Metro Jacksonville

Half of US social program recipients believe they "have not used a government social program"

(http://craphound.com/images/programbeneficiaries.jpeg)

"Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era," a paper by Cornell's Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions Suzanne Mettler features this remarkable chart showing that about half of American social program beneficiaries believe that they "have not used a government social program." It's the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" phenomena writ large: a society of people who subsist on mutual aid and redistributive policies who've been conned (and conned themselves) into thinking that they are rugged individualists and that everyone else is a parasite.

25% of those on food stamps don't think they are using a government program?  Probably time to remove them from the gene pool.

would certainly thin out them and the people on the other side of the spectrum that needs to Government to tell them what to do.  Probably be a more efficient country that way.

Just ask Craig T. Nelson.  He's been on food stamps and welfare, and did anyone help him out?

http://youtu.be/yTwpBLzxe4U

QuoteDo you think that there are a lot of flaming liberals getting GI benefits and help from the VA?

Whether liberal or not these benefits would be compensation for services rendered...

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 09:53:31 AM

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 09:42:55 AM
25% of those on food stamps don't think they are using a government program?  Probably time to remove them from the gene pool.

That would thin out the ranks of the Tea Party pretty drastically, wouldn't it?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCS-xwHjt8Q/TksRz3PW4CI/AAAAAAAAATo/aR9LEeQ57bU/s1600/medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iyBhfwvR_z0/Ta_81EE2z9I/AAAAAAAAAQM/bNA8hdmdWRM/s1600/t5.jpg)

Perhaps if we went to a Medicare for all model we could just fool these people that it is not Government.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Whether liberal or not these benefits would be compensation for services rendered...

Similar to the compensation for services rendered benefits negotiated by public sector unions for themselves, right?

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 09:53:31 AM

That would thin out the ranks of the Tea Party pretty drastically, wouldn't it?

Speaking of the Tea Party, here's a picture of the Messiah in 1997 leading a parade on July 4th in Colonial gear and a Gadsden flag behind him. Since the NAACP considers people who wear COLONIAL gear to be "racist", is the President also a "racist"?

(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/05/23/Breitbart-Obama-Tea-Party-Cropped.jpg)


I don't have a problem with the Tea Party if they misspell a word here or there (and it's then amplified by the liberal MSM to distract away from their message). Their message is clear:

- Less government intrusion on our constitutional rights.
- Less government dependency
- More personal responsibility
- Lower taxes

Much better than the "Occupy" clowns who are drains on our society:

* Baxter also “suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of the car if they get in a chase.” This getaway tactic was last successfully used in a Batman episode from 1967.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/fbi-informant-infiltrated-occupy-movement-758348

Quote from: finehoe on June 06, 2012, 10:34:12 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Whether liberal or not these benefits would be compensation for services rendered...

Similar to the compensation for services rendered benefits negotiated by public sector unions for themselves, right?

Wrong.  I am quite certain military members are unable to negotiate for pay, benefits, or anything else. 

When they refer to 529 plans, do they mean the investment kind as well, or just the pre-paid kind?  If the former is a government social program, does that mean all 401(a) plans, 401(k) plans, IRAs, Roth IRAs, cafeteria plans, FSAs, and HSAs are government social programs as well?

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 10:15:58 AM

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 10:08:40 AM
would certainly thin out them and the people on the other side of the spectrum that needs to Government to tell them what to do.  Probably be a more efficient country that way.

thinning out the people who deny that they are using a government program but they actually are would affect people who use and approve of government programs how?

huh?

Do you think that there are a lot of flaming liberals getting GI benefits and help from the VA?

Or were you just responding before you could think the comment out?

It was tongue in cheek as I don't advocate the killing of anyone no matter how out of touch with reality they may be.  I do find it funny that you actually have to go to a government office to apply for food stamps, but 25% still don't think they are on the company dole.

Quote from: Jameson on June 06, 2012, 10:41:52 AM
I don't have a problem with the Tea Party if they misspell a word here or there (and it's then amplified by the liberal MSM to distract away from their message). Their message is clear:

- Less government intrusion on our constitutional rights.
- Less government dependency
- More personal responsibility
- Lower taxes

The humor of the situation isn't the misspelling of the signs (although it greatly adds to it), it's the message of the signs....Which also happens to be the basis for this thread.

I also can't say I've ever seen the tax deductions and credits defined as a social program before either.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 10:45:45 AM
I am quite certain military members are unable to negotiate for pay, benefits, or anything else.

So you're saying that if the government arbitrarily grants you benefits it is okay, but if you negotiate with the government on what those benefits should be, then its not okay.  I see.

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 11:07:08 AM
I also can't say I've ever seen the tax deductions and credits defined as a social program before either.

Tax expenditures that seek to promote social goals are by definition social benefit programs. Your claim reveals the very sort of confusion that the respondants demonstrate in this study. The choice to spend a tax dollar or to forgo the collection of that dollar is different only in the perceived nature of the policy tool. The confusion grows when people accept and repeat myths about how Social Security isn't a government social program because we "pay into the system," which is ultimately false for reasons that should be crystal clear.

Social Security & Medicare may be social programs but they are programs that the users of have already paid for through taxes deducted from their paychecks which disqualifies them from being "welfare".  Look at your pay stub now and you will see separate lines for those items.  You are paying for those items now to receive a benefit at a later date.   The government may mix all of the funds together to spend as they wish but that does not mean that the intended purpose of those taxes changes.  You cannot classify those programs as welfare

You also cannot classify Veteran's benefits (GI Bill, VA, etc..) as welfare.  Those benefits are part of the compensation package servicemen receive for their service, they cannot simply quit if they don't like it and have little control over where they are sent.  The users of those programs have given their time and received a benefit for it and in some cases they have been seriously injured and need to continue receiving some of those benefits for the remainder of their lives.

"Welfare" is the term I picked to drive page hits.  :)  The authors use the term "social program beneficiaries".

Veterans benefits and the GI Bill absolutely are social programs. You are paid for being a soldier; the GI Bill is NOT part of your paycheck. The purpose of the GI bill is to help you acclimate back into civilian life. The government thinks this is a good idea because it, rather wisely imo, chooses not to repeat the mistakes of the post Civil War and Post WWI eras, where legions of difficult to employ soldiers with understandable emotional problems ended up turning to violent crime when they couldn't find work. After WWII its intention was the pushing a generation of vets into the middle class. Just because you need to be in the service for X years doesn't make it some sort of automatic benefit devoid of social agendas. 

I do agree with that.  The GI Bill is a social program only available to veterans.

Quote from: finehoe on June 06, 2012, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 11:07:08 AM
I also can't say I've ever seen the tax deductions and credits defined as a social program before either.

Tax expenditures that seek to promote social goals are by definition social benefit programs. Your claim reveals the very sort of confusion that the respondants demonstrate in this study. The choice to spend a tax dollar or to forgo the collection of that dollar is different only in the perceived nature of the policy tool. The confusion grows when people accept and repeat myths about how Social Security isn't a government social program because we "pay into the system," which is ultimately false for reasons that should be crystal clear.

This illustrates the creeping nature of these programs.  Your chart shows that even when people are collecting from one of those programs they do not recognize it.  To me it illustrates our addiction to social programs as a society.  We simply cannot live without them.  Much like a heroin, alcohol, sugar or nicotine addict... using them make us feel better... they alleviate some kind of pain... and are very painful to kick.  As a nicotine addict I can certainly attest that in the short term a smoke makes me feel better... I also know the long term affect is not good for me... I also know that trying to kick something that makes me feel better causes pain.

I am not equating all users of social programs or even the programs themselves as bad or deadly.  Some are certainly necessary.  I am simply saying we do not even see when we are users of these programs... stopping or ending a program is certainly painful... and the costs, usage, and proliferation of these programs continues to grow.  It certainly sounds like an addiction to government... at least to me.

Troll, your post reminds me of a book I was assigned in college: Demosclerosis, by Jonathon Rauch.

The premise was pretty straightforward: government programs are easy to start, but impossible to eliminate, and eventually "clog the arteries" of government to death.

Are'nt the Bush tax breaks a form of welfare for the rich?

when I take a deduction for services or goods that I donate to my church or goodwill, is that a government social program?  Or is that me simply taking advantage of the rules that "the man" set up in our tax code?

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 02:05:15 PM
when I take a deduction for services or goods that I donate to my church or goodwill, is that a government social program?  Or is that me simply taking advantage of the rules that "the man" set up in our tax code?

I think the answer to your question depends on your outlook. I don't think there is one "right" answer, even though I know where I fall on the issue.

Quote from: Traveller on June 06, 2012, 01:35:36 PM
Troll, your post reminds me of a book I was assigned in college: Demosclerosis, by Jonathon Rauch.

The premise was pretty straightforward: government programs are easy to start, but impossible to eliminate, and eventually "clog the arteries" of government to death.

Thanks Traveller... I may have to stop by Chamblins and pick it up...  here is a link to a review...

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/rauch.html

excerpt...

QuoteIn a stable, democratic society, pressure groups inevitably form to persuade government to redistribute resources their way, Olson argued. Taken one at a time, these benefits have practically no effect on society as a whole, so no countervailing group arises to stop the waste. But, taken as a whole, group demands gradually sap the effectiveness and flexibility of government to the point where no program can be cut and no subsidy eliminated without arousing vehement opposition from some group or another. As the number of interest- groups in a society increases, and as the benefits secured by groups accumulate, the economy rigidifies. By locking out competition and locking in subsidies, interest-groups capture resources that could be put to better use elsewhere. Furthermore, as interest-groups and their perks and deals add up, so do laws and regulations and, by extension, the number of people who administer the laws and regulations.

Wow... this could have been written last week... not 1992...  Wow...

QuoteDemosclerosis

National Journal | September 5, 1992

ON APRIL 10, a group of kamikaze Senators marched to the chamber floor with an alternative budget. What they got back was a stark demonstration of the forces that are petrifying postwar democracy.

"We do not seek to end entitlements, or even to reduce them," Sen. Charles S. Robb, D-Va., told the Senate that day. "We do, however, believe that it is necessary to restrain their growth. That is, first and foremost, what this amendment does."

Entitlement programs are check-writing machines whose subsidies are mandatory under law: social security, medicare, farm supports, welfare, countless more. Today they account for a staggering three-fourths of all federal domestic spending. And so Sen. Peter V. Domenici, R-N.M., was doing nothing more than acknowledging reality when he told the Senate, "If we do not do anything to control the mandatory expenditures, the deficit will continue skyrocketing."

The bipartisan group -- Domenici and Robb, Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H. -- proposed phasing in a cap on over-all entitlement growth. To avoid bringing the roof down on their heads, they exempted social security. The other entitlement programs would collectively grow to account for inflation and demographic changes, but no more.

Within two hours of the four Senators' first detailed discussion of their proposal, they were receiving telegrams, Domenici told the Senate, "from all over the country, saying that this is going to hurt a veterans' group, this is going to hurt people on welfare, this is going to hurt seniors on medicare."

"We were inundated," G. William Hoagland, the Senate Budget Committee's Republican staff director, recalled during a recent interview. "Just about every interest group you can think of was strongly opposed. It was very dramatic how quickly they all came to the defense............."

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/demosclerosis_the_original_article/

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Are they negotiated or are they reviewed and set by that organization (or proposed to Congress, etc...) with input from military leaders?

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

I think Bridge Troll is correct when stating that members of the armed forces are not entitled to negotiate pay or benefits. They can't just say they want a raise or bargain for a larger bonus, etc. And they can't strike to get concessions from management.

Whether or not there is a gov't agency that reviews military pay is not really the point he was making, as far as I can see.

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 03:02:02 PM
There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 09:39:51 AM
Do you find it odd... at all... that the same people who help pick their "boss" are "negotiating" with them?

Don't you find it odd that these people can help pick the very people who are setting their pay and benefits?

Quote from: finehoe on June 06, 2012, 03:15:28 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 03:02:02 PM
There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 09:39:51 AM
Do you find it odd... at all... that the same people who help pick their "boss" are "negotiating" with them?

Don't you find it odd that these people can help pick the very people who are setting their pay and benefits?

Not at all... they are not unionized.

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 03:42:36 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 03:02:02 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

hmm.  you don't remember the extraordinarily low recruitment numbers from the 90s?  When the armed services had to turn to privately employed mercs in order to get basic strategic goals accomplished and then dramatically raise the wages and benefits available?

And regardless of whether or not you suddenly see no difference in one kind of government function to another (which is the opposite of your argument, incidentally) military wage negotiators do negotiate on behalf of the employed men and women of the armed forces just as union representatives do for factory employees.

Yep... sure thing... same thing as a union rep... okey-dokey...lol...rofl...

We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 10:53:12 AM

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 10:15:58 AM

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 10:08:40 AM
would certainly thin out them and the people on the other side of the spectrum that needs to Government to tell them what to do.  Probably be a more efficient country that way.

thinning out the people who deny that they are using a government program but they actually are would affect people who use and approve of government programs how?

huh?

Do you think that there are a lot of flaming liberals getting GI benefits and help from the VA?

Or were you just responding before you could think the comment out?

It was tongue in cheek as I don't advocate the killing of anyone no matter how out of touch with reality they may be.  I do find it funny that you actually have to go to a government office to apply for food stamps, but 25% still don't think they are on the company dole.

wow.  you really don't get the point of the article.

The people who are most likely to be 'against' 'welfare' programs are often times the people who are actually receiving them.  It speaks to the stupidity of the people who consistently vote against their own interests.

Like members of the military who claim to be against 'socialized' medicine.  Unless of course its the Veteran's Association.

I totally got the point of the article simply by who posted it.   My comment was simply astonishment that anyone could think Food Stamps is not a social program.  I could see how someone would think the GI Bill was a benefit of military service instead of a social program, the same with the VA.  I think the only ones that are obvious on the list the last 4 and the pell grants.

Quote from: finehoe on June 06, 2012, 04:14:16 PM
We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

Hey, I'm a flat tax / consumption tax guy, I'd be fine with those deductions and credits disapearing.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 03:48:43 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 03:42:36 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 06, 2012, 03:02:02 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
actually bridge troll, military benefits and compensation is negotiated on an annual basis.  Surprised you didn't know that.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/About/mission.html

Lol... they are negotiated by the government, for the government.  There certainly is no "union".  There is however a very significant voting bloc of military, ex military and civilians who can and do have a good deal of influence because most of em vote regularly.  I dont recall the last strike by the military... do you?

hmm.  you don't remember the extraordinarily low recruitment numbers from the 90s?  When the armed services had to turn to privately employed mercs in order to get basic strategic goals accomplished and then dramatically raise the wages and benefits available?

And regardless of whether or not you suddenly see no difference in one kind of government function to another (which is the opposite of your argument, incidentally) military wage negotiators do negotiate on behalf of the employed men and women of the armed forces just as union representatives do for factory employees.

Yep... sure thing... same thing as a union rep... okey-dokey...lol...rofl...

You may have hit upon a great idea Steven!!  Why not let federal, state, and local governments negotiate ALL wages?  I mean... if its good enough for our boys in uniform... it should be good enough for everyone else.

Quote from: fsquid on June 06, 2012, 04:23:32 PM

Quote from: finehoe on June 06, 2012, 04:14:16 PM
We define what some people do as social leaching and what others do as normal, even though the effect is the same: taking money from the government to subsidize their actions.

For instance, many people couldn't afford their homes if they didn't get the mortgage interest deduction. As such, their home ownership is directly subsidized by the government at taxpayers' expense. Now, there may be good reason to have such a program, but there is no denying what it is: a transfer of money from some people to other people.

How is this different than food stamps, which are often railed against as free money to undeserving folk. Money is money. Whether it is given out to help you pay for a home or a poor mom feed her kids, it is money being taken out of some people's pockets and put into another's. If it is objectively wrong in any case, as many would argue, than we must universally consider it wrong in all cases.

Obviously, there is room for a gray area. One must not either be in favor of all social programs or opposed to all social programs. One can reasonably argue that some are justified while others are not. But most of the argument against social programs is wrapped in a "No one deserves to live off the government dime!" Which, as this study shows, is most often spouted off by the very people who are living off the government dime.

Hey, I'm a flat tax / consumption tax guy, I'd be fine with those deductions and credits disapearing.

Me too...  but the hidden part of the article... and a cast even it fails to make... is that living off the teat of the feds is so damn entrenched that those who think they are not... are.  Those who are... think they are not...

QuoteWhen political scientist Harold Lasswell, writing in the mid-1930s, defined politics as the decisions society makes about "who gets what, when, and how," he might as well have been describing the debate over taxes and spending in the United States today. But what happens when the focus of the political debate changes from who gets what to who loses what? This concept is unfamiliar to Americans, who have enjoyed more than 100 years of (mostly) uninterrupted economic growth.

Interesting (if lengthy) article:  http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-politics-of-loss

If some on this list are truly considered government social programs then call me ignorant.  In my dimwitted view a credit is a credit and a program is a program.

so next time I buy something on sale, I will call it a program and the next time I give to my church, I will call it a credit.
then I wont be so ignorant.

Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

The attitudes of people aren't new.  They are protecting what they consider theirs even when it's owned by other people. 

Take Florida for example.  Florida is a state that hates rail when compared to our northern neighbors.  Floridians love building large highways to drive their their big gas guzzling SUV's into their large gated community complex.  Green energy, electric cars?  Do you see any of those industries thriving here?  Do you see anyone here voting for candidates which support green technologies or transit systems?  Floridians loves gas and votes to keep it that way every time they can. 

So now, answer this question.  How much oil is pumped out of Florida's ground every day?  How much offshore drilling is done around Florida?  How many oil refineries are located in Florida? 

Quote from: stephendare on June 07, 2012, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: NotNow on June 07, 2012, 12:07:45 AM
Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

I guess the military is paid for by bake sales?

:o

Quote from: stephendare on June 07, 2012, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: NotNow on June 07, 2012, 12:07:45 AM
Your definition of "welfare" is, of course, completely wrong.  "Welfare",  "insurance", and "benefits" are all listed.  All are completely different.  To simply claim that "all come from the same pot" is disingenuous, at best.  Of course, I have seem the same posters argue that salary itself is government largess.  Perhaps these differences actually escape some folks understanding.

I guess the military is paid for by bake sales?

Defense of the nation is a clearly Constitutionally enumerated duty of government, but that goes without saying to most people.  There is a difference in the programs.  Most Americans were forced into the government "retirement insurance" program that we call Social Security.  Since the retirement portion of the "insurance" program requires contribution and a minimum length of participation, people feel some 'ownership" of their SS benefits, even though the USSC has ruled that the government can change or even eliminate the benefit at any time.  (As will happen sooner or later when the fund will no longer be capable of paying the current level of benefits.)  This is opposed to "welfare" such as food or housing assistance which simply require the need for such assistance.  The difference is apparent to most Americans.

By the way, Veterans programs are a benefit of service, since they require a minimum duration of service and most programs require a member participation or actual injury on duty for participation.  The VA website can provide more information if you would like to educate yourself on these programs.  As I have mentioned before, it is insulting to the men and women who have served this country and often risked their lives in that service to compare  that service to "welfare parasites".  You not only lack the honor and experience of such service, but also apparently the grace and courtesy to respect that others have done so.

Quote from: NotNow on June 07, 2012, 10:51:31 PM
Defense of the nation is a clearly Constitutionally enumerated duty of government

So is welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote from: NotNow on June 07, 2012, 10:51:31 PMBy the way, Veterans programs are a benefit of service, since they require a minimum duration of service and most programs require a member participation or actual injury on duty for participation.

Similar to unemployment benefits, which also require a minimum duration of service and member participation.

Quote from: NotNow on June 07, 2012, 10:51:31 PMit is insulting to the men and women who have served this country and often risked their lives in that service to compare  that service to "welfare parasites".

This is exactly the point of the article:  "My" government largess is okay; "yours" isn't.

With all due respect Finehoe, you are quoting the preamble to the Constitution, which carries no force of law.  Th "general welfare" clause that you are referring to is in Section 8: Powers of Congress.  I'm not going to cover the entire Madisonion v. Hamiltonian debate here, but suffice it to say that the "interpretation" of the general welfare clause that allows such programs is a result of the FDR Supreme Court.  It has resulted in the massive national shame that we call a Federal government today.  The same USG that has indebted our great, great , great grandchildren for life, and it is still not through.  The founding Fathers wrote a simple and clear document.  They then discussed it over and over in letters and public print.  Their intent  and their description of "enumerated powers is well documented.  "Charity" is discussed at great length.  I urge you to study up on this.  The ignorance of the American people and their elected representatives has directly resulted in our current debacle.

Unemployment benefits are indeed "benefits" for just those reasons!  They should  be a function of State government though.

My "point", and the point that you are missing is that there is a difference in the listed programs and they should notall  be referred to as "welfare".  Government is a necessary function and there will always be some "largess".  We should just ensure that it is given with forethought for the country and our laws and that that same "largess" be kept within the limits of income.

Quote from: NotNow on June 08, 2012, 10:58:22 AM
With all due respect Finehoe, you are quoting the preamble to the Constitution, which carries no force of law.  Th "general welfare" clause that you are referring to is in Section 8: Powers of Congress.  I'm not going to cover the entire Madisonion v. Hamiltonian debate here, but suffice it to say that the "interpretation" of the general welfare clause that allows such programs is a result of the FDR Supreme Court.  It has resulted in the massive national shame that we call a Federal government today.  The same USG that has indebted our great, great , great grandchildren for life, and it is still not through.  The founding Fathers wrote a simple and clear document.  They then discussed it over and over in letters and public print.  Their intent  and their description of "enumerated powers is well documented.  "Charity" is discussed at great length.  I urge you to study up on this.  The ignorance of the American people and their elected representatives has directly resulted in our current debacle.

And of course that indebtedness has nothing to do with the worldwide global military presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases) that I'm sure the founding fathers had in mind when they penned Section 8.

StephenDare!,

I'll explain what you should have learned in high school. 

The "preamble" to the Constitution is an introduction and as such it has not been used by the USSC in their interpretations.  The "general welfare" clause that we so often discuss here, the actual text, is in Section 8 of the Constitution.  The proper quote would have been:

Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I find these facts to be quite clear.  What exactly about this confuses you?

Seriously, I urge all here to become familiar with the U S Constitution.  Here is a web site:

http://www.usconstitution.net

Quote from: NotNow on June 08, 2012, 11:44:04 AM
Seriously, I urge all here to become familiar with the U S Constitution. 

Thank you.  I am already quite familiar with the document.

Might I suggest that you become familiar with the topic of constitutional law, the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government.

Here is a web site:  http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

Whatever you say FH..  :)

Quote from: NotNow on June 08, 2012, 01:00:59 PM
Whatever you say FH..  :)

What I'm saying is you seem to think that nothing in the Constitution is open to interpretation.  Two hundred years of constitutional law says differently.

Actually FH, the deluded expansion of the "general welfare" clause happened during the FDR Administration:

United StatesMain article: Taxing and Spending Clause
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[8]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[9]

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[10][11] It should be noted that the requisite threshold of nine states for ratification of the constitution had already been met by the time Virginia ratified[12], and eight states had already ratified before the specific paper in which Madison made this argument [13] was published in bound form [14][15]. Before this time, they had only been published irregularly outside of New York[16], which itself ratified after Virgina. While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders[17], they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[18][19][20][dubious â€" discuss]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[21] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[22]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[23]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[24] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[25] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[7] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause


It is obvious that the power grab that occurred in the 1930's has led to explosive growth of Federal power and size.  The current path is unsustainable.  While the Constitution must certainly be interpreted by the USSC, the original intent and meaning of the founding fathers has been ignored far too often by our politicians.


StephenDare!,

You are always quick to criticize with a sarcastic tone, yet your arguments contain no facts, no references, and carry no weight.  In this instance, your general denigration of my "knowledge" refers to nothing except your personal dissatisfaction with my thoughts and avoids the current subject.  Are you arguing that the preamble to the Constitution carries the force of law?  Are you arguing that the "general welfare" clause that the USSC used to expand the  role of the Federal government in the 1930's  is NOT in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?  These are the facts that were discussed and you inferred that I didn't know what I was talking about.  If you would debate with valid facts, or referenced judgements, then I could take you more seriously.  As of now, your posts pretty much could have been written by a dissatisfied  fourth grader.

My intent here was not to insult anyone, but simply to correct FH's use of the preamble in her quote. (A common error.)   Your insulting tone tends to make me answer in kind.  To answer an argument with simple name calling says everything about your knowledge of the subject.  The general welfare clause IS an important debate for today, and there are valid points to be made on both sides.  The tactic of denigrating the person rather than debating the point makes this forum useless for mature exchanges of ideas.

You are a legend in your own mind.  Your inability to ever admit error must be a difficult cross to bear in life.  You are mistaking insulting others with "sheer weight of facts".  Just like today, you will never admit an error and simply substitute a completely different argument.  It is a childish tactic.  To bring up the obviously flawed thinking  of the institution of slavery is just a desperate reach on your part for ANY validity in this discussion.  Intellectually dishonest, at best.  For a guy that likes to think of himself as the smartest guy in the room, your having a pretty bad day.

Really.

I love the word bunkum....there's a bunch of that in jax..

Try rereading my post.  I wrote a clear sentence.  Another flawed tactic is to redefine what others say.  It is not just improper, it is discourteous.  You need some new tricks, you have become quite boring.

Perhaps if you actually argued a point, rather than resort to such tactics.  Just a thought.

Quote from: stephendare on June 08, 2012, 06:06:50 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 08, 2012, 05:58:58 PM
You are a legend in your own mind.  Your inability to ever admit error must be a difficult cross to bear in life.  You are mistaking insulting others with "sheer weight of facts".  Just like today, you will never admit an error and simply substitute a completely different argument.  It is a childish tactic.  To bring up the obviously flawed thinking  of the institution of slavery is just a desperate reach on your part for ANY validity in this discussion.  Intellectually dishonest, at best.  For a guy that likes to think of himself as the smartest guy in the room, your having a pretty bad day.

Really.

Flawed? That's funny...do you think that if the founders knew that one day guns would run the streets like water and children would be using them to kill each other? i think they ban the whole damn idea of free weapons of mass distruction. Flawed...i thinks so
so there was flawed thinking in the Constitution?

zzzzzzzz....gee whiz, garden guy AND StephenDare!.   What a formidible duo. 

Let's try the questions on this thread first.  Are military benefits a form of "welfare" in your mind?  Oh, you already said that you believed that.  OK, does the preamble to the Constitution carry the force of law?  Is the general welfare clause actually found where I said it was, Article 1, Section 8?  Of course, we all know that all of what I said is fact, yet you will ignore it.  You are such a sad case.

As to your question, the Constitution did refer to slaves, a legal institution at that time.  And the founding fathers included a means of accounting for change and unforseen circumstance.  The amendment process worked in correcting the slavery issue.  Mr. Lincoln did not pack the Supreme Court and try to bend the language of the founding fathers, he followed the amendment process in the proper way.  Unlike the flawed ideas of you and your cohorts, who would simply ignore our founding documents and our shared history with the common liberal/progressive "groupthink" that you think you are not just smarter than everyone else in the country, but you think you are smarter than the founding fathers as well.

I strongly suggest a little humility, and a lot of reading.

Do you understand the difference between the amendment process and "interpreting" what you want out of the Constitution, even when the original writers were quite clear in their intent?  So, if you want to solve a Constitutional problem, like Mr. Lincoln did on the legal standing of slavery, then you should follow the system put in place by the great men who founded this country, like Mr. Lincoln did.   To do otherwise is a perversion of our system. 

This is where you start yelling that water boarding is torture...

As usual, your posts make no sense whatsoever. 

Your little game is so boring anyway.  Let me know if you ever have anything useful to add to a thread.

Your posts are gibberish.   Do you have a coherent question? 

Make it quick, I'm tiring of the childrens room.

It was your own stupid point.

You rambled on about how roosevelt 'seized' power to create the welfare state in responding to Finehoe pointing out to you that providing for the general welfare is literally written into the first paragraphs of the constitution, along with providing for defense.

I "rambled" that the "general welfare" phrase in the first paragraph (its called the preamble) is descriptive of the document itself, and had nothing to do with the point she was making.  I correctly pointed out what she was actually referring to.  I have explained this ad nauseum.  For a guy who at one time claimed a legal background you seem awfully ignorant of how statutory authority is derived.

I pointed out to you that the amount of time taken to deploy the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't really matter, and gave the example of the 87 years that passed before slavery was outlawed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Have I argued for some kind of time limit?

You then made statements about the flawed thinking of slavery and I pointed out that this would be in direct contradiction to your contention that the original framing of the constitution is infallible.

Ah, the gist of your argument...you think that you are pointing out that the founding fathers and/or the Constitution was "flawed" in some way.  I have never claimed that the founding fathers were "infallible", that is YOUR word.  I do claim that you don't hold a shadow to any of them intellectually.  I did point out that they were wise enough to recognize that America would change and that unforseen circumstances would arise and they spelled out the amendment process.  I pointed out that this was the process used by your own example Mr. Lincoln with the slavery issue.

You then tried to distance yourself from any statement that portrayed the constitution as flawed and a living document by claiming that you weren't saying that the clear constitutional language on the subject of slavery was 'flawed'.

Huh?  I said the institution of slavery was obviously flawed.  While it existed at the time in this country, the processes set forth in our Constitution by our founding fathers were used to do away with the three fifths language that you mention.  That is not "distancing", that is accurate representation of fact.

So, notnow.  Was the constitution flawed on its treatment of slavery, or was lincoln a traitorous usurper like your insinuations about the roosevelt era of government?

The Constitution was not flawed.  As originally written, it statutorily directed the authority of the Federal government and described those enumerated authorities.  When slavery was rightfully outlawed, the amendment process remedied that language as it was intended to do.  Mr. Lincoln followed the process.  "Traitorous usurper" is, once again, your words.  It is an unchallenged fact that the FDR court greatly expanded the power and size of government.  You yourself have stated that there is no limit to what the Federal government can do as have other Democrat politicians.  This is clearly not what the founding fathers intended as written plainly in the Constitution as well as their public and private communications during their lifetimes.


My points are correct and logical.  You, on the other hand, don't appear to know the difference between enumerated powers and derived powers. You have again pointed out that you do not understand how the Federal government derives its statutory authority.   Your desire to paint the men who founded this country as anything less than brilliant falls far short.  While I certainly don't claim any authority in Constitutional law or claim any superior intellect, I am perfectly able to recognize a brilliantly constructed document and recognize the abilities of those who contributed to it.  I am also quite capable of recognizing a bullshitter, and I have extensive experience with such persons.

(I'm not inferringit, I am  calling you a bullshitter.  Not liar, but bullshitter. There is a difference)[/b][/b]

We Are the 96 Percent
By SUZANNE METTLER and JOHN SIDES

WHEN Mitt Romney told the guests at a fund-raiser in Florida in May that America is divided between people who pay no income taxes and depend on government and pretty much everyone else, he missed the deeper truth. It is not just that most of the 47 percent Mr. Romney talked about do pay payroll taxes and that many of them have paid income taxes in the past. The reality he glossed over is that nearly all Americans have used government social policies at some point in their lives. The beneficiaries include the rich and the poor, Democrats and Republicans. Almost everyone is both a maker and a taker.

We have unique data from a 2008 national survey by the Cornell Survey Research Institute that asked Americans whether they had ever taken advantage of any of 21 social policies provided by the federal government, from student loans to Medicare. These policies do not include government activity that benefits everyone â€" national defense, the interstate highway system, food safety regulations â€" but only tangible benefits that accrue to specific households.

The survey asked about people’s policy usage throughout their lives, not just at a moment in time, and it included questions about social policies embedded in the tax code, which are usually overlooked.

What the data reveal is striking: nearly all Americans â€" 96 percent â€" have relied on the federal government to assist them. Young adults, who are not yet eligible for many policies, account for most of the remaining 4 percent.

On average, people reported that they had used five social policies at some point in their lives. An individual typically had received two direct social benefits in the form of checks, goods or services paid for by government, like Social Security or unemployment insurance. Most had also benefited from three policies in which government’s role was “submerged,” meaning that it was channeled through the tax code or private organizations, like the home mortgage-interest deduction and the tax-free status of the employer contribution to employees’ health insurance. The design of these policies camouflages the fact that they are social benefits, too, just like the direct benefits that help Americans pay for housing, health care, retirement and college.

The use of government social policies cuts across partisan divides. Some policies were used more often by members of one party or the other. Republicans were more likely to have used the G.I. Bill and Social Security retirement and survivors’ benefits, while more Democrats had taken advantage of Medicaid and unemployment insurance. Overall, 82 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans acknowledged receipt of at least one direct social benefit. More Republicans (92 percent) than Democrats (86 percent) had taken advantage of submerged policies. Once we take both types of policies into account, the seeming distinction between makers and takers vanishes: 97 percent of Republicans and 98 percent of Democrats report that they have used at least one government social policy.

The majority of individuals from households at every income level have used at least one direct social policy. Low-income people have used more of the direct policies than have the affluent: the average household with income under $10,000 per year used four of them, compared to only one by the households at $150,000 and above. But the proportions were reversed in the case of the submerged policies: wealthy families had typically used three of them, and the poor just one.

There were also few partisan differences in how long individuals had benefited. Among policies used by similar percentages of Democrats and Republicans, like the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit and tax credits for college tuition, members of both parties received the benefits for the same average amount of time. The same was true for policies that benefited one group of partisans more than the other. For example, although the mortgage-interest deduction was claimed by more Republicans and the earned-income tax credit by more Democrats, both claimed the benefits for two to five years on average. Similarly, Republicans who relied on the G.I. Bill did so for about as long as did Democrats who claimed unemployment insurance benefits.

Where Americans actually differ is in how they think about government’s role in their lives. A major driving factor here is ideology: conservatives were less likely than liberals to respond affirmatively when asked if they had ever used a “government social program,” even when both subsequently acknowledged using the same number of specific policies.

These ideological differences were on display at the party conventions. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey noted that his father, who “grew up in poverty,” had used the G.I. Bill to become the first in his family to graduate from college, it was in the context of a speech criticizing our “need to be coddled by big government.” By contrast, Michelle Obama credited student loans with making her and her husband’s college educations possible and then argued that “when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you.”

Throughout our lives, almost all of us help sustain government social policies through our tax dollars and, at some point, almost all of us directly benefit from these policies. Because ideology influences how we view our own and others’ use of government, Mr. Romney’s remarks may resonate with those who think of themselves as “producers” rather than “moochers” â€" to use Ayn Rand’s distinction. But this distinction fails to capture the way Americans really experience government. Instead of dividing us, our experiences as both makers and takers ought to bind us in a community of shared sacrifice and mutual support.

Suzanne Mettler is a professor of government at Cornell and John Sides is an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/we-are-the-96-percent/

IMO Obama should have left the 'welfare to work' like it was; That is honestly my only knit pick with the president. Now, if you want a laundry list of problems to deal with, get Romney is office; Wall street deregulation, the rich paying less taxes than the poor, a retroactive healthcare system, jobs going overseas, I can go on and on.

Actually, I think Obama just sent the power of welfare back to the states, which I'm fine with.

Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2012, 01:57:09 PM
IMO Obama should have left the 'welfare to work' like it was; That is honestly my only knit pick with the president. Now, if you want a laundry list of problems to deal with, get Romney is office; Wall street deregulation, the rich paying less taxes than the poor, a retroactive healthcare system, jobs going overseas, I can go on and on.

I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

Quote from: bill on September 27, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

So I guess that Romney would have went against the Constitution's freedom of speech, because of a bunch of thugs reacting to a movie, right? C'mon, you now better than that. Yeah, with Bush we certainly had a surplus, right? Get real. Like I said, the welfare under Obama is 'knit picking' compared to anything that Romney would do.

Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2012, 02:42:35 PM

Quote from: bill on September 27, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

So I guess that Romney would have went against the Constitution's freedom of speech, because of a bunch of thugs reacting to a movie, right?

That you even half believe this means you are a lost cause. Even the White House stopped telling that lie. 

^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

What he or any standing president would have DONE is acknowledge it for what it was, an obvious, planned act of terror. When you deal in reality it makes it easier to deal with problems.   

^^^He said that the murderers of the diplomats will be brought to justice, we shall see; Remember this is the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden, and many other terrorists, so that can't be taken lightly. I'm not trying to say that Obama is perfect, no president was, but what's most important, Obama will not be for the rich getting richer, and he will not screw that '47 percent' unlike your boy Mitt.

Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

Why, he would've given tax cuts to rich people, of course.  That's the Republican solution to EVERY problem.

^^^+100

Quote from: finehoe on September 27, 2012, 03:35:50 PM

Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

Why, he would've given tax cuts to rich people, of course.  That's the Republican solution to EVERY problem.

He should give free phones!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/screaming-obama-supporter-explain-why-we-need-to-re-elect-obama-he-gave-us-a-phone-he-gonna-do-more/

^^^Yes, stupid people abound all along the political spectrum:

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkfDfKsxqg70krN3Xq0i24NPlZQh77y61nDavK2fPOLJLnVPVP)

Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2012, 03:30:14 PM
^^^He said that the murderers of the diplomats will be brought to justice, we shall see; Remember this is the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden, and many other terrorists, so that can't be taken lightly. I'm not trying to say that Obama is perfect, no president was, but what's most important, Obama will not be for the rich getting richer, and he will not screw that '47 percent' unlike your boy Mitt.

bullshit, both sides are there to screw us over until someone gets a credible third party going.

Quote from: finehoe on September 27, 2012, 03:59:46 PM
^^^Yes, stupid people abound all along the political spectrum:

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkfDfKsxqg70krN3Xq0i24NPlZQh77y61nDavK2fPOLJLnVPVP)

I just want to know what kind of phone.  I'm not due for an upgrade for another year or so.

Quote from: fsquid on September 27, 2012, 04:25:04 PM
I just want to know what kind of phone.  I'm not due for an upgrade for another year or so.

Girl, I just got a Galaxy S III.  I love it!

Hoping my check from Soros arrives before Christmas.

I love you Ann.
              Mitt Romney

He said this chilling out on a beach in France.  Meanwhile other young men his age were dying in Viet Nam.  Here's the clicker, he, Mitt Romney protested in favor of the war.  It's fine if he is a Mormon and doesn't believe in going.  However,
what audacity to actually protest that others go.  This is the bottom of the barrel-you Mitt Romney maniacs.

QuoteWe Are the 96 Percent
By SUZANNE METTLER and JOHN SIDES

Back on topic with the blog post, let me make sure I understand this:

By law I'm required to hand over MY money to the government via payroll deductions because they don't trust me to plan for myself.

The money they took from me they put into an account and then mismanaged it to the point that that account is empty.

And they want to tell me that means I've taken government assistance?

Quote from: fsquid on September 28, 2012, 07:22:47 AM
The money they took from me they put into an account and then mismanaged it to the point that that account is empty.

Stop lying.  It's not "empty".

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I get a little welfare (175 a month in food stamps, nothing else) but I need it.  I was convicted of a felony 7 years ago and still ant get a good job.  I was 20 years old, now Im almost 28.  I went back to college, got 2 degrees (1 four year and 1 vocational degree).  Ive never been arrested since and have clearly learned my lesson.  Now, its been 7 years.  I wouldnt have to live off the government and I could just have my record erased.  It was a non-violent, non-drug and non-weapons related crime and I still pay for it everyday.  Unfortunately I dont qualify for a record-seal and my letters to Gov. Christ and Scott along with countless senators from Florida and congressmen from my home state of West Virginia have all gone unanswered.    I should be making 45,000 or more a year and wouldnt need any assistance, but becuase of how cheap and easy background checks are and how shallow people are, I am forced to work a minimum wage construction job.