Alan Grayson Fights for US!

[ben says]

isn't he the nut who said Republicans wanted people to die?

How would that make him a nut?

By saying,  or even repeating, something as obviously stupid as that.


Your website has fallen to the point of just publishing the fundraising letters of left wing nuts.  Kind of sad, really.

So why do you continue to visit and post here?

He's actually been saying the same thing since he first started posting 6 years ago.

Most people think the posters are ultra conservative.  I guess that little old Faye is just too much debate power for the right wingers.  It doesn't matter how many of them are calling her either an idiot, liar or socialist.... she is just more dynamic than the 30 of them.

+10000000

I find that most posters here range from moderate (most US "moderates" are actually "to the right" by most of the world's standards) to the "right"....nothing against them personally, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Faye is a breath of fresh air. Not only do I agree with most, if not all, of what she says, but she enunciates her point calmly and succinctly. You're right: she's dynamic.

[ben says]

I think, like so many people who have no real experience with either real poverty or government assistance that you have formed your opinion based on other people talking out of their asses rather than anything real or true.

I find that most people who disparage government programs have no idea how they work, why they are there, what real poverty is, etc etc. Sad sad sad.

[FayeforCure]

And please stop with this "they fight for us" bull shit.  The longer they can keep up the charade, the money and power they can extract from us. It's a game to them, they're winning, and we're losing.

Actually, Grayson is one of the few people in Congress or now trying to get back in, who does still believe in government by the people, for the people and of the people.......you know, the people power we always talk about. Why else do you think he was removed by the corporate elite?

Here was a very sensible four page bill he was promoting in Congress.........a bill that would have saved us all a lot of money, while providing heath care for all without a mandate:

Strong Florida leadership emerges in health care debate


Posted: March 14, 2010 - 1:09am

By FAYE ARMITAGE


With Florida's unemployment rate hitting 11.9 percent, a 35-year high matching the peak in the 1974-75 recession, many Floridians find themselves without health care coverage. Already more than one million Floridians have lost their jobs and have had no choice but to resort to very expensive COBRA plans. Yet just as it seems things couldn't get worse strong Florida leadership has emerged that could spell relief by making it more affordable and provide more choice for acquiring and keeping health care insurance.

Last week U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, who represents Florida's District 8, introduced a Medicare buy-in bill that would allow unemployed Floridians to inexpensively buy into the Medicare program. Grayson said, "Obviously, America wants and needs more competition in health coverage, and a public option offers that. But it's just as important that we offer people not just another choice, but another kind of choice. A lot of people don't want to be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies that will make money by denying them the care that they need to stay healthy, or to stay alive. We deserve to have a real alternative.

"What it does is it takes this enormously valuable public resource called the Medicare provider network and makes it available to all Americans," Grayson said on the House floor. The government "spends billions on putting together a provider network that benefits only 1/8 of the population.

"It's like saying 'only people 65 and over can use federal highways.' That is how important the network is and we have to open it to everybody."

The "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act," would give all citizens and permanent residents, under the age of 65, an opportunity to buy unsubsidized coverage in the Medicare program, that would reflect the true cost for their age group.

The simplicity of expanding, on an already successful program that both Republicans and Democrats love, is demonstrated by the fact that his bill is only four pages long. In 2008, more than 45 million Americans were covered under Medicare, including 38 million senior citizens and seven million people with disabilities.

Now what would be wrong with a bill that would increase competition, increase health care coverage and is not mandatory? No one would have to get rid of their old insurance coverage if that's what they preferred, but neither would anyone be forced to stay at a bad job to keep their health insurance, or pay ridiculous rate hikes every year, or risk losing their insurance coverage if they lost their job, or have their claims for treatment denied at the whim of an insurance company executive.

Meantime Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, just became the 41st senator to support a straight up or down vote on a public option in the Senate, which is particularly significant because the current Senate bill doesn't include a public option at all.

A middle-income family with individual coverage spends on average of 22 percent of household income on health care -- and some spend up to 50 percent. Yet a similar middle-income family with employer-based coverage spends only eight percent of their income on health care costs. As more and more families experience difficulties meeting day-to-day living expenses, health care savings that come from having the choice of a public option are increasingly important.

Most Americans would agree that if we can limit the pain of unemployment from also extending to our health care, and at no additional cost to the taxpayer (as in Grayson's bill), it's something we can and ought to do.

*

Faye Armitage, who lives in northwestern St. Johns County, is a health care advocate and a former Florida Congressional candidate.

http://staugustine.com/opinions/2010-03-14/guest-column-strong-florida-leadership-emerges-health-care-debate

[FayeforCure]

Thank you, Stephen Dare and Ben Says.

I'm really just an educator at heart........and I just really believe in what inspired all immigrants to come to America: an opportunity for a better life

The kind of upward mobility that has become harder and harder for most Americans to attain. And yes, government policies indeed DO play a very significant role in setting up the societal infrastructure that would allow a more equal opportunity to upward mobility.

Stephendare's family story is an excellent example of how important government programs are for helping people to help themselves. Thank you for sharing.

Hopelessness breeds crime and there are many other externalities ( economic term for indirect costs) associated with "taking away" opportunities for young Americans and their families.

The idea of Austerity on investment in human capital is anti-societal. It is not the America that was sooooo admired by the rest of the world, and it leads to a continued shrinking of the purchasing power of the American Middle-class, which was the primary driving force of our country's prosperity.

That is why I fight Republican ideology that favors the 1% over the 99%.

[NotNow]

isn't he the nut who said Republicans wanted people to die?

How would that make him a nut?

By saying,  or even repeating, something as obviously stupid as that.


Your website has fallen to the point of just publishing the fundraising letters of left wing nuts.  Kind of sad, really.

So why do you continue to visit and post here?

He's actually been saying the same thing since he first started posting 6 years ago.

Most people think the posters are ultra conservative.  I guess that little old Faye is just too much debate power for the right wingers.  It doesn't matter how many of them are calling her either an idiot, liar or socialist.... she is just more dynamic than the 30 of them.

+10000000

I find that most posters here range from moderate (most US "moderates" are actually "to the right" by most of the world's standards) to the "right"....nothing against them personally, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Faye is a breath of fresh air. Not only do I agree with most, if not all, of what she says, but she enunciates her point calmly and succinctly. You're right: she's dynamic.

Ben, I continue to post so that the thinking people who might come here at least see some semblance of reality and balance.  I have never called Faye an "idiot" or any other name.  I try to avoid the poisionous name calling used by StephenDare! and others here. 

And yes, I have been posting on this site since its inception, despite StephenDare!'s (and now your) protestations.  And a couple of sites before this one as well. 

In reality, most posters at this site are strong Democrats and solidly left wing in their politics.  I have found most of them to be friendly and positive in their exchanges with me.  I have found a few over the years that prefer to name call and take an argumentative stance.  That's fine with me as well since the truth has no political label.  What saddens me is when blunt, mindless political talking points are passed off as reasoned thinking.   I reserve the right to call it like I see it as well. 

Faye is certainly an industrious poster.  I often disagree with her politics and I solidly disagree with her vision of what the United States government should be doing. Your complete agreement with her views is fine with me.  All I expect of any of you is to factually back up your statements.

I believe that most people understand that all republicans are not heartless, unfeeling slaves to the dollar and that all democrats are not communist sympathizers just waiting to turn the country red.  In the real world, any real exchange of information and/or ideas requires more reliance on real debate and not slavish bumpersticker slogans.

[AKIRA]

I had the fortune to hear Stephen's story in person a long time ago (Fusion Cafe).  As Faye said, it is a an excellent one to show how government programs can help people.  It also shows the good that a positive religious upbringing (Pentecostal, I recall) can do (although such a thing can be "child abuse" to some folk). 

...but the reality is that the abuse of such programs is running amok, particularly EBT fraud.  The last working statics that I last heard from the Dept of Agriculture was 60% of EBT card transaction were believed to be probably fraudulent.  It's a difficult and costly thing to regulate and protect. 

My personal experience is troubling as well.  I spend a good amount of time in the HUD communities.  My observations are that EBT cards are way to often used as a currency rather than for food... especially for drug and alcohol debt.

By no means would I suggest canceling the programs en mass, but turning a blind eye to the problems only create more, worse problems.  There are people making good use of the opportunities, but there is also class of people being created that don't ever expect to get out of government programs.  There are now multiple generations of the same family staying in HUD, not moving on and up.  For that, I can't give you a percentage, but I can tell you that my eyes tell me its way too many and is likely to only multiple if unchecked.

[fsquid]

And for all the lip service liberals pay to not taking food out of babies' mouths and the like, the actual programs they establish seem in most cases to be at least as effective at keeping the poor trapped in poverty as at helping them. Keep them dumb, poor, and voting democrat.

A pox on both their houses.

hm.  sounds like you really don't know what you are talking about.

When my grandmothers husband died he left her with five of her own kids, seven younger brothers and sisters, a crippled mother and no income.  Our family lived in the Brentwood projects and would have starved to death without food stamps.

Even then, my great uncle vernon had to cull vegetables from the garbage thrown out by the local grocery store in order to provide food for the family.

When my grandmother (Li'l Mama) remarried a man from the Navy, they bought our home at the beaches with a VA loan and my grandfather became an electrician and then a water treatment expert with the GI Bill.

They made enough money to put all five kids through college with the help of Pell Grants and education subsidies.

My mother and her four siblings went on to become a Software and Networking Specialist (mom), a Doctor (uncle Melvin) an accountant (aunt Charlotte) an educator (aunt Diane), and a well to do jeweler (uncle Gene).

All of them did missionary work, built hospitals and schools in India, Trinidad, Tobago, Jamaica, West Germany, and Scotland.  Three of them achieved Doctoral degrees.

My mom was the last one to cross the finish line (she had me when she was 16) and after three kids and a few divorces she went back to school while she was living in the Beachwood projects with the help of the Pell Grant and three years of food stamps.  There was a lot of government peanut butter, rice, macaroni and cheese around her house during those days.

She retired from FSCJ after working her way up from a job program placed computer lab assistant up to the administration downtown as a microcomputer and networking specialist.

Of her children, one is the COO of a super premium vodka distillery in Alaska who will shortly be featured in a reality show, one is a vice president of a pretty large national bank, and the other is me.

My cousins are similarly situated, a couple of doctors, an attorney, my favorite cousin (Aunt Diane's daughter) Cassia is a PhD in microbiology, her brothers Joshua and Oshea have their degrees in theology, both of them are published authors and active musicians.  They stayed in the ministry.

Your post sounds like uninformed nonsense to me as I have never seen an example of what you are talking about, and I am related to a whole lot of poor people in addition to my father's more pedigreed background.

Even the women who lived in the Caravan Projects, where my mother stayed for a few months before she was savagely beaten in a general melee have gone on to better lives.  I run into them all over the place and their jobs and circumstances have improved over the years.

I think, like so many people who have no real experience with either real poverty or government assistance that you have formed your opinion based on other people talking out of their asses rather than anything real or true.

But your claim makes you sound more ignorant than the imaginary people that you are criticizing.

That's an outstanding story and I'm glad you shared it.  This is an example of why those programs were started in the first place.  Unfortunately, I feel this kind of a story is in the minority.

[NotNow]

I grew up in  a "dysfunctional" family as well.  We were what people here would consider "poor".  I never really thought about it that way then.  My Father went to work before daylight and came home well after dark every day except Sunday.  I worked either for food or (later) money since before I went to elementary school.   I was never hungry.  I didn't like wearing hand me down clothes from my brother but I didn't really know any better.  I took leftovers from supper to school for lunch for years and never thought anything of it.   We never took a dime of public  assistance.  The only government money that we received was a small VA disability (about $60 a month) for injuries my Dad received from enemy mortar fire.  My siblings and I grew up to be responsible adults as well.  Perhaps our differing childhood experiences have some bearing on StephenDare!'s and my different outlooks on politics. 

Like AKIRA, I have spent literally decades in different housing projects and poor neighborhoods.  Admittedly, I am called to the less desirable residents much more often. There ARE many good people who live in these neighborhoods (the projects..ehhh).   But I have to agree with AKIRA that fraud and abuse are at a level that should cause concern.  While we must continue to provide a basic safety net, we should also aggressively pursue criminal fraud and abuse of these social safety nets.  I think we can all agree that such criminal activity is especially heinous as it violates the public trust and places those that truly need charity in a bad light.

[AKIRA]

Ah, agreed Stephen... there is no shortage of bad behavior among the wealthy and privileged, but in this case that point falls short. 

If a family in Ponte Vedra wants to float the self destructive behavior of one of their family members, it is their right.  If a family in Avondale wants to enable bad choices or addictions within their family, ethically wrong but legal.  Those bad choices are singular problems, enable by singular entities.

If the government creates a system (albeit with the BEST intentions) that gives room for widespread fraud, then we are no longer dealing with single problems.  Those problems become systemic, affecting generations, going far beyond one household.

The government should not be entirely judged on its intentions to help, but rather more judged on its success in helping (the road to hell, and all that).

If I understand Stephen's story, the leading influence was the religious faith, in Notnow's it was the leadership of his father.  Without those, would the government's help been solely enough?

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, I hope that your nephew is OK. 

I didn't mean to sound "self righteous".  I was simply offering up my personal experiences, which were quite different than yours.  Not "better" or "worse", just simply different.  As a correction, we did not receive any government largess.  As I said earlier, a small disability payment for combat injuries was the only money received from the government.  As I have previously pointed out, benefits of service such as disability payment and the GI Bill are not welfare programs but are benefits for service.  As was any benefit I received for my military service.  Your description of military health care as "free" only illustrates your own ignorance of the subjects at hand.  Your lack of understanding of military service and the sacrifices required are well documented.  Suffice it to say that the benefits of service are "well earned".  While I don't claim to be an expert on poverty, I would reiterate that my personal childhood circumstances certainly don't make me "ignorant" of poverty and that those same circumstances indicate that not all families follow the paths that yours apparently did.  Your story is touching and I appreciate you sharing it with us, but it by no means proves in any way that social programs do not create dependency.  In fact, I would argue that Police Officers have a much more clear idea of what happens in federal, state, and city housing projects than most others.  Especially the children of those projects.  Policing has always been much, much more than just arresting people, and helping people in their personal struggles is a large part of the profession.  Again, your ignorance of the subject is forgivable as you have no experience in the profession.  But the truth is that Police Officers are often the first line of social service, as well as enforcers of law.

I will not address your ideas that "comfortable government financed occurpations"  are something that is equad to welfare, and that our children should strive to "leave them behind", as that is so asinine as to not deserve a response. 

To state that social welfare programs do not create dependency is simply fallacy.  By its very nature welfare creates dependency.  Any one who has any exposure to large numbers of people involved in public housing and the current welfare system knows that fact.  Only by including encouragement, education, and enforcement of rules and laws can such dependency and criminal fraud be kept at bay.  I would never argue that we do away with the safety nets of our society, but to ignore the problems or to pretend they don't exist makes one part of the problem, not part of the answer.

[AKIRA]

Stephen, I understand the point you are making by use of the examples of psychology's cruel evolution.  You are saying is a person's beliefs can be subtly prejudiced by their particular experience or extreme example as a test subject...?   

I will coincide that and entirely agree.  Truth is easily lost, even by those looking for it.  There are many shadows dancing on the back of the cave and they are pretty...  far more than the objects that cast them and more comforting than the sunlight behind them.

I will concede another point in that police do see people at their worse intentions.  Obviously, its why they are there.  Everybody is happier seeing them go than they are when they see them come, even the people who call.  Probably the only comparable profession is investigator for DCF.

No one is left unmarked by the steady sight of sadness.  People are sponges, their enviroment will affect/infect them.

But in this case, I don't believe I am being cynical, but realistic, as my observations are not limited to the bloody crime scene.  My observation are based on talking to people and watching their daily life...  Simply taking note of the system and watching.  Watching the big events and small moments.  Everyone in HUD has a story, and they ususally are happy to tell it.  I have far more freedom than most anyone you know to walk into ANY neighborhood or apt complex and just talk.  That is the benefit of being a kind of uniformed "nonperson".     

If my view of this issue is corrupted by seeing people at their worst, perhaps your view is altered unfairly by the pride you feel in your family's success?   

You expressed the statement: "Social welfare programs do not breed dependency".

I say "the malfunctions within social welfare programs do breed dependency when left unchecked".

Google "ebt fraud food stamps"....

A better job of it can be done - needs to be done, just like the psychologists of today are realizing with their profession... but first there has to be the acceptance that there are shortcomings to overcome. 

Can you admit their are problems that MUST be addressed in government assistance?

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, 

There are clearly alternatives to the "public assistance" lifestyle that you advocate.  When one utilizes existing facts and statistics, it is clear that fraud and generational dependency is a problem.  No individual story can change that fact.

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

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2109491?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56298832703


There are a number of studies and articles on the subject of "welfare dependence"  The federal government recognizes the problem.  A debate based on personal experience only wastes the time of those reading it.  The facts support the welfare dependency problem as clearly stated by both AKIRA and myself. 

As for the duties and experiences of Police Officers, since you have no education, training, or experience to base your statements on, I will give your opinions the amount of consideration that they deserve...zero.

[NotNow]

In fact, YOU should read the entire citation, instead of picking out a particular few sentences to make a fallacious argument.    If you were to be honest, and continue your quote the reader would see this paragraph which followed:

"From 1960 to 1975, both the percentage of families headed by single mothers and reliance on welfare payments increased. At the same time, research began indicating that the majority of people living below the poverty line experienced only short spells of poverty, casting doubt on the notion of an entrenched underclass.[8] For example, a worker who lost his job might be categorized as poor for a few months prior to re-entering full-time employment, and he or she would be much less likely to end up in a situation of long-term poverty than a single mother with little formal education, even if both were considered “poor” for statistical purposes. In 1983, researchers Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine the duration of spells of poverty (defined as continuous periods spent with income under the poverty line), looking specifically at entry and exit. They found that while three in five people who were just beginning a spell of poverty came out of it within three years, only one-quarter of people who had already been poor for three years were able to exit poverty within the next two.[9] The probability that a person will be able to exit poverty declines as the spell lengthens. A small but significant group of recipients remained on welfare for much longer, forming the bulk of poverty at any one point in time and requiring the most in government resources. At any one time, if a cross-sectional sample of poor people in the United States was taken, about 60% would be in a spell of poverty that would last at least eight years.[10] Interest thus arose in studying the determinants of long-term receipt of welfare. Bane & Ellwood found that only 37% of poor people in their sample became poor as a result of the head of household’s wages decreasing, and their average spell of poverty lasted less than four years. On the other hand, entry into poverty that was the result of a woman becoming head of household lasted on average for more than five years. Children born into poverty were particularly likely to remain poor.[11]"

Of course the entire citation supports my argument, but this quote clearly states that the problem is recognized by everyone except StephenDare!:

"In 2005, the Department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family’s income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSRI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996.[24] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general.[25]"

So once again, you have either done what you accused me of...not read the citation, or you have attempted to mislead the reader.  Which is it?

As for your equally false statement that my family received any "largesse" from any government, I would appreciate you employing the common courtesy and good sense to not editorialize my personal story.  Just as I would not do so with yours. 

[NotNow]

Yawn.  Attacking me does not change a single fact.  I cited just a few references of many.  The welfare dependency argument has been settled by fact, despite your protestations and personal attacks.

I would be interested in hearing what YOUR opinion is based on?

[AKIRA]

"So no, I don't think you understand poverty at all, AKIRA.  You grew up with my cousins, Eric and Chris.  Their father (also a painter) served in the Army.  Do you think he should have been left to starve in Brentwood in order to break some imaginary "cycle of dependency"?

Or do you think that our entire family in its many hundreds of people should be proud? Both for our society that made such a miracle possible and for our good sense to take the opportunity and leave systemic poverty behind in three generations?"




Stephen, my friend, you are putting words in my mouth and worse, dismissing my experiences as worthless... all to argue a point that you believe I am making.  My statement still stands uncontested; ""the malfunctions within social welfare programs do breed dependency when left unchecked". 

I'll add that I may or may not understand poverty... I wont bother to contest that since it is not the point.  I do have an understanding of the CURRENT state of the system, and it has problems.  Stories of what your family experienced many years ago are relevant here to a point, but fall short when illustrating today's problems. 

If you honestly ask me if the answer is to allow people to starve, then you assume me heartless.  I believe you really just mean to point out an absurd conclusion to humble me... or label me a cruel conservative bent on destroying the system.  I embrace a realistic view that there are systemic problems that should addressed and correct.  Burying your head in the sand to them is fruitless.  . 

You have pointed out some success, but maybe it would benefit your understanding to listen those who know of their failures?  How else can improvement come?  Are you happy with the current success rate?

If your comfortable with a family taking three generations to escape poverty, then I think the goal we are shooting for is too low.



Could you admit there are ANY problems at all with the system?  Or is the current state the best of all possible worlds? 


BTW, I don't know/remember any Eric or Chris growing up.  Are you saying I actually grew up with them or were we just contemporaries?