OT Hurricane Harvey - Now with added Trump!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Rastapopoulos said:
Click to expand...


Sorry, but there is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government so they can put money aside for national emergencies and paying taxes to the government so they can pay for a physically and mentally abled individual to sit at home and have kids to collect more welfare and foodstamps.

There is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government to help the funding of maintaining safe streets and highways, vs paying taxes to the federal government so individuals can not have to worry about their own physical health and abuse their bodies because they have universal health care.

And this is really one of the fundamental differences of why I am a republican and not a democrat.

You (I assume you, because you rarely speak your mind, but post others' thoughts and I assume you are backing them in that) want to swoop everyone up in one complete package, some safe cocoon, all the while dismissing those that are self destructive and thus costing everyone else more.
I do not believe in blanket judgement, blanket laws, or blanket support. I would rather have my government spend more on research of the funding to determine who is in actual need and who is choosing to waste away, and put MORE funds into those who truly are in need, do to disabilities, etc., and let those who care to waste away...waste away. It's their choice and not mine, so why should I have to pay for their choice?

You want to see breadlines?
Start rolling out universal funding of health care.

Unless you plan on letting the government go sooo deep into debt we will lose all status and be considered a liability by any other industrialized nation in the world?

Sorry. Not paying for it.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Sorry, but there is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government so they can put money aside for national emergencies and paying taxes to the government so they can pay for a physically and mentally abled individual to sit at home and have kids to collect more welfare and foodstamps.

There is a difference between paying taxes to the federal government to help the funding of maintaining safe streets and highways, vs paying taxes to the federal government so individuals can not have to worry about their own physical health and abuse their bodies because they have universal health care.

And this is really one of the fundamental differences of why I am a republican and not a democrat.

You (I assume you, because you rarely speak your mind, but post others' thoughts and I assume you are backing them in that) want to swoop everyone up in one complete package, some safe cocoon, all the while dismissing those that are self destructive and thus costing everyone else more.
I do not believe in blanket judgement, blanket laws, or blanket support. I would rather have my government spend more on research of the funding to determine who is in actual need and who is choosing to waste away, and put MORE funds into those who truly are in need, do to disabilities, etc., and let those who care to waste away...waste away. It's their choice and not mine, so why should I have to pay for their choice?

You want to see breadlines?
Start rolling out universal funding of health care.

Unless you plan on letting the government go sooo deep into debt we will lose all status and be considered a liability by any other industrialized nation in the world?

Sorry. Not paying for it.
Click to expand...

Stop. First of all, Foodstamps and welfare is a drop in the bucket and is NOT making us go in debt. THAT would be "defense" spending.

If you think we are anywhere close to a majority of people on are welfare gaming the system then I have a bridge to sell you.
"Welfare” is a broad term and can apply to people who are working but receiving some government assistance. If someone is receiving means-tested assistance, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not working.

Not all people eligible for welfare collect benefits. When they do, many of the benefits are contingent on the recipients working or actively searching for jobs, as a result of an overhaul of welfare signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And even low-income families receive some level of public assistance.

And maybe you're unaware that participation has declined in means-tested programs such as TANF and SNAP.

A few myths to dispel:

1. Poor women have more children because of the “financial incentives” of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children — about the same as the national average.

2. We don’t subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of “family caps”—denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: “A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn’t work?” columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these “perks.”



3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

“The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer,” wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has “a responsibility to try to do away with poverty.” (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)

Support for “welfare” is lower than support for “assistance to the poor,” but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as “the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children,” only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.


4. We’ve spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the ’60s and it hasn’t worked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don’t work, since after all that “lavish” spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994—less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, “welfare spending” must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. (“What Do We Spend on ‘Welfare’?,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of “Great Society” programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper’s, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point—now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from “overheating.”
 
dviss1 said:
Stop. First of all, Foodstamps and welfare is a drop in the bucket and is NOT making us go in debt. THAT would be "defense" spending.

If you think we are anywhere close to a majority of people on are welfare gaming the system then I have a bridge to sell you.
"Welfare” is a broad term and can apply to people who are working but receiving some government assistance. If someone is receiving means-tested assistance, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not working.

Not all people eligible for welfare collect benefits. When they do, many of the benefits are contingent on the recipients working or actively searching for jobs, as a result of an overhaul of welfare signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And even low-income families receive some level of public assistance.

And maybe you're unaware that participation has declined in means-tested programs such as TANF and SNAP.

A few myths to dispel:

1. Poor women have more children because of the “financial incentives” of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children — about the same as the national average.

2. We don’t subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of “family caps”—denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: “A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn’t work?” columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these “perks.”



3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

“The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer,” wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has “a responsibility to try to do away with poverty.” (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)

Support for “welfare” is lower than support for “assistance to the poor,” but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as “the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children,” only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.


4. We’ve spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the ’60s and it hasn’t worked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don’t work, since after all that “lavish” spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994—less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, “welfare spending” must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. (“What Do We Spend on ‘Welfare’?,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of “Great Society” programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper’s, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point—now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from “overheating.”
Click to expand...

First, I did not say ALL people on benefits, hence my separation of those in need vs those not in need.

Second, I agree with most of this above, however the topic brought up in the tweet inferred to how are we going to pay for this without socialism. The military is a whole different topic ( though it is also based on keeping citizens safe)

Thirdly, lets take a look at the spending involved in this....

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

Based off the above link, the Fed government spent a total of 373 billion for 2017 UP TO DATE (so its assuredly going to break 400 billion) on Welfare subsidies including housing, workman's comp and families with children.

for math sake we will use 400 billion. Now lets say of those individuals receiving these benefits, 10% are not on the up and up. That's 40 billion so far this year alone that could go towards those truly in need. That's not chump change....

And Lastly D, if you don't think there are people taking advantage of the system, I leave you with these links...watch them and get back to me my friend. ;)












I could post link after link. I had no idea there are SOOO many....
May I amend that 10% to 15-20%?
 
Orion Bailey said:
First, I did not say ALL people on benefits, hence my separation of those in need vs those not in need.

Second, I agree with most of this above, however the topic brought up in the tweet inferred to how are we going to pay for this without socialism. The military is a whole different topic ( though it is also based on keeping citizens safe)

Thirdly, lets take a look at the spending involved in this....

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

Based off the above link, the Fed government spent a total of 373 billion for 2017 UP TO DATE (so its assuredly going to break 400 billion) on Welfare subsidies including housing, workman's comp and families with children.

for math sake we will use 400 billion. Now lets say of those individuals receiving these benefits, 10% are not on the up and up. That's 40 billion so far this year alone that could go towards those truly in need. That's not chump change....

And Lastly D, if you don't think there are people taking advantage of the system, I leave you with these links...watch them and get back to me my friend. ;)












I could post link after link. I had no idea there are SOOO many....
May I amend that 10% to 15-20%?
Click to expand...

A few videos doesn't represent a high percentage.
 
BoBoBREWSKI said:
Why did she stand there and wait to be interviewed if she was so upset about being interviewed?
Click to expand...

She wasn't waiting. She was stuck in some relief center with nowhere else to go.

The TV crews come in with a nice motorhome (at least) and plenty of food, water, and clean clothes for themselves.
 
dviss1 said:
Stop. First of all, Foodstamps and welfare is a drop in the bucket and is NOT making us go in debt. THAT would be "defense" spending.

If you think we are anywhere close to a majority of people on are welfare gaming the system then I have a bridge to sell you.
"Welfare” is a broad term and can apply to people who are working but receiving some government assistance. If someone is receiving means-tested assistance, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not working.

Not all people eligible for welfare collect benefits. When they do, many of the benefits are contingent on the recipients working or actively searching for jobs, as a result of an overhaul of welfare signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And even low-income families receive some level of public assistance.

And maybe you're unaware that participation has declined in means-tested programs such as TANF and SNAP.

A few myths to dispel:

1. Poor women have more children because of the “financial incentives” of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children — about the same as the national average.

2. We don’t subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of “family caps”—denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: “A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn’t work?” columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these “perks.”



3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

“The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer,” wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has “a responsibility to try to do away with poverty.” (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)

Support for “welfare” is lower than support for “assistance to the poor,” but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as “the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children,” only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.


4. We’ve spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the ’60s and it hasn’t worked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don’t work, since after all that “lavish” spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994—less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, “welfare spending” must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients. (“What Do We Spend on ‘Welfare’?,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of “Great Society” programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper’s, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point—now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from “overheating.”
Click to expand...

It's all only a little bit of money until you add it up. Our elected officials throw around $billions like they were nickels while we throw around nickels like they are manhole covers.

You pasted in talking points? Not convincing.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's all only a little bit of money until you add it up. Our elected officials throw around $billions like they were nickels while we throw around nickels like they are manhole covers.

You pasted in talking points? Not convincing.
Click to expand...

No one is ever going to convince a Libertarian that government should spend money. That's not what I'm trying to achieve.

The bottom line is that "defense" spending is where we ALL know is driving this country in the tank. Hence the endless wars.
 
dviss1 said:
No one is ever going to convince a Libertarian that government should spend money. That's not what I'm trying to achieve.

The bottom line is that "defense" spending is where we ALL know is driving this country in the tank. Hence the endless wars.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the government spending money.

I'd rather see it spent colorblind in ways that help everyone regardless of anything. Roads don't care about skin color or sexual orientation.

Even so, private roads (e.g. those would be funded by tolls) are a better alternative.
 
dviss1 said:
No one is ever going to convince a Libertarian that government should spend money. That's not what I'm trying to achieve.

The bottom line is that "defense" spending is where we ALL know is driving this country in the tank. Hence the endless wars.
Click to expand...
It isn't really just defense spending though. We spend a ton on offense and actually being on offense.
 
Trump found time in between boasting about the size of crowd that came to see him in Texas to overturn yet another equal pay rule. This was to require businesses to document pay, in order to verify if men and women were indeed paid the same. Priorities!

A large number of rightists have responded to criticisms of Trump by claiming Obama was busy playing golf when Hurricane Katrina hit. They apparently forgot that Bush was president. Guess that was fake news.
 
crandc said:
Trump found time in between boasting about the size of crowd that came to see him in Texas to overturn yet another equal pay rule. This was to require businesses to document pay, in order to verify if men and women were indeed paid the same. Priorities!

A large number of rightists have responded to criticisms of Trump by claiming Obama was busy playing golf when Hurricane Katrina hit. They apparently forgot that Bush was president. Guess that was fake news.
Click to expand...

It was the 2016 Louisiana floods where he was golfing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...his-vacation-to-visit-the-louisiana-flooding/

A bunch of democrats were posting Obama volunteering in Houston soup kitchens with aprons saying DC soup mission or some shit on it too.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I'm a rollercoaster man.
Click to expand...




Move over dad 'cause I'm a double dipple
Upside down on the big dip dipper
1, 2, 1, 2, 3 I've got a ticket come ride with me
Let me go down on the merry-go-round
All is fair 'n' a big fair ground
Let's go slow, let's go fast
Like a liquorice twist gonna whip your ass

Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
It was the 2016 Louisiana floods where he was golfing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...his-vacation-to-visit-the-louisiana-flooding/

A bunch of democrats were posting Obama volunteering in Houston soup kitchens with aprons saying DC soup mission or some shit on it too.
Click to expand...
Trump shouldn't have gone to Texas. I've always hated the need for the President to show up to big disasters like anyone cares. Calculate every scent spent on the trip and give it to the victims.
 
theprunetang said:
Move over dad 'cause I'm a double dipple
Upside down on the big dip dipper
1, 2, 1, 2, 3 I've got a ticket come ride with me
Let me go down on the merry-go-round
All is fair 'n' a big fair ground
Let's go slow, let's go fast
Like a liquorice twist gonna whip your ass

Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
Click to expand...

Wrong thread man...

The Blazers Rap needs to be brought back up to the forefront!
 
theprunetang said:
Move over dad 'cause I'm a double dipple
Upside down on the big dip dipper
1, 2, 1, 2, 3 I've got a ticket come ride with me
Let me go down on the merry-go-round
All is fair 'n' a big fair ground
Let's go slow, let's go fast
Like a liquorice twist gonna whip your ass

Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
Your love is like a rollercoaster baby, baby
I want to ride yeah (awawaw)
Click to expand...

That reminds me of this fine song:

I'd rather crawl through poison ivy
or grab high tensions wires
cut my legs off at the knees
or set myself on fire

Than have to feel your charms
closing in around me
or feel your slimy kisses covering my body

Your love is like a nuclear waste
your body is a danger to the human race
they should stamp contaminated right across your face
your love is like a nuclear waste

I'd rather stick my tongue into a vat
drink ex-lax all day long
or have to chew on razor blades
or give head to king kong

Than have to be between the sheets with you for any time
or have to feel your scaly flesh moving onto mine

Your love is like a nuclear waste
your body is a danger to the human race
they should stamp contaminated right across your face
your love is like a nuclear waste
Click to expand...

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

truebluefan
See the wrath of Hurricane Harvey
Replies
0
Views
356
truebluefan
truebluefan
truebluefan
Hurricane Harvey: Storm Gathers Strength, Now a Category 4
Replies
1
Views
439
truebluefan
truebluefan
PtldPlatypus
Exclusive 2018 hurricane season
Replies
1
Views
149
PtldPlatypus
PtldPlatypus
SlyPokerDog
OT Hurricane Laura
Replies
12
Views
584
Lanny
Lanny
SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump Administration Officials Arrested for Scamming Puerto Rico Out of $1.8 Billion in Hurricane Re
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
Lanny
Lanny

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top