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.

(Talking Points Memo)   "I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy." - OH Governor and confirmed Communist John Kasich   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 224
    More: Hero, John Kasich, war on poverty, GOP  
•       •       •

3110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 4:48 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-29 03:40:45 PM
Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.
 
2013-10-29 03:46:31 PM
I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.
 
2013-10-29 03:48:54 PM
RINO
 
2013-10-29 03:54:22 PM
It's OK to point out the war on the poor.  Just don't be a high ranking GOP party member when you do it.
 
2013-10-29 04:11:39 PM
www.batesline.com
 
2013-10-29 04:13:18 PM
I'm wondering if there isn't a wider context to that statement. It definitely seems to be taken from a larger body of remarks.
 
2013-10-29 04:23:48 PM
If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.
 
2013-10-29 04:40:55 PM
TFA: "You know what?" he added. "The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A."

A return to the work camps of the 30s eh? I'm down with that.
 
2013-10-29 04:50:54 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: "You know what?" he added. "The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A."

A return to the work camps of the 30s eh? I'm down with that.


" I was on welfare and food stamps, and did anybody help me?  No." - Craig T. Nelson
 
2013-10-29 04:52:24 PM
burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat
 
2013-10-29 04:52:34 PM
Your Religious Right base is the one that codified that shiat, Governor.  Ask them why they worship the Prosperity Gospel.

/If God wants you to be rich, then it must follow that poverty is a symptom of moral failure
 
2013-10-29 04:52:46 PM
Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link
 
2013-10-29 04:52:56 PM
At face value, the GOP Platform seems to be filled with inherent contradictions.  How can you claim to be against government spending, yet support massive spikes in military spending and corporate farm subsidies?    How can you claim that the National Debt is the single greatest threat facing the country, yet simultaneously claim that raising revenue is completely off the table?

Until you reach the conclusion that there really is no higher principle in the Republican Party than demonizing the poor and taking punitive actions against them at every opportunity.
 
2013-10-29 04:54:05 PM
War on the poor? Ha! They can't even afford a gun.
 
2013-10-29 04:54:45 PM

InmanRoshi: How can you claim that the National Debt is the single greatest threat facing the country, yet simultaneously claim that raising revenue is completely off the table?


Let alone discounts for Medicare Part D.  The GOP turns blue when you mention that.
 
2013-10-29 04:55:22 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link


the just world fallacy is the foundation of modern conservative thought
 
2013-10-29 04:55:58 PM

Cletus C.: War on the poor? Ha! They can't even afford a gun.


Sure they can afford a gun.  Guns aren't all that dangerous, though, compared to being able to afford lobbyists.  When you can buy a crapload of lobbyists you can wreak havoc.
 
2013-10-29 04:56:47 PM

vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.


Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.
 
2013-10-29 04:57:00 PM
There are bronze plaques embedded in every twentieth or so sidewalk section in my neighborhood that read "Built by Work Projects Administration." I would really, really love to get one of those. The thing is, those sidewalks are in awesome condition, considering they are 80 years old, so it would take an act of vandalism for me to get one. They built to last back then.
 
2013-10-29 04:57:35 PM
I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor Congress. That if you're poorin Congress, somehow you're shiftless and lazy."
 
2013-10-29 04:57:38 PM

Jackson Herring: Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link

the just world fallacy is the foundation of modern conservative thought


"Is that just philosophy you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"
 
2013-10-29 04:58:07 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Cletus C.: War on the poor? Ha! They can't even afford a gun.

Sure they can afford a gun.  Guns aren't all that dangerous, though, compared to being able to afford lobbyists.  When you can buy a crapload of lobbyists you can wreak havoc.


Why buy lobbyists? Cut out the middle man and buy politicians.
 
2013-10-29 04:58:12 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: "You know what?" he added. "The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A."

A return to the work camps of the 30s eh? I'm down with that.


Do you have any idea how many feral pigs we could Freedom Hunt with a budget of 6.7% of the GDP?

At least, that's what I assume the money would be earmarked for.  The House is notoriously hostile to frilly things like repairing roads/bridges/tunnels, energy generation and transmission, pollution remediation, and other Commie plots.

(Heck, I'd be happy with programs that went around cities, harvested condemned/decrepit properties for scrap/recycling, and converted them back into fields/parks/whatever.  Steady work with little training required.  I'd wager the ROI is pretty good in terms of increased value (and therefore property taxes) collected from the surrounding buildings, as well as the increased business revenue you see when your neighborhood doesn't look like Thunderdome.)
 
2013-10-29 04:58:20 PM
guy's the biggest RINO on the planet and he's so scared of losing to the liborat challenger that he just took their side, now his lib ass is gonna get tea partied suck it libs
 
2013-10-29 04:59:15 PM

vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.


It's your fault you can only afford one apostrophe. Get a jerb, hippie.
 
2013-10-29 05:00:42 PM

SurfaceTension: I'm wondering if there isn't a wider context to that statement. It definitely seems to be taken from a larger body of remarks.


Same. I would love to read the interview transcripts...
 
2013-10-29 05:01:08 PM

Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat


This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.
 
2013-10-29 05:01:14 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazyblack.


European opinions of their welfare state system also dip when it's perceived that immigrants or minorities are signing up.
 
2013-10-29 05:01:15 PM

RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.


And the poor that are Republicans are going to vote against him.
 
2013-10-29 05:04:01 PM

chimp_ninja: (Heck, I'd be happy with programs that went around cities, harvested condemned/decrepit properties for scrap/recycling, and converted them back into fields/parks/whatever. Steady work with little training required. I'd wager the ROI is pretty good in terms of increased value (and therefore property taxes) collected from the surrounding buildings, as well as the increased business revenue you see when your neighborhood doesn't look like Thunderdome.)


You could start in Detroit. I would assume that those that are left and are unemployed would be tickled shiatless for the opportunity to do hard manual labor for their dinner.
 
2013-10-29 05:04:44 PM

Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


Then why were the first Christians collectivists?
 
2013-10-29 05:05:00 PM
I read that as 'Dennis Kucinch' and couldn't figure out why it was news. Took me 3 or 4 comments to realize my mistake.
 
2013-10-29 05:05:57 PM

Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.
 
2013-10-29 05:06:22 PM
"I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy." OH Governor John Kasich. Who then went on to sign a bills slashing Medicaid, Chips, WIC, a Union busting bill and then went off for a steak dinner at Morton's of Chicago

/obviously that last part didn't happen, at least that we're aware of
 
2013-10-29 05:08:20 PM

Serious Black: Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.


I'd call it a rainbow canvas.  So many words, so many authors, you can pick whatever color you like.
 
2013-10-29 05:09:34 PM
LATEST UPDATE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY:

The poor lost.
 
2013-10-29 05:09:37 PM
I think it'd be pretty cool if someone started a moderate conservative party with a Rhino as the mascot.
 
2013-10-29 05:10:08 PM
"I'm concerned that there seems to be a war on the poor... And the rich people like me are losing!"

/If they are a politician, they don't have your interests in heart.
//farking satan is a better deal then believing anything that comes out of a politicians face asshole.
 
2013-10-29 05:11:28 PM
Kasich screwed the pooch SO HARD when he went to step one of the Koch Brothers playbook and tried to destroy every single civil service union in the state at the same time within months of getting elected.  Had he just tried the teachers he probably would have won, but in a similar shiatstorm like Scott Walker got involved in.

Instead he pissed off just about everyone but the tea party-lite Republicans down in southern Ohio and got his ass handed to him on Issue 5.  He's laid incredibly low the past 18 months but is basically still the same douchbag who championed all that shiat not that long ago.
 
2013-10-29 05:12:21 PM
I have a feeling that there are going to be more and more Republicans making statements like these to try to win the moderates back because after their latest behavior, they know that they are losing them.
 
2013-10-29 05:12:33 PM
He's right, the problem is that poor people are better off working than they are on welfare.  But they need jobs in order to do that.
 
2013-10-29 05:13:33 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: chimp_ninja: (Heck, I'd be happy with programs that went around cities, harvested condemned/decrepit properties for scrap/recycling, and converted them back into fields/parks/whatever. Steady work with little training required. I'd wager the ROI is pretty good in terms of increased value (and therefore property taxes) collected from the surrounding buildings, as well as the increased business revenue you see when your neighborhood doesn't look like Thunderdome.)

You could start in Detroit. I would assume that those that are left and are unemployed would be tickled shiatless for the opportunity to do hard manual labor for their dinner.


No.   Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living.  You know which people I mean, right?  *wink, wink*
 
2013-10-29 05:13:35 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.


Probably, but not the way you might think. Kasich's actually a Pittsburgh native, and the community where he grew up (McKees Rocks) has become fairly distressed since deindustrialization.

/Youngstown native
//Born three weeks before Black Monday
///Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do
 
2013-10-29 05:13:38 PM

InmanRoshi: At face value, the GOP Platform seems to be filled with inherent contradictions.  How can you claim to be against government spending, yet support massive spikes in military spending and corporate farm subsidies?    How can you claim that the National Debt is the single greatest threat facing the country, yet simultaneously claim that raising revenue is completely off the table?

Until you reach the conclusion that there really is no higher principle in the Republican Party than demonizing the poor and taking punitive actions against them at every opportunity.


I don't think that's quite it. I don't think "hating poor people" is the end goal. I think if you want a condensed view of conservative ideology it would be better summed up as "people must be punished into success." Nothing else will do. If you aren't doing right then the only solution is to punish you are fixed.

Break the law? We will send you to prison and punish you so that, even though we have no plan for reintegrating you into society, you will realize that crime is bad and you don't want to go to prison again. Are you poor? Well lending you a hand won't do any good. We have to punish you until you realize it's bad to be poor. Schools under performing? We'll cut their funding and punish them until they realize they should perform better. Foreign country acting in ways we don't like? We will punish-bomb the shiat out of you and then probably have to bomb the shiat out of the people who take over after the initial bombing.

It's obvious how this philosophy becomes more and more ridiculous as you try to apply it to everything. However, it does explain a lot of what conservatives do/believe.
 
2013-10-29 05:15:28 PM

12349876: Serious Black: Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

I'd call it a rainbow canvas.  So many words, so many authors, you can pick whatever color you like.


Yeah, but the gosh durned gh3ys took over our rainbows! DAMN YOU FARTBAMA!

/not really though
 
2013-10-29 05:15:35 PM

Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.


It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.
 
2013-10-29 05:15:48 PM

Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.
 
2013-10-29 05:15:56 PM

Lionel Mandrake: No. Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living. You know which people I mean, right? *wink, wink*


No I don't. Do tell.
 
2013-10-29 05:15:57 PM
Another simple example:

Low-income housing (oh, so shockingly) tends to be constructed with no regard to energy efficiency.  Crappy insulation, leaky everything, the works.  So they're cheap in terms of rent, but the all-in cost of living there is actually pretty steep for what you get.

How most of the US handles it now: Poor people in cities rack up massive energy bills despite living in small spaces with few appliances.  The bills get unreasonable, so we pay them through the tax system in the form of subsidies and poverty assistance.  This continues forever.
What is starting to be done in your smarter cities:  Pay teams of minimally-trained people to visit low-income housing, particularly large apartment complexes where every unit is more or less the same, so figuring out how to fix up one unit makes the rest very easy.  Patch, seal, insulate, tighten, etc.  Put in all the goofy one-dollar fixes that pay off over time (inject foam into leaky spots, weatherstrip doors/windows, wrap exposed hot water pipes, gasket outlets, put aerators on bathroom sinks, tighten up plumbing, etc.) and teach the residents (if they give a crap) as you're doing it.  Lower their bills, therefore lower the amount of assistance needed.  Along the way, the minimally-trained people build a resume that can get them into general contracting and construction.

But apparently, we couldn't hire 100,000 people for a year or two to do this nationally, because socialism and therefore.
 
2013-10-29 05:16:21 PM

Fizpez: Kasich screwed the pooch SO HARD when he went to step one of the Koch Brothers playbook and tried to destroy every single civil service union in the state at the same time within months of getting elected.  Had he just tried the teachers he probably would have won, but in a similar shiatstorm like Scott Walker got involved in.

Instead he pissed off just about everyone but the tea party-lite Republicans down in southern Ohio and got his ass handed to him on Issue 5.  He's laid incredibly low the past 18 months but is basically still the same douchbag who championed all that shiat not that long ago.


Dad works for the state. My brother's a police officer, and I have many friends who are teachers. Every one of them knows that there are schmucks who are a waste of a paycheck, and independently, each of them said that if Kasich had tried to get the unions on board, there was a chance for legitimate reform.
And the best part about Kasich? He pissed off all the Republicans with the Medicaid expansion for Obamacare. So he's saying stuff like this that might -- MIGHT -- make him more palatable in a general election, and he's going to get a Tea Party candidate running against him in the primary.
 
2013-10-29 05:18:10 PM
Kasich's point is?
 
2013-10-29 05:19:58 PM

ongbok: I have a feeling that there are going to be more and more Republicans making statements like these to try to win the moderates back because after their latest behavior, they know that they are losing them.


Specifically any GOPer not from the Derp South.
 
2013-10-29 05:22:49 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.


Having attended a Christian high school and primary school the only good I've been able to salvage is in using my knowledge of scripture to browbeat hypocritical/bigoted Christians. It's cathartic as f*ck.

I don't mess with the soup kitchen, help-the-poor types, though. They're alright.
 
2013-10-29 05:23:20 PM

odinsposse: Break the law? We will send you to prison and punish you so that, even though we have no plan for reintegrating you into society, you will realize that crime is bad and you don't want to go to prison again.


Yup.  It would save society a ton of money to release most non-violent offenders, especially those who got wrapped up under "mandatory minimum" or "Three Strikes" laws.  Even if they can't find work when they're out, it takes a lot less money to give them federal benefits than it does to build guarded fortresses around them.  At the very least, convert as much prison time to court-ordered community service as possible.

A few private prison contract companies would go out of business, but I think we'll survive without them.
 
2013-10-29 05:23:32 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.


I've tried arguing with Evangelicals about what the Bible says using explicit quotes from the book, from religious scholars, and from clergy members (primarily my uncle who is a Catholic priest of about 40 years now). You're exactly right; they inevitably say I am not reading the Bible right, am ignoring context that somehow proves my point is wrong, and that I should stop talking about shiat that I don't believe.
 
2013-10-29 05:25:40 PM
It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.
 
2013-10-29 05:28:21 PM

Chummer45: It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.


This.
 
2013-10-29 05:30:37 PM

Cletus C.: Why buy lobbyists? Cut out the middle man and buy politicians.


You do that too, of course, but through PACs made up of like-minded multinational corporations.
 
2013-10-29 05:31:20 PM

Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.
 
2013-10-29 05:35:40 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No. Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living. You know which people I mean, right? *wink, wink*

No I don't. Do tell.


"Poor" people. *nudge, nudge*
 
2013-10-29 05:39:49 PM

impaler: "Poor" people.


Like my Grandfather.
 
2013-10-29 05:44:56 PM
Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.
 
2013-10-29 05:48:34 PM

Chummer45: It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.


It's remarkable in the sense that he thinks everyone in Ohio is going to forget that he came into the governorship slashing and burning, playing the tea party's greatest hits in the background, and that goes for both Democrats and his own party. About a third of Ohio's abortion clinics have been closed or will shortly be closed because of Kasich's budget manipulation to pass morality bills. I just hope that when Mrs. Staunch Republican has to drive little Sally over the border into Michigan to have her excusable abortion, she remembers who made it so difficult.
 
2013-10-29 05:49:01 PM
When I was a kid I was always jealous of the classmate that had one outfit to wear all year. He didn't even have to think about which outfit he was going to wear that day. Think of all the concern the kids won't have when we take their housing and food away too!
 
2013-10-29 05:53:38 PM

vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.


Oh sure you can; you simply refuse to process your thoughts and voila...
 
2013-10-29 05:55:33 PM

tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.


With a shiat-ton of collateral damage.
 
2013-10-29 05:55:43 PM
Being poor is totes awesome, she would know!

www.sunbyanyname.com
 
2013-10-29 05:57:12 PM

tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.


Better to starve a million kids then to let one mother smoke a joint and get away with it!
 
2013-10-29 05:57:22 PM

SurfaceTension: I'm wondering if there isn't a wider context to that statement. It definitely seems to be taken from a larger body of remarks.


he wants to be re-elected and isn't in fear of being primaried.
 
2013-10-29 05:59:06 PM

lockers: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.

Better to starve a million kids then to let one mother smoke a joint and get away with it!


it goes along with their "I'd rather keep a million from voting if it keeps one from getting away with voter fraud."
 
2013-10-29 06:10:28 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

I'm concerned that many people of darker skin don't get paid adequately. Sometimes, they don't get paid at all. I am truly concerned about that.
 
2013-10-29 06:13:17 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: I don't mess with the soup kitchen, help-the-poor types, though. They're alright.


Likewise. For that matter, if I know that someone gets comfort out of their religion and they aren't using it to harm or repress others, I'm more than happy to leave them the hell alone.

In general, the people I debate are only the people who are looking for a debate. I like debate and prefer it when the people I'm debating are enjoying the exchange on those merits.
 
2013-10-29 06:17:25 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: impaler: "Poor" people.

Like my Grandfather.


No, no, no...the shiftless and lazy ones...you know...those people
 
2013-10-29 06:18:48 PM

tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.


img.4plebs.org

Shiftless!

www.ukprogressive.co.uk

Lazy!
 
2013-10-29 06:22:07 PM

tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.

TM

In other words, the Black people, right?
 
2013-10-29 06:23:03 PM

Mugato: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.


Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?
 
2013-10-29 06:28:57 PM

vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.


Well, they're not really Christians at all. All you'll ever hear them talking about is the Old Testament. They almost never do or say anything the reflects the teachings of Christ.
 
2013-10-29 06:30:46 PM

Hobodeluxe: lockers: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.

Better to starve a million kids then to let one mother smoke a joint and get away with it!

it goes along with their "I'd rather keep a million from voting if it keeps one from getting away with voter fraud."


Well that is just a bold face lie. States keep a database of registered voters. If I have 52 people registered at my residence I'm going to be caught. It's just not a statistically meaningful problem. No pay off with lots of downside to commit voter fraud in that fashion.
 
2013-10-29 06:30:55 PM

maddogdelta: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.TM

In other words, the Black people, right?


Jesus Christ not out loud!
 
2013-10-29 06:35:13 PM

impaler: maddogdelta: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.TM

In other words, the Black people, right?

Jesus Christ not out loud!


Call them "urban." Then everyone knows what you mean, but you won't get the help all pissed off at you.
 
2013-10-29 06:35:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: No, no, no...the shiftless and lazy ones


Get the narrative straight guys.  Is it poor or shiftless and lazy?
 
2013-10-29 06:41:48 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No, no, no...the shiftless and lazy ones

Get the narrative straight guys.  Is it poor or shiftless and lazy?


Doesn't one imply the other? I thought that was well understood by the GOP faithful.
 
2013-10-29 06:55:22 PM
Do you know why liberals pretend to care about the poor?

Because they vote for Democrats.

And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid for that reason alone.
 
2013-10-29 06:56:25 PM
Kasich is a pretty slow study, apparently.

Somebody ask him about Miley Cyrus next and see what fresh new perspectives he has on all that.
 
2013-10-29 06:56:53 PM
Worthless, union-busting teabagger.
 
2013-10-29 06:58:54 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No, no, no...the shiftless and lazy ones

Get the narrative straight guys.  Is it poor or shiftless and lazy?


Don't be silly - the terms are synonymous.  It says so in the Bible.  Somewhere in the back, I think.
 
2013-10-29 07:02:37 PM
LOL, what he just NOW figured that out?  Bet he didnt get too specific though, people might realize he is fighting on the rich folks side.

Seriously if wages had tracked to the increase in productivity, minimum wage would be over 22/hr.  Unfortunately since 1970 they have not.  Oddly enough before that they tracked it pretty precisely.....Its weird.  In about 1972 the wages went from tracking it....to being completely flat.

Taxes as a % of GDP are at a low of 14.8% (for fun tea party folks like to post a graph from wikipedia showing that since 2009 the taxes as a % of GDP have gone from 15% to a current of 22.4%.  But if you go to wikipedia you find out the graph was uploaded in 2009, and the 2009-2013 numbers were estimates.  And completely wrong ones as it turned out.  lol.

Inequality is insane.  seriously the numbers are mind blowing.  And most people focus on income inequality, whereas the real shocker is in growing wealth inequality as a result of the income inequality.
 
2013-10-29 07:07:13 PM

Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


Stop. This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing
 
2013-10-29 07:07:46 PM

Lionel Mandrake: It says so in the Bible. Somewhere in the back, I think.


I'll take your word on it.
 
2013-10-29 07:08:46 PM

skullkrusher: This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing


Heh.
 
2013-10-29 07:11:10 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: It says so in the Bible. Somewhere in the back, I think.

I'll take your word on it.


You sound lazy.
 
2013-10-29 07:14:33 PM
John Calvin smiles.
 
2013-10-29 07:21:11 PM
media.cleveland.com
Remember kids.. people with Capital can organize into corporations but labor is not allowed to organize into unions.  That's Marxism.
 
2013-10-29 07:26:09 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No. Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living. You know which people I mean, right? *wink, wink*

No I don't. Do tell.


Welfare queens, driving their Cadillacs around. You know, THOSE people.

/also Poverty Pimps
 
2013-10-29 07:26:57 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Worthless, union-busting teabagger.


...who just realized he's gonna need some votes from Cleveland if he wants to be re-elected.
 
2013-10-29 07:27:31 PM

NotoriousW.O.P: Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.

Probably, but not the way you might think. Kasich's actually a Pittsburgh native, and the community where he grew up (McKees Rocks) has become fairly distressed since deindustrialization.

/Youngstown native
//Born three weeks before Black Monday
///Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do


I lived in Warren in the 70s and went to YSU (until Reagan cut the BEOG and education subsidies). I watched it all come tumbling down.
 
2013-10-29 07:27:53 PM
 
2013-10-29 07:33:16 PM

12349876: Serious Black: Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

I'd call it a rainbow canvas.  So many words, so many authors, you can pick whatever color you like.


I'll take fuchsia!
 
2013-10-29 07:35:55 PM

Cletus C.: War on the poor? Ha! They can't even afford a gun.


I bet they still have refrigerators though.
 
2013-10-29 07:46:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link


I got into a knock-down, drag-out argument with an ex over this very topic. She's a remarkably intelligent woman, but she just couldn't grasp that maybe, just maybe, a small (yet growing) portion of America's poor are poor due to something beyond their control. Despite providing reasonable examples, even ones from my own f*cking extended family, she simply couldn't fathom why these lazy poor people weren't going out and getting jobs. After all, she was able to find one.

Ugh, I'm getting a knot in my stomach just thinking about it.
 
2013-10-29 07:54:06 PM

jst3p: Being poor is totes awesome, she would know!

[www.sunbyanyname.com image 630x500]


She pulled in MILLIONS for the Vatican.
 
2013-10-29 07:56:46 PM
Then why are you in the Republican party, sir?
 
2013-10-29 07:58:07 PM

randomjsa: Do you know why liberals pretend to care about the poor?

Because they vote for Democrats.

And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid for that reason alone.


The stupid are overwhelmingly on your team, chief.
 
2013-10-29 08:01:41 PM
It basically goes like this, the Protestant Work Ethic equates the moral value of a person with their ability to work hard and frugality with their money. Those who laze around and spend money on frivolous things are "less moral" or even "immoral" and they are definitely not showing Christian virtue. In fact, giving charity to people encouraged laziness and begging, and is not really that good for their souls. Calvinists believed that only a certain number of people were predestined to be saved. You never knew who it might be, but they thought that they might be able to tell the likely candidates because of the way the led their lives. So working hard, saving money, going from a log cabin to the White House and rags to riches stories all fed into this idea that some people were just morally superior to others. So if the pursuit of money is okay but it isn't okay to spend, and charity is bad then what choice does a God-fearing person have but to work their tails off and invest. (Which is great economically, but is not so great for the less fortunate.)

In many ways America ended up being the dumping ground for all of the real extreme Protestant sects that made a lot of their European neighbors uncomfortable. America is chock full of stories of immigrants coming here to escape from religious persecution, every one wanting to be more serious about their Protestantism when they got over here many of them went on to found churches.

The theory goes that America's love of capitalism is also linked to this, and so it would make sense that what is valued is working, earning everything on your own and being able to support yourself. Therefore socialism is frowned on and looked at with skepticism, therefore people on welfare are "less" than people who can make it on their own. The Protestant Work Ethic has suffused the broader culture to those who aren't even Protestant.
 
2013-10-29 08:03:21 PM

randomjsa: And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid


Projection!

I think IMAX is hiring, you should inquire.
 
2013-10-29 08:05:55 PM
late to thread  - was reading an article in Rolling Stone about the war on food stamps

...2012/Gingrich.."despite Gringrich implying that lazy blacks  were the personification of food-stamp recipients, only 22% of those who receive food stamps are black (33% are white).

...of the roughly 47 million Americans on food stamps, nearly half are children
 
2013-10-29 08:18:57 PM
We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.
 
2013-10-29 08:27:21 PM
Very sharp man and very objective about finances.  One thing I have always really liked about him is he knows his number cold - no BS or pulling numbers out of his ass.

Wish he'd get more attention.
 
2013-10-29 08:32:57 PM

Talondel: Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.
 
2013-10-29 08:36:44 PM
He should know, since he voted for "welfare reform."
 
2013-10-29 08:43:36 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


When you make a deliberate choice to shift as much as the nation's wealth to the top percentile, you have to deal with the consequences of that monetary shift.  Either reverse it, spend money to feeding the poor, or let them starve in the streets and hope they don't start revolting to form a less evil government.
 
2013-10-29 09:00:54 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


I was just about to berate you for your 1/10 trolling attempt, but fark it, you caught one.
 
2013-10-29 09:14:54 PM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


Or, wages could get back to a level where both adults in a middle class household don't have to work just to stay afloat. Pick one.
 
2013-10-29 09:15:17 PM

impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?


Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.


Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.


It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.


Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?


No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."  Matthew 6:1-4.

skullkrusher: Stop. This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing


They're similar, but not identical.  Typically both groups believe that certain rights are 'fundamental' or 'natural'.  Many (but not all) libertarians believe "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  Objectivists believe that the fundamental human rights can be determined by the application of pure reason (i.e. objectively) without reference to any god.
 
2013-10-29 09:22:41 PM

Talondel: impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?

Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.

It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.

Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?

No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your ...


they're not even similar. One is a political philosophy and the other is a moral philosophy.
 
2013-10-29 09:26:48 PM

buzzcut73: Or, wages could get back to a level where both adults in a middle class household don't have to work just to stay afloat. Pick one.


In a global workplace, we are kind of stuck with suppressed wages for a while as Mexico, China and India catch up.  Better grab a snickers.
 
2013-10-29 09:28:59 PM

Talondel: You.  The individual.


Yep, charity with other folks money is not charity at all.
 
2013-10-29 09:29:30 PM

skullkrusher: they're not even similar. One is a political philosophy and the other is a moral philosophy.


Well, they both suck, but, yeah, in totally different ways.
 
2013-10-29 09:32:09 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Either reverse it,


That would require getting rid of Clinton's NAFTA and a host of other free trade agreements.  Good luck with that.
 
2013-10-29 09:36:12 PM

skullkrusher: Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility. It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that. That's modern social science, not Christianity.


Where Jesus said that individual responsibility failed?  That's not a quote, that's a historical observation.

Christianity itself doesn't specify the means - it says we need to take care of each other, it doesn't say how.  Either individual or collective action could in theory reach those ends.  However, in practice, history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work, while the other has produced far better results.

I'd argue if you have a moral imperative to help others (and I believe that we do), you also have a moral imperative to choose an effective means to that end.  If individual action and collective action were equally effective, the choice would be amoral - either option would be just as good.  However, if one method is substantially more effective than the other, then it's the morally correct path.
 
2013-10-29 09:39:09 PM
For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   www.humanevents.com
 
2013-10-29 09:41:20 PM

Sum Dum Gai: history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work,


Where?  Show your work.
 
2013-10-29 09:49:09 PM

HeadLever: Where? Show your work.


Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.  Can you name a single society that relied on individual charity, at any point in this planet's history, that was as effective at helping the needy as modern social democracies with their social safety nets?

Look at the conditions of the poor in America a hundred years ago versus today - poverty today is still harsh, but it's not even close to how bad it used to be (early 20th century America was similar in many ways to early 21st century China).  The safety net, by and large, works very well.
 
2013-10-29 09:55:40 PM

HeadLever: welfare cliffs


Cato was pushing this as well. It's nonsense.
 
2013-10-29 10:06:26 PM
First, Kasich tells the GOP legislators in the statehouse to EABOD when he goes to accept the federal expansion of Medicaid, and now he is concerned about the poor.

WTF is going on? Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!
 
2013-10-29 10:06:39 PM

Sum Dum Gai: Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.


Again, back that up.  You saying so does not make it true. Don't forget that if these charitable programs 'simply did not work' there wouldn't be many folks sending them money.  As it is the amount of charitable donations are about on par with SSI, EIC, Unemployment, SNAP, Child Nutrition programs, Foster Care, Making Work Pay and all other programs under the umbrella of 'Income Security'.

My point is not that they should be the only means, but they are just as important as the federal safety nets.

Again, show where they don't work.  The ones that I see work fine.
 
2013-10-29 10:14:47 PM

Serious Black: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.

I've tried arguing with Evangelicals about what the Bible says using explicit quotes from the book, from religious scholars, and from clergy members (primarily my uncle who is a Catholic priest of about 40 years now). You're exactly right; they inevitably say I am not reading the Bible right, am ignoring context that somehow proves my point is wrong, and that I should stop talking about shiat that I don't believe.


I'm sure they're able to articulate their arguments well and provide evidence to support them.
 
2013-10-29 10:18:49 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Cato was pushing this as well. It's nonsense.


Actually, that article is perfectly consistent with that figure.

Item No 1 - Is perfectly shown where different programs phase in and out based upon income.
Item No. 2 - The 'Single Mom' analysis is disclosed in the figure
Item No. 3. -  You can see where work and Income assistance is cumulative

If you are going to debunk a figure, you may want to read your link in context with what was posted.  If you would have done that you could see that my figure addresses all of your article's concerns with the CATO study.
 
2013-10-29 10:22:15 PM

HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]


bringing the min wage up to 1965 levels would go a long way towards that. stop taxpayer subsidizing neo-slave wages.  also stop the "free trade" agreements with 3rd world labor.
 
2013-10-29 10:22:55 PM
Poor House(s)
Debtor's Prison.
Tax cuts for the wealthy.

You're Welcome.
 
2013-10-29 10:28:15 PM

Hobodeluxe: also stop the "free trade" agreements with 3rd world labor.


You would like to ignore that argument wouldn't you?  The fact is that someone making a widget for $3 in India is going to have a competitive edge over your minimum wage cost of $20 per widget and this inconvenient fact puts tremendous pressure on the middle class.  You want to see more jobs flee the US, please continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

You may fantasize about all of us buying those $25 dollar, made in the USA widgets, but when you are financially stressed, those $10 India made widgets will work just fine.
 
2013-10-29 10:28:55 PM

HeadLever: Again, back that up. You saying so does not make it true. Don't forget that if these charitable programs 'simply did not work' there wouldn't be many folks sending them money. As it is the amount of charitable donations are about on par with SSI, EIC, Unemployment, SNAP, Child Nutrition programs, Foster Care, Making Work Pay and all other programs under the umbrella of 'Income Security'.

My point is not that they should be the only means, but they are just as important as the federal safety nets.

Again, show where they don't work. The ones that I see work fine.


I didn't say charities don't do good - I give tens of thousands to charities each year because I strongly approve of the work they do.  I said charity alone is not sufficient, and never has been.  Americans certainly do give an impressive amount of charity, but still not near enough - I notice you don't count Medicaid in that number; the total sum of charitable donations of all Americans couldn't pay for the Medicaid program alone.

My grandfather grew up dirt poor in the early 20th century, and it was not pretty.  The quality of life they eked out for themselves was terrible compared to even the poorest of the poor today.  We've come a long, long way since then.
 
2013-10-29 10:32:35 PM
I don't have a mansion and a yacht but some people do so those people are making war on me.
 
2013-10-29 10:36:08 PM

HeadLever: Again, show where they don't work.


48 Million Americans Remain Uninsured, Census Bureau Reports

Or is that a triumph of private charity to you?
 
2013-10-29 10:37:31 PM

Sum Dum Gai: I didn't say charities don't do good


You said they didn't work.  That is what I am taking exception with.
 
2013-10-29 10:39:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Or is that a triumph of private charity to you?


Charity is not about insurance.  It is about giving the necessities of life.  Insurance does not fit that bill.  Medical care would.
 
2013-10-29 10:42:48 PM

HeadLever: You said they didn't work. That is what I am taking exception with.


That was a poor choice of words.  I think my key point still stands:

However, if one method is substantially more effective than the other, then it's the morally correct path.

Social programs to improve the quality of life of the poor (which, yes, are augmented by private charity) have been substantially more effective than private charity alone.  The quality of life of the poor in the first world has risen massively, largely thanks to the existence of safety net programs.

There will always be a place for private charity - but there's very clearly a significant benefit to having social programs as well.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:58 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Im glad that Kasich got this part right.

Its really disturbing how many other Republicans don't seem to get it.

Well, they're not really Christians at all. All you'll ever hear them talking about is the Old Testament. They almost never do or say anything the reflects the teachings of Christ.


Some call them leviticans- they stopped reading the bible after Leviticus. Honestly they only follow old testament law as much as they feel like.

Often the same people who hate Muslims- though they believe virtually the same things
 
2013-10-29 10:44:01 PM

HeadLever: Charity is not about insurance. It is about giving the necessities of life. Insurance does not fit that bill. Medical care would.


Insurance is a way to get medical care, so is much like charity in that respect. Which is more successful at providing medical care?
 
2013-10-29 10:44:41 PM

HeadLever: Actually, that article is perfectly consistent with that figure.

Item No 1 - Is perfectly shown where different programs phase in and out based upon income.
Item No. 2 - The 'Single Mom' analysis is disclosed in the figure
Item No. 3. -  You can see where work and Income assistance is cumulative

If you are going to debunk a figure, you may want to read your link in context with what was posted.  If you would have done that you could see that my figure addresses all of your article's concerns with the CATO study.


It says right on the figure 'if we stack on welfare benefits'. The whole thing relies on that, and that's not how it works. Very few people qualify for all of those programs. It is nonsense.
 
2013-10-29 10:46:39 PM

Talondel: vernonFL: If you run around calling yourself a Christian, you cannot at the same tome subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Well yeah, considering that Rand was an atheist, I'm pretty sure that would violate some of the core tenants of Christianity. But it's certainly possible to follow other forms of libertarian ideology without running afoul of any Christian tenants. If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.


Pretty much. The only thing you really need to do to call yourself a Christian is believe in Christ. Now, it's true that throughout history many people have claimed that you need to adhere to specific political philosophies as well as believe in Christ, but they've been pretty much all over the map, and have included things like monarchies, caste systems, colonialism and even slavery. The socialist iterations of Christianity seem to be a more recent innovation which only really took root after Vatican II.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm a strong supporter of societies maintaining strong safety nets. I'm just not convinced that employing this kind of religious rhetoric actually adds anything to the conversation, since from a purely empirical level any individual interpretation can't possibly be any more correct or valid than that of a different sect from the same religion.
 
2013-10-29 10:49:22 PM

randomjsa: Do you know why liberals pretend to care about the poor?

Because they vote for Democrats.

And that's setting aside the 'not small' number of liberal elites who are quite happy to keep people poor and stupid for that reason alone.


So I read an article where a GOP
Gov says something that could get me to vote republican again. I read the comments and you derp. So I am back to thinking- oh yeah I am not just getting to vote against GOP policies but against their trollish base. Thanks for being the D-bag you always are!
 
2013-10-29 10:53:10 PM
Haven't we had enough lessons in history to learn that relying solely on charity to address poverty never works?
 
2013-10-29 10:57:41 PM

Sum Dum Gai: There will always be a place for private charity - but there's very clearly a significant benefit to having social programs as well.


That is a statement that will draw no argument for me.
 
2013-10-29 11:01:17 PM

Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.


Hm, I see you didn't read the article.

Although he opposes the Affordable Care Act, Kasich broke with many Republican governors when he accepted the Medicated expansion under the law... Kasich unilaterally secured the federal funds which will be used to provide coverage to up to 275,000 low income Ohioans - through a manuever that could face conservative legal challenges.

Guy's got some balls, I think.
 
2013-10-29 11:02:04 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Insurance is a way to get medical care, so is much like charity in that respect.


But that is an extra step that is not necessary and just reduces the effectiveness of said charitable contributions.  Besides, the entire premis of insurance is a pooling of resources in order to take out what is needed when TSHTF.  Charity is giving of ones resources to help someone else.  Both have thier place, but they are set up on a different premis.
 
2013-10-29 11:05:53 PM

RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.


And yet, in Ohio, he's stirred up the same shiat Scott Walker has.  He's only saying this because he's worried Ted Strickland will take him out next year*. I don't think he's concerned about a primary, because Ohio is purple enough that a Tea Party candidate hands the governor's mansion to the Democrat, who ever s/he is.

*At least, I assume that Strickland will run for governor again.
 
2013-10-29 11:08:04 PM

Sum Dum Gai: HeadLever: Where? Show your work.

Everywhere in the world at every time it's been tried.  Can you name a single society that relied on individual charity, at any point in this planet's history, that was as effective at helping the needy as modern social democracies with their social safety nets?

Look at the conditions of the poor in America a hundred years ago versus today - poverty today is still harsh, but it's not even close to how bad it used to be (early 20th century America was similar in many ways to early 21st century China).  The safety net, by and large, works very well.


Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson. This is what many conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-10-29 11:08:24 PM

Gyrfalcon: Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.

Hm, I see you didn't read the article.

Although he opposes the Affordable Care Act, Kasich broke with many Republican governors when he accepted the Medicated expansion under the law... Kasich unilaterally secured the federal funds which will be used to provide coverage to up to 275,000 low income Ohioans - through a manuever that could face conservative legal challenges.

Guy's got some balls, I think.


And yet, Ohio has to use the national exchange, just like the other red states that refused to set up their own.

Again, nothing but posturing to get the fence-sitters to vote for him over a Democrat.
 
2013-10-29 11:12:31 PM

Talondel: impaler: Talondel: If you hold that caring for your fellow man is an individual and not a collective responsibility, that is consistent with both Christian teaching and libertarianism.

Then why were the first Christians collectivists?

Because that's also not inconsistent with Christ's teachings?

Sum Dum Gai: If individual responsibility were sufficient there would be neither the need nor the desire for collective responsibility.  It is precisely because leaving it to individuals to care for their fellow humans has continually failed that collective action is needed at all.

Feel free to cite me to the part of the Bible where Jesus said that.  That's modern social science, not Christianity.

Mugato: That's...sort of a valid loophole I guess but then religion is full of them.

It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."  You.  The individual.

Lord Dimwit: I'm okay with that sort of tack if and only if the same person doesn't also demand that their personal prejudices, supposedly based in Christian ethics, are encoded into civil law. You can believe that Christ wanted the individual, not society, to help the poor, but then you'd better also believe that it's up to the individual to decide whom to marry or whether or not to take birth control.

Bingo.

xria: Is it really valid when it basically boils down to an argument that "Government should let the poor starve so I have the maximum opportunities possible to earn the brownie points with Jesus to get into Heaven"?

No.  If your motivation is to draw attention to your own good works, you receive no reward.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."  Matthew 6:1-4.

skullkrusher: Stop. This is Fark where libertarianism and Objectivism are the same thing

They're similar, but not identical.  Typically both groups believe that certain rights are 'fundamental' or 'natural'.  Many (but not all) libertarians believe "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  Objectivists believe that the fundamental human rights can be determined by the application of pure reason (i.e. objectively) without reference to any god.


Jesus also attacked the money lenders- big business. Jesus admonished the Pharisees- mega church charadmatic pastors. Jesus said give unto Ceasar- pay your taxes.

Never, however, did Jesus say- vote down social programming that the modern capitalist democracy can provide on unprecedented levels which could make poverty so much less harsh and could greatly reduce nationwide poverty through such unrighteousness and unholy things as nutrition programs, education programs, birth control, and emergency assistance.

Yeah I am pretty sure I missed the chapter where Jesus said don't pool the resources of the richest nation on earth to try and eradicate poverty- for lo my father really will only reward thou who giveth to charity in the least efficient way. For that wouldeth be very unchristian for the method of giving must specifically exclude the government

Ps I hate figs
 
2013-10-29 11:13:30 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: It says right on the figure 'if we stack on welfare benefits'. The whole thing relies on that, and that's not how it works.


The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.  If you would have taken the time to actually look at the graph and understand it, you would have seen where some benifits phase in and others phase out.  Not all benefits included that figure are added on top of each other (see the division between CHIP and MA for example).

In fact, the phasing in and out of these benefits is what creates the 'cliffs' in the first place.  Take a look at the graph again and try to understand.  The maxium cliff in this figure is right at the point at which food and housing assistence ends.
 
2013-10-29 11:13:36 PM

HeadLever: But that is an extra step that is not necessary and just reduces the effectiveness of said charitable contributions. Besides, the entire premis of insurance is a pooling of resources in order to take out what is needed when TSHTF. Charity is giving of ones resources to help someone else. Both have thier place, but they are set up on a different premis.


Charity or insurance, both are a single step to receiving/paying for medical care that is necessary for the majority. But one of the two is wildly better at getting medical care for those who need it, whatever their premise. You said point out an area where private charity is failing to work, and unless those 48 million uninsured can all count on private charity to cover their medical costs, it's a very big, very current failing that isn't about to be rectified.
 
2013-10-29 11:18:21 PM
poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:17 PM

skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.


Why did you come back if you're not even trying to have fun?
 
2013-10-29 11:20:55 PM

Fart_Machine: Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson


It is not that they continue to seek being poor, but the fact that they seek to continue to get free handouts even if they have the ability to work.  It is always good policy to have an incentive to work and to improve your standard of living/income.  With the welfare cliffs identified in that figure above, that is not always the case.
 
2013-10-29 11:22:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.

Why did you come back if you're not even trying to have fun?


that was fun for me. Any time you get to use poor as a noun and in the plural it's GTs
 
2013-10-29 11:25:57 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Charity or insurance, both are a single step to receiving/paying for medical care that is necessary for the majority


Actually, insurance is a bit more than a single step.  Individuals who pay into insurance are covered as a beneficiary and that is not the case for charity.

You said point out an area where private charity is failing to work,

You could have made the point about charity is not currently working very well to build the Bridge to Nowhere and you would have made just as much sense.  For charity to fail, it would need to fail at its intended purpose.  Not for what ever crazy idea you dream up for it.
 
2013-10-29 11:26:06 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It's OK to point out the war on the poor.  Just don't be a high ranking GOP party member when you do it.


No, its totally fine as a high ranking GOP party member. You just have to laugh with your buddies on how so many people bought that trickle down bullshiat and how you're all filthy rich as a result. Reagan started all of this, and from an economic standpoint he was much worse than any other president we've had in the past 30 years. Yes, that includes even Bush Jr. Are Democrats to blame too? Sure, they abandoned any principals they had in favor of going further to the right to win elections.

Republicans started this though, so hopefully we can finally put to rest the myth that Republicans are moral because they are Christians and ultimately financially responsible. You know, because income inequality is totally financially responsible.
 
2013-10-29 11:27:26 PM

HeadLever: Sum Dum Gai: history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work,

Where?  Show your work.


OK lets look at that nice graphic showing how a single mom in pennsyvania is basically being given a free ride, and theres some huge welfare cliff.

Lets just validate it.  Easy one SNAP (ie foodstamps) benefits.  Chart shows it being cut off at 29,000, but with a tiny amount still there until 33,000 or so.

So go to the pennsylvania food stamp website here:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/supplementalnutritionassistance pr ogram/snapincomelimits/

And its 2069-I.E. $24,828/yr.  Whats that?  hmmmm...so some truth stretching...because notice its higher if the household contains an elderly or disabled member.  ahhh...then its 31,000.  Got it...but wait..that chart goes to 33K...hmmmm close enough for government work right?

So a single mom of a disabled child right?  Small added detail.

But wait...the maximum they get....367 dollars a month...ie 4,404/year.  But...wait...look at that chart, it shows..about 6,500 at the 0 income level!  Hmmm...maybe the chart is lying there....Imagine that.

Now lets look at that chart again.  How about that child care one.  ok at 0 it looks like a 16.5K benefit.

Now think this through....0 income...and 16.5K in childcare?  uhmmm......ok maybe looking for work right?  lets just go with that.  I mean hey, who expects them to use actual averages-they already used the disabled kid card....

Heres the childcare link:
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/forchildren/childcareearlylearning/childc ar eworkssubsidizedchildcareprogram/

OK maximum yearly income for a family of 2 to receive child care is...31,020.  Huh....weird..that graphic shows it up to 45K  So its wrong again.  and this time...its NOT close enough for government work.

Now lets look at the amount.  That seems more plausible.  Right?  Uhmmm...no.  at 40 hrs/week that would be....16,500/52/40= $7.9/hr.  uh huh.  But wait...go look at that page.  notice something?  Theres a family co-pay as well for the childcare.  Soo...maybe not.  But wait..maybe if we assume the child is severely handicapped and requires a 1-1 specialized help right?

Yeah...no the charts still lying in too many other ways.

Critical thinking and research is your friend.  There.  I even showed my work-something you were unwilling to do to back up your demonstrably false claim.
 
2013-10-29 11:28:29 PM

HeadLever: The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.


Well that's even dumber. People want to work. There are no goddamn jobs. Dependency is a myth.
 
2013-10-29 11:33:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HeadLever: The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.

Well that's even dumber. People want to work. There are no goddamn jobs. Dependency is a myth.


Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.  And then turn around and say in an income disparity thread "Walmart and McDonald's aren't meant to be careers!"
 
2013-10-29 11:37:17 PM

chimp_ninja: Another simple example:

Low-income housing (oh, so shockingly) tends to be constructed with no regard to energy efficiency.  Crappy insulation, leaky everything, the works.  So they're cheap in terms of rent, but the all-in cost of living there is actually pretty steep for what you get.

How most of the US handles it now: Poor people in cities rack up massive energy bills despite living in small spaces with few appliances.  The bills get unreasonable, so we pay them through the tax system in the form of subsidies and poverty assistance.  This continues forever.
What is starting to be done in your smarter cities:  Pay teams of minimally-trained people to visit low-income housing, particularly large apartment complexes where every unit is more or less the same, so figuring out how to fix up one unit makes the rest very easy.  Patch, seal, insulate, tighten, etc.  Put in all the goofy one-dollar fixes that pay off over time (inject foam into leaky spots, weatherstrip doors/windows, wrap exposed hot water pipes, gasket outlets, put aerators on bathroom sinks, tighten up plumbing, etc.) and teach the residents (if they give a crap) as you're doing it.  Lower their bills, therefore lower the amount of assistance needed.  Along the way, the minimally-trained people build a resume that can get them into general contracting and construction.

But apparently, we couldn't hire 100,000 people for a year or two to do this nationally, because socialism and therefore.


Our electric company does this. Everyone with a WMECO bill pays a metered surcharge (sliding-scale customers pay at a discounted rate, but they still pay in) to the company's Community Action fund, which works alongside established fuel assistance programs to inspect and update houses/apartments. They do the usual "replace CFLs and caulk around the windows" things, but they'll do more robust stuff if the situation warrants and their budget allows. Certain refrigerators they'll just replace for you, free. They'll blow in insulation if you need it. They service furnaces. It's a smart thing for the power company to do, especially if 500 new fridges is cheaper than upgrading the grid to accommodate 500 old fridge's worth of electricity.
 
2013-10-29 11:38:14 PM

Greywar: So go to the pennsylvania food stamp website here:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/supplementalnutritionassistance pr ogram/snapincomelimits/

And its 2069-I.E. $24,828/yr.


Correction, the example is a single mom with 2 kids - the cutoff per your link is 31,260 (Gross)

Your assumption of family size is off - Try again.
 
2013-10-29 11:41:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Well that's even dumber. People want to work.


Why is that dumb?  You only get what your income allows.  That makes perfect sense.  If you have an EI of 26K per this example, you will be eligible for CHIP but not MA.  Why is that dumb.  Different programs serve different needs.  It really makes sense if you think about it.

Also, the fact that people want to work is addressed in this graph by the earned income line.
 
2013-10-29 11:45:24 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson

It is not that they continue to seek being poor, but the fact that they seek to continue to get free handouts even if they have the ability to work.  It is always good policy to have an incentive to work and to improve your standard of living/income.  With the welfare cliffs identified in that figure above, that is not always the case.


I take it you've never heard of the working poor. Most of these folks do work but get supplemental benefits because they don't earn enough money.
 
2013-10-29 11:45:37 PM

IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.


They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.
 
2013-10-29 11:48:20 PM

Fart_Machine: I take it you've never heard of the working poor. Most of these folks do work but get supplemental benefits because they don't earn enough money.


Sure I have.  See that cliff figure?  You can see how benefits and income of the working poor stacks up.
 
2013-10-29 11:50:14 PM
Hey lets look at housing next.  a 12.5K benefit for this family of two all the way up to a income of about 27K it looks like.  Lets look....
from here:

"the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live "

and:" The housing voucher family must pay 30% of its monthly adjusted gross income for rent and utilities, and if the unit rent is greater than the payment standard the family is required to pay the additional amount. By law, whenever a family moves to a new unit where the rent exceeds the payment standard, the family may not pay more than 40 percent of its adjusted monthly income for rent.  "

But wait....at 27K the housing benefit seems to be worth 5K...so at 27K they pay...8,100, and the state gives them 5K of it...so this family is renting plus utilities at 1,091 a month.  huh...so lets see..big cities are probably the most expensive.  2 bedrooms in pittsburg...several at 675........so maybe....if they spend another 400 on rent and utilities.

So the new requirement is...disabled kid, AND living in a city.  Well...wait..ah ha.  a city called Frederick...rents are higher there.  There we go.  (where the heck is frederick, and why is it higher then pittsburg?)...anyways.  there we go.  that could get that expensive.

but wait a second...that also means the family income must be 50% of the median...ok now were talking!  So..no they cant live in pittsburg, cause the median income there is only 35K, and the cutoff is 54K.  so they must live somewhere more expensive with a higher income.hmm pennsyvania median is 50K...so nope...still got to be in the better part of pittsburg-NOT the average or the places here the majority of folks get help....

See what I mean?  this whole graph keeps falling apart.
 
2013-10-29 11:55:36 PM
LOL, ok lets try with 2 kids.  STILL 31K not 33K.....
 
2013-10-29 11:56:17 PM

HeadLever: You only get what your income allows.


You only get what you apply and get approved for. Not everyone applies, not everyone gets approved. Not everyone uses every program available. Can we please stop punching down. The takers are the top.
 
2013-10-29 11:56:20 PM

Greywar: Hey lets look at housing next. a 12.5K benefit for this family of two


When does 2+1=2?  Are you that bad at math?  Or just playing dumb.
 
2013-10-30 12:00:09 AM
nah, im used to thinking of these charts as being how many kids, not family size.  mea culpa.  even so..the math doesn't work for the chart presented.
 
2013-10-30 12:02:38 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: You only get what you apply and get approved for


So? Usually signing up for these programs is one stop shopping.  Not that hard.  In fact, there are vendors and solicitors that sell these.  Approval is based mostly on income, so that is pretty much a given.

Are there some that leave money on the table?  Sure.  I would bet that it is likely that these are in the minority, though.
 
2013-10-30 12:03:09 AM

HeadLever: Greywar: Hey lets look at housing next. a 12.5K benefit for this family of two

When does 2+1=2?  Are you that bad at math?  Or just playing dumb.


PS.  I also hold my head in shame for making the error.  not dumb, just distracted is my defense.
 
2013-10-30 12:07:08 AM

Greywar: ..the math doesn't work for the chart presented


Here is the background assumptions (Slide 6) (pdf).  Though, there is not supporting data, it will give you the supporting assumptions.
 
2013-10-30 12:08:15 AM

HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]


That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.
 
2013-10-30 12:08:53 AM

Greywar: . I also hold my head in shame for making the error. not dumb, just distracted is my defense


Meh, we all do it from time to time.  I stick my foot in my mouth on a regular basis as well.

And with that I need to get to bed.  Night folks.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:56 AM
WTH happened between 2001 and 2004 to make pennsylvanias welfare jump by 20%?  Thank you for the link....
 
2013-10-30 12:14:27 AM

impaler:
HeadLeve
r: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]
---------------------------
That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar..


HeadLever: And with that I need to get to bed.  Night folks.


Runaway brave sir knight.
 
2013-10-30 12:33:52 AM

skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.


Ah, hello Mr. Galt! I didn't see you in the corner, sir. How's the railroad coming along?
 
2013-10-30 01:01:27 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


When minimum wage was created it was meant to support a family and capitalism didn't collapse. Fark you.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-30 01:02:00 AM

HeadLever: You could have made the point about charity is not currently working very well to build the Bridge to Nowhere and you would have made just as much sense. For charity to fail, it would need to fail at its intended purpose. Not for what ever crazy idea you dream up for it.


It makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done, whether it be providing medical care or building a bridge. I can see the view you're taking, one that you'll technically (the best kind) never be wrong at, that as long as charities are performing their stated purpose, they cannot have failed no matter how ineffectual they are in solving any particular problem. That is neither what Sum Dum Gai nor I meant, but you probably know that, too.

I think he'd already said that if private charity were sufficient to solve these problems, there would be no need for a social effort.
 
2013-10-30 01:04:14 AM

Fizpez: Kasich screwed the pooch SO HARD when he went to step one of the Koch Brothers playbook and tried to destroy every single civil service union in the state at the same time within months of getting elected.  Had he just tried the teachers he probably would have won, but in a similar shiatstorm like Scott Walker got involved in.

Instead he pissed off just about everyone but the tea party-lite Republicans down in southern Ohio and got his ass handed to him on Issue 5.  He's laid incredibly low the past 18 months but is basically still the same douchbag who championed all that shiat not that long ago.


This, thissity, this, this, this.
 
2013-10-30 01:27:15 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


For some, they are the only jobs they are likely to get. The service sector makes up a huge part of the workforce now, and is still growing with the consumer-based economy we've built for ourselves. The western way of life runs on the shelves being fully stocked, coffee/donuts/burgers being served, and TV's being upsold to home theatre systems. These things require people, at least until corps go full-dystopia and decide automation is more cost-effective.
 
2013-10-30 01:31:37 AM

fusillade762: I'll just leave this here.

Lies of Plutocracy: Exploding Five Myths that Dehumanize the Poor


Naming your snap card "Oregon Trail" is a dark humor I wasn't expecting....
 
2013-10-30 01:34:08 AM

HeadLever: Dusk-You-n-Me: You only get what you apply and get approved for

So? Usually signing up for these programs is one stop shopping.  Not that hard.  In fact, there are vendors and solicitors that sell these.  Approval is based mostly on income, so that is pretty much a given.

Are there some that leave money on the table?  Sure.  I would bet that it is likely that these are in the minority, though.


Um it's not "one stop shopping". You don't sign up for one program and get everything. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-10-30 01:41:24 AM
A rare moment of lucidity, yes.  But he's no hero.
 
2013-10-30 02:01:12 AM

impaler: HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]

That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.


Oh yeah, I just looked it up.  It's the usual American Enterprise Institute bullshait.
 
2013-10-30 02:36:38 AM

Fart_Machine: impaler: HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]

That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.

Oh yeah, I just looked it up.  It's the usual American Enterprise Institute bullshait.


What do you expect with Koch heads?
 
2013-10-30 03:03:43 AM
Concern about the poor from a Republican governor?  That's very unusual.  Let's see if he takes actions to fit his words.
 
2013-10-30 03:24:27 AM

HeadLever: Talondel: You.  The individual.

Yep, charity with other folks money is not charity at all.


Those are the "Paul" democratics.
 
2013-10-30 03:28:36 AM

Talondel: It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."   You.  The individual.


That's repugnant to Judaism:
Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.
 
2013-10-30 04:24:29 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Talondel: It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."   You.  The individual.

That's repugnant to Judaism:
Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.


Except Samaritans.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:05 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No. Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living. You know which people I mean, right? *wink, wink*

No I don't. Do tell.


He means you. He's talking about you, man. Are you gonna let him get away with that?
I thought you were a badass, and didn't afraid of anything, and had lotsa guns.
 
2013-10-30 04:31:21 AM

Alphax: Concern about the poor from a Republican governor?  That's very unusual.  Let's see if he takes actions to fit his words.


He's a scared rabbit smelling a coming storm on the wind.
 
2013-10-30 05:12:56 AM
*taps microphone*

Check, check, can you hear me now?  Here's the answer:

STOP . FARKING . HAVING . CHILDREN . NOW

Unless you're a hard-core Mormon or somebody who has the delusion that you have superior genes (Nation of Islam, Ku Klux Klan, other chauvinists and supremacists, I'm looking your way), stop having babies, folks.  Take it from a professional shmuck:  the overwhelming majority of you shmucks out there who will ultimately become parents are going to become parents by accident.  Y'know, when you've drank the entire 12 cans of cheap domestic ale and are too farking lazy to put on a prophylactic, or when practice Vatican Roulette like so many billions of parents before you.  Just farking get a vasectomy already.  Then your error in judgment won't cost you a quarter million bucks (and that's before college), you'll never have to apologize to your children for forcing existence upon them, and you might have a glimmer of a comfortable life even when the Gates of Hell and All-You-Can't-Eat Buffet own 99.9999999% of everything.

This is the main tactic that the 1% who own 99% have used since the dawn of civilization to keep the other 99% under control.  Show me a guy who's willing to toil 12 hours a day in the shiat mines for a dollar a day, and I'll show you some shmuck who's had a dozen kids starving in some shotgun shack simply because the Jeebus Monster (TM) told you personally to multiply and foul the Earth or else you'll burn in the Eternal Shiat Mines for all eternity.  Stop being a brainless tool and just get a farking snip job already.

What sucks is that the majority of people who opt out of the gene pool are the among the smartest.  My experience is that Welfare Queens and religious nuts are the ones who are most likely to pop until they drop.  Maybe H.G. Wells was right in "The Time Machine" and it's obvious who's going to become the Eloi and you bet your booties that the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures that own just about everything are going to end up becoming the Morlocks.  But I digress...back to my herb and back to catching some Slack from my latest gig...
 
2013-10-30 05:33:19 AM

Serious Black: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.

I've tried arguing with Evangelicals about what the Bible says using explicit quotes from the book, from religious scholars, and from clergy members (primarily my uncle who is a Catholic priest of about 40 years now). You're exactly right; they inevitably say I am not reading the Bible right, am ignoring context that somehow proves my point is wrong, and that I should stop talking about shiat that I don't believe.


I've been told that since I am a non-believer everything I say regarding religion is invalid.
 
2013-10-30 07:42:14 AM

NotoriousW.O.P: Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.

Probably, but not the way you might think. Kasich's actually a Pittsburgh native, and the community where he grew up (McKees Rocks) has become fairly distressed since deindustrialization.

/Youngstown native
//Born three weeks before Black Monday
///Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do


Youngstown, represent.

An ogligatory mention in any discussion about the death of steel in the U.S.

/Where the hell is Jim Traficant when you need him?
 
2013-10-30 07:43:37 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


...and this response is why I already have you on Ignore.  You gave the second part of my response...and then you cut it out as though I didn't say it.
 
2013-10-30 08:30:30 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.

Ah, hello Mr. Galt! I didn't see you in the corner, sir. How's the railroad coming along?


Stop looking at my engine!
 
2013-10-30 09:05:24 AM

RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.


img.photobucket.com

/in this case, Cruz represents the whole of the Tea Party and not just himself
//very late to this party
 
2013-10-30 09:36:58 AM

Jackson Herring: Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link

the just world fallacy is the foundation of modern conservative thought


In defense of normal folks - namely my husband - the just world fallacy is incredibly insidious. He didn't even realize he was doing it, and he's a reasonable, fair-minded guy. It's taken him some time to see the outside of the entire fallacy and gauge its size, and he's appalled at how pervasive it is. But what that means is that it's really hard to see it all from the inside.

(I have the opposite problem; I instantly distrust anyone who's got more than a certain amount of money)
 
2013-10-30 09:40:45 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link


That's not American Exceptionalism.  Do you really trust a blog that would so badly misunderstand a basic component of the American political psyche?
 
2013-10-30 09:59:10 AM

Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.


Done in one. He's just prepping for re-election because, despite a very loud and dumb minority, Ohio isn't batshiat tea'tard nuts like other states. Kasich knows there will be consequences amongst the silent moderate majority with his bullshiat. That's why he's gone back to his K Street roots.

Plus we nailed his sorry ass on SB 5. First Kasich than the rest of the scumbags leading the Ohio GOP.
 
2013-10-30 10:04:37 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.


I really want a source for this. It would be wunderbar.
 
2013-10-30 10:06:34 AM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


You new style....needs moar libtardos.

But you'll catch a couple with it.
 
2013-10-30 10:21:49 AM
Now if we could only get him to acknowledge his party's war of women we could get somewhere.
 
2013-10-30 10:26:57 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: That's repugnant to Judaism:


Pretty sure most of Christianity is repugnant to Judiasm.  That whole new/old testament and Jesus is the messiah thing being two of the better known sticking points.   Not to mention Jesus telling people that the old commandments were old and busted.

Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.


No first century Jew except Jesus apparently, who clearly endorsed self-impoverishment multiple times (at least according to the Bible).

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.

Obviously. But then I'm not a Christian, so it's not exactly hypocritical of me.

// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.


I don't think that Christian teaching would conflict with that.  But again, that sentiment does not imply an obligation for Christians (or Jews) to take from non-Christians or non-Jews in order to care for the poor or vulnerable.
 
2013-10-30 10:28:44 AM

Chummer45: It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.


I wish there were a *Sad* button so that I could agree with you.
 
2013-10-30 10:36:06 AM

impaler: That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.


Nope.  You can check the iformation here.  The benefit ends (for a family of 3) at $39K (today's numbers differ a bit from the chart that was done a years ago).  Also, it is a direct subsidy, not a tax credit.

Go read the link and keep your lies to yourself.
 
2013-10-30 10:38:30 AM

jst3p: When minimum wage was created it was meant to support a family and capitalism didn't collapse.


Never said that there was anythign wrong with trying to keep folks out of poverty.  You just need to be aware of the unintended consequences of these policies the best you can and try to make it work without shooting yourself in the foot.
 
2013-10-30 10:39:11 AM
Sergeant Grumbles: It makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done,

[citation needed]
 
2013-10-30 10:40:39 AM

IlGreven: RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.

And yet, in Ohio, he's stirred up the same shiat Scott Walker has.  He's only saying this because he's worried Ted Strickland will take him out next year*. I don't think he's concerned about a primary, because Ohio is purple enough that a Tea Party candidate hands the governor's mansion to the Democrat, who ever s/he is.

*At least, I assume that Strickland will run for governor again.


No.  It's Ed Fitzgerald.
 
2013-10-30 10:41:14 AM

Hobodeluxe: lockers: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.

Better to starve a million kids then to let one mother smoke a joint and get away with it!

it goes along with their "I'd rather keep a million from voting if it keeps one from getting away with voter fraud."


I guess you really don't know the difference between poor and "shiftless and lazy."  Let's pray you don't have children.    This is the kind of rhetoric that can't distinguish between perpetrators of crimes and victims.
 
2013-10-30 10:47:50 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done


If you want to worry about inefficiency, then let's insitute a system where money is collected throught a faceless bureauracy that has a closet full of political skeletons, give that money to another bureaucracy where fraud and abuse are well known (Medicare for example is estimated to lose about $60Billion per year in fraud and abuse), and then let some of that money trickle down to those that really need it.

If you want to discuss this in the context of efficiency of dollar spent, I'll take private charity any day.  Most studies agree.
 
2013-10-30 10:53:25 AM

Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.


Never said you did.  One stop shopping includes having you stop into the Department of Public Welfare and they can tell you what you are eligible for and set you up with all the papework you need in order to apply for muliple benefit programs.

Or you can open up the state's website and go to a single page (this is PA's)
 
2013-10-30 10:57:33 AM

bbfreak: Marcus Aurelius: It's OK to point out the war on the poor.  Just don't be a high ranking GOP party member when you do it.

No, its totally fine as a high ranking GOP party member. You just have to laugh with your buddies on how so many people bought that trickle down bullshiat and how you're all filthy rich as a result. Reagan started all of this, and from an economic standpoint he was much worse than any other president we've had in the past 30 years. Yes, that includes even Bush Jr. Are Democrats to blame too? Sure, they abandoned any principals they had in favor of going further to the right to win elections.

Republicans started this though, so hopefully we can finally put to rest the myth that Republicans are moral because they are Christians and ultimately financially responsible. You know, because income inequality is totally financially responsible.


No, Reagan did not start it. He may have given it a name but the idea that giving money to rich people will make everything nice goes clear back to the Great Depression.
 
2013-10-30 10:58:01 AM

Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.


In addition, why would you sign up for a specific program and expect to get multiple benefits from muliple programs. That does not even make any sense.  Your strawman's underwear is showing.
 
2013-10-30 01:42:14 PM

Talondel: demaL-demaL-yeH: That's repugnant to Judaism:
Pretty sure most of Christianity is repugnant to Judiasm.  That whole new/old testament and Jesus is the messiah thing being two of the better known sticking points.   Not to mention Jesus telling people that the old commandments were old and busted.



Bull: Matthew 5:17-20.    


Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

No first century Jew except Jesus apparently, who clearly endorsed self-impoverishment multiple times (at least according to the Bible).


Not my religion, but that message was always used as a sharp instrument pointed at the rich. 


/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
Obviously. But then I'm not a Christian, so it's not exactly hypocritical of me.

// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.

I don't think that Christian teaching would conflict with that.  But again, that sentiment does not imply an obligation for Christians (or Jews) to take from non-Christians or non-Jews in order to care for the poor or vulnerable.



No, taking care of the poor is a societal obligation and applies to everybody, all alike - that's (13-32) repeated over and over and over and over and over...   Inhospitality is the reason given for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
2013-10-30 02:33:07 PM

HeadLever: If you want to discuss this in the context of efficiency of dollar spent, I'll take private charity any day.


Like I said, you're technically right in that charities cannot fail as long as they work towards their stated goal.
That doesn't mean private charity even begins to get the help people need to as many people as need it, something collective, socialized effort has succeeded wonderfully at. Private charity is woefully inadequate and wholly inefficient for such a thing. Citation? The same one I used before, 48 million uninsured. Why is this a bad thing? One reason is because those 48 million can't all count on private charity to pay their medical bills.
 
2013-10-30 04:04:41 PM
Translation:  I wanna get as far from the TP assholes as humanly possible; they're now identified as politically radioactive.
 
2013-10-30 04:34:42 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.

In addition, why would you sign up for a specific program and expect to get multiple benefits from muliple programs. That does not even make any sense.  Your strawman's underwear is showing.


Um, I never said that.  You're the one claiming that somehow a mother making 29K gets over 60K in benefits based on chart by the AEI which only is the case if everybody qualified and got the maximum amount after applying for every single benefit.

Which is a bullshait scenario. So your strawman says what?
 
2013-10-30 04:58:33 PM
For more details why this is bullshait visit here.
 
2013-10-30 10:29:55 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.

Never said you did.  One stop shopping includes having you stop into the Department of Public Welfare and they can tell you what you are eligible for and set you up with all the papework you need in order to apply for muliple benefit programs.

Or you can open up the state's website and go to a single page (this is PA's)


So we should hire more bureaucrats and make people slog to multiple (leased) offices in different parts to apply for different programs?  Sounds like a good 'small government' solution to me.
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report