Quote :

"Utilizes loop holes government assistance? So they obey the tax government assistance law. Those "loop holes government assistance programs" are put into the tax code law by who? Politicians. Business owners Assistance receivers cannot write and pass laws on their own. Only the govt has that power. You will no doubt whine that businesses buy politicians."

Obviously those on government assistance can't afford to buy politicians.

----

I'm always curious what people mean when they say things like 'taking advantage of the government assistance'. The actual words seem to imply only those engaged in some level of exploitation, but context and tone almost invariably seems to refer to anyone and everyone.

9/19/2012 3:18:10 AM

In what world do these people live?

9/19/2012 4:48:21 AM

Tanzarian, I was actually using bridgets words. And sure they can, with their votes. The exact reason neither party will touch the boomer/entitlement problem. Too many voters.

420, I ask myself that often on here.

9/19/2012 7:24:08 AM

Can we admit, at least, that neither side legitimately wants or cares to tackle the debt problem? You know, the thing that is the most important factor in this election cycle.

Yes this is dramatically oversimplified but it basically breaks down to this for me: One side wants to take my money and give it to the poor and one side wants to "take" my money and give it to the rich (in forms of yet more upper class tax breaks, etc).

Since neither actually care about solving what I think is the biggest problem I'll likely side with those who don't care what I drink or who I fuck.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 8:08 AM. Reason : Religious right is killing the moderate republican]

9/19/2012 8:07:03 AM

I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the death of the GOP and are in the middle of a political realignment phase.

9/19/2012 8:14:08 AM

The 47% argument Romney used is tit-for-tat the same thing they say on Fox News all the time.

I'm not talking about a watered down version. They really argue that half of the nation will vote Democrat because the government pays them, and they want to enslave the other half of the population basically.

The problem with what Romney said is that he copied this Koch Bros crap as a person running for president. It's not appropriate for a real politician to say and it never has been. Conservative media gets away with it because they're media - they only have to please their viewers.

It's scary to think someone would take those mentalities and implant them into the national government. But this is what the right has been demanding.

9/19/2012 9:00:09 AM

Quote :

"One side wants to take my money and give it to the poor and one side wants to "take" my money and give it to the rich (in forms of yet more upper class tax breaks, etc)."

Except that Obama has stated several times that he wants a bipartisan approach where the elite are taxed a little bit more and the assistance programs are tightened up to save government spending. That with a reduction on defense spending, and we are on are way. Basically, he is trying to implement the same strategy that was successful for Clinton.

And let's face it, if the GOP wins this election, we are going into another expensive war in the middle east.

9/19/2012 10:33:28 AM

Did you give that speech at your last NCAE meeting Bridget?

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM. Reason : -]

9/19/2012 11:49:54 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the death of the GOP and are in the middle of a political realignment phase."

We can only hope. I'm crossing my fingers that Obama wins re-election. The unmitigated economic disaster that is the next four years needs to seen as his fault. Of course, it won't be, but the stupid American people don't understand that.

9/19/2012 11:51:37 AM

^ Let me just say this: PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE COUNTRY!

You just want Obama to fail so that you can get back to your way of doing things and don't care about all of the people that will go down in the fire. Why don't you care about these people? Let me see here, because they are the mid to lower class that YOU DON'T care about.

9/19/2012 12:11:30 PM

I don't think that economic reality can be prevented by either candidate. What I do know is that if Romney is elected and the fallout from QE3 is realized, Romney will (somehow) be painted as the "free market libertarian" by the media, despite the fact that he is anything but. I don't want anyone that could even be misconstrued as a supporter of the free market anywhere near the White House.

Again, I don't think either candidate can do anything about what is coming; these are problems that have been built up over decades and decades. I also know that the people and the media have short attention spans.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2012 12:16:58 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: Tanzarian, I was actually using bridgets words."

I used those words for a reason that everybody else seems to grasp perfectly.

You, on the other hand, still don't seem to get it. You should understand that your points could be taken more seriously if you didn't insist on describing food stamps as being forced "to give people money for food when they are blowing their own money on friviolous things." Maybe you could even consider the notion that perhaps it's not such a good thing to describe people on food stamps as selfish, as thinking they have a right to what someone else has.

You can't lay out this grand impractical plan built on your philosophical worldview about choice/liberty in government...while simultaneously sticking it to the poors. I mean, to me, the first part is bad enough, but the moment you mention some stereotype about poor people, everybody knows you're just a jerk.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2012 1:01:40 PM

So regardless of the morality of the program, do you think it's sustainable for the number of recipients to have doubled between 2008 and 2010?

9/19/2012 1:10:50 PM

I know Ill hate myself for asking, but please explain this one

Quote :

"You can't lay out this grand impractical plan built on your philosophical worldview about choice/liberty in government...while simultaneously sticking it to the poors."

Why is choice and liberty= sticking it to the poor?

9/19/2012 1:13:01 PM

Because people like Bridget and the rest of the liberals on this board think they need to lead the poor around like dogs.

"They know best."

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM. Reason : -]

9/19/2012 1:15:06 PM

^^Question establishes a false dichotomy, choice and liberty are not contrary to what has been said previously.

9/19/2012 1:17:42 PM

Quote :

"Because people like Bridget and the rest of the liberals on this board think they need to lead the poor around like dogs."

Look at how misguided you are from all of the GOP propaganda. It's not the helpless poor alone, it is the entire mid class that Mitt (well, he is just a front man so let's just say GOP) wants to get rid of.

9/19/2012 1:44:40 PM

Nice talking point!

Tell me more about propaganda?

9/19/2012 1:47:32 PM

well, what is going on now reminds me somewhat of Goebbels. The GOP propaganda machine talks about "imminent doom", but let's not forget that Clinton righted the country towards a surplus not too long ago. I understand that there are concerns on the table, but let's not be too myopic while we sit back and let the country burn down to try and prove a point.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : d]

9/19/2012 1:58:46 PM

eyedrb, I never said that at all.

I know I'm not the best at expressing myself, but I hope that you can reread that portion of my post and understand it if you care to.

9/19/2012 2:05:29 PM

^Romney wants to get rid of the middle class huh? Then you mention clinton balanced the budget. Do you have any idea of the problems we face today? You cant say shit like that and expect to be taken seriously.

This year, to balance the budget you would have to cap income at 200k and take everything else. But even that wont be enough shortly as the boomers get on these programs and the debt continues to grow. To even suggest going to clinton tax rates and cap gains would work to balance the budget today is lacking simple math.

Here is another take on that clinton boom and taxes, for your consideration.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

Bridget, Im a terrible writer so dont apologize. Im just asking you to explain that point.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 2:12:27 PM

Quote :

" Maybe you could even consider the notion that perhaps it's not such a good thing to describe people on food stamps as selfish, as thinking they have a right to what someone else has"

meh, I feel like this liberal position is at least a little difficult to defend, and I think the liberals understand what I'm saying.

By all means, I agree with the perception of the problem, and right leaning people should too. There are people and families out there who simply don't have enough means. The fact that we have this 28% (abouts) working poor who don't pay income tax is just a reflection of the income distribution - and this is bad.

But the problem is that we have 10s of millions of people who can't find someone willing to pay them a decent wage. That's not a problem that you can fix by giving them extra food or cash. You fix it by increasing the demand for their labor.

The more assistance you give, the more they will come to depend on the assistance. I suppose that's fine if you're willing to keep dishing out the assistance. I would maintain that we're not. The world changes, our government goes broke, a hatchet is taken to the spending, and assistance programs are virtually halted. The ensuing millions dying on the streets isn't just a product of cutting the lifeline. It's a product of the particularly toxic combination of generosity and abandonment.

9/19/2012 3:04:24 PM

So then just keep dishing out assistance

9/19/2012 3:35:36 PM

At the same time there are many business and people working for them rely on government contracts to exist.

9/19/2012 4:03:42 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: Bridget, Im a terrible writer so dont apologize. Im just asking you to explain that point."

Okay, to be clear, and this time I'm actually going to be clear (LOL)...

When you are advocating lower taxes/smaller government, you should not stereotype and talk crap about people who use government assistance programs. It gives you away; it makes you look like a jerk.

See:

"I want lower taxes and smaller government..."

Alright, let's talk.

"I want lower taxes and smaller government...and to hell with those selfish scumbags who don't pay a lot of taxes and won't take personal responsibility and have the nerve to think they're entitled to food..."

Uhhh...screw you.

Quote :

"mrfrog: But the problem is that we have 10s of millions of people who can't find someone willing to pay them a decent wage. That's not a problem that you can fix by giving them extra food or cash. You fix it by increasing the demand for their labor."

I'm with you. This is one of the things that makes the more conservative approach to government appealing to me...if it would actually work. If eliminating the minimum wage would actually cause wages to rise, I'd be all for it. If cutting taxes and cutting government services means that people would have more money to start businesses with more employees, then I want in on that. And maybe people would actually engage in charity to help others in a time of temporary need...even if, God forbid, they are partly to blame for their time of need.

But you're right that the current system is pretty perverted/unfair. People are basically choosing between living with less and relying more on government assistance or working three jobs to eke out a decent financial existence while sacrificing their other existences...and, of course, they're still getting slammed by Mitt Romney for being irresponsible/entitled.

9/19/2012 4:07:49 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/mitt-romney-cockroach-bea_n_1797594.html

A little light-hearted fun could do TSB some good.

9/19/2012 4:12:21 PM

How about partial-employment benefits instead of unemployment.

i.e. the government gives the company some money (or that person money directly) to account for the difference in their wages vs some standard. right now the money you are allowed to make while receiving benefits is usually low enough to discourage people from taking whatever job you can find.

9/19/2012 4:21:08 PM

Ok Bridget, Im not meaning to sound like that. Im not sure I have ever said to hell with them. I am constantly pointing out that our fiscal disaster is all entitlements, and a problem the govt created by going outside of its responsiblities to create these programs and promises that they cant pay for and also cant reform bc people are now dependent on them. I think a lot of these programs do harm.

People will always need help, I just think you can handle it much better and more efficient not going through govt. And in doing so you are also protecting the individual rights/property of the provider.

Im not arguing that people dont need help, or should receive it. I just think there is a better way to handle it. I am also arguing for the rights of the minority which a vast amount of people feel dont need what they earned. It is there property, the govt should be protecting them, not helping in the looting. imo

^Currently you have govt competing with businesses for labor. The govt pays someone to not work, with money taken from the businesses trying to hire them, so you have to raise what you would like to offer to entice some people to actually work. Evidence shows there is that mentality as the majority of people will either get off unemployment in the first few months(actively looking) or the last few months(riding it out).

Hell if someone would pay me close to what I make to not work, Id sign up for it. It is just human nature. Id be a lot happier and playing some golf today instead of working.
[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 4:26:15 PM

wow, the conversion to the third reich is almost complete.

9/19/2012 4:35:20 PM

So why not use a partial unemployment fund similar to Germany? Wouldn't this encourage employers to hire or keep employees on whom might otherwise be layed off? There is no competition there.

(note: I'm drawing a little from experience, I've been on unemployment. I wanted to get a part-time job of any type to help with bills, but they were all above what they said I was allowed to make to stay on unemployment but less than what I needed. So instead of working some, I had to not work at all which created a job gap in my resume)

9/19/2012 4:37:50 PM

this is out of the 47% who don't pay income tax:

Quote :

"This is one of the things that makes the more conservative approach to government appealing to me...if it would actually work."

But conservative approaches are full-proof, like increasing revenue by decreasing taxes.

Quote :

"If eliminating the minimum wage would actually cause wages to rise, I'd be all for it."

It won't. It can only decrease unemployment, and for the most part, this only applies for those who would otherwise make less than the min wage. That's mostly high schoolers, but includes some other high-risk groups.

Quote :

" People are basically choosing between living with less and relying more on government assistance or working three jobs to eke out a decent financial existence while sacrificing their other existences"

I'm tangenting a bit, but for the record, one of the most insane policies we have is overtime regulations. People work 3 jobs because none of the individual jobs will let them work more than 40. It's seriously insane. Those people who work more than one job are put through terrible hardships because of labor laws that are there to help them.

That is why conservative hatred toward dependency is reprehensible. They would close the holes helping the people, and do nothing about about the other side of the law hurting them. From a human rights perspective, laws like mandatory car insurance and mandatory health are truly deplorable. It is the worst of humanity. It's saying "ugh, make sure those people pay the toll in case they use my ER". It's a tax on living - a tax we can expect more of.

9/19/2012 4:38:20 PM

Quote :

"note: I'm drawing a little from experience, I've been on unemployment. I wanted to get a part-time job of any type to help with bills, but they were all above what they said I was allowed to make to stay on unemployment but less than what I needed. So instead of working some, I had to not work at all which created a job gap in my resume) "

I dont blame you at all, but this is what Im talking about the govt competing with businesses for jobs. And actually doing harm.

9/19/2012 4:41:20 PM

I had similar issue with unemployment.

Was getting paid $305 a week and went to get a job with American apparel (I was 23 fml). Even working full (which they didn't offer) I would make $320.

Why would I put myself through that when I could just apply for jobs, go to decent interview and temp. Needless to say it took 10 months to find a job which wasn't great.

I think I would like to see how much money goes to different programs and how this effects the overall population.

9/19/2012 5:12:48 PM

^ was that for a skilled or unskilled position?

For a skilled position, it wouldn't make sense for you to get an unskilled job working during the day, when you could be out looking for skilled positions. It seems like unemployment is more geared for those types of positions.

9/19/2012 5:43:39 PM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"I hate to say it, but Mitt is almost a bigger trainwreck than Sarah Palin."

You might just be right, according to the latest Pew Research Poll, which was conducted just before the Romney 47% video came out:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/

Quote :

"At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama is in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates. With an eight-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters, Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago."

Surely it will tighten as the election gets closer, but early voting starts in less than month, so he's running out of time to narrow the gap and supplant the President.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 6:23:23 PM

The financial meltdown and McCain's insuffient response happened in the last 2 months in 2008, helping Obama build his lead.

9/19/2012 6:41:41 PM

Romney is not going to tighten it up. His campaign has already said they're going to do a Hail Mary ad blitz in the last weeks before the election. Blasting people who already dislike him with ads is not going to make people vote for him.

9/19/2012 7:01:34 PM

Quote :

"I dont blame you at all, but this is what Im talking about the govt competing with businesses for jobs. And actually doing harm."

I've said partial unemployment now 3 times, they are not competing for labor that way.

9/19/2012 7:02:02 PM

Is it odd to anyone that the Tea Party movement is appearing to move more and more towards anarchy?

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 7:49 PM. Reason : d]

9/19/2012 7:48:49 PM

^ That would properly be a good move for the GOP. Sooner they can jettison those wackos the better.

9/19/2012 8:29:59 PM

Quote :

"Mitt Romney's mother, speaking in a 1962 film produced for George Romney's gubernatorial campaign, says that Mitt Romney's father "was on relief, relief welfare" in the early years of his life, but that "this great country gave him opportunities.""

Quote :

"You know, we've only owned our home for the last four years. He was on relief, welfare relief, for the first year's of his life. But this great country gave him opportunities."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/19/1133810/-Mitt-Romney-s-dad-was-on-welfare

So his dad was on welfare and he can't understand the struggles of poor Americans????

9/19/2012 9:30:00 PM

Oh he understands.

He just doesn't care

9/19/2012 9:36:57 PM

which leads to this slightly unrelated point/rant. . . . . .




This entire 47% deal (and related arguments) has just been mystifying to me lately


Why are the rich on their current "crusade" against everyone else?

I mean for the past 30 years (maybe more) conditions for the rich have just been getting better and better.

Corporate profits are as high as ever. As an extention the 1% (and probably the top 10%) salaries are through the roof, their tax rates are at the lowest they've been in years. Despite what they say about Obama, welfare reform has been an issue for both parties for like the past 15 years. Private sector unions are basically nonexistant. Wages for a majority of employees have basically been flat for like ~10 years.

They have literally, financially been "winning" for the past 15 years, and yet you would think rich people are facing armageddon judging by some of the recent rhetoric, especially from what is coming from the Romney campaign. But judging from their remarks, it just hasn't been good enough, they want more . .. . . . How can you not expect somewhat of a backlash at this point, especially by people that are armed with the latest earning statistics?



/rant

9/19/2012 10:01:13 PM

Simple, they're greedy as fuck.

What pisses me off is employers across the nation CLAIM they're looking to hire but in the same breath claim that no one is qualified. Well, how about spend a month training people? Oh, but training costs money? See the post above.

9/19/2012 10:27:29 PM

did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the training for some jobs might take more than a month?

9/19/2012 10:31:42 PM

I'm pretty sure your stupid degree could be condensed into a month of full time instruction.

9/19/2012 10:35:45 PM

^^ oh, U RITE, because a few extra months would bankrupt a company.

And what fucking job requires THAT much training anyway? I'm not talking about hiring a 90 year old woman that's never owned a tv to write software over here.

9/19/2012 10:43:26 PM

so, you think a company should just go out and hire a lot of people that they know they will have to spend some significant chunk of time training, while paying them, and while getting no actual production out of those people during that time, all the while not even knowing if that person is going to even successfully complete their training or hang around? And you don't see why that might be a proposition that companies are not willing to take?

seriously?

^^ and you'd be wrong. You're not condensing a 4-yr engineering degree into 1 month of instruction.

9/19/2012 10:48:11 PM

No one said they have to pay them anything but cheap fucking contract wage off the bat. I made dick for 2 months in my current job before they gave me salary and benefits. I mean, it isn't rocket science.

And the companies are the ones bitching about no one being qualified. Well, no shit. No one is ever going to be qualified if no one trains them.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2012 10:51:27 PM

Quote :

"What pisses me off is employers across the nation CLAIM they're looking to hire but in the same breath claim that no one is qualified. Well, how about spend a month training people? Oh, but training costs money? See the post above."

Sorry, but this is a moronic post. You can't take some joe off the street and spend a few months training them to do highly skilled jobs. the jobs that companies can't hire for are those that require high levels of skill.

Even with already educated, technical people, the notion that you can just throw some on-the-job training at them and have them become productive employees is laughable. Civil engineers aren't going to become adept at writing code in a few months. Software engineers aren't going to be able to design ASICs with a few months of training.

9/19/2012 10:56:01 PM