obama bitch slapping gop

[B-Man]

The Meaning of the Inaugural Address

 

Victor Davis Hanson

 

Prune away the usual soaring rhetoric and purple passages, and there were no serious outlines in today’s speech to restore the economy or deal with the fiscal implosion on the horizon — or even hints to be fleshed out in the State of the Union to come.

 

Instead, the president believes that record near-zero interest rates will allow him to borrow $10–12 trillion dollars over his eight-year tenure, and that the dangers of running up such a resulting gargantuan $20 trillion aggregate debt are well worth the risks.

He apparently believes that, in a postindustrial world, government, or government-owned industries from now on will have to create the majority of jobs, and that such jobs should largely go to those whom he sees as having been traditionally shortchanged.

 

In addition, in just four years, record numbers are now on food stamps, unemployment, and disability, and exempt from federal income taxes, and those percentages will only grow in the next term. Part of the remaking of America is the forging of a new constituency who feel that government employment and entitlements are a birth right and that those who in Washington ensure it deserve unquestioned political fealty.

 

By the same token, the astronomical borrowing will endlessly accelerate pressures to raise taxes on the “rich,” whether through income-tax rates, or the elimination of deductions, or both. The “pay their fair share” and “you didn’t build that” rhetoric will only sharpen, as the public is prepped to expect that “fat cats” can pay an aggregate 60—70 percent of their income in local, payroll, state, Obamacare, and federal income taxes. The only mystery is whether these unsustainable debts are designed primarily to redistribute income through forced higher taxes, or to marry the livelihoods of loyal millions to big government, or so that we can create a sort of centralized EU that actually works.

 

There are three dangers to the new unbound Obamism. One, he assumes the private sector has nowhere to go, and thus that, although it always will B word about higher taxes, serial class warfare rhetoric, Obamacare, and more regulations, at some point its captains have to get back to work, make those hefty profits and so pay what they owe us in new higher taxes. I am not sure that will happen; instead, the present high unemployment, low growth, and crushing debt may be the new European-like stagflating norm.

 

Two, even if inflation and interest rates don’t rise, we have not seen yet the bitter wars to come over gun control and the actual implementation of the details of Obamacare, or blanket amnesty, and they may resemble the tea-party fights of 2010.

 

 

Three, the bitter election wars to achieve and maintain a 51–53 percent majority

(the noble 99 percent versus the selfish 1 percent,

the greens versus the polluters,

the young and hip versus the stodgy and uncool,

the wisely unarmed versus the redneck assault-weapon owners,

women versus the sexists,

gays versus the bigots,

Latinos versus the nativists,

blacks versus the “get over it” spiteful and resentful,

the noble public sector versus the “you didn’t build that” profiteers,

Colin Powell/Chuck Hagel/reasonable Republicans versus neanderthal House tea-party zealots),

in Nixonian fashion have left a lot of bitter divisions that lie just beneath the surface of a thinning veneer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“We interrupt this orgy of Obama worship to recall that his campaign huddled early in 2012 and reflected that they could not run on his first-term record. Accordingly, the strategy was ‘Kill Romney.’

 

Congratulations. That what we’re celebrating today.”

Edited January 22, 2013 by B-Man

[Bigfatbillsfan]

If this is the "help" you are referring to, I would avoid it.

 

 

http://voices.yahoo....ys-2125290.html

 

You really believe this ****?

[3rdnlng]

You really believe this ****?

 

Why don't you explain what is so bad about it?

[B-Man]

Byron York agrees:

There were plenty of messages in Obama’s speech. He will push for immigration reform. He will push for gay rights. (Obama used the words “equal” or “equality” seven times in his speech, versus just once in his first inaugural address.) He will push on global warming. And he will keep pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into “green energy” projects that have so far yielded little energy and fewer jobs.

But the economy?

Other than declaring, “An economic recovery has begun,” Obama had nearly nothing to say.

That should not be a surprise. Since last November’s election, the president’s supporters, in political office and in the press, have spent a lot of time talking about his second-term agenda. The economy somehow never tops their lists. Obama himself, when asked to name his top priorities on “Meet the Press” recently, put immigration reform at the head of the list.

In Obama’s first term, of course, with unemployment high and economic anxiety even higher, he chose to pursue national health care above all, promising repeatedly to make a “pivot” to the economy at some point in the future. That didn’t really happen until the 2012 campaign. Now, safely re-elected, Obama has put the jobs issue back on the back burner.

In 2010, Republicans made huge strides, won a lot of seats in Congress, by asking, “Where are the jobs, Mr. President?” That’s still the fundamental question today, if someone cares to ask it.

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

You really believe this ****?

The soft-slavery of dependence is very, very real.

[Meathead]

in your mind

[B-Man]

in your mind

 

and in the electorate....................try and remember back to about 11 weeks ago.

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

in your mind

Please explain for the class how complete systemic dependence is not soft-slavery. A good start would be speaking to the lack of burdensome social stigmas, lack of imposed social and economic limitations and restrictions, and the lack of any evidence of intergenerational reliance to the point of a shameful legacy.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I don't think there is 1 single Democrat that thinks the GOP should change anything...

 

That's bad. We want the GOP to turn back towards the center. If it doesn't we'll end up with one party rule and all the things that the conservatives are freaking out about now may actually happen.

 

If every liberal I know would STFU about Huntsman, I'd probably take him more seriously. But his name almost always comes at the end of the stereotypical progressive rant that starts with "The GOP is imploding!"

 

It's only slightly more predictable than the next liberal chiming in with "I don't think there is 1 single Democrat that thinks the GOP should change anything..."

 

Yeah, okay. Thanks for the input, folks.

 

Sorry it's pissing you off to hear that he was their best candidate. You may not like the fact that rats and mice and fleas were one of the chief carriers of the plague. But unfortunately that's just the way it was.

 

Not to mention the fact of members of the other party liking a specific candidate is the thing that makes you take him less seriously speaks volumes regarding your psychology.

 

The soft-slavery of dependence is very, very real.

 

While what you say is very true I don't think it applies in the case of this nations current entitlements.

 

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

[3rdnlng]

That's bad. We want the GOP to turn back towards the center. If it doesn't we'll end up with one party rule and all the things that the conservatives are freaking out about now may actually happen.

 

 

 

Sorry it's pissing you off to hear that he was their best candidate. You may not like the fact that rats and mice and fleas were one of the chief carriers of the plague. But unfortunately that's just the way it was.

 

Not to mention the fact of members of the other party liking a specific candidate is the thing that makes you take him less seriously speaks volumes regarding your psychology.

 

 

 

While what you say is very true I don't think it applies in the case of this nations current entitlements.

 

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

 

Can you explain this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

Thanks for responding. While I've still got your ear, I was hoping you might join me in reflecting on something:

 

I'm not talking about you and I. There are many individuals whom, long before any downturns, were victims of this systemic caste system. Perhaps we should talk about what they look like?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Thanks for responding. While I've still got your ear, I was hoping you might join me in reflecting on something:

 

I'm not talking about you and I. There are many individuals whom, long before any downturns, were victims of this systemic caste system. Perhaps we should talk about what they look like?

 

Here's where you and I might feel the same way. As a former social worker I can tell you that you might be surprised at the people that are or have been on public assistance. When used as a safety net they work very well. When used as a way of life... I'm sure you've seen people who use public welfare that way. It's not a good life. I have yet to see anyone run up a fortune from cash assistance checks.

 

If they are always on the bottom rung of the caste system due to their use of public assistance as their way of life they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Here's where you and I might feel the same way. As a former social worker I can tell you that you might be surprised at the people that are or have been on public assistance. When used as a safety net they work very well. When used as a way of life... I'm sure you've seen people who use public welfare that way. It's not a good life. I have yet to see anyone run up a fortune from cash assistance checks.

 

If they are always on the bottom rung of the caste system due to their use of public assistance as their way of life they have no one to blame but themselves.

In a lot of these situations the government is the enabled: the person who brings a dozen big macs to the fatass who can't get out of bed, or gets liquor for the drunk, or gives the smack head money for a fix.

 

Personally I'm okay with a safety net as long as it's really that. Like unemployment insurance, for example. A temporary pick-me-up for hard times. These long term public "assistance" (I.e. Dependency) programs create, enable, & foster a self-destructive culture. Think of the crime associated with public housing projects.

[Gary M]

You really believe this ****?

 

yes, because I see it.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

In a lot of these situations the government is the enabled: the person who brings a dozen big macs to the fatass who can't get out of bed, or gets liquor for the drunk, or gives the smack head money for a fix.

 

Personally I'm okay with a safety net as long as it's really that. Like unemployment insurance, for example. A temporary pick-me-up for hard times. These long term public "assistance" (I.e. Dependency) programs create, enable, & foster a self-destructive culture. Think of the crime associated with public housing projects.

 

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

 

yes, because I see it.

 

I'm sorry that the world is such a terrible place for you.

[3rdnlng]

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

 

 

 

I'm sorry that the world is such a terrible place for you.

 

 

How do you reconcile both of these paragraphs?

[Jauronimo]

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

Or, to borrow a term from the recent financial crisis: perverse incentive.

[Magox]

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

Holy ****! You are me! I talk about incentives and the government all the time. If you continue to pile up the incentives for doing less, you will get a less productive society. If you apply punitive measures (higher taxes on the wealthy), not for tangible results but in the name of economic "fairness", then you will get less production.

 

Make no mistake, Obama cares more about social justice than having a vibrant economy. Remember the Hillary/Obama debates?

 

Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

 

Obama replied: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.... ...And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

[Azalin]

in your mind

Mr Franklin had a better way of putting it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor" (1766)

 

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/management-of-poor.html

 

I think what he said is both reasonable and realistic. it's really just a simple observation on human nature, and I see nothing radical or heartless in it at all.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Azalin

[Meathead]

all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point

 

the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs

 

further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency

 

its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship

[Magox]

all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point

 

the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs

 

further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency

 

its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship

 

Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this?

 

And a vast expansion of Medicaid is an entitlement. To say otherwise is absurd.

 

Reasonable people can argue in what we can do to increase life expectancy and coverage, but that doesn't automatically mean that the ACA was a good piece of legislation, simply because action was taken. Well before you got here I spoke at length of the pitfalls of ACA, and there are many, ranging from taxes, to national debt implications, busting state budgets, small business activity, quality of health care deterioration and consumer behavior patterns which will lead to even higher premiums.

 

Soon enough we'll find out.

 

Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point

 

the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs

 

further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency

 

its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship

 

 

It is a custom here to link to sources for statements like this.

[Meathead]

lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why

 

the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama

 

fortunately for this argument and unfortunately for me, i have first hand evidence how badly broken the previous system was and how badly it needed reform. i went from having a great career and fantastic health care to being disabled, losing my healthcare completely, and having to struggle to get basic treatment while i waited for disability. now my healthcare is significantly poorer than it used to be, but its a world better than having none. i dont want any human on earth let alone other americans to have to live like that so uhc is my biggest priority for current politics and is why i enthusiastically support aca, warts and all. now we need to finish that job

 

the truth is there will always be a disparity between the hc we provide to those who cant get it themselves and that which is earned by those who are higher achievers. frankly, im fine with that, but there should be a minimum standard that allows every human to see a doctor for both routine and catastrophic incidents. i firmly believe in the long run that not only saves money but it promotes self sufficiency. until there is uhc there will permanently continue to be an incentive for those at the bottom to not jeopardize their ability to get minimal hc bc they take a low paying job that doesnt provide it. remove that disincentive and we not only save money down the road on catestrophic illness, we also put more people back into the workforce where they can work their way up without jeopardizing their health

 

we should not be competing based on the ability to get a minimum standard of professional level health care. being poor sucks ass. even with uhc being poor will still suck ass. we need to continue to address the issues of incentives and self-sufficiency, but i just dont think thats the main problem

[3rdnlng]

Your situation aside, you still need to link to statements, especially outlandish ones. If you were right in the post I asked you to provide a link for, then you could have answered me with a lot less effort than it did for you to respond in the way you did.

[Rob's House]

lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why

 

the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama

 

fortunately for this argument and unfortunately for me, i have first hand evidence how badly broken the previous system was and how badly it needed reform. i went from having a great career and fantastic health care to being disabled, losing my healthcare completely, and having to struggle to get basic treatment while i waited for disability. now my healthcare is significantly poorer than it used to be, but its a world better than having none. i dont want any human on earth let alone other americans to have to live like that so uhc is my biggest priority for current politics and is why i enthusiastically support aca, warts and all. now we need to finish that job

 

the truth is there will always be a disparity between the hc we provide to those who cant get it themselves and that which is earned by those who are higher achievers. frankly, im fine with that, but there should be a minimum standard that allows every human to see a doctor for both routine and catastrophic incidents. i firmly believe in the long run that not only saves money but it promotes self sufficiency. until there is uhc there will permanently continue to be an incentive for those at the bottom to not jeopardize their ability to get minimal hc bc they take a low paying job that doesnt provide it. remove that disincentive and we not only save money down the road on catestrophic illness, we also put more people back into the workforce where they can work their way up without jeopardizing their health

 

we should not be competing based on the ability to get a minimum standard of professional level health care. being poor sucks ass. even with uhc being poor will still suck ass. we need to continue to address the issues of incentives and self-sufficiency, but i just dont think thats the main problem

What is your disability?

[Meathead]

only the first paragraph was a response to you, that im not going to be pressured to provide links to something that is established. this will be my last comment on this specific question, but im sure youve heard that we spend more per capita on health services and yet rank something like twentieth (near or at the bottom) on measurements for vital health elements. if you still are not aware of that reality, and i dont know you you missed it, you will have to go find it yourself. the rest of my commentary was simply laying out my rationale for my positions on uhc

 

and rob, i dont mind discussing my disability, but im curious why you would quote me and then ask. what relevance does it have on my commentary? perhaps you didnt mean to link the two but it did appear that way. when it comes to political discussion i only engage in real discussion of the issues. i dont belong to a political party and i vote on both sides of the isle depending on current circumstances and what i feel needs to be done. i have no problem admitting i am a left leaning centrist but i simply will not engage in empty partisan bickering. if the real meat of the issues isnt addressed i just simply dont respond and leave those kinds of time wasting pissing contests to others

 

btw i am permanently disabled with two serious back injuries that are irrepairable and prevent me from sitting or standing for extended periods

[birdog1960]

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things.

 

we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path.

 

or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

[3rdnlng]

Meat, I'll only address the first paragraph. Provide the links and don't be a NJ Sue. If you don't know what that is, your duty is to look it up. Harsh? That's how you are coming across. You made some outlandish statements and could crush me with credible back-up to those statements. Hey, this is PPP, go for the jugular or STFU.

[3rdnlng]

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things.

 

we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path.

 

or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

 

Purely Twilight Zone. Time to put down the bottle, needle or pipe.

[birdog1960]

Purely Twilight Zone. Time to put down the bottle, needle or pipe.

care to be more specific in your argument without the ad hominem? what would you do with the lazy? the intergenerational "takers" ?

[Meathead]

birdog +1 again

[Rob's House]

only the first paragraph was a response to you, that im not going to be pressured to provide links to something that is established. this will be my last comment on this specific question, but im sure youve heard that we spend more per capita on health services and yet rank something like twentieth (near or at the bottom) on measurements for vital health elements. if you still are not aware of that reality, and i dont know you you missed it, you will have to go find it yourself. the rest of my commentary was simply laying out my rationale for my positions on uhc

 

and rob, i dont mind discussing my disability, but im curious why you would quote me and then ask. what relevance does it have on my commentary? perhaps you didnt mean to link the two but it did appear that way. when it comes to political discussion i only engage in real discussion of the issues. i dont belong to a political party and i vote on both sides of the isle depending on current circumstances and what i feel needs to be done. i have no problem admitting i am a left leaning centrist but i simply will not engage in empty partisan bickering. if the real meat of the issues isnt addressed i just simply dont respond and leave those kinds of time wasting pissing contests to others

 

btw i am permanently disabled with two serious back injuries that are irrepairable and prevent me from sitting or standing for extended periods

The quote was just b/c it was the post where you mentioned it & made it clear who I was asking. I've got bulging cervical disks that gave me similar problems. It's not as bad as it was but will never be right. It used to be so bad I couldn't do much of anything - even watching a movie was tough b/c I couldn't sit up for that long & laying down didn't help much either; it was constant pain all the time, along with pain & numbness in all my extremities. I'm sure it's not as bad as yours but there was a period of time when paralysis was a very real and everpresent concern, so I kind of have an idea what you must go through. I was 25 when it got really bad & at first dealt with a lot of anguish, but I learned to get past that. You seem fairly positive; I hope you don't let this kill your spirit.

[Rob's House]

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things.

 

we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path.

 

or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects.

 

I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion.

[birdog1960]

I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects.

 

I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion.

i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree.

[Rob's House]

i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree.

I see logistical problems there, but ultimately it doesn't take much to get a job paying $10+/hr, but when you're single w/ 3 kids it's just not always an option. My solution would be to condition payments on something that makes it less convenient. Preferably something productive, but just something to throw the effort to return ratio such that it doesn't disincentivize production.

 

I also don't think spreading around the existing wealth is as desireable as having them create new wealth by working. More importantly, it would break the multi-generational plague of dependence that turns these communities into the immense shitholes they are.

[Jauronimo]

I think we oversimplify when we just assume laziness. The problem is cultural. If it was just a matter of a few lazy people sucking off the system it wouldn't be that big a deal. It's the destructive cycle of behavior that grows out of these so-called charitable projects.

 

I know in Richmond the last place you want to go, & the worst place to bring up a child, are in the housing projects. There are no easy fixes to this either, but if we're going to move the needle it should be towards being more, not less, restrictive about who is given charity, design the programs so their natural progression is toward self-sufficiency, and (except for the truly helpless) make it less convenient to be on the dole. Otherwise we're perpetuating the ugliest & most inhumane aspects of our country in the name of compassion.

Incentives. Its all about incentives. Even total degenerates with no education can recognize a good deal when they see one. If you want your kid to go mow the lawn and you offer him $10 once he finishes the job or $8 regardless of the outcome, what do you think hes going to do? Taking the easy $8 doesn't mean that the child is inherently lazy or bent on scamming the system. It means the system sucks.

 

i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree.

 

Increasing minimum wage would be nice, maybe, but only for those that continue to earn minimum wage, maybe. See price floor, cause and effects. This is 101 level ****.

 

Since when is minimum wage not livable? Any young, single adult with a little financial sense should be able to get by on min wage. Sure you can't raise a family on min wage, but since when is it your right to raise a family regardless of means?

Edited January 24, 2013 by Jauronimo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things.

 

we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path.

 

or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

 

One of the better posts I've seen regarding how we treat the welfare dependent of the nation. We need to find a way to get those that are not contributing to become contributing members. The idea that cutting them off will suddenly make them contributing members is myopic at best. Clinton's welfare to work was one of the best ways I've seen to address this.

[B-Man]

Clinton's welfare to work was one of the best ways I've seen to address this.

 

LOL.........I always like the left's attempts at revisionism

 

Do you mean, by any chance, the welfare reform bill passed by congress that President Clinton signed off on ?

 

 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL

[IDBillzFan]

LOL.........I always like the left's attempts at revisionism

 

Do you mean, by any chance, the welfare reform bill passed by congress that President Clinton signed off on ?

 

No, I'm sure he meant Clinton's welfare reform bill, much like he references Clinton's budget surplus.