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.

(Yahoo)   Romney: 'I will put work back in welfare'. Oh well, the welfare vote was for Obama anyway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 348
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, obama, farm subsidies, Leersia oryzoides, welfare fraud, President Clinton, welfare reform, Hillary Rodham Clinton  
•       •       •

1841 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 05:39:51 PM
No you won't Mittens. Most of these people are unemployable.
 
2012-08-07 05:46:16 PM
I hope he's talking about corporate welfare.
 
2012-08-07 05:47:56 PM

Rev.K: I hope he's talking about corporate welfare.


They are unemployable also.
 
2012-08-07 05:53:35 PM
The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.
 
2012-08-07 05:57:22 PM
FEMA work camps, Mitt?
 
2012-08-07 06:01:46 PM

Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.


I usually work in 2 man teams on my job sites (as a commercial carpenter lots of jobs are 2 man jobs due to size, sometimes larger, but usually 2) and one frequent partner I've worked with is a Mormon, he's a really nice guy and good carpenter.

He says they will even help out and pay your rent and shiat in hard times if you need it, sounds like they really do help each other quite a bit

/sounds like socialism to me
//had to put something snarky in there, this is fark
 
2012-08-07 06:05:36 PM

martissimo: He says they will even help out and pay your rent and shiat in hard times if you need it, sounds like they really do help each other quite a bit

/sounds like socialism to me
//had to put something snarky in there, this is fark


They do. My dad would sometimes work on members' cars in exchange for help.

And it is socialism. There is no profit in it. In fact, I would venture to suggest that the church welfare system costs far more than any tithing those struggling members pay into the system.

Mormons believe that the ultimate system is the Law of Consecration. In effect, it is like pure communism. It would never fly in this country, nowadays- although it was put into place in some areas in Utah when Brigham Young was the prophet.
 
2012-08-07 06:07:01 PM

Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.


That seems like "work for food". I wonder how Harry Reid feels about that.
 
2012-08-07 06:08:34 PM

martissimo: Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.

I usually work in 2 man teams on my job sites (as a commercial carpenter lots of jobs are 2 man jobs due to size, sometimes larger, but usually 2) and one frequent partner I've worked with is a Mormon, he's a really nice guy and good carpenter.

He says they will even help out and pay your rent and shiat in hard times if you need it, sounds like they really do help each other quite a bit

/sounds like socialism to me
//had to put something snarky in there, this is fark


Sounds more like charity to me inthat the government is not involved.
 
2012-08-07 06:15:08 PM

TheDumbBlonde: It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.

That seems like "work for food". I wonder how Harry Reid feels about that.


He's mormon. He's been a bishop. He's most likely given aid to needy families.

I honestly liked the system. It gave a safety net. I could never trust a corporation to run anything like this. Not ever. The Federal Government? Not really. State? Not here. Unless we specifically worked on local set ups and local networks that invested themselves in every neighborhood and every race, religion, creed, etc, then I can't see it being a success. The mormon system has their religion to bind them. What would a state run system like that depend upon?

Mormons and Muslims see helping their needy as a social good that needs to be done. I'd like to see our Government with that ethos.
 
2012-08-07 06:17:16 PM

TheDumbBlonde: Sounds more like charity to me inthat the government is not involved.


You ignored my second slashie there
 
2012-08-07 06:38:24 PM
And where are these required jobs going to come from? Mitt can only use so many landscapers and stablehands.
 
2012-08-07 07:04:16 PM
He mean's he's going to put workers back ON welfare.
 
2012-08-07 07:18:24 PM

WTFDYW: No you won't Mittens. Most of these people are unemployable.


So, since you want to trash welfare, you idea is to make people starve.
 
2012-08-07 07:29:08 PM
I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

Eliminate food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, old age pensions etc... etc... No application. No eligibility requirements and you could eliminate an enormous chunk of the Federal Government because you could get the IRS to process the payments.

If you support a social net with dignity and small Government this is the only solution.
 
2012-08-07 07:42:38 PM
There is no welfare


not the kind that Mittens and the Teabaggers keep talking about anyway.
 
2012-08-07 07:46:11 PM
you mean he's gonna stop companies from shipping jobs overseas? job training for long term unemployed?

*reads article*

oh. well never mind then.
 
2012-08-07 07:46:35 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-07 07:50:46 PM
I see the GOP is going to go for the "Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs" line of attack.

www.examiner.com

Miss me yet, Republicans? Yeah, yo' ass BEST have missed me. I'm the only thing yo' honky ass GOT.
 
2012-08-07 07:50:47 PM

cretinbob: There is no welfare

not the kind that Mittens and the Teabaggers keep talking about anyway.


It's never present-day America to Republicans
 
2012-08-07 07:51:54 PM

cretinbob: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


applause.gif
 
2012-08-07 07:56:22 PM
ROMNEY: Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PAST: What a douche!
 
2012-08-07 08:00:03 PM
With all the stupid shiat this country spends money on, biatching about welfare is farking retarded.
 
2012-08-07 08:29:01 PM

cretinbob: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


Awesome!
 
2012-08-07 08:42:37 PM
 
2012-08-07 08:43:14 PM
You know what my favorite part about this is? What the Obama administration wants to do is remove a FEDERAL requirement for welfare, thereby allowing INDIVIDUAL STATES more freedom to set their own rules. Why do the Republicans want a big government imposing on states' rights?
 
2012-08-07 08:44:28 PM

mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

Eliminate food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, old age pensions etc... etc... No application. No eligibility requirements and you could eliminate an enormous chunk of the Federal Government because you could get the IRS to process the payments.

If you support a social net with dignity and small Government this is the only solution.


You are got-damned right. In this society, NO ONE should be homeless. If you want one room with a shower and shiatter, heat and electric, you can get it. Want TV? Want a car? Want books to read? That is extra and completely up to you. Want anything beyond the basic existence? Work for it, and get as much as you can. No one will begrudge you being rich if everyone at least has the basics to start with and you worked to get more.
 
2012-08-07 08:45:40 PM
Nadie_AZ: Curious as a non-Mormon in SLC. I have a lot of clients that crawl back to the church to receive the aide you speak of. They are Mormons, who have not necessarily turned their back on the faith, but are not necessarily participating. They basically tell me that without regular attendance, they get nothing. So, when desperation rolls around, they start showing up every Sunday, and the aid follows.

Is that how it works? I'm not criticizing the practice, just wondering. Seems like if you return to church only to avoid homelessness, the re-conversion isn't really genuine. Ok, I'm criticizing it a bit.
 
2012-08-07 08:48:35 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Nadie_AZ: Curious as a non-Mormon in SLC. I have a lot of clients that crawl back to the church to receive the aide you speak of. They are Mormons, who have not necessarily turned their back on the faith, but are not necessarily participating. They basically tell me that without regular attendance, they get nothing. So, when desperation rolls around, they start showing up every Sunday, and the aid follows.

Is that how it works? I'm not criticizing the practice, just wondering. Seems like if you return to church only to avoid homelessness, the re-conversion isn't really genuine. Ok, I'm criticizing it a bit.


That seems about right. I do recall them wanting you to be active. Inactive members are pushed to attend and those that flirt with full time activity get more attention than those who never go.
 
2012-08-07 08:50:35 PM

Nadie_AZ: That seems about right. I do recall them wanting you to be active. Inactive members are pushed to attend and those that flirt with full time activity get more attention than those who never go.


Thanks. I was curious.
 
2012-08-07 08:51:04 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Seems like if you return to church only to avoid homelessness, the re-conversion isn't really genuine. Ok, I'm criticizing it a bit.


How many people who go to church in any religion are genuine about it?
 
2012-08-07 08:52:14 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: mrshowrules: I always thought welfare was backwards. Every adult citizen should receive a basic survival stipend regardless how rich or poor you are. Work to make extra money or not with no penalty.

Eliminate food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, old age pensions etc... etc... No application. No eligibility requirements and you could eliminate an enormous chunk of the Federal Government because you could get the IRS to process the payments.

If you support a social net with dignity and small Government this is the only solution.

You are got-damned right. In this society, NO ONE should be homeless. If you want one room with a shower and shiatter, heat and electric, you can get it. Want TV? Want a car? Want books to read? That is extra and completely up to you. Want anything beyond the basic existence? Work for it, and get as much as you can. No one will begrudge you being rich if everyone at least has the basics to start with and you worked to get more.


The GOP idea of small Government is a Government official getting you to pee in a bottle before you can get enough money to survive.
 
2012-08-07 08:53:49 PM

Mugato: Three Crooked Squirrels: Seems like if you return to church only to avoid homelessness, the re-conversion isn't really genuine. Ok, I'm criticizing it a bit.

How many people who go to church in any religion are genuine about it?


too many
 
2012-08-07 08:57:33 PM
img809.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-07 09:02:02 PM

mrshowrules: The GOP idea of small Government is a Government official getting you to pee in a bottle before you can get enough money to survive.


I don't remember who said it first, but it really does come down to:

Democrats: "We want everybody to have ____, even if some of the people who get it don't deserve it."
Republicans: "We want to make sure that everyone who gets _____ deserve it, even if some of the people who deserve it don't get it."
 
2012-08-07 09:16:55 PM

cretinbob: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


This.
 
2012-08-07 09:28:54 PM

nmrsnr: mrshowrules: The GOP idea of small Government is a Government official getting you to pee in a bottle before you can get enough money to survive.

I don't remember who said it first, but it really does come down to:

Democrats: "We want everybody to have ____, even if some of the people who get it don't deserve it."
Republicans: "We want to make sure that everyone who gets _____ deserve it, even if some of the people who deserve it don't get it."


As a smarter person than I pointed out on here once, it's a difference in Type I and Type II error.
 
2012-08-07 09:45:51 PM

GAT_00: As a smarter person than I pointed out on here once, it's a difference in Type I and Type II error.


Cool, good to know there's a term for it.
 
2012-08-07 09:58:57 PM

nmrsnr: GAT_00: As a smarter person than I pointed out on here once, it's a difference in Type I and Type II error.

Cool, good to know there's a term for it.


Yeah, they actually match perfectly with it. They are types of mathematical errors inherent in tests, most commonly seen in tests for viruses, cancer, things like that. Those tests have a known error rate.

I'll write in brief. A test attempts to disprove something call the null hypothesis, which is whatever you want to disprove. In medicine, the null hypothesis is commonly 'not cancer' or 'not HIV' or whatever. You attempt to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, a 1% or 5% or whatever chance you want, that is up to the designer. The standard is 5%.

Type I error is where the null hypothesis is falsely disproved - that the null hypothesis is true, but the test tells you it is false. It is more commonly called a false positive. So, a false positive cancer test would return that you have cancer, when you in fact do not. When applied to welfare, this would be that someone gets welfare but does not deserve it.

Type II error is where the null hypothesis is not disproved - that the test tells you the null hypothesis is true, when in fact it is not. There's not a good simple name for this one. In medicine, this would be a test telling you that you don't have cancer, when in fact you do. When applied to welfare, this would be turning someone down who deserves it.

Democrats prefer Type I error traditionally - that everyone gets the assistance they deserve, and if a few people get it who don't, that is unfortunate but necessary. The solution is to make a better test that does not incur Type II error. This is I believe a rational approach.

Republicans prefer Type II error traditionally - they are willing to see to it that people are denied welfare, simply because they, for a reason completely unfathomable to me, they think denying help to those who need it is better than giving help to those who do not. The end result of this preference can easily be someone starving for no good reason. This is why a compassionate solution is to accept Type I error.
 
2012-08-07 10:03:09 PM

GAT_00: nmrsnr: GAT_00: As a smarter person than I pointed out on here once, it's a difference in Type I and Type II error.

Cool, good to know there's a term for it.

Yeah, they actually match perfectly with it. They are types of mathematical errors inherent in tests, most commonly seen in tests for viruses, cancer, things like that. Those tests have a known error rate.

I'll write in brief. A test attempts to disprove something call the null hypothesis, which is whatever you want to disprove. In medicine, the null hypothesis is commonly 'not cancer' or 'not HIV' or whatever. You attempt to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, a 1% or 5% or whatever chance you want, that is up to the designer. The standard is 5%.

Type I error is where the null hypothesis is falsely disproved - that the null hypothesis is true, but the test tells you it is false. It is more commonly called a false positive. So, a false positive cancer test would return that you have cancer, when you in fact do not. When applied to welfare, this would be that someone gets welfare but does not deserve it.

Type II error is where the null hypothesis is not disproved - that the test tells you the null hypothesis is true, when in fact it is not. There's not a good simple name for this one. In medicine, this would be a test telling you that you don't have cancer, when in fact you do. When applied to welfare, this would be turning someone down who deserves it.

Democrats prefer Type I error traditionally - that everyone gets the assistance they deserve, and if a few people get it who don't, that is unfortunate but necessary. The solution is to make a better test that does not incur Type II error. This is I believe a rational approach.

Republicans prefer Type II error traditionally - they are willing to see to it that people are denied welfare, simply because they, for a reason completely unfathomable to me, they think denying help to those who need it is better than giving help to those who do no ...


Well said, Sir
 
2012-08-07 10:12:15 PM
Romney's pissed because Obama is allowing for more flexibility at the state level?
 
2012-08-07 10:13:47 PM
So he is proposing creating massive government "make-work" programs? Or is this just more thinly-veiled welfare-queen race-baiting
 
2012-08-07 10:16:41 PM

Mugato: With all the stupid shiat this country spends money on, biatching about welfare is farking retarded.


Bingo. I used to care about welfare and those that abuse "the system" but seeing one person getting excess of 10s of billion dollars of profit from government contracts for wars I don't agree with made the concept of welfare abuse seem silly. Two wrongs don't make a right but one wrong is worth more than the other wrong.
 
2012-08-07 10:17:19 PM

nmrsnr: You know what my favorite part about this is? What the Obama administration wants to do is remove a FEDERAL requirement for welfare, thereby allowing INDIVIDUAL STATES more freedom to set their own rules. Why do the Republicans want a big government imposing on states' rights?


Oh it's even better than that. Mitt Romney was all for that before he was against it.
 
2012-08-07 10:17:54 PM
public.dcexp.com
Workhouses? I see no problem with that.
 
2012-08-07 10:19:04 PM
DRUG TEST THE POOR
INSPECT THEIR COLONS FOR POLYPS
ENSURE THEY DO NOT OWN REFRIGERATORS
 
2012-08-07 10:19:33 PM

GAT_00: for a reason completely unfathomable to me


Because, as far as I can tell, they believe that the government by its very nature is an imposition on freedom, and in order to maximize freedom for all they must reduce government to its smallest effective size. If you prefer Type I error then by definition you cannot reach the smallest effective government, since you will always be spending government resources on those who do not deserve it, whereas if you prefer Type II error you can achieve a government which is actually smaller than the ideal government, which allows even more freedom than desired by not spending resources you would otherwise intend on spending.

Note: This logic does not apply very well to the actual Conservative movement in this country, which loves spending other people's money on their own personal religious, economic, and military pet projects.
 
2012-08-07 10:20:54 PM

sparkeyjames: Oh it's even better than that. Mitt Romney was all for that before he was against it.


Got a cite I can use? Someone I know is going to bring this up, I can just feel it.
 
2012-08-07 10:21:04 PM

Nadie_AZ: The mormon idea of 'welfare' is interesting. You go over your finances and then talk with the bishop. They usually will help with food, first. You get an ok for a certain amount of food, take that down to the church storehouse and get the food (I volunteered at one that looked like a mini grocery store). In exchange for this, you volunteer at the warehouse or cannery, or wherever as you can to pay it back.

It is interesting in that this could work on a very local scale. But there is no corporate profit in this, so I can't see him embracing it.


Socialism breaks down in larger communities. It has to, because you have a greater set of people working to support those who are unable or unwilling to work. In a small community, everyone pretty much knows everyone else and is willing to accept their shortcomings and even shiftlessness. "Oh, old Fred is just one of the Joneses, they throw out a drunk every generation or so." Cops throw them in the drunk tank without charges, grocery stores extend credit knowing they'll eat the losses, and ol' Fred's better-off relations make sure the bills get paid once in a while.

In bigger communities, there is less knowledge of people, and strangers are unlikely to make allowances for people they don't know. So overall, bigger communities turn to government- or religious-based charity to take care of the nonworking element; but since there's no personal knowledge, there's less compassion. And hence, socialism breaks down absent any kind of external pressure to give to each according to his needs.
 
2012-08-07 10:22:00 PM
Blah blah blah, Republicans are deluded, ignorant shiatstain farktards, and so is over half the country. What else is new?
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report