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 78
    More: Hero, John Kasich, war on poverty, GOP  
•       •       •

3113 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 4:48 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-29 03:46:31 PM  
11 votes:
I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.
2013-10-29 05:15:57 PM  
9 votes:
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 05:13:38 PM  
7 votes:

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 04:23:48 PM  
7 votes:
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 05:25:40 PM  
6 votes:
It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.
2013-10-29 04:55:22 PM  
6 votes:

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 09:36:12 PM  
5 votes:

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 08:01:41 PM  
5 votes:
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 04:58:12 PM  
5 votes:

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 04:52:56 PM  
5 votes:
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 04:52:46 PM  
5 votes:
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 05:22:49 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:11:28 PM  
4 votes:
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 09:49:09 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:43:36 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:32:57 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:59:06 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:09:37 PM  
3 votes:
I think it'd be pretty cool if someone started a moderate conservative party with a Rhino as the mascot.
2013-10-29 05:09:34 PM  
3 votes:
LATEST UPDATE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY:

The poor lost.
2013-10-29 05:05:57 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:57:00 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:52:24 PM  
3 votes:
burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat
2013-10-30 01:01:27 AM  
2 votes:

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
2013-10-29 11:33:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:12:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:49:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:44:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:46:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:26:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:21:11 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:13:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:48:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:28:21 PM  
2 votes:

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


This.
2013-10-29 05:23:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:01:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:55:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:52:34 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:50:54 PM  
2 votes:

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
2013-10-30 03:24:27 AM  
1 votes:

HeadLever: Talondel: You.  The individual.

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


Those are the "Paul" democratics.
2013-10-30 01:02:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:08:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:00:09 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-29 11:56:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:50:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:28:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:27:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:10 PM  
1 votes:
Haven't we had enough lessons in history to learn that relying solely on charity to address poverty never works?
2013-10-29 10:42:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:36:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:40 PM  
1 votes:

HeadLever: welfare cliffs


Cato was pushing this as well. It's nonsense.
2013-10-29 09:26:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:14:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:03:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:58:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:27:53 PM  
1 votes:
2013-10-29 07:02:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:56:53 PM  
1 votes:
Worthless, union-busting teabagger.
2013-10-29 06:28:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:23:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:57:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:30:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:23:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:33 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:12:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:01:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:01:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:57:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:54:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:11:39 PM  
1 votes:
www.batesline.com
2013-10-29 03:40:45 PM  
1 votes:
Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.
 
Displayed 78 of 78 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report