Living the good life off of government benefits

[editec]

The Republican party grew out of the conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories. The stimulus for its founding was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans-because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.

The Republican party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected to the House of Representatives and several were elected to the Senate and various state houses. In 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Fremont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan.

The GOP of the Lincoln era was mostly spawned from the WHIG Party.

Brief history of the Whigs

Four presidents of the United States were members of the Whig Party. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s,[1] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party.In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. This name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because "Whig" was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who identified as opposing tyranny.[2] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also nominated war hero generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln was the chief Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected president. Both died in office. John Tyler succeeded to the presidency after Harrison's death but was expelled from the party. Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office.

The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. With deep fissures in the party on this question, the anti-slavery faction prevented the re-nomination of its own incumbent President Fillmore in the 1852 presidential election; instead, the party nominated General Winfield Scott. Most Whig party leaders thereupon quit politics (as Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties. The northern voter base mostly joined the new Republican Party. By the 1856 presidential election, the party was virtually defunct. In the South,

Some of you, those with at least a reasonable grasp of the obvious, will note that Thomas JEFFERSON is not mentioned as having anything to do with the Whigs?

But the WHIGS (and then later the Republicans who'd BEEN Whigs) did lay claim to having the same political POV as Jefferson.

However Jefferson never heard of the Republicans, he founded the Democrttic Republican party

The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party).

Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the "Republican Party" or the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party.

 

[dblack]

To inject a little sanity into this debate.

The real problem here is not that the evil government is conspiring to put everyone one welfare and continue a political dominion. Frankly, a lot of people on the federal dole vote Republican because they honestly think their entitlements (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.) are "Earned" while "Those people", usually being browner in skin tone, are living off of them.

No, the real problem is that business and corporations have supervised a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the monied class. As a result, we have a lot of people working very hard for less money. A lot of people take two jobs while others can't find one.

You're almost there. The "real" problem is that these efforts are one in the same. The welfare state facilitates the transfer, keeping the underclass in their place, churning the wheel as compliant consumers.

The problem is not that people are "living large". Most aren't. The problem is that they are insisting on actually living, and if that means voting for more of the same, so be it. No one is going to watch his child starve on "principle".

Agreed. Which is why I oppose the original thrust of this thread. The poor people who utilize welfare aren't living the "good life". They're being paid off to stay out of the way and "working for the man".

Frankly, a lot of people on the federal dole vote Republican because they honestly think their entitlements (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.) are "Earned" while "Those people", usually being browner in skin tone, are living off of them.

I'm always a little curious at welfare advocates' reaction to the fact that many of the poor, even those on some form of welfare, oppose the the welfare state and vote against it. No doubt some of them are merely stupid and don't recognize the contradiction ("Hands off my Medicare!"), but do you really think that's a fair characterization of their views in general? I don't think it is. I think many of them recognize welfare for what it is and oppose it on principle, even when they are forced by circumstances to utilize it. It's a cruel double standard to sneer at these people as though they are deluded. Maybe they're smarter than you think.

 

[Dragonlady]

Take care of yourselves. Take responsibility for yourselves and don't expect others to pay for your bullshit.

I guess Canada should have told the Americans to go fuck themselves, it wasn't Canada that OBL was attacking. We should have stayed out of Afghanistan because terrorists weren't bombing our financial centres. Americans should fight their own wars.

Throughout the collective history of the human race, people have banded together in communities and tribes because, as a species, we are not meant to live on our own. We are meant to live communally and to help take care of one another. On our own, we're pretty helpless to fight off attackers, disease, starvation, but in large numbers, we can literally move mountains.

This mantra of "personal responsibility" is entire a Republican fiction which they came up with Reagan. It's a piece of contrived bullshit to justify selfishness and greed. "Get all you can and screw everbody else" seems to be the Republican motto.

It would be easier for people to take care of themselves, if they could control whether or not they would be thrown out of work by government policiesover which they have no control. Or, if they could control interest rates so their housing costs, or car loans wouldn't escalate beyond their ability to pay. It would also be good if you could guarantee that the company they work for doesn't go out of business, or decide to manufacture in China because it's cheaper.

It would also be great, if they could control their genetics and environment so that no illness befalls them, no accidents could lay them low, and no foolishness on their part results in illness or injury. Or the weather so that their homes aren't destroyed in a tornado, hurricane or flood.

Yes, let's have everyone take responsibility for themselves and screw everybody else.

 

[depotoo]

Well see, now we've determined you're a hypocrit as well.

care to explain or are you playing pretend like a little girl??

You really hate it when an intelligent woman makes destroys your position. And you're so fixated on everyone's IQ, but your conclusions are based on false information.

To start with, the founding fathers, including Jefferson, were hardly conservatives. If all of your ideas flow from an error in fact, how can your conclusions be anything but wrong? You keep talking about God and nature and love, and then spout racism, misogynism, and hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.

Poor Eddie, keeps trying to suck and blow at the same time.

who wrote this?
I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. We see in England the consequences of the want of it. Their laborers reduced to living on a penny in the shilling of their earnings, to give up bread, and resort to oatmeal and potatoes for food; and their landholders exiting themselves to live in ? and obscenity abroad, because at home the government must have all the clear profits to their land, in fact they see the fee simple of the island transferred to the public creditors, all its profits going to them for the interest of their debts. Our laborers and landholders must come to this also unless they strictly adhere to the economy you recommend.

and how is that related to this thread?

 

[jasonnfree]

To inject a little sanity into this debate.

The real problem here is not that the evil government is conspiring to put everyone one welfare and continue a political dominion. Frankly, a lot of people on the federal dole vote Republican because they honestly think their entitlements (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.) are "Earned" while "Those people", usually being browner in skin tone, are living off of them.

No, the real problem is that business and corporations have supervised a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the monied class. As a result, we have a lot of people working very hard for less money. A lot of people take two jobs while others can't find one.

You're almost there. The "real" problem is that these efforts are one in the same. The welfare state facilitates the transfer, keeping the underclass in their place, churning the wheel as compliant consumers.

The problem is not that people are "living large". Most aren't. The problem is that they are insisting on actually living, and if that means voting for more of the same, so be it. No one is going to watch his child starve on "principle".

Agreed. Which is why I oppose the original thrust of this thread. The poor people who utilize welfare aren't living the "good life". They're being paid off to stay out of the way and "working for the man".

Frankly, a lot of people on the federal dole vote Republican because they honestly think their entitlements (Social Security, Unemployment, etc.) are "Earned" while "Those people", usually being browner in skin tone, are living off of them.

I'm always a little curious at welfare advocates' reaction to the fact that many of the poor, even those on some form of welfare, oppose the the welfare state and vote against it. No doubt some of them are merely stupid and don't recognize the contradiction ("Hands off my Medicare!"), but do you really think that's a fair characterization of their views in general? I don't think it is. I think many of them recognize welfare for what it is and oppose it on principle, even when they are forced by circumstances to utilize it. It's a cruel double standard to sneer at these people as though they are deluded. Maybe they're smarter than you think.

I have to agree, most people want the dignity of a well paid job although there are always some that want a free ride. American workers had the floor pulled out from under them with all the trade deals of the last 20 years. Republicans were for this of course but then it took a democrat, Clinton to push them through. Obama has pretty well gone along with the offshoring all though he talks against it on the stump.
A pretty good book about the working class losing their jobs and being on the dole is "Player Piano" written by Kurt Vonnegutt written in the early 50's where the ruling class had robots do all the work and the people sat home in misery receiving welfare checks, just enough not to starve.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

dear, Republicans sign the pledge not Democrats!! What planet have you been on?? See why we say slow??

The Republicans signed a pledge. Well whoopdy fucking do!!! Did they abide by any of the pledges they signed???? If they signed a pledge, why has government employment grown more under Republican administrations than Democrats?

They signed a pledge.

Nobody signs a pledge of that nature unless:

a. They have a crystal ball

or

b. Thery're incredibly naive and/or stupid.

or

c. They're pandering for votes and think a very naive portion of the electorate will believe them

 

[depotoo]

And this has "what" to do with what I just wrote?

you said Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party when in fact he formed the Republican Party.

It's very very important to know the history of todays Republican Party to see how American it is and how unAmerican the Democratic Party is.

Democratic principles have nothing to do with American principles which is why the Democrats spied for Stalin.

The modern republican party was formed in 1856 and had nothing to do with the party Jefferson formed.

Did you learn this bunk on GlennBeck.com or something, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

so, pray tell, what were the principles of Jefferson's party that he founded? And what did he call it?

 

[jasonnfree]

care to explain or are you playing pretend like a little girl??

You really hate it when an intelligent woman makes destroys your position. And you're so fixated on everyone's IQ, but your conclusions are based on false information.

To start with, the founding fathers, including Jefferson, were hardly conservatives. If all of your ideas flow from an error in fact, how can your conclusions be anything but wrong? You keep talking about God and nature and love, and then spout racism, misogynism, and hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.

Poor Eddie, keeps trying to suck and blow at the same time.

No. Your the poor dear.

The FF pitched a fit about some wanting to give French Imigree's $10,000 to help them settle in America after the Revolution. Hell. The French helped us gain our independence and they still didn't feel that American money should help them out.

I doubt the FF would look at us today without turning in their graves. One part of the population supporting another part of the population? Doubt thats what they had in mind when then fought a revolution.

Funny how no one thought of welfare, medicaid or an of the other social bs that we have today until the 30's or 40's. Yep. All brought to you by the Democratic party of America.

The FF would surely pitch a bitch just like loads of we taxpayers are doing right now.

Take care of yourselves. Take responsibility for yourselves and don't expect others to pay for your bullshit.

It's a little more difficult to survive without some subsistence today than it was when a larger percentage of people lived on farms and also people didn't need cars just to survive. And both dems and republicans have been helped by welfare and medicaid. I'm almost 70 and I can remember old timers that were greatful for the help they received from FDR's policies. Things were really bad when FDR was elected after several republican administrations having been in office and the wealth distribution more and more favoring the very wealthy much as we have at present.
I think this nastiness and hatred for people in need like you display really got started around the time of Reagan getting into politics and talking about government being the problem even though he didn't mind being a big spender himself once he got in the white house.


“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[High_Gravity]

My slut step granddaughter has made so much money that her sister is getting a divorce so she can start making the big money too.

lol at slut step grand daughter, I love you Katz!

 

[LilOlLady]

wow,

SNIP:

Living the good life

Reported by: Chris Papst

Email: [email protected]


Contributor: Nate Wardle


Published: 2/04 9:34 pm
Updated: 2/05 10:41 pm
We’ve all heard the line that America is becoming an entitlement society or welfare state, with half of U.S. households now receiving some type of government benefit. But a CBS 21 News investigation has taken that stat one step further to show you how much people are actually getting for free.

A few years ago, reporter Chris Papst worked with a single mom who had two children. She turned down a raise because she said the extra money would decrease her government benefits. It was hard to understand why she did that, until Chris started working on this story.

“You do what you have to do as a single mom,” explained Kristina Cogan. “And that’s what I did.”

For Kristina Cogan, a single mom of two, life has been a challenge. Ever since her divorce, she has struggled to simply give her kids what they need.

So five years ago, she walked through the doors of the Department of Public Welfare and applied for welfare.

“What was it like the first time you had to walk into that office?” we asked her.

“It’s scary. You’re depending on other people,” Cogan replied.

“What if that assistance wasn’t there for you?” we continued.

“I don’t know what I would have done, I mean, it’s critical for a lot of people,” Cogan answered.

So critical that Cogan is still collecting. The Lancaster native’s in nursing school and hopes to one day free herself from the system. But she admits living a life off the government can be comfortable.

“If you’re going to get something for free, are you going to work for it?” Cogan explained. “It kind of like sucks you in. They feel like they are hopeless. They feel like they have no alternative.

It’s not hard to see why. For this story, CBS 21 researched what government programs are available to a single mother of two making $19,000 a year. What we found was incredible.

Our family would be eligible for $14,976 in free day care, another $13,400 for Head Start and Early Head Start, $7,148 in housing vouchers, $6,500 for weatherization projects, $400 to pay heating bills, $480 a year for a cell phone, with an extra $230 for a land line, and $182 in free legal advice.

The family would get more than $6,028 in food assistance and another $6,045 in medical assistance. The mother is eligible for $5,500 in Pell Grants for school with an additional $12,000 for the Education Opportunity Grant; SMART Grant; and TEACH Grant.

Our family would also get $6,800 in tax credits, and $1,900 in withholding would be returned.

Add it up and this family can get $81,589 in free assistance.

“This isn’t the American dream,” commented Matt Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Matt Brouillette is with the Commonwealth Foundation, a government watchdog group which emphasizes a safety net, not a safety hammock.

“When there are taxpayer funded programs that could give you the equivalent lifestyle of a middle-class family, why would you have an incentive to go to work?” Brouillette questioned.

Government figures show, Pennsylvania’s Welfare Department now takes up a whopping 43 percent of the state’s budget. That number is growing much faster than revenue.

Brouillette admits in our hyper-politicized culture, meaningful reform is unlikely until there’s a financial crisis, which he says is coming.

all of it here
Living the good life off of government benefits - CBS 21 News - Breaking news, sports and weather for the Harrisburg -York -Lancaster -Lebanon Pennsylvania area

And none is cash in hand. If these claims were remotely true, why do you think there are 3 million Americans homeless on the streets or in shelters. 1.3 million are children. Another are homeless vets. No one even exist on welfare. The good life?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

you said Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party when in fact he formed the Republican Party.

It's very very important to know the history of todays Republican Party to see how American it is and how unAmerican the Democratic Party is.

Democratic principles have nothing to do with American principles which is why the Democrats spied for Stalin.

The modern republican party was formed in 1856 and had nothing to do with the party Jefferson formed.

Did you learn this bunk on GlennBeck.com or something, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

so, pray tell, what were the principles of Jefferson's party that he founded? And what did he call it?

This has already been discussed.

Furthermore, Adams and Hamilton formed the Federalist Party and Jefferson and Madison formed the Democratic-Republican party in oppostion to the federalists.

All the "founders" were not of one mind as to the role of the federal government, and even had they been, they're dead buried and rotting now. Their opinions don't matter.

 

[depotoo]

The modern republican party was formed in 1856 and had nothing to do with the party Jefferson formed.

Did you learn this bunk on GlennBeck.com or something, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

so, pray tell, what were the principles of Jefferson's party that he founded? And what did he call it?

This has already been discussed.

Furthermore, Adams and Hamilton formed the Federalist Party and Jefferson and Madison formed the Democratic-Republican party in oppostion to the federalists.

All the "founders" were not of one mind as to the role of the federal government, and even had they been, they're dead buried and rotting now. Their opinions don't matter.

I asked you what Jefferson's principles were? Not the others. And since many are trying to rewrite history here, please expalin why Jefferson always referred to republican virtues and values - not democratic-republican?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

so, pray tell, what were the principles of Jefferson's party that he founded? And what did he call it?

This has already been discussed.

Furthermore, Adams and Hamilton formed the Federalist Party and Jefferson and Madison formed the Democratic-Republican party in oppostion to the federalists.

All the "founders" were not of one mind as to the role of the federal government, and even had they been, they're dead buried and rotting now. Their opinions don't matter.

I asked you what Jefferson's principles were? Not the others. And since many are trying to rewrite history here, please expalin why Jefferson always referred to republican virtues and values - not democratic-republican?

"Republican" referred to the republic, not your silly party.

 

[depotoo]

This has already been discussed.

Furthermore, Adams and Hamilton formed the Federalist Party and Jefferson and Madison formed the Democratic-Republican party in oppostion to the federalists.

All the "founders" were not of one mind as to the role of the federal government, and even had they been, they're dead buried and rotting now. Their opinions don't matter.

I asked you what Jefferson's principles were? Not the others. And since many are trying to rewrite history here, please expalin why Jefferson always referred to republican virtues and values - not democratic-republican?

"Republican" referred to the republic, not your silly party.

it was not written as "Republican". Believe what you wish, but history is there written in his hand. Now, what were his principles?

 

[LilOlLady]

Romney’s Food Stamp Stretch

Posted on September 27, 2012


Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama caused a doubling of able-bodied persons on food stamps by taking “work out of the food stamps requirement.” That’s an exaggeration. All but four states had already received waivers from specific work requirements for some or all of their residents before Obama became president. …
More >>


Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures. The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in …
More >>

FactCheck.org : food stamps

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I asked you what Jefferson's principles were? Not the others. And since many are trying to rewrite history here, please expalin why Jefferson always referred to republican virtues and values - not democratic-republican?

"Republican" referred to the republic, not your silly party.

it was not written as "Republican". Believe what you wish, but history is there written in his hand. Now, what were his principles?

Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

 

[depotoo]

"Republican" referred to the republic, not your silly party.

it was not written as "Republican". Believe what you wish, but history is there written in his hand. Now, what were his principles?

Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

a link does not answer my question as to what you felt his beliefs were. Your interpretation.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

it was not written as "Republican". Believe what you wish, but history is there written in his hand. Now, what were his principles?

Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

a link does not answer my question as to what you felt his beliefs were. Your interpretation.

I really don't feel like writing a thesis here, so a link will have to do you.

 

[jillian]

Brouillette admits in our hyper-politicized culture, meaningful reform is unlikely until there’s a financial crisis, which he says is coming.

maybe that why this government is stocking up on so much ammunition and trying to push gun bans so bad?

anyway, people better prepare

funny when steffie is the one who gets government checks.

 

[depotoo]

Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

a link does not answer my question as to what you felt his beliefs were. Your interpretation.

I really don't feel like writing a thesis here, so a link will have to do you.

so I will take that to mean you wish not to discuss what his principles were. You see, I have read many of his personal writings.