Pres Debate: 10/16/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.

[/quote]

What does this look like, in practical terms?

In fact, Mitt Romney has clearly expressed acceptance of the status quo regarding the safety net (“There’s a safety net for poor people. If it needs tweaking, I’ll do that, but it isn’t my concern.” Something to that effect). Let’s pretend he’s going to finally bring the conservative dream of dismantling the welfare state to fruition. What does it look like?

In other words: you’ve got a single mother of four kids who’s been living off of welfare for years. You and I would agree that she is living s contemptible life of dependency. What do you do with her? And, more importantly, what do you do with her children?

Are we talking about the checks simply ceasing to arrive in the mail here? Are we talking about kids going hungry? What exactly do you think Mitt Romney is going to change about the welfare state?[/quote]

Of course I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do wonder how many “single mom’s” have live in boy friends who make pretty good bucks. And they either won’t get married so that she can stay on the dole, or they wouldn’t get married anyway (that seems quite popular these days). I only have seen personal instances that I’ve witnessed, but honestly how many women are living alone with x number of children? Not very many I bet.

So I say CUT EM OF!

The truly needy should be taken care of at a local level. Do you honestly think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would approve of the US government handing out checks at the rate that we’ve reached?

This is a huge part of the problem and Obama only wants to make it worse. Because in his world it’s called “helping”.

They don’t call him the food stamp President for nothing. 47 million on food stamps and soon going to 60 million should Obama win a second term.

Honestly, how can any hard working American who pays his taxes vote for Obama? He is going to spend us into oblivion if given another four years.[/quote]

There are many women living alone with children, especially in inner cities. In fact, single-mother households greatly outnumber traditional two-parent families in places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville in Brooklyn. Again–what happens to these kids if their mother’s are cut off.[/quote]

I don’t buy your take on it my friend. They may say that they’re living alone but are they? Which of the many “single mom’s” doesn’t have a boy friend? And whether the boy friend is living with her or not he’s helping out financially.

Kids who have parents as crack addicts should be taken out of the home. This is obvious isn’t it? As for those cut off they will do just fine living off their boy friends dime. And local charities and perhaps “local welfare” can take care of those that are truly needy. Also, if it is handled locally they will be able to keep better track of which woman has the live in boy friend and who is really needy. The US government should not be in the business of handing out checks to those who claim that they’re needy. It is far to hard to manage such things from Washington.

And we don’t have to debate this point it’s already been proven. Since LBJ launched his great war on poverty what has happened? Poverty has risen 10 fold! Handing out checks only encourages people NOT to work…Go back to Psych 101 a behavior rewarded will likely be repeated.

If he is given a republican house and senate as Obama had I think Romney will do the right thing. And I also think he’ll do it because the conservative base is going to turn out for him and he would not want to be a one term President. So he’d do it for multiple reasons. But even if he doesn’t get it done we know what Obama will do. 16 trillion in debt today over 20 trillion by 2016. He has no plans to retreat from his spend, spend spend position.

502

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

More government only harms small business this I know after so very many years in business. However, I am not advocating no government. I just want it to be less intrusive. Let’s take good care of our senior citizens and the truly disabled. But those who are able bodied and have been milking the system need to take a hike.

[/quote]

What does this look like, in practical terms?

In fact, Mitt Romney has clearly expressed acceptance of the status quo regarding the safety net (“There’s a safety net for poor people. If it needs tweaking, I’ll do that, but it isn’t my concern.” Something to that effect). Let’s pretend he’s going to finally bring the conservative dream of dismantling the welfare state to fruition. What does it look like?

In other words: you’ve got a single mother of four kids who’s been living off of welfare for years. You and I would agree that she is living s contemptible life of dependency. What do you do with her? And, more importantly, what do you do with her children?

Are we talking about the checks simply ceasing to arrive in the mail here? Are we talking about kids going hungry? What exactly do you think Mitt Romney is going to change about the welfare state?[/quote]

Of course I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do wonder how many “single mom’s” have live in boy friends who make pretty good bucks. And they either won’t get married so that she can stay on the dole, or they wouldn’t get married anyway (that seems quite popular these days). I only have seen personal instances that I’ve witnessed, but honestly how many women are living alone with x number of children? Not very many I bet.

So I say CUT EM OF!

The truly needy should be taken care of at a local level. Do you honestly think that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would approve of the US government handing out checks at the rate that we’ve reached?

This is a huge part of the problem and Obama only wants to make it worse. Because in his world it’s called “helping”.

They don’t call him the food stamp President for nothing. 47 million on food stamps and soon going to 60 million should Obama win a second term.

Honestly, how can any hard working American who pays his taxes vote for Obama? He is going to spend us into oblivion if given another four years.[/quote]

There are many women living alone with children, especially in inner cities. In fact, single-mother households greatly outnumber traditional two-parent families in places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville in Brooklyn. Again–what happens to these kids if their mother’s are cut off.[/quote]

I don’t buy your take on it my friend. They may say that they’re living alone but are they? Which of the many “single mom’s” doesn’t have a boy friend? And whether the boy friend is living with her or not he’s helping out financially.

Kids who have parents as crack addicts should be taken out of the home. This is obvious isn’t it? As for those cut off they will do just fine living off their boy friends dime. And local charities and perhaps “local welfare” can take care of those that are truly needy. Also, if it is handled locally they will be able to keep better track of which woman has the live in boy friend and who is really needy. The US government should not be in the business of handing out checks to those who claim that they’re needy. It is far to hard to manage such things from Washington.

And we don’t have to debate this point it’s already been proven. Since LBJ launched his great war on poverty what has happened? Poverty has risen 10 fold! Handing out checks only encourages people NOT to work…Go back to Psych 101 a behavior rewarded will likely be repeated.

If he is given a republican house and senate as Obama had I think Romney will do the right thing. And I also think he’ll do it because the conservative base is going to turn out for him and he would not want to be a one term President. So he’d do it for multiple reasons. But even if he doesn’t get it done we know what Obama will do. 16 trillion in debt today over 20 trillion by 2016. He has no plans to retreat from his spend, spend spend position. [/quote]

I can’t accept your “boyfriend sugar daddy” premise without evidence, and neither should you.

If there is evidence of this–basically, that the majority of households on public assistance would still get by with enough money for food and rent after they were cut off from the public teat–then it will change my view of the issue substantially.

As it is now, and on the evidence available to me, I must conclude that a massive “cut-off” of public assistance would have serious implications for many people and that many of those people are children for whom bootstrap-pulling is not an option until they are at least old enough to earn a paycheck.

Note that I’m not disagreeing with the premise that welfare stifles ambition. That is true. I’m talking about finding a pragmatic way to change that, one that takes harsh reality into account.

503

See I do not know if Romney would get a second term that has been suggested. If he immediately makes tax rate cuts and big cuts to social welfare programs and infrastructure projects he would have to encounter an increase in those below the poverty line and a deficit until the market corrects itself. He could preside over 4 years of no growth only to witness a new leader come in that will take all the credit when the market corrects itself (ex. Kennedy cuts which benefitted LBJ and Bush 1 Nafta initiation that benefitted Clinton)

Here is the skeptic in me saying a smaller more efficient government is unlikely because he will be presiding over the whole country and does not want to be known as the President who could not get growth going or the President who increased poverty rates for however long. The only president was Reagen who took the hit when he cut taxes until the economy grew. Unfortunately he did raise taxes 7 times so it all comes down to who has the better public relations department. Hopefully it is not a Bush 2 legacy communications department that will divulge secrets and throw the president under the bus.

504

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I can’t accept your “boyfriend sugar daddy” premise without evidence, and neither should you.[/quote]

That’s funny because I cannot accept your “every woman who SAYS she’s single is actually living alone” premise without evidence. I do know that they have every reason to lie in order to keep the government checks flowing. And I have witnessed this many, many times in the area that I live in. Granted that’s not scientific but many couples are living together without a marriage license it is quite common. So how does the government know? THE DON’T!

I have no more evidence than you to support my theory. But I will say that it seems to me that the poor are usually over weight. Odd huh? Must be all that time sitting when they should be working…or perhaps looking for work.

And did you know that by handing them money we fostered the idea that they could have even more children and the government would pay for it…and we do! Every child a welfare queen has they get extra money. Where is the incentive to turn their lives around? Psych 101 smh!

Exactly, then we need to at least make them show up somewhere and push a broom or swing a shovel.

See above idea.

505

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Exactly, then we need to at least make them show up somewhere and push a broom or swing a shovel.

See above idea.[/quote]

I agree with this approach and I always have.

Regarding the rest of it: I honestly don’t believe that you think a sudden end to public assistance wouldn’t have some serious impact on many lives. Now, for the adults in question, I have very little sympathy–some, but little. But they almost invariably have kids, for reasons you’ve touched on and others (the uneducated love sex and hate condoms, the poor aren’t great family planners).

Are there families on welfare that would survive without it? Yes. Are there unmarried couples not represented in the Census data? Yes. Are all of these single mothers reliant on some boyfriend with a job? No, and there is no reason to believe that this is even a significant number. And anyways, it would be a safe bet that these live-in guys are on welfare as well.

The bottom line is this: you have an encyclopedic ability to enumerate the many signs that the welfare state has grown grotesquely large. With that in mind, the idea that its removal would not represent a substantial blow to people who are reliant on it is ludicrous (you can’t argue that welfare recipients are entirely dependent, lazy, and idle in one thread and that they secretly get by on real incomes in another thread). Since many of these people have children, arguing simply for the dissolution of the welfare state without a coherent and practical plan to deal with the consequences is borderline heartless.