If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   Congressman John Conyers (D-umbfounded) confused and frightened by increasing Congressional opinion to actually, GASP, cut the US budget   (americanthinker.com) divider line 209
    More: Asinine, John Conyers  
•       •       •

8243 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2011 at 11:46 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-01 12:16:43 PM  

nmiguy: You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello? You don't need to spend a single cent on that, women have been breast feeding kids since the dawn of man. Word of mouth will suffice. Nutrition education? Why you gotta spend so much money to teach people about healthy eating? Drug abuse education? Don't we already HAVE drug abuse eduction everywhere? Our politicians just tend to THROW money away without even considering if they are getting their money's worth. WIC is a good deal, it helps the poor from starving. But cuts are necessary.


You got a little HURRRR in your DERRRRP!
 
2011-07-01 12:17:05 PM  
Conservatism:

i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-07-01 12:17:40 PM  

Big Man On Campus:
I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


montaraventures.com

www.shtfplan.com

lh4.googleusercontent.com



"I personally don't mind such programs ... giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it."

You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

In regards to the mother nature remark, Herds protect their own even against predators. In the linked video, the calf survived not by it's own efforts but the efforts of the herd:

Battle at Kruger (new window)
 
2011-07-01 12:18:18 PM  
There's no clearer admission that there is a problem than pols form both sides actually starting to deal with it.
 
2011-07-01 12:18:51 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Next, we pass a law stating that no company may engage in any political activity (donating to campaigns, lobbying, anything) unless that corporation pays at least 75% of the corporate income tax that they should have paid before deductions/loopholes/credits/etc. Any company that pays zero or a negative amount of corporate income tax during a calendar year is banned from engaging in any political activity for two years.


Would this include legitimate business expenses? Not all companies that pay zero income tax do so due to loopholes, you know: some are genuinely in trouble, and they, much like people in similar situations, have a need (and right) to be heard.
 
2011-07-01 12:19:23 PM  
Headso:

You need to adjust the units, too!
 
2011-07-01 12:20:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cutting spending is dangerous..


Dangerous (new window)!
 
2011-07-01 12:21:01 PM  
yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids
 
2011-07-01 12:22:01 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


You had me up to the "we can afford it." Fact is, we CAN afford it. And if you take the viewpoint that a nation in the throes of an economic downturn should focus on meeting the basic necessities of it's most vulnerable, then we SHOULD afford it. That means giving up things we don't need, like a pork-laden Defense budget. Like subsidies for industries and people who seem to be doing quite well even during the recession. Like stuff which is superfluous like, well, public broadcasting, a program that I hardily support.

All the hand wringing about how we can't afford these programs is such utter bullshiat, it makes Jesus cry.
 
2011-07-01 12:22:53 PM  
Out of curiosity, does anyone have the numbers as far as how much of the WIC funds make it to the women and children? The quote provided above says $137m is used to feed 16,000 recipients. Is that $137m million annual? If that's the case are these women and children actually getting $700 or so a month in assistance? If not, how much do they get?

How much of that $137m is spent on overhead. Perhaps there's some room at the state level to reduce overhead costs to better absorb a cut from the federal level. The quote again says it's dispersed through county agencies, perhaps a consolidation at the state level along with an investment in better infrastructure to maintain/monitor the program could result in significant savings.

Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...
 
2011-07-01 12:23:43 PM  

tlchwi02: yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids


Ah, but to the Republicans, that unwed mother is a morally weak and needs to be punished for her lifestyle. the rich guy is rich because GOD made him rich! you can't punish the rich guy for doing the will of god and reward the unwed mother for being an immoral slut.

/this is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2011-07-01 12:23:47 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.

NEEDS MOAR BOOTSTRAPS.


img.photobucket.com

www.cartoonstock.com
 
2011-07-01 12:24:25 PM  

stpauler: That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-threatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-threatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS


Detroit has a very large illegal immigration population where many low income earners have been displaced, so I think the number of unemployed needing help has gotten worse.
Even if you are illegally here you qualify for all these programs so you have to add in these folks also.
Plus the fact Detroits job market is at on all time low. This is why their need is so big. Then again I would think this is not the time to be making more babies to feed. Maybe birth control funding has been cut also or they are Catholic. ( - :
 
2011-07-01 12:25:39 PM  

nmiguy: stpauler: That was a nice snip from an incomplete article. What was he exactly talking about?


The spending bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture that passed the House recently included more than $2.7 billion in discretionary spending cuts. But the reduction that's created the biggest partisan brouhaha is one to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that helps about 9 million nationally.

Michigan receives $194 million in WIC money that's dispersed through county agencies. The majority - $137 million - covers food grants; the rest goes to nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs.

The threat to WIC money comes as the caseload in one Metro Detroit county has jumped. In Oakland County, those receiving WIC benefits is at an all-time high of 16,000 clients a month as residents have been hard hit by the economic downturn that has slammed Michigan.


Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-threatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkpddgA


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/POLITICS02/106280366/WIC-funds-threatened-in -budget-fight#ixzz1QrkcyukS

You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello?


You're not really good at reading comprehension are you?
 
2011-07-01 12:26:03 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2011-07-01 12:26:18 PM  
Don't be surprised.

Spending cuts are like tax increases.

Everyone wants one, as long as it doesn't affect them directly
 
2011-07-01 12:27:00 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait a farking minute! American Thinker took something completely out of context and twisted it to fit their narrow minded view?


American Thinker seems pretty non-partisan to me. If they were truly conservative, their logo would be red, white and blue instead of that horrid democrat brown color.

And maybe have some crying eagles or something.
 
2011-07-01 12:27:12 PM  

CrispFlows: You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.


Actually, we "help out" (in quotes for reasons that will be gone into later) at both points, which is part of the problem. Even Keynes, beloved economist of liberals everywhere, understood that the debt from crises comes due at some point, and that the help must cease when it's no longer necessary so that the money which went to it during the crisis can go toward paying that debt back. If we actually did that then it might actually work, but you never see that happening, in part because people threaten to riot whenever anyone tries. Just look at Greece, and they're at a point where they actually can't afford everything they do; what do you think would happen if they could actually pay for it?

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

Helping is one thing. Enabling is quite another. Much of what we do falls into the latter category, because we don't provide any pressure to outgrow the need for such help, nor do we install remotely adequate safeguards against abuse and waste.
 
2011-07-01 12:28:21 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...


I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.
 
2011-07-01 12:29:15 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


Damn those babies. Why wont they just quit crying and go get a damn job already?

Also, I loved your last part. That was the icing on an already well-baited hook. Because really, spending money on food is just wasteful. Obviously cutting ENTITLEMENT SOCIALISM is the answer so we can afford to maintain our military since it's good honest all-american work.
 
2011-07-01 12:32:40 PM  
Until a budget is passed that reduces the deficit by {insert random % pulled from random rectum} then congress and senate positions should be "volunteer".

/No matter how much power you have, the hookers and blow don't buy themselves.
 
2011-07-01 12:33:26 PM  
Like we really didn't already know that most politicians only care about re-election and keep their own personal money train going, but its good to get an admission from someone as brilliant as Conyers. And let's not forget his wife is going to prison for taking a bribe as a public official.
 
2011-07-01 12:34:42 PM  

Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.


I'm on WIC. I go to the store, purchase 2 gallons of milk and 2 loaves of bread. I walk out, hand you one of each and you give me cash in return. I then go to the gas station on the corner, cash in hand and buy cigs or beer or whatever.

I actually knew a woman on WIC through my wife that would post on facebook when she was going to the store, asking if anyone "needed" anything in exchange for cash.

/no not THAT kind of anything
 
2011-07-01 12:34:53 PM  

Millennium: CrispFlows: You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.

Actually, we "help out" (in quotes for reasons that will be gone into later) at both points, which is part of the problem. Even Keynes, beloved economist of liberals everywhere, understood that the debt from crises comes due at some point, and that the help must cease when it's no longer necessary so that the money which went to it during the crisis can go toward paying that debt back. If we actually did that then it might actually work, but you never see that happening, in part because people threaten to riot whenever anyone tries. Just look at Greece, and they're at a point where they actually can't afford everything they do; what do you think would happen if they could actually pay for it?

The homo sapiens species, (that's us), has survived far beyond the natural lifespan due to our capability to care for others. Regardless of the nationalism of whether of not if it is the trait of being 'American' to care for only ourselves, It is the nature of our own selves as human beings to have empathy and we do help out, especially in a crises... not only in the times of prosperity.

Helping is one thing. Enabling is quite another. Much of what we do falls into the latter category, because we don't provide any pressure to outgrow the need for such help, nor do we install remotely adequate safeguards against abuse and waste.


Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.
 
2011-07-01 12:34:59 PM  
Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.
 
2011-07-01 12:35:01 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.
 
2011-07-01 12:37:52 PM  

GORDON: If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.


What does any of this have to do with the current situation? There are bigger problems at the moment than figuring out who to blame for budgets that passed 8 years ago -- that's a complete red herring. Even if we all agreed on an answer, it wouldn't fix the current problem.
 
2011-07-01 12:39:23 PM  
And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?
 
2011-07-01 12:39:46 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: Also, how much money is spent on fraud detection? I'm sure most people here know someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC is authorized through the cash register and only very specific items are allowed to be scanned and purchased. The store has to sign off on every WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.

I'm on WIC. I go to the store, purchase 2 gallons of milk and 2 loaves of bread. I walk out, hand you one of each and you give me cash in return. I then go to the gas station on the corner, cash in hand and buy cigs or beer or whatever.

I actually knew a woman on WIC through my wife that would post on facebook when she was going to the store, asking if anyone "needed" anything in exchange for cash.

/no not THAT kind of anything


Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.
 
6M
2011-07-01 12:40:05 PM  

Detinwolf: ForgotMyTowel: someone that receives WIC and has bought friends bread and milk in exchange for beer or cigarette money. I know I have...

I don't understand how that would work. WIC purchase and if the government detects any type of fraud, the store is liable.


Silly goose. Deliver me product I want from the grocery on your WIC card and I'll pay you back in cigs, or crack, or whatever you need.
 
2011-07-01 12:40:09 PM  

RulerOfNone: And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?


Ahem. This. :)
 
2011-07-01 12:40:18 PM  
American Derper strikes again!

/No, nitwit rightwingers, factual errors and lies do not deserve to be treated with respect.
//apologies to the disappearing sane rightwingers.
 
2011-07-01 12:42:08 PM  
I just don't see where we can cut...

dc-cdn.virtacore.com
 
2011-07-01 12:42:47 PM  

GORDON: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.


besides those $2T in cuts are:
1. Over 10 years.
2. Largely based on "we were planning to spend money on something in the future, but now aren't, so that counts as a cut".

Honey, I was planning to buy this Ferrari but now I am not. Can I use that "savings" to buy a Porsche?
 
2011-07-01 12:42:52 PM  
Wow, a lot of Farkers don't understand simple math. Not coincidentally, it's always the same usual suspects.
 
2011-07-01 12:43:04 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning.


Yet we've been gleefully depending on the Saudis for oil for about a half-century and two of our wars are being mostly underwritten by the Chinese nowadays.

Being an American means... being pretty confused about what being an American is... I guess.
 
2011-07-01 12:43:35 PM  
GORDON: "If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years?"

Because anyone who didn't vote for war and tax cuts was branded a traitor and dragged through the mud?
If you're accusing the Democrats of being spineless, I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you.

If you're accusing the Democrats of _wanting_ those things, that's a very different argument.
Though it's academic and pointless. Since the desires of the party that capitulates just don't matter if they're just going to capitulate.
 
2011-07-01 12:44:13 PM  
stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.



I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.
 
2011-07-01 12:46:53 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: stryker4526: Yes that tiny percentage of people abusing welfare is obviously a symptom of inadequate defense against welfare fraud.
Same thing with the majority of people who use the program as it is intended: to help get back on their feet. Obviously a sign of enabling.


I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.

If people and politicians that ran these programs would give fraud detection even half as much focus as they give convincing people to give them more money, you'd not only see a large reduction in cost of the programs but you'd see a massive up swell of support.


[citation needed]

You idiots love to point to the supposedly "rampant" fraud in welfare programs as a reason to abolish them completely, but are never able to point it out.
I bet you believe poor black women have twenty kids so they can get $100k a year from the government and buy an Escalade, don't you?
 
2011-07-01 12:47:39 PM  

GORDON: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts. What the fark have the Republicans offered in return? Not one single tax increase or loophole closing.


If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years? Congress writes the budgets, you know. The D's shouldn't be acting all "aggrieved party," now. It is hypocritical and short memoried.

Yes, I said "memoried." I made up a word. Deal with it.


madshakespeare.com
 
2011-07-01 12:48:55 PM  
This tard is pro-choice. That's some nice bullshiat grandstanding for a schmuck who doesn't give a flying fark about kids to begin with.

OH MY GOD THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO KILL KIDS!

ROFL
 
2011-07-01 12:49:22 PM  
Infernalist Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.


Yes, because that's what I said. Abolish the program. Beacuse that's what republicans have been arguing, throw the whole welfare system out. Nice strawman.

What I'm saying is we CAN cut the money going into programs without reducing the benefit that's coming out. Fraud reduciton is one way(and a large one at that) to accomplish this. So is getting rid of the all the overhead. People are fark are happy to complain about top heavy corporations but never seem to complain about top heavy govt agencies. Both can stand to trim a lot of fat without affecting the final product.
 
2011-07-01 12:49:53 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.


no evidence. heck, even the politicians don't make a stink about welfare being corrupt anymore. Remember when it was a hot button issue back in the 90's and then they reformed it and now it's neither a hot bed of corruption or a big political issue?

it wasn't THAT long ago
 
2011-07-01 12:50:09 PM  

CrispFlows:

You have it the opposite. We help out in a crises, not in times of prosperity.


what makes you think we're in a crisis lol?

let me know when 30% unemployment hits. etc



people on welfare etc really dont need to be. have you spent any time with poor people? you'd be amazed how they often arent that bad off, theyre just lazy and whine a lot. grocery stores subways etc throw out a ton of food because it went bad before it sold. now if people dont get welfare, they start figuring things out like this... and make deals. often times the grocery stores will donate excess directly to places like salvation army, who then distribute it out that day. salvation army for one has rules tho, things like "show up for the job we set up up for, and actually work at it" if they dont after a month, they are denied for a while to make room for other people.

does government take these steps or just hand out money? and really "nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion, drug abuse education and other programs." that all can go.


the problem with democrats is they want the US budget (taxed from citizens) to fund things that they want. it should be cut completely from the US budget (because its not an initiative that all people want or will benefit from).


if some individuals have a problem with knowing that some people may slip through the cracks into poverty and desperation.... then send money and/or help them yourselves. dont be so lame as to demand that other people (via US budget) do what you are unwilling to do yourselves.

the only people that should be on welfare are persons with medical or mental disabilities.
 
2011-07-01 12:50:49 PM  

stryker4526: SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.

Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.


This attitude makes my teeth itch. Just because you make $250k does not mean you have an unlimited expense account.
 
2011-07-01 12:51:29 PM  
Subby, intellectual dishonesty ain't gonna solve the problem.
 
2011-07-01 12:52:21 PM  
I am not about to defend Mr. Conyers...it IS time for him to go...but that is THE most conservative rag to quote from...well, if nothing else it will really confuse Google and Bing as they try to decide what sites to direct me toward in the future. I book marked it in the hope that I would make just one server somewhere suffer the BSOD.

BWAhahaha!

/conservatives, they think we give a crap.
 
2011-07-01 12:52:22 PM  
Don't we WANT our politicians to be worried about re-election? If they do things we don't like, we'll vote them out. We don't want them to do whatever they THINK is best for us, regardless of the consequences. That's the main advantage we as voters have as a system of checks and balances with our elected representatives.
 
2011-07-01 12:54:28 PM  

Goldstien Sachs: stryker4526: SharkTrager: RanDomino: Let's reduce demand during a recession! That'll get the economy going again!

/just pointing out that even by their own rules they are insane.

You do realize raising taxes also reduces demand.

Raising taxes on those making $250k+ won't reduce demand. These people can already afford to buy everything they want.

This attitude makes my teeth itch. Just because you make $250k does not mean you have an unlimited expense account.


Oh okay, you're right, I guess they really can't afford to buy that fifth vacation home, or a lambo for each of their kids, themselves, and their wives. So it isn't quite everything they want.
We'd better give them a tax break to make that possible.
 
2011-07-01 12:56:12 PM  

jshine: Excessive zealotry *is* dangerous. Treating a purely numerical, financial debate as though it were a matter of religion is destabilizing -- it prevents the necessary dialog & compromise and increases the chances of fundamentalist-style ultimatums.


That sounds like something a witch would say!

/Only the Sith and Republicans deal in absolutes.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report