User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 172

  1. #151
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Im tired of getting dragged into arguments about how greedy this or that group of people are and other such ad hominem attacks.
    It was you that started that mess though. "Tough shit this is America and ya'll have been excluded from cut backs too long!" This was the message I read from you when I jumped in. My entire point was to say that people on food stamps are not greedy, or spoiled.. and even if they are fraudulent, America should be at a stance where everyone is capable of eating no matter who they are, the time of day, or situation.

    I haven't heard one cogent argument explaining why the country is better of with the broken status quo than it would be with reform.
    I don't think one person feels like the current status is the way it should be. But I don't think *cutting* the program is helping it. This hurts not only the Americans that need the program, it affects the workers that are already under helped and back logged.. making the system slower, and it will end up allowing even more of the fraud Republicans seem so concerned about.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  2. #152
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    "Tough shit this is America and ya'll have been excluded from cut backs too long!"
    You have been.

    I don't think one person feels like the current status is the way it should be. But I don't think *cutting* the program is helping it. This hurts not only the Americans that need the program, it affects the workers that are already under helped and back logged.. making the system slower, and it will end up allowing even more of the fraud Republicans seem so concerned about.
    There is zero compromise on this issue from any of you.

    Regardless of the fairly solid evidence that the programs have grown beyond any reasonable measure.

    The only responses I've heard to my arguments lack any sort of statistical relevance, only emotional appeals.

    You start from a position that any less money for the program will forcibly starve people, like any reform will usher in wave after wave of starvation deaths.

    That didn't happen when we reformed the programs in 96 and things worked just fine (even better if your looking at the statistics of enrollees being lifted out of poverty, as the article above states). But now that Obama has killed the work requirements and grown the programs (aka grown the Democratic voter rolls) everyone here functions on the assumption that the world will end if there is any friggen reduction in funding.

    Recent history shows that we have no such calamity to worry about, and that things will run just fine.

    Your "someone please think of the poor" arguments are unconvincing.

    If the only people who should have to reform their favored programs to make the country run better are your political opponents, you have no understanding of what running a Democratic Republic (or compromise) means.

    Intuitively the think of the poor argument resonates with many on an emotional level. But thats all it is, and emotional argument, that doesn't address whether the poor might be better off if the programs ran more efficiently.

    This will be my last post on the subject, and maybe I'm expecting to much from those for whom this subject strikes close to home, but I expected a little more open mindedness.

  3. #153
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Im tired of getting dragged into arguments about how greedy this or that group of people are and other such ad hominem attacks.
    You were calling a large swath of people lazy and entitled, and in your own way essentially calling them greedy. Who are you to point fingers over this? It's only more ridiculous because you decided to pick the poorest people in society to be accused of greed.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I haven't heard one cogent argument explaining why the country is better of with the broken status quo than it would be with reform.
    You can call me radical and suggest that I want to keep the status quo at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You have been.



    There is zero compromise on this issue from any of you.

    Regardless of the fairly solid evidence that the programs have grown beyond any reasonable measure.

    The only responses I've heard to my arguments lack any sort of statistical relevance, only emotional appeals.
    So when I summarized how small the actual cost of the program was even with increases, that didn't qualify? Nor did any of what Seymour posted? You're talking past us. You're not adjusting to anything we're adding.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You start from a position that any less money for the program will forcibly starve people, like any reform will usher in wave after wave of starvation deaths.

    That didn't happen when we reformed the programs in 96 and things worked just fine (even better if your looking at the statistics of enrollees being lifted out of poverty, as the article above states). But now that Obama has killed the work requirements and grown the programs (aka grown the Democratic voter rolls) everyone here functions on the assumption that the world will end if there is any friggen reduction in funding.

    Recent history shows that we have no such calamity to worry about, and that things will run just fine.

    Your "someone please think of the poor" arguments are unconvincing.

    If the only people who should have to reform their favored programs to make the country run better are your political opponents, you have no understanding of what running a Democratic Republic (or compromise) means.
    The way you talk about compromise always makes it sound like you're the one who gets to decide exactly where the golden mean is.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Intuitively the think of the poor argument resonates with many on an emotional level. But thats all it is, and emotional argument, that doesn't address whether the poor might be better off if the programs ran more efficiently.

    This will be my last post on the subject, and maybe I'm expecting to much from those for whom this subject strikes close to home, but I expected a little more open mindedness.
    Ah, yes, too close to home for us. That is to say, very far from home for you. You didn't know much about this. You are both condescending and naive at the same time. You are unfamiliar with poverty but you're going to explain how it works to everyone who's experienced it.

    Well, do come back in the future and enlighten us with more of your insights about our lives after you've gotten to the bottom of the issue of proverty from the vantage point on your country club's golf green.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #154
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You were calling a large swath of people lazy and entitled, and in your own essentially calling them greedy. Who are you to point fingers over this? It's only more ridiculous because you decided to pick the poorest people in society to be accused of greed.
    And I will continue to call those who wont look for work, or work, or meet the barest minimum of work requirements lazy.

    Because that's what lazy is.

    I don't think they're greedy, if they were they might get out there and actually do something.

    You can call me radical and suggest that I want to keep the status quo at the same time.
    Yes. Just because someone can be described as on the far wing of their party does not mean that every single one of their positions is extreme.

    Just because Rand Paul has some views on foreign policy, civil rights, and drug laws you might agree with, would you call him centrist?

    So one I summarized how small the actual cost of the program was even with increases, that didn't qualify? Nor did any of waht Seymour posted? You're talking past us. You're not adjusting to anything we're adding.
    Well first and foremost, the fact that programs aren't as large as Healthcare or the Military has no bearing on whether or not the system is broken. In fact, the smaller a program is, the easier it is to reform or reduce.

    More importantly, I'm considering the welfare state generally as my article excerpt above does.

    Only when looking at food stamps alone, does the program seem small.

    So you can spout your snide self righteous garbage as much as you want, but ultimately we will have welfare reform again. It will probably be a little while, but the structural weakness of our welfare programs will necessitate reform eventually.

    Your only argument thus far has been that food stamps (by itself) is a (relatively) small program and thus we shouldn't worry about it.

    I'm also arguing for welfare reform generally in which I include food stamps.

    I sure hope this site is still up when reform eventually happens so I can enjoy the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments that will inevitably go on.

  5. #155
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    It's funny how after years of demonizing your opponents in the media, and on a more personal level, (hating on Republicans, the South, the successful, blue collar middle Americans etc..) that you're surprised that they are angry at you and may demonize you back.

    See you in 2014.

  6. #156
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    This article highlights some of the problems with implementing welfare-to-work, and even earlier social welfare programs. These will need to be addressed before any system can be effective.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #157
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This article highlights some of the problems with implementing welfare-to-work, and even earlier social welfare programs. These will need to be addressed before any system can be effective.
    If we think it’s important for low-income mothers to follow the policies we want them to follow, we have to do something to make them believe the people who are instituting those policies. Otherwise, at the very least, policies aren’t reaching their full potential.
    The benefits exist whether single mothers trust them or not.

    More to the point, the fixes to this specific problem could get rolled into welfare reform generally.

    If we saved money in other parts of the program we might be able to create a more comprehensive system of child care.

    Of all the classes of folks who warrant assistance, I think a majority of the voting public would agree that single moms are a key part of that group.

    Most importantly, single moms are a portion of enrollees. While they are important, I don't see how their distrust in the system warrants stopping reform on all fronts to deal with their issue first.

    The points raised in that article actually support the case for welfare reform. If there were fewer enrollees, the case workers would have more time to dedicate to each case, and more resources could be dedicated to each case even while overall spending has declined.

    The spending reductions can come from declining enrollment, and streamlining the bureaucracy not from reducing the benefits. Even those this would provide fewer public sector jobs to a key portion of the democratic constituency, it would be the right thing to do.

    The problem is that everyone of those jobs will be fought for tooth and nail by the public sector unions etc.

  8. #158
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And I will continue to call those who wont look for work, or work, or meet the barest minimum of work requirements lazy.

    Because that's what lazy is.

    I don't think they're greedy, if they were they might get out there and actually do something.
    I think the people who honestly qualify for that description make virtually no impact on the economy due to how few there are an how little they actually receive. So you can be doing only two things here. You're either making a mountain out of a mole hill, or you are using those trivial exceptions as an excuse to make welfare cuts that will impact people other than those who fit your description. I don't think you're intentionally doing either one of these as much as you don't see the difference and don't realize that you have to be doing one or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yes. Just because someone can be described as on the far wing of their party does not mean that every single one of their positions is extreme.

    Just because Rand Paul has some views on foreign policy, civil rights, and drug laws you might agree with, would you call him centrist?
    Given all the things I've proposed about welfare, I clearly don't want the status quo. It's just that all of my changes go in the opposite direction as yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Well first and foremost, the fact that programs aren't as large as Healthcare or the Military has no bearing on whether or not the system is broken. In fact, the smaller a program is, the easier it is to reform or reduce.
    What matters is how much it costs compared to how much we make. That is the bottom line. Following the bottom line, it's no big deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    More importantly, I'm considering the welfare state generally as my article excerpt above does.

    Only when looking at food stamps alone, does the program seem small.

    So you can spout your snide self righteous garbage as much as you want, but ultimately we will have welfare reform again. It will probably be a little while, but the structural weakness of our welfare programs will necessitate reform eventually.

    Your only argument thus far has been that food stamps (by itself) is a (relatively) small program and thus we shouldn't worry about it.

    I'm also arguing for welfare reform generally in which I include food stamps.

    I sure hope this site is still up when reform eventually happens so I can enjoy the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments that will inevitably go on.
    I've already covered this. I've already covered the broad welfare issue. I've explained many times in other threads, which I have reference here, that all of the projected deficit coming from welfare/entitlement spending is from growing medical care costs. That's it. And I've explained that between implementing a single payer system and a some means of centralized bargaining/price controlling, there'd be no projected deficit.

    Basically, we don't need dramatic cuts to anything. We don't even need to raise taxes to remove the projected deficit, so I concede I was wrong about that in the past. But even if we did need to make drastic cuts, going after food stamps would be strange because it's so small. When you need to make spending cuts, starting with the smallest expenses and working toward the biggest is a terrible way to go.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #159
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think the people who honestly qualify for that description make virtually no impact on the economy due to how few there are an how little they actually receive. So you can be doing only two things here. You're either making a mountain out of a mole hill, or you are using those trivial exceptions as an excuse to make welfare cuts that will impact people other than those who fit your description. I don't think you're intentionally doing either one of these as much as you don't see the difference and don't realize that you have to be doing one or the other.



    Given all the things I've proposed about welfare, I clearly don't want the status quo. It's just that all of my changes go in the opposite direction as yours.



    What matters is how much it costs compared to how much we make. That is the bottom line. Following the bottom line, it's no big deal.



    I've already covered this. I've already covered the broad welfare issue. I've explained many times in other threads, which I have reference here, that all of the projected deficit coming from welfare/entitlement spending is from growing medical care costs. That's it. And I've explained that between implementing a single payer system and a some means of centralized bargaining/price controlling, there'd be no projected deficit.

    Basically, we don't need dramatic cuts to anything. We don't even need to raise taxes to remove the projected deficit, so I concede I was wrong about that in the past. But even if we did need to make drastic cuts, going after food stamps would be strange because it's so small. When you need to make spending cuts, starting with the smallest expenses and working toward the biggest is a terrible way to go.
    So in effect you don't care that our welfare system doesn't work as well as it could, or even as well as it worked in the past when we still had work requirements.

    Well ok then.

    Luckily other people care about this much more than you do.

  10. #160
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So in effect you don't care that our welfare system doesn't work as well as it could, or even as well as it worked in the past when we still had work requirements.

    Well ok then.

    Luckily other people care about this much more than you do.
    I would like it to work better. It just won't be achieved with what you're suggesting. Like I said, your suggestion is either too small to matter or harms undeserving people.

    And are you including the health care stuff in welfare? Because universal coverage, free basic care, a single payer system, and price controls all sound like big reforms for an improvement to me, and you know I stand for those things.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. how to get super spicy food in Thai restaurants?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-25-2016, 06:22 AM
  2. How did you get the politics you did
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  3. More Americans Added to Food Stamps Than Find Jobs
    By Zarathustra in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
  4. USA States With High Unemployment Outsourcing Food Stamp Services
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 07:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO