formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jul 19, 2013 12:14:08 GMT -5
First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. We are talking about millions of welfare queens. If people creating children they have no intention of supporting were a rare occurrance there wouldn't be generational poverty, the ghetto culture, or ghettos (at least not as large as they are now). And while a dishonest defense contractor is just stealing money, what the welfare queen is doing involves an innocent child, who didn't ask to be raised by an idiot, who didn't ask to be raised in an unsafe neighborhood, and who is very likely to go out and hurt many other innocent people before ending up in jail or dead because, thanks to Miss Welfare's piss poor parenting, a life of crime is all he is good for. Paying a few poor women to create and raise kids wouldn't piss of nearly as many people if these women actually did decent job of it.
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on Jul 19, 2013 12:28:06 GMT -5
"You're preaching to the choir here. In both cases, they are entitled, thieving assholes.
Though in my mind, someone who chooses not to get any marketable skills and then chooses to have a child they can't afford without a government handout is guilty of the same thing, just on a MUCH smaller scale, and not necessiarly as selfishly motivated. "I have asked this before with no answer, but why so much more focus on the poor welfare folks? IMO and I may be wrong, the thieving assholes are greater burden than the few who game the system for "smaller scale" "rewards"? This is a great point. The amount of damage that petty thieves and robbers do to society and the economy pales in comparison to what some of the crooks in the FIRE industry got away with. We have a judicial system where a victim of domestic violence gets 20 years for firing a warning shot to save her life, and where an enron CEO is probably going to do less time for committing one of the worst frauds in American history that hurt millions.
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Jul 19, 2013 12:43:16 GMT -5
First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. We are talking about millions of welfare queens. If people creating children they have no intention of supporting were a rare occurrance there wouldn't be generational poverty, the ghetto culture, or ghettos (at least not as large as they are now). And while a dishonest defense contractor is just stealing money, what the welfare queen is doing involves an innocent child, who didn't ask to be raised by an idiot, who didn't ask to be raised in an unsafe neighborhood, and who is very likely to go out and hurt many other innocent people before ending up in jail or dead because, thanks to Miss Welfare's piss poor parenting, a life of crime is all he is good for. Paying a few poor women to create and raise kids wouldn't piss of nearly as many people if these women actually did decent job of it. Many people have pointed out that eliminating welfare would not decrease but in fact increase crime. So if that is your concern you seem misguided. ETA If you are wanting to have a better social services program to get these children out of abusive neglectful homes I would agree. The social service system as it is a joke.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 19, 2013 13:14:12 GMT -5
Paying a small amount of benefits to moms with kids is still a whole lot less expensive than feeding, clothing and housing all those kids in orphanages.
Rather than sit around pissed about how some moms get free money that you don't think they deserve, maybe it would be more useful to sit around being grateful that the moms are saving the taxpayers billions of dollars by keeping their kids out of orphanages.
Personally, when I want to amuse myself being pissed at someone I think has screwed over the taxpayers and threatened our entire economy, I don't meditate on the people on welfare, I think about all the assholes in the financial/mortgage sector that nearly trashed our economy using questionable if not frankly illegal methods. As far as I know, not a single one has been prosecuted.
And here are some more assholes worth being pissed at: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered Barclays and four of its power traders to pay fines totaling $453 million on Tuesday, saying the bank manipulated California's electricity markets last decade.
Hey - let's make grandma pay twice as much to keep her fan going during this heatwave....
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 19, 2013 13:36:40 GMT -5
And if you don't fine them, they continue to collude to gouge grandma year in and year out.
Anytime you fine a business you're really raising the cost of their products to their end consumers. Mortgage lenders and banks are no exception, but you want them fined and punished for the mortgage fiasco. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 13:41:26 GMT -5
First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. speak for yourself. i have read so many anecdotal accounts on this board it makes me want to throw in the towel some days.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 13:42:47 GMT -5
First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. We are talking about millions of welfare queens. If people creating children they have no intention of supporting were a rare occurrance there wouldn't be generational poverty, the ghetto culture, or ghettos (at least not as large as they are now). And while a dishonest defense contractor is just stealing money, what the welfare queen is doing involves an innocent child, who didn't ask to be raised by an idiot, who didn't ask to be raised in an unsafe neighborhood, and who is very likely to go out and hurt many other innocent people before ending up in jail or dead because, thanks to Miss Welfare's piss poor parenting, a life of crime is all he is good for. Paying a few poor women to create and raise kids wouldn't piss of nearly as many people if these women actually did decent job of it. Many people have pointed out that eliminating welfare would not decrease but in fact increase crime. So if that is your concern you seem misguided. ETA If you are wanting to have a better social services program to get these children out of abusive neglectful homes I would agree. The social service system as it is a joke. ............but this implies MORE government, MORE taxes, and MORE of these enthralling conversations- not less.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 13:46:39 GMT -5
... Though in my mind, ... I think the words to that song need to be changed to: " I am always on my mind". It's lots more often relevant that way! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 13:46:46 GMT -5
And if you don't fine them, they continue to collude to gouge grandma year in and year out. and then joke about it, like THIS motherf*&ker:"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"
"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."this might be a better target for Paul than the skittles kid....... Anytime you fine a business you're really raising the cost of their products to their end consumers. actually, that is not entirely true. the court can order that the rates not be increased, and that the company eat the cost of the injunction/fine.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 19, 2013 13:51:21 GMT -5
But they can't keep them from raising rates forever, only for a certain period of time. It would also more than likely come with loopholes, like not being able to raise base electric rates, but being able to add a "necessary to cover processing" $1 charge for paying the bill electronically or whatever. If the shareholders still want to see a certain percentage in profits every quarter, the business will find a way to pass the cost on to the end consumer and make it happen. They might have to jump through a few accounting hoops to hide the price increase somewhere that the man will have trouble finding it, but I'm sure they'll come up with something. Business managers are creative, intelligent, folks after all.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 13:51:58 GMT -5
First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. We are talking about millions of welfare queens. If people creating children they have no intention of supporting were a rare occurrance there wouldn't be generational poverty, the ghetto culture, or ghettos (at least not as large as they are now). And while a dishonest defense contractor is just stealing money, what the welfare queen is doing involves an innocent child, who didn't ask to be raised by an idiot, who didn't ask to be raised in an unsafe neighborhood, and who is very likely to go out and hurt many other innocent people before ending up in jail or dead because, thanks to Miss Welfare's piss poor parenting, a life of crime is all he is good for. Paying a few poor women to create and raise kids wouldn't piss of nearly as many people if these women actually did decent job of it. Million s? Really? Million s of "welfare queens", eh? Please provide a link to the source of this claim (or is that clam?). Much appreciated in advance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 13:54:48 GMT -5
And if you don't fine them, they continue to collude to gouge grandma year in and year out. Anytime you fine a business you're really raising the cost of their products to their end consumers. Mortgage lenders and banks are no exception, but you want them fined and punished for the mortgage fiasco. You can't have it both ways. I think he's calling Barclays the scummers for manipulating the rates. First off, we arne't talking about one welfare queen. speak for yourself. i have read so many anecdotal accounts on this board it makes me want to throw in the towel some days. The sum of all the anecdotes of all the people in all the world constitutes history itself. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/nerdy.png) How do you define "welfare queen"? If you based it on food stamp usage, it would apply to 47 million Americans.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 13:58:24 GMT -5
speak for yourself. i have read so many anecdotal accounts on this board it makes me want to throw in the towel some days. The sum of all the anecdotes of all the people in all the world constitutes history itself. you are good at math. how many pages would 1M anecdotes consume?How do you define "welfare queen"? If you based it on food stamp usage, it would apply to 47 million Americans. it would not. it would apply to someone who eeks out a middle class life by gaming a system for the poor.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 13:59:45 GMT -5
Quantify "eeks [sic] out a middle class life".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 14:01:38 GMT -5
Quantify "eeks [sic] out a middle class life". Paul has posted on this numerous times. the number he used was about $36,000 worth of benefits for a family of four. i honestly don't know how many families that applies to, and it would be interesting to find out. but i do know this: people who are getting food stamps ONLY are nowhere near that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 14:12:06 GMT -5
Quantify "eeks [sic] out a middle class life". Paul has posted on this numerous times. the number he used was about $36,000 worth of benefits for a family of four. i honestly don't know how many families that applies to, and it would be interesting to find out. but i do know this: people who are getting food stamps ONLY are nowhere near that. Well, there is this from late last year: www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.htmlTo wit: As for how many households fall below the poverty line, the NPC states that it was 15% of all Americans in 2010. That would be 47 million if the same percentage holds today--identical to food stamp usage.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 19, 2013 14:15:42 GMT -5
Which is a completely bullshit number that means nothing. They divided all government spending, even the parts that don't go towards welfare by the number of families living in poverty.
If you divide the total state and federal spending by the number of households in the top 1% we spend far more per extremely rich household than we do on the poor. Does that make them welfare queens?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 14:19:20 GMT -5
ok, but there is only POTENTIALLY one welfare queen per household- and you already stated that is 17M, not 47M. also, what does the $61k include? medicare? SS? Veterans benefits? government pensions? edit: can either Virgil or someone else give me a source for this that is NOT the f-ing WEEKLY STANDARD, please? tyia.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 3:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 14:21:49 GMT -5
And if you don't fine them, they continue to collude to gouge grandma year in and year out. and then joke about it, like THIS motherf*&ker:"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"
"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."this might be a better target for Paul than the skittles kid....... Anytime you fine a business you're really raising the cost of their products to their end consumers. actually, that is not entirely true. the court can order that the rates not be increased, and that the company eat the cost of the injunction/fine. as far as REGULATED industries such as utilities, you are right anyone that has to go through a regulatory agency for their price increases but for most companies, fines are just another cost of business they cut a different expense, raise prices, or accept a lower gross for the period and for a lot of fines, they get to write them off as business expenses on their taxes.....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 14:34:43 GMT -5
I don't share that interpretation.
"All government spending" would implicitly mean "...on welfare programs". And the number is put out by the Senate Budget Committee, not the Weekly Standard.
ETA: And I'm right. Later in the article we find "Here's a breakdown of the welfare spending", with the categories and costs clearly plotted.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 14:36:58 GMT -5
actually, that is not entirely true. the court can order that the rates not be increased, and that the company eat the cost of the injunction/fine. as far as REGULATED industries such as utilities, you are right anyone that has to go through a regulatory agency for their price increases but for most companies, fines are just another cost of business they cut a different expense, raise prices, or accept a lower gross for the period and for a lot of fines, they get to write them off as business expenses on their taxes..... that can also be disallowed by courts- but you would be correct to say that it usually is not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 14:38:44 GMT -5
I don't share that interpretation. "All government spending" would implicitly mean "...on welfare programs". And the number is put out by the Senate Budget Committee, not the Weekly Standard. ETA: And I'm right. Later in the article we find "Here's a breakdown of the welfare spending", with the categories and costs clearly plotted. would you mind clearly posting it? tyia.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 14:39:57 GMT -5
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 19, 2013 14:41:44 GMT -5
Taken directly from the article:
So they're using money that goes to those above the poverty line to make the numbers look worse for the spending on those below. Sounds and smells like bullshit to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 14:52:09 GMT -5
it looks like Dark was right. they took the total number and divided it by the number of households in poverty in order to show how much COULD be spent per household, which is absolutely, positively, and in no way related to the amount of money that is actually spent. Virgil, seriously- the $60k should have been a red flag. even Paul would never use a number that high with any confidence.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2013 14:55:24 GMT -5
BS, how Appropriate btw, if you could recall the entire thread instead just the part you would like to bring up, I said I was perfectly capable of supporting myself in Florida and did for years. In Michigan the cost of living is very high and I could not support two households on it. DF agreed since it was in HIS best interest that I was up here. But you go ahead and spin in whichever way you want. You and EVT are quite the pair.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 14:55:32 GMT -5
Taken directly from the article: So they're using money that goes to those above the poverty line to make the numbers look worse for the spending on those below. Sounds and smells like bullshit to me. 1) They--The Weekly Standard--proactively point out that the spending pertains to a larger group than households below the poverty line. 2) Assuming any halfway reasonable distribution for the funds over all recipients (such as a linear ramp or a decaying exponential), it's impossible to spread $1.1 trillion over 110 million American households in such a way that fewer than 5 million households would exceed $36 K in assistance, which was Paul's magic number. That's at least 20 million Americans, and hence "millions", which is the word mmhmm was balking at, would certainly apply.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 19, 2013 14:58:43 GMT -5
it looks like Dark was right. they took the total number and divided it by the number of households in poverty in order to show how much COULD be spent per household, which is absolutely, positively, and in no way related to the amount of money that is actually spent. Virgil, seriously- the $60k should have been a red flag. even Paul would never use a number that high with any confidence. Dark was claiming that they were using "total government spending on everything" rather than "total welfare spending" as their numerator. The issue with the denominator is explicitly pointed out by the Weekly Standard. Dark quotes it above. And it ultimately doesn't have any bearing on the "millions" argument, as I subsequently point out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 15:00:02 GMT -5
Taken directly from the article: So they're using money that goes to those above the poverty line to make the numbers look worse for the spending on those below. Sounds and smells like bullshit to me. 1) They--The Weekly Standard--proactively point out that the spending pertains to a larger group than households below the poverty line. 2) Assuming any halfway reasonable distribution for the funds over all welfare recipients (such as a linear ramp or a decaying exponential), it's impossible to spread $1.1 trillion over 110 million American households in such a way that fewer than 5 million households would exceed $36 K in assistance, which was Paul's magic number. That's at least 20 million Americans, and hence "millions", which is the word mmhmm was balking at, would certainly apply. the washington post took on this article. a bit unusual for a paper to challenge another paper, but here it is. i think that it is interesting that even the Heritage Foundation backed away from the $60k figure: In testimony before the House Budget Committee in 2012, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said that simply dividing the means-tested spending by the number of the poor “can be misleading because many persons with incomes above the official poverty levels also receive means-tested aid.” He recommended dividing the figure by the bottom third of the income distribution, which yielded a figure of $36,000 for a family of four.
The Congressional Budget Office, in a report this month, had an even more nuanced approach, estimating the average federal spending per household in 2006 for the 10 largest means-tested programs (worth about 75 percent of Sessions’s total) by different income quintiles (See Box 1.) For the lowest quintile, the figure is nearly $9,000, after adjusting to 2012 dollars.want me to provide a link? it comes up about 4th on a google search, right below the WS article.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 15:01:03 GMT -5
it looks like Dark was right. they took the total number and divided it by the number of households in poverty in order to show how much COULD be spent per household, which is absolutely, positively, and in no way related to the amount of money that is actually spent. Virgil, seriously- the $60k should have been a red flag. even Paul would never use a number that high with any confidence. Dark was claiming that they were using "total government spending on everything" rather than "total welfare spending" as their numerator. The issue with the denominator is explicitly pointed out by the Weekly Standard. Dark quotes it above. And it ultimately doesn't have any bearing on the "millions" argument, as I subsequently point out. forgive me for not keeping up. i am busy today.
|
|