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.

(CBPP)   Less than 10% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches' binges on drugs and plasma screens   (cbpp.org) divider line 217
    More: Interesting, SCHIP, Earned Income Tax Credit, United States budget process, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, CBPP, Tax Policy Center, WIC  
•       •       •

3640 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-17 01:28:35 PM  
Well in the case of the elderly those checks go to the Indian Casinos. They bus them out there in droves.

Red man is gonna get his revenge some how.....
 
2012-02-17 01:31:05 PM  
Democrats: OK, we'll take care of poor people, yeah some people are going to scam the system, we can probably keep it to 10% or less, probably just the price you pay to take care of the poor

Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."
 
2012-02-17 01:32:14 PM  
Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.
 
2012-02-17 01:35:46 PM  
Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.
 
2012-02-17 01:38:14 PM  

gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


You may want to read the article before you assume that last 9% is fraud.
 
2012-02-17 01:38:49 PM  
In fact:

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
 
2012-02-17 01:46:05 PM  
Like the GOP cares. They have their rhetoric and facts never influence it. The only time they'll acknowledge the study exists is to dismiss it.
 
2012-02-17 01:46:12 PM  
...And this is why the regressive, mean-spirited bullshiat coming from the GOP regarding the Poor and Working Poor is going to back-fire on them.

The "Welfare Queen" primarily exists in the heads of various uninformed "conservatives"... We shouldn't even call these people "conservatives" anymore because they're not. They're Reactionary Regressives.
 
2012-02-17 01:48:10 PM  
Well, at least Politicians only scam the system for under 10 %
 
2012-02-17 01:54:57 PM  
please, being disabled is the biggest racket going. do you really think those people would choose to be crippled if there were no big government payday attached to it?
 
2012-02-17 02:01:30 PM  

James!: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.

You may want to read the article before you assume that last 9% is fraud.


I read the article. You'll notice that I never used the word "fraud".
 
2012-02-17 02:08:03 PM  

gerrymander: James!: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.

You may want to read the article before you assume that last 9% is fraud.

I read the article. You'll notice that I never used the word "fraud".


So you're talking about cutting ss benefits for the children of dead people?
 
2012-02-17 02:10:16 PM  
And a big F*ck You to Demon Reagan for creating the boogeyman that was the 'welfare queen'.
 
2012-02-17 02:15:30 PM  
If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.
 
2012-02-17 02:19:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.


Heh.. No shiat.

When I was a kid, the word "entitled" was generally used for the wealthy, who never wanted for anything... Then Reagan came along and now living in a bed bug infested project and living on a few hundred dollars a month means someone is "entitled".
 
2012-02-17 02:24:59 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.


Absolutely this. This table caught my attention FTFA:
www.cbpp.org

In a perfect world, this makes a lot of sense. In a horrifically tight budgetary world, there's one group of people that almost certainly don't need these benefits, and they aren't at the bottom of the pile. I understand that the people at the top paid into those benefits so they feel entitled to them, but they shouldn't. Social security is NOT your government sponsored 401k, it is a safety net so 80 year old crippled people with arthritis can buy food and meds. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can trim this budget back to something sane.
 
2012-02-17 02:39:52 PM  
Really, submitter? I thought we paid legislators much better than that.
 
2012-02-17 03:41:19 PM  

Humean_Nature: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Absolutely this. This table caught my attention FTFA:
[www.cbpp.org image 289x379]

In a perfect world, this makes a lot of sense. In a horrifically tight budgetary world, there's one group of people that almost certainly don't need these benefits, and they aren't at the bottom of the pile. I understand that the people at the top paid into those benefits so they feel entitled to them, but they shouldn't. Social security is NOT your government sponsored 401k, it is a safety net so 80 year old crippled people with arthritis can buy food and meds. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can trim this budget back to something sane.


You keep your goddamn socialism out of social security.
 
2012-02-17 03:44:41 PM  
Plasma screens? how does GOP expect people to watch Fox news subby..?
 
2012-02-17 03:58:46 PM  
so...the GOP is lying to us!?

i'm shocked - SHOCKED that there is gambling at Ricks!
 
2012-02-17 04:07:44 PM  

James!: Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.


James!: Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.


As an aside, i'm starting to see more and more of my Republican friends use this meme to justify their support of 'f*ck the poor' policies. And this is from people who, not 15 minutes prior, were attempting to lecture me about how important it was to have God and Jesus involved in their parties political process.

Personally, I find it incomprehensible to worship a god who commands his followers to be kind to the poor and to hate material wealth and then do exactly the opposite of those commandments and claim that wealth and privilege are only the right of those elite few who are 'chosen by god'. its almost equally insane to attack ME for pointing out just how heretical most of the people calling themselves 'christian' are these days.


anyways, I suspect this thread will cause our local GOP shills to deploy their weapons of mass distraction. look for outright lies, changing the subject and ad hominem attacks. they might try attacking the source, but that can be tricky. So i'm guessing this will be a 'distraction' thread.
 
2012-02-17 04:09:38 PM  
The only "entitled" people in this country are the capitalist class who think they have a god-given right to own everything and everyone. The rest of us are just trying to get enough of what we're due back away from them that we can get by day to day.
 
2012-02-17 04:11:00 PM  
Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an "entitlement society" in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.

Smells very gingrichy. Let's get a janitor in here to clean this up. Any 5th grader will do.
 
2012-02-17 04:13:20 PM  

gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.



Is this a moral position against the fraud or an economic one? I ask because at a certain point it becomes more expensive to prevent fraud than to let it happen. Are you willing to raise the cost to prevent more fraud?
 
2012-02-17 04:14:44 PM  
does anyone know how quickly the average retiree uses the money they paid in the SSI and medicare?

I heard it was less than 3 years, but not sure if thats true.
 
2012-02-17 04:18:09 PM  
First Fart-oreo took away meh relijus freedomz, and now these librulz nerds and number crunchers r taken away meh racially tinged boogeymen.

I don't know what's happened to meh country.

*pouts*
 
2012-02-17 04:19:03 PM  
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

We clearly need a "War on the Elderly, Disabled, and Employed". I expect the Republicans to get right on that.
 
2012-02-17 04:21:43 PM  
James!: Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.

Fark keeping food fresh!
 
2012-02-17 04:24:22 PM  

ultraholland: James!: Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.

Fark keeping food fresh!


While the wealthy are TAXED TO DEATH and forced to chill their Perrier in damp paper bags these "poor" are spending their welfare checks on boxes full of TV dinners and ice cold beer. This is N0bama's fartmerica.
 
2012-02-17 04:26:55 PM  

GAT_00: Like the GOP cares. They have their rhetoric and facts never influence it. The only time they'll acknowledge the study exists is to dismiss it.


Just like 90% of those Planned Parenthood abortions and don't you forget it.
 
2012-02-17 04:27:52 PM  

tricycleracer: Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

We clearly need a "War on the Elderly, Disabled, and Employed". I expect the Republicans to get right on that.


I thought it was called the Regan administration.
 
2012-02-17 04:30:12 PM  
See, the Republicans are trying to save the rich from the horrors of income and capital gains taxes.

www.cbpp.org
 
2012-02-17 04:31:05 PM  
If you want to see con artists sucking at the government teet and bankrupting the country, the best place to look is the corporate welfare line.
 
2012-02-17 04:33:29 PM  
Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches
 
2012-02-17 04:33:49 PM  
Since when has the GOP's crusade against social services ever been about saving money? I mean, I know that's what they've always claimed, but has anyone with a triple-digit IQ ever actually believed them?
 
2012-02-17 04:34:15 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches


this makes no sense.
 
2012-02-17 04:34:35 PM  
The other 90% is refrigerators
 
2012-02-17 04:35:08 PM  

fracto73: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


Is this a moral position against the fraud or an economic one? I ask because at a certain point it becomes more expensive to prevent fraud than to let it happen. Are you willing to raise the cost to prevent more fraud?


I'm willing to bet that point happens somewhere significantly less than the near $200 Billion that would constitute 10% of all US entitlement spending. And, again, misuse is not limited only to fraud.
 
2012-02-17 04:35:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.


Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

/ haven't seen too many people on welfare hiring
// So are you a dumbass full time?
/// Or is this a new hobby for you?
 
2012-02-17 04:36:27 PM  
but i thought NPR alone cost eleventy billion dollars!
 
2012-02-17 04:36:55 PM  
Slavery... is still Slavery

thats what they are stuck on

dems love the entitlement society, they vote dem-o-rat
 
2012-02-17 04:39:17 PM  

1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

/ haven't seen too many people on welfare hiring
// So are you a dumbass full time?
/// Or is this a new hobby for you?


You haven't seen very many rich people hiring either. Well, at least not hiring Americans.
 
2012-02-17 04:39:25 PM  

Weaver95: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

this makes no sense.


Yes it does.

100% goes to leeches. 10% of what they do with it is binges on drugs and plasma screens. Do I need to draw a venn diagram?
 
2012-02-17 04:39:47 PM  

gerrymander: fracto73: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


Is this a moral position against the fraud or an economic one? I ask because at a certain point it becomes more expensive to prevent fraud than to let it happen. Are you willing to raise the cost to prevent more fraud?

I'm willing to bet that point happens somewhere significantly less than the near $200 Billion that would constitute 10% of all US entitlement spending. And, again, misuse is not limited only to fraud.



Ok, so when we get to the tipping point, should we increase the cost of the program or assume a certain acceptable level of fraud?
 
2012-02-17 04:39:49 PM  

winterwhile: Slavery... is still Slavery

thats what they are stuck on

dems love the entitlement society, they vote dem-o-rat


Freedom is Slavery - isn't that the GOP motto these days? Or was that 'war is peace'?
 
2012-02-17 04:40:22 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches


"Fark the crippled and mentally retarded. They have it too good. Kick'em out in the streets and let'em starve to death!!"

It's becoming increasingly impossible to tell the difference between an American Conservative and a textbook sociopath.
 
2012-02-17 04:41:42 PM  

Saiga410: Weaver95: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

this makes no sense.

Yes it does.

100% goes to leeches. 10% of what they do with it is binges on drugs and plasma screens. Do I need to draw a venn diagram?


so everyone/anyone who takes any form of government assistance is a 'leech'?

careful here....it'll go places you won't like.
 
2012-02-17 04:43:15 PM  

Saiga410: Weaver95: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

this makes no sense.

Yes it does.

100% goes to leeches. 10% of what they do with it is binges on drugs and plasma screens. Do I need to draw a venn diagram?


you sound like a republican hero.
 
2012-02-17 04:44:36 PM  

1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

/ haven't seen too many people on welfare hiring
// So are you a dumbass full time?
/// Or is this a new hobby for you?


No, no. Don't you realize that any dollar that isn't taxed away from the wealthy is a handout to them according to fark these days?
 
2012-02-17 04:45:48 PM  
And 50% of their time is devoted to Fark.com
 
2012-02-17 04:46:24 PM  

winterwhile: thats what they are stuck on


best part....forever
 
2012-02-17 04:47:09 PM  

Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.


So people who can't work are leeches?
 
2012-02-17 04:48:07 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?


no, no - people who work but still can't make ends meet - THEY'RE the leeches. Because...f*ck you, that's why! gotdamn socialisms is what they is, I tells ya.
 
2012-02-17 04:48:18 PM  
100% goes to leeches. 10% of what they do with it is binges on drugs and plasma screens. Do I need to draw a venn diagram?


this is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2012-02-17 04:49:08 PM  

Weaver95: winterwhile: Slavery... is still Slavery

thats what they are stuck on

dems love the entitlement society, they vote dem-o-rat

Freedom is Slavery - isn't that the GOP motto these days? Or was that 'war is peace'?


Interestingly, the one you're dancing around--"Ignorance is Strength"--is the most apropos.
 
2012-02-17 04:49:34 PM  
Only 51comments? Was there another Trollpurgis Night?

/Poor people sometimes have refrigerators AND electricity!!!
//Outrageous.!
 
2012-02-17 04:49:42 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches


Look how uninformed you are...
 
2012-02-17 04:49:56 PM  
I don't think the expense is done in such a way as one can simply 'stop' the bad stuff as if it were a setting in the administrative system, or just one guy being told to quit embezzling.
 
2012-02-17 04:50:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?


Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.
 
2012-02-17 04:50:23 PM  

1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

/ haven't seen too many people on welfare hiring
// So are you a dumbass full time?
/// Or is this a new hobby for you?


Yeah Its not like the wealthy got that way on their own. And its not like they live in a vacuum isolated from everything and everyone.

/Havent seen many wealthy hiring these days either
//I want to give you credit that you are not that stupid or are just trolling
///But Poes Law and all
 
2012-02-17 04:50:51 PM  

Saiga410: WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?

Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.


so you think we should just completely cut all social safety net programs?
 
2012-02-17 04:51:21 PM  
The leeches on society are the farktards with the attitude that every man is an island.
 
2012-02-17 04:52:09 PM  

ghare: Democrats: OK, we'll take care of poor people, yeah some people are going to scam the system, we can probably keep it to 10% or less, probably just the price you pay to take care of the poor

Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."


At this point it's difficult to find any GOP opposition that isn't baby with bathwater. Planned Parenthood? Pfft, forget the services it provides to ensure the health of poor women (and some men). It must be stopped. And hey, just the other day I saw a Lexus parked in a housing project! The solution is to throw everyone on the street, amirite?

Look, not even the libtardiest Farkers like myself are going to sit here and extol the 100% success rate of social spending. We live in an imperfect, farked up world. But I still can't understand why so many people knee-jerk to the conclusion of despising all poor people for the actions of some. Frankly, I consider that a character flaw. When someone interjects with "welfare queen" I typically take it as a cue to just walk away from the conversation, because nothing I say will penetrate that armored notion that poor = criminal/lazy/ingrate.

If you think that throwing honest but poor families onto the street is justice for some ghetto-taloned Shaniqua abusing $3.32 of your taxes last year, well, that kind of makes you a dick. I paid taxes for your blind rush into Iraq. You get to pay for some of the things I believe in, too.
 
2012-02-17 04:52:15 PM  

keylock71: Look how uninformed you are...


Must be a day ending in "Y"
 
2012-02-17 04:54:00 PM  

Weaver95: Saiga410: WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?

Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.

so you think we should just completely cut all social safety net programs?


That's exactly what the Plutocrats would love to do... and use the excess money for tax cuts for the wealthiest.
 
2012-02-17 04:54:52 PM  

Saiga410: Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.


Your parents should have tried that.
 
2012-02-17 04:54:55 PM  

dickfreckle: "welfare queen"


Reagan is sucking the thorny cock of Satan in hell for all eternity for that one, if there's any justice in this world
 
2012-02-17 04:56:06 PM  

Saiga410: WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?

Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.


So you are a leech?
 
2012-02-17 04:56:27 PM  

fracto73: gerrymander: fracto73: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


Is this a moral position against the fraud or an economic one? I ask because at a certain point it becomes more expensive to prevent fraud than to let it happen. Are you willing to raise the cost to prevent more fraud?

I'm willing to bet that point happens somewhere significantly less than the near $200 Billion that would constitute 10% of all US entitlement spending. And, again, misuse is not limited only to fraud.


Ok, so when we get to the tipping point, should we increase the cost of the program or assume a certain acceptable level of fraud?


First, if the tipping point -- call it T -- is (as I expect) less than 10% of the program's misuse cost, then we will still be saving (10-T)%. Thus, there's no increase, but rather a net reduction.

Second, any government officials who assume an acceptable level of fraud should be fired, fined, and jailed. It is their job to ensure the taxpayers are getting the best use of their taxes. At a minimum, I expect government program operators should have an understanding about where the cracks in the system are, and what steps can be made to reduce them so long as the opportunity and law to do so are in place.
 
2012-02-17 04:56:55 PM  
Do republicans realize that you can only be on TANF for 5 years and after that you're cut off?
 
2012-02-17 04:56:56 PM  

Jackson Herring: The other 90% is refrigerators


it's refrigerators all the way down.
 
2012-02-17 04:57:08 PM  

gerrymander: First,


Why are you talking about fraud? What does that have to do with the article?
 
2012-02-17 04:57:31 PM  

Jackson Herring: dickfreckle: "welfare queen"

Reagan is sucking the thorny cock of Satan in hell for all eternity for that one, if there's any justice in this world


The sad thing is that Republicans have always believed, and will always believe this crap no matter how much evidence one can produce refuting it.
 
2012-02-17 04:58:34 PM  
As somebody who is currently receiving social security disability benefits and a bachelors degree paid for by the division of vocational rehabilitation, I am getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2012-02-17 04:58:41 PM  
Saiga410



Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.

Are trolling? Are you really this heartless? Do you not know anyone that is disabled or old? Do you have no compassion? And what you gonna do if out of the blue something bad happens to you? Boot straps don't cure diseases.

no man is an island, but many can sure be peninsulas
 
2012-02-17 04:59:56 PM  
Apparently we need to increase the spending on these social programs, so these poor unfortunate souls have as much disposable income as the middle class. and we need to tax the rich folks to do it.
 
2012-02-17 05:00:02 PM  

busy chillin': Saiga410



Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.

Are trolling? Are you really this heartless? Do you not know anyone that is disabled or old? Do you have no compassion? And what you gonna do if out of the blue something bad happens to you? Boot straps don't cure diseases.

no man is an island, but many can sure be peninsulas


im sure he expectes them to hit up the local church for their food and chemotherapy needs....
 
2012-02-17 05:00:14 PM  
In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.
 
2012-02-17 05:01:05 PM  

Jackson Herring: dickfreckle: "welfare queen"

Reagan is sucking the thorny cock of Satan in hell for all eternity for that one, if there's any justice in this world


This came up in another thread... When I was a kid, the word "entitled" was generally used for wealthy folks, who didn't want for anything, but Reagan comes along and the next thing you know, living in a bedbug infested project and trying to eek out an existence on a few hundred dollars a month makes one "entitled".

As someone who works in advertising, there's a part of me that begrudgingly admires the GOP's ability to twist words and craft narratives... Sure, it's a very small part, but there you have it...
 
2012-02-17 05:02:54 PM  

Weaver95: Saiga410: WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?

Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.

so you think we should just completely cut all social safety net programs?


Nope.... well maybe a few percent here and a few percent there. Around 10-15%
 
2012-02-17 05:03:21 PM  
Millicent Millionaire collecting Social Security on herself and her dead husband to pay for that new gas range. Billy Bad Back picking up his checks between backcountry hunting trips. Bonny Bareback spawning 12 kids by 10 different men without any of them paying a dime to support them. Betty Bellyrolls gulping down chips, dip and Jack Daniels while her children go hungry.

All myths.
 
2012-02-17 05:07:45 PM  

keylock71: the next thing you know, living in a bedbug infested project and trying to eek out an existence on a few hundred dollars a month makes one "entitled".


It's actually so prevalent now to call social services entitlements that I hear that verbiage even on NPR all the time, which normally goes to great lengths to call things by their correct names. I guess if they call them social services it will make republicans try to defund them or something for being part of the liberal media conspiracy.
 
2012-02-17 05:08:55 PM  

Saiga410: Weaver95: Saiga410: WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?

Well if you remove a leech from its host it would surely die or at the least try to find a new host.

so you think we should just completely cut all social safety net programs?

Nope.... well maybe a few percent here and a few percent there. Around 10-15%


I have read all your posts, and am now dumber for it. Congratulations, you are a really bad troll...or in other words, you are the leach that sucks the lifeblood out of discussions on the internet that could have been intelligent...

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-17 05:09:05 PM  

Weaver95: no, no - people who work but still can't make ends meet - THEY'RE the leeches. Because...f*ck you, that's why! gotdamn socialisms is what they is, I tells ya.


Yeah that's pretty much what it works out to.
 
2012-02-17 05:10:37 PM  

randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.


Citation needed.
 
2012-02-17 05:11:57 PM  

randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.


Not that I doubt your objective opinion...
 
2012-02-17 05:12:59 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: Not that I doubt your objective opinion...


What you did there, he won't see it.
 
2012-02-17 05:13:44 PM  

keylock71: The "Welfare Queen" primarily exists in the heads of various uninformed "conservatives"... We shouldn't even call these people "conservatives" anymore because they're not. They're Reactionary Regressives.


But....at least a dozen Farkers have seen a Shaneequa themselves, with their own eyes!!! Strolling through the aisles of Publix with a cart crammed with Doritos and Steak and burritos, trailed by a gaggle of chirruns, draped with a silk gold-encrusted mink coat.

/would a Farker lie like that??
 
kab
2012-02-17 05:15:38 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches


Hats off to you, Sue.

www.amptoons.com
 
2012-02-17 05:17:32 PM  

randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.


I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.
 
2012-02-17 05:20:01 PM  

Headso: I guess if they call them social services it will make republicans try to defund them or something for being part of the liberal media conspiracy.


Just think of the money they'll save the taxpayer!

Yeah, I live in a city with a lot of unemployment and folks on welfare. Hell, when I was a kid we were on welfare for about a year ourselves after my father took off and left my mother to fend for herself with two kids.

Anyone who has ever been in that situation knows how much it sucks and those who can work their way out of it, do so as fast as they can. I'd love to see a lot more effort put into job training and skill development. myself, but the idea that these programs should just be cut because a very small percentage of people will abuse the system is nonsense. The idea that living on welfare is some kind of a cushy existence and people actually want to be on it doesn't warrant discussion, in my opinion.

By all means, prosecute the folks abusing the system to the fullest extent of the law, but it seems like many of the most vocal opponents of these programs have very little idea of how shiatty an existence it actually is.
 
2012-02-17 05:21:33 PM  
Can I still believe that everyone on welfare is black and drives Cadillacs and has 7 children by 6 different fathers and all the fathers are in jail for drugs?

Because nothing you tell me is going to convince me otherwise.
 
2012-02-17 05:21:33 PM  

Tyee: I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.


Unless randomjsa is a Canucklehead, I'd say where it happened is a fairly important point, seeing he wants us to take his word on this
 
2012-02-17 05:22:21 PM  

keylock71: By all means, prosecute the folks abusing the system to the fullest extent of the law, but it seems like many of the most vocal opponents of these programs have very little idea of how shiatty an existence it actually is.


or, as that article a couple of days showed, are actually using the services themselves.
 
2012-02-17 05:23:03 PM  

Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches


The sick, elderly, the unemployed (who've paid into unemployment insurance), all leaches. Kill them all. That's the only way.
 
2012-02-17 05:25:32 PM  

Tyee: derpderpderpHURPAderpderpderp.


Oh lookie, the short bus had dropped off its riders and they've waddled to a keyboard.
 
2012-02-17 05:25:38 PM  
I wonder where all the congressional entitlement spending goes?
 
2012-02-17 05:26:20 PM  

dickfreckle: ghare: Democrats: OK, we'll take care of poor people, yeah some people are going to scam the system, we can probably keep it to 10% or less, probably just the price you pay to take care of the poor

Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."

At this point it's difficult to find any GOP opposition that isn't baby with bathwater. Planned Parenthood? Pfft, forget the services it provides to ensure the health of poor women (and some men). It must be stopped. And hey, just the other day I saw a Lexus parked in a housing project! The solution is to throw everyone on the street, amirite?

Look, not even the libtardiest Farkers like myself are going to sit here and extol the 100% success rate of social spending. We live in an imperfect, farked up world. But I still can't understand why so many people knee-jerk to the conclusion of despising all poor people for the actions of some. Frankly, I consider that a character flaw. When someone interjects with "welfare queen" I typically take it as a cue to just walk away from the conversation, because nothing I say will penetrate that armored notion that poor = criminal/lazy/ingrate.

If you think that throwing honest but poor families onto the street is justice for some ghetto-taloned Shaniqua abusing $3.32 of your taxes last year, well, that kind of makes you a dick. I paid taxes for your blind rush into Iraq. You get to pay for some of the things I believe in, too.


I think I love you.
 
2012-02-17 05:27:02 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: keylock71: By all means, prosecute the folks abusing the system to the fullest extent of the law, but it seems like many of the most vocal opponents of these programs have very little idea of how shiatty an existence it actually is.

or, as that article a couple of days showed, are actually using the services themselves.


Heh... Indeed. Like that woman at the Teabagger rally in Boston in 2008. She was there protesting "entitlements" with all the other Teabaggers while she's collecting welfare and getting free health care from the state because she can't afford to feed all the children she has, but doesn't want to stop having children because they're "blessings".
 
2012-02-17 05:28:32 PM  
100%? Damn you Shabeefa.
 
2012-02-17 05:29:08 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: Tyee: I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.

Unless randomjsa is a Canucklehead, I'd say where it happened is a fairly important point, seeing he wants us to take his word on this


No. He doesn't care at all. He just wants to annoy "libs", which in America means people who don't think W was just great for America.
 
2012-02-17 05:30:17 PM  

Rent is too damn high: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

The sick, elderly, the unemployed (who've paid into unemployment insurance), all leaches. Kill them all. That's the only way.


I am enjoying how people are infering a stance on policy from the use of one word to describe people that use govt programs.
 
2012-02-17 05:33:44 PM  

Saiga410: I am enjoying how people are infering a stance on policy from the use of one word to describe people that use govt programs.


That'll happen when you compare your fellow countrymen to parasitic insects...
 
2012-02-17 05:35:28 PM  
Leeches:

Retired people
Disabled people
Veterans
Children of veterans
Widows of veterans
Special needs children
Poor people
Unemployed people

Did I miss anybody else the right is trying to alienate?
 
2012-02-17 05:36:34 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: Tyee: I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.

Unless randomjsa is a Canucklehead, I'd say where it happened is a fairly important point, seeing he wants us to take his word on this


As I recall this was rural isolated town that lost it's industry or something, and it might have been the 1980 instead of the 90's but whatever. Anyway, so as not to have it become a ghost town the government tried an experiment. They provided the entire town with everything, cash, food, medical, welfare, everything for a utopian society to flourish. But it didn't, they stagnated and people just became dependent.
 
2012-02-17 05:36:42 PM  
and then insinuate death upon them
 
2012-02-17 05:37:25 PM  
well, that would have been better if those two posts didn't sneak in there. way too slow.
 
2012-02-17 05:37:28 PM  

dickfreckle: ghare: Democrats: OK, we'll take care of poor people, yeah some people are going to scam the system, we can probably keep it to 10% or less, probably just the price you pay to take care of the poor

Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."

At this point it's difficult to find any GOP opposition that isn't baby with bathwater. Planned Parenthood? Pfft, forget the services it provides to ensure the health of poor women (and some men). It must be stopped. And hey, just the other day I saw a Lexus parked in a housing project! The solution is to throw everyone on the street, amirite?

Look, not even the libtardiest Farkers like myself are going to sit here and extol the 100% success rate of social spending. We live in an imperfect, farked up world. But I still can't understand why so many people knee-jerk to the conclusion of despising all poor people for the actions of some. Frankly, I consider that a character flaw. When someone interjects with "welfare queen" I typically take it as a cue to just walk away from the conversation, because nothing I say will penetrate that armored notion that poor = criminal/lazy/ingrate.

If you think that throwing honest but poor families onto the street is justice for some ghetto-taloned Shaniqua abusing $3.32 of your taxes last year, well, that kind of makes you a dick. I paid taxes for your blind rush into Iraq. You get to pay for some of the things I believe in, too.


fantastic post.
 
2012-02-17 05:38:16 PM  

keylock71: As someone who works in advertising, there's a part of me that begrudgingly admires the GOP's ability to twist words and craft narratives... Sure, it's a very small part, but there you have it...


The GOP's standard operating procedures really do earn the description of "Machiavellian." Seriously, these farkers are really, really good. Thing is, that advertising acumen you mention seems to stop with their media and behind-the-scenes guys. The candidates themselves are just farking god-awful, as most recently evidenced by Romney's pathetic attempts at faux-Americana and everyman populism.

Democrats are simply outgunned and outclassed by the Roves of the GOP. Another possible explanation is that the GOP's audience is already far more susceptible to the fertilizer conservative movers and shakers are selling. In any event, they have an uncanny knack for pushing the precise buttons that cause people to panic or sh*t themselves into mountains that used to be molehills. Like you, a part of me begrudgingly admires it. The rest of me looks on in horror, and more than a bit of jealousy. America will never again have a unified message that isn't tilted to the right. I guarantee it.
 
2012-02-17 05:39:34 PM  

Tyee: IXI Jim IXI: Tyee: I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.

Unless randomjsa is a Canucklehead, I'd say where it happened is a fairly important point, seeing he wants us to take his word on this

As I recall this was rural isolated town that lost it's industry or something, and it might have been the 1980 instead of the 90's but whatever. Anyway, so as not to have it become a ghost town the government tried an experiment. They provided the entire town with everything, cash, food, medical, welfare, everything for a utopian society to flourish. But it didn't, they stagnated and people just became dependent.


Well, with detailed data like that, who can argue that shouldn't just let the poor, crippled and sick fend for themselves... That's always worked out well throughout history.
 
2012-02-17 05:40:04 PM  
I find it rather amusing when the Fundie laden GOP foams at the mouth over programs for the needy, when their savior did say, "he who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."
 
2012-02-17 05:40:24 PM  
A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households - not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

Yep. A poor grandmother slaves away to just barely scrape a living while the eight other people in the house including her three crack-dealing, gun-running, thug life grandsons mooch off of the government's largesse. It's free, swipe you're EBT! Voila, they're in the 90% because one member of the household works. Democrat math at work again.
 
2012-02-17 05:40:57 PM  

1macgeek: Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!


They're paying, but they're not paying enough. Raise rates on the upper brackets. Add new brackets for $1M, $2M, $5M, etc. Take that revenue and invest it back into the middle class in the form of infrastructure, energy and medical R&D, education, etc. Watch the middle class thrive again. A robust middle class is not the enemy of the wealthy class, it is the genesis of it.
 
2012-02-17 05:42:08 PM  

dickfreckle: keylock71: As someone who works in advertising, there's a part of me that begrudgingly admires the GOP's ability to twist words and craft narratives... Sure, it's a very small part, but there you have it...

The GOP's standard operating procedures really do earn the description of "Machiavellian." Seriously, these farkers are really, really good. Thing is, that advertising acumen you mention seems to stop with their media and behind-the-scenes guys. The candidates themselves are just farking god-awful, as most recently evidenced by Romney's pathetic attempts at faux-Americana and everyman populism.

Democrats are simply outgunned and outclassed by the Roves of the GOP. Another possible explanation is that the GOP's audience is already far more susceptible to the fertilizer conservative movers and shakers are selling. In any event, they have an uncanny knack for pushing the precise buttons that cause people to panic or sh*t themselves into mountains that used to be molehills. Like you, a part of me begrudgingly admires it. The rest of me looks on in horror, and more than a bit of jealousy. America will never again have a unified message that isn't tilted to the right. I guarantee it.


Unfortunately, I can't disagree with that assessment these days...
 
2012-02-17 05:43:40 PM  

vernonFL: Can I still believe that everyone on welfare is black and drives Cadillacs and has 7 children by 6 different fathers and all the fathers are in jail for drugs?

Because nothing you tell me is going to convince me otherwise.


It was 6 children by 7 fathers..
[it was a hell of a party..]
 
2012-02-17 05:44:43 PM  

randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.


i55.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-17 05:44:45 PM  
We all know their is fraud in our tax supported welfare programs but throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the answer.
Fix the fraudulence and move on.
 
2012-02-17 05:45:21 PM  

smeegle


I find it rather amusing when the Fundie laden GOP foams at the mouth over programs for the needy, when their savior did say, "he who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."

that just made me think if Jesus came back and ran for President he would have to be a democrat and the Republicans would rip him to shreds. Liberal, socialist hippie runs for President. Whar birf cert whar? Cut your hair hippie. Nice sandals. Socialist. Crucify him!
 
2012-02-17 05:46:09 PM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: Well in the case of the elderly those checks go to the Indian Casinos. They bus them out there in droves.

Red man is gonna get his revenge some how.....


yes, we all know that the ones REALLY doing well in this economy are the native americans.
 
2012-02-17 05:46:52 PM  

dickfreckle: earn the description of "Machiavellian."


And it would earn a facepalm from Machiavelli, who wrote The Prince as a satire not an instruction manual.
 
2012-02-17 05:47:05 PM  

Saiga410: Rent is too damn high: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

The sick, elderly, the unemployed (who've paid into unemployment insurance), all leaches. Kill them all. That's the only way.

I am enjoying how people are infering a stance on policy from the use of one word to describe people that use govt programs.


No, no, you're right - go ahead. Give us a different interpretation of your, "100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches" as it relates to your stance on policy. Please do.

We're waiting.
 
2012-02-17 05:47:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.

Citation needed.


I believe him.

It is a systemic issue that we need to address. Do we stop giving welfare? No. Do we stop educating the poor and their children? No. Do we need to find ways of improving the system? Absolutely.
 
2012-02-17 05:48:51 PM  

Shaggy_C: A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households - not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

Yep. A poor grandmother slaves away to just barely scrape a living while the eight other people in the house including her three crack-dealing, gun-running, thug life grandsons mooch off of the government's largesse. It's free, swipe you're EBT! Voila, they're in the 90% because one member of the household works. Democrat math at work again.


Don't you talk about Sarah Palin like that!
 
2012-02-17 05:49:36 PM  

El Pachuco: Shaggy_C: A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households - not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

Yep. A poor grandmother slaves away to just barely scrape a living while the eight other people in the house including her three crack-dealing, gun-running, thug life grandsons mooch off of the government's largesse. It's free, swipe you're EBT! Voila, they're in the 90% because one member of the household works. Democrat math at work again.

Don't you talk about Sarah Palin like that!


Is what Palin does classify as work?
 
2012-02-17 05:52:07 PM  

keylock71: Well, with detailed data like that


Yeah, you should like totally disregard anything that doesn't fit the narrative, and encourage other to do so also.
Hell, I'm not even going to consider looking for the case study on the experiment, sounds to much like work anyway.
I know it was posted here on fark a few years ago but ...I'm not working for it. Hell doesn't matter what it says I've got my worldview set in stone.
 
2012-02-17 05:53:26 PM  

verbaltoxin: Leeches:

Retired people
Disabled people
Veterans
Children of veterans
Widows of veterans
Special needs children
Poor people
Unemployed people

Did I miss anybody else the right is trying to alienate?


My uncle is - and I hate this word but let's be honest - invalid. His smile is there, and his brain is sharp enough to read and absorb conversation. His heart is huge and pure. And my grandmother receives a very sizable amount of government assistance for his lifetime of needs. Sounds good, right?

Thing is, Grandma is a Tea Partier who can't be arsed to see that she's railing against a government that is single-handedly responsible for my uncle's long life (currently in his 50s). Hell, she can't even be bothered to assess her own personal benefits via medicare (et al) before spittle covers her lower lip as a Fox talking head triggers it. She is one of those people - and there are millions of them - who genuinely believe that her suckling of the government tit is somehow different and more noble than someone who needs food stamps to survive. Or a kid who might need a free meal at school. But that hospice nurse and reimbursement of inflated medical bills? Well gosh darnit, that's as American as apple pie!

It's so farking irritating and unnerving that I have to score street valium just to visit. Hell, maybe I should just see if there is a doctor out there who'll write a legit script based on the "holiday season teabagger stress disorder" bit. Because my dealer of many years just moved to San Francisco and kinda left me in the wind. Asshole.
 
2012-02-17 05:53:55 PM  

Tyee: keylock71: Well, with detailed data like that

Yeah, you should like totally disregard anything that doesn't fit the narrative, and encourage other to do so also.
Hell, I'm not even going to consider looking for the case study on the experiment, sounds to much like work anyway.
I know it was posted here on fark a few years ago but ...I'm not working for it. Hell doesn't matter what it says I've got my worldview set in stone.


Oh calm down, Drama Queen. You're using it as proof. You back it up.
 
2012-02-17 05:54:00 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Philip Francis Queeg: randomjsa: In the 90s there was a local pilot program that would allow people on welfare to go to school and receive training. Everything you can possibly think of was covered: Daycare, transportation, even clothing to wear if they needed it. All they had to do was sign up and show up. Every single solitary accommodation that could be made was thought of.

1400~ people qualified in a small town of about 22k people.

About 150 "expressed interest"

2 actually signed up. Meaning the rest were perfectly content to stay poor and on welfare. So yes, tell me about societal leeches as if you actually understand them.

And irregardless of how much is spent on 'societal leeches', liberals would never let us do anything that cut them off and forced them to fend for themselves. This also doesn't change the fact that entitlement spending is going to absolutely bankrupt this country very soon. It also doesn't change the fact that Obama continues to ignore all warnings about deficits and the recommendations of his own debt commission.

Citation needed.

I believe him.

It is a systemic issue that we need to address. Do we stop giving welfare? No. Do we stop educating the poor and their children? No. Do we need to find ways of improving the system? Absolutely.


I think he's completely full of shiat. That doesn't mean the system is without fault.
 
2012-02-17 05:54:18 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Saiga410: 100% goes to leeches.

So people who can't work are leeches?


Especially if they can't work because they were manual laborers for years and are now in their 80's.

"The Long Walk or an ice floe, Grampa. You bred and you produced until you're body parts got all gnarled and unusable, so thanks, but you're done. Pick one or the other"
 
2012-02-17 05:54:59 PM  

smeegle: We all know their is fraud in our tax supported welfare programs but throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the answer.
Fix the fraudulence and move on.


The cost of 'fixing' the problem is more than the fraud itself. Investigators cost money.
There are some leeches on society. But many are lawyers, bankers and televangelists.

Remember folks! A person on welfare costs less than one in prison.
An abortion costs less... and birth control even less than that.

Why don't Republicans understand money?
 
2012-02-17 05:55:05 PM  

Forgot_my_password_again: does anyone know how quickly the average retiree uses the money they paid in the SSI and medicare?

I heard it was less than 3 years, but not sure if thats true.


Sounds like BS, even if it is technically true probably it does it by not taking into account of inflation - so if you paid in $1000 per year back around 1950 when you first started working, that would be worth over $9k by the time you are withdrawing it just from inflation (something like $50k I think as a rough guide), and factoring in the return of even a no risk investment over that time, much more than that - so you can make it sound like SS is much worse than it really is if you use those sorts of assumptions.
 
2012-02-17 05:55:41 PM  
Set a spell, I got a little ditty to share.

When I was a kid, my mom divorced Mr. Loser. She had to feed us four kids so she sought help from the state. We were fed and housed for about 3 months, until she was hired by IBM. Not long after, while cleaning the kitchen, she found some old moldy bread back behind a cupboard. She wept. She said she wish she had known it was there when times were desperate.
My mom helped IBM come into the digital age. Fark it's dusty in here.
She worked hard but got welfare when she had to feed us.
 
2012-02-17 05:56:48 PM  

Tarl3k: I have read all your posts, and am now dumber for it. Congratulations, you are a really bad troll...or in other words, you are the leach that sucks the lifeblood out of discussions on the internet that could have been intelligent...


On Fark? Are you kidding me?

You've got to be trolling.

6/10.
 
2012-02-17 05:57:34 PM  

Without Fail: Why don't Republicans understand money?


Oh they understand, in a different way. Their money.
 
2012-02-17 05:57:46 PM  

vernonFL: Can I still believe that everyone on welfare is black and drives Cadillacs and has 7 children by 6 different fathers and all the fathers are in jail for drugs?

Because nothing you tell me is going to convince me otherwise.


Only if you believe that the male children are all strapping young bucks eating t-bone steaks.
 
2012-02-17 06:04:18 PM  

smeegle: Set a spell, I got a little ditty to share.

When I was a kid, my mom divorced Mr. Loser. She had to feed us four kids so she sought help from the state. We were fed and housed for about 3 months, until she was hired by IBM. Not long after, while cleaning the kitchen, she found some old moldy bread back behind a cupboard. She wept. She said she wish she had known it was there when times were desperate.
My mom helped IBM come into the digital age. Fark it's dusty in here.
She worked hard but got welfare when she had to feed us.


The GOP hates your mom. Just in case you didn't know, she was a lazy welfare queen and wouldn't have needed that help if she'd just looked harder for a job, sooner.

/Were there no poorhouses? Were there no prisons?
 
2012-02-17 06:04:31 PM  
ƒ

Dusk-You-n-Me: They're paying, but they're not paying enough.


Bullshiat.

You want them to pay "more", fine : define "more". How much is "fair"? Be warned, I will demand you define that, too. The "rich" already pay way beyond their numbers. The problem quite simply is that we about half of the US population either not paying any taxes at all, or they are receiving more than they pay in taxes.

But since you are too stupid to see the logical conclusion of your thought process, I will create a more personal example for you. I will assume you have two functioning kidneys. Let us begin :

You heartless bastard! Don't you know there are people who need a kidney? You only need one, and you have more than you need! You should give it to someone who doesn't have one. If you don't, you aren't paying your fair share. You are leech on society! You didn't get two healthy kidneys without society so you should give back!

Guess what? It sounds just as stupid when you say it about the "rich". But let's drive this nail home : By living in the United States at all, you are the 1%. So when can the rest of the world drop by to pick up their "fair share" of YOUR stuff?

/ Lord, save me from stupid people
// They are breeding like rabbits
/// but they aren't as smart.
 
2012-02-17 06:06:40 PM  

ghare: /Were there no poorhouses? Were there no prisons?


There was a brothel round the corner. Does that count?
 
2012-02-17 06:08:29 PM  

1macgeek: The problem quite simply is that we about half of the US population either not paying any taxes at all


Seeing as how this isn't true, at all, not even a little bit, I'll take the liberty of ignoring your dumb example.
 
2012-02-17 06:14:30 PM  

1macgeek: ƒDusk-You-n-Me: They're paying, but they're not paying enough.

Bullshiat.

You want them to pay "more", fine : define "more". How much is "fair"? Be warned, I will demand you define that, too. The "rich" already pay way beyond their numbers. The problem quite simply is that we about half of the US population either not paying any taxes at all, or they are receiving more than they pay in taxes.

But since you are too stupid to see the logical conclusion of your thought process, I will create a more personal example for you. I will assume you have two functioning kidneys. Let us begin :

You heartless bastard! Don't you know there are people who need a kidney? You only need one, and you have more than you need! You should give it to someone who doesn't have one. If you don't, you aren't paying your fair share. You are leech on society! You didn't get two healthy kidneys without society so you should give back!

Guess what? It sounds just as stupid when you say it about the "rich". But let's drive this nail home : By living in the United States at all, you are the 1%. So when can the rest of the world drop by to pick up their "fair share" of YOUR stuff?

/ Lord, save me from stupid people
// They are breeding like rabbits
/// but they aren't as smart.


1) Your premise is bullsh*t.

2) You pathological narcissists used to bother me. You don't anymore, because I've grown to understand that your internal lives are hell. I really feel sorry for you. Of course, by pitying you, and expressing my pity for you, I shame you by looking down upon you.

Alas. You can't be helped.
 
2012-02-17 06:14:49 PM  

busy chillin': smeegle

I find it rather amusing when the Fundie laden GOP foams at the mouth over programs for the needy, when their savior did say, "he who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."

that just made me think if Jesus came back and ran for President he would have to be a democrat and the Republicans would rip him to shreds. Liberal, socialist hippie runs for President. Whar birf cert whar? Cut your hair hippie. Nice sandals. Socialist. Crucify him!


You know, considering their unflinching support of Israel, this makes a lot of sense.
 
2012-02-17 06:19:20 PM  

keylock71: You're using it as proof. You back it up.


No I'm not, I'm just saying I remember the study/experiment someone else brought up. I haven't said it proved anything.
 
2012-02-17 06:25:34 PM  

smeegle: ghare: /Were there no poorhouses? Were there no prisons?

There was a brothel round the corner. Does that count?


Our panel says yes!
 
2012-02-17 06:25:38 PM  
"Seriously disabled", as in my wife's half-brother who hates taking orders and hasn't been able to keep a job for more than two weeks ... before he ends up in the slammer for punching someone.

Where's ARM when you need it?
 
2012-02-17 06:29:27 PM  

Tyee: keylock71: You're using it as proof. You back it up.

No I'm not, I'm just saying I remember the study/experiment someone else brought up. I haven't said it proved anything.


Because you lie about remembering the study. It never happened. It doesn't exist.

Not that you care.
 
2012-02-17 06:29:40 PM  

bugontherug: Tarl3k: I have read all your posts, and am now dumber for it. Congratulations, you are a really bad troll...or in other words, you are the leach that sucks the lifeblood out of discussions on the internet that could have been intelligent...

On Fark? Are you kidding me?

You've got to be trolling.

6/10.


Heh, I HAVE seen some intelligent discussions in the Fark political forums...granted, it is about as rare as Romney NOT flip-flopping, but it happens...
 
2012-02-17 06:33:43 PM  

ghare: Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."


Yet, even Old Testament God was willing to save all the evil people in Sodom if only one good person could be found in their midst.

And Old Testament God was kind of a dick.

Oh and, it might be only 10% of the entitlement leeches who are on drugs, but . . .

www.theculturezone.com

What are the libs going to do about THAT huh?
 
2012-02-17 06:35:16 PM  

thomps: please, being disabled is the biggest racket going. do you really think those people would choose to be crippled if there were no big government payday attached to it?


Unless it's MS. All other problems are a joke. I learned that from a farker.
 
2012-02-17 06:36:06 PM  

1macgeek: The "rich" already pay way beyond their numbers.


And yet they are pay far less than they have paid in the past. And a good many take issue with that.
 
2012-02-17 06:47:58 PM  

Tyee: IXI Jim IXI: Tyee: I remember this, didn't this experiment take place in Canada. Not that it matters so much at where as the fact that they were getting enough and didn't want to work for more.

Unless randomjsa is a Canucklehead, I'd say where it happened is a fairly important point, seeing he wants us to take his word on this

As I recall this was rural isolated town that lost it's industry or something, and it might have been the 1980 instead of the 90's but whatever. Anyway, so as not to have it become a ghost town the government tried an experiment. They provided the entire town with everything, cash, food, medical, welfare, everything for a utopian society to flourish. But it didn't, they stagnated and people just became dependent.


Link (new window)

Wrong. People actually wanted to work more. The only people that didn't were new mothers and teens because, gasp, they got to wait for a better job.

Do better.
 
2012-02-17 06:51:10 PM  
You mean Hate Radio lied again.

I'm shocked.
 
2012-02-17 07:11:02 PM  
Eh I'd say the actual number is about 20%. About half of those on disability wouldn't have been 30 years ago (really, look it up, as a proportion the number of people on disability has about doubled as a proportion of our population) and are kind of "leaches" of a different sort. There are people that getting a questionable diagnosis of bipolar disorder or other psychiatric condition is basically their career path. Still a small number, but disability has quickly become an alternative form of welfare.

Old article but still true:
Link (new window)

///Also a pain in the ass to have patients you've never seen try to get you to fill out the paperwork and then curse you out when you say "no" (mainly because you can't make a psych diagnoses based on one encounter/aren't a psychiatrist).
 
2012-02-17 07:33:13 PM  

gerrymander:
Second, any government officials who assume an acceptable level of fraud should be fired, fined, and jailed. It is their job to ensure the taxpayers are getting the best use of their taxes. At a minimum, I expect government program operators should have an understanding about where the cracks in the system are, and what steps can be made to reduce them so long as the opportunity and law to do so are in place.


There is a cost to fraud detection and resolution. It's perfectly reasonable to say x% of fraud is cheaper then trying to find it. It is difficult to find that balance, but believing the world would be better of trying to fight for 0% fraud is believing in wasteful spending. It's like trying to build a widget in a factory with a 0% defect rate.
 
2012-02-17 07:33:49 PM  
"Conservative" laws and principles aren't based on facts and numbers. How you feel about something is more important to these people.


A Ground Zero Mosque?

Well of course not! It doesn't matter if these Muslims aren't associated with terrorists. It still makes us feel uncomfortable and they should respect our feelings on the matter.

Gay marriage?

No! Despite any sign that marriage has been harmed by same-sex marriage in any states and countries that have legalized it, we still feel that it could damage something immaterial that we have very strong feelings about. So go sin and be disgusting somewhere else. Marriage is ours. End of conversation.

Welfare? Entitlements?

Nothing but leaches and drug addicts - pimps and prostitutes. They should all be cut off and their children should be put to work cleaning things so that they can learn the value of work. Your "facts and figures" are just liberal propaganda. These people are parasites, we know it! We feel it in our hearts when we look at them.

Birth control?

We don't care how much it might reduce insurance costs for everyone. These whores should just learn to keep their legs shut.

Gays in the army?

They'll degrade moral! People won't feel safe washing themselves! They'll prey on our helpless soldiers!


I've never seen a more irrational bunch of sniveling crybabies in all my farking life.
 
2012-02-17 07:42:35 PM  

gerrymander: Second, any government officials who assume an acceptable level of fraud should be fired, fined, and jailed. It is their job to ensure the taxpayers are getting the best use of their taxes. At a minimum, I expect government program operators should have an understanding about where the cracks in the system are, and what steps can be made to reduce them so long as the opportunity and law to do so are in place.


That's bullshiat. You will NEVER prevent fraud. You will NEVER prevent crime. You will NEVER prevent piracy. All you can do is implement processes and regulations to minimize it. At some point the cost of preventing fraud outways the cost of the fraud itself.
 
2012-02-17 07:44:25 PM  

James!: Don't forget those fancy ass refrigerators.


THANK YOU.

/leaves satisfied
 
2012-02-17 08:01:13 PM  

Weaver95: winterwhile: Slavery... is still Slavery

thats what they are stuck on

dems love the entitlement society, they vote dem-o-rat

Freedom is Slavery - isn't that the GOP motto these days? Or was that 'war is peace'?


In winterturd's case it's "Ignorance is Strength"
 
2012-02-17 08:21:28 PM  
So why to people who are fully against entitlement programs and high taxes ignore that the countries with this things tend to be the most livable places, with the happiest citizens, while countries with low, or zero taxes and no public assistance programs are shiatholes that people are clamoring to get out of?
 
2012-02-17 08:24:11 PM  

Tyee: keylock71: Well, with detailed data like that

Yeah, you should like totally disregard anything that doesn't fit the narrative, and encourage other to do so also.
Hell, I'm not even going to consider looking for the case study on the experiment, sounds to much like work anyway.
I know it was posted here on fark a few years ago but ...I'm not working for it. Hell doesn't matter what it says I've got my worldview set in stone.


Yep, you're an idiot.
 
2012-02-17 09:12:05 PM  

smeegle: I find it rather amusing when the Fundie laden GOP foams at the mouth over programs for the needy, when their savior did say, "he who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me."


Unfortunately, the "savior" these people worship is Supply-side Jesus.
(new window)
 
2012-02-17 09:19:15 PM  

ghare: Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."


Then if the "poor" have any family left they beggar themselves to keep their family member alive, making them poor. Stranding more capital for subsistence goods and services.
 
2012-02-17 09:28:26 PM  

keylock71: ...And this is why the regressive, mean-spirited bullshiat coming from the GOP regarding the Poor and Working Poor is going to back-fire on them.

The "Welfare Queen" primarily exists in the heads of various uninformed "conservatives"... We shouldn't even call these people "conservatives" anymore because they're not. They're Reactionary Regressives.


They've bought into the line of the rich and powerful's "leeches on the system" hook, line, and sinker. What they don't realize is, while they think the rich and powerful are talking about Welfare Queens and other scammers, they're really talking about you and me.
 
2012-02-17 09:35:35 PM  
These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.
 
2012-02-17 09:36:12 PM  

1macgeek: half of the US population either not paying any taxes at all


Not this stupid shait again. Go away troll.
 
2012-02-17 09:38:47 PM  

Forgot_my_password_again: does anyone know how quickly the average retiree uses the money they paid in the SSI and medicare?

I heard it was less than 3 years, but not sure if thats true.


As usual people don't consider the 'time' value of money. The money taken from your check 40 years ago if allowed to grow would be much more substantial than what you have taken out today.

The problem is the money that we put into SS was taken out by the government and spent and not invested. (And before you say it the government buying it's own bonds is NOT investing).

Right now I think the average person will get around 290K out of the SS system the last I heard . Some more . Some less. Some nothing.

I ran the numbers for me personally. I'm already over 2x that if you take into account the value of what I would have earned if my money had been invested in something as simple as an S&P index fund over all these years. Can't find my old figuring but I worked out that an average person who was retiring last year [using the median incomes for the year 1969 to the median income in the year 2011 etc] was about 3x that amount even with the 2008 disaster.

Of course we can't really use that system since SS is used for many other things besides retirement. But it shows that the average working person who paid into SS all those years is not a moocher.

If you are interested in running the numbers yourself here is a neat online calculator that tells you how much you would have earned if you had invested in the S&P at a particular date.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

The dollar that droped into SS around 1968 is worth about fifty dollars today.
 
2012-02-17 09:49:25 PM  

Pro Zack: Apparently we need to increase the spending on these social programs, so these poor unfortunate souls have as much disposable income as the middle class. and we need to tax the rich folks to do it.


Yes, this was done in Canada, not th US. You really think we would pay anyone to not work during the 90's when the whole discussions was how to cut welfare?

Also, the Canadian experiment was a success not a failure. More kids attended school, graduation rates went up, fewer people got sick lowering medical cost.

The numbers on people attending job training is just a made up joke. Why not use the Opera stories to prove your case.
 
2012-02-17 09:59:13 PM  

1macgeek: The problem quite simply is that.....


Ya know, there's certain words and phrases people use that let you know, right out of the gate, that they're completely full of shiat. For instance:

"The problem is simple".......
"The solution is simple"........
"It's just common sense"............

There's lots of these phrases. It's a sign of lazy thinking. The kind of thinking that starts with assumptions, uses those assumptions as facts, then proceeds to the conclusion.
 
2012-02-17 10:08:50 PM  
Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?
 
2012-02-17 10:18:36 PM  

DVOM: 1macgeek: The problem quite simply is that.....

Ya know, there's certain words and phrases people use that let you know, right out of the gate, that they're completely full of shiat. For instance:

"The problem is simple".......
"The solution is simple"........
"It's just common sense"............

There's lots of these phrases. It's a sign of lazy thinking. The kind of thinking that starts with assumptions, uses those assumptions as facts, then proceeds to the conclusion.


You forgot one:

"Irregardless, ..."

Translation: "I fail to understand what a double negative is but I like using big words to mask my lack of understanding".
 
2012-02-17 10:25:04 PM  

Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?


Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.
 
2012-02-17 10:27:15 PM  
10%^!!! THAT'S STILL TOO MUCH. I AM SO ANGRY!!! AAARRRRGGHH!
 
2012-02-17 10:29:32 PM  

rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.


Seems to me that 'Entitlement' should make you feel better than 'Social Benefits'. 'Entitlement' means that you have earned this thing because of something or other 'Social Benefits' is like this is what we have reserved for those people who just can't hack it on their own.
 
2012-02-17 10:45:09 PM  

DVOM: 1macgeek: The problem quite simply is that.....

Ya know, there's certain words and phrases people use that let you know, right out of the gate, that they're completely full of shiat. For instance:

"The problem is simple".......
"The solution is simple"........
"It's just common sense"............

There's lots of these phrases. It's a sign of lazy thinking. The kind of thinking that starts with assumptions, uses those assumptions as facts, then proceeds to the conclusion.


Well,no.

Often, the solution IS simple.

It's just not EASY.
 
2012-02-17 10:46:18 PM  

dickfreckle: Look, not even the libtardiest Farkers like myself are going to sit here and extol the 100% success rate of social spending. We live in an imperfect, farked up world.


Sounds like nuance...
 
2012-02-17 10:57:41 PM  

dickfreckle: ghare: Democrats: OK, we'll take care of poor people, yeah some people are going to scam the system, we can probably keep it to 10% or less, probably just the price you pay to take care of the poor

Republicans: not a dime to any poor if one person cheats the system! Better a thousand should starve than one of "those" people get a benefit they don't "deserve."

At this point it's difficult to find any GOP opposition that isn't baby with bathwater. Planned Parenthood? Pfft, forget the services it provides to ensure the health of poor women (and some men). It must be stopped. And hey, just the other day I saw a Lexus parked in a housing project! The solution is to throw everyone on the street, amirite?

Look, not even the libtardiest Farkers like myself are going to sit here and extol the 100% success rate of social spending. We live in an imperfect, farked up world. But I still can't understand why so many people knee-jerk to the conclusion of despising all poor people for the actions of some. Frankly, I consider that a character flaw. When someone interjects with "welfare queen" I typically take it as a cue to just walk away from the conversation, because nothing I say will penetrate that armored notion that poor = criminal/lazy/ingrate.

If you think that throwing honest but poor families onto the street is justice for some ghetto-taloned Shaniqua abusing $3.32 of your taxes last year, well, that kind of makes you a dick. I paid taxes for your blind rush into Iraq. You get to pay for some of the things I believe in, too.



Should... have sent.... a poet...
 
2012-02-17 11:05:34 PM  

gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


As we've seen time and time again, the resources required to be so absolutely sure the system isn't being abused are greater than the resources used by the abusers.
 
2012-02-17 11:11:01 PM  

rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.


How do you figure?
 
2012-02-17 11:19:49 PM  

Methadone Girls: rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.

How do you figure?


Uh, websters is available online, it describes these systems perfectly. The only reason you or anyone else would allow this word to make you feel bad is because a certain group of people decided to make it a "'bad" word. So take a step back and ask yourself, who are these people, and why would you care what they think?
 
2012-02-17 11:32:06 PM  

Methadone Girls: rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.

How do you figure?


i guess I just find it condensending. *shrugs* I've always known this word in the sense that its a belief that someone is deserving of some particular reward. Something that rich kids get, not something to provide someone with a means to survive.

I do kinda see how you call it an entitlement. Like people are "entitled" to food and air and a place to live but I still find it condensending. "Please fill out these forms for your entitlements" vs. "please fill out these forms for your employment insurance/social benefits/child tax credit/Pension Plan/whatever." One of them sounds like you're getting a luxury and the other doesn't.
 
2012-02-17 11:34:55 PM  

rohar: Methadone Girls: rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.

How do you figure?

Uh, websters is available online, it describes these systems perfectly. The only reason you or anyone else would allow this word to make you feel bad is because a certain group of people decided to make it a "'bad" word. So take a step back and ask yourself, who are these people, and why would you care what they think?


no worries. It's just me. I haven't even heard of social benefits being refered to as entitlements until this year. It just sounds off to me. I'll get over it.
 
2012-02-18 12:03:44 AM  

Methadone Girls: I haven't even heard of social benefits being refered to as entitlements until this year. It just sounds off to me. I'll get over it.


Methadone, you're having trouble with defining yourself based on the definition of words. I got my degree in science. A lot of science discussions start with a "definition of terms". Meaning, what specific words mean in this particular discussion.

Depending on the discussion, words were defined differently, which meant words were defined one way in this discussion and another way in another discussion.

It completely eliminated any emotional attachment to any of those words.

I know it's hard for you, but you've got to emotionally detach yourself from those words that are tripping you up.

Don't let other people define you.

As far as government assistance goes, take what you need, and get on with your life.
 
2012-02-18 12:15:24 AM  

thomps: please, being disabled is the biggest racket going. do you really think those people would choose to be crippled if there were no big government payday attached to it?


My ex-brother in-law has been on SSI for years. I thought it was bullshiat too, until he was arrested waving a BB gun in the middle of the street. Naked.

He's in a state facility now, which is probably a good thing.
 
2012-02-18 12:15:39 AM  
I'm not sure what order I'm supposed to do these things in....So, after I got too sick to work, gutted my retirement to pay off the first round of medical bills (which was high even with insurance), I'm supposed to sell my television and refrigerator before I ask for government assistance? What else am I supposed to sell? I have a pretty extensive collection of fairly heavily worn sneakers, for example, from back when blowing $75 to have a pair that matched the stitching on my labcoat didn't seem like an absolutely ridiculous waste of money..I might have a few pairs of pants left that I haven't had to sew back together...and I have a little black dress that's 3 years out of fashion and the heels to match...where am I supposed to sell these?

I mean, yeah, it was a nice tv when I bought it 3 years ago, but I can't imagine I'd get more than maybe $200 bucks for it today, and I don't see how taking an 80% hit on the value of the one or two things I have left in my house to keep me sane would be a positive thing. Hell, not sure I could afford the gas to get to a pawn shop...

Plus I'm getting sued because even though they gave me medicaid before the fourth hospitalization, medicaid has denied the claim for the anesthesia for the surgery and I'm supposed to pull another thou out of my ass...so, please, tell me the order I'm supposed to sell shiat in before I can get on my knees and beg for farking help?
 
2012-02-18 12:33:20 AM  
LabGrrl, So hows the prognosis? Are ya getting better? What are your chances of getting back to "normal"?
 
2012-02-18 01:23:01 AM  

Saiga410: Weaver95: Saiga410: Maybe 10% goes toward binges on plasma tvs and drugs but 100% of entitlement spending goes toward societal leeches

this makes no sense.

Yes it does.

100% goes to leeches. 10% of what they do with it is binges on drugs and plasma screens. Do I need to draw a venn diagram?


What the fark are you babbling about now? That's got to be one of the dumbest things I've read in the past 6 months.
 
2012-02-18 02:08:39 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: What the fark are you babbling about now?


Oh its pretty simple to understand. What he's saying is that everyone on welfare, no matter what their reason, is a leech. They aren't bootstrappy enough to make it on their own without any sort of welfare.

That includes hard working unemployed Americans who lost their job and just need something to get by while they try to find a new job, or disabled Americans who broke their back in an accident and can't get work, or a single mother, who was stay-at-home until her husband died or ran off and now she has no income and two kids.

All of them are useless leeches, no matter what their reason for being on welfare, accroding to Saiga410.
 
2012-02-18 02:21:33 AM  

ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.


Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.
 
2012-02-18 02:25:56 AM  

Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?


Why are they called "entitlements"? Try and take them away........or hell, just try and reduce the rate of increase in spending on them and watch people jump up and down screaming all sorts of hyperbole about killing off old ladies and throwing people to their deaths.
 
2012-02-18 02:29:54 AM  
I don't mind social support going to drug addicts and people with plasma TVs as long as the actual money in question isn't being used to pay for either. Which is why food stamps and affordable housing/health care subsidization is how we mostly handle poverty assistance, I'd imagine.
 
2012-02-18 04:53:25 AM  
This information is brought to you without any possible bias or agenda by:

Link (new window)

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities-The Center was founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities, with particular emphasis on the impact of various budget choices on low-income Americans." "The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty."
 
2012-02-18 05:01:57 AM  

Jim_Callahan: I don't mind social support going to drug addicts and people with plasma TVs as long as the actual money in question isn't being used to pay for either. Which is why food stamps and affordable housing/health care subsidization is how we mostly handle poverty assistance, I'd imagine.


I do. People on food stamps and other social programs should not have the money to buy Plasma TV and drugs in they need the tax payers to feed and house them.

Providng them these thingss merely frees up the money they do have to buy drugs or big screen TVs. It is like Federal money to Planned Parenthood is not used for aboritions. Tax dollars given to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion activities merely frees up their money from other sources to perform abortions.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
 
2012-02-18 05:12:43 AM  

rohar: Methadone Girls: Can I ask something? Why do Americans call social benefits "entitlements"? Why don't you just call it what it is?

Social benefits.

Why do you have to make people feel bad all the time?

Why would a word make you feel bad? More importantly, why would THIS word make you feel bad. Entitlement is a perfectly good word and describes these systems perfectly.


I reject the concept that anybody is "entitled" to part of another person's income. The other person in this case being the tax payer.

Entitlement implies the recipient has a right those benefits. A more proper term would be forced charitable contribution.
 
2012-02-18 08:22:26 AM  

hasty ambush:
I reject the concept that anybody is "entitled" to part of another person's income. The other person in this case being the tax payer.
Entitlement implies the recipient has a right those benefits. A more proper term would be forced charitable contribution.


Yes, that's what it means. Now why is it that some people think if a person is entitled to benefits that it means he is not entitled to benefits?
/ I reject the concept that when you pay for something, the money you paid is still yours.
 
2012-02-18 09:16:38 AM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.

Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.


>Heritage Foundation
>>Facts
>>>Pick One.
 
2012-02-18 09:18:32 AM  

1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

Correct. It is exactly not like that.

/if 40 people labor to build something valuable for 1 person that writes a check. It isn't the 1 person that created the wealth.

 
2012-02-18 09:36:54 AM  

ghare: He just wants to annoy "libs", which in America means people who don't think W was just great for America.


Apparently "libs" are the only ones who even remember W. Right wing idiots are everywhere promoting tax cuts and deregulation as great ideas that have never been tried in very recent history.
 
2012-02-18 09:55:36 AM  

Garble: 1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: If you're looking for the leeches on our society, don't look at the bottom, look at the top.

Yeah! It's not like they are paying their own way, and for about 40 other people, too!

Correct. It is exactly not like that.

/if 40 people labor to build something valuable for 1 person that writes a check. It isn't the 1 person that created the wealth.


Indeed. Those fat farks would be nothing without the peons they employ. Why are the men on the top labelled "the wealth creators" when they'd have none if it weren't for the men on the bottom?

The 21st century is just feudalism with some improvements. It's still feudalism.
 
2012-02-18 10:01:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Seeing as how this isn't true, at all, not even a little bit, I'll take the liberty of ignoring your dumb example.


What scares the hell out of me is that people like you vote, but I apologize for digressing.

What? I am wrong because you say so? Nice try, dumbass. Just because you don't want to face reality doesn't mean I am wrong. Here's an idea : get off your fat, lazy ass and go look up the information yourself at the IRS website. You may even pick up valuable research skills while you are at it. Just to show I am not a completely heartless bastard, I'll even point you in the right direction.

Not that I expect you will ever confront reality head on. You, like the rest of the leeches on society, would rather believe a comfortable lie than face the truth any day of the week.
 
2012-02-18 10:27:08 AM  

DVOM: LabGrrl, So hows the prognosis? Are ya getting better? What are your chances of getting back to "normal"?


The "new name" for what I have is "mixed autoimmune interstitial lung disease" which is we still don't know what the fark but it's your body's fault. I get to start on new drugs in a couple months, but one of the drugs I need is being rationed for kids with leukemia right now. srsly.
 
2012-02-18 10:31:02 AM  

gerrymander: fracto73: gerrymander: fracto73: gerrymander: Translation: entitlement spending should be cut almost 10%, and government employees tasked with finding better ways to ensure the remaining money doesn't get misused.


Is this a moral position against the fraud or an economic one? I ask because at a certain point it becomes more expensive to prevent fraud than to let it happen. Are you willing to raise the cost to prevent more fraud?

I'm willing to bet that point happens somewhere significantly less than the near $200 Billion that would constitute 10% of all US entitlement spending. And, again, misuse is not limited only to fraud.


Ok, so when we get to the tipping point, should we increase the cost of the program or assume a certain acceptable level of fraud?

First, if the tipping point -- call it T -- is (as I expect) less than 10% of the program's misuse cost, then we will still be saving (10-T)%. Thus, there's no increase, but rather a net reduction.

Second, any government officials who assume an acceptable level of fraud should be fired, fined, and jailed. It is their job to ensure the taxpayers are getting the best use of their taxes. At a minimum, I expect government program operators should have an understanding about where the cracks in the system are, and what steps can be made to reduce them so long as the opportunity and law to do so are in place.


The greatest degree of fraud in our social safety net programs occurs at the top, as is well documented in the following news report:

The medicare fraud of osteopenia and the pushing of Fosomax on an unsuspecting public (new window)
 
2012-02-18 10:46:21 AM  

1macgeek: What? I am wrong because you say so?


No, you're wrong because what you posted isn't true. "don't pay any taxes at all" is not the same thing as "don't pay income taxes". Don't say wrong things and you won't get called out on it. And maybe stop acting like such a self righteous dick.
 
2012-02-18 10:57:57 AM  

1macgeek: Dusk-You-n-Me: Seeing as how this isn't true, at all, not even a little bit, I'll take the liberty of ignoring your dumb example.

What scares the hell out of me is that people like you vote, but I apologize for digressing.

What? I am wrong because you say so? Nice try, dumbass. Just because you don't want to face reality doesn't mean I am wrong. Here's an idea : get off your fat, lazy ass and go look up the information yourself at the IRS website. You may even pick up valuable research skills while you are at it. Just to show I am not a completely heartless bastard, I'll even point you in the right direction.

Not that I expect you will ever confront reality head on. You, like the rest of the leeches on society, would rather believe a comfortable lie than face the truth any day of the week.


Oh, you're one of those morons who believe Income tax is the only tax people pay. Why should anyone take you seriously?
 
2012-02-18 11:03:15 AM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.

Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.


The republicans didn't reform welfare? Dolt.
 
2012-02-18 11:49:09 AM  

ifarkthereforiam: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.

Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.

The republicans didn't reform welfare? Dolt.


Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? Where exactly did I say that?
 
2012-02-18 12:20:39 PM  

Garble: ghare: He just wants to annoy "libs", which in America means people who don't think W was just great for America.

Apparently "libs" are the only ones who even remember W. Right wing idiots are everywhere promoting tax cuts and deregulation as great ideas that have never been tried in very recent history.


You have had almost 5 decades and trillions of dollars spent in the quagmire known as "the war on poverty ". Other than create an multi-genreational dependency class wiling to sell theri votes for the continuation or increase in their entitlement check what has it accomplished? Besides an attitude that welfare is not only an entitlement and right but a career choice?

I do not understand why "libs" don't like W he was one of them:


wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net

home.comcast.net
 
2012-02-18 12:33:32 PM  

Ablejack: hasty ambush:
I reject the concept that anybody is "entitled" to part of another person's income. The other person in this case being the tax payer.
Entitlement implies the recipient has a right those benefits. A more proper term would be forced charitable contribution.

Yes, that's what it means. Now why is it that some people think if a person is entitled to benefits that it means he is not entitled to benefits?
/ I reject the concept that when you pay for something, the money you paid is still yours.


But I am not paying for something in this case. Paying for something implies I got something or will get something in return. Paying for services rendered or receipt of a product. What this is forced contribution to a charitable activity. It is like when they come through the office to collect money to buy a gift for somebody who is going away , had a baby or whatever only you do not have the option of declining to contribute or evening determining how much.
 
2012-02-18 12:45:45 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.

Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.

The republicans didn't reform welfare? Dolt.




fyi

Login: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Account created: 2012-02-15 12:27:51

The name discussing the guy in charge being black, the blaming of Obama for more people becoming eligible for welfare, etc.

I think you see where I'm going with that.
 
2012-02-18 01:35:49 PM  

hasty ambush: Ablejack: hasty ambush:
I reject the concept that anybody is "entitled" to part of another person's income. The other person in this case being the tax payer.
Entitlement implies the recipient has a right those benefits. A more proper term would be forced charitable contribution.

Yes, that's what it means. Now why is it that some people think if a person is entitled to benefits that it means he is not entitled to benefits?
/ I reject the concept that when you pay for something, the money you paid is still yours.

But I am not paying for something in this case. Paying for something implies I got something or will get something in return. Paying for services rendered or receipt of a product. What this is forced contribution to a charitable activity. It is like when they come through the office to collect money to buy a gift for somebody who is going away , had a baby or whatever only you do not have the option of declining to contribute or evening determining how much.


Oh but you do. We all get plenty, I would wager you get a lot more for your tax money than you could afford if nobody paid taxes and we all just try and fend for ourselves. Not too many people would invest in, say, the jaws of life for example. Yet anyone who's ever been rescued by them probably think it was a good thing that his tax money did.
There is even a direct benefit for all of us paying (even exclusively) for entitlement benefits. I don't believe you actually think this would be a better country overall if we simply let senior citizens (roughly 20 of that 50% who pay no income tax) starve in the streets or condemn the children of struggling families (another 15%, the rest is youngsters without much income anyway and some well-heeled loophole exploiters) and neighbors to tumult into abject poverty.
Now charity is a way that you may decline, decide how much, or help extravagantly these causes but I think the government is set up to do this more fairly and with more dignity than charities. Besides, charity is more often reactionary to calamity whereas the goal of these entitlements is to prevent that. Ultimately it is part of living in a responsible society and I suppose you actually do have the option to opt out of that if you dare.
I understand you most likely are not arguing for no taxes but rather something like a flat tax or at least a less progressive tax scheme. But regardless of where we draw that line, we look after each not just for their sake but for our own; Don't you think? [sorry for the text wall-ugh]
 
2012-02-18 03:23:32 PM  

Smackledorfer: ifarkthereforiam: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ifarkthereforiam: These dipshiat republicans keep forgetting they reformed welfare in 1996. It's their own policy they are flailing at. I'm disappointed the democrats don't point that out more often when gullible right wing dolts are going off on Saint Ronnie's bullshiat welfare queen.

Probably because it would get thrown back in their face since your heroes in the Obama White House have jacked welfare spending to pluto since assuming office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

Facts............they don't matter to the kool-aid drinking, idiot lefties around here I see.

The republicans didn't reform welfare? Dolt.



fyi

Login: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Account created: 2012-02-15 12:27:51

The name discussing the guy in charge being black, the blaming of Obama for more people becoming eligible for welfare, etc.

I think you see where I'm going with that.


Never saw "Blazing Saddles" did you?

/Sigh
 
2012-02-18 03:45:46 PM  

Ablejack: I understand you most likely are not arguing for no taxes but rather something like a flat tax or at least a less progressive tax scheme. But regardless of where we draw that line, we look after each not just for their sake but for our own; Don't you think? [sorry for the text wall-ugh]


If he is against anyone paying for something that they won't get a full return on, he has to be against all taxes, or he is a farking moron. There is no tax structure in the world that won't result in someone getting more out of it than they put it, or at least something they never wanted in the first place. It would require perfect agreement on every use of every dime of all money spent.

That is why this entire attack on the poor is so ridiculous. It is an appeal to fairness that doesn't even begin to account for everything going on in government and society, and the moment those things are added in, the supporters of the flat taxes or regressive taxes immediately drop back to "lifes not fair, don't steal from me". Well farkers, life isn't fair, and society IS going to agree to take more from the rich than they take from the poor, and they are always going to agree to spend more on the poor than they do on the rich, and you'll just have to suck it up. Why? Because life is unfair, and the bulk of society, in an effort to make it fair, is going to do so in a progressive manner, and if ya don't like it, go galt.
 
2012-02-18 04:04:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: Ablejack: I understand you most likely are not arguing for no taxes but rather something like a flat tax or at least a less progressive tax scheme. But regardless of where we draw that line, we look after each not just for their sake but for our own; Don't you think? [sorry for the text wall-ugh]

If he is against anyone paying for something that they won't get a full return on, he has to be against all taxes, or he is a farking moron. There is no tax structure in the world that won't result in someone getting more out of it than they put it, or at least something they never wanted in the first place. It would require perfect agreement on every use of every dime of all money spent.

That is why this entire attack on the poor is so ridiculous. It is an appeal to fairness that doesn't even begin to account for everything going on in government and society, and the moment those things are added in, the supporters of the flat taxes or regressive taxes immediately drop back to "lifes not fair, don't steal from me". Well farkers, life isn't fair, and society IS going to agree to take more from the rich than they take from the poor, and they are always going to agree to spend more on the poor than they do on the rich, and you'll just have to suck it up. Why? Because life is unfair, and the bulk of society, in an effort to make it fair, is going to do so in a progressive manner, and if ya don't like it, go galt.


War on the poor, War on women, War on unions, War on (Insert favored Democrat constituency here), it's all hyperbole, just the same as Welfare Queens and all the like on the right.

Facts are facts, we've spent trillions on social welfare programs since LBJ launched his, wait for it, War on Poverty with little result save for more people being impoverished.

George Carlin was right when he did his little spiel on how "Warlike" we Americans are.
 
2012-02-18 05:52:04 PM  

Ablejack: hasty ambush: Ablejack: hasty ambush:
I reject the concept that anybody is "entitled" to part of another person's income. The other person in this case being the tax payer.
Entitlement implies the recipient has a right those benefits. A more proper term would be forced charitable contribution.

Yes, that's what it means. Now why is it that some people think if a person is entitled to benefits that it means he is not entitled to benefits?
/ I reject the concept that when you pay for something, the money you paid is still yours.

But I am not paying for something in this case. Paying for something implies I got something or will get something in return. Paying for services rendered or receipt of a product. What this is forced contribution to a charitable activity. It is like when they come through the office to collect money to buy a gift for somebody who is going away , had a baby or whatever only you do not have the option of declining to contribute or evening determining how much.

Oh but you do. We all get plenty, I would wager you get a lot more for your tax money than you could afford if nobody paid taxes and we all just try and fend for ourselves. Not too many people would invest in, say, the jaws of life for example. Yet anyone who's ever been rescued by them probably think it was a good thing that his tax money did.
There is even a direct benefit for all of us paying (even exclusively) for entitlement benefits. I don't believe you actually think this would be a better country overall if we simply let senior citizens (roughly 20 of that 50% who pay no income tax) starve in the streets or condemn the children of struggling families (another 15%, the rest is youngsters without much income anyway and some well-heeled loophole exploiters) and neighbors to tumult into abject poverty.
Now charity is a way that you may decline, decide how much, or help extravagantly these causes but I think the government is set up to do this more fairly and with more dignity ...


You are correct in that I do not object to paying taxes for roads , emergency services, even public education, well maybe not public education as it is now, but government is a damn poor way of us looking out for each other. I remember a study done a few years ago that if you took all the government dollars spent on welfare programs per year, to exclude Social Security and MEDICARE (which are welfare programs) and their recipients, you could give a check for $80K to $90K per household that received these "entitlements."

We know that welfare recipients do not receive $80-$90K in benefits as government has a lot of overhead. If a private sector charitable organization had so few cents going to the intended recipients per dollar donated as government does there would be criminal investigations called for.

I also reject your scenarios of "bodies in the streets" without these programs. We did not have that before the "Great Society" and even with all this tax money some folks fall through the cracks as they always will.

Those running these social welfare programs have no interest in seeing them succeed because they will be out of work. It is in their own interest (and the politicians who benefit vote wise) to try and increase dependency on them. Heck they even advertise come get free stuff:

Universities encourage students to enroll in food stamp program (new window)
colleges are trying to make it as easy as possible for students to obtain federal assistance, no matter their socio-economic background.

These programs are a way for government to accumulate power.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster

"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." Plutarch

I am not totally against government Social welfare programs but the bigger the government involved the more inefficient they become. What sense is there in a one size fits all fits all program imposed on a very diverse population of over 300 million spread out over 3 million square miles?

Social Welfare programs would best be funded and administered at the lowest level of government possible and those which involve grown, healthy adults should be very short term.
 
2012-02-18 10:46:24 PM  

Fart_Machine: Oh, you're one of those morons who believe Income tax is the only tax people pay. Why should anyone take you seriously?


If your net benefit is more than what you pay in taxes, then guess what? You have the effect of not paying taxes! That is the entire point of "income redistribution", dumbass. We confiscate wealth through taxation from those we perceive that have, and give to those we perceive have not. The problem is highlighted when you look at the IRS stats and see who isn't paying any income tax at all. That is fully half the American population. Now throw in the "earned" income tax credit.

For crying out loud, the EITC goes all the way to $49K in income and even applies with zero children! $22k per year, Married, filing jointly, with three kids scores almost $6k on the EITC alone. Do you really think that family pushes out $6k in taxes on the rest of their spending in a year? Not unless they inherited more than $70k and blew it all, they didn't. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. We have far too many people riding in the cart instead of pushing it. Having a system where half the people aren't paying taxes at all is unsustainable.

Merely because you want to be a jackass and pretend this isn't so doesn't make it so. The facts and figures proving this on the IRS website for anyone with enough moxie and ability to go look for themselves. But I guess since you are so used to handouts you will wait until someone digs up the link for you. Sorry, but I am not going to be the person that enables laziness. You want to say I am wrong, fine : get off your lazy, good-for-nothing ass and do the research to dig up the link and prove it. Until then, just quit talking out of that fat, lazy ass if you really don't have anything for proof.
 
2012-02-19 10:37:02 AM  

1macgeek: Fart_Machine: Oh, you're one of those morons who believe Income tax is the only tax people pay. Why should anyone take you seriously?

If your net benefit is more than what you pay in taxes, then guess what? You have the effect of not paying taxes! That is the entire point of "income redistribution", dumbass. We confiscate wealth through taxation from those we perceive that have, and give to those we perceive have not. The problem is highlighted when you look at the IRS stats and see who isn't paying any income tax at all. That is fully half the American population. Now throw in the "earned" income tax credit.

For crying out loud, the EITC goes all the way to $49K in income and even applies with zero children! $22k per year, Married, filing jointly, with three kids scores almost $6k on the EITC alone. Do you really think that family pushes out $6k in taxes on the rest of their spending in a year? Not unless they inherited more than $70k and blew it all, they didn't. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. We have far too many people riding in the cart instead of pushing it. Having a system where half the people aren't paying taxes at all is unsustainable.

Merely because you want to be a jackass and pretend this isn't so doesn't make it so. The facts and figures proving this on the IRS website for anyone with enough moxie and ability to go look for themselves. But I guess since you are so used to handouts you will wait until someone digs up the link for you. Sorry, but I am not going to be the person that enables laziness. You want to say I am wrong, fine : get off your lazy, good-for-nothing ass and do the research to dig up the link and prove it. Until then, just quit talking out of that fat, lazy ass if you really don't have anything for proof.


Your argument would be a bit better if it wasn't filled with a couple examples of blatant stupidity.

• "The problem is highlighted when you look at the IRS stats and see who isn't paying any income tax at all. That is fully half the American population."

Actually, the IRS statistics show that approximately half of the tax paying population does not pay income tax. In 2010, approximately 141,167,000 individual tax returns were filed (Source). If we take half of those and say they paid no federal income tax, that gives us 70,583,500. That doesn't even come close to being half the US population of 308,745,538 (Source).

• "Having a system where half the people aren't paying taxes at all is unsustainable."

Federal income taxes are not the only taxes that people pay. Payroll taxes, state income taxes (and no, coming out with 0 federal taxes owed does not automatically mean you owe 0 state income taxes), property taxes, sales tax, the list goes on. There are plenty of taxes that nearly every person in this country pays (even illegal aliens). So saying that "half the people aren't paying taxes at all" is bullshiat, and you should feel bad for even saying it.
 
2012-02-19 11:58:14 AM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."


I know you're trolling, but I should probably explain for the benefit of those reading along that at the end of 2008, we had a major financial crisis, resulting in a pretty significant economic collapse. Real unemployment remains in the 15 to 16% range. That the numbers went up under this President should be no surprise, nor should the willingness of conservative trolls to lie about the amount of control any President would have over this.

What's he supposed to do? Direct HHS to stop giving money to people who meet all the qualifications to receive it? I'm curious what the GOP would say we should do to resolve this massive increase in spending. I mean, the proposals they've put forth in the House seem to have already given up the notion of, say, improving the economy as a means to addressing it, so I'm all ears.
 
2012-02-19 10:43:08 PM  

ib_thinkin: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-exp a nding-welfare-empire/

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

I know you're trolling, but I should probably explain for the benefit of those reading along that at the end of 2008, we had a major financial crisis, resulting in a pretty significant economic collapse. Real unemployment remains in the 15 to 16% range. That the numbers went up under this President should be no surprise, nor should the willingness of conservative trolls to lie about the amount of control any President would have over this.

What's he supposed to do? Direct HHS to stop giving money to people who meet all the qualifications to receive it? I'm curious what the GOP would say we should do to resolve this massive increase in spending. I mean, the proposals they've put forth in the House seem to have already given up the notion of, say, improving the economy as a means to addressing it, so I'm all ears.


Now who's trolling? The GOP has passed something like 2 dozen bills which would have done everything from facilitate in increase in domestic energy production to helping get the government's jackboot off the neck of small business. None of which have even been given a simple up or down vote in the Senate. This is why I laugh REALLY hard when our hypocrite president and his lackey Harry Reid blabber on about the GOP trying to wreck the economy on purpose.
 
2012-02-20 04:24:27 PM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: The GOP has passed something like 2 dozen bills which would have done everything from facilitate in increase in domestic energy production to helping get the government's jackboot off the neck of small business.


[ohwaityou'reserious.jpg]
 
Displayed 217 of 217 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report