus]

You're an expert at saying a lot without answering the question.

'cuz he knows it's a stupid claim. Of course people know grilled chicken breast is healthier than fried chicken, or that water is better than soft drinks, or that baked potato is healthier than fries. These foods and knowledge of the good or bad consequences of indulging in them is not a novelty.

LOL the imagined effect of the portrayal of fatasses on T.V. has on eating behavior. The hypocrisy of it is if we excluded fatasses from being on T.V., or limited their portrayal to being shitty, unappealing with no redeemable qualities, he'd be crying about unequal representation of and prejudice against fat people.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

'cuz he knows it's a stupid claim. Of course people know grilled chicken breast is healthier than fried chicken, or that water is better than soft drinks, or that baked potato is healthier than fries. These foods and knowledge of the good or bad consequences of indulging in them is not a novelty.

LOL the imagined effect of the portrayal of fatasses on T.V. has on eating behavior. The hypocrisy of it is if we excluded fatasses from being on T.V., or limited their portrayal to being shitty, unappealing with no redeemable qualities, he'd be crying about unequal representation of and prejudice against fat people.


Tons of people are that stupid though, that's why there has been a big push to list calories on menus at McDonald's and banning soft drinks

Im with boutons on fat shaming

[DMC]

Even before tracking, the cost of fresh produce leaving the farm has always been a small fraction of the shelf price.

More ambiguous bullshit. "Small fraction of".

99% is only a small fraction of the total. Prove otherwise.

[Blizzardwizard]

Rightwingnuts: But but but, living on welfare is easy :cry They're stealing a living I'm telling you :cry

[DMC]

Tons of people are that stupid though, that's why there has been a big push to list calories on menus at McDonald's and banning soft drinks

Im with boutons on fat shaming
Fat people are just like everyone else. We all love fattening foods, but we have that "that's enough" voice and that worry and acknowledgement when we know it's not for us. Same is true for alcohol or drugs or even something as benign as changing your oil. Some people just don't have that voice in their head telling them to stop. It seems that the more fat people are common place, the easier it is for wanna-be munchers to over-indulge. Where the rest of us have a couple drinks and say "I've had enough", there are plenty who drink until they puke, every night. Eaters are like that. They eat all the time, and food is their purpose for living. It's amazing to be around an obese person, they talk about food all the time, their Facebook has food pics, they never waste food and always get the up-sized. It's amazing, and they are typically in families that are fat as well so they can all feel ok eating like cattle around each other.

[DMC]

Rightwingnuts: But but but, living on welfare is easy :cry They're stealing a living I'm telling you :cry
Feel free to send all your money to a selected "below the poverty level" family of 5 kids under the age of 8 and baby momma. I am sure you can find one to accept it.

[CosmicCowboy]

'cuz he knows it's a stupid claim. Of course people know grilled chicken breast is healthier than fried chicken, or that water is better than soft drinks, or that baked potato is healthier than fries. These foods and knowledge of the good or bad consequences of indulging in them is not a novelty.

LOL the imagined effect of the portrayal of fatasses on T.V. has on eating behavior. The hypocrisy of it is if we excluded fatasses from being on T.V., or limited their portrayal to being shitty, unappealing with no redeemable qualities, he'd be crying about unequal representation of and prejudice against fat people.

I blame it on Oprah. She made being a fatass cool.

[Th'Pusher]

Actually fresh produce is pretty damn expensive. The new food tracking laws are a big contributing factor. Every vegetable now has to be individually tracked from grower to grocery cart.

None of that legislation has been signed into law. The PTI (produce traceability initiative) is voluntary.

[boutons_deux]

St Ronnie said this welfare lady should have a Cadillac? Was he lying?

[CosmicCowboy]

None of that legislation has been signed into law. The PTI (produce traceability initiative) is voluntary.

My apology. It's clear HEB is voluntarily doing it. I suspect for liability reasons.

[Blizzardwizard]

Feel free to send all your money to a selected "below the poverty level" family of 5 kids under the age of 8 and baby momma. I am sure you can find one to accept it.

Plenty of government money for that, despite what they tell you. Unfortunately they just choose to use it for subsidizing fossil fuels and other such BS. Poverty isn't a big enough problem apparently, big business always comes first!

[mingus]

Even before tracking, the cost of fresh produce leaving the farm has always been a small fraction of the shelf price.

We're not talking about turning poor people into vegetarians. When I was poor, I never felt like vegetables were too costly, especially if I bought them when they were marked down.

The Irish lived off of potatoes for a century. Potatoes are cheap and rich in fiber, potassium and vitamin c. I used to have one every day. Not a vegetable, but I used to heat 'em up & put some slight melted shredded cheese, diced tomatoes, and pieces of seared luncheon ham on top. It's cheap and nutritional. For breakfast I'd have oatmeal with slices of bananas mixed in. Bought a lot of canned beans, green beans, oranges.

I can tell you I never salivated for most of my meals, but it did the job.

[boutons_deux]

"We're not talking about turning poor people into vegetarians."

they'd be healthier, live better, live longer.

[Th'Pusher]

My apology. It's clear HEB is voluntarily doing it. I suspect for liability reasons.

Well, being able to trace from lot to store allows retailers to more accurately recall product if necessary. You can argue tractability actually saves money in that Retailers don't have to recall all product but can just pull the contaminated product from the shelves if everything is traceable back to the lot on which it was harvested. A lot of infrastructure needs to be in place to make that work though.

[mingus]

Tons of people are that stupid though, that's why there has been a big push to list calories on menus at McDonald's and banning soft drinks

Im with boutons on fat shaming

You don't have to be a scientist or nutritionist to eat the right way. People really need to just understand the basics (and they do--they just want instant gratification, which is a problem in our society that manifests itself more ways than eating habits): eat three times a day, drink water not soft drinks or a lot of sugary things, grilled or roasted but not fried, and be active, and for good measure if you want get a container of vitamins/nutritional pills and take one or two a day. Not so hard.

You aren't dumb or ignorant if you don't follow that regiment, your negligent or apathetic ("we're all gonna die at some point anyways, so might as well stuff this large popcorn with extra butter down my mouth and chase it with my large soda").

I've followed a very basic diet, and I'm no better informed than anyone else. I don't count calories, and I don't need menus at restaurants listing number that tells me that what I'm stuffing myself with isn't healthy when I've got a scale at home that does that for me, or clothes that tell me when I can't get into them as easily.

And the whole body shaming/fat guy on t.v. theory sounds pretty dumb to me so I'm not even gonna address that.

[mingus]

"We're not talking about turning poor people into vegetarians."

they'd be healthier, live better, live longer.



Not surprising you're a vegetarian.

[mingus]

Rightwingnuts: But but but, living on welfare is easy :cry They're stealing a living I'm telling you :cry

It is abused by many people. I know people who are perfectly capable of working but have no incentive to work since the govt. takes care of them. A lot of people know people like that. It ain't an EASY life doing that, but it's a pretty energy-efficient one that's for sure. And that's enough for people.

And Republicans have have never implied that welfare is a fraud for everyone or majority (to my knowledge) but that it needs to address the many people who cheat it, and in the end themselves. True, they don't often enough address its merits for many people. It's also true Democrats don't often enough address the abuse of it.

I guess that's just American politics at the moment with both parties living in their own separate realities, and shit doesn't get fixed for the better.

[ElNono]

Some peeps get confused a lot with this issue. Welfare isn't the problem, there are cases, like the OP, where it's clearly needed.

The actual problem is with (lack of proper) oversight. This is where the system really falters. And I think it's safe to say that besides the glaring ineptitude, there's some political reasons for that too.

[DMC]

Plenty of government money for that, despite what they tell you. Unfortunately they just choose to use it for subsidizing fossil fuels and other such BS. Poverty isn't a big enough problem apparently, big business always comes first!
Without big business, there won't be income to tax.

[DMC]

"We're not talking about turning poor people into vegetarians."

they'd be healthier, live better, live longer.


Which means I'd have to support them longer.

[rmt]

Fresh produce is generally more expensive because it is perishable while junk food is filled with preservatives that make it last a long time. Probably the only thing that's healthy and cheap is brown rice and beans (which of course last a long time).

I agree with boutons about the food. Even if you were "educated" about nutrition and followed the Food Pyramid pushed by our government, IMO, you're gonna gain weight. Look whats at the bottom of the pyramid - lots of carbs (11 servings?), what's at the top, fats. The better diet, in general, is high (good) fat (not trans fat) and low carb. And no, I don't have any article to link to - that's just my humble opinion from cooking and feeding my family for x years.

[rmt]

I'm not into the vegetarian diet. Lots of fat - coconut/olive oil, butter, (occasional) bacon, cheese, full fat milk. Low carb - mostly vegetables (not root vegetables like potatoes, yams, etc) and fruit, very little rice, bread, pasta, etc. Meat (with skin and fat - preferably organic), fish, eggs. (My) Guarantee to lose weight - try it.

[DMC]

These 400 pounders aren't getting there with fast food and Twinkies. They are mass grazers. They eat everything, and lots and lots of it. It's not the "bad for you" stuff that's the issue, but the sheer volume coupled with the aftershock which is to render the eater immobile after a few years, at which point health issues and fat building snowball.

[Nbadan]

Without big business, there won't be income to tax.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Which means I'd have to support them longer.

less diabetes, less CVD would mean less rip-off medical care.

[RandomGuy]

There is no way to help everyone. What was designed as a safety net can no longer catch those with a sudden change in lifestyle, and they should be the ones first served. The "breeders" should be cut off as more deserving people need help.

You are describing the person in the OP. How would you help her? What change would you make to the system?

Fuck, quit bitching about shit, man up and tell me what your solution is.

[RandomGuy]

It is abused by many people. I know people who are perfectly capable of working but have no incentive to work since the govt. takes care of them. A lot of people know people like that. It ain't an EASY life doing that, but it's a pretty energy-efficient one that's for sure. And that's enough for people.

And Republicans have have never implied that welfare is a fraud for everyone or majority (to my knowledge) but that it needs to address the many people who cheat it, and in the end themselves. True, they don't often enough address its merits for many people. It's also true Democrats don't often enough address the abuse of it.

I guess that's just American politics at the moment with both parties living in their own separate realities, and shit doesn't get fixed for the better.

Most Republicans think "welfare" is nothing but a bunch of black people sponging off hard working white people.

http://yourblackworld.net/2012/08/31/washington-post-poll/
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Welfare-work-rasmussen-poll/2012/07/18/id/445765/

[boutons_deux]

It is abused by many people.

anecdotes are useless

of the 10Ms of people on public assistance, how many are frauds?

How many private equity, hedge funds, traders, TBTF banks, payday lenders, car title lenders etc, etc, are shylocks, loansharkers, frauds, thieves, cheats, etc? and do you worry about they as much as poor people?

[DarrinS]

Most Republicans think "welfare" is nothing but a bunch of black people sponging off hard working white people.

http://yourblackworld.net/2012/08/31/washington-post-poll/
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Welfare-work-rasmussen-poll/2012/07/18/id/445765/



Lol





Although “don’t know” was the leading response for all parties, a close second among Republicans was that black voters are dependent on government or seeking a hand out. On the other hand, Democrats cited the reason being that their party addresses issues of poverty. Lastly, Independents cited support of welfare/entitlements/healthcare.

[Wild Cobra]

You are describing the person in the OP. How would you help her? What change would you make to the system?

Fuck, quit bitching about shit, man up and tell me what your solution is.

First we need to know all the facts. Why isn't the father helping out more, If he is at all? Abandoned? What is the status of the authorities looking for him? How much did they have together vs. apart?

Regardless, we need to stop being so free with money to everyone, and go back to safety nets vs. hammocks.

[Wild Cobra]

Most Republicans think "welfare" is nothing but a bunch of black people sponging off hard working white people.

http://yourblackworld.net/2012/08/31/washington-post-poll/
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Welfare-work-rasmussen-poll/2012/07/18/id/445765/
Why are you such a fucking racist?

It is you who is thinking that. Not conservatives or republicans. There is also white trash, and more whites on the system as well.

Please stop your pathetic race baiting. Those links don't say what you imply.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol

I know.

Looks like he's going brain-dead.

[Nbadan]

Whiteycobra playing the race card.....just shot coffee through my nose laughing..mf...

[RD2191]

Having children should be a privilege based on income/education/stability. Fucking teen mom's down here in the Valley with 5 kids by age 20 with daddy locked up are draining the fucking system. Medicaid, food stamps and all the other shit. Fuck that mess.

[Nbadan]

That's dying economy talk.....so now we are 'that country'....

[The Reckoning]

i just eat when i'm hungry and drink water when i'm thirsty and exercise thrice a week. seems pretty simple tbh.

[mingus]

Most Republicans think "welfare" is nothing but a bunch of black people sponging off hard working white people.

http://yourblackworld.net/2012/08/31/washington-post-poll/
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Welfare-work-rasmussen-poll/2012/07/18/id/445765/

I saw nothing supporting your claim in 2nd link. I won't even bother wasting my time on the 1st one because it'll probably be a waste of time, too. I'll read your recap of it, provided with excerpts, but I ain't gonna wade through an article trying to find something you claim is in it that supports your claim, only for it to be an exercise in futility. Fuck that.

[mingus]

anecdotes are useless

of the 10Ms of people on public assistance, how many are frauds?

How many private equity, hedge funds, traders, TBTF banks, payday lenders, car title lenders etc, etc, are shylocks, loansharkers, frauds, thieves, cheats, etc? and do you worry about they as much as poor people?

Not when 35% of people, according to the survey that was conducted in the article/2nd link provided by RG (which again none of which supported RGs claim), say they know someone on welfare who could work and the fact that I've seen it myself.

Maybe we all know the same person!

[diego]

Having children should be a privilege based on income/education/stability. Fucking teen mom's down here in the Valley with 5 kids by age 20 with daddy locked up are draining the fucking system. Medicaid, food stamps and all the other shit. Fuck that mess.

the whole point of welfare is that if you can improve the quality of life (especially health and education) of those children then you can reduce the number of people that need help. otherwise, the situation you describe is destined to spiral out of control

and :lol at thinking there is anyway to prevent people from having kids with fines and such. its never been done because its impossible. somehow i imagine you dont support planned parenthood and the like, which are trying to address the problem with an actual solution.

[mingus]

First we need to know all the facts. Why isn't the father helping out more, If he is at all? Abandoned? What is the status of the authorities looking for him? How much did they have together vs. apart?

Regardless, we need to stop being so free with money to everyone, and go back to safety nets vs. hammocks.

The truly sad part of it is that if we can't overcome our biases and agree on facts or on beliefs that are strongly supported, it's doing no good for these people. It's also ironic. Because our "solutions" have no basis in reality, and don't solve shit that people--who I believe are well-intentioned--say they care about, in this case poverty.

As for what should be done: put woman who can't get jobs, and men who abandon family, to temporary govt. subsidized work (on highways, roads etc.), where they can build skills and find employment in the actual market down the road. They get the same treatment private sector workers get: initial & randomized drug tests, they fail though and they go to the pen (the men I mean).

[RD2191]

the whole point of welfare is that if you can improve the quality of life (especially health and education) of those children then you can reduce the number of people that need help. otherwise, the situation you describe is destined to spiral out of control

and :lol at thinking there is anyway to prevent people from having kids with fines and such. its never been done because its impossible. somehow i imagine you dont support planned parenthood and the like, which are trying to address the problem with an actual solution.
The cycle never ends. The people that get welfare (in the valley) are the lowest of the low. Scumbag father's and mothers that sell their food stamps to support their drug habits. These people should not be having children. These children go through abuse daily and it just keeps going until they have children of their own and pass it on to them.

[diego]

The cycle never ends. The people that get welfare (in the valley) are the lowest of the low. Scumbag father's and mothers that sell their food stamps to support their drug habits. These people should not be having children. These children go through abuse daily and it just keeps going until they have children of their own and pass it on to them.

its a chicken and egg scenario. you seem to think that having welfare makes people horny, not use contraception and have children, and fall into a life well beyond their means voluntarily, because the handouts are so great (and yet they remain the "lowest of the low"). I disagree, people are horny, often dont use contraception (especially if they have to actually pay for it), and its a good thing for society to try to improve the situation by having free contraceptives and sexual health professionals available, by supporting the family, having a good education at public school, etc etc if anything, conservatives should be howling about the inefficiency of the system described in the article, I dont see what giving up brings to the table.

[mingus]

To look at the other side though, for deadbeat dads that actually do have legitimate jobs, they're in some and I'm assuming a lot of cases having to pay waaaaay to much in child support, to the point where they either have to move in with family (if they have any that lets them) or live off the govt. basically. I've worked with people who actually had jobs and paid their dues to the kid, and unless you've got a high-paying white collar job or a blue caller job where you get paid decently well, offers 40+ hrs/week and that offer health insurance, it's basically impossible to not have to rely on govt. for your own sustenance. For example (and this is actually probably an outlier segment iow, it's far worse for probably most poor people) if you've got a job that pays say ~9/hr, gives family health insurance, and ~40 hrs a week, you'd probably be paying in the range of $250/month in child support, depending on the state. How the fuck you gonna live off of ~$1000/month, assuming you're supporting yourself? Assuming you've got an apt with electricity, running water, a phone bill, and a car payment at minimum right there you're looking at prob. $700-800. Figure in gas and food, and it's a joke. And the situation is probably worse for most in poverty, most of whom probably make minimum wage (~$7/hr) aren't offered family health insurance or if they are pay out the ass for it, and don't make it to 40 hrs/week. At that point, no matter how much you squeeze out of your earnings, it's futile, a joke.

Minimum wage is a joke, the child support system heavily favors the mother when the dad isn't a COMPLETE d-bag and at least tries, and the poor are taxed too much. It all ends up basically perpetuating the welfare system for those that have children and that make an effort to live by the law and pay CS.

[Wild Cobra]

I saw nothing supporting your claim in 2nd link. I won't even bother wasting my time on the 1st one because it'll probably be a waste of time, too. I'll read your recap of it, provided with excerpts, but I ain't gonna wade through an article trying to find something you claim is in it that supports your claim, only for it to be an exercise in futility. Fuck that.
He trying to reach bouton's level i think.

[boutons_deux]

He trying to reach bouton's level i think.

WC so butthurt

[CosmicCowboy]

Another fucked up CNN debate. I din't understand why they keep falling for it...

CNN to Candidate X...Donald Trump said (something else fucking dumb). How would you respond to this?

its the old "when did you stop beating your wife" bullshit just highlighting all the wacky shit Trump says.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

This is what ham planets actually believe

http://i.imgur.com/Gj6mBQZ.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

This is what ham planets actually believe

http://i.imgur.com/Gj6mBQZ.jpg

One more reason not to take public transportation.

[mingus]

There's plenty of men who'd happily bang her, where her weight is a positive trait. There's a decent market for that type of porn, so it's something men apparently not only look passed but look for. She's pobably just not attracted to them. People like her say "nobody wants me" when in fact "nobody" is just actually the people they see as potential mates. If she wasn't as vain as she is, she could find a man that'd want/fuck/marry her and not be bothered by the stupidity of comparing how many guys want to fuck fatassees versus skinny girls, since when you are with someone you love how other people think of you sexiually isn't important in the least.

[rmt]

There's plenty of men who'd happily bang her, where her weight is a positive trait. There's a decent market for that type of porn, so it's something men apparently not only look passed but look for. She's pobably just not attracted to them. People like her say "nobody wants me" when in fact "nobody" is just actually the people they see as potential mates. If she wasn't as vain as she is, she could find a man that'd want/fuck/marry her and not be bothered by the stupidity of comparing how many guys want to fuck fatassees versus skinny girls, since when you are with someone you love how other people think of you sexiually isn't important in the least.

Yep. See Pierce Brosnan and Roger Federer.

[vy65]

This is what ham planets actually believe

http://i.imgur.com/Gj6mBQZ.jpg

fv2ZMN3T18E

[z0sa]

Theres more help than just welfare.

Welfare fraud doesnt concern me though, either.

Real q: where is daddy?

[boutons_deux]

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

... seems like it's not only black women with children but no man in the house.

[pgardn]

Along that same note, do you have the ability to do anything about it if you were given that data? If not, why do you need it? Do you just want to be right?

If we had the data and data of other govt. programs hell yes you could do something. You could find out which particular part of a program was ineffective and inefficient. Then you may not even need to make a decision on who is served until later. There are whole dept wings that could be cut from big Corp and big govt with literally no effect on the overall function of the whole. Anyone who has seen the inside of big understands it breeds inefficiency and bureaucrats.

This has always been a problem with any big organization. Situations morph and big specialization does not change with situations and literally becomes useless but attempt to hang on like a parasitic tumor. There is an art to this type of hiding, or pseudo usefulness in any large unwieldy organization. Good data on internal efficiency would be incredibly important. Current auditing is very crude because of bad data.

The above is not a big political issue because each party has arms that benefit from the above. The Republicans pretend like it is but give it lip service.

[RandomGuy]

If we had the data and data of other govt. programs hell yes you could do something. You could find out which particular part of a program was ineffective and inefficient. Then you may not even need to make a decision on who is served until later. There are whole dept wings that could be cut from big Corp and big govt with literally no effect on the overall function of the whole. Anyone who has seen the inside of big understands it breeds inefficiency and bureaucrats.

This has always been a problem with any big organization. Situations morph and big specialization does not change with situations and literally becomes useless but attempt to hang on like a parasitic tumor. There is an art to this type of hiding, or pseudo usefulness in any large unwieldy organization. Good data on internal efficiency would be incredibly important. Current auditing is very crude because of bad data.

The above is not a big political issue because each party has arms that benefit from the above. The Republicans pretend like it is but give it lip service.

See that is the thing about "welfare" that people bitch about all the time. What is it? SPECIFICALLY?

Most people who say they hate it, have absolutely no clue what it really is, or who actually gets it.

Dig into it yourself. Try to find the specific government programs, and the guidelines outlining who gets the money, and how much money they get.

Then find the data on the people who are getting it. "Welfare" is not what most people think it is.

I did this when I was going the rounds with vy65 about things like food stamps, and he was trying to justify a rather morally repugnant statement he made. It was very illuminating.

[RandomGuy]

Theres more help than just welfare.

Welfare fraud doesnt concern me though, either.

Real q: where is daddy?

Good question.

Another good question:

Does it matter that he can't be found when you have to decide whether or not to give the mother/child some help?

One is faced with a decision as to whether or not to let the child suffer for the faults of the parents.

[DMC]

If we had the data and data of other govt. programs hell yes you could do something. You could find out which particular part of a program was ineffective and inefficient. Then you may not even need to make a decision on who is served until later. There are whole dept wings that could be cut from big Corp and big govt with literally no effect on the overall function of the whole. Anyone who has seen the inside of big understands it breeds inefficiency and bureaucrats.

This has always been a problem with any big organization. Situations morph and big specialization does not change with situations and literally becomes useless but attempt to hang on like a parasitic tumor. There is an art to this type of hiding, or pseudo usefulness in any large unwieldy organization. Good data on internal efficiency would be incredibly important. Current auditing is very crude because of bad data.

The above is not a big political issue because each party has arms that benefit from the above. The Republicans pretend like it is but give it lip service.

Really? What could YOU do? Sure we could hope someone does something, but with that data what could you personally do about it? Not a fucking thing.

[DMC]

Good question.

Another good question:

Does it matter that he can't be found when you have to decide whether or not to give the mother/child some help?

One is faced with a decision as to whether or not to let the child suffer for the faults of the parents.

No one has defined this "we" folks keep speaking of. The "we" I am aware of don't have a choice in the matter. We are taxed at gunpoint basically and the funds redistributed as "they" see fit. We're basically chickens in a hen house pretending we have control over who eats the eggs.

[Wild Cobra]

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

... seems like it's not only black women with children but no man in the house.

Who said it was, outside of race-baiters?

[boutons_deux]

Who said it was, outside of race-baiters?

... the same gun fellatin racists who counter gun control advocates with "what about black-on-black crime"

[RandomGuy]

No one has defined this "we" folks keep speaking of. The "we" I am aware of don't have a choice in the matter. We are taxed at gunpoint basically and the funds redistributed as "they" see fit. We're basically chickens in a hen house pretending we have control over who eats the eggs.

You say that but all I see is "waaaah". I get it, you don't like "taxes at gunpoint". Fine.

You avoided the obvious moral question underlying why those "taxes at gunpoint" are made, which was the point of my post.

Setting aside all other considerations, what SHOULD be done, from a moral standpoint?

Assume the country consists of just you, with all the food you can eat, and one mother with one child who can't, for whatever reason, work to support themselves.

Would you give them enough food to live, assuming you still have more than enough to eat after giving them enough to survive? why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

Really? What could YOU do? Sure we could hope someone does something, but with that data what could you personally do about it? Not a fucking thing.

Bullshit. There is plenty you can do with it, if you aren't a lazy wanker. With enough effort, you can move the levers and affect change.

Cynicism like that is just lazy thinking, IMO. "That heavy thing just CAN'T be picked up, so why bother?" :dramaquee

[boutons_deux]

http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastly.net/nugget/54f8ab733831360024ab0000/attachments/Questions-by-Alexandra-Dal-3bba4604f7501c0177ae95978936d336.png

[101A]

In the U.S. today,[1] there are more than 80 federal means-tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test) welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income residents. An October 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicates that as of 2011, federal spending (http://www.scribd.com/doc/110366590/Spending-for-Federal-Benefits-and-Services-for-People-With-Low-Income-FY08-FY11) on these programs had reached $746 billion per year—more than expenditures for Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the military ($540 billion).

From: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1676

(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1676)S
It's gotten to the point that I am ready to call liberals heartless, mindless bastards. It is truly frustrating that they CONSTANTLY want the moral high ground on issues such like poverty simply because they are willing to put more money and energy into government programs to alleviate the problems. The programs don't work. You are perpetuating them. People are living miserable, poverty-stricken existences in spite of those programs, and yet you continually scream that we need MORE of those programs!! You are no friend to the poor. You are simply a friend of big government/ideology. No doubt there are plenty on the right guilty of the same thing, but I believe the discussion needs to change. Government welfare/entitlements are failing the poor, and sucking up vast resources that might be used to help them.

How about a tax credit for direct aid to a specific person. If I knew the woman from the story, I could easily help her, lift her out of poverty, and get her on her way to self-sufficiency. Grandiose government programs have failed the poor. We should try something else.

[boutons_deux]

"tax credit for direct aid to a specific person"

income tax credit? only works if you have income.

All the public assistance programs aren't making the poor more poor, except in your rightwingnut "blame the poor for being poor, govt always sucks" ideology, that dictates aid to the poor must be cut because, because bullshit.

How about $15 or $20 hour Federal minimum wage indexed to inflation forever? nope, you rightwing nuts block all increases to Fed min wage.

and 100% tax deductible day care for people below certain income level? absolutely not, gotta "pay for"

[101A]

"tax credit for direct aid to a specific person"

income tax credit? only works if you have income.

All the public assistance programs aren't making the poor more poor, except in your rightwingnut "blame the poor for being poor, govt always sucks" ideology, that dictates aid to the poor must be cut because, because bullshit.

How about $15 or $20 hour Federal minimum wage indexed to inflation forever? nope, you rightwing nuts block all increases to Fed min wage.

and 100% tax deductible day care for people below certain income level? absolutely not, gotta "pay for"




Can you show a relationship between a raise in minimum wage and a decrease in poverty?
You just want more government. You could give two shits about the poor.
And don't put words in my mouth. I much more blame partisan assholes like you for the plight of the poor than I do the poor themselves.

[101A]

"tax credit for direct aid to a specific person"

income tax credit? only works if you have income.

All the public assistance programs aren't making the poor more poor, except in your rightwingnut "blame the poor for being poor, govt always sucks" ideology, that dictates aid to the poor must be cut because, because bullshit.

How about $15 or $20 hour Federal minimum wage indexed to inflation forever? nope, you rightwing nuts block all increases to Fed min wage.

and 100% tax deductible day care for people below certain income level? absolutely not, gotta "pay for"




I've got no problems with tax deductible daycare, (it is for many through DCSA's); however, as you say how does that help someone who pays no income tax?

How about a tax credit for a person that will watch a poor person's kids?

[boutons_deux]

I've got no problems with tax deductible daycare, (it is for many through DCSA's); however, as you say how does that help someone who pays no income tax?

How about a tax credit for a person that will watch a poor person's kids?

There's all kinds of ways to help poor single women work a job, but jobs have to pay $15 hour minimum. (which gets working women off much if not all public (taxpayer) assistance that subsidized employers paying poverty wages)

Repugs, intent on fucking over poor people, esp black and brown "breeders", will block ALL assistance to the poor, and are continually proposing CUTTING assistance. So take that up with your Repug politicians.

And how about taking $200B/year from DoD, and/or taxing crude oil exports, and spending it on upgrading schools in poor areas so people finish HS and have a chance at $15/hour employment?

Repugs WILL BLOCK EVERYTHING FOR THE POOR while cutting $Ts from BigCorp tax bills.

[DD]

Nope, still no compassion. That's reserved for people who actually deserve it

[101A]

There's all kinds of ways to help poor single women work a job, but the has to pay $15 hour minimum.

Repugs, intent on fucking over poor people, esp black and brown breeders, will block ALL assistance to the poor, and are continually proposing CUTTING assistance. So take that up with your Repug politicians.

And how about taking $200B/year from DoD, and/or taxing crude oil exports, and spending it on upgrading schools in poor areas so people finish HS and have a chance at $15/hour employment?

Repugs WILL BLOCK EVERYTHING FOR THE POOR while cutting $Ts from BigCorp tax bills.

You've proposed nothing that has any hope of working. You just want to be shrill and blame the Republican boogeyman for the impotent policies that you champion. What you are proposing has been tried, and it has failed. You want to try more of the same. This indicates to me, again, you DON"T CARE ABOUT THE POOR! You just hate Republicans. You want to cut DOD by 30% in order to increase social spending by 20%. Net result BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE? Same amount of poor (probably more since there are now hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sailors, Soldiers Marines and Airmen), while were are far less safe. Great plan.

[boutons_deux]

You've proposed nothing that has any hope of working. You just want to be shrill and blame the Republican boogeyman for the impotent policies that you champion. What you are proposing has been tried, and it has failed. You want to try more of the same. This indicates to me, again, you DON"T CARE ABOUT THE POOR! You just hate Republicans. You want to cut DOD by 30% in order to increase social spending by 20%. Net result BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE? Same amount of poor (probably more since there are now hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sailors, Soldiers Marines and Airmen), while were are far less safe. Great plan.

Not my job to fix poverty, but I know that raising the Fed min wage would tremendously help poor women, single mothers, plus give them free day care and free pre-K.

None of that has a chance of working because the Repugs don't want ANYTHING to work for helping the poor.

[mingus]

You say that but all I see is "waaaah". I get it, you don't like "taxes at gunpoint". Fine.

You avoided the obvious moral question underlying why those "taxes at gunpoint" are made, which was the point of my post.

Setting aside all other considerations, what SHOULD be done, from a moral standpoint?

Assume the country consists of just you, with all the food you can eat, and one mother with one child who can't, for whatever reason, work to support themselves.

Would you give them enough food to live, assuming you still have more than enough to eat after giving them enough to survive? why or why not?

CONSERVATIVES WON'T FEED STARVING BABIES!!!!

You're logic's equivalent of a Christian Bible thumper.

You go around addressing people's fallacious logic referencing which fallacy they've commited with the correct Latin spelling and terms like an elitist dipshit, but give yourself a free pass.

You ain't any different.

[pgardn]

See that is the thing about "welfare" that people bitch about all the time. What is it? SPECIFICALLY?

Most people who say they hate it, have absolutely no clue what it really is, or who actually gets it.

Dig into it yourself. Try to find the specific government programs, and the guidelines outlining who gets the money, and how much money they get.

Then find the data on the people who are getting it. "Welfare" is not what most people think it is.

I did this when I was going the rounds with vy65 about things like food stamps, and he was trying to justify a rather morally repugnant statement he made. It was very illuminating.

All I know is if you have good data about how the welfare dept is run, and good data about recipients, you can make informed decisions. But there are very few places that keep good data and certainly very little idea what it means.

What I am saying is it possible that the only reform that needs to take place is within the government organizational structure without even cutting payments, or possibly putting more deserving people on it at a total savings... If you have good data, and people who know how to analyze it. But we don't. I say this about both Governmental and Private organizations that are large. IMO this should be one goal of this country throughout. We collect horrible data and we do a worse job analyzing the little good data properly.

Its extraordinarily wasteful. If you have seen it done properly on a small scale, you can see how it could be of great significance on a large scale. I'm not even making moral judgments. I'm saying get a good read on the whole phenomena. We don't do this. It's why we hear such different or distorted takes from ideologues IMO. If no one really knows what the F is going on you can just make shit up to suit your ideology.

[RandomGuy]

CONSERVATIVES WON'T FEED STARVING BABIES!!!!

You're logic's equivalent of a Christian Bible thumper.

You go around addressing people's fallacious logic referencing which fallacy they've commited with the correct Latin spelling and terms like an elitist dipshit, but give yourself a free pass.

You ain't any different.

http://images.summitpost.org/original/922943.jpg

I am merely trying to get to some of the underlying moral issues involved, since it provides a basis for what we can or cannot do.

Decent people should be able to at least get some agreement about that. The rest is just methodology.

I don't think that all conservatives would rather children starve to death than help them, but at least one person arguing against welfare has stated that is their preference here. I can give you a link to that if you want. I would classify vy65 as "conservative" by most measures.

I think most conservatives are generally good human beings, vy et al. excepted, who would want to do moral things when faced with decisions. If you want to lie about what I believe that is on you.

As for being an elitist, meh. I am smarter than you are. Deal with it, but I won't apologize for pointing out bad thinking when I see it.

[RandomGuy]

All I know is if you have good data about how the welfare dept is run, and good data about recipients, you can make informed decisions. But there are very few places that keep good data and certainly very little idea what it means.

What I am saying is it possible that the only reform that needs to take place is within the government organizational structure without even cutting payments, or possibly putting more deserving people on it at a total savings... If you have good data, and people who know how to analyze it. But we don't. I say this about both Governmental and Private organizations that are large. IMO this should be one goal of this country throughout. We collect horrible data and we do a worse job analyzing the little good data properly.

Its extraordinarily wasteful. If you have seen it done properly on a small scale, you can see how it could be of great significance on a large scale. I'm not even making moral judgments. I'm saying get a good read on the whole phenomena. We don't do this. It's why we hear such different or distorted takes from ideologues IMO. If no one really knows what the F is going on you can just make shit up to suit your ideology.

Fully agree.

[vy65]

http://images.summitpost.org/original/922943.jpg

I am merely trying to get to some of the underlying moral issues involved, since it provides a basis for what we can or cannot do.

Decent people should be able to at least get some agreement about that. The rest is just methodology.

I don't think that all conservatives would rather children starve to death than help them, but at least one person arguing against welfare has stated that is their preference here. I can give you a link to that if you want. I would classify vy65 as "conservative" by most measures.

I think most conservatives are generally good human beings, vy et al. excepted, who would want to do moral things when faced with decisions. If you want to lie about what I believe that is on you.

As for being an elitist, meh. I am smarter than you are. Deal with it, but I won't apologize for pointing out bad thinking when I see it.

You're a fucking peasant. Why the fuck would I, or anyone for that matter, care what you think? Particularly when you respond to being called out badly with "I'm smarter than you." Crofl. But hey, post some more internet memes. Do you have a logical fallacy to quote too? That's all that's missing.

[RandomGuy]

You're a fucking peasant. Why the fuck would I, or anyone for that matter, care what you think? Particularly when you respond to being called out badly with "I'm smarter than you." Crofl. But hey, post some more internet memes. Do you have a logical fallacy to quote too? That's all that's missing.

Called out on what exactly? If memory serves mingus essentially made up some shit to make himself feel better in a kind of tear someone else down to build himself up thing that I am not really going to waste time responding to. If someone is dead set on lying about me, I guess that is their business.

I could easily quote logical fallacies all day, if they are obvious enough. No apologies there.

That you seem to think that flawed thinking seems to be something to be tolerated, and/or addressed as if it wasn't fatally flawed... says volumes about how you construct your own worldview.

[Wild Cobra]

... the same gun fellatin racists who counter gun control advocates with "what about black-on-black crime"

That's a different argument that has to do with overall violence statistics, and is a fact of statistics.

[mingus]

I am smarter than you are. Deal with it...

Okay.

I dealt with it, and in acknowledgement of that I surrender to you this argument and all future arguments.

I give up, you win!

God, I wish arguing for me was as as simple as it is for you. The "smarter than you, I win!" card isn't in my deck of cards anymore. I wore it out by the 3rd grade.

[mingus]

Done with this thread. Was hoping to have some good debate, just realized I walked into a circus.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay.

I dealt with it, and in acknowledgement of that I surrender to you this argument and all future arguments.

I give up, you win!

God, I wish arguing for me was as as simple as it is for you. The "smarter than you, I win!" card isn't in my deck of cards anymore. I wore it out by the 3rd grade.
I wonder if he's smarter than a 5th grader at times.

[RandomGuy]

Okay.

I dealt with it, and in acknowledgement of that I surrender to you this argument and all future arguments.

I give up, you win!

God, I wish arguing for me was as as simple as it is for you. The "smarter than you, I win!" card isn't in my deck of cards anymore. I wore it out by the 3rd grade.

(shrugs)

Again, more fail. I wasn't really arguing a point with that observation, merely commenting on how butthurt you act when someone has the nuts to challenge you on something, which you continue to do.

It is almost as if you have some sense of entitlement to not having your views challenged or something. Welcome to the real world, kid.

[RandomGuy]

It is abused by many people. I know people who are perfectly capable of working but have no incentive to work since the govt. takes care of them. A lot of people know people like that. It ain't an EASY life doing that, but it's a pretty energy-efficient one that's for sure. And that's enough for people.

And Republicans have have never implied that welfare is a fraud for everyone or majority (to my knowledge) but that it needs to address the many people who cheat it, and in the end themselves. True, they don't often enough address its merits for many people. It's also true Democrats don't often enough address the abuse of it.

I guess that's just American politics at the moment with both parties living in their own separate realities, and shit doesn't get fixed for the better.

Republicans imply all the time that welfare is a fraud to the majority of people who are drawing it.

Don't take my word for it, read the party platform.
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

They regard most "entitlements" as "temporary". This is merely the official platform. Read what conservatives generally say about welfare.
http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/welfare

Run through the news feed. If you were to ask no few number of Republicans about it, they would almost universally say to scrap the system entirely. The guys I have beer with every week say as much.

Not a universal view to be sure, but certainly not an uncommon view, if you take the time to listen to what is said.

It is all negative, all the time. Run through that Fox News link and find ONE article about someone on welfare that is even mildly empathetic.

As for Democrats not addressing welfare fraud enough, define "enough".

I am all for addressing and minimizing fraud to the extent possible. There is fraud, and it happens all the time, as the Fox News feed so aptly points out, at every chance they get.

Once one does enough reading it begins to look like a very effective propaganda campaign that plays up the amount of fraud, while minimizing the benefits and demonizing recipients.

Ask yourself why you didn't state the opposite "Republicans don't often address the good that comes from welfare programs".

Look for any evidence of that here. As a Democrat, I am happy to try to fix and prevent abuse. Try finding a Republican, ANY Republican that says that there is some value in welfare programs.

I'll wait.

[boutons_deux]

Repug campaign issues (and Repug state govt policies) about voter fraud, welfare fraud, both dog-whistling lies and slander against black people.

[DD]

Don't let poor people breed.

[tlongII]

Republicans imply all the time that welfare is a fraud to the majority of people who are drawing it.

Don't take my word for it, read the party platform.
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

They regard most "entitlements" as "temporary". This is merely the official platform. Read what conservatives generally say about welfare.
http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/welfare

Run through the news feed. If you were to ask no few number of Republicans about it, they would almost universally say to scrap the system entirely. The guys I have beer with every week say as much.

Not a universal view to be sure, but certainly not an uncommon view, if you take the time to listen to what is said.

It is all negative, all the time. Run through that Fox News link and find ONE article about someone on welfare that is even mildly empathetic.

As for Democrats not addressing welfare fraud enough, define "enough".

I am all for addressing and minimizing fraud to the extent possible. There is fraud, and it happens all the time, as the Fox News feed so aptly points out, at every chance they get.

Once one does enough reading it begins to look like a very effective propaganda campaign that plays up the amount of fraud, while minimizing the benefits and demonizing recipients.

Ask yourself why you didn't state the opposite "Republicans don't often address the good that comes from welfare programs".

Look for any evidence of that here. As a Democrat, I am happy to try to fix and prevent abuse. Try finding a Republican, ANY Republican that says that there is some value in welfare programs.

I'll wait.


I don't think you get it. Republicans see the benefit of welfare. They just argue that it needs to be reformed. Why would you go around espousing the benefits of welfare when your primary mission is to reform it?

[tlongII]

And for the record I'm not a republican. But I'm not a democrat either.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think you get it. Republicans see the benefit of welfare.

The only welfare the Repugs support is corporate welfare for their big donors.

[mingus]

Republicans imply all the time that welfare is a fraud to the majority of people who are drawing it.

Don't take my word for it, read the party platform.
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

They regard most "entitlements" as "temporary". This is merely the official platform. Read what conservatives generally say about welfare.
http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/welfare

Run through the news feed. If you were to ask no few number of Republicans about it, they would almost universally say to scrap the system entirely. The guys I have beer with every week say as much.

Not a universal view to be sure, but certainly not an uncommon view, if you take the time to listen to what is said.

It is all negative, all the time. Run through that Fox News link and find ONE article about someone on welfare that is even mildly empathetic.

As for Democrats not addressing welfare fraud enough, define "enough".

I am all for addressing and minimizing fraud to the extent possible. There is fraud, and it happens all the time, as the Fox News feed so aptly points out, at every chance they get.

Once one does enough reading it begins to look like a very effective propaganda campaign that plays up the amount of fraud, while minimizing the benefits and demonizing recipients.

Ask yourself why you didn't state the opposite "Republicans don't often address the good that comes from welfare programs".

Look for any evidence of that here. As a Democrat, I am happy to try to fix and prevent abuse. Try finding a Republican, ANY Republican that says that there is some value in welfare programs.

I'll wait.

Since pretty much everything I've read from you has an overwhelmingly partisan slant, and is therefore complete bullshit, I'll read your posts, if I get to them, while I'm on the toilet, where maybe or maybe not I'll consider it over whatever other shit I've got to stacked behind it.

[RandomGuy]

Since pretty much everything I've read from you has an overwhelmingly partisan slant, and is therefore complete bullshit, I'll read your posts, if I get to them, while I'm on the toilet, where maybe or maybe not I'll consider it over whatever other shit I've got to stacked behind it.

Your problem is that you assume that if there are two viewpoints, they must be equally valid.

"evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet" and "evolution is not the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet" are not equal arguments when it comes to reality.

"the earth orbits the sun" and "the sun orbits the earth" are not equal arguments when it comes to reality.

Both sides in those debates will make arguments, but the overwhelming amount of evidence available points to one side.

Neither is truth somewhere in the middle.

You paint both sides with the same brush as if both sides have equally valid viewpoints or base their policies on evidence.

The reality is that Democrats ignore evidence at times, and GOP ignores evidence at times. Some times the GOP is right. Sometimes the Dems are right.

I am more than willing to admit when Dems mess up or have something wrong. That kind of admission is much more less common in the GOP and conservative political viewpoints. The tea party and the primaries where candidates fall all over themselves to be the very most conservative they possibly can don't really have equivalent factions in the Democratic party. There are certain populist streaks, but there is no rabid group of zealots wanting to burn down the barn to kill the mice with anywhere near the power/influence the extremists on the right have.

If you are not willing to acknowledge that much of a difference, then again, that is on you. Just don't pretend you know what the fuck is going on.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think you get it. Republicans see the benefit of welfare. They just argue that it needs to be reformed. Why would you go around espousing the benefits of welfare when your primary mission is to reform it?

Do they really?

Democrats (Clinton and Dem minority in Congress) reformed "welfare" in the 1990's, adding all sorts of work requirements, and income verification to it.

The GOP at this point is more or less in favor of scrapping entitlements altogether, and work in baby steps to do just that at every opportunity, just like they work to ban abortion.

Again, don't take my word for it. Better yet, prove your own statement.

Show me two or three specific GOP "reform" proposals.

I am more than willing to support reform based on good data, and will happily pick up the cause.

[mingus]

Your problem is that you assume that if there are two viewpoints, they must be equally valid.

"evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet" and "evolution is not the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet" are not equal arguments when it comes to reality.

"the earth orbits the sun" and "the sun orbits the earth" are not equal arguments when it comes to reality.

Both sides in those debates will make arguments, but the overwhelming amount of evidence available points to one side.

Neither is truth somewhere in the middle.

You paint both sides with the same brush as if both sides have equally valid viewpoints or base their policies on evidence.

The reality is that Democrats ignore evidence at times, and GOP ignores evidence at times. Some times the GOP is right. Sometimes the Dems are right.

I am more than willing to admit when Dems mess up or have something wrong. That kind of admission is much more less common in the GOP and conservative political viewpoints. The tea party and the primaries where candidates fall all over themselves to be the very most conservative they possibly can don't really have equivalent factions in the Democratic party. There are certain populist streaks, but there is no rabid group of zealots wanting to burn down the barn to kill the mice with anywhere near the power/influence the extremists on the right have.

If you are not willing to acknowledge that much of a difference, then again, that is on you. Just don't pretend you know what the fuck is going on.

I still haven't read your posts, and I won't unless I've literally got nothing better to do, but I'm assuming this response is some kind of attack on me for "being a jackass" or "dumb" or "running away" or some other bullshit that you can't back up with good reason. It's all I can expect out of you at this point. Truth is it's because I have neither the stomach nor patience for it. Feel I have to set the record straight there.

The sad part is you actually seem like a pretty smart dude. But I just don't spend much time having these types of discussions with intellectually dishonest, self-stroking, partisan people (and, I don't spend ANY time with people who can get their dick in their mouth).

[mingus]

I don't think you get it. Republicans see the benefit of welfare. They just argue that it needs to be reformed. Why would you go around espousing the benefits of welfare when your primary mission is to reform it?

Dude, why bother arguing w/ him?

He's smarter than you. Just surrender and kiss his feet.

[RandomGuy]

I still haven't read your posts, and I won't unless I've literally got nothing better to do, but I'm assuming this response is some kind of attack on me for "being a jackass" or "dumb" or "running away" or some other bullshit that you can't back up with good reason. It's all I can expect out of you at this point. Truth is it's because I have neither the stomach nor patience for it. Feel I have to set the record straight there.

The sad part is you actually seem like a pretty smart dude. But I just don't spend much time having these types of discussions with intellectually dishonest, self-stroking, partisan people (and, I don't spend ANY time with people who can get their dick in their mouth).

(shrugs)

Meh. Another lazy shite. The internet is full of people who can't back their shit up. At least you seem to know you can't, so you pretend to sulk. Good for you.

[tlongII]

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/04/06/lepage-makes-second-push-for-welfare-changes/

[Winehole23]

Don't let poor people breed.WC's take, essentially. Let the government decide who's qualified to have a kid.

[Winehole23]

still no quantification on how much welfare fraud there actually is. it's much easier march in cadence with (face it, largely anecdotal) narratives pushed by our media masters and chant them verbatim than to actually examine the claims made.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

(shrugs)

Meh. Another lazy shite. The internet is full of people who can't back their shit up. At least you seem to know you can't, so you pretend to sulk. Good for you.

They just want to pretend that all opinions and ideas are equally valid. It's the GOP schtick. And when you point out the something is illogical or without basis then you are painted as an elitist when you make a point that isn't one of those things. Nevermind that they are the ones whose party is structured with far more appointments as opposed to elected officials in the leadership.

It's as old as the church and the library at Alexandria. Thing is if they get their way it will be book burnings, heresy laws, and the thought police again.

It's looking more and more like both parties might split. Things are looking up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another fucked up CNN debate. I din't understand why they keep falling for it...

CNN to Candidate X...Donald Trump said (something else fucking dumb). How would you respond to this?

its the old "when did you stop beating your wife" bullshit just highlighting all the wacky shit Trump says.

Trump is the frontrunner. You really have no idea what's going on do you?

Go eat a whataburger, fatty.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do they really?

Democrats (Clinton and Dem minority in Congress) reformed "welfare" in the 1990's, adding all sorts of work requirements, and income verification to it.

The GOP at this point is more or less in favor of scrapping entitlements altogether, and work in baby steps to do just that at every opportunity, just like they work to ban abortion.

Again, don't take my word for it. Better yet, prove your own statement.

Show me two or three specific GOP "reform" proposals.

I am more than willing to support reform based on good data, and will happily pick up the cause.

Gingrich's Contract With America is empirical proof that their ideology was wrong. They have nothing. Debate over.

[CosmicCowboy]

Trump is the frontrunner. You really have no idea what's going on do you?

Go eat a whataburger, fatty.

:lmao @ the forum pussy calling me fatty. He's such a big bad internet bully.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao @ the forum pussy calling me fatty. He's such a big bad internet bully.

:lol your posturing is amusing I guess.

I just pointed out how you don't understand election dynamics. You do understand that by ignoring my point you are in essence admitting you haven't a clue don't you?

Keep on talking my work here is done.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol your posturing is amusing I guess.

I just pointed out how you don't understand election dynamics. You do understand that by ignoring my point you are in essence admitting you haven't a clue don't you?

Keep on talking my work here is done.

I totally understand election dynamics and recognize partisan moderators when I see them.

And all you have done here is prove what a pompous ignorant asshole you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I totally understand election dynamics and recognize partisan moderators when I see them.

And all you have done here is prove what a pompous ignorant asshole you are.

So you double down without basis. How droll.

Trump is the frontrunner and it makes sense to make that comparison first. It's called reality bias. It's terrible I know.

[CosmicCowboy]

yep. pompous ignorant ass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yep. pompous ignorant ass.

If you say so. I will call you a coward. I will say that you are afraid to admit that Trump is the frontrunner and it makes sense to make that comparison first. I think you're afraid to admit that I pointed out a mistake.

And no shit I'm pompous, dipshit, half the schticks around here are built around it including yours. Quit whining and be a fucking man.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you say so. I will call you a coward. I will say that you are afraid to admit that Trump is the frontrunner and it makes sense to make that comparison first. I think you're afraid to admit that I pointed out a mistake.

And no shit I'm pompous, dipshit, half the schticks around here are built around it including yours. Quit whining and be a fucking man.

LOL I'm not whining. I'm calling you out as an ignorant pompous ass. You bring zero to the table. Of course Trump is the front runner. So what? I still saw biased moderators. If it's so normal name one time last Saturday night where the debate moderator asked Martin or Bernie "Hillary said (pick something stupid like the famous Benghazi "movie" reaction cover up) how do you respond to that?"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL I'm not whining. I'm calling you out as an ignorant pompous ass. You bring zero to the table. Of course Trump is the front runner. So what? I still saw biased moderators. If it's so normal name one time last Saturday night where the debate moderator asked Martin or Bernie "Hillary said (pick something stupid like the famous Benghazi "movie" reaction cover up) how do you respond to that?"

Oh that one got through. You are adding new shit to argue on merit. I'm not going to argue your additional rationalizations.

You were still foolish for claiming that asking them to compare themselves to the GOP frontrunner was partisan to anything other than reality.

On a side note there was a Politico article stating that the GOP establishment money cabal is considering a third candidate should Trump hijack their election. My dream is that and a similar fracture between Sanders and Hillary.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh that one got through. You are adding new shit to argue on merit. I'm not going to argue your additional rationalizations.

You were still foolish for claiming that asking them to compare themselves to the GOP frontrunner was partisan to anything other than reality.

On a side note there was a Politico article stating that the GOP establishment money cabal is considering a third candidate should Trump hijack their election. My dream is that and a similar fracture between Sanders and Hillary.

:lmao

I nail your ass by comparing how different the two debates were with partisan moderators and you call it "new stuff"? Were you really too stupid to make that comparison yourself?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

I nail your ass by comparing how different the two debates were with partisan moderators and you call it "new stuff"? Were you really too stupid to make that comparison yourself?

Now fantasies about nailing my ass. You're melting down pretty hard here.

You made new arguments. I mean you're barely coherent here. This shouldn't be that hard.

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn you are stupid. Got plenty of vacuous bluster though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I simply pointed out that it wasn't politically biased to compare the candidates to the GOP frontrunner. I mean if you really want to take that position then you should take issue with you and your type's fixation on Hillary now that Thanks Obama! is out the door.

I mean vacuous is an interesting choice of words considering all you did in your post was insult me. You throwing bluster back at me tells me it works when I use it. What you don't seem to understand is the difference is the truth.

[CosmicCowboy]

I simply pointed out that there is a clear front runner in the Democratic side as well and the moderator partisan tactic that was used in the Republican debate was nowhere to be seen in the Democratic debate and I watched most of both of them.

So your partisan bullshit is just that...ignorant bluster.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I simply pointed out that in all debates it is the common tactic to have the candidates compare themselves with the oppositions front runner and there is nothing partisan about it as they've been doing it since the beginning.

My point was never that you were partisan. I will say that you likely got angry reflexively watching the debate because you have poor self control. I will say that you lack credibility.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another fucked up CNN debate. I din't understand why they keep falling for it...

CNN to Candidate X...Donald Trump said (something else fucking dumb). How would you respond to this?

its the old "when did you stop beating your wife" bullshit just highlighting all the wacky shit Trump says.

That's what you said. You were complaining that the CNN debate asked candidates to compare themselves to the frontrunner on issues saying that it was leading questions because they quoted Trump.

That's pigheaded stupid. Bravo.

[RandomGuy]

...it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions. A striking recent example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare — the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct — but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.) -
See more at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=2#sthash.PHeXCV3l.dpuf

When I ask people who say they "hate welfare" what welfare is, I tend to get the internet equivalent of blank looks.

There is a reason for that. People who tend to "hate welfare" have no fucking clue what "welfare" is, or who gets it. None.

I have evidence, peer-reviewed evidence, to support that. Odd are overwhelming that if you are like vy65 and so many others, you are literally clueless about welfare.

http://i0.wp.com/digitalintelligencetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/screenshot_799.png

So when people start asking me for policies that appear to be based on ignorance... I tend to be skeptical.