Rep Jesse Jackson Want Government to Hire all Unemployed People at $40K/YR

[red states rule]

Once again liberals show their knowledge of economics and their view on how the private sector works

Why anyone would take these people seriously is beyond me





Rep. Jesse Jackson (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/jesse-jackson.htm#r_src=ramp) Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/#) to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises.

In an interview with the Daily Caller on Wednesday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LEwP0UeMpo&feature=player_embedded#!), the Illinois Democrat applauded President Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) for directing his staff to greenlight job-creating initiatives without congressional approval after his $447 billion jobs bill was defeated in the Senate this week.

“Now we’re making some progress,” Jackson said, comparing the legislative (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/#) gridlock in Congress to the states that seceded from the union during the Civil War.

"We've seen Congress is in rebellion," he said, "determined to wreck or ruin at all costs."

Jackson said the government’s direct hiring of the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans would cost $600 billion.

“It could be a five-year program (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/#),” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”

“We put people to work cleaning up communities. We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it,” he said.

“And as more people work, they pay taxes, they pay taxes into the 4th quarter, they buy wares, they buy homes, they meet their obligations and our economy begins to work its way out of this protracted recession,” he continued. “That’s the only way out of this crisis. And I hope the president begins to continue to exercise (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/#) extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/#ixzz1b2Mhv3lJ

[Missileman]

Once again liberals show their knowledge of economics and their view on how the private sector works

Why anyone would take these people seriously is beyond me

Cleaning up communities? I've long maintained that should be required to receive unemployment and welfare benefits. I'd have to ask the Congressman what kind of idiot would suggest paying $20 an hour to walk around with a poker and a garbage bag?

[red states rule]

Cleaning up communities? I've long maintained that should be required to receive unemployment and welfare benefits. I'd have to ask the Congressman what kind of idiot would suggest paying $20 an hour to walk around with a poker and a garbage bag?

Not only the welfare people, but the inmates that are in jail as well

[Delenn]

He wouldn't be trying to distract attention away from the accusations currently being made, would he?:coffee:


Or trying to hook up with the 99%?

That said, http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/jackson-jr-government-becoming-less-relevant-in-americans-lives-a-tragedy-video/

You have people that are living in tent cities. American citizens that had jobs and do not now. So, at some point, folks, we do have to meet in the middle.

[fj1200]

He wouldn't be trying to distract attention away from the accusations currently being made, would he?:coffee:

Not sure to what you are referring.


Or trying to hook up with the 99%?

That said, http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/jackson-jr-government-becoming-less-relevant-in-americans-lives-a-tragedy-video/

You have people that are living in tent cities. American citizens that had jobs and do not now. So, at some point, folks, we do have to meet in the middle.

How would "meeting in the middle" make things better?

[Delenn]

Not sure to what you are referring.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/8074661-418/debbie-halvorson-challenges-jesse-jackson-jr-on-ethics-residency.html




How would "meeting in the middle" make things better?

Getting things done. Or, we can allow the media to continue to divide us for someone else's gain.

[Missileman]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/8074661-418/debbie-halvorson-challenges-jesse-jackson-jr-on-ethics-residency.html





Getting things done. Or, we can allow the media to continue to divide us for someone else's gain.

So you're all about quantity of legislation, not quality? Passing a bill with 5 things that are bad for the economy so you can get 5 things that are good for the economy is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but some things just can't be compromised on.

[ConHog]

Not sure to what you are referring.



How would "meeting in the middle" make things better?


Come on man, we do have to do SOMETHING to help those who are struggling. The real question is what exactly? For damn sure Jackson's plan aint the answer though. I mean seriously, what part of the government is out of money are these folks not understanding.

[Delenn]

So you're all about quantity of legislation, not quality? Passing a bill with 5 things that are bad for the economy so you can get 5 things that are good for the economy is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but some things just can't be compromised on.

No, actually, I am not.

I am all about not allowing the media to frame our questions and, therefore, our answers. It really is that simple.

[Missileman]

No, actually, I am not.

I am all about not allowing the media to frame our questions and, therefore, our answers. It really is that simple.

Please cite some examples of the media framing our Q&As making it impossible to get meaningful legislation passed.

[fj1200]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/8074661-418/debbie-halvorson-challenges-jesse-jackson-jr-on-ethics-residency.html

Hack is as hack does.


Getting things done. Or, we can allow the media to continue to divide us for someone else's gain.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just "getting things done" would be necessarily positive. You've also let media frame the Q&A that bipartisanship is the end goal. Good bipartisanship would be good but with the current White House occupant that will not be happening as his solutions are to keep trying what has already been shown to fail.

[Delenn]

Please cite some examples of the media framing our Q&As making it impossible to get meaningful legislation passed.

If you and I spend our time at each other's throats then we don't really pay attention to the legislation. If you spend all of your time focused on liberal=socialist=communist=democrat, then you aren't paying attention to anything else. Doesn't even cross your mind that I might be a registered Independent. Now, there are (last time I checked) less than 2,000 independent media sources in the US. This includes publications that are kicked out once a year. I have the 5th edition of this book http://benbagdikian.net/
And we want to pay attention to affiliates and subsidiaries. Most importantly we want to watch who sits on which board with whomever else. We also want to watch who funds what programs. The pretense of media competition?
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Meet ALEC and the impact on the states
http://www.npr.org/2010/10/29/130891396/shaping-state-laws-with-little-scrutiny

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-21/koch-exxon-mobil-among-corporations-helping-write-state-laws.html

Advertising for national level over health care:

http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php
Murdoch's involvement in education, I could go all day on education.
http://gothamschools.org/2011/07/27/when-the-story-is-education-rupert-murdoch-gets-involved/


Adertising for national level over bank regulation
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/bigbanks.cfm

^^^ that one pisses me off. Why? Because they went in and got what they wanted AND played it off as anti-Capitalism AND denounced it as screwing the smaller businesses. And in their literally taking the teeth out of nailing those responsible at the top they screwed the smaller businesses and local banks.


Faux privatization. This one is big. You have to follow the money very carefully with this. They aren't truly privatized. This does not mean that tax payers stop paying. The money is just shifted and you may actually pay more.And they can avoid paying taxes and cut corners.

[Delenn]

Hack is as hack does.



You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just "getting things done" would be necessarily positive. You've also let media frame the Q&A that bipartisanship is the end goal. Good bipartisanship would be good but with the current White House occupant that will not be happening as his solutions are to keep trying what has already been shown to fail.


You seem to be looking for an argument that isn't even close to what I am talking about.

[fj1200]

You seem to be looking for an argument that isn't even close to what I am talking about.

I'm just looking for the logic to your rationale that "working together" and "getting things done" will lead to a positive outcome.

[Delenn]

I'm just looking for the logic to your rationale that "working together" and "getting things done" will lead to a positive outcome.

We have both parties, that we know some members have been bought and paid for, we are then left with two choices. The first choice is to allow the debates and outcomes to be decided by those who stand the most to benefit-Do nothing. Or we can not allow the media and rhetoric to stand in the way.

The ball is in your court and in mine.

[fj1200]

We have both parties, that we know some members have been bought and paid for, we are then left with two choices. The first choice is to allow the debates and outcomes to be decided by those who stand the most to benefit-Do nothing. Or we can not allow the media and rhetoric to stand in the way.

The ball is in your court and in mine.

You've said nothing. When you allow the growth of the central government to intervene more and more into our daily lives then you give elected, and unelected, officials power that they can then sell. Remove the power, remove the money.

[Delenn]

You've said nothing. When you allow the growth of the central government to intervene more and more into our daily lives then you give elected, and unelected, officials power that they can then sell. Remove the power, remove the money.

Wen did I do that, again?

[Missileman]

If you and I spend our time at each other's throats then we don't really pay attention to the legislation. If you spend all of your time focused on liberal=socialist=communist=democrat, then you aren't paying attention to anything else. Doesn't even cross your mind that I might be a registered Independent. Now, there are (last time I checked) less than 2,000 independent media sources in the US. This includes publications that are kicked out once a year. I have the 5th edition of this book http://benbagdikian.net/
And we want to pay attention to affiliates and subsidiaries. Most importantly we want to watch who sits on which board with whomever else. We also want to watch who funds what programs. The pretense of media competition?
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Meet ALEC and the impact on the states
http://www.npr.org/2010/10/29/130891396/shaping-state-laws-with-little-scrutiny

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-21/koch-exxon-mobil-among-corporations-helping-write-state-laws.html

Advertising for national level over health care:

http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php
Murdoch's involvement in education, I could go all day on education.
http://gothamschools.org/2011/07/27/when-the-story-is-education-rupert-murdoch-gets-involved/


Adertising for national level over bank regulation
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/bigbanks.cfm

^^^ that one pisses me off. Why? Because they went in and got what they wanted AND played it off as anti-Capitalism AND denounced it as screwing the smaller businesses. And in their literally taking the teeth out of nailing those responsible at the top they screwed the smaller businesses and local banks.


Faux privatization. This one is big. You have to follow the money very carefully with this. They aren't truly privatized. This does not mean that tax payers stop paying. The money is just shifted and you may actually pay more.And they can avoid paying taxes and cut corners.

Where are the examples of "wrong" Q&As put forth by the media? Your links seem predicated on the influence of money in DC, not media spin.

[Delenn]

Where are the examples of "wrong" Q&As put forth by the media? Your links seem predicated on the influence of money in DC, not media spin.

Missileman, can you tell me what is wrong with the public education system?

[ConHog]

Missileman, can you tell me what is wrong with the public education system?


Answer: Teacher's unions.

[Delenn]

Answer: Teacher's unions.

How so? And is that all?

*********I'm not abandoning the topic. I am leaving and I will not be back till Friday.

[fj1200]

Wen did I do that, again?

Did you miss the post I quoted?

[avatar4321]

It's seriously sad that we have members of Congress who are this detached from reality.

[red states rule]

It's seriously sad that we have members of Congress who are this detached from reality.

Nor ever read the US Constitution

I am surprised he did not say these unemployed people could be used to go door to ddor across America to "register" and "educate" voters for the 2012 election

[Delenn]

You've said nothing. When you allow the growth of the central government to intervene more and more into our daily lives then you give elected, and unelected, officials power that they can then sell. Remove the power, remove the money.

No. You have said nothing. This line here
When you allow the growth of the central government to intervene more and more into our daily lives does not tell me anything. Unless, you are telling me that you are involved in the secessionist movement, play the faux "state rights" game, or are an anarchist.

[Delenn]

Answer: Teacher's unions.

I ask again, if you are up for it. This is an old thread by now and I understand if you have lost interest. Why do you say that the unions are the problem?

[fj1200]

No. You have said nothing. This line here does not tell me anything. Unless, you are telling me that you are involved in the secessionist movement, play the faux "state rights" game, or are an anarchist.

Well that was ignorant. There is a place for government and it should play by limited rules. Because once there are no rules there is no limit to its encroachment.

[Delenn]

Well that was ignorant. There is a place for government and it should play by limited rules. Because once there are no rules there is no limit to its encroachment.

Pbbbttt. Do you have anything more than rhetoric?

[fj1200]

Pbbbttt. Do you have anything more than rhetoric?

No more than you I suppose. Besides my basic premise is that people can take care of themselves when given the chance, your basic premise is that they are incompetent and must be looked after like children.

[Delenn]

No more than you I suppose. Besides my basic premise is that people can take care of themselves when given the chance, your basic premise is that they are incompetent and must be looked after like children.

No it is not. Where did you pull that from? Couldn't devise an appropriate argument and to refer back to those arguments that you were comfortable with?

[fj1200]

No it is not. Where did you pull that from? Couldn't devise an appropriate argument and to refer back to those arguments that you were comfortable with?

Your position is that people can't buy diapers, I'm just wondering where it stops.

[Delenn]

Your position is that people can't buy diapers, I'm just wondering where it stops.


My position is that by providing diapers to/through a facility they have managed to avoid many issues.
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that there is a daycare that will receive x amount of money for diapers that are provided while Baby K is in the facility so that Mom can work.

The daycare is open from 6AM-6PM. Mom works 4PM-12AM. There are no other daycare's available in the area. Does this help the mother that needs diapers? Only the mother that works 6AM-6PM.
The most unreliable people to watch your children are family members. These are the people that will get in there for x amount of time and bail. It is why we have teen mothers that drop out of school if there is no daycare with the school.

Did we solve anything? We did not. This is why I find your position funny.

[Missileman]

My position is that by providing diapers to/through a facility they have managed to avoid many issues.
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that there is a daycare that will receive x amount of money for diapers that are provided while Baby K is in the facility so that Mom can work.

The daycare is open from 6AM-6PM. Mom works 4PM-12AM. There are no other daycare's available in the area. Does this help the mother that needs diapers? Only the mother that works 6AM-6PM.
The most unreliable people to watch your children are family members. These are the people that will get in there for x amount of time and bail. It is why we have teen mothers that drop out of school if there is no daycare with the school.

Did we solve anything? We did not. This is why I find your position funny.

Many more issues can be avoided if we provide these mothers with a new house, new car, $100K a year salary...where exactly do you want to draw the line?

[Delenn]

Many more issues can be avoided if we provide these mothers with a new house, new car, $100K a year salary...where exactly do you want to draw the line?


It depends on the needs. There are many more issues that what you have listed will not fix. There are different populations of people. The mother that needs affordable daycare and diapers at 29 is not going to be in the same situation as the Honor Roll student in high school that is pregnant with child number 2 and is faced with dropping out of high school because there is no daycare available AND has been awarded a full scholarship to a four year university located a short distance from where she lives. Those needs are different from the mother that just dropped of a baby at the Dad's house so that she could go play around with drugs. Those needs are vastly different than the mother that is mentally retarded and has 8 kids and will never work in anything more than a McDonalds type job. Those needs are also different than the schizophrenic mother with 8 kids that won't take her medication and has substance abuse issues. Those needs are going to be different than the grandparents that are sacked with mom's kids because getting high or mental illness or prison have entered the picture.

Then there are those that are just drug addicts. Remember all of those people that were in an uproar over the program sterilization for cash? Great program.

There needs to be a recognition that there are many people that just need to get from point A to point B. There are other populations that will not be able to function in society well or at all. So, the name of the game is to recognize the needs of those populations.

[Missileman]

It depends on the needs. There are many more issues that what you have listed will not fix. There are different populations of people. The mother that needs affordable daycare and diapers at 29 is not going to be in the same situation as the Honor Roll student in high school that is pregnant with child number 2 and is faced with dropping out of high school because there is no daycare available AND has been awarded a full scholarship to a four year university located a short distance from where she lives. Those needs are different from the mother that just dropped of a baby at the Dad's house so that she could go play around with drugs. Those needs are vastly different than the mother that is mentally retarded and has 8 kids and will never work in anything more than a McDonalds type job. Those needs are also different than the schizophrenic mother with 8 kids that won't take her medication and has substance abuse issues. Those needs are going to be different than the grandparents that are sacked with mom's kids because getting high or mental illness or prison have entered the picture.

Then there are those that are just drug addicts. Remember all of those people that were in an uproar over the program sterilization for cash? Great program.

There needs to be a recognition that there are many people that just need to get from point A to point B. There are other populations that will not be able to function in society well or at all. So, the name of the game is to recognize the needs of those populations.

Those are all functions of local charities, not government. It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.

[Delenn]

Those are all functions of local charities, not government. It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.

No. My tax dollars go to charities so that they can pick and choose. So, no. I don't think so. Further, it is a function of the government.

[Missileman]

No. My tax dollars go to charities so that they can pick and choose. So, no. I don't think so. Further, it is a function of the government.

Quote exactly which clause of the constitution that says government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

[ConHog]

Those are all functions of local charities, not government. It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.

Of course it is not, BUT all of the tax money that our government wastes I am not going to begrudge some people being helped get back on their feet. Now THAT is the point being made, let's identify those who need help and can benefit from that help and help them. No lifetime welfare mommas or any of that garbage though.

[Delenn]

Quote exactly which clause of the constitution that says government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

I have 3. General Welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause.
Now, should we have to? In a perfect world, no. Unfortunately, the world is not a nice place.

[Missileman]

Of course it is not, BUT all of the tax money that our government wastes I am not going to begrudge some people being helped get back on their feet. Now THAT is the point being made, let's identify those who need help and can benefit from that help and help them. No lifetime welfare mommas or any of that garbage though.

The point being made is that there are politicians who aren't stopping at a hand up (which I have no problem with) and keep piling more and more "entitlements" onto an already bloated and abused system. They'll throw diapers on the pile this month, and because mom needs a dependable means of getting the rugrats back and forth from the daycare with the free diapers, we'll need to provide her with a car next month.

[Missileman]

I have 3. General Welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause.
Now, should we have to? In a perfect world, no. Unfortunately, the world is not a nice place.

Quote the exact phrases of those clauses that say the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

[Delenn]

The point being made is that there are politicians who aren't stopping at a hand up (which I have no problem with) and keep piling more and more "entitlements" onto an already bloated and abused system. They'll throw diapers on the pile this month, and because mom needs a dependable means of getting the rugrats back and forth from the daycare with the free diapers, we'll need to provide her with a car next month.


Are you sure that this is not a case of throwing the dog a bone?

[Delenn]

Quote the exact phrases of those clauses that say the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

I just gave you the information. Look it up. Thus far, I am the one that is doing all the work while you sit back and pick and choose which portions of the argument that you wish to acknowledge.

[ConHog]

The point being made is that there are politicians who aren't stopping at a hand up (which I have no problem with) and keep piling more and more "entitlements" onto an already bloated and abused system. They'll throw diapers on the pile this month, and because mom needs a dependable means of getting the rugrats back and forth from the daycare with the free diapers, we'll need to provide her with a car next month.

Oh, I agree with you fully. The subject of this thread is a prime example of going way beyond a helping hand.

[ConHog]

I just gave you the information. Look it up. Thus far, I am the one that is doing all the work while you sit back and pick and choose which portions of the argument that you wish to acknowledge.



general welfare of the nation =/= "entitlement" programs. Good grief , that's just a non starter of an argument.

[Delenn]

general welfare of the nation =/= "entitlement" programs. Good grief , that's just a non starter of an argument.

It isn't willy nilly so the Supreme Court has held.

[Missileman]

I just gave you the information. Look it up. Thus far, I am the one that is doing all the work while you sit back and pick and choose which portions of the argument that you wish to acknowledge.

It's your claim, you substantiate it. I maintain there's nothing in those clauses that says the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

[ConHog]

It isn't willy nilly so the Supreme Court has held.

cite the case where they have said that.

[Delenn]

It's your claim, you substantiate it. I maintain there's nothing in those clauses that says the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

Start Here:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

[Delenn]

cite the case where they have said that.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/case.html

[Missileman]

Start Here:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

As I said before, not a word that says the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.

[ConHog]

Start Here:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

Unless I simply overlooked it, "entitlements" are mentioned in neither of your links.

[Delenn]

As I said before, not a word that says the government is responsible to provide everyone's needs.


Actually, did you not say that this was the work of charities? We have x services that can be provided by the government. The power is found in the constitution. Can it be for just anything? No. It cannot. I have stated before that the Federal government is limited.

[Missileman]

Actually, did you not say that this was the work of charities? We have x services that can be provided by the government. The power is found in the constitution. Can it be for just anything? No. It cannot. I have stated before that the Federal government is limited.

Changing your tune? Are you now conceding that the government's role does NOT include providing everyone's needs?

[Delenn]

Unless I simply overlooked it, "entitlements" are mentioned in neither of your links.

It does not need to say "entitlements". Just because you wish to call them "entitlements" does not decrease the authority.

The number one question on the table in front of Congress at any given day for any given law is thus: Do you have the power? Where do you get the power from? 50% of what is on the table in Congress will not get passed because they lack authority. Thus far the Supreme Court has held that while the power has limitations it can be applied.

[ConHog]

It does not need to say "entitlements". Just because you wish to call them "entitlements" does not decrease the authority.

The number one question on the table in front of Congress at any given day for any given law is thus: Do you have the power? Where do you get the power from? 50% of what is on the table in Congress will not get passed because they lack authority. Thus far the Supreme Court has held that while the power has limitations it can be applied.

No actually, that is the point. SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of welfare. PERIOD. Congress can pass any law they like and it is in fact law UNLESS someone challenges it through the court system and it is ruled unconstitutional. The burden to remain within the constitution is NOT on Congress, and therefor you are wrong. They don't pass bills based on whether they are constitutional or not.

[Delenn]

Those are all functions of local charities, not government. It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.


Changing your tune? Are you now conceding that the government's role does NOT include providing everyone's needs?

Changing yours?

[ConHog]

Changing yours?


I don't wish to speak for Missileman, but I believe his stance is the same as mine on this issue.

The government does NOT have the constitutional authority to provide welfare assistance to folks, BUT I am okay with them doing so on a limited basis anyway.

[Missileman]

Changing yours?

Are you serious?


It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.


the government's role does NOT include providing everyone's needs

Please point to the contradiction...I'm sure it's right there beside what you claim is in the constitution.

[Delenn]

No actually, that is the point. SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of welfare. PERIOD. Congress can pass any law they like and it is in fact law UNLESS someone challenges it through the court system and it is ruled unconstitutional. The burden to remain within the constitution is NOT on Congress, and therefor you are wrong. They don't pass bills based on whether they are constitutional or not.



It originated in Title IV of the Social Security Act of 1935. Don't like it? PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Don't have the $160 (?): IN FORMA PAUPERIS

You have the power. But do not tell me that Congress is at leisure to pass whatever they want to. They absolutely cannot. AND if you think that they have exceeded their power than you take it to the courts. BUT in order for you to win, you must show where they have exceeded their authority.

[Delenn]

Are you serious?





Please point to the contradiction...I'm sure it's right there beside what you claim is in the constitution.


The part where you said that what I stated belonged to charities?

SRSLY?

[ConHog]

It originated in Title IV of the Social Security Act of 1935. Don't like it? PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. Don't have the $160 (?): IN FORMA PAUPERIS

You have the power. But do not tell me that Congress is at leisure to pass whatever they want to. They absolutely cannot. AND if you think that they have exceeded their power than you take it to the courts. BUT in order for you to win, you must show where they have exceeded their authority.


If I cared enough and thought I could win a case, I certainly would sue. But let's be realistic constitutional or not at THIS point no court is going to reverse welfare. That doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority to do so, at THIS point they have implied authority because those who foot the bill have allowed it to go on for nigh on 50 years now.

Oh and Congress IS at leisure to pass whatever they have the numbers to pass. If they only passed constitutional laws why there would be no need for the courts to review laws at all now would there?

[fj1200]

My position is that by providing diapers...

You just validated the position that I set for you. Now, where does it stop? Baby formula? Baby wipes? Government funded daycare? Where is YOUR limit for the Federal government?

[ConHog]

You just validated the position that I set for you. Now, where does it stop? Baby formula? Baby wipes? Government funded daycare? Where is YOUR limit for the Federal government?


How would you feel about getting rid of cash subsidies and instead going to a system where recipients were given X amount of Y instead? I would prefer it myself. We shouldn't be giving any cash to anyone.

[Delenn]

If I cared enough and thought I could win a case, I certainly would sue. But let's be realistic constitutional or not at THIS point no court is going to reverse welfare. That doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority to do so, at THIS point they have implied authority because those who foot the bill have allowed it to go on for nigh on 50 years now.

Oh and Congress IS at leisure to pass whatever they have the numbers to pass. If they only passed constitutional laws why there would be no need for the courts to review laws at all now would there?


Hence, the constitution. You either have a case or you do not. You cannot just say that it is unconstitutional, you have to prove it. No, they cannot get all of that passed. This is where what the politicians run on what they can actually do becomes a problem. Or they present issues simplistically and then wreak havoc. This is why "we the people" are always feeling jacked. When they run on election we have to take everything that they say and go over it with a fine tooth comb. They get in there and 50% of what is on the table is unconstitutional from the get go.


And honestly, if you have a case then this would be the court to petition. Hell, I'm pretty sure that had it been presented with the Rehnquist Court it would have been successful. He was a literalist, but only when it suited him.

All of that aside, I still feel the same way. We either identify the issue, solve the issue, and/or recognize that there are those that will need care through out their life and take care of business. What I am not down with is pretending that some programs solve the issues when they clearly do not thus rendering a pat on the back.

[Delenn]

You just validated the position that I set for you. Now, where does it stop? Baby formula? Baby wipes? Government funded daycare? Where is YOUR limit for the Federal government?

I have already laid out the argument. You will need to reread it.

[ConHog]

I have already laid out the argument. You will need to reread it.

He asked you a simple question in both threads that you have refused to answer. Where do YOU draw the line, and say "no the government can't provide that?"

[Delenn]

He asked you a simple question in both threads that you have refused to answer. Where do YOU draw the line, and say "no the government can't provide that?"

I gave an answer. It depends on the population and what is necessary follows. It really is that simple.Do you have a right to a $100,000 a year salary? No. Do you have a right to luxury furniture? No. If you have children and have no beds or a simple table and chairs, can we, do we and should we help out? Yes.

Do you have a right to a brand new car? No. From point A to point B if needed and recognition of those that will need lifetime care. I maintain that stance. I work with these different populations. It isn't as simplistic as you would have it.

[Missileman]

The part where you said that what I stated belonged to charities?

SRSLY?

So? What does that have to do with it NOT being a function of government?

[Delenn]

So? What does that have to do with it NOT being a function of government?

Try again.

[Missileman]

Do you have a right to a $100,000 a year salary? No.

Do you have a right to a $100 a year salary? $1,000? $10,000?

[Missileman]

Try again.

If I wanted to read dishonest arguments, I'd take PMP off ignore.

Function of charities and function of government are 2 totally different things.

[Delenn]

Do you have a right to a $100 a year salary? $1,000? $10,000?

You have a right to a minimum wage when you work. We have moved beyond a feudal society. Why?

[Missileman]

You have a right to a minimum wage when you work. We have moved beyond a feudal society. Why?

Try again!

[Delenn]

Try again!

Wrong answer.

Guess what? We don't do child-labor anymore either. :laugh:

[Missileman]

Wrong answer.

Guess what? We don't do child-labor anymore either. :laugh:

Guess what else? Your answer about minimum wage hasn't a damned thing to do with the question I asked you...neither does child-labor laws.

[Delenn]

Guess what else? Your answer about minimum wage hasn't a damned thing to do with the question I asked you...neither does child-labor laws.

Then make a legitimate argument.

[LuvRPgrl]

I gave an answer. It depends on the population and what is necessary follows. It really is that simple.Do you have a right to a $100,000 a year salary? No. Do you have a right to luxury furniture? No. If you have children and have no beds or a simple table and chairs, can we, do we and should we help out? Yes.

Do you have a right to a brand new car? No. From point A to point B if needed and recognition of those that will need lifetime care. I maintain that stance. I work with these different populations. It isn't as simplistic as you would have it.

If you dont have a bed, a simple table or chairs, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HAVING KIDS??

BALIFF, wack his pp.

[Delenn]

If you dont have a bed, a simple table or chairs, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HAVING KIDS??

BALIFF, wack his pp.

I agree. If everyone did what I thought they should do then this wouldn't be an issue.

[Missileman]

Then make a legitimate argument.

They're all legit. Now, how about you answer my question?

[Delenn]

They're all legit. Now, how about you answer my question?

State your case, Missileman. If you have an argument to make then make it.

[Missileman]

State your case, Missileman. If you have an argument to make then make it.

Oh well...another dishonest piece of shit goes on the ignore list. I did try.

[Delenn]

I'm crushed.

[ConHog]

You have a right to a minimum wage when you work. We have moved beyond a feudal society. Why?



No, actually you do NOT have a right to a minimum wage, nor a job even. What you DO have is a law that says if you work, you must be paid at least a minimum wage. That is NOT a right though. IE if the government tomorrow said no more minimum wage you're options would be zero.

Some of you people are ridiculous. Try reading the COTUS and understanding what is and what is NOT a guaranteed right before prancing in here and making statements that make you look foolish.

[ConHog]

Oh well...another dishonest piece of shit goes on the ignore list. I did try.



Don't put him on ignore yet Missile, I'm fixing to kick his little ass all over the forum, you don't want to miss his feeble attempts to defend his positions. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

I agree. If everyone did what I thought they should do then this wouldn't be an issue.

So your position is that the government should be there to rescue every American from the consequences of their own bad decisions? The government can't even handle dealing with the consequences of THEIR bad decisions.

[Delenn]

Don't put him on ignore yet Missile, I'm fixing to kick his little ass all over the forum, you don't want to miss his feeble attempts to defend his positions. :laugh2:

I am a she. Bring it.

[Delenn]

No, actually you do NOT have a right to a minimum wage, nor a job even. What you DO have is a law that says if you work, you must be paid at least a minimum wage. That is NOT a right though. IE if the government tomorrow said no more minimum wage you're options would be zero.

Some of you people are ridiculous. Try reading the COTUS and understanding what is and what is NOT a guaranteed right before prancing in here and making statements that make you look foolish.

Yes, we have a law that states that minimum wage will be paid. You also have a limit on the hours that you have to work and you have breaks and days off. We call these workers rights.

[ConHog]

Yes, we have a law that states that minimum wage will be paid. You also have a limit on the hours that you have to work and you have breaks and days off. We call these workers rights.


They aren't rights that are guaranteed to NEVER be violated by the government, and our founding fathers NEVER intended for the government to get involved with such. If they had wanted it to be so, a labor board written into the COTUS would have been a simple matter. So to would a constitutional amendment.

Once again. The government COULD do away with all labor laws and there wouldn't be damned thing illegal with it.

[Delenn]

They aren't rights that are guaranteed to NEVER be violated by the government, and our founding fathers NEVER intended for the government to get involved with such. If they had wanted it to be so, a labor board written into the COTUS would have been a simple matter. So to would a constitutional amendment.

Once again. The government COULD do away with all labor laws and there wouldn't be damned thing illegal with it.

The government made it clear with In Re Deb that they had every intention of getting involved, especially, when it landed on the side of corporatists.

Newsflash: Only a portion of the Bill of Rights actually pertains to you and I as individuals. That came with a process called incorporation. Take out the 14th and you could lose those too.

[ConHog]

The government made it clear with In Re Deb that they had every intention of getting involved, especially, when it landed on the side of corporatists.

Newsflash: Only a portion of the Bill of Rights actually pertains to you and I as individuals. That came with a process called incorporation. Take out the 14th and you could lose those too.



What you just said is complete and utter rubbish and had nothing to do with the argument you made then ran from when I pointed out your stupidity.

If you would like to also be corrected on what you think incorporation of the constitutional amendments means then by all means go start a thread about it and I will educate you on that topic as well; but for now let's stick with your stupid claim that you have a right to minimum wage. You have no such right and in fact until 1938 there wasn't even a federal law addressing the issue. You have legal protection, but legal protection that could be taken away at any time. And that legal protection certainly doesn't extend to "$20/hr for 40 hours a week no matter what you do for a living, or if you even have a job or not."

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree. If everyone did what I thought they should do then this wouldn't be an issue.

which doesnt address or answer the question in any way, shape or form.

[Delenn]

What you just said is complete and utter rubbish and had nothing to do with the argument you made then ran from when I pointed out your stupidity.

If you would like to also be corrected on what you think incorporation of the constitutional amendments means then by all means go start a thread about it and I will educate you on that topic as well; but for now let's stick with your stupid claim that you have a right to minimum wage. You have no such right and in fact until 1938 there wasn't even a federal law addressing the issue. You have legal protection, but legal protection that could be taken away at any time. And that legal protection certainly doesn't extend to "$20/hr for 40 hours a week no matter what you do for a living, or if you even have a job or not."


We have laws that protect workers rights. The only stupidity at play is yours. The government began involvement through In Re Deb. Fact. It is the Pullman case. And it was welcomed at that point because it just so happened to side with the corporations but not by all parties. Fact. The courts decided at that time that they were willing to act as mediators. Initially through injunctions. Fact.

It isn't about it extending to 40 hours a week nor up to $20 an hour. Fact. You may not pay less than minimum wage. Fact. I don't care how you feel about it. Until you alter it, it exists. Fact. You don't have to like it but there it is.

Now, do not take from one thread post it on another and then turn around and tell me to start another thread. That is a hot load of douchebaggery.

Here is your little hand out for incorporation.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

Can it get more complicated? For some reason, I don't think you are all together ready to tangle with it if you seemingly cannot handle the above.

[Delenn]

which doesnt address or answer the question in any way, shape or form.

You didn't have one. You had an opinion and one that you and I both know the answer to.

[ConHog]

We have laws that protect workers rights. The only stupidity at play is yours. The government began involvement through In Re Deb. Fact. It is the Pullman case. And it was welcomed at that point because it just so happened to side with the corporations but not by all parties. Fact. The courts decided at that time that they were willing to act as mediators. Initially through injunctions. Fact.

It isn't about it extending to 40 hours a week nor up to $20 an hour. Fact. You may not pay less than minimum wage. Fact. I don't care how you feel about it. Until you alter it, it exists. Fact. You don't have to like it but there it is.

Now, do not take from one thread post it on another and then turn around and tell me to start another thread. That is a hot load of douchebaggery.

Here is your little hand out for incorporation.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

Can it get more complicated? For some reason, I don't think you are all together ready to tangle with it if you seemingly cannot handle the above.



None of your facts equal a right. THAT is a fact. The ONLY rights that you are guaranteed will never be encroached on our enumerated in the Constitution. There is another fact. Here is another one, not every case that the SCOTUS rules on gives a person a right.

Are you to actually debate and or learn anything, or just to get your ass kicked by intellectual superiors?

[Delenn]

None of your facts equal a right. THAT is a fact. The ONLY rights that you are guaranteed will never be encroached on our enumerated in the Constitution. There is another fact. Here is another one, not every case that the SCOTUS rules on gives a person a right.

Are you to actually debate and or learn anything, or just to get your ass kicked by intellectual superiors?

Workers rights are not the same as the rights that have been incorporated. FFS, get with the program. I don't find you intellectually superior. I think you are desperately looking for an argument.

[ConHog]

Workers rights are not the same as the rights that have been incorporated. FFS, get with the program. I don't find you intellectually superior. I think you are desperately looking for an argument.



No you're the one looking for a fight. A simple "you're right, I used the wrong word in saying we have a right to _________" would have ended the debate.

And I can guarantee that I am your superior in every way, including intellectually.



And I'm modest to.:lol:

[Delenn]

No you're the one looking for a fight. A simple "you're right, I used the wrong word in saying we have a right to _________" would have ended the debate.

And I can guarantee that I am your superior in every way, including intellectually.



And I'm modest to.:lol:

You are a nitwit. That's pretty much the whole of it.

[ConHog]

You are a nitwit. That's pretty much the whole of it.



Wait a minute here

you yell " I have rights dammit"

and I say "that is not a right"

and I'm correct in that it is not a right, and you call ME a nitwit? Good Lord that is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[Delenn]

Wait a minute here

you yell " I have rights dammit"

and I say "that is not a right"

and I'm correct in that it is not a right, and you call ME a nitwit? Good Lord that is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Quit your crying.

[ConHog]

Quit your crying.



I'm sorry. Thinking about how completely stupid and illogical some of you left wing tards are just reduces me to tears.

[Delenn]

I'm sorry. Thinking about how completely stupid and illogical some of you left wing tards are just reduces me to tears.

Again, is that all that you have? When you have a legit argument, let me know.

[ConHog]

Again, is that all that you have? When you have a legit argument, let me know.

Look you dumb bitch. YOu claimed you have a right you clearly don't have. When I pointed that out you just dropped the issue and tried to change the subject. You were and are wrong. You do NOT have a right to minimum wage PERIOD.

[Delenn]

Look you dumb bitch. YOu claimed you have a right you clearly don't have. When I pointed that out you just dropped the issue and tried to change the subject. You were and are wrong. You do NOT have a right to minimum wage PERIOD.

Until you change the law, you sure as hell do. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Until you change the law, you sure as hell do. :laugh:



If it were a right, the law couldn't be changed to take it away you goddamned idiot. Example. Congress can't pass a law taking away our right to free speech.


Damn you're stupid.

[Delenn]

If it were a right, the law couldn't be changed to take it away you goddamned idiot. Example. Congress can't pass a law taking away our right to free speech.


Damn you're stupid.

They are called workers rights, ConHog. Get over yourself.

[ConHog]

They are called workers rights, ConHog. Get over yourself.


You can call them whatever the fuck you want. Doesn't make them rights that are protected from government abuse.

Damn you're dumb.

[Delenn]

You can call them whatever the fuck you want. Doesn't make them rights that are protected from government abuse.

Damn you're dumb.

Put your crack pipe down. They protect the people from "corporatist" abuse. Sometimes, Con, the law actually works for the people.

[ConHog]

Put your crack pipe down. They protect the people from "corporatist" abuse. Sometimes, Con, the law actually works for the people.

And laws are NOT rights. DUH.

[Kathianne]

And laws are NOT rights. DUH.Something to keep in mind regarding TSA, yeah.

[LuvRPgrl]

You didn't have one. You had an opinion and one that you and I both know the answer to.r

wrong, wrong and wrong. But I will repeat it for the learning disabled, why have kids if you cant affford basics for them?

[fj1200]

I have already laid out the argument. You will need to reread it.

I don't need to, my summary is valid.


I gave an answer. It depends on the population and what is necessary follows. It really is that simple.

So you keep validating that you have no limit.


You have a right to a minimum wage when you work. We have moved beyond a feudal society. Why?

Once you determine that you have a right to my property there really is no stopping point is there?

[Delenn]

r

wrong, wrong and wrong. But I will repeat it for the learning disabled, why have kids if you cant affford basics for them?

Wrong answer, Cornflake. I do not know if I can slow this down for you anymore than I already have, but I will try. I agree with you, I have already stated so, but you cannot control what other people do. Therefore, should have/would have/could have questions really do not get the job done.

[Delenn]

I don't need to, my summary is valid.



So you keep validating that you have no limit.



Once you determine that you have a right to my property there really is no stopping point is there?

No, I am watching the direction that these agencies are taking and where the money is being allocated. Because I am in contact with various agencies it isn't quite as simplistic.

Once you have determined that you have a right to coerce, intimidate, and remove any and all safety regulations, hire undocumented workers then there really is nothing to stop you from out and out slavery. There really is no stopping point for you, is there?

[LuvRPgrl]

Wrong answer, Cornflake. I do not know if I can slow this down for you anymore than I already have, but I will try. I agree with you, I have already stated so, but you cannot control what other people do. Therefore, should have/would have/could have questions really do not get the job done.

cornflake, ouch, that really hurts..

I sense hostility and anger in you.

and, doughboy, you hadnt answered thge question, unless you consider that sarcastic remark an answer, which it wasnt.


If the govt guarantees to take care of her, then it will be an incentive for others to do it also, which you have already admitted isnt a good thing

[ConHog]

Wrong answer, Cornflake. I do not know if I can slow this down for you anymore than I already have, but I will try. I agree with you, I have already stated so, but you cannot control what other people do. Therefore, should have/would have/could have questions really do not get the job done.

No you certainly can not, but you can control how society responds to how they act. Why should someone who is stupid enough to have multiple children they can ill afford to have be rewarded with a portion of OUR money for their bad decisions?

I'll give a small example. My brother is 35 he just got married to his 30 year old wife. He makes $75K a year and she makes $40 a year. They have been together for 10 years and have no children. They are now trying to start a family. They waited until they were in a position to be able to afford the kids they want. Why should someone who is making $12K (if that) at age 25 with 3 kids by 2 different men be entitled to ANY tax money to help pay for her bad decisions?

Do you understand that people KNOW that they can just go to Uncle Sam if they need help and so they just don't even care if they get pregnant when they can't afford it, because why the taxpayer will give them money.

I wonder how much money a poor mother of 3 can get a month in welfare by the time you consider every welfare available out there. Enough to make it preferable to getting a job, and that is sad.

[Delenn]

cornflake, ouch, that really hurts..

I sense hostility and anger in you.

and, doughboy, you hadnt answered thge question, unless you consider that sarcastic remark an answer, which it wasnt.


If the govt guarantees to take care of her, then it will be an incentive for others to do it also, which you have already admitted isnt a good thing

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html

[ConHog]

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html

Is that link supposed to be some sort of refute of the truth of what LuvPRgrl wrote?

I wonder if you ever have any original thoughts or just puke up whatever you've read on liberal websites?

[Kathianne]

Is that link supposed to be some sort of refute of the truth of what LuvPRgrl wrote?

I wonder if you ever have any original thoughts or just puke up whatever you've read on liberal websites?

OMG, I followed the links to Banneker Center for Economic Justice. What a strange place. Like middle schoolers ramped that site.

[ConHog]

OMG, I followed the links to Banneker Center for Economic Justice. What a strange place. Like middle schoolers ramped that site.



rarely do I open links posted by lunatics. I'd be scared to follow Delenne around on the internet too much.

[red states rule]

He wouldn't be trying to distract attention away from the accusations currently being made, would he?:coffee:


Or trying to hook up with the 99%?

That said, http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/jackson-jr-government-becoming-less-relevant-in-americans-lives-a-tragedy-video/

You have people that are living in tent cities. American citizens that had jobs and do not now. So, at some point, folks, we do have to meet in the middle.

Given the policies of Obama and the Dems I am surprised more people are not living in tents. Things will change for the better when either Obama stops looking at the private sector as the enemy or when he is fired in November 2012

Why should any company hire given the massive increased cost of doing business this administration has imposed on business? I would sit and wait for for the next electon as well

[fj1200]

Once you have determined that you have a right to coerce, intimidate, and remove any and all safety regulations, hire undocumented workers then there really is nothing to stop you from out and out slavery. There really is no stopping point for you, is there?

Wow, you have zero understanding of the markets then. Because the stopping point is the bottom what you, I, and others would for. And your presumptions of "coerce, intimidate, removing all safety reg.s, and undocumented workers is ignorant blither. Slavery? The topper. :rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.htmlstill waiting...

[fj1200]

Wow, you have zero understanding of the markets then. Because the stopping point is the bottom what you, I, and others would for. And your presumptions of "coerce, intimidate, removing all safety reg.s, and undocumented workers is ignorant blither. Slavery? The topper. :rolleyes:

What a horribly worded post on my part, accept my apologies.


Once you have determined that you have a right to coerce, intimidate, and remove any and all safety regulations, hire undocumented workers then there really is nothing to stop you from out and out slavery. There really is no stopping point for you, is there?

Could you please tell me where I have claimed that right? And by what justification that you claim slavery is the end result of my position that we are all entitled to life, liberty, property?

My stopping point is freedom; you still haven't clarified your stopping point.

[LuvRPgrl]

What a horribly worded post on my part, accept my apologies.


.

:laugh::laugh2::laugh::laugh2::laugh::laugh2:

you had me scratching my head !

[fj1200]

:laugh::laugh2::laugh::laugh2::laugh::laugh2:

you had me scratching my head !

An unfortunate result of my hurry-up-posting. :embarrassed:

[logroller]

No, I am watching the direction that these agencies are taking and where the money is being allocated. Because I am in contact with various agencies it isn't quite as simplistic.

Once you have determined that you have a right to coerce, intimidate, and remove any and all safety regulations, hire undocumented workers then there really is nothing to stop you from out and out slavery. There really is no stopping point for you, is there?

Wait, so FJ1200 is the one with the power to coerce, intimidate and remove (or implement more) regulations, regarding safety or otherwise?!?


Hmmmm...


(Hey fj, my 9 yr-old daughter is being a pain in my ass. I'd thought that, (providing shelter, food, medicine and protection to my daughter), I had authority to assign chores, give instructions as to what my expectations are, but clearly my daughter thinks otherwise; and that pesky parental responsibility/her individual human rights are clearly getting in my way. I heard you have the right to coerce, intimidate and remove safety regulations, and was hoping you could remove those laws that would make it illegal for me to lock her in cage, beat her until she obeys, or just kick her out. Thanks:thumb:)

[LuvRPgrl]

Wait, so FJ1200 is the one with the power to coerce, intimidate and remove (or implement more) regulations, regarding safety or otherwise?!?


Hmmmm...


(Hey fj, my 9 yr-old daughter is being a pain in my ass. I'd thought that, (providing shelter, food, medicine and protection to my daughter), I had authority to assign chores, give instructions as to what my expectations are, but clearly my daughter thinks otherwise; and that pesky parental responsibility/her individual human rights are clearly getting in my way. I heard you have the right to coerce, intimidate and remove safety regulations, and was hoping you could remove those laws that would make it illegal for me to lock her in cage, beat her until she obeys, or just kick her out. Thanks:thumb:)

Yea, Im wit ya bro.....well, I was until I read this
Wow, you have zero understanding of the markets then. Because the stopping point is the bottom what you, I, and others would for. And your presumptions of "coerce, intimidate, removing all safety reg.s, and undocumented workers is ignorant blither. Slavery? The topper. :rolleyes:

then I threw my 2 yr old back in the car and burnt rubber in reverse. :) :) :)

[Delenn]

What a horribly worded post on my part, accept my apologies.



Could you please tell me where I have claimed that right? And by what justification that you claim slavery is the end result of my position that we are all entitled to life, liberty, property?

My stopping point is freedom; you still haven't clarified your stopping point.

My apologies fj, this is where I got off track:

Originally Posted by Delenn
You have a right to a minimum wage when you work. We have moved beyond a feudal society. Why?
Once you determine that you have a right to my property there really is no stopping point is there?

that=minimum wage

So, give me a sec to read back through this stuff.

[logroller]

Yea, Im wit ya bro.....well, I was until I read this
Wow, you have zero understanding of the markets then. Because the stopping point is the bottom what you, I, and others would for. And your presumptions of "coerce, intimidate, removing all safety reg.s, and undocumented workers is ignorant blither. Slavery? The topper. :rolleyes:

then I threw my 2 yr old back in the car and burnt rubber in reverse. :) :) :)

I know it doesn't make any sense, but you just have to have faith-- the man knows what's best for us.

http://www.jocaonstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/stop_asking_questions.jpg

If it wasn't such a bother, i'd make this my avatar. maybe Fj can coerce someone to do it for me.

[fj1200]

Wait, so FJ1200 is the one with the power to coerce, intimidate and remove (or implement more) regulations, regarding safety or otherwise?!?

Hmmmm...

(Hey fj, my 9 yr-old...

According to some I am the one with the POWA!!! My (almost) 9 year-old son may disagree to some extent however.


then I threw my 2 yr old back in the car and burnt rubber in reverse. :) :) :)

You're testing my benevolence.


I know it doesn't make any sense, but you just have to have faith-- the man knows what's best for us.

http://www.jocaonstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/stop_asking_questions.jpg

If it wasn't such a bother, i'd make this my avatar. maybe Fj can coerce someone to do it for me.

My coercion does have limits here at DP (we shan't go into the specifics). But I like the pic, I shall use it.


So, give me a sec to read back through this stuff.

I will allow this.

[Delenn]

Ok, I just pulled your argument out for my own benefit, so if I am not hearing what you intended then I do not have to go through all of that again.


You've said nothing. When you allow the growth of the central government to intervene more and more into our daily lives then you give elected, and unelected, officials power that they can then sell. Remove the power, remove the money.


Well that was ignorant. There is a place for government and it should play by limited rules. Because once there are no rules there is no limit to its encroachment.


No more than you I suppose. Besides my basic premise is that people can take care of themselves when given the chance, your basic premise is that they are incompetent and must be looked after like children.


Your position is that people can't buy diapers, I'm just wondering where it stops.


You just validated the position that I set for you. Now, where does it stop? Baby formula? Baby wipes? Government funded daycare? Where is YOUR limit for the Federal government?


I don't need to, my summary is valid.



So you keep validating that you have no limit.



Once you determine that you have a right to my property there really is no stopping point is there?

This is what I am reading from you. You want me to draw a line on the "cradle to grave" theory that indicates a stopping point. That would be great, if our total population consisted of all people having the same mental and physical capacity. They do not. That isn't treating people as if they are incompetent. That is recognizing that you have specific populations that will never be able to function in society. For these populations you may be looking at cradle to grave. For those individuals they may receive care provided by the parents as long as the parents are alive and/or the child is controllable.

As it stands now, you have a population of mentally ill (cannot function in society=stable job/housing) that live on the streets, receive SSI, refuse to take their meds and then blow the money on drugs to self medicate, and wind up in jail or prison AFTER they have broken the law and are a danger to themselves or others. Sometimes, they can get deranged enough to wind up in a psych ward until they are medicated (cured) and then released back on the street. Why are they on the street? Because it would be INTRUSIVE to force them to do all of those and because privatized or faux privatization can find no profit in lifetime care.

You seem to have no problem encroaching on *my* property. I pay for SSI, I may pay for the loss of life or property, from the arrest to the sentence including any mental/health care while in custody, and/or the time and medication for the 1-3 day stay in the psych ward and I may repeat this through out the life of this one individual. I PAY more this way, and you can't track it, than I would have had the decision been made: psychotic breaks or schizophrenia AND refusal to take medication AND a danger to yourself and others? Lost your chance, have some housing and medication in this lovely environment over here. Life long care. We do not have to go backward but we sure cannot keep on where we are at. Note intellectual disabilities will also fall into this category BUT many of these can live on their own with a little help. They may be stuck in little fast food places and never get out.


Now, people have a "natural right" to breed. I wish they didn't but they do.To state otherwise (and the US has in the past) would be INTRUSIVE. For those that need it: basic necessities. Housing, food, health care (mental health care) and public education. Now, if the only thing that is holding you back from becoming a part of the working population that is contributing to society--then have some daycare until you can not need it. All things being equal and there are jobs to be had and or businesses waiting to be opened and each and every individual is able and willing--it is point A to point B and you must qualify.

[fj1200]

Ok, I just pulled your argument out for my own benefit, so if I am not hearing what you intended then I do not have to go through all of that again.

This is what I am reading from you. You want me to draw a line on the "cradle to grave" theory that indicates a stopping point. That would be great, if our total population consisted of all people having the same mental and physical capacity. They do not. That isn't treating people as if they are incompetent. That is recognizing that you have specific populations that will never be able to function in society. For these populations you may be looking at cradle to grave. For those individuals they may receive care provided by the parents as long as the parents are alive and/or the child is controllable.

As it stands now, you have a population of mentally ill (cannot function in society=stable job/housing) that live on the streets, receive SSI, refuse to take their meds and then blow the money on drugs to self medicate, and wind up in jail or prison AFTER they have broken the law and are a danger to themselves or others. Sometimes, they can get deranged enough to wind up in a psych ward until they are medicated (cured) and then released back on the street. Why are they on the street? Because it would be INTRUSIVE to force them to do all of those and because privatized or faux privatization can find no profit in lifetime care.

Why are you jumping to groups of people that are unable to "function in society" and away from apparently able bodied individuals who are employed enough to be using daycare for their children? Those are two completely separate groups of people.


You seem to have no problem encroaching on *my* property. I pay for SSI, I may pay for the loss of life or property, from the arrest to the sentence including any mental/health care while in custody, and/or the time and medication for the 1-3 day stay in the psych ward and I may repeat this through out the life of this one individual. I PAY more this way, and you can't track it, than I would have had the decision been made: psychotic breaks or schizophrenia AND refusal to take medication AND a danger to yourself and others? Lost your chance, have some housing and medication in this lovely environment over here. Life long care. We do not have to go backward but we sure cannot keep on where we are at. Note intellectual disabilities will also fall into this category BUT many of these can live on their own with a little help. They may be stuck in little fast food places and never get out.

How am I encroaching on *your* property?


Now, people have a "natural right" to breed. I wish they didn't but they do.To state otherwise (and the US has in the past) would be INTRUSIVE. For those that need it: basic necessities. Housing, food, health care (mental health care) and public education. Now, if the only thing that is holding you back from becoming a part of the working population that is contributing to society--then have some daycare until you can not need it. All things being equal and there are jobs to be had and or businesses waiting to be opened and each and every individual is able and willing--it is point A to point B and you must qualify.

I don't hear a stopping point from you for able bodied individuals. Sure it would be nice to offer a help up if that's where it would stop but the tendency is to keep granting more assistance to the point that you have just "enslaved" a group of population who have no ability nor tendency to better themselves. See, slavery is not the end game of my position, it is of yours however.

[ConHog]

Why are you jumping to groups of people that are unable to "function in society" and away from apparently able bodied individuals who are employed enough to be using daycare for their children? Those are two completely separate groups of people.



How am I encroaching on *your* property?



I don't hear a stopping point from you for able bodied individuals. Sure it would be nice to offer a help up if that's where it would stop but the tendency is to keep granting more assistance to the point that you have just "enslaved" a group of population who have no ability nor tendency to better themselves. See, slavery is not the end game of my position, it is of yours however.


To be fair, I don't think Delenne wants to enslave anymore. She has must been brainwashed into believing that it is okay for people who are otherwise able to do for themselves to make bad decisions and then fall back on the government to bail them out of those situations. It's up to US to help educate her otherwise. Although I really don't think she has any interest in being educated on anything.

[fj1200]

To be fair, I don't think Delenne wants to enslave anymore. She has must been brainwashed into believing that it is okay for people who are otherwise able to do for themselves to make bad decisions and then fall back on the government to bail them out of those situations. It's up to US to help educate her otherwise. Although I really don't think she has any interest in being educated on anything.

Did I go a bit too far? :laugh: She was the one who brought up slavery however.

[LuvRPgrl]

I know it doesn't make any sense, but you just have to have faith-- the man knows what's best for us.

http://www.jocaonstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/stop_asking_questions.jpg

If it wasn't such a bother, i'd make this my avatar. maybe Fj can coerce someone to do it for me.

reminds me of grade school, science class,

[LuvRPgrl]

To be fair, I don't think Delenne wants to enslave anymore. She has must been brainwashed into believing that it is okay for people who are otherwise able to do for themselves to make bad decisions and then fall back on the government to bail them out of those situations. It's up to US to help educate her otherwise. Although I really don't think she has any interest in being educated on anything.e

I agree. Enslavement is not the desired outcome. what is, is the removal of religion or God from any and every aspect of our culture.

Use to be people leaned on family, charities or churches. The problem for the atheists is that most of the charities were Christian, they dont want that, so they worked on shifting the burden to govt.

What this creates is a entitlement attitudee.
Use to be people felt shamed about receiving assistance. Now, they feel its an entitlement cuz its coming from the govt.
Because they use to feel shame, they use to work hard at getting off it, now, since they feel no shame, they DONT want to get off it.

[Delenn]

Why are you jumping to groups of people that are unable to "function in society" and away from apparently able bodied individuals who are employed enough to be using daycare for their children? Those are two completely separate groups of people.

I already stated I was not in favor of the diapers (on the Diaper thread) because it dealt with a specific population, had the potential for abuse, and did not go far enough or address the needs. It is quite superficial on the surface. The issue was then brought up where does it stop? As if creating a grocery list.

I maintain my stance. You cannot do a "cradle to grave" scenario. That just isn't how it works. That isn't how people work. You may have a woman that lives on the block or in an area with that block that has 12 children with different fathers. None pay child support or are active in their lives.The kids are a wreck, the house is a wreck and she works at Jack's Fish and chips and drinks heavily. The cops are frequently there. The kids are wild. The woman is defensive, often rude, and could be called selfish. She receives food stamps, housing etc.

Unfortunately, she is intellectually disabled. Her IQ is not stamped on her forehead. Because of this, she does not know how to put herself in someone else's shoes. Those 12 kids do not realize this. Because they are kids. Nobody goes over their homework. If the kids have a disability she is not going to recognize it or have the capacity to stay on top of it. Nobody says, "Gangs are not a good thing." The kids are embarrassed by their clothing, have no privacy, and all of the rest of it. So, now, there are other services that are required. Because, the kids are in and out of jail, drop out of school, are involved with the Department of Family and Children Services. That is were the money goes. Breeding is a "natural right" and anything less would be INTRUSIVE.




How am I encroaching on *your* property?

By failing to address the total needs of the population and monitor the cash flow, it will then become necessary for me to pay out more. By framing the population in the "cradle to grave" theory neglects following the money. Not following the money leads to lack of accountability and fraud. I like to call this unnecessary shit. I do not want to pay for unnecessary shit. The more unnecessary shit that I pay for, the less "property" that I acquire and or maintain. Subsequently, some clown thinks that there ought to be a law, it is knee jerk reaction and never addresses the actual issue, I have mo' money to spend AND another ineffective law.



I don't hear a stopping point from you for able bodied individuals. Sure it would be nice to offer a help up if that's where it would stop but the tendency is to keep granting more assistance to the point that you have just "enslaved" a group of population who have no ability nor tendency to better themselves. See, slavery is not the end game of my position, it is of yours however.

That is a pretty heavy accusation. You might want to rethink that. From my standpoint, theft is your position. Not because I think you are a ....doodoo head. I don't. It is because you have to follow the money. As it stands, you have to qualify to receive anything. Universal Healthcare with a few 24 hour clinics. Public education. Housing. Food. Point A to Point B. Maintain the cutoff point with exception to the health care. When you are willing and able to attack corporate welfare with the venom that you attack "welfare" then we can find some common ground.

What we want is a change of behavior from those that could but don't. You want intrinsic motivation. Now, before I continue, I need to know if you are willing to hear me out. If your not, then I am not going to bother.

[logroller]

I already stated I was not in favor of the diapers (on the Diaper thread) because it dealt with a specific population, had the potential for abuse, and did not go far enough or address the needs. It is quite superficial on the surface. The issue was then brought up where does it stop? As if creating a grocery list.

I maintain my stance. You cannot do a "cradle to grave" scenario. That just isn't how it works. That isn't how people work. You may have a woman that lives on the block or in an area with that block that has 12 children with different fathers. None pay child support or are active in their lives.The kids are a wreck, the house is a wreck and she works at Jack's Fish and chips and drinks heavily. The cops are frequently there. The kids are wild. The woman is defensive, often rude, and could be called selfish. She receives food stamps, housing etc.

Unfortunately, she is intellectually disabled. Her IQ is not stamped on her forehead. Because of this, she does not know how to put herself in someone else's shoes. Those 12 kids do not realize this. Because they are kids. Nobody goes over their homework. If the kids have a disability she is not going to recognize it or have the capacity to stay on top of it. Nobody says, "Gangs are not a good thing." The kids are embarrassed by their clothing, have no privacy, and all of the rest of it. So, now, there are other services that are required. Because, the kids are in and out of jail, drop out of school, are involved with the Department of Family and Children Services. That is were the money goes. Breeding is a "natural right" and anything less would be INTRUSIVE.





By failing to address the total needs of the population and monitor the cash flow, it will then become necessary for me to pay out more. By framing the population in the "cradle to grave" theory neglects following the money. Not following the money leads to lack of accountability and fraud. I like to call this unnecessary shit. I do not want to pay for unnecessary shit. The more unnecessary shit that I pay for, the less "property" that I acquire and or maintain. Subsequently, some clown thinks that there ought to be a law, it is knee jerk reaction and never addresses the actual issue, I have mo' money to spend AND another ineffective law.

That is a pretty heavy accusation. You might want to rethink that. From my standpoint, theft is your position. Not because I think you are a ....doodoo head. I don't. It is because you have to follow the money. As it stands, you have to qualify to receive anything. Universal Healthcare with a few 24 hour clinics. Public education. Housing. Food. Point A to Point B. Maintain the cutoff point with exception to the health care. When you are willing and able to attack corporate welfare with the venom that you attack "welfare" then we can find some common ground.

What we want is a change of behavior from those that could but don't. You want intrinsic motivation. Now, before I continue, I need to know if you are willing to hear me out. If your not, then I am not going to bother.

I don't disagree with your assessment from an accounting standpoint; but do take issue with the apparent lack of personal accountability involved in entitlement qualification. It seems as though we (the govt) use need as the only qualification-- without any accountability for results-- ergo the system is self-perpetuating, with no 'grave' at all-- just the need for more cradles. Private organizations could, and do, perform many of the same provisions govt does. Of course the largest of these typically receive govt funding, but they are held accountable-- whereas, other than specific instances of fraud, govt services are not.

[ConHog]

e

I agree. Enslavement is not the desired outcome. what is, is the removal of religion or God from any and every aspect of our culture.

Use to be people leaned on family, charities or churches. The problem for the atheists is that most of the charities were Christian, they dont want that, so they worked on shifting the burden to govt.

What this creates is a entitlement attitudee.
Use to be people felt shamed about receiving assistance. Now, they feel its an entitlement cuz its coming from the govt.
Because they use to feel shame, they use to work hard at getting off it, now, since they feel no shame, they DONT want to get off it.

That is the truth right there. Thankfully, I've never been in a spot where I needed government assistance, but I would use it if I needed to feed my family and I would bust my ass to get back off of it asap because how embarrassing, not to be able to provide for your own? But some of these people just don't feel the slightest bit of embarrassment.

[Missileman]

The problem for the atheists is that most of the charities were Christian, they dont want that, so they worked on shifting the burden to govt.


ROFL!

The entitlement mentality and the push for government reliance was hardly instituted by atheists. Only a simpleton could conclude that atheists held enough control over local, state and federal government during the last few decades to enact such policies. Seriously, some of the stuff you post!

[LuvRPgrl]

That is the truth right there. Thankfully, I've never been in a spot where I needed government assistance, but I would use it if I needed to feed my family and I would bust my ass to get back off of it asap because how embarrassing, not to be able to provide for your own? But some of these people just don't feel the slightest bit of embarrassment.

one of the other issues when shifting from private to public assistance iss that the private charities focused on getting the people back on their feet, but the govt doesnt seem to even be allowed to do that.

[LuvRPgrl]

ROFL!

The entitlement mentality and the push for government reliance was hardly instituted by atheists. Only a simpleton could conclude that atheists held enough control over local, state and federal government during the last few decades to enact such policies. Seriously, some of the stuff you post! in

Yea, they havent had any power whatsoever. Hmmm, except for getting "seperation of church and state" influencing so much of our culture,
yea, that didnt have much effect on us, eh?

[Missileman]

in

Yea, they havent had any power whatsoever. Hmmm, except for getting "seperation of church and state" influencing so much of our culture,
yea, that didnt have much effect on us, eh?

You're operating under the false assumption that only atheists believe in separation of church and state for starters. And separation of church and state hasn't a damned thing to do with entitlements or reliance on the state.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're operating under the false assumption that only atheists believe in separation of church and state for starters. And separation of church and state hasn't a damned thing to do with entitlements or reliance on the state.

no Im not and yes it does.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that you know what Im assuming without knowing , rather presumptuous of you isnt it?

[red states rule]

I already stated I was not in favor of the diapers (on the Diaper thread) because it dealt with a specific population, had the potential for abuse, and did not go far enough or address the needs. It is quite superficial on the surface. The issue was then brought up where does it stop? As if creating a grocery list.

I maintain my stance. You cannot do a "cradle to grave" scenario. That just isn't how it works. That isn't how people work. You may have a woman that lives on the block or in an area with that block that has 12 children with different fathers. None pay child support or are active in their lives.The kids are a wreck, the house is a wreck and she works at Jack's Fish and chips and drinks heavily. The cops are frequently there. The kids are wild. The woman is defensive, often rude, and could be called selfish. She receives food stamps, housing etc.

Unfortunately, she is intellectually disabled. Her IQ is not stamped on her forehead. Because of this, she does not know how to put herself in someone else's shoes. Those 12 kids do not realize this. Because they are kids. Nobody goes over their homework. If the kids have a disability she is not going to recognize it or have the capacity to stay on top of it. Nobody says, "Gangs are not a good thing." The kids are embarrassed by their clothing, have no privacy, and all of the rest of it. So, now, there are other services that are required. Because, the kids are in and out of jail, drop out of school, are involved with the Department of Family and Children Services. That is were the money goes. Breeding is a "natural right" and anything less would be INTRUSIVE.





By failing to address the total needs of the population and monitor the cash flow, it will then become necessary for me to pay out more. By framing the population in the "cradle to grave" theory neglects following the money. Not following the money leads to lack of accountability and fraud. I like to call this unnecessary shit. I do not want to pay for unnecessary shit. The more unnecessary shit that I pay for, the less "property" that I acquire and or maintain. Subsequently, some clown thinks that there ought to be a law, it is knee jerk reaction and never addresses the actual issue, I have mo' money to spend AND another ineffective law.




That is a pretty heavy accusation. You might want to rethink that. From my standpoint, theft is your position. Not because I think you are a ....doodoo head. I don't. It is because you have to follow the money. As it stands, you have to qualify to receive anything. Universal Healthcare with a few 24 hour clinics. Public education. Housing. Food. Point A to Point B. Maintain the cutoff point with exception to the health care. When you are willing and able to attack corporate welfare with the venom that you attack "welfare" then we can find some common ground.

What we want is a change of behavior from those that could but don't. You want intrinsic motivation. Now, before I continue, I need to know if you are willing to hear me out. If your not, then I am not going to bother.


So the bottom line is, the results of liberal social programs are irrelevant. What matters are the good intentions of the liberals who created the programs

Is that what you are saying?

[fj1200]

I already stated I was not in favor of the diapers (on the Diaper thread) because it dealt with a specific population, had the potential for abuse, and did not go far enough or address the needs. It is quite superficial on the surface. The issue was then brought up where does it stop? As if creating a grocery list.
This is you being NOT in favor?

If it makes the Concerned Women for America and the Heritage Foundation upset then it is probably a wise idea. Unfortunately, I don't think that diapers is going to help resolve the matter. It is a rather small dose of helpfulness.

It would be allocated in any funding that they already receive. Really, really. As I already stated, this does not go far enough. I can file this away in the "least that can be done" section. :rolleyes:


I maintain my stance. You cannot do a "cradle to grave" scenario. That just isn't how it works. That isn't how people work. You may have a woman that lives on the block or in an area with that block that has 12 children with different fathers. None pay child support or are active in their lives.The kids are a wreck, the house is a wreck and she works at Jack's Fish and chips and drinks heavily. The cops are frequently there. The kids are wild. The woman is defensive, often rude, and could be called selfish. She receives food stamps, housing etc.

Unfortunately, she is intellectually disabled. Her IQ is not stamped on her forehead. Because of this, she does not know how to put herself in someone else's shoes. Those 12 kids do not realize this. Because they are kids. Nobody goes over their homework. If the kids have a disability she is not going to recognize it or have the capacity to stay on top of it. Nobody says, "Gangs are not a good thing." The kids are embarrassed by their clothing, have no privacy, and all of the rest of it. So, now, there are other services that are required. Because, the kids are in and out of jail, drop out of school, are involved with the Department of Family and Children Services. That is were the money goes. Breeding is a "natural right" and anything less would be INTRUSIVE.

Do you attribute zero responsibility to government in creating much of this scenario?


By failing to address the total needs of the population and monitor the cash flow, it will then become necessary for me to pay out more. By framing the population in the "cradle to grave" theory neglects following the money. Not following the money leads to lack of accountability and fraud. I like to call this unnecessary shit. I do not want to pay for unnecessary shit. The more unnecessary shit that I pay for, the less "property" that I acquire and or maintain. Subsequently, some clown thinks that there ought to be a law, it is knee jerk reaction and never addresses the actual issue, I have mo' money to spend AND another ineffective law.

So I'm encroaching on your property by insisting that others do not have a right to my property? Interesting "logic" you've got there. I'm really not sure of this "cash flow" you're talking about but the organization that is defined by, IMO, a lack of accountability is government. They do not have this accountability you strive for, their MO is to spend the money and run, damn the outcomes, it's the spending of money that is the measure of success.


That is a pretty heavy accusation. You might want to rethink that. From my standpoint, theft is your position. Not because I think you are a ....doodoo head. I don't. It is because you have to follow the money. As it stands, you have to qualify to receive anything. Universal Healthcare with a few 24 hour clinics. Public education. Housing. Food. Point A to Point B. Maintain the cutoff point with exception to the health care. When you are willing and able to attack corporate welfare with the venom that you attack "welfare" then we can find some common ground.

What we want is a change of behavior from those that could but don't. You want intrinsic motivation. Now, before I continue, I need to know if you are willing to hear me out. If your not, then I am not going to bother.

You seemed to have no problem putting it out there and no, I don't need to rethink it. You can't tell me your mythical 12-child woman is living in any sort of life that defines liberty. I am all for changing behavior and I haven't seen most government actions as promoting anything of the sort.

Oh, and nice attempted deflection on the corporate welfare front. I oppose it.

[red states rule]

I would love for someone to answer this queston

Since LBJ's Great Society, the US has spent over $9 trillion to fight poverty and help the poor. yet we are told poverty has never been worse

How much more money do liberals want, and how will spending more money solve the problem?

[Kathianne]

I would love for someone to answer this queston

Since LBJ's Great Society, the US has spent over $9 trillion to fight poverty and help the poor. yet we are told poverty has never been worse

How much more money do liberals want, and how will spending more money solve the problem?

In a few posts now I think fj has done a superior job of connecting some dots regarding government creating and fostering dependence. Actually Deleen added to it with her mythical mom of 12 with no baby daddies. The woman, according to her/him, was a low IQ boozer. She was incapable of taking care of her children, they were growing up to be gang bangers and other problems to society.

Back in the 'pre-Great Society' days, she probably would have been under strict care of family members, certainly holding the number of fatherless children down. The family again would have stepped in to help raise the kids, as many still try to do. In my family, if she were drinking and neglecting the kids, she'd be out and the kids would be in. Since they couldn't afford to feed or raise a dozen kids, some behavior would have changed.

Now however, there is no committing someone on such a destructive path, unless they try suicide or murder. Jail is the more likely outcome, though other than neglect she seemed innocent of criminal behavior.

Government social programs have done more to wreck the nuclear family, especially for the poor. Many of the programs have been designed to keep people from working and certainly from having two parents making even minimum wage.

[red states rule]

In a few posts now I think fj has done a superior job of connecting some dots regarding government creating and fostering dependence. Actually Deleen added to it with her mythical mom of 12 with no baby daddies. The woman, according to her/him, was a low IQ boozer. She was incapable of taking care of her children, they were growing up to be gang bangers and other problems to society.

Back in the 'pre-Great Society' days, she probably would have been under strict care of family members, certainly holding the number of fatherless children down. The family again would have stepped in to help raise the kids, as many still try to do. In my family, if she were drinking and neglecting the kids, she'd be out and the kids would be in. Since they couldn't afford to feed or raise a dozen kids, some behavior would have changed.

Now however, there is no committing someone on such a destructive path, unless they try suicide or murder. Jail is the more likely outcome, though other than neglect she seemed innocent of criminal behavior.

Government social programs have done more to wreck the nuclear family, especially for the poor. Many of the programs have been designed to keep people from working and certainly from having two parents making even minimum wage.

Spot on Kat

I got into an arguement with my HS Social Studies teacher that that main purpose of social programs was to keep people dependent on government. Dems wanted as many people as possible to be on some government program, and become dependent on that monthly check

In turn the person who would be a sure vote for any Dem running for office

He was pissed and yelled at me several times for being "uncaring". I do wish I could look him up and ask him if he would now admit I was right

[Missileman]

no Im not and yes it does.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that you know what Im assuming without knowing , rather presumptuous of you isnt it?

It was right there in your own words...I presumed nothing.

The idea of "separation of CHURCH and STATE" inarguably implies the existence of both CHURCH and STATE. If the CHURCH exists, there's nothing stopping it from fulfilling its traditional role in regards to charity. I know that's a little more logic than you may be capable of processing, but give it a shot. After your head stops spinning, try to explain exactly how all of these churches are no longer able to do charity work.

[Delenn]

I don't disagree with your assessment from an accounting standpoint; but do take issue with the apparent lack of personal accountability involved in entitlement qualification. It seems as though we (the govt) use need as the only qualification-- without any accountability for results-- ergo the system is self-perpetuating, with no 'grave' at all-- just the need for more cradles. Private organizations could, and do, perform many of the same provisions govt does. Of course the largest of these typically receive govt funding, but they are held accountable-- whereas, other than specific instances of fraud, govt services are not.


I disagree. The welfare system as a whole underwent significant changes under Clinton. So, you see these programs that were enacted that pushed people right above the poverty line so they were denied anything. I don't know how old you are or if you remember this but, you could win a class on data entry. So, people are being moved into data entry at the same time that they are sending data entry jobs oversees. Ridiculous.

Depending on what state you live in there are all kinds of things in place for responsibility. Limitations for length of time, types of services, conditional requirements. If you or your children go to jail then you face eviction and loss of medicaid and other programs.

One of the big things now in terms of services is sending therapists and counselors out to the homes. The government pays the money to a private organization (faux privatization). In theory, this would be excellent except that the organization changes counselors and therapists at a rapid pace and it is like having to start over with a new whatever every two weeks. Nothing is getting accomplished but someone is getting paid. Now this has two problems: McDonaldization of therapists and counselors. Questionable successful outcomes with no accountability.

[Delenn]

This is you being NOT in favor?





Do you attribute zero responsibility to government in creating much of this scenario?



Yep, that's me not in favor. Why would you assume that I would not attribute responsibility to the government? I am against any government program that does little good or does not adequately address the needs. I am also not in favor of patting elected officials on the back simply because. If you think that I am going to defend the government in all of this, you have the wrong girl. You are creating an argument where none exists.


So I'm encroaching on your property by insisting that others do not have a right to my property? Interesting "logic" you've got there. I'm really not sure of this "cash flow" you're talking about but the organization that is defined by, IMO, a lack of accountability is government. They do not have this accountability you strive for, their MO is to spend the money and run, damn the outcomes, it's the spending of money that is the measure of success.

You aren't measuring success and that is my problem. You want me to stand there with my wallet open and say, "yeah, sure, ok, take what you need." Ain't going to happen. So, you can't just say "anything" but government, you are actually going to have to follow the money.

If you are going to utilize a service provider then you need an established criteria of measurable success. How long are the results tracked from any given program? At best, six months. You have to literally lay down the law. I don't want to hear "best practices" I want results. I want an established criteria because I am not going to agree to a shift in cash to a profit seeking private organization that cannot pull that off. I'm not going to do it.



You seemed to have no problem putting it out there and no, I don't need to rethink it. You can't tell me your mythical 12-child woman is living in any sort of life that defines liberty.


I'm sorry, what is your definition of liberty again? Deinstitutionalization was all about liberty, was it not? I mean, that was what Reagan was all about. He was all about liberty. He was all about not funding it under the guise of liberty. So, what we have now is a response to all of that "liberty".
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/parents-with-mental-retardation-and-their-children.pdf

Not all women that live in poverty are ID, but the majority of ID women live in poverty. ^^^^

What you have now is a result of deinstitutionalization, and some of that needed to be ended simply because of the inhumane treatment. Which is why I have stated that you cannot return to this, but you cannot stay here.
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Ry4aS8I9FGQJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

The above is from 1998. Notice that these parents are living with family and as long as the grandparents are alive all is somewhat well. Also notice the problems that the children are experiencing.



I am all for changing behavior and I haven't seen most government actions as promoting anything of the sort.

Oh, and nice attempted deflection on the corporate welfare front. I oppose it.

REALLY? You are so looking for the Welfare Queen with a Pink Cadillac and that at some point it becomes ludicrous.

Elijah Anderson, a sociologist, came out with a book that in 1990 or 1991 called Code of the Streets. He touched on several issues that are extremely important. One of which is there is a disconnect between kids or younger people and "how to achieve" a middle class life. So, you have a young man and a young woman that are bombarded with images (tv/billboards/etc.)that represent the middle class and so they window shop. As if the only requirement is love and marriage. Well, we all know that it isn't what works. So, the question then becomes how can you achieve that? Another problem that occurred was this huge disconnect of what exactly is fatherhood either with growing up with out one or by what they see. So, that fatherhood is viewed as the number of children and not by what it entails. So, there are cases of diaper drive-bys.

Another problem that Anderson hits on but that I have found relevant information elsewhere is: the big give up. And so, say you have a guy that has several children and winds up in prison and gets out and gets a job which is hard to do and child support comes out. The people that he works with find out and run their mouth until he quits. The same kind of give up may occur with someone who is dealing with DCS and is jumping through hoops to get their kids back. They may come to the conclusion that the odds are stacked against them to such a degree that failure is imminent. So, they walk away.

We have to find away for kids to imagine a better world. In my area, 25% of the people that graduate go on to higher education. This includes all types of "higher education". It was noted that there isn't anything in the area, a visual if you will, of what to aspire to. So, they kick it in five dollar an hour jobs until they get tired and then make necessary changes to their game plan and go back to school. Only at this point, it is a little more difficult.

[LuvRPgrl]

It was right there in your own words...I presumed nothing..Yes you did, no I didnt, and no.

The idea of "separation of CHURCH and STATE" inarguably implies the existence of both CHURCH and STATE..[/QUOTE]

Nope, the IDEA of seperation of church and states implies the idea of the existence of chruch and state
But regardless, so what?


If the CHURCH exists, there's nothing stopping it from fulfilling its traditional role in regards to charity..
How do you think welfare is paid? taxes,
when a person tax burden goes up, they have less to give to charity,
hence, the expansion of govt welfare programs makes the funding to charity go down, thats a simple fact


I know that's a little more logic than you may be capable of processing, but give it a shot.. Its not logic at all.
If the churh exists, theres nothing stopping it from fulfilling its traditional role in regards to charity,,,,is not a logical statement, but a statement of fact, or lack of, whether the fact is right or wrong.

But your term, fullfilling its traditional role...charity ,,,,is actually non sensical. What is its traditional role, if it does it once, does that mean it fulfilled it, or does it have to do it on a continuous basis, etc etc etc



After your head stops spinning, try to explain exactly how all of these churches are no longer able to do charity work.

Hmmm, ok, head has stopped spinning, oh look, it never got spun at all.
uh, because I never said they are no longer able to do charity work.

[Missileman]

Nope, the IDEA of seperation of church and states implies the idea of the existence of chruch and state
But regardless, so what?

The church's existence nullifies your BS argument that atheists are, by advocating separation of church and state, responsible for reliance on government. Since the church exists, it is still capable of providing charity to the community.



How do you think welfare is paid? taxes,
when a person tax burden goes up, they have less to give to charity,
hence, the expansion of govt welfare programs makes the funding to charity go down, thats a simple fact

Except it doesn't. Check out the data at these 2 links. It shows that your simple fact is indeed a simple lie.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html




Its not logic at all.
If the churh exists, theres nothing stopping it from fulfilling its traditional role in regards to charity,,,,is not a logical statement, but a statement of fact, or lack of, whether the fact is right or wrong.

But your term, fullfilling its traditional role...charity ,,,,is actually non sensical. What is its traditional role, if it does it once, does that mean it fulfilled it, or does it have to do it on a continuous basis, etc etc etc

I did suggest you give it a shot...unfortunately, you are completely unarmed.



Hmmm, ok, head has stopped spinning, oh look, it never got spun at all.
uh, because I never said they are no longer able to do charity work.

Then exactly what is it you were accusing atheists of again?

[LuvRPgrl]

The church's existence nullifies your BS argument that atheists are, by advocating separation of church and state, responsible for reliance on government. Since the church exists, it is still capable of providing charity to the community.?

I never said it wasnt capable. The amount of help they can give though is directly affected by charitable giving, which goes down when taxes go up




Except it doesn't. Check out the data at these 2 links. It shows that your simple fact is indeed a simple lie.?

My my, temper temper, you know, people can be wrong without lying, b ut in this case Im right without lying
those links do nothing to show the comparison of charitable giving and amounts of taxation over an extended period of years.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html






I did suggest you give it a shot...unfortunately, you are completely unarmed?I think the booze musta caught up to you by the time you got to tying this part, cuz I have no freaking clue what you are talking about



Then exactly what is it you were accusing atheists of again? first, I said it was a problem for atheists, but that doesnt mean I mean all atheists, or the problem and subsequent actions are by atheists only, and my statement is that there are a number of people in our society who want to see all things religous dissappear and one way is to have govt take over the help poor people get instead of charity.

[ConHog]

In a few posts now I think fj has done a superior job of connecting some dots regarding government creating and fostering dependence. Actually Deleen added to it with her mythical mom of 12 with no baby daddies. The woman, according to her/him, was a low IQ boozer. She was incapable of taking care of her children, they were growing up to be gang bangers and other problems to society.

Back in the 'pre-Great Society' days, she probably would have been under strict care of family members, certainly holding the number of fatherless children down. The family again would have stepped in to help raise the kids, as many still try to do. In my family, if she were drinking and neglecting the kids, she'd be out and the kids would be in. Since they couldn't afford to feed or raise a dozen kids, some behavior would have changed.

Now however, there is no committing someone on such a destructive path, unless they try suicide or murder. Jail is the more likely outcome, though other than neglect she seemed innocent of criminal behavior.

Government social programs have done more to wreck the nuclear family, especially for the poor. Many of the programs have been designed to keep people from working and certainly from having two parents making even minimum wage.



Hammer meet nail. My dad would have killed us kids if one of us would have had been running around springing babies out that we had no way to afford. Don't have babies you can't afford and of course the question of who's going to provide for those kids is moot.

[red states rule]

Hammer meet nail. My dad would have killed us kids if one of us would have had been running around springing babies out that we had no way to afford. Don't have babies you can't afford and of course the question of who's going to provide for those kids is moot.

And whatever you do, do not speak out against these policies, or point out their failure.

Here is an example of how you will be portrayed in the liberal media if you do. As you watch this, also remember on the calls of civility the left demanded a last January after the AZ shootings

Of course, Obama's approval ratings were not as low as they are now

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106921" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[Missileman]

I never said it wasnt capable. The amount of help they can give though is directly affected by charitable giving, which goes down when taxes go up





My my, temper temper, you know, people can be wrong without lying, b ut in this case Im right without lying
those links do nothing to show the comparison of charitable giving and amounts of taxation over an extended period of years.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html




Revised Giving USA data shows that total giving has grown in current dollars in every year since 1954 except for 1987, 2008 and 2009.


Now if you consider this fact and look at tax rate table, it clearly shows that your contention is untrue.



I think the booze musta caught up to you by the time you got to tying this part, cuz I have no freaking clue what you are talking about

It was a statement about your inability to use logic...and I don't drink.



first, I said it was a problem for atheists, but that doesnt mean I mean all atheists, or the problem and subsequent actions are by atheists only, and my statement is that there are a number of people in our society who want to see all things religous dissappear and one way is to have govt take over the help poor people get instead of charity.

Let's recap...you claim atheists are responsible for reliance on government through "separation of church and state". Separation of church and state in no way curtails the ability of churches to engage in charity. So, you went on to blame higher taxes, which not only turned out to be patently false, but FYI, can in NO WAY be attributed to atheists. This leaves us back where we started with you making an unfounded, bullshit accusation against atheists that you can't support with an iota of evidence.

[fj1200]

Yep, that's me not in favor. Why would you assume that I would not attribute responsibility to the government? I am against any government program that does little good or does not adequately address the needs. I am also not in favor of patting elected officials on the back simply because. If you think that I am going to defend the government in all of this, you have the wrong girl. You are creating an argument where none exists.

Not in favor? You sure do have a funny way of choosing words then. :rolleyes: I am also certainly glad that you are against government programs that do little good because that will pretty much cover most of them out there.


You aren't measuring success and that is my problem. You want me to stand there with my wallet open and say, "yeah, sure, ok, take what you need." Ain't going to happen. So, you can't just say "anything" but government, you are actually going to have to follow the money.

If you are going to utilize a service provider then you need an established criteria of measurable success. How long are the results tracked from any given program? At best, six months. You have to literally lay down the law. I don't want to hear "best practices" I want results. I want an established criteria because I am not going to agree to a shift in cash to a profit seeking private organization that cannot pull that off. I'm not going to do it.

I'm not? I am certainly happy when there is success but am a realist that overall it isn't there. As RSR will point out we've been having a war for 40 years and we aren't anywhere close to winning it. The problem IMO is enabling those who will not take the initiative to get better but more importantly the fiscal policies of the Federal government are contrary to the growth of employment especially on the lower end of the scale. Virtually every program that will come out of DC on the job job/business front is going to put further cost/regulatory burdens that raise the cost of employment; those further costs don't harm the opportunities of the middle classes and up as much but do end up hurting the lower wage earners.

Your minutia of "following the money" and "faux privatization" are distractions from the real issues. I am not completely against providing a "safety net" but ill-thought out programs on the one hand while increasing the difficulty of finding good employment on the other is ultimately contradictory and bound to fail.


I'm sorry, what is your definition of liberty again? Deinstitutionalization was all about liberty, was it not? I mean, that was what Reagan was all about. He was all about liberty. He was all about not funding it under the guise of liberty. So, what we have now is a response to all of that "liberty".
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/parents-with-mental-retardation-and-their-children.pdf

Not all women that live in poverty are ID, but the majority of ID women live in poverty. ^^^^

What you have now is a result of deinstitutionalization, and some of that needed to be ended simply because of the inhumane treatment. Which is why I have stated that you cannot return to this, but you cannot stay here.
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Ry4aS8I9FGQJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

The above is from 1998. Notice that these parents are living with family and as long as the grandparents are alive all is somewhat well. Also notice the problems that the children are experiencing.

I wouldn't think you would need a definition of liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) but here we go:

Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right), that identifies the condition in which human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_beings) are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will), and take responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_responsibility) for their actions.
Liberty requires free will and responsibility, thing which are arguably lacking in your ID distraction so it is not what we're discussing.

Also, I don't recall Reagan's views on that matter, you may point that out if you like.


REALLY? You are so looking for the Welfare Queen with a Pink Cadillac and that at some point it becomes ludicrous.

I am? Please point that out. BTW, I don't need to see your Pink Cadillac Welfare Queen to know that there has been a failure in the War on Poverty.


Elijah Anderson, a sociologist, came out with a book that in 1990 or 1991 called Code of the Streets. He touched on several issues that are extremely important. One of which is there is a disconnect between kids or younger people and "how to achieve" a middle class life. So, you have a young man and a young woman that are bombarded with images (tv/billboards/etc.)that represent the middle class and so they window shop. As if the only requirement is love and marriage. Well, we all know that it isn't what works. So, the question then becomes how can you achieve that? Another problem that occurred was this huge disconnect of what exactly is fatherhood either with growing up with out one or by what they see. So, that fatherhood is viewed as the number of children and not by what it entails. So, there are cases of diaper drive-bys.

Another problem that Anderson hits on but that I have found relevant information elsewhere is: the big give up. And so, say you have a guy that has several children and winds up in prison and gets out and gets a job which is hard to do and child support comes out. The people that he works with find out and run their mouth until he quits. The same kind of give up may occur with someone who is dealing with DCS and is jumping through hoops to get their kids back. They may come to the conclusion that the odds are stacked against them to such a degree that failure is imminent. So, they walk away.

We have to find away for kids to imagine a better world. In my area, 25% of the people that graduate go on to higher education. This includes all types of "higher education". It was noted that there isn't anything in the area, a visual if you will, of what to aspire to. So, they kick it in five dollar an hour jobs until they get tired and then make necessary changes to their game plan and go back to school. Only at this point, it is a little more difficult.

Interesting. And what failures of welfare, education, and fiscal policies do you see in that scenario?

[LuvRPgrl]

Now if you consider this fact and look at tax rate table, it clearly shows that your contention is untrue. .ive
You need to look at the relationship between the pct of charity contributions and the pct of tax people pay on their income. Your table are meaningless.
Even though charitable giving may have gone up compared to last years charitable giving, but you need to calculate in its comparision to how much they would have given had their taxes not gone up.





It was a statement about your inability to use logic...and I don't drink.. Maybe you should. What I said is this: people leaned on family, charities or churches. The problem for the atheists is that most of the charities were Christian, they dont want that, so they worked on shifting the burden to govt.






Let's recap...you claim atheists are responsible for reliance on government through "separation of church and state".. no, the reliance on govt for assistance is for other social factors, what i said was that the atheists, amongst others, are responsable for shifting the burden from charities to the state.

Separation of church and state in no way curtails the ability of churches to engage in charity.. Never said it does. I said it was a tool to get the burden shifted

So, you went on to blame higher taxes, which not only turned out to be patently false, but FYI, can in NO WAY be attributed to atheists.fwhich I didnt do.
.
This leaves us back where we started with you making. a statement that you apparently didnt read.

an unfounded, bullshit accusation against atheists that you can't support with an iota of evidence.

[LuvRPgrl]

I just gave you the information. Look it up. Thus far, I am the one that is doing all the work while you sit back and pick and choose which portions of the argument that you wish to acknowledge.

You made the claim that the govt has the authority via the constitution, so the burden of proof is on you.....

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree. The welfare system as a whole underwent significant changes under Clinton. So, you see these programs that were enacted that pushed people right above the poverty line so they were denied anything.?????

.
I don't know how old you are or if you remember this but, you could win a class on data entry. So, people are being moved into data entry at the same time that they are sending data entry jobs oversees. Ridiculous.. First, so what.? Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Who wins a class, who do they win it from, and how do you "win" a class.


Depending on what state you live in there are all kinds of things in place for responsibility. Limitations for length of time.
somewhat

,
types of services,. has nothing to do with requiring any responsabilities at all. In fact, if anything, it causes people who barely miss qualifying to qualify by slightly increasing their need for aid.

..[/QUOTE] conditional requirements..[/QUOTE] see my response above

If you or your children go to jail.. ..Your children go to jail? How the hell does that happen? ]


then you face eviction and loss of medicaid and other programs..,if a parent goes to jail, (prison actually) then the children will get more aid if anything.



One of the big things now in terms of services is sending therapists and counselors out to the homes. The government pays the money to a private organization (faux privatization). In theory, this would be excellent except that the organization changes counselors and therapists at a rapid pace and it is like having to start over with a new whatever every two weeks. Nothing is getting accomplished but someone is getting paid. Now this has two problems: McDonaldization of therapists and counselors. Questionable successful outcomes with no accountability.
So you are arguing that the govt is inept and worthless when doling out aid and funds for aid?

[Missileman]

Maybe you should. What I said is this: people leaned on family, charities or churches. The problem for the atheists is that most of the charities were Christian, they dont want that, so they worked on shifting the burden to govt.

And as I've pointed out to you on several occasions, atheists haven't been in any position to even consider working on such a goal. You puilled the idea straight out of your ass and haven't offered any coroborration. You did say they've been able to further this cause through separation of church and state, but again, it's been shown that that's a total non-sequitur as the churches and their charities are still there.






what i said was that the atheists, amongst others, are responsable for shifting the burden from charities to the state.


A totally baseless, unsubstantiated fabrication. Entitlements and reliance on government are solely the responsibility of the government.

[LuvRPgrl]

And as I've pointed out to you on several occasions, atheists haven't been in any position to even consider working on such a goal. You puilled the idea straight out of your ass and haven't offered any coroborration. You did say they've been able to further this cause through separation of church and state, but again, it's been shown that that's a total non-sequitur as the churches and their charities are still there.






A totally baseless, unsubstantiated fabrication. Entitlements and reliance on government are solely the responsibility of the government. Ya got me, just cant argue with that logic....:cuckoo::lmao::tinfoil:

[actsnoblemartin]

Missileman, can you tell me what is wrong with the public education system?

everything, how about the fact its financed, and grossly over-costs tax payers, when we know for a fact that charter schools, which more and more schools are turning into are better then public (government babysitting) schools

nuff said

:poke:

[red states rule]

everything, how about the fact its financed, and grossly over-costs tax payers, when we know for a fact that charter schools, which more and more schools are turning into are better then public (government babysitting) schools

nuff said

:poke:


You are wasting your time with her Martin

Like most liberals she has redeployed to more liberal enviroment. The constant incoming barage of facts, direct questions, and rational comments was too much for the liberal feminist to handle

So she took a powder

[actsnoblemartin]

non profits are 1,000 times better if not million times better for helping people who have needs. and way more efficient too


Those are all functions of local charities, not government. It's not the government's role to provide everyone their needs.

[LuvRPgrl]

everything, how about the fact its financed, and grossly over-costs tax payers, when we know for a fact that charter schools, which more and more schools are turning into are better then public (government babysitting) schools

nuff said

:poke:
anyone who cant see the problems with our public scvhools is blinder than a bat

[red states rule]

non profits are 1,000 times better if not million times better for helping people who have needs. and way more efficient too

But what about all those government paper pusher jobs that would be lost if non-profit organizatons were the only game in town for these people?