Admit it Dems: Ryan scares the shit out of you

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

“A baby boomer is a person who was born during the demographic Post-World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” (Dic.com) An 18 year period. That means the BBers are between 66 and 48. Considering the average person would contribute for 40 years the BBers wouldn’t be able to reimburse themselves considering their average time to retirement is 9 years. The rest of society would have to contribute.

You're avoiding my question! WHO is going to reimburse the money stolen from SS? Future generations? Okay, did we allow Enron to continue on, taking money from future workers to pay back what they stole? Would such an idea have flown? I doubt it!

Hey, I’m all for the government supplying jobs. I’m just surprised YOU are for that, as well. You’re not a closet Socialist, are you? I have no problem with a work for welfare program IF it is not taken advantage of which is quite easily done. I’m not for the government paying a welfare recipient the equivalent of $5/hr for a job that normally pays $25/hr. Let’s say a person who works for a city cleaning public parks makes $20/hr. Don’t expect a welfare recipient to do it for $300/wk. but as far as organizing day cares and doing jobs around a government project housing I’m for that.

See? We can find reasonable solutions to our problems, we just have to be willing to work together. I'm not some cruel-hearted SOB who just wants people to suffer. But I think people suffer much more, and over a much longer period, when you enable dependence and do nothing to motivate them to become self-sufficient. We have FAR too many "hand-out" type programs, where the recipient is required to do absolutely nothing but apply. I don't think that should ever be the case, except maybe for disabled vets or people who are handicapped. If you are an 'able-bodied' person, you should have to EARN whatever you get. That's all I am asking. We can have all kinds of programs which support themselves with workers who need a job, who need some motivation. This would save us billions each year, but we have to be willing to set aside our differences and work toward something like that... turning it into a screaming match, and exploiting the problems for political purposes, is getting us nowhere.

Interesting story and while it’s a job anyone can do there are a limited number of those jobs. Just like the “Pet Rock ” job. There are many, many intelligent, motivated, educated people thinking of nothing else than how to exploit some unique idea so it’s a bit unrealistic to expect the average welfare recipient to be the one who discovers one. Furthermore, it takes connections and the knowledge of how to get a product/service to the public.

Well see now, I gave you a specific example, and you come back with "that's only one job!" Do you not see the absurdity here? And can you possibly explain the comment I highlighted? Because it sounds like you are trying to tell us that welfare recipients are dumber than the average person! Wye, we can't expect a welfare recipient to think up something like that, can we? You see, I happen to think welfare recipients are basically the same as the rest of us, they are just as smart and can work just as hard. What they LACK is not intelligence or wherewithal, but MOTIVATION to succeed. Perhaps that is largely due to people like you, telling them they are too dumb to be anything else? And MAYBE that's where this negative social stigma comes from as well?

I recall landing a job out of 120 applicants. (Yes, I asked the interviewer how many people applied.) Do you honestly believe I had the most unique resume? Or do you think first impressions and luck and circumstance played a larger role? Maybe I happened to say the right thing at the right time. Maybe that particular interviewer was having a pleasant day when he met with me?

I had a total of three interviews. The last one was with four guys and we were in a Board Room. Maybe one of the guys told the others to make a decision because, quite frankly, the position did not warrant such a lengthy procedure. I was not applying for a seat on the Board of Directors.

Unless they put the applications in a hat and drew one randomly, your job was NOT the result of luck.

I may have done so subconsciously but that just goes to prove my point. A lot of success depends on luck. I certainly did not consciously consider those things. I didn’t give a damn who liked or didn’t like the place. In fact there were buildings similarly priced that had been renovated. The building I chose had the original varnished pine floor in the kitchen along with “ herringbone’ patterned hard wood in the living and dining rooms. I found out most people prefer a renovated place; modern kitchen, french doors removed and the space opened up, etc. I never purchased it with the idea I would sell it. And consider the sellers. They had it for 10 years and sold it for less than what they originally paid. If they had waited a few years longer they would have seen the dramatic price increase.

Luck and circumstance play a major roll. Just look at the gal I chose. Our differences included native language, different religion, differing levels of education ( 4 years of university compared to a tradesman) and a nine year age difference. (She’s younger.) We had NOTHING in common!

Again, LUCK had nothing to do with it. YOU made the decisions! Whether consciously, subconsciously, or with the assistance of a far smarter spouse than you, the decision was yours and you made it. You didn't have to, there were other options! You could have invested in some guys idea to market "Pet Turds" and lost everything! But here again, you point out a bunch of things that YOU observed about the property that attracted you to it and helped you make your decision. YOU recognized those things then because you are telling me you did now. This has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with you having the capacity to recognize value and potential. THAT is the key to capitalist success, no matter if you are purchasing property or running a multi-national corporation.

Of course, she was to be my second wife so I have to admit I knew what to look for. And she knew what to look for, as well, being a professional. She’d ask questions like, “What would you consider to be the most important quality your partner must possess?” “What do you expect from a relationship?” Serious, direct, non-emotional questions. As to the question, “What do you expect from a relationship?”, my answer was “Sex! I don’t need someone to wash dishes. I have a dishwasher. I don’t need someone to cook dinner. I have a microwave. I don’t need someone to do my laundry. I have a new washer and dryer.” In hindsight I probably impressed her as she knew I wasn’t looking for a maid and was capable of looking after myself although I might have chosen a somewhat different way to express that.

Again... nothing whatsoever to do with LUCK!

Don’t be absurd. A family of four living 50 years ago did not receive the same amount of money a family of four receives today. Food is not the same price. The variety has expanded. Certain foods are packaged with an inert gas which delays decay. Ever thought how cut garden greens can stay fresh for a week or longer? Try it at home.

I never said it cost the same amount 50 years ago. It takes the same basic needs to survive today as it did 50 years ago, and the cost of those basic things has risen over the years, and we have adjusted the poverty level to account for this. The poverty level is an amount of money determined by what it costs to survive. Regardless of whether it was 50 years ago, or 1000 years ago, people still require the same things to survive, that hasn't changed. So when we talk about the "poverty level" we are not talking about color tv or computers, we are talking about basic essentials; food, housing, clothing, school, medical care. The cost of these rise every year, and we adjust the poverty level accordingly. But over the past 50 years, we haven't decreased the number of people living in poverty.

Sure and one can stand on the sidewalk outside an electronics store and watch TV for free.

If they are motivated to watch free tv, that is certainly an option, isn't it?

The point is gay marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone other than the people getting married. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

Laws have consequences. If we establish a law which allows 'marriage' to be redefined based on sexual desire, we open a whole new can of consequential worms, that's the point I was making. Homosexuals are not forbidden to "get married" in any place I am aware of. They can obtain a traditional marriage license just like everyone else, there is no discrimination against homosexual people, you aren't even asked about your sexuality when applying for a marriage licence. But what homosexuals want, is to CHANGE marriage, to include same-sex unions, which ARE NOT marriage. Now.... what if pedophiles sought to change the age of accountability laws so they could "marry" children? Does that have "absolutely no effect on anyone one other than the people getting married?" Is any argument against that, nonsense as well?

I’m sure those who “suck it up and try to repay the debt” will make out OK. I wouldn’t worry about them. You can bet they won’t miss a meal.

I want you to close your eyes and imagine you are saying that to the Enron employees who lost their retirements!

 

[apple0154]

You're avoiding my question! WHO is going to reimburse the money stolen from SS? Future generations? Okay, did we allow Enron to continue on, taking money from future workers to pay back what they stole? Would such an idea have flown? I doubt it!

Future employees wouldn’t have agreed so Enron had no way to pay back the money.

See? We can find reasonable solutions to our problems, we just have to be willing to work together. I'm not some cruel-hearted SOB who just wants people to suffer. But I think people suffer much more, and over a much longer period, when you enable dependence and do nothing to motivate them to become self-sufficient. We have FAR too many "hand-out" type programs, where the recipient is required to do absolutely nothing but apply. I don't think that should ever be the case, except maybe for disabled vets or people who are handicapped. If you are an 'able-bodied' person, you should have to EARN whatever you get. That's all I am asking. We can have all kinds of programs which support themselves with workers who need a job, who need some motivation. This would save us billions each year, but we have to be willing to set aside our differences and work toward something like that... turning it into a screaming match, and exploiting the problems for political purposes, is getting us nowhere.

The problem is that the helping programs are too limited. There are still places where people collecting UI are forbidden to attend school/classes because the contributors to UI (businesses) don’t want to pay for someone’s education. (If I recall it’s North Carolina that changed that rule last year.)

Help is begrudgingly given. The minimum is given. Programs and the people who represent them (case workers) are mandated to look for ways to disqualify people. The whole concept is backwards/upside down. The mindset is ‘by law we have to help you so we’ll do as little as possible to fulfil that requirement.’ It sets up an antagonistic relationship, a battle of wits between the helper and the helpee instead of having both people on the same side.

Well see now, I gave you a specific example, and you come back with "that's only one job!" Do you not see the absurdity here? And can you possibly explain the comment I highlighted? Because it sounds like you are trying to tell us that welfare recipients are dumber than the average person! Wye, we can't expect a welfare recipient to think up something like that, can we? You see, I happen to think welfare recipients are basically the same as the rest of us, they are just as smart and can work just as hard. What they LACK is not intelligence or wherewithal, but MOTIVATION to succeed. Perhaps that is largely due to people like you, telling them they are too dumb to be anything else? And MAYBE that's where this negative social stigma comes from as well?

No, we can’t expect welfare people to think up ingenuous ways to make money when they’re thinking how to put dinner on the table that night. Or supplying their child’s school supplies. Or affording winter boots for the child. Or hoping a tooth ache will go away because a dentist visit means one less dinner that month.

Again... nothing whatsoever to do with LUCK!

I recall something a friend of mine told me years ago when we were both job hunting. I got a part time job. A few weeks later I found a full time position. Once there was a layoff and I found another job within a week. He said I had a horse shoe up my a$$.

Whatever you may believe I know I have been lucky.

I never said it cost the same amount 50 years ago. It takes the same basic needs to survive today as it did 50 years ago, and the cost of those basic things has risen over the years, and we have adjusted the poverty level to account for this. The poverty level is an amount of money determined by what it costs to survive. Regardless of whether it was 50 years ago, or 1000 years ago, people still require the same things to survive, that hasn't changed. So when we talk about the "poverty level" we are not talking about color tv or computers, we are talking about basic essentials; food, housing, clothing, school, medical care. The cost of these rise every year, and we adjust the poverty level accordingly. But over the past 50 years, we haven't decreased the number of people living in poverty.

The definition has changed. People use more electricity today than they did 50 years ago so in order to pay for electricity more money is required. Consider the school supplies required today compared to 50 years ago? When I attended school almost 50 years ago the school supplied almost everything. Today, they do not.

Again, poverty is not a fixed number. It is the relationship between people. A person living in a 3rd world country who has sufficient food and shelter and clothing is not considered poor even if they can’t afford a TV or computer or other things we take for granted. A tribesman living in the rain forest with only a spear and a homemade bed in a cabin built of sticks is not considered poor because he has the same as everyone else. He can afford to see the medicine man if he gets ill but poor people here can’t afford to see a doctor so who is poorer? Who is more likely to suffer depression? Who is more likely to be called lazy?

Laws have consequences. If we establish a law which allows 'marriage' to be redefined based on sexual desire, we open a whole new can of consequential worms, that's the point I was making.

What the hell are you talking about? Not only is sex the primary reason people marry but sex is required to consummate a marriage. Yes, Virginia, it is all about sex. “I just can’t get enough of that little thang!!” The first thing is sexual attraction although I suppose some people marry for other reasons and almost always end up miserable.

Homosexuals are not forbidden to "get married" in any place I am aware of. They can obtain a traditional marriage license just like everyone else, there is no discrimination against homosexual people, you aren't even asked about your sexuality when applying for a marriage licence. But what homosexuals want, is to CHANGE marriage, to include same-sex unions, which ARE NOT marriage. Now.... what if pedophiles sought to change the age of accountability laws so they could "marry" children? Does that have "absolutely no effect on anyone one other than the people getting married?" Is any argument against that, nonsense as well?

Children can’t give consent. Neither can sheep nor mail boxes so we can count them out.

I want you to close your eyes and imagine you are saying that to the Enron employees who lost their retirements!

There will always be people who think they know the market or others who will cheat them out of their money. That’s why pensions were implemented by law. Not personally, but as a society, we’ve been there, done that. That’s precisely why SS is necessary.

 

[Damocles]

Hey, Grind...

How many JPP Points is it when you start an Onion thread and get this many responses?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

i think the category for that is a random thread started in off topic. but yes this would get points for standard long thread (over 500 posts)

we are going to start in september and it's going to be a monthly thing and it's going to be awweeesome.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

In Post #580 BAC posted two seperate references. One was about people lining up for Job Fairs and the other was about people lining up for free medical.

.

My response was pointing out that just because people went to the Job Fair didn't mean that they were unemployed and that people will line up for anything that is FREE.

.

BAC then replies and said my presentation was MORONIC.

.

You then made the choice to try and denigrate my comment and tried to say that I was stating that the only reason people went to the Job Fair, was because it was free; which isn't what I said, nor did my post imply such.

.

I then challanged you to show where I had said any such thing and went so far to point out that BAC's comment was regarding two seperate situations.

.

You then once again tried to tie the Job Fair into the medical situation and questioned what kind of job someone must have, that would compel them to see about FREE Medical; completely ignoring where I said that people will line up for just about anything that's free.

.

J-Mac then chimed in and explained that insurance isn't always part of being employed.

.

Your reply still tried to make it a fact that if someone was at a Job Fair, it had to be; because they had a crappy job.

.

I wanted to know how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.

.

Your reply once again tried to tie the Job Fairs into the free medical, by once again implying that the only reason people went to the Job Fair was to see about free medical.
QUOTE=apple0154;1062134].

I suggested that you quit trying to equate the two; because someone looking for a better job, doesn't mean that they have a crappy job.

.

And then you finally conceded that some one employed might just be looking for a better job,

Indeed, some may be well employed and looking for something better but it's doubtful they make up any significant numbers.

The problem is, you made the decision to include the phrase "well employed" which was something that you choose to throw in.
First you tried to say that people only go to Job Fairs; because they have no job and tried to make it part of the free medical part.
Then you suggested that if they are employed and there, then they must have crappy jobs and still tried to tie into the free mecial.
And now you decided that the numbers of anyone being "well employed" that would attend a job fair, must be low.

You completely ignore the possiblity that people can have a job, that pays well; but still have a desire to improve their employment.
You also ignore that people will go to see about Free Medical; because it's FREE.

You jump from someone must have a crappy job, with no insurance, for your explanation as to why anyone would attend a Job Fair and then you jump to the numbers of those attending, who are "well employed", must be a small representation.

You refuse to except any middle ground and everything to you, has to be either one extreme or the other.

I no longer have the energy to watch you spin everything the direction you want it to go.
You dismiss the majority of presentations, that don't coincide with your desire of where you feel things should be and then you misrepresent what was posted.

It is for those reasons that you will be ignored.
Not placed on IA; but ignored.

 

[Rune]

Hey, Grind...

How many JPP Points is it when you start an Onion thread and get this many responses?

How many points should be deducted since half of the words in the thread were written by Dixie?

 

[apple0154]

In Post #580 BAC posted two seperate references. One was about people lining up for Job Fairs and the other was about people lining up for free medical.


My response was pointing out that just because people went to the Job Fair didn't mean that they were unemployed and that people will line up for anything that is FREE.


BAC then replies and said my presentation was MORONIC.


You then made the choice to try and denigrate my comment and tried to say that I was stating that the only reason people went to the Job Fair, was because it was free; which isn't what I said, nor did my post imply such.


I then challanged you to show where I had said any such thing and went so far to point out that BAC's comment was regarding two seperate situations.


You then once again tried to tie the Job Fair into the medical situation and questioned what kind of job someone must have, that would compel them to see about FREE Medical; completely ignoring where I said that people will line up for just about anything that's free.


J-Mac then chimed in and explained that insurance isn't always part of being employed.


Your reply still tried to make it a fact that if someone was at a Job Fair, it had to be; because they had a crappy job.


I wanted to know how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.


Your reply once again tried to tie the Job Fairs into the free medical, by once again implying that the only reason people went to the Job Fair was to see about free medical.

QUOTE=apple0154;1062134].

I suggested that you quit trying to equate the two; because someone looking for a better job, doesn't mean that they have a crappy job.


And then you finally conceded that some one employed might just be looking for a better job,


The problem is, you made the decision to include the phrase "well employed" which was something that you choose to throw in.
First you tried to say that people only go to Job Fairs; because they have no job and tried to make it part of the free medical part.
Then you suggested that if they are employed and there, then they must have crappy jobs and still tried to tie into the free mecial.
And now you decided that the numbers of anyone being "well employed" that would attend a job fair, must be low.

You completely ignore the possiblity that people can have a job, that pays well; but still have a desire to improve their employment.
You also ignore that people will go to see about Free Medical; because it's FREE.

You jump from someone must have a crappy job, with no insurance, for your explanation as to why anyone would attend a Job Fair and then you jump to the numbers of those attending, who are "well employed", must be a small representation.

You refuse to except any middle ground and everything to you, has to be either one extreme or the other.

I no longer have the energy to watch you spin everything the direction you want it to go.
You dismiss the majority of presentations, that don't coincide with your desire of where you feel things should be and then you misrepresent what was posted.

It is for those reasons that you will be ignored.
Not placed on IA; but ignored.

That's fine with me. Just as there is probably someone at a job fair who has unpaid parking tickets and someone whose great, great grandfather came over on the Mayflower they hardly make up a sizable number. I'm fine with being ignored because there's little point discussing anything with someone who makes exceptions the focal point of the discussion.

 

[j-mac]

How many points should be deducted since half of the words in the thread were written by Dixie?

Probably less than that of a liberal poster who posts a personal attack on another poster and calls it a 'current event'....

Children! All we have here to debate with is Children!

 

[Rune]

Probably less than that of a liberal poster who posts a personal attack on another poster and calls it a 'current event'....

Link? If this were true, Billy would have swiftly moved it to the war zone. Lying does not engender credibility.

 

[Howey]

Probably less than that of a liberal poster who posts a personal attack on another poster and calls it a 'current event'....

Children! All we have here to debate with is Children!

May I suggest you go back to that forum that banned you for being a troll? And take Yurt back with you?

 

[Rune]

Child! I debate like a Child!

Fixed that for you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Future employees wouldn’t have agreed so Enron had no way to pay back the money.

Exactly my point, and future generations are not going to agree to repay SS for the money stolen by this generation. End of argument.

The problem is that the helping programs are too limited. There are still places where people collecting UI are forbidden to attend school/classes because the contributors to UI (businesses) don’t want to pay for someone’s education. (If I recall it’s North Carolina that changed that rule last year.)

No, the problem, at $147 trillion in unfunded liability, is NOT that we don't throw enough money at the problems. Sorry!

Help is begrudgingly given. The minimum is given. Programs and the people who represent them (case workers) are mandated to look for ways to disqualify people. The whole concept is backwards/upside down. The mindset is ‘by law we have to help you so we’ll do as little as possible to fulfil that requirement.’ It sets up an antagonistic relationship, a battle of wits between the helper and the helpee instead of having both people on the same side.

Begrudgingly? We've begrudgingly appropriated $147 trillion that we don't have, and you don't think that is enough. Fraud is rampant, both from people getting money they don't deserve, and by government cronies who are bilking the system through expense accounts and whatnot, not to mention their huge salaries and pensions, which aren't in the same realm of reality with the rest of the private sector. Do you know that 4 out of 5 government employees make over $100k a year?

No, we can’t expect welfare people to think up ingenuous ways to make money when they’re thinking how to put dinner on the table that night. Or supplying their child’s school supplies. Or affording winter boots for the child. Or hoping a tooth ache will go away because a dentist visit means one less dinner that month.

Here again you illustrate the difference between my view and yours. I believe that welfare people are just as smart and capable as anyone else, and they can (and DO) think up ingenious ideas to make money and escape lives of poverty. You are the one, ironically enough, who thinks poor people are too stupid to figure it out, and need you to help them.

I recall something a friend of mine told me years ago when we were both job hunting. I got a part time job. A few weeks later I found a full time position. Once there was a layoff and I found another job within a week. He said I had a horse shoe up my a$$.

Maybe he meant you NEED a horseshoe up your ass? Or in the head!

Whatever you may believe I know I have been lucky.

Lots of people are lucky. But let me ask you something, who is more likely to win a lottery, someone who chooses to buy tickets, or someone who doesn't? Is there any possible scenario, where the person who doesn't, is lucky enough to win the lottery? I would say, chances are, the person who was motivated to buy a ticket, might be slightly more inclined to win the lottery than someone who was not so motivated, wouldn't you? So our CHOICES are often what produce our "luck" or "fortune," and it really all boils down to motivations.

The definition has changed. People use more electricity today than they did 50 years ago so in order to pay for electricity more money is required. Consider the school supplies required today compared to 50 years ago? When I attended school almost 50 years ago the school supplied almost everything. Today, they do not.

Again, the poverty level takes this into consideration, that is why the poverty level has increased over the years.

Again, poverty is not a fixed number. It is the relationship between people. A person living in a 3rd world country who has sufficient food and shelter and clothing is not considered poor even if they can’t afford a TV or computer or other things we take for granted. A tribesman living in the rain forest with only a spear and a homemade bed in a cabin built of sticks is not considered poor because he has the same as everyone else. He can afford to see the medicine man if he gets ill but poor people here can’t afford to see a doctor so who is poorer? Who is more likely to suffer depression? Who is more likely to be called lazy?

The US Dept. of Health and Human Services conducts a study each year, on what it costs an average family of 4 to live. They factor in housing, clothing, food, education, and medical care. THAT is the US poverty level. They don't consider how people are living in 3rd world countries, they don't consider material possessions. That said, the average person living below poverty level in America, has a color tv, a car, air conditioning, and a cell phone. Our poor live better than the rich in some undeveloped countries. But the poverty level is determined by HHS, and it is the amount of money it takes for an average family to survive. This amount has increased over the years, and we've increased funding accordingly, made programs available accordingly... and what hasn't changed, is the number of people living in poverty.

What the hell are you talking about? Not only is sex the primary reason people marry but sex is required to consummate a marriage. Yes, Virginia, it is all about sex. “I just can’t get enough of that little thang!!” The first thing is sexual attraction although I suppose some people marry for other reasons and almost always end up miserable.

Two men can't have intercourse, one of them needs a vagina. You are trying to claim butt sex is intercourse, but it's not, it's butt sex. You are trying to claim same sex unions are marriage, they are not, they are same sex unions. I have no problem with getting government out of the 'marriage' business altogether, and adopting some kind of 'civil unions' legislation, so that gay people can enjoy the same benefits as married couples, but I am not budging on my refusal to redefine marriage or any other words we've used for 8,000 years to describe something. It's a dangerous precedent to set. If we can redefine 'marriage', why not 'consent' or 'adult' as well? It was once legal to marry 12-year-olds in America, can you imagine if it had ever been legal to marry the same sex? We wouldn't hear the end of that, you'd throw it in our faces every day! But you see, we decided that maybe it's not the best idea to let 12-year-olds marry, and we changed that policy. But now.. if we are going to suddenly redefine marriage to accommodate sexual proclivity, then that can of worms can be opened again, and it will be.

Children can’t give consent. Neither can sheep nor mail boxes so we can count them out.

If we can redefine marriage, something that has been defined for thousands of years and allow something that has NEVER been done in America before, they we can certainly redefine "children" and "consent" and we can also make the argument that people should be entitled to 'marry' whatever turns them on sexually, because that is the standard we are setting. You can't have laws that apply to one set of individuals, yet deny another set of individuals the same rights, it's not constitutional. Take all your arguments for gay marriage, and apply them to sheep marriage... same thing! Who are we to deny people the right to marry who they love? What harm does it do to your traditional marriage, for someone to marry a sheep? You just don't want people to marry sheep because you're a bigot!

There will always be people who think they know the market or others who will cheat them out of their money. That’s why pensions were implemented by law. Not personally, but as a society, we’ve been there, done that. That’s precisely why SS is necessary.

No, Social Security was developed as a 'safety net' to deal with a very real problem society was having at the time. You see, some people don't think ahead, they don't plan for how they are going to care for themselves when they become too old to work. So what was happening was, people got old and no one was there to care for them, so they suffered and died, living their final days in shameful condition. We decided that it would be a good idea for everyone to pitch in and pay a little out of their paycheck each week, and then, when they retire, they at least have some means of support, and don't have to depend on societal charity. But over the years, politicians added this and that, extended programs here and there, and couldn't resist the accumulated funds put in largely by the Baby Boomers. So they have spent their savings, it's gone! Now your idea for how to deal with this, is way different than your idea on how to deal with Enron, who essentially did the same thing with their employees retirements, you want the taxpayers of future generations to repay the money stolen. Again, I like my system better, where the crooks go to JAIL!

 

[apple0154]

Exactly my point, and future generations are not going to agree to repay SS for the money stolen by this generation. End of argument.

Sorry, that’s not how democracy works. The majority rules and according to yr.2000 statistics there were approximately 114 million people aged 45 or older compared to 99 million aged 20 to 44. (http://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/stdpop.19ages.html) Most folks who are 45+ have paid a chunk of money into SS so they will not rush to scrap the plan. And as time passes more people move into that group so more and more will be voting to keep SS. And then there’s those who have picked up a history book and are aware of why there is such a thing as SS. Then there’s the fact other programs can be cut and the money funnelled into SS. And, finally, as society progresses the government will play a bigger and bigger role just as we’ve seen over the years. The more complex and inter-dependent we become the more government involvement that is necessary.

No, the problem, at $147 trillion in unfunded liability, is NOT that we don't throw enough money at the problems. Sorry!

It’s the throwing that is the problem. Again, take UI as an example. They’ll pay someone to sit at home but refuse to help people increase their education. So, a person collects UI. It finally runs out. They get a job and they’re the first one to be laid off due to a lack of skills. Back on UI and the wheels go round and round. Or they end up on welfare. In any case the government keeps paying and paying because they refuse to do what is right in the first place.

Let’s say a twenty year old started out working on an assembly line. If they spent the next 10 or 15 years doing that and are then laid off they are not qualified to do anything else. Considering many assembly line jobs have moved overseas that person has to be retrained. They don’t even qualify for a minimum wage job because employers are going to hire a 20 year old rather than a 35 year old for a minimum wage job or any other entry level job. The 20 year old is quicker, more enthusiastic, eager to raise his wages from $8/hr to $9/hr. or $10/hr. The 35 year old, after earning $15 or $20 an hour at his old job, will have a different view of a promotion to $10/hr. They will always be “discontented” compared to the younger person just starting out.

Begrudgingly? We've begrudgingly appropriated $147 trillion that we don't have, and you don't think that is enough. Fraud is rampant, both from people getting money they don't deserve, and by government cronies who are bilking the system through expense accounts and whatnot, not to mention their huge salaries and pensions, which aren't in the same realm of reality with the rest of the private sector. Do you know that 4 out of 5 government employees make over $100k a year?

The high salary of the “bosses” is where the scrutiny should start. As for fraud that would diminish if the help was more detailed. Work with the person collecting government benefits. Help them, not just by sending a check for the designated period of time and then cut them off but have education programs. Combine efforts with businesses and offer to pay the business a portion of their salary if they train them and/or evaluate them for a particular job. Have them take aptitude tests (Ex: Briggs/Myers). Maybe someone has a natural talent for drawing/design. Maybe a good fraudster (bullsh!tter) would make a good salesman. Maybe a naturally empathetic individual would make a good nurse's aid.

The point is to take the time necessary to deal with the person and while it may involve higher initial cost the individual will not be back in the system next year.

Here again you illustrate the difference between my view and yours. I believe that welfare people are just as smart and capable as anyone else, and they can (and DO) think up ingenious ideas to make money and escape lives of poverty. You are the one, ironically enough, who thinks poor people are too stupid to figure it out, and need you to help them.

I’m not saying they’re not smart. I’m saying they don’t have the time to think about those things. When you have a problem to solve or a worry do you not concentrate on that specific thing? And if, as you say, they’re so smart and capable they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in, in the first place. If they are just as smart and capable then the position they’re in is through no fault of their own which is another reason to help them.

People try to come up with all sorts of reasons not to help. “They’re fraudsters. They’re just as smart and capable. They’re just lazy.” The fact is they are in that particular position and need help getting out. A comprehensive plan would root out the fraudsters and the lazy ones and help those who require help. It’s just logical.

Lots of people are lucky. But let me ask you something, who is more likely to win a lottery, someone who chooses to buy tickets, or someone who doesn't? Is there any possible scenario, where the person who doesn't, is lucky enough to win the lottery? I would say, chances are, the person who was motivated to buy a ticket, might be slightly more inclined to win the lottery than someone who was not so motivated, wouldn't you? So our CHOICES are often what produce our "luck" or "fortune," and it really all boils down to motivations.

So send all the welfare and UI recipients to that Robbins guy.

Again, the poverty level takes this into consideration, that is why the poverty level has increased over the years.

So what’s your point? You said things are getting worse. The truth is more people are being helped because the definition has changed. Things are getting better.

The US Dept. of Health and Human Services conducts a study each year, on what it costs an average family of 4 to live. They factor in housing, clothing, food, education, and medical care. THAT is the US poverty level. They don't consider how people are living in 3rd world countries, they don't consider material possessions. That said, the average person living below poverty level in America, has a color tv, a car, air conditioning, and a cell phone. Our poor live better than the rich in some undeveloped countries. But the poverty level is determined by HHS, and it is the amount of money it takes for an average family to survive. This amount has increased over the years, and we've increased funding accordingly, made programs available accordingly... and what hasn't changed, is the number of people living in poverty.

That’s because our society advances. Again, take a tribe in the rain forest. A hut costs the same as a hut did 100 years ago. It takes so many hours to build one and that has remained constant. So if a hut cost 50 lizard tongues 100 years ago it costs the same today because it takes the same amount of time to catch a lizard. Also, there are a limited number of things available to those tribes. The cost of living remains constant. Food is either eaten or it decays. There is no point anyone hoarding food. They don’t require a lot of “money” because there’s nothing to buy. So a visit to a medicine man is affordable for everyone.

Contrast that to our society regarding how things are done along with the things available. Today’s “medicine man” wants a new iPod so he wants money for that item. As new items come to market he wants them also. So, he charges more and what better line of work to be in, huh?

The sick will dump their wallet trying to feel better and the dying…..JACKPOT!.....they’ll give you their house, their car, they’ll load up their credit cards….just give the word. And if one isn’t a “medicine man”, no problem. There are all sorts of spin off industries, from pills to hospital beds. And if one doesn’t want to work at all they can invest in any of those businesses. And with the baby boomers getting older those who want to ensure everyone has medical insurance are accused of trying to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs or chop down the money tree. It’s sacrilege or, even worse, referred to as socialism, the devil’s political system.

Two men can't have intercourse, one of them needs a vagina. You are trying to claim butt sex is intercourse, but it's not, it's butt sex. You are trying to claim same sex unions are marriage, they are not, they are same sex unions. I have no problem with getting government out of the 'marriage' business altogether, and adopting some kind of 'civil unions' legislation, so that gay people can enjoy the same benefits as married couples, but I am not budging on my refusal to redefine marriage or any other words we've used for 8,000 years to describe something. It's a dangerous precedent to set. If we can redefine 'marriage', why not 'consent' or 'adult' as well? It was once legal to marry 12-year-olds in America, can you imagine if it had ever been legal to marry the same sex? We wouldn't hear the end of that, you'd throw it in our faces every day! But you see, we decided that maybe it's not the best idea to let 12-year-olds marry, and we changed that policy. But now.. if we are going to suddenly redefine marriage to accommodate sexual proclivity, then that can of worms can be opened again, and it will be.

Again, what’s your point? You just said we have redefined marriage at least once by prohibiting 12 year olds from getting married. Imagine conservatives ranting about people who wanted to change that. Why change the definition of marriage to exclude 12 year olds? Well, maybe excluding 12 year olds from marriage was the right thing to do just as including homosexuals in marriage is the right thing to do.

Arranged marriages between families were quite common across most religions/traditions. Why did we change that?

If we can redefine marriage, something that has been defined for thousands of years and allow something that has NEVER been done in America before, they we can certainly redefine "children" and "consent" and we can also make the argument that people should be entitled to 'marry' whatever turns them on sexually, because that is the standard we are setting. You can't have laws that apply to one set of individuals, yet deny another set of individuals the same rights, it's not constitutional. Take all your arguments for gay marriage, and apply them to sheep marriage... same thing! Who are we to deny people the right to marry who they love? What harm does it do to your traditional marriage, for someone to marry a sheep? You just don't want people to marry sheep because you're a bigot!

No bigot here. Show me a sheep that can freely give their consent and I’ll support sheep marriage. Deal?

No, Social Security was developed as a 'safety net' to deal with a very real problem society was having at the time. You see, some people don't think ahead, they don't plan for how they are going to care for themselves when they become too old to work. So what was happening was, people got old and no one was there to care for them, so they suffered and died, living their final days in shameful condition. We decided that it would be a good idea for everyone to pitch in and pay a little out of their paycheck each week, and then, when they retire, they at least have some means of support, and don't have to depend on societal charity. But over the years, politicians added this and that, extended programs here and there, and couldn't resist the accumulated funds put in largely by the Baby Boomers. So they have spent their savings, it's gone! Now your idea for how to deal with this, is way different than your idea on how to deal with Enron, who essentially did the same thing with their employees retirements, you want the taxpayers of future generations to repay the money stolen. Again, I like my system better, where the crooks go to JAIL!

Sure, your way results in the crooks going to jail and the elderly still dying in poverty. Great solution, NOT! Each generation pays for the previous generation. That was the original concept as I explained before. The people who first collected pensions in the 30s never paid into the fund because there was no fund to pay into.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sorry, that’s not how democracy works.

Democracy has nothing to do with right and wrong. Our SS money was stolen, just like Enron stole retirement money from employees, our retirement was stolen by politicians. With the private system, people go to jail and are punished... with the government-run system, the taxpayers are punished while the crooks go free. MY system is BETTER!

They’ll pay someone to sit at home but refuse to help people increase their education.

Not so. We have dozens of programs at both the State and Federal level, to assist the poor and unemployed in advancing their education.

The high salary of the “bosses” is where the scrutiny should start.

Maybe so, but how do you go about doing that if you are constantly throwing more money to them and refusing to consider any cuts?

I’m not saying they’re not smart. I’m saying they don’t have the time to think about those things.

But some people obviously do, because they escape lives of poverty to become uber-successful. How did they manage?

And if, as you say, they’re so smart and capable they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in, in the first place.

Well you just finished saying that you didn't believe they weren't smart, now you are arguing they must not be very smart! Many people are born into lives of poverty. That's how they got there. But many people are motivated to not live in poverty, and escape, through determination and sheer will. It's not EASY, but Apple... things that are worthwhile in life, are often not EASY!

So send all the welfare and UI recipients to that Robbins guy.

Well you can knock Tony Robbins, but the man is successful. Granted, these days he probably makes more money telling people how to become successful than anything else, which I am telling you here for free. All it really takes is determination and motivation to succeed. Now... give Socialists a few more years to destroy private sector capitalism, and it won't be possible, even if you are determined and motivated. It is already becoming more difficult to open a business and do business, we keep heaping burden on the entrepreneur in this jealous fit of rage against those who are successful, and it makes it even harder for someone of little means to succeed. You're not punishing the rich, you're punishing those who want to become rich.

So what’s your point? You said things are getting worse. The truth is more people are being helped because the definition has changed. Things are getting better.

My point is to educate you on what it means when we say "poverty level" in this country. It has nothing to do with changing times or what people want today as compared to yesterday. Each year, we calculate the cost of living, and come up with a number... those who earn less than that number, are considered to be living in poverty. That number is not changing. Things are not getting better. Just as many live in poverty now as they did 50 years ago, when we declared War on Poverty. The parameters of what is or isn't poverty, had not changed or been redefined, it is still calculated the exact same way. The subsequent number of people living in poverty, has also not changed.

And with the baby boomers getting older those who want to ensure everyone has medical insurance are accused of trying to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs or chop down the money tree.

There is no magic goose or tree, Apple. We have a government which operates on a budget according to what people pay in taxes. The only place money comes from, is taxation of the people. Now, if people aren't employed or doing capitalist business to make profit, there is no tax revenue, and therefore, the government has no source of income. What you are accused of, is stealing the wealth from people to pay for things you think are needed for others. When you were looking at purchasing the home you mentioned before, how would you have felt if I had stepped in and said, you don't deserve that, Apple, not while there are people suffering... so I am going to take your down payment and give it to the needy instead! I would suspect you wouldn't have appreciated that, and you would have said I didn't have that right... Same thing here... you don't have the right to take MY money and give it to others. It has nothing to do with what you think is best, it's not YOUR money!

Again, what’s your point? You just said we have redefined marriage at least once by prohibiting 12 year olds from getting married.

No, we did not redefine what marriage meant. It still meant a male/female union, that hasn't changed in 8,000 years. We established a limitation, a boundary, a restriction. Marriage still remained the same in meaning.

Why change the definition of marriage to exclude 12 year olds? Well, maybe excluding 12 year olds from marriage was the right thing to do just as including homosexuals in marriage is the right thing to do.

Again, the definition of marriage was not changed. And what is "right and wrong" is central to this issue, because we simply disagree. The principle of the matter is very important. Most people, at some point, agreed that it wasn't best for a child to be married at 12, so we changed the law to establish a restriction. But now, if "marriage is a right" and it's none of our business what two people do, then how can we hypocritically deny people their "right" to marry 12-year-olds, or even say what is or isn't appropriate for the children of others? We have no moral high horse, we can either accept that it's not our place to determine these things, or we can understand it is our civic obligation to set boundaries and limitations for the society we live in. We don't get to pick and chose and judge on high, what is and isn't "right" for others, while we force our own beliefs on them. If we redefine marriage to include sexual proclivities, we open a real bothersome can of worms we don't want to deal with... living in denial of this fact, doesn't make the can of worms disappear. It's best we leave the definitions of traditional marriage alone, and seek another alternative to helping gay couples get the benefits they desire. That is possible, that is doable, and we can work toward a viable solution to the problem, without changing what marriage means.

No bigot here. Show me a sheep that can freely give their consent and I’ll support sheep marriage. Deal?

Again, if we can redefine what marriage means, we can also redefine what "consent" means. Maybe the sheep bah's twice for yes and once for no, and all we do is ask the sheep? What difference does it make to you? Maybe we "redefine consent" to mean, the sheep didn't run away from the person fucking it, so it must have consented? How does that harm your marriage? Anything is possible when we start redefining things willy-nilly to fit our agendas. A 'naturalist' might argue that at age 12, a human begins to mature and develop into an adult, and thus, should be 'fair game' to other adults of the species, just like in nature? That argument becomes completely legitimate if we redefine marriage to accommodate sexual desires.

Sure, your way results in the crooks going to jail and the elderly still dying in poverty. Great solution, NOT! Each generation pays for the previous generation. That was the original concept as I explained before. The people who first collected pensions in the 30s never paid into the fund because there was no fund to pay into.

I got news for ya, Apple.. Elderly people are always going to die, so will sick people. There is no way to stop that from happening. We are also going to always have poor people, because some people lack motivation to be anything more. It doesn't matter how much resources we pour on them, they will accept it and still remain poor, because they lack the motivation to become anything greater. We simply can not afford to lavish the poor in luxury and give them everything they desire from cradle to grave, from the womb to the tomb, we don't have enough working taxpaying Americans to do that. And the more we try to do this, the more people out there who will just give up trying and accept the handouts... why the hell not? You can either work your ass off and give half your money to "the needy" or you can not work and be one of the "needy" who gets half of everyone's money. If it's all the same difference, why not chose the way that requires the least work?

 

[apple0154]

Democracy has nothing to do with right and wrong. Our SS money was stolen, just like Enron stole retirement money from employees, our retirement was stolen by politicians. With the private system, people go to jail and are punished... with the government-run system, the taxpayers are punished while the crooks go free. MY system is BETTER!

So what is the better solution, Dixie, spending time prosecuting all those politicians or using that time to implement a law that prohibits the government from using that money in the future? Don’t large companies work the same way? Why would GM have a problem paying pensions if it went bankrupt if it never touched the money it put aside for pensions? As far as I know companies are permitted to spend the pension contributions as long as a certain portion is available for immediate pension needs. If private enterprise can pay management outrageous bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and avoid paying pensions does the government give the politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses and then say there’s no pension money? If we’re going to talk about thieves I suggest we look at the private sector first.

Not so. We have dozens of programs at both the State and Federal level, to assist the poor and unemployed in advancing their education.

Now there may be but that was not the case before.

(Excerpt) Federal Approval
In February 2009, President Obama signed a $787 billion economic stimulus bill that included money to help get the unemployed back to work through training. He directed the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Education to work together to inform the unemployed about their training opportunities -- a joint venture that exists through the website opportunity.gov. As a person collecting unemployment benefits, you are encouraged to and have resources available to attend school and improve your chances of becoming re-employed.


Trade Adjustment Assistance
The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is a program operated by the NC ESC that provides training in a new field for people who will lose their jobs as a result of increased imports from other countries. Classroom training, full-time or part-time and online with approval, is one of the training options in this program. (End)
http://www.ehow.com/info_8317875_can-unemployment-benefits-attend-school.html

The old excuse was one couldn’t look for a job/go for an interview if they were in school. Of course that assumed the jobs were pouring in every day when the reality was one was lucky to find a new job offering in their daily paper or on the UI employment boards on a daily basis. At least Obama saw through that scam and channelled some funds to correct it.

Maybe so, but how do you go about doing that if you are constantly throwing more money to them and refusing to consider any cuts?

Simple. Cap the salaries of public “bosses”.

Well you can knock Tony Robbins, but the man is successful. Granted, these days he probably makes more money telling people how to become successful than anything else, which I am telling you here for free. All it really takes is determination and motivation to succeed. Now... give Socialists a few more years to destroy private sector capitalism, and it won't be possible, even if you are determined and motivated. It is already becoming more difficult to open a business and do business, we keep heaping burden on the entrepreneur in this jealous fit of rage against those who are successful, and it makes it even harder for someone of little means to succeed. You're not punishing the rich, you're punishing those who want to become rich.

There is no ‘jealous fit of rage against those who are successful’. The rage is against those who try to become successful by polluting and cutting safety standards and scamming people. That’s why there are rules and regulations. Do you want someone cutting your hair with a defective pair of scissors or installing a new roof without the proper tools because they’re ‘someone of little means’? As I asked previous are you going to buy $4,000 worth of new appliances from a one-man shop with a sign “New, used, repairs” in the window or go to a major appliance retailer?

Make a major appliance/electronics purchase and try to return it to a business run by ‘someone of little means’. While you seem to support small business I don’t see you as a person who makes major purchases from such places. Can you give us an example of a major purchase you made from a ‘someone of little means’ operation?

My point is to educate you on what it means when we say "poverty level" in this country. It has nothing to do with changing times or what people want today as compared to yesterday. Each year, we calculate the cost of living, and come up with a number... those who earn less than that number, are considered to be living in poverty. That number is not changing. Things are not getting better. Just as many live in poverty now as they did 50 years ago, when we declared War on Poverty. The parameters of what is or isn't poverty, had not changed or been redefined, it is still calculated the exact same way. The subsequent number of people living in poverty, has also not changed.

Real purchasing power has declined over the years. If a family made $2000 above the poverty level and price increases and inflation resulted in the family spending an additional $3,000 that family has fallen into poverty. It has nothing to do with the failure of social programs. More people are falling into poverty and social programs are helping more people.

Things are changing. The jobs that moved overseas are not coming back. Either a new industry moves into the ‘rust belt’ or people will remain unemployed. Social programs do their best to keep people above the poverty level but the fact jobs are disappearing and more people are falling into poverty is not a gauge of how poorly those policies work. If anything, if what you wrote is correct “The subsequent number of people living in poverty, has also not changed” that shows how well those policies do work as the poverty level is staying constant even though more and more people are losing their job.

There is no magic goose or tree, Apple. We have a government which operates on a budget according to what people pay in taxes. The only place money comes from, is taxation of the people. Now, if people aren't employed or doing capitalist business to make profit, there is no tax revenue, and therefore, the government has no source of income. What you are accused of, is stealing the wealth from people to pay for things you think are needed for others. When you were looking at purchasing the home you mentioned before, how would you have felt if I had stepped in and said, you don't deserve that, Apple, not while there are people suffering... so I am going to take your down payment and give it to the needy instead! I would suspect you wouldn't have appreciated that, and you would have said I didn't have that right... Same thing here... you don't have the right to take MY money and give it to others. It has nothing to do with what you think is best, it's not YOUR money!

But the better off are stealing from society. Why are mortgage payments tax deductible and not rental payments? Who has more money; the homeowner or the renter? Why should the homeowner not pay tax on a portion of their living costs at the expense of the renter?

As for taking one’s down payment if everyone paid the same taxes they’d have the same down payment available. Everyone would have a little less so there would be no discrimination. It would still be a level playing field except MY way results in the poor being helped.

No, we did not redefine what marriage meant. It still meant a male/female union, that hasn't changed in 8,000 years. We established a limitation, a boundary, a restriction. Marriage still remained the same in meaning.

Again, the definition of marriage was not changed. And what is "right and wrong" is central to this issue, because we simply disagree. The principle of the matter is very important. Most people, at some point, agreed that it wasn't best for a child to be married at 12, so we changed the law to establish a restriction. But now, if "marriage is a right" and it's none of our business what two people do, then how can we hypocritically deny people their "right" to marry 12-year-olds, or even say what is or isn't appropriate for the children of others? We have no moral high horse, we can either accept that it's not our place to determine these things, or we can understand it is our civic obligation to set boundaries and limitations for the society we live in. We don't get to pick and chose and judge on high, what is and isn't "right" for others, while we force our own beliefs on them. If we redefine marriage to include sexual proclivities, we open a real bothersome can of worms we don't want to deal with... living in denial of this fact, doesn't make the can of worms disappear. It's best we leave the definitions of traditional marriage alone, and seek another alternative to helping gay couples get the benefits they desire. That is possible, that is doable, and we can work toward a viable solution to the problem, without changing what marriage means.

Again, if we can redefine what marriage means, we can also redefine what "consent" means. Maybe the sheep bah's twice for yes and once for no, and all we do is ask the sheep? What difference does it make to you? Maybe we "redefine consent" to mean, the sheep didn't run away from the person fucking it, so it must have consented? How does that harm your marriage? Anything is possible when we start redefining things willy-nilly to fit our agendas. A 'naturalist' might argue that at age 12, a human begins to mature and develop into an adult, and thus, should be 'fair game' to other adults of the species, just like in nature? That argument becomes completely legitimate if we redefine marriage to accommodate sexual desires.

But we have interfered in marriage. We stopped 12 year olds from marrying. We stopped forced marriages arranged through parents. Marriage was just as much a bargaining tool and ‘gift’ exchange between families/tribes as it was anything else. In fact one didn’t require marriage to make children but the ceremony and what it signified was official and public acknowledgement of families/tribes joining forces. Maybe it’s us who screwed around with marriage.

As for “It's best we leave the definitions of traditional marriage alone, and seek another alternative to helping gay couples get the benefits they desire. That is possible, that is doable, and we can work toward a viable solution to the problem, without changing what marriage means” have you ever heard of “equal but different”? Does that expression ring a bell? If so, how well did that work? Was everyone satisfied? Did everyone get what they desired?

That is exactly what you propose for gay couples. Equal benefits/rights but different. Sounds logical and fair but we already know the outcome. There will always be people trying to exploit the “different” part of that.

We already know what the outcome will be. We’ve been down the “equal but different” road before. That’s why I can’t understand why anyone would suggest it. Either they don’t know history or they want the idea to fail.

I got news for ya, Apple.. Elderly people are always going to die, so will sick people. There is no way to stop that from happening. We are also going to always have poor people, because some people lack motivation to be anything more. It doesn't matter how much resources we pour on them, they will accept it and still remain poor, because they lack the motivation to become anything greater. We simply can not afford to lavish the poor in luxury and give them everything they desire from cradle to grave, from the womb to the tomb, we don't have enough working taxpaying Americans to do that. And the more we try to do this, the more people out there who will just give up trying and accept the handouts... why the hell not? You can either work your ass off and give half your money to "the needy" or you can not work and be one of the "needy" who gets half of everyone's money. If it's all the same difference, why not chose the way that requires the least work?

It’s not the same difference. No poor person is getting ½. What does welfare pay; $12,000/yr. approximately? What is that ½ of? Half of someone else’s salary who is living in poverty.

There are lazy people but no one wants to suffer. No one wants to go hungry. No one wants to be in pain because they can’t afford a doctor or medication regardless of how lazy one may claim those folks are.

No one is suggesting they be given luxuries. In a country that produces enough food for export there is no justifiable reason for anyone to go hungry. None. There is no shortage. No ration. Absolutely no reason. Period.

When we see entire communities consisting of 150,000 plus new homes just left to rot there is no argument to justify the homelessness of anyone. Who ever built those houses simply accepted the loss and walked away so don’t try to tell us there is no money available to shelter the homeless. How many people bought 2 or 3 extra homes? People can afford to do that yet we see families of 4 or 5 living in a one room motel with school age children. The word ‘sociopath’ is an understatement.

Refusing to help the poor is due to nothing but sheer greed and selfishness. I've heard the same story all my life. The government does not have the money. Of course, the 90s showed that argument to be the grand lie it always was and is. Was there a building boom erecting homes to shelter the poor? Were there extra medical clinics temporarily set up so all welfare recipients could see a doctor just for a basic check-up? What did the governemnt do to help the poor when it had all that money? We know what the Repubs did. Hey, let's have a fireworks demonstration over Baghdad.

The government didn't even send one dinner coupon along with the welfare check when it had a surplus of funds. That's cheap!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So what is the better solution, Dixie, spending time prosecuting all those politicians or using that time to implement a law that prohibits the government from using that money in the future? Don’t large companies work the same way? Why would GM have a problem paying pensions if it went bankrupt if it never touched the money it put aside for pensions? As far as I know companies are permitted to spend the pension contributions as long as a certain portion is available for immediate pension needs. If private enterprise can pay management outrageous bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and avoid paying pensions does the government give the politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses and then say there’s no pension money? If we’re going to talk about thieves I suggest we look at the private sector first.

The better solution is to have a private sector system where the criminals are sent to jail.

Now there may be but that was not the case before.

We are not talking about how things once were. Once upon a time, we lived in caves and didn't have governments.

Simple. Cap the salaries of public “bosses”.

Cap them at the current levels of well over $100k per year, with massive pensions? We can't afford to. We need to eliminate the bosses by eliminating their departments. Like I said, 4 of 5 government employees are making over $100k per year, so we need to maybe keep 1 out of 5 who don't.

There is no ‘jealous fit of rage against those who are successful’.

That's exactly what it is, and your further continuing rant proves it. (shoddy roof installers, polluters, etc.)

Real purchasing power has declined over the years. If a family made $2000 above the poverty level and price increases and inflation resulted in the family spending an additional $3,000 that family has fallen into poverty. It has nothing to do with the failure of social programs. More people are falling into poverty and social programs are helping more people.

No, poverty level is an ever-changing amount, calculated annually by HHS. It takes basically the same amount of food for a human to survive today as it did 10,000 years ago, that parameter doesn't really change. The cost of the food may have gone up, but so does the poverty level. If your social programs and "war on poverty" were working, we'd see fewer and fewer people living below poverty level, but we don't... it's virtually unchanged, after 50 years of spending trillions of dollars... no effect. We're doing something wrong, if the idea is to help people out of poverty. That should be clear to anyone who looks at this objectively.

Things are changing. The jobs that moved overseas are not coming back. Either a new industry moves into the ‘rust belt’ or people will remain unemployed. Social programs do their best to keep people above the poverty level but the fact jobs are disappearing and more people are falling into poverty is not a gauge of how poorly those policies work. If anything, if what you wrote is correct “The subsequent number of people living in poverty, has also not changed” that shows how well those policies do work as the poverty level is staying constant even though more and more people are losing their job.

Problem is, with more an more people losing their jobs, and fewer people working, we have less tax revenue, and therefore, can't fund the level of social entitlements we have. We couldn't afford what we were doing WITH a full workforce, how the hell are we going to afford it with LESS people working, Apple? Do you comprehend how mathematics work here? There isn't a magic money tree or golden goose, those only exist in fairy tales. We can tax people more, or we can borrow more, or we can print up more money, and those are the only three options we have, if we're not going to make dramatic cuts. None of those options are viable... Taxing more will create more burden, borrowing more will create more debt interest, and printing more currency will devalue the dollar and make it worthless. So the only real option we have is to make drastic cuts. Much of that can probably be done by eliminating waste and fraud, but it has to be done, make no mistake. We simply can't keep doing what we are doing, it isn't working and we can't afford to keep trying.

But the better off are stealing from society. Why are mortgage payments tax deductible and not rental payments? Who has more money; the homeowner or the renter? Why should the homeowner not pay tax on a portion of their living costs at the expense of the renter?

Everything we do in the way of tax breaks, has a reason. We give a tax deduction for mortgages to encourage people to buy homes. We want people to do this because a home has intrinsic value. When you own a home, you have the ability to go to the bank and get a loan on the equity, therefore, you have a safety net in case of emergency. You forget, a homeowner also pays property tax a renter doesn't have to pay, the cost of insurance is much higher as well. Then there is maintenance and upkeep. So we give an incentive of a tax break, which is a small fraction of the money paid by the taxpayer, credited toward their income taxes.

As for taking one’s down payment if everyone paid the same taxes they’d have the same down payment available. Everyone would have a little less so there would be no discrimination. It would still be a level playing field except MY way results in the poor being helped.

We already know you don't know how to help the poor, we've established this already. Your ideas have been tried for the past 50 years, and the same relative number are still poor. Your idea to remove the mortgage deduction results in fewer people buying and owning homes, which means people have more difficulty selling their homes, and fewer people have a tangible asset as a result of home ownership. So you've done nothing but ADD to the number of poor. It never helps a poor person to tax a rich person more.

But we have interfered in marriage. We stopped 12 year olds from marrying. We stopped forced marriages arranged through parents. Marriage was just as much a bargaining tool and ‘gift’ exchange between families/tribes as it was anything else. In fact one didn’t require marriage to make children but the ceremony and what it signified was official and public acknowledgement of families/tribes joining forces. Maybe it’s us who screwed around with marriage.

As for “It's best we leave the definitions of traditional marriage alone, and seek another alternative to helping gay couples get the benefits they desire. That is possible, that is doable, and we can work toward a viable solution to the problem, without changing what marriage means” have you ever heard of “equal but different”? Does that expression ring a bell? If so, how well did that work? Was everyone satisfied? Did everyone get what they desired?

That is exactly what you propose for gay couples. Equal benefits/rights but different. Sounds logical and fair but we already know the outcome. There will always be people trying to exploit the “different” part of that.

We already know what the outcome will be. We’ve been down the “equal but different” road before. That’s why I can’t understand why anyone would suggest it. Either they don’t know history or they want the idea to fail.

I've never suggested "equal, but different." I suggest, different AND equal. You are failing to comprehend. Get the government out of the 'marriage' business. DIFFERENT! Institute in it's place, a comprehensive civil union contract between any two consenting adults. EQUAL! I did not sate that I want a separate "civil unions" deal for gays, while traditional marriages carry on business as usual. THAT would be "equal, but different." I am suggesting a completely new way of government recognizing domestic partnerships. One that doesn't interfere with "sanctity of traditional marriage" or prohibit same sex unions. My idea completely neutralizes the problem, and enables gay couples to enjoy the same 'benefits' as everyone else. As an added bonus, it would also enable various other arrangements to help people... like a son or daughter caring for an aging parent. They could have a CU and enjoy the same 'benefits' as traditional couples.

It’s not the same difference. No poor person is getting ½. What does welfare pay; $12,000/yr. approximately? What is that ½ of? Half of someone else’s salary who is living in poverty.

That's exactly where we're headed, nearly half of America doesn't pay taxes. Nearly half are getting some sort of government assistance. The current tax rates are around 45-50% of ones income, when you factor in state, local, property and sales tax. So you have half the country paying half their income to help the other half who pay nothing. Such a system will not work for very long. People will simply say, wtf is the point? I'll sit on my ass and collect my check! Let someone else work!

There are lazy people but no one wants to suffer. No one wants to go hungry. No one wants to be in pain because they can’t afford a doctor or medication regardless of how lazy one may claim those folks are.

I never claimed that people want to suffer or be poor, Apple. I never said it was due to laziness.

Refusing to help the poor is due to nothing but sheer greed and selfishness.

Again, I have never refused to help the poor. I just don't think the statistics prove your ideas are helping the poor. I think you are doing more to keep the poor impoverished and dependent upon your political party, than actually helping them. I want to help the poor by giving them motivation. One big motivator is an empty stomach. That sounds harsh, but it's reality. If you don't have food, you're motivated to do something besides sit on your ass and starve. I'm not saying we need to let people starve, but we need to adopt a philosophy of "work for welfare" so that when we do give out these things, people have had to do something in return, it's not just a gift to them. Sweep a floor... mop a bathroom... wash a dish... something! If you are truly hungry, you won't mind, you will be motivated to do those things because you want something to eat.

 

[apple0154]

The better solution is to have a private sector system where the criminals are sent to jail.

We are not talking about how things once were. Once upon a time, we lived in caves and didn't have governments.

As far as I know the law was only changed a year or two ago so I guess they/we were living in caves up till 2010.

Cap them at the current levels of well over $100k per year, with massive pensions? We can't afford to. We need to eliminate the bosses by eliminating their departments. Like I said, 4 of 5 government employees are making over $100k per year, so we need to maybe keep 1 out of 5 who don't.

I agree. Replace all the departments/programs/special assistance initiatives/subsidies/coupons....get rid of the lot and have one guaranteed income. Start with "X" amount of dollars. Then have a list of disabilities/handicaps/special circumstances and allot a certain amount for each. X dollars plus a pre-determined amount for wheel chair recipients. X dollars plus a pre-determined amount for each child. X dollars and a pre-determined amount for specific areas depending on the cost of living in those areas. One chart. One program. All under the same roof. One stop shopping. Instead of skimping and doing as little as possible which results in having to add special programs because none are sufficient to start with.

One example is immediate help for the unemployed instead of a two week waiting period. Many people are living pay check to pay check. What is the purpose of waiting two weeks? How many people get a new job within two weeks of losing their job? Why have people start off by being behind in their rent or other bills worrying about creditors calling when trying to focus on finding work? They need on-going classes (weekly?) at the local UI office where one can go after being laid off/losing their job and shown how to put together a resume. Tips how to deal with creditors. List of local "food pantries" and donation centers and charities and church groups and anything else that pertains to the poor/unemployed. All the things that fall under the label of "help" instead of meeting a disingenuously smiling individual behind a desk conducting what can only be described as an interrogation looking for any and all ways to limit and/or completely disqualify the individual from any available assistance.

That's exactly what it is, and your further continuing rant proves it. (shoddy roof installers, polluters, etc.)

Reading comprehension problems again? I wrote, "The rage is against those who try to become successful by polluting and cutting safety standards and scamming people." The key word is "try" which, in many cases, is a synonym for scam. Those who do become successful more than likely observed the rules and regulations. Do you realize that virtually every restaurant that goes out of business leaves unpaid suppliers not to mention a broken commercial lease. Who pays for that?

By the way you might have overlooked my earlier question. Can you give us an example of a major purchase you made from a ‘someone of little means’ operation? (Msg #655)

No, poverty level is an ever-changing amount, calculated annually by HHS. It takes basically the same amount of food for a human to survive today as it did 10,000 years ago, that parameter doesn't really change. The cost of the food may have gone up, but so does the poverty level. If your social programs and "war on poverty" were working, we'd see fewer and fewer people living below poverty level, but we don't... it's virtually unchanged, after 50 years of spending trillions of dollars... no effect. We're doing something wrong, if the idea is to help people out of poverty. That should be clear to anyone who looks at this objectively.

It's time to put on your thinking cap. Remember the pyramid food guide?

The new one is called "My Plate" http://www.choosemyplate.gov/. You'll notice the variety of food (both in the Pyramid and Plate Guide) is quite different from what people ate years ago because we know certain foods supply specific nutrients in order to keep us healthy and that is the guide/basis for determining the food necessary. Good, fresh, nutritious food is expensive so the cost of feeding an individual has increased.

Next, we know the population has become more unbanized resulting in a higher cost of living than living in the country. However, the people have access to services such as libraries, medical clinics, etc. The better food and ubanization, while resulting in higher cost, has provided for a better life. So, while the same percentage of the population may be considered poor the definition of poor has changed. In other words if we replaced the fresh, nutritious food with basic supplies and moved the people to a less populated area the food and rent would be less. Therefore, the poverty line/necessary income would be lower resulting in fewer people living in poverty, statistically speaking. So, social programs have worked. They have raised the living standard for many, many people.

Problem is, with more an more people losing their jobs, and fewer people working, we have less tax revenue, and therefore, can't fund the level of social entitlements we have. We couldn't afford what we were doing WITH a full workforce, how the hell are we going to afford it with LESS people working, Apple? Do you comprehend how mathematics work here? There isn't a magic money tree or golden goose, those only exist in fairy tales. We can tax people more, or we can borrow more, or we can print up more money, and those are the only three options we have, if we're not going to make dramatic cuts. None of those options are viable... Taxing more will create more burden, borrowing more will create more debt interest, and printing more currency will devalue the dollar and make it worthless. So the only real option we have is to make drastic cuts. Much of that can probably be done by eliminating waste and fraud, but it has to be done, make no mistake. We simply can't keep doing what we are doing, it isn't working and we can't afford to keep trying.

I understand your point but at the end of the day people have to come first. We have to feed the hungry. We have to provide shelter. We have to attend to the ill before we do anything else regardless of what it takes. Military, national parks, inter-state highways....what ever taxes go for they have to go for the people first. Whether it's federal tax or municipal tax for street lights and sidewalks...it doesn't matter what tax or what it goes for. If a small town can refurbish Main Street it can pay a few hospital bills.

Times are changing and we all know there's less money. So do we keep paying the guy to cut the city park lawn while the family down the street is going hungry? Do we pay for a highway overpass when someone can't afford cancer treatments? Where do we cut? What is the purpose of spending tax money? If it's to better the lives of the citizens surely food and shelter and medical care should be at the top of the list of betterments.

Everything we do in the way of tax breaks, has a reason. We give a tax deduction for mortgages to encourage people to buy homes. We want people to do this because a home has intrinsic value. When you own a home, you have the ability to go to the bank and get a loan on the equity, therefore, you have a safety net in case of emergency. You forget, a homeowner also pays property tax a renter doesn't have to pay, the cost of insurance is much higher as well. Then there is maintenance and upkeep. So we give an incentive of a tax break, which is a small fraction of the money paid by the taxpayer, credited toward their income taxes.

Mortgage tax deduction is a good idea but is it better than feeding a hungry person? It's fine to say tax breaks all have a reason but the money in required now. Are you suggesting we must have a mortgage tax break but not feed someone? Or is it better to not have a mortgage tax break and ensure an individual has sufficient food? If the situation is as dire as it appears then those are rational questions.

We already know you don't know how to help the poor, we've established this already. Your ideas have been tried for the past 50 years, and the same relative number are still poor. Your idea to remove the mortgage deduction results in fewer people buying and owning homes, which means people have more difficulty selling their homes, and fewer people have a tangible asset as a result of home ownership. So you've done nothing but ADD to the number of poor. It never helps a poor person to tax a rich person more.

Hmmm, interesting variation on the trickle-down theory.

Try to grasp the fact that the poor are not as poor as they used to be. The standard for poverty, the bench mark has been raised so while the same percentage may be poor they are not as poor as the poor used to be, generally speaking. As I’ve said over and over poverty is the relationship between people, not a specific dollar amount although it is measured in dollars. Do you understand?

I've never suggested "equal, but different." I suggest, different AND equal. You are failing to comprehend. Get the government out of the 'marriage' business. DIFFERENT! Institute in it's place, a comprehensive civil union contract between any two consenting adults. EQUAL! I did not sate that I want a separate "civil unions" deal for gays, while traditional marriages carry on business as usual. THAT would be "equal, but different." I am suggesting a completely new way of government recognizing domestic partnerships. One that doesn't interfere with "sanctity of traditional marriage" or prohibit same sex unions. My idea completely neutralizes the problem, and enables gay couples to enjoy the same 'benefits' as everyone else. As an added bonus, it would also enable various other arrangements to help people... like a son or daughter caring for an aging parent. They could have a CU and enjoy the same 'benefits' as traditional couples.

This reminds me of the health care debate. “We don’t need ObamaCare. We’ll make a few adjustments and the private sector will look after it.” Just as the private sector never did nor ever would the same applies to government and marriage. Just as health care has been discussed for 100 years gays would be waiting and waiting and waiting and ……How about we support gay marriage until the government removes itself from marriage and then the gays will remove themselves from marriage? Once the government is no longer involved laws and restrictions would not be present so the discussion would be moot. Nobody would be married in the eyes of the government. Fair compromise?

That's exactly where we're headed, nearly half of America doesn't pay taxes. Nearly half are getting some sort of government assistance. The current tax rates are around 45-50% of ones income, when you factor in state, local, property and sales tax. So you have half the country paying half their income to help the other half who pay nothing. Such a system will not work for very long. People will simply say, wtf is the point? I'll sit on my ass and collect my check! Let someone else work!

That is such nonsense. Maybe the doper living in a commune type setting will settle for government assistance but it doesn’t come anywhere near a pay check so this idea everyone is going to quit their job is just silliness.

Again, I have never refused to help the poor. I just don't think the statistics prove your ideas are helping the poor. I think you are doing more to keep the poor impoverished and dependent upon your political party, than actually helping them. I want to help the poor by giving them motivation. One big motivator is an empty stomach. That sounds harsh, but it's reality. If you don't have food, you're motivated to do something besides sit on your ass and starve. I'm not saying we need to let people starve, but we need to adopt a philosophy of "work for welfare" so that when we do give out these things, people have had to do something in return, it's not just a gift to them. Sweep a floor... mop a bathroom... wash a dish... something! If you are truly hungry, you won't mind, you will be motivated to do those things because you want something to eat.

I have no problem with “work for welfare” IF it is not abused. In other words if there is a training program one can attend don’t prevent them from doing so because they have a bathroom to clean. Don’t make “work for welfare” a career. If there are no jobs and no foreseeable openings and the person does not want to relocate to find work, then fine.

 

[Howey]

So dicksee thinks all marriage is about is sticking a dick into something. I'm not surprised.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So dicksee thinks all marriage is about is sticking a dick into something. I'm not surprised.

If that were true te queers would be wanting to marry their hamsters. Just sayin