Today, we get rid of the worst Congress in our history (112th) and have the swearing-in of the newest members of the 113th Congress. The GOP will probably elect John Boehner to another term as Speaker of the House.
John Boehner said he will not negotiate with President Obama anymore, so 2013 is getting off to a rocky start. I still feel sorry for John Boehner because he is in an abusive relationship with the vocal minority of his party. He's not exactly on firm ground with establishment republicans from New York and New Jersey right now because he didn't want to overwhelm the tea party by making them vote for a Sandy hurricane relief bill for blue states. It's been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy hit and they have yet to receive money back to help their state recover. It only took 10 days to get relief to the victims of hurricane Katrina. I say get their money back because traditionally, New York and New Jersey have sent more money to the government then they have received back; unlike the southern states. The house will vote on $9 billion of the $60 billion hurricane Friday and on the 15th they will vote on the rest but it's a brand new Congress so they have to start all over and the delays won't make the folks in New York and New Jersey happy.
I was in rare agreement with Joe Scarborough this morning because he said that the right- wing fringe of his party is making it harder for party leaders to get a favorable deal from a president who has a 58% approval rating. He said as long as the Wayne Lapierre wing of the GOP continues to argue for assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips, Middle America will continue voting for democrats in national elections. Republicans have begun to realize that the survivalists, and the paranoid are another vocal minority within their ranks. “Even as gun purchases rise, the share of U.S. households with a gun has been falling for decades, from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey.” This group does not have faith in the United States Constitution or the Supreme Court of the United States. KTSA's Trey Ware was trying to make the argument that banning assault weapons is a first step in gun confiscation by our government but like the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves, people are no longer buying that argument.
The GOP thinks that they have President Obama over the barrel because the latest fiscal cliff deal permanently locked in the tax rates. The White House still has a couple of rounds in the chamber because they're going to (1) force the Republicans to name the programs they want to cut (2) and they have the option of limiting deductions to the wealthy and removing loopholes that ordinary Americans do not receive. The president could use the bully pulpit to educate the people. He could tell 'em that Congress controls the purse strings, so they could simply not pay our bills and watch as we get downgraded and our economy starts on a downward spiral. The truth is neither party wants to make serious cuts because of the political flak, they will take from constituents. Conservatives are using their media like the Wall Street Journal to say that the president must be a leader and tell the people the truth. We know that goes both ways and we got proof of that the when the Romney tried to demonize Obama for his $716 billion cuts in Medicare, yet Paul Ryan did the very same thing in his budget proposal. I don't need the president to tell me anything. I know that when our economy gets back, the middle class needs to pay a little more because we can't depend on soaking the rich to pay for entitlements.
I got a good laugh when CNBC's Mad Money Kramer and Joe Scarborough were complaining about the new tax rates and the total amount of taxes they were paying. They finally realized that they were fortunate enough to be paying those taxes ,so either they were bragging or whining. They didn't think about that poor person who has to stand in line to apply for the minimum-wage job.
58 comments:
Don't throw anything at me, but I think the earned income credit and other tax breaks for those who pay no income taxes is one of the wrong things to do. NO ONE should ever get more back than they pay in.
It just gives the cheaters the incentive to keep having more kids, so they will get more back.
Most of the time, those same people are on food stamps, and get free lunches for their kids. Double and triple dipping.
Now Born2Bme, you know that you can’t produce any substantiated facts to prove your opinion. You sound like Mitt Romney…:-) but as always I will submit an article that disproves your theory.. “Some 27 million working adults with low and moderate incomes, most of whom are raising children, received the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 2009 to reduce their taxes and supplement their earnings Studies have found that the EITC encourages work, reduces poverty, helps families meet basic needs, and improves children’s achievement in school and likely increases their earnings as adults. The Child Tax Credit (CTC), a related tax credit designed to help offset the cost of raising children, also plays a pivotal role in helping low-income families"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3793
The IRS has taken aggressive steps to curb the abuses of the EITC by making sure tax preparers are registered and do their due diligence from now on…The Rapid Refund is enjoying their last tax season because the IRS is no longer sharing the taxpayer’s government indebtedness with the bank.
I believe in our progressive tax system which gives tax incentives such as refundable credits to help grow our economy. The Earned Income Credit takes the most bashing because it’s for poor people, but a portion of the Child Tax credit, the American opportunity credit (education credits), the Homebuyers credit, excess Social Security withholding and the health coverage credit are examples of refundable credits….I disagree with your statement that no one should receive back more than what they pay in for a current year. That’s too simplistic because there are always future years and several economic variables that come into play.
A hungry child hinders their ability to learn and we need all the help we can get to improve education so these kids grow up to be productive taxpayers of the future. I wouldn’t deprive a free school lunch to any hungry kid; we waste more money in 30 minutes than what the government spends on free school lunches. What’s next, do we we do away with meal-on wheels and everything at the lower level because we don’t personally have a need for it?
Now the EITC has a new five year shelf life but as long as Wal-Marts of our country continues to pay low wages and no benefits, the income inequality problem will create the need for programs such as the EITC. I’m fortunate that I never had to get public assistance and I would never trade with them. I’m pretty sure many would love to have a livable wage where they weren’t eligible to receive food stamps and EITC.
I’m not saying that there is not people frauding the system because I’m sure they are because that’s what human beings do. There are stories of millions of dollars that were refunded to first time homeowners, who weren’t. We have CEOs on Wall Street and predator lenders who have not gone to jail for what they did to cause our 2008 financial crisis.
I don’t expect you to believe or agree with a single one word that I wrote..:-)
BTW what brought this on,not even the right wing mentioned the EITC during the fiscal cliff negotiations?
I've just never believed in the abuses it seems to bring. I've mentioned before that I know people that keep having one child after another just so they can add one more deduction and get more back.
Maybe there should be a limit to how many kids can be added???
I don't know what the answer is, but it is too open-ended as it is.
And no, I have to facts to back up what I say, just my thoughts from hearing people talk.
I'd be interested in the dollar figure on corporate tax breaks and incentives versus EITC. I have a feeling the EITC pales in comparison to what corporations get.
Oh, and Walmart? As long as Walmart continues the employment practices that it cureent uses, there will be an endless supply of folks to line up for assistance al all kinds.
**have no facts
I hear all the time about folks having babies to get benefits. Just how much do you think they are getting? I can guarantee you it is not enough to provide for your family at any level except, MAYBE, just above the poverty level!
Many years ago, when I was a single parent in college, I utilized AFDC (it was called then) and foodstamps. There was never a point where I felt like I could raise a family on that! It served as an incentive to get the hell out of college (I did it in 3 1/2 years) and get a job that paid a living wage!
That is such a farce that folks are having children to stay on benefits!
There is a limit on the credit (3) but they can deduct as many as they have;like everyone else.
I will never believe that people have children just for the one time payment;doesn't make economic sense and the population is dropping even for non citizens .
I'm sure there is talk but I've heard the same from my high paid fellow workers who bragged about cheating on their taxes.
I think a six pack and soft music has more to do with child birth than a tax credit...:-)
EA, I know it's not rational, but there are people that are just about what they can get, no matter how they have to go about getting it.
The amount of food stamps go up with the number of family members. Other aid programs depend on family size. Even though it's not enough to live on, some of these people let others take care of ther kids and if they can get a few extra dollars a month for themselves, they do it.
While the EITC does only pay for 3, extra kids are loaned out to others who don't have kids. It's a vicious cycle, and yes, those extra kids bring some extra money for those who know how to play the system.
Personal responsibility isn't important to a lot of people anymore. I had just 2 kids because I figured that is all I could take care of and hopefully not have to rely on others for help. There is no way I would have had more. I refused to create a problem for others, whether it be my parents, family, or other people, such as taxpayers. Why don't people think like that anymore?
Why do people on public aid of anykind continue to have kids when they KNOW can't support the ones they have?
They purposely continue to have kids that they know the taxpayers are going to have to support for them. Can anyone NOT call that fraud?
I'm all for helping those who do everything they can to help themselves, even after circumastances out of their control, knock them down for awhile.
It's those that purposely place burdens on the public for their own gain, that get me mad.
Ragging on the poor is low hanging fruit and people have been exaggerating about what they have seen and heard for years. Personal responsibility is for everyone not just those who are unfortunate enough to be on public assistance.....Like I said the population rate is dropping...Sure there is fraud and as long as we have human beings they will take advantage.
"The data are part of a broader post–financial crash trend. Every year since 2007, when the number of births in the U.S. hit 4.3 million, Americans have brought fewer babies into the world. Much of that has to do with the recession: Americans apparently decided that they couldn’t afford to have as many kids in an unstable economy, even if they were married.
Such declines are typical during economic crises. During the Great Depression, birth rates dropped significantly, and the same thing happened during the stagnation of the 1970s. “We’ve seen this previously throughout the last 100 years,” says Mark Mather, a demographer for the Population Reference Bureau. “Fertility rates drop in periods of economic stress.”
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/why-the-falling-u-s-birth-rates-are-so-troubling/#ixzz2Gy9Oj7ju
So people are taking Personal Responsibility
As I've said before during the Great Depression people blamed the poor farmers instead of the rich bankers who didn't practice personal responsibility and the taxpayer picked up the tab
Interesting article in this months Atlantic about the crooked going ons Wells Fargo but no one will read or care about it.Rumors,myths,and concentrating on the poor is what Wall Street wants.
On a personal note we didn't practice personal responsibility when we had our first child,I was between separating from the army and a job but then again I never set myself as a model for personal responsibilty. Things worked out as I bet they do for many couples who don't necessarily check their bank account before they have children...it's easy to lecture when we we are not poor or don't have all the facts...IMO
It is closer to fact than fiction that if a couple waited until they could afford children, many could never have any.
I think it is unfair and a gross exaggeration about folks having babies to get benefits. Here are some actual FACTS from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "TANF benefit levels are so low that they are not sufficient in any state to raise a family's income above 50 percent of the poverty line. [6] (See Figure 2 and Appendix 2.) In 14 states, monthly benefit levels are less than $300 for a family of three (less than $3,600, or 20 percent of the poverty line, on an annual basis).[7]
Because TANF benefits have declined substantially, they do much less to help families escape deep poverty than they did in 1996. A majority of states — 29 of them — have benefit levels below 30 percent of the poverty line; back in 1996, only 16 states did. In all but two states, a poor family relying solely on TANF to provide the basics for its children (such as during a period of joblessness, illness, or disability) is further below the poverty line today than in 1996. (See Appendix 2.)
Some families can combine TANF with earned income to help meet basic needs. Nearly all states have adopted "make work pay" policies under which TANF benefits phase out gradually as family earnings increase. Even so, families become ineligible for TANF cash assistance at very low income levels in nearly all states. Moreover, not all TANF families are able to supplement benefits with earnings; many families include parents with significant disabilities or other barriers to work."
More facts on this regarding SNAP, etc., can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3625
So folks are having babies just so they can stay at 30 to 50% of the poverty level?
Is there fraud? sure there is, but it is not as widespead as folks would think. In the Foodstamp division, it runs around 8.7%. In the area of AFDC, the rate is about 5%. Neither of these figures comes close to matching the amount of gnashing of teeth that goes on about folks who are cheating the system!
Born, I just have to ask. You said "And no, I have to facts to back up what I say, just my thoughts from hearing people talk.", yet when folks come with facts, here and in the past, you tend to dismiss them.
You will choose idle chatter that has little to no factual basis over fact based information? Do I have that correct?
EA, do you think those moms would think harder about having those kids if they knew there would be no help at all for her or the baby?
Does she consciencely have a child knowing she will get help meeting it's needs? I'm talking from prenatal care through teen years. Most of them all know that the help is there, so don't go out of their way to make certain that they do not get pregnant.
Sure, there are accidents, but in the back of their minds, they know help is there. It's just the way it is.
But, I do know what you and Mike are saying.
I'm just saying there doesn't have to be statistics saying that many of the pregnancies wouldn't happen if the girls knew they would be on their own if they messed up.
Born
Thanks for the spirited discussion and believe or not I do not favor a culture of dependency.
Our differences is that you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (completely eliminate EITC) base on beliefs; not actual stats.
Far be it from me to say what goes through a young person’s mind (the male is a co -conspirator) in the scheme you describe but isn’t that the exception rather than the rule? I’ve heard childbirth is very painful for the female, so I seriously doubt that it’s such an easy endeavor. After –the- fact, I’m sure families, friends, physicians and other caretakers will advise the young lady of agencies who can help her. You do realize that she has to have earned income to get the maximum benefits, she would have to be gainfully employed for a good part of the year (to make the necessary money) and maintain a home for the child to use the favorable Head of Household status.
Conservative economist, Milton Friedman convinced Ronald Reagan that the EITC would be an incentive for people to be gainfully employed and give ‘em a heads up in moving up to the middle class. Oh, others can look at it as companies could continue to pay the lower ages and let the government put money in the poor’s hand so they could consume and keep the economy going.
Coincidentally, last night Lawrence O’Donnell and a libertarian from the Cato institute and were having a discussion about farm subsidies. It seems that millionaire farmers are subsidized generously by government. It’s the greatest example of socialism but they get away with it because they have a strong lobby.
I can’t throw rocks because I live in a glass house. In the true spirit of givers and takers; I guess I’m a taker because I will take out of Medicare more than I put in at 1.045% payroll taxes. The same for Social Security. This true for all those my age.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that we have much bigger fish to fry. Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending make up too much of GDP, unlike non -discretionary spending. We can completely eliminate welfare, SNAP and the EITC (and the GOP is trying) and it still wouldn’t do much to solve our fiscal problem. It’s usually a diversion that keeps us from tackling the large problem.
I guess I'm just looking at myself and what I did, and know it's not impossible to do. Public assistance was never an option for me, and I made damned sure I didn't get pregnant until I was sure I could afford it.
Getting pregnant is so much of an afterthought these days "because" women aren't that afraid of the consequences anymore. They KNOW they aren't on their own anymore.
It's not that I want all the aid to go away, but something needs to be done about the attitude these days.
Being a woman, I pretty much know what women are all about, and I'm telling you this attitude of "no worries, if it happens, I can get someone else to help out" is a major problem. It may be a small portion of the costs of this Country, but I think it adds up over the life of each and every child that enters this world under the public aid umbrella.
It's going to take major changes to get peopel to think in a different way.
Now that you have laid all the responsibility of 'inconvenient' babies on the mothers, is there anything you'd care to say to the fathers? You know that a huge part of your idea of the problem is the lack of financial support by the sperm donors.
I could get all worked up with you, but until you acknowledge that half of the 'fix' is often missing, your words are meaningless. Households with both parents present rarely qualify for very much. There has to be some unusual circumstances for them to do so.
The bulk of government benefits actually go to the disabled and elderly. How do you think folks afford nursing homes? They don't! Medicare covers the first 100 days, and Medicaid kicks in after that.
Young mothers account for a small portion of the 'takers'. Why are they your only target? Why are you so quick to pound on them?
I agree that this country needs an attitude adjustment because I think it’s appalling when a United States congressman, who’s a millionaire, saying that the person on unemployment benefits is too lazy to go to work. I don’t know this for fact but I would bet that the average unemployed person would rather have the security of a job, so they could feed their family, than have to depend on the uncertainty of unemployment benefits.
“Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
What’s your solution for unwed mothers on public assistance? Is it one strike one & you’re out and the baby goes without proper nourishment and the mother goes without prenatal care?
Personally, I never want to punish the child for the ills of the mother or father. I believe a prosperous country such as ours needs to have a manageable safety net. I also believe everyone should have health insurance because in the long run it will benefit everyone. We can only hope for the perfect system that will never come.
I know the perfect antidote; it’s a good job with benefits but like the pensions; they’re going by the wayside.
EA can’t see why you only blame the women. I can’t see why income inequality, declining benefits along with declining unions and stagnant wages don’t bother you as much as unwed mothers on public assistance.
BTW EA is right 85% of food stamps goes to the elderly,disabled and children.
EA, Just my upbringing. The woman is ultimately respponsible for "not" getting pregnant unless she was raped.
When I decided to have sex, it was up to me to say no, not until I get BC or you get a condom, and probably best to use both.
I'm not ragging on one part, it's just the starting place when it comes to some of the public aid crisis.
It's what's causing many of the problems. Those that were careful and responsible, just cannot see why others cannot be. That's human nature and until personal responsibility is brought front and center, this growing resentment is not going to get better. It's going to get worse.
Mike, I don't know what the solution is, but if women knew that the help stopped at 2, then she might be a little more careful and might opt to get her tubes tied instead of risk having another baby and making her life, and the child's life, so much more difficult.
It's true, it's a free country and everyone should be able to plan how many kids they will have, but it is not a freedom to keep having those kids expecting someone else to pay if you cannot.
Good news men! Born is not going to hold you responsible when you sweet talk your girl into sex with "You would if you loved me..." Y'all are off the hook! Don't worry about taking financial responsibility for your fun--Borns's not going to hold you accountable! The responsibility is all the woman's!
I absolutely am floored! I give up!
If a girl falls for that line, she deserves what she gets. Sorry, it is the girls body, her responsibility...unless it's rape.
Of course, once a man is a father, he is responsible for the baby too. He's not off the hook.
I cn't stand it when folks refuse to do a little digging in order to get factual information, so I did it for you, Born!
I found this: "Of families receiving TANF, more than half had only one child, and more than one-quarter had two children in 2009.2 In the same year, children made up more than three-quarters of TANF recipients.3 In some cases, the child is the only beneficiary in the household; these cases accounted for 48 percent of all TANF cases in the 2009 fiscal year.4 The average monthly cash payment to a family with one child was $324 a month..."
$324.00 a month! I can see the finacial benefit of having more children. Just think how wealthy they could be if they could have several sets of twins, or if they could reproduce faster than every nne months!
Look at what it says--over 50% had ONE child, and more than 1/4 had two. So I guess it is the remaining less than 25% who have not gotten the message that they should stop at two?
What you probably need to scream about since you are fixated on welfare babies is how many children a man fathers. There is probably where you will find huge numbers (per person).
Born , you now qualify for the Ted Akin Fan Club! You have set women back 300 yeaars!
We all have upbringing but some of us evolve enough to know it takes two to tango. This is the 21st century; remember how everyone laughed when Foster Freiess said "Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives,” and then he added "The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."
The implication was that women held the aspirin between their legs, which left them unable to open them…That’s so 19th Century.
Well people are having fewer children now, so the problem of children on the public dole shouldn’t be as prevalent as it once was.
It seems to me if you give irresponsible fathers a pass, then they will never learn personal responsibility.
I didn't give anyone a pass. Men are responsible for the seeds they sow , but the first line of defense is the woman.
EA, you are looking at the issue a little too one-sided, but I'll never get you to see that it has to start somewhere....from the bottom up.
It's not only about women on certain forms of public aid, it's the whole of it all, from a person's birth to death. The cost of every person on public aid throughout their lifetime.
If some of the babies can be stopped, in time, it should help the situation, but if things keep going like they are now, it's going to turn upside down and this Country will never be able to support it all.
Population explosion is going to be the death of this Country and other countries around the world and if you don't think so, jsut go back in history and see what happend to all of the major civilizations when they got too big.
Oh, and did yall read where some states are trying the cap on number of children that will be paid for? They don't have definitive answers on whether it helps yet, but in some states the number of births are going down, while in other states they just don't know if the changes are responsible for the dip in births yet.
My feelings are that it is just too new for people to realize it yet and as time goes on, they will get the message must earlier in their lives and will act accordingly.
You'd just like to see everyone off any form of government assistance, right, Born? No Medicaid for Grandma and Grandpa so they can live their last years in a skilled nursing facility? No Medicaid or Medicare for the disabled or mentally retarded person on your block? Nothing for children who had no choice?
You are really starting to sound like one of those compassionate republicans we hear about.
I realize I am wasting my time trying to get you to look at some facts--you didn't look at anything we posted, did you? It's clear you haven't. And that is sad. It is one thing to be ignorant of a situation when you have no facts, but when you make the choice to reject the facts because they do not support your mental picture, well, that is just beyond sad and doesn't even qualify as narrow-minded. It's worse than that!
Your facts don't paint the big picture.
No, I do not want to see everyone off of public aid. It is necessary for our economy at this time and necessary for struggling Americans. But, that does not diminish the need to start doing something to wean the idea of dependency, and to start getting the idea of personal responsibility into the minds of young people at a much earlier age, so they know how to act when they grow up.
I guess we better agree to just disagree on this one
sanctimonious
No Mike, realistic
republican.
WOW, so judgemental to anyone that doesn't think "exactly" like you do, EA?
Oh Well, I am who I am and I'm not ashamed of it, nor can I be cowered into "towing the line", so to speak.
Mike, would you rather I didn't participate here? I'll understand if that is how you feel and there won't be any hard feelings.
born,of course I want you to participate and I've said as much several times.
We know there are several things we are not going to see eye to eye on..I've had disagreements on some some local policies with EA. In fact, one time everyone who follows me on this blog disagreed with my opinion about allowing 18 year olds to serve on the city council.
I admit I was out of my elements yesterday discussing the blame for unwed pregnancies. I was very uncomfortable discussion issues I know nothing about..I'm strictly about stats and trends and not mindsets. Remember, we started with the EITC and it evolved to ALL pubic assistance or as I like to call it the "safety net."
The reason I called your last post that I refereed to, "sanctimonious" is that it means that you think there is a large group of people who deliberately wish for unemployment and pregnancies to create a culture of dependency. That's like saying farmers wish for drought so they can get the government drought payments. You never mentioned GREED at the very top who created the mess we are in...IMO
Believe it or not,I want you to prove me wrong so I can stop being so naive in believing in the lower middle class. Show me government or studies of wide scale fraud....I just read where only 40 families were affected by the Estate Tax in 2012 yet the GOP & the Dems allowed that program to maintain favorable rates with the lie that it prevented the loss of small farms and small business..The GOP has yet to provide documented proof of that ever happening. The safety net discussion is just a diversion that prevents us from discussing the real government rip offs.
People need to take me to task more often...I won't break.
Shhhh..It's too early to talk about another shooting in Aurora,Colo where 3 people were killed. I believe that's a little over 400 killed by guns since Sandy Hook and not all of them had anything to do with mental illness or video games.
..."The reason I called your last post that I refereed to, "sanctimonious" is that it means that you think there is a large group of people who deliberately wish for unemployment and pregnancies to create a culture of dependency."...
I didn't mean that at all, well not entirely anyway. I do think that some people feel that way, but not all, and it's probably a small portion of the total.
I just think (no stats here) with the rules like they are, it is developing the mindset in many people. There just needs to be soemthing that gets it through people's heads that if you are on public aid, you don't have more kids to add to the problem, and in many cases, a lifelong dependency.
If you think about it, and I'm talking all forms of public aid here, not just welfare cash payments, for every person/baby that is added, it sets up a avalanche of costs for years, starting with Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, childcare costs, education costs, college costs, disability costs and whatever else I'm not thinking about right now. It's not that large for one person, but times that by millions
and it gets really big, fast.
And, with the economy like it is not, it's only going to get worse.
I cannot see any other way to start improving this "unless" it starts at the beginning. We have to find a way to stop the mentality of "I can do anything I want, because the government will cover the costs if I can't"
Oh and EA, I DO know that other things are bigger than this and would bring in much more money than concentrating on this one thing, but it's the mentality that I'm talking about. Not trying to give my age away here, but when I was in my 20's...many years ago, that mentality just wasn't like it is now. People were actually ashamed to go on public aid. Kids were ashamed to let their friends know that they were getting free lunches, or reduced prices. Now, it just seems like it is becoming more of a badge of honor in some aspects.
No, I'm far from being a Republican, but this issue seems to be a big issue to them and if it could be brought under control, they won't have that much to bitch about and will have to find some other scape goat.
Pointing out the obvious is not judgmental.
Clumping all folks together in one catagory is judgemental. You sacrifice the many for a few.
You have focused on one small area to the exclusion of any other or any facts (until you were totally dogged out in multiple comments), and then and only then do you finally broaden your focus a teeny bit.
Your attitude and behavior is very republican--actually it is very Ron Paul. You may not like hearing that, but it is. But you have already told us you bring no facts, only idle chatter from friends.
born
Welfare is a budgeted item as a percentage of GDP and if we make it say,15% ,well you are talking financial doomsday and 30% unemployment....We will never get that way...and I still believe our children want to be all they can become a ward of the state.
Things are no different today as far as mindset but the era you talk about the job situation was a lot better even thou we were in a bubble...after WW11 ,the G.I. created a strong middle class and so did strong unions...Today we have neither. Some of our financial problems were self inflicted and you won't find the finger prints of the poor on the weapon.
You know the general rule of basic accounting is that there are two sides of the ledger...What's the alternative of not paying for education,right now our country is not producing enough children to keep Social Security and our economy going. That's one of the reasons the GOP is opening up to more immigration. I'm not saying a culture of dependency is optimal but I think education and actual facts go more to understanding the situation. For example,raising the minimum wage,job creation and working on the drop out rate will do more than trying to monitor the birth rates of those on public assistance. You would be surprised how a regular good paying job changes the attitude...I worked with people who grew up very poor and changed their attitudes about education and raising their children because they wanted the same thing for them.
My daughter disagrees that the poor children in her classroom carry it as a badge of honor. That sounds like what newt Gingrich said. Perhaps we ought to make them clean the toilets so it gives them a sense of pride. then we could fire the union janitors and replace them with the child labor.
I know welfare and children produced within has alway been pet peeve with you and that's your right but you have a long way to go in convincing me...;-0
The GOP has huge goal of privatizing government for their buddies and donors,so as long as they connivence you that their deeds are noble.half of their job is done....:-)
EA, you are also concentrating on one small area to label me.
You must not have thought I was a Republican when you invited me here.
The reason I don't deal in facts is because I've been burned too many times with people telling me my facts were just wrong. LOL You can literally find any facts on the net that you want to, to prove your own viewpoint.
Likewise, both of you should really know this about me by now. You can take anything I say with a grain of salt and it's fine with me, but name calling is beneath you. Just let me have my say, argue a bit, and then move on. No use taking it so personally. And BTW, facts just don't paint the whole picture in anything. There is always a human element to anything and everything.
Mike, I'm never about trying to change someone's mind, because that is not my place. Just throwing some controvercial ideas out there to see how set in their ways everyone is, which btw, is what's wrong with this Country.
Resolute can be a positive or negative;depends on the subject.
I didn't mean to literally convience me; I meant you weren't do much to prove your case.
Facts separate it from fiction and yes there is always the exception but we don't usually operate on the margins.
As you know,I've argued this subject many times,si if you didn't take it personal back then,I naturally didn't think you would now.
Make you didn't make me take it personally, but being called a Republican is something completely different. ;)
oops, didn't proofread such a short sentence.
*Mike
Hey if it wasn't for typos;I couldn't post at all.......:-)
As for government programs " for every act of creation there is an equal act of destruction." let's compromise.....As Clinton used to say "mend it ...don't end it."
So, if I can interrupted the welfare queen argument, Mike now that you have watched Johnny Manziel play, what do you think?
I can only make a determination based upon what I have before me.
I'm done. I've got my own blog to tend to.
He's more than the real deal ; I'm a fan of Johnny...most mature freshman I have ever seen.. I don't remember Doak Walker
You do indeed EA ....;-)
As for government programs " for every act of creation there is an equal act of destruction." let's compromise.....As Clinton used to say "mend it ...don't end it."
Isn't that what I've been saying?
That may have been your intention but I didn't see it that way because in one post you were very anti-public assistance and then you scaled back and then back to being anti.
I'm familiar with your previous posts,so I had a pretty good idea of what your pet peeve was.
I think it's understood that everyone hates fraud,waste,and abuses of government at all levels. You zeroed in on EITC and then went to write several posts
about permanent government dependance,as if being poor is a choice...It was very familiar to Mitt Romney's 47% statement and Paul Ryan's saying that 30 % will always be takers instead of makers.
Am I wrong?
It just dawned on me that you and I, MIke, see things from very different worlds.
What I think I'm conveying is not what you are seeing, or maybe cannot even understand.
I'm not an English major, don't have writing skills, and I guess soemthing gets lost along the way.
I see the problem as a whole, not each individual part of it, because they are all tied together in my eyes.
I'm not good at disecting things, just ask my kids. LOL
But, I was always a couple of step ahead of them because I didn't look at just one side of things, I looked down the road at the probablility of what was very likely to happen, going by the first thing that happened.
I guess that is just the way my mind works.
Did I ever say that being poor was a choice? You know I don't think that, but it doesn't mean that for some people, it isn't a choice.
I've come from a Union household all my life and I know that being poor, for the most part, is a direct result of all of those jobs going away, and cheap labor coming in to depress the wages, and the exporting of jobs and companies. I know that.
BUT,....everything I have discussed so far.
Posted by the NRA on their own Facebook page:
"In addition to a ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines, the White House is considering measures that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, and more!"
Wonder what they are truly afraid of? This comment is not about respecting the second amendment. Do they get that much money from crackpots that it would adversely affect their finances if these crackpots were denied gun ownership?
It a lttle premature for the NRA to get excited becuse Joe Bideen's commision has until the end of the month to report back to the president with recomendationgs.
Truth is the NRA represents the gun manufactures not it's members..The polls I've seen show that NRA members are for background checks by a wide margin.
I respectfully disagree born,I think I understood your posts but I do agree that we have different world views. I don't consider that a negative.
I think we should have handled your pet peeve as aseparate issue and not try to make it part of an economic discussion.
Now Mike, it's not a pet peeve in the way you are thinking (and I think I knew what you are referring to), and it has everything to do with the economy, and the perceptions that are out there.
Like I said, we grew up different, seeing things from different angles, different circumstances, through different eyes and living through different family dynamics and values. It's only natural that we don't agree on this.
What I think I'm trying to explain makes perfect sense to me, and apparently, makes no sense to you, and/or it is just wrong in your eyes, but that is OK. Different strokes for different folks.
Seen on Facebook:
"Conservatives, getting rid of the welfare system because some people take advantage of it is like getting rid of the Second Amendment and banning all guns because some people use them for criminal purposes. Do you get it now?"
Post a Comment