Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1844 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:06 PM (3 years 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
 
2012-08-08 04:28:50 AM  

intelligent comment below: You aren't a scientist. No matter what your "computer science" degree says.


I disagree. But for the sake of argument, what's a scientist?

intelligent comment below: So you work in a government lab inventing new technology? Yeah how about no.


How about yes. There isn't any ambiguity here; that's exactly what I do.

intelligent comment below: By the way, who paid for all your degrees? Because at the very least you had cheap subsidized loans from the government. So tell me all about the hard work you did to get where you are, without help from anyone else.


I did take a loan once, but turned out not to need it. It wasn't subsidized. The rest was paid for by my own savings and (later) by my research position at the university.

intelligent comment below: If you were really inventing shiat, you'd be in private industry in silicon valley or the PNW with someone like Intel or M$


The government gets dibs on certain technology. Aside from that, I could indeed be doing some of the work I do at the big iron companies -- DDN, IBM, probably Dell, anyone wanting in on the exascale storage wave or who provides interlinks for clusters -- but my university just happens to work with the DOE, and that's the path of least resistance. No reason to complicate matters by securing funding from elsewhere for the same work.
 
2012-08-08 04:37:33 AM  

Dokushin: I disagree. But for the sake of argument, what's a scientist?



Not you.
At best you're an engineer, at worst you're a help desk admin


Dokushin: How about yes. There isn't any ambiguity here; that's exactly what I do.



No, you don't. Colleges and private industry invents ( and as I learn later on you are actually an employee of a college who gets grants, just as I suspected)


Dokushin: I did take a loan once, but turned out not to need it. It wasn't subsidized. The rest was paid for by my own savings and (later) by my research position at the university.



Yes of course, you magically created out of thin air working those crap jobs you listed all the money required to get your degrees. Let the BS flow through you


Dokushin: The government gets dibs on certain technology. Aside from that, I could indeed be doing some of the work I do at the big iron companies -- DDN, IBM, probably Dell, anyone wanting in on the exascale storage wave or who provides interlinks for clusters -- but my university just happens to work with the DOE, and that's the path of least resistance. No reason to complicate matters by securing funding from elsewhere for the same work.



So the truth finally comes out. You work for a school and rely on government grants to pay the bills. You might want to change the wording because you are incorrectly trying to come across as an actual government employee.

I was paid in a research lab using NIH funding. But it's disingenuous to say I was a government employee. It's no surprise though that you are so self conscious of the idea brought up earlier about reliance on government when your job wouldn't exist without it.
 
2012-08-08 04:40:26 AM  
"a 2005 letter Romney signed when governor of Massachusetts that pressed Congress to give states more flexibility to determine who should qualify for welfare."

Of course he did. By this stage of the campaign I'd be shocked if he hadn't previously taken the opposite position.
 
2012-08-08 04:43:40 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Take action. Make opportunity. If she has the talent, nurture it. Success doesn't come to people. People have to go out and SEEK it. It won't happen by simply listing the reasons why it hasn't spontaneously appeared.


You know, you're one of those Republicans who so exemplifies cognitive dissonance with me.

You have spent other threads--and even possibly on this thread--decrying high unemployment and the lack of money for "job creators." You've actually ACKNOWLEDGED that there just aren't enough jobs or people providing said jobs right now.

And yet in almost the same breath, you sneer at people who are unemployed, actually saying, as here, they should just be more bootstrappy and find work...someplace. They should just somehow scrape up money they don't have--because they're unemployed; and can't get--until they find work--and then, what? Start their own business? Which costs even more money?

Do you even see the disconnect between the two main Republican biatches and moans: That unemployment is unacceptably high and yet people need to get out and get jobs? Does that even occur to you?
 
2012-08-08 04:47:23 AM  
dickfreckle
That sort of reasoning won't be tolerated, especially the part about preventive care being the ounce that saves the pound.

Food stamps in particular are vital to the nation's poor. You can't even begin to better yourself when the simple idea of your next meal is a consuming obsession. That sort of abject poverty leads to depression and crime far more often than it leads to someone just making a fortune appear from hard work. For every rags-to-riches story, there are a 1,000 rags-to-not-being a total drain on society. This money, even if it is occasionally abused, is an essential building block for society. Churches won't do it, at least not en masse. You need to eat in order to stay sane, let alone be healthy enough to work.

"Welfare" barely exists outside of benefits for children. I know this for a fact because after Katrina (I have you farkied as NOLA), they had this slipstream application process for things I didn't even care to to sign up for, but the lady just said she'd put me through the system and see how it all shook out. I was denied for nearly everything except foodstamps and about 35% of my earnings in temporary unemployment. So despite having been ejected from my home, my job, and my soul, the government doesn't just ha ...

New Orleans is actually a perfect example of what happens when you leave a group of people to wallow in poverty with no access to decent education and no economic opportunity. I actually moved to Dallas a couple of months ago (not by personal choice- related to my partner's job) and while it has none of the cultural advantages of New Orleans, it IS nice not to be constantly around neighborhoods where people can't meet their basic needs, and to not have to deal with all of the fear that goes along with that.

There are so many people there that have no chance at ever being employable, and a lot of the ones that do have jobs don't do them particularly well.This isn't because they're bad people- this is because a lot of them never had any opportunities to escape into a different way of living. The customer service here freaked me out when I first moved- it was efficient and friendly, and I'm really not used to that.
 
2012-08-08 04:48:18 AM  
Aaaand I wasn't paying attention so the formatting on my last post is all wonky.
 
2012-08-08 06:47:26 AM  

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


Holy shiat. That is the best thing I've read in a while. I would like to shake the hand of whomever wrote that beautiful piece of poetry and buy him/her a beer.
 
2012-08-08 07:02:58 AM  

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?


Teabaggers/social conservatives only care about states' rights when it means being able to screw a minority out of their rights or their corporate masters making less profit.
 
2012-08-08 07:06:14 AM  
Go to YouTube and search for Swipe My EBT. Some cool welfare videos there.
 
2012-08-08 07:07:31 AM  

avalanche: 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?

Teabaggers/social conservatives only care about states' rights when it means being able to screw a minority out of their rights or their corporate masters making less profit.


I've long seen that 'states rights' stuff to mean 'the federal government won't let me hurt people who are different!'
 
2012-08-08 07:07:53 AM  

Wyalt Derp: "a 2005 letter Romney signed when governor of Massachusetts that pressed Congress to give states more flexibility to determine who should qualify for welfare."

Of course he did. By this stage of the campaign I'd be shocked if he hadn't previously taken the opposite position.


That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.
 
2012-08-08 07:15:27 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Remind me again why a work requirement for those able to work is a bad thing again?


It's not a bad thing, as such - it's just a red herring - a talking point that has no real significance. It encourages an intellectually dishonest debate, because it ignores simple arithmatic. Half of the people on "poor people's" welfare (as opposed to the corporate, military-industrial, or agricultural sort) are children, and one third are edlerly or disabled. Most of the remaining 17% are single parents with no daycare options.
And, of course, there are no real jobs for them.
It's feelgood toadpuckey - symbolic, emotional hillbilly chow for brain dead trailer trash who want to stick it to the poor, and nothing else.
 
2012-08-08 07:22:19 AM  

shotglasss: That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.


Comparing the way Mitt flips on issues to the way Obama flips on issues is like comparing a turbofan engine to a 2 stroke.
 
2012-08-08 07:27:33 AM  
At some point Romney sat down with his team, went over their options, and simply settled on lying.
 
2012-08-08 07:32:31 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: At some point Romney sat down with his team, went over their options, and simply settled on lying.


Must have. Did someone bet him one dollar that he could run a fact-free campaign?
 
2012-08-08 07:46:48 AM  

Emracool the Aeons Hip: shotglasss: That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.

Comparing the way Mitt flips on issues to the way Obama flips on issues is like comparing a turbofan engine to a 2 stroke.


A falsehood stated as a "clever" aphorism is still a falsehood.
 
2012-08-08 07:51:01 AM  

jso2897: Emracool the Aeons Hip: shotglasss: That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.

Comparing the way Mitt flips on issues to the way Obama flips on issues is like comparing a turbofan engine to a 2 stroke.

A falsehood stated as a "clever" aphorism is still a falsehood.


It's not false that Obama has flipped on occasion, gay marriage being a recent example. Nothing inherently wrong with evolving on issues, just not when it happens on literally every issue and with no coherent justification given for why the evolution happened.
 
2012-08-08 07:58:13 AM  
People who work for their welfare work way below minimum wage. But keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-08-08 08:10:40 AM  
That's doubtful considering Romney petitioned the Federal Government to relax work rules for welfare recipients when he was Governor here in the Commonwealth...
 
2012-08-08 08:24:59 AM  

Emracool the Aeons Hip: jso2897: Emracool the Aeons Hip: shotglasss: That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.

Comparing the way Mitt flips on issues to the way Obama flips on issues is like comparing a turbofan engine to a 2 stroke.

A falsehood stated as a "clever" aphorism is still a falsehood.

It's not false that Obama has flipped on occasion, gay marriage being a recent example. Nothing inherently wrong with evolving on issues, just not when it happens on literally every issue and with no coherent justification given for why the evolution happened.


Changing one's mind from time to time, for actual, logical reasons isn't "flip-flopping" - changing your positions continually in response to "focus groups' is.
 
2012-08-08 08:27:59 AM  

keylock71: That's doubtful considering Romney petitioned the Federal Government to relax work rules for welfare recipients when he was Governor here in the Commonwealth...


Maybe in Mass. then
 
2012-08-08 08:41:32 AM  

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


If it works then it probably is socialist. Look at the way the Nordic countries are kicking amerikas but.

See the Legatum prosperity index. Norway is number one and their minimum wage is about 21 dollars an hour.
 
2012-08-08 08:44:32 AM  
Oh look, another Romney campaign message based on a lie.
 
2012-08-08 08:48:36 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Oh look, another Romney campaign message based on a lie.


Must be an hour ending in 'o'clock'.
 
kab
2012-08-08 08:56:26 AM  
Silver spoon wealthy politician, who has zero concept of what struggle is, who's office holding salary is paid for (unironically) by tax payers, decides that being on the dole seems to be the life of luxury, and this needs to be changed.

His horse eats better than some families in the US.
 
2012-08-08 09:00:53 AM  

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?


That Romney requested when he was Gov of MA.

He is literally hitting Obama for doing what he asked GWB to do.,
 
2012-08-08 09:08:29 AM  

shotglasss: That's called nuance and evolution. Your government master, Obama, is famous for it.


Evolution is the tinfoil hat conservatives use to keep logic out of their brainwaves.
 
2012-08-08 09:10:57 AM  

Gyrfalcon: BojanglesPaladin: Take action. Make opportunity. If she has the talent, nurture it. Success doesn't come to people. People have to go out and SEEK it. It won't happen by simply listing the reasons why it hasn't spontaneously appeared.

You know, you're one of those Republicans who so exemplifies cognitive dissonance with me.

You have spent other threads--and even possibly on this thread--decrying high unemployment and the lack of money for "job creators." You've actually ACKNOWLEDGED that there just aren't enough jobs or people providing said jobs right now.

And yet in almost the same breath, you sneer at people who are unemployed, actually saying, as here, they should just be more bootstrappy and find work...someplace. They should just somehow scrape up money they don't have--because they're unemployed; and can't get--until they find work--and then, what? Start their own business? Which costs even more money?

Do you even see the disconnect between the two main Republican biatches and moans: That unemployment is unacceptably high and yet people need to get out and get jobs? Does that even occur to you?


I can't speak to your perception of what 'those people' say, and I don't believe I have sneered at the unemoloyed. Stating a thing is that is is not sneering.

But i can speak for myself, and there is no inconsistancy. You miss the obvious. I am self employed.

When no one will give you a job, sometimes you have to give yourself one. There is no guarantee of success, and anyone who tells you the world owes you an even break set you up for failure. no matter what, nothing will change just by biatching about how opportunity is too hard to come by. Sometimes very smart hard working people hit bad times and fail. Sometimes it can be really, really rough. But not forever. Eventually, unless you give up, work can be found. It's harder than usual right now.

As my uncle used to say, "you can wish in one hand, and shiat in the other, and I can guarantee which one fill up first."
 
2012-08-08 09:17:18 AM  

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


I wonder if that teatard replied back to that person's comment?

That was great.
 
2012-08-08 09:58:03 AM  
May as well add states rights to LOLCATGOPATA; it might not be there yet.
 
2012-08-08 10:12:13 AM  
 
2012-08-08 10:22:09 AM  
God farking damn it, how is it the year 2012, the age of the internet and instant communication, and yet this farking piece of human garbage can stand up in front of the American public and LIE without anyone calling him on it? fark Romney, and fark any idiot who still believes the myth of the "liberal media"
 
2012-08-08 10:29:47 AM  
Obama hasn't taken work OUT of welfare. Romney is in outright lie mode now. Desperation is setting in a bit early. He'll have nothing left for November...
 
2012-08-08 11:03:27 AM  
Romney = an empty suit spouting trick-down economics. I cannot even begin to understand how the polls are even close.
 
2012-08-08 11:53:16 AM  

bhcompy: And that's not even 3% of what the Mormon church does. So what's you're point?


It's still enough to negate their legitimacy as a charity. They are now involved in political advocacy.
 
2012-08-08 12:01:18 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: bhcompy: And that's not even 3% of what the Mormon church does. So what's you're point?

It's still enough to negate their legitimacy as a charity. They are now involved in political advocacy.


Which is a completely different argument.
 
2012-08-08 12:04:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: When no one will give you a job, sometimes you have to give yourself one. There is no guarantee of success, and anyone who tells you the world owes you an even break set you up for failure. no matter what, nothing will change just by biatching about how opportunity is too hard to come by. Sometimes very smart hard working people hit bad times and fail. Sometimes it can be really, really rough. But not forever. Eventually, unless you give up, work can be found. It's harder than usual right now.


Did you not even read the post you were quoting?
"Start your own business" isn't the farking be-all end-all solution to everything. Going into business for yourself requires a stability that is completely unobtainable to a whole lot of impoverished, unemployed, and underemployed people. The risk is just too great when the price of failure is lack of food and shelter.
I find it funny that you and bhcompy talked about hobbies being important, and yet you mention woodworking and he mentioned fixing classic cars, and both of you seem entirely ignorant that these things take considerable money and workspace to do. You say that if a hobby is important, you make the time for it, but you completely ignore that in addition to time, you also need money to feed those hobbies, and if the choice is between eating and painting, you know which one people will ultimately have to choose.
 
2012-08-08 12:05:28 PM  

Dokushin: I haven't decided if I'm a Romney supporter or not. He certainly has stances I disagree with.


Interestingly, if you look around enough you'll probably find that he also has stances that you will agree with. On the exact same topics. And sometimes they are only minutes apart.
 
2012-08-08 12:11:38 PM  

monoski: Romney = an empty suit spouting trick-down economics. I cannot even begin to understand how the polls are even close.


ww2.hdnux.com

People like this reproduce and vote...
 
2012-08-08 12:15:38 PM  

keylock71: monoski: Romney = an empty suit spouting trick-down economics. I cannot even begin to understand how the polls are even close.

[ww2.hdnux.com image 412x471]

People like this reproduce and vote...


In that photo, I count three visible dicks.
 
2012-08-08 12:33:02 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: keylock71: monoski: Romney = an empty suit spouting trick-down economics. I cannot even begin to understand how the polls are even close.

[ww2.hdnux.com image 412x471]

People like this reproduce and vote...

In that photo, I count three visible dicks.


They're all vying for the attention of the lone female in the herd...
 
2012-08-08 01:33:56 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Going into business for yourself requires a stability that is completely unobtainable to a whole lot of impoverished, unemployed, and underemployed people.


No it's not. Unless of course you are convinced it can;t be done in which case you will certainly prove yourslef right.

Starting your won business requires little more than a $35 filing fee at the county clerk's office. Builiding a succesful business takes a lot of effort and sweat. It's not for everyone, and believe I made that clear. But when your alternative is no income at all, it's better than nothing.

Sergeant Grumbles: I find it funny that you and bhcompy talked about hobbies being important, and yet you mention woodworking and he mentioned fixing classic cars, and both of you seem entirely ignorant that these things take considerable money and workspace to do.


We also mentioned a number of other things there was a range from the trivial to the significant, and we weren;t discussin poor people exclusively. You are trying to erect a strawman where none exists. The nature of the hobby is irrelevant, only that it can be done. Drawing requires only a piece of paper and a pencil. Woodworking requires only a knife and a piece of wood. Singing is a hobby that requires no money whatsoever. I have known a number of amazing woodworkers who were very poor. TRhey just call it whittlin' and sell 'em for a few bucks on the side of the road. I believe you will find that most of the Blues greats were unbelievably poor, but managed to scrounge a second-hand guitar somewhere. And honestly. Who are these people choosing between food and hobbies? Nearly everyone in America can put food on the table. While nutrition continues to be a problem, I don't believe we have a problem with starvation.

But What are you trying to get at here? That everyone is hopelessly a victim of circumstance and doomed to a life of helpless failure? I disagree. I strongly believe that the bet way out of a bad situation is to focus on what CAN be done, rather than endlessly bemoan the litany of things that can't be done. It's the whole "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness thing".

You seem to ascribve to a worldview that holds that people are helpless victims of "the system" and are fungible and interchangeable. That success and failure are somehow divorced from individual capability and effort and are instead outweighed by situational factors.

This is one of those worldview differences. We are unlikely to agree on this. I grew up poor and am now middle-class. Those of us who ar e now comfortable did so largely without outside assistance. Many of us who did not continue to require assistance to this day. I do not fault those who are still where they were. Not everyone has the kind of drive needed to choose to change things.

I have arrived at my conclusions based on observing those who rose and those who did not. And what i found is that it wasn't the smart, or the lucky, or the privelaged who bettered their sitiation. It was the determined.

Your mileage, undoubtedly varies. And you are welcome to your viewpoint.
 
2012-08-08 04:49:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Those of us who are now comfortable did so largely without outside assistance.


"You didn't build that..."
 
2012-08-08 05:04:12 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: BojanglesPaladin: Those of us who are now comfortable did so largely without outside assistance.

"You didn't build that..."


He seems to be saying that he is better off now than a few years ago.
 
2012-08-08 06:23:31 PM  

hugram: He seems to be saying that he is better off now than a few years ago.


Actually I am (thankfully) not MUCH worse off today than I was three years ago. I am MUCH better off today than I was fifteen years ago.

As are most people. Wealth tends to accumulate in the long run. As does income level. Regardless of who wins elections.
 
2012-08-08 07:06:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: hugram: He seems to be saying that he is better off now than a few years ago.

Actually I am (thankfully) not MUCH worse off today than I was three years ago. I am MUCH better off today than I was fifteen years ago.

As are most people. Wealth tends to accumulate in the long run. As does income level. Regardless of who wins elections.


Well I'm a lot better off now than I was three years ago. I had a major promotion and a couple of raises. My retirement funds have rebounded very nicely. I also made a huge dent on my mortgage.

Why are you slightly a little worse off now than three years ago?
 
2012-08-08 07:24:25 PM  
Maybe the people getting corporate welfare should get back to work. CREATING JOBS!
 
2012-08-08 08:03:32 PM  

hugram: BojanglesPaladin: hugram: He seems to be saying that he is better off now than a few years ago.

Actually I am (thankfully) not MUCH worse off today than I was three years ago. I am MUCH better off today than I was fifteen years ago.

As are most people. Wealth tends to accumulate in the long run. As does income level. Regardless of who wins elections.

Well I'm a lot better off now than I was three years ago. I had a major promotion and a couple of raises. My retirement funds have rebounded very nicely. I also made a huge dent on my mortgage.

Why are you slightly a little worse off now than three years ago?


Because the economy is down. Businesses are holding off on large capital expenses, few are starting big new projects and are just 'holding tight' and I've even had a few clients fold entirely.

A promotion and accompanying raise , no matter what the economy is doing, and who is in office will always mean an increase in your personal finances. But unless you work for the Pres, it's not indicative of much other than you are good at what you do. The stock market is up and that's good. Couldn't really keep going down, but it has rebounded nicely. I just wish it was more clear that it did so rationally, but then I've never been that trusting of the market.

Anywho grats on your success.
 
Displayed 48 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report