Finally, a sign that Obama thinks the economic crash is serious!

[Gipper]

We can certainly agree on this. If you make responsible decisions, you can live well on very little money.

Responsible you say???

But, many have been taught and fully accept that they are NOT responsible for their decisions. Someone else is responsible.

That in a nut shell is the definition of Liberalism.

 

[Pandora]

This is what I think the real problem between Dems and Repubs. There will always be a significant percent of people (10% ??) that have a poverty mind and will waste all their money and time on gambling, drugs, gang warfare, etc. What do we do with these people. Does the country have any obligation? Repubs often answer NO, but I say we should give them some very minimal livelihood so they won't steal, overcrowd our jails, and beg in the streets. I feel sorry for them but the job of changing them is overwhelming. So we should try to do something just to keep them off our backs.

I dont see anything wrong with letting them beg, Its my choice to hand them money or not.

And I guess we already have a plan, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, ssi and that is just the government plans I can think of. Then there is the churches who give out food boxes and some churches have apartments free to women and kids. but its more than 10 percent of the population using these programs.

 

[Lagboltz]

Responsible you say???

But, many have been taught and fully accept that they are NOT responsible for their decisions. Someone else is responsible.

That in a nut shell is the definition of Liberalism.

You know that is not the definition of Liberalism. You are misunderstanding GenS's statement. On this thread, we are trying to understand the workings of the American mind, and you come here just to make a divisive statement.

 

[Lagboltz]

I dont see anything wrong with letting them beg, Its my choice to hand them money or not.

And I guess we already have a plan, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, ssi and that is just the government plans I can think of. Then there is the churches who give out food boxes and some churches have apartments free to women and kids. but its more than 10 percent of the population using these programs.

Yes, I realize this, but what I worry about is that the Repubs want to eliminate many of these programs. They are doing that where I live (Florida). But homelessness is really on the rise here. The statistics are worrisome.

I don't want them to beg. It is becoming a problem in neighborhoods where they squat.

 

[Gipper]

You know that is not the definition of Liberalism. You are misunderstanding GenS's statement. On this thread, we are trying to understand the workings of the American mind, and you come here just to make a divisive statement.

I can't help it. Sorry.

 

[Pandora]

Yes, I realize this, but what I worry about is that the Repubs want to eliminate many of these programs. They are doing that where I live (Florida). But homelessness is really on the rise here. The statistics are worrisome.

I don't want them to beg. It is becoming a problem in neighborhoods where they squat.

Oh they don't squat here and beg in neighborhoods. they go to Walmart and stand on street corners, I would not like them hanging out in neighborhoods either.

I am for eliminating some programs and just mostly regulating others better.

Example... I have a girl and her baby staying with me because they have no place to go. She gets food stamps. I see the things she buys and it's mostly all pre packaged junk food. She brought home some muffins and she gave me a bite of one, it was really good...

I asked how much they were because I thought I might buy some...she had no idea.. There is no reason for her to know or care the cost of things because she gets more food stamps than she can spend in a month and really never buys anything you have to make.

Food stamps should not be used for chips, pop and candy and junk like that. They can easily make it so they wont work for junk, they already make it so it wont work for hot food.

I think that is stupid, some people getting food stamps are homeless, how are they going to cook? They should let you get hot food but it shouldn't let you get junk food. And if buying pure junk and expensive name brand pre packaged things whenever you want leaves you with over 100 dollars in food stamps at the end of the month, maybe we could reduce the amount a person gets?

 

[Lagboltz]

I can't help it. Sorry.

On a more constructive note, how do you think the debt problem should have been handled. I.e. debt ceiling, what programs to cut, what to do with taxes, etc.

 

[Lagboltz]

Oh they don't squat here and beg in neighborhoods. they go to Walmart and stand on street corners, I would not like them hanging out in neighborhoods either.

I am for eliminating some programs and just mostly regulating others better.

Example... I have a girl and her baby staying with me because they have no place to go. She gets food stamps. I see the things she buys and it's mostly all pre packaged junk food. She brought home some muffins and she gave me a bite of one, it was really good...

I asked how much they were because I thought I might buy some...she had no idea.. There is no reason for her to know or care the cost of things because she gets more food stamps than she can spend in a month and really never buys anything you have to make.

Food stamps should not be used for chips, pop and candy and junk like that. They can easily make it so they wont work for junk, they already make it so it wont work for hot food.

I think that is stupid, some people getting food stamps are homeless, how are they going to cook? They should let you get hot food but it shouldn't let you get junk food. And if buying pure junk and expensive name brand pre packaged things whenever you want leaves you with over 100 dollars in food stamps at the end of the month, maybe we could reduce the amount a person gets?

I understand that. Your example is a problem. But you said what we should not do, not what we should do. Do you really think that it is up to the citizens and churches, etc. to help these people who are incapable of making good decisions about their life?

 

[Gipper]

On a more constructive note, how do you think the debt problem should have been handled. I.e. debt ceiling, what programs to cut, what to do with taxes, etc.

Cuts across the board. All departments cut and many should be eliminated. I would eliminate the D of Ed, Labor, Commerce, Homeland Security. Obamacare is voided out. Privatize the post office and social security (for those under a certain age) and raise the retirement age to 75 for all persons currently under age 55.

Tax reform would be a must. A flat tax works.

That is the first things that come to mind. But, I have more but can't post now. I have to work to support my family and lazy Americans.

 

[Pandora]

I understand that. Your example is a problem. But you said what we should not do, not what we should do. Do you really think that it is up to the citizens and churches, etc. to help these people who are incapable of making good decisions about their life?

By making Food stamps so they could not buy junk food would force the person to learn to cook and giving them less would force them to learn to manage their food stamps.


Yes, I do, absolutely think we as a nation should deal with the problem of the poor. I think government doing it is part of the problem.

You will probably not agree with me but I have spent numerous hours looking this up.

In general republicans give more to charity like St. Vincent DePaul, the mission, and others who tend to help the poor and homeless with food and housing exc.

I do not think it is because dem's and liberals are mean or uncharitable, its because dems and libs feel they are already helping the poor and homeless through taxes. If it was put on us as a nation to help the poor far more people, republicans, democrats, everyone... would help.

I also think that if it were put on us as a nation we would all be trying to explain to young girls how to shop, cook and make their money last.

I am not an extraordinary person, I am just like everyone else. But I happen to believe it is up to us to help our fellow man. If I can let a girl and her baby stay here till they get on their feet, how many more people would be willing if they came across a person in need like that?

What most people tend to do is direct them to the nearest welfare office or the hud office but if we knew there was no welfare or hud office to direct them to, most of us would do what we could to help.

I actually have an idea I think would work for the poor instead of food stamps. You know how Walmart can price things so cheap because they buy in bulk? If every town and city (more than one in cities) had a food store where food was bought in bulk so it was really cheap and each family who qualified had a certain amount of money or credit they could spend. And the store would be filled with good food, not junk food. No one would go hungry. I would rather see such a program done via private citizens but If we are to keep food stamps then I would rather see it done this way, it would cost less for tax payers and ensure kids get quality good food not junk food as their main staple.

 

[Lagboltz]

Cuts across the board. All departments cut and many should be eliminated. I would eliminate the D of Ed, Labor, Commerce, Homeland Security. Obamacare is voided out. Privatize the post office and social security (for those under a certain age) and raise the retirement age to 75 for all persons currently under age 55.

Tax reform would be a must. A flat tax works.

That is the first things that come to mind. But, I have more but can't post now. I have to work to support my family and lazy Americans.

It might be helpful to go to this site to see how your ideas would work. This is a great site that somebody pointed out here.
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

 

[Openmind]

Oh they don't squat here and beg in neighborhoods. they go to Walmart and stand on street corners, I would not like them hanging out in neighborhoods either.

I am for eliminating some programs and just mostly regulating others better.

Example... I have a girl and her baby staying with me because they have no place to go. She gets food stamps. I see the things she buys and it's mostly all pre packaged junk food. She brought home some muffins and she gave me a bite of one, it was really good...

I asked how much they were because I thought I might buy some...she had no idea.. There is no reason for her to know or care the cost of things because she gets more food stamps than she can spend in a month and really never buys anything you have to make.

Food stamps should not be used for chips, pop and candy and junk like that. They can easily make it so they wont work for junk, they already make it so it wont work for hot food.

I think that is stupid, some people getting food stamps are homeless, how are they going to cook? They should let you get hot food but it shouldn't let you get junk food. And if buying pure junk and expensive name brand pre packaged things whenever you want leaves you with over 100 dollars in food stamps at the end of the month, maybe we could reduce the amount a person gets?

You know, I think you're a really good person, and your intentions are excellent. Some of your ideas (like Counties purchasing food in bulk and selling it with no profit to the poor) are very good and interesting.

However, I wonder if you realize that, for someone who doesn't like big government, and who doesn't like regulations. . .you are asking for micromanagement and LOTS of regulations of the POOR. . .while you are against regulation of Wall Street, big business, and banks!

I'm not sure where you got your unwavering beliefs that all the propaganda and all the ideology of Republicans is the only way to go, because you actually do have a very good "social/moral compass," but I suggest that you may want to check with another source of information every time you run into that "regulation is bad for business," and "raising tax is bad for the economy and would increase the deficit," etc. . .

There seem to be a disconnect between your inner beliefs and altruitism, and your political beliefs. Anyway, just a suggestion.

By the way, we already discussed this (at least with Big Rob), but a few of the reasons Republicans appear to be given more to charity are:
1. Weekly/monthly donations to Churches fall under the "gifts to charity" on your tax return.
2. There are a LOT more wealthy or upper middle class Republicans than Democrats, and there are a lot more poor people who are Democrats and can barely afford to take care of their own. However, most poor people couldn't keep on going without the support of their neighbors and family (i.e., free child care from a friend so a woman can go to her minimum wage job; a meal when one runs out of money; a box of diaper for the new baby.) These kinds of TRUE charity are very meaningful, but can not be quantified in dollars amount or taking as a deduction on one's income tax!
3. A LOT of people who forgoe making big salaries on Wall Street, or in high management, or as a physian for the rich, but instead go into nursing for community clinics, social work, child care, education, etc. . . are placing helping the poor and the needy above their potential to make big salaries. That, in itself, is charity. Do you realize, for exemple, that it takes just as much schooling to obtain an Master in Social Work than it does to obtain a Master in Business Administration. . .in fact, you could say it takes longer, as the Master in Social work REQUIRES that, in addition to university classes at the graduate level, you spend an average of 20 hours a week in internships with places like a Mental health day program, a school psychologist's office, Child Protective services, or with agencies that care for people with developmental disabilities.. . .and at the end of those studies, a social worker with a master degree can hope to make anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 a year. . .while a MBA can expect to make anywhere between $75,000 and $200,000! And, please, do not believe that an MBA requires "more brain!" I did both. . .I KNOW! But an MBA takes "less heart."

 

[Pandora]

You know, I think you're a really good person, and your intentions are excellent. Some of your ideas (like Counties purchasing food in bulk and selling it with no profit to the poor) are very good and interesting.

However, I wonder if you realize that, for someone who doesn't like big government, and who doesn't like regulations. . .you are asking for micromanagement and LOTS of regulations of the POOR. . .while you are against regulation of Wall Street, big business, and banks!

I'm not sure where you got your unwavering beliefs that all the propaganda and all the ideology of Republicans is the only way to go, because you actually do have a very good "social/moral compass," but I suggest that you may want to check with another source of information every time you run into that "regulation is bad for business," and "raising tax is bad for the economy and would increase the deficit," etc. . .

There seem to be a disconnect between your inner beliefs and altruitism, and your political beliefs. Anyway, just a suggestion.

By the way, we already discussed this (at least with Big Rob), but a few of the reasons Republicans appear to be given more to charity are:
1. Weekly/monthly donations to Churches fall under the "gifts to charity" on your tax return.
2. There are a LOT more wealthy or upper middle class Republicans than Democrats, and there are a lot more poor people who are Democrats and can barely afford to take care of their own. However, most poor people couldn't keep on going without the support of their neighbors and family (i.e., free child care from a friend so a woman can go to her minimum wage job; a meal when one runs out of money; a box of diaper for the new baby.) These kinds of TRUE charity are very meaningful, but can not be quantified in dollars amount or taking as a deduction on one's income tax!
3. A LOT of people who forgoe making big salaries on Wall Street, or in high management, or as a physian for the rich, but instead go into nursing for community clinics, social work, child care, education, etc. . . are placing helping the poor and the needy above their potential to make big salaries. That, in itself, is charity. Do you realize, for exemple, that it takes just as much schooling to obtain an Master in Social Work than it does to obtain a Master in Business Administration. . .in fact, you could say it takes longer, as the Master in Social work REQUIRES that, in addition to university classes at the graduate level, you spend an average of 20 hours a week in internships with places like a Mental health day program, a school psychologist's office, Child Protective services, or with agencies that care for people with developmental disabilities.. . .and at the end of those studies, a social worker with a master degree can hope to make anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 a year. . .while a MBA can expect to make anywhere between $75,000 and $200,000! And, please, do not believe that an MBA requires "more brain!" I did both. . .I KNOW! But an MBA takes "less heart."

Thanks for the compliment

I do not think that saying food stamps shouldn't buy junk food is really government regulation or authoritarian. If the government was telling people who earn their own money how to spend it on groceries, (kind of like Michelle Obama is trying to do) That is government interfering where it need not. Getting food stamps is not earning your own money, it is taking charity from taxpayers and I see no problem with having strings attached.

As for the buying of food in bulk, I would rather it done by citizens not government, but I would rather see it replace the food stamp program if I had a choice.

I do not think someone getting food stamps or in the food 'store' scenario run by local governments entitles someone to the right to hershey bars or pepsi, they in fact are not entitled to anything

Look up the tax records of high profile liberals, they give very little to charity and take every deduction possible. What I find odd is the really big mouthed high profile liberals even give very little to their political party. I was shocked at how little Susan Sarandon gave to her political party considering how loud she was about her political beliefs, Barbra Streisand too. Paul Newman is one man who put his money where his mouth was, I didn't always agree with him but who can discount his integrity.

OK car is fixed and I am off to Bend to get my daughter. I want to take my computer so I can keep arguing but then I wont be spending quality time with the kiddo

Have a great day and I look forward to arguing with you tomorrow night or the next day

Pan

 

[Openmind]

Thanks for the compliment

I do not think that saying food stamps shouldn't buy junk food is really government regulation or authoritarian. If the government was telling people who earn their own money how to spend it on groceries, (kind of like Michelle Obama is trying to do) That is government interfering where it need not. Getting food stamps is not earning your own money, it is taking charity from taxpayers and I see no problem with having strings attached.

As for the buying of food in bulk, I would rather it done by citizens not government, but I would rather see it replace the food stamp program if I had a choice.

I do not think someone getting food stamps or in the food 'store' scenario run by local governments entitles someone to the right to hershey bars or pepsi, they in fact are not entitled to anything

Look up the tax records of high profile liberals, they give very little to charity and take every deduction possible. What I find odd is the really big mouthed high profile liberals even give very little to their political party. I was shocked at how little Susan Sarandon gave to her political party considering how loud she was about her political beliefs, Barbra Streisand too. Paul Newman is one man who put his money where his mouth was, I didn't always agree with him but who can discount his integrity.

OK car is fixed and I am off to Bend to get my daughter. I want to take my computer so I can keep arguing but then I wont be spending quality time with the kiddo

Have a great day and I look forward to arguing with you tomorrow night or the next day

Pan

Just one word: you demonstrated what is wrong with "Republican charity!" It comes with strings attached. . .it is a control issue.

But we'll resume this conversation when you get back. Drive safely!

 

[Pandora]

Just one word: you demonstrated what is wrong with "Republican charity!" It comes with strings attached. . .it is a control issue.

But we'll resume this conversation when you get back. Drive safely!

Do you think there should be no strings attached to getting welfare, foodstamps, free housing or help with your electric bill in the winter?


I know there are already strings attached
A woman needs to dump the kids dad to get her welfare, you can not buy hot food like a cooked chicken on food stamps but you can buy candy and so on


so are you saying the current strings the government attaches are bad too? or just more strings attached are bad?