Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy.

[JoeB131]

Fair enough. So what policy(s) have Republicans sponsored that contributed to government dependency?

As to your unemployment numbers, no state is totally Republican or Democrat. They are pretty close in most cases. Also, one of the biggest contributors to todays unemployment numbers are those who dropped out of the workforce. If enough people drop out of the workforce, that lowers the unemployment rate be it state or federal. If the "out of workforce" numbers were the same today as when DumBama took office, our unemployment rate would probably be closer to the 7% range.

So what your numbers may also suggest is that less people are dropping out of the workforce in Republican states than Democrat states.

Not this tired lie again...

Guy, the Workforce participation number has been dropping since 1999. Long before Obama got there.

Prior to the 1970's, it was well below where it is now because men brought home good union paychecks and their wives could stay home with the kids. Then you genius fucking republicans thought, "Hey, those union guys are making too much. Free markets." and when those union jobs started vanishing either due to union busting or outsourcing, a lot of those ladies had to drop what they were doing and earn a paycheck.

Now the rate is dropping, partially because free trade is eliminating more of those service jobs, partially because we are having a lot more people aging out of the workforce and yes, partially because the economy never recovered fully from Bush's Second Recession.

But if you want to see what is REALLY causing increased government dependency, it's this...

Please note, adjusted for inflation, working wages peaked in 1970's, dropped quite a bit during Ford's recession... continued to get driven down under Raygun and Bush, stayed flat under Dubya... and they only really went up under Clinton and Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled to the contrary time and again. I will defer to their opinion in this instance.

Actualy, it's only ruled that way once. Other rulings have indicated that gun ownership is not a "right". - Miller v. US, etc,

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap and Hillary is going to appoint his replacement, that'll be an end to that foolishness.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not much difference, but it suggests that states that mix up their politics are likely to do better here.

Nothing suggests that left or right in these matters makes much difference.

Yes, there is a thing about dependency. You have to remember here, I'm not saying Democrats haven't had their share of causing problems. You're saying they are TOTALLY responsible. I'm saying that they're HALF responsible and Republicans share the other half.

Fair enough. So what policy(s) have Republicans sponsored that contributed to government dependency?

As to your unemployment numbers, no state is totally Republican or Democrat. They are pretty close in most cases. Also, one of the biggest contributors to todays unemployment numbers are those who dropped out of the workforce. If enough people drop out of the workforce, that lowers the unemployment rate be it state or federal. If the "out of workforce" numbers were the same today as when DumBama took office, our unemployment rate would probably be closer to the 7% range.

So what your numbers may also suggest is that less people are dropping out of the workforce in Republican states than Democrat states.

Well, we'd be looking at money to those who simply don't need it.

Farmers.
Defense industry, basically starting wars and making enemies just to keep the industry happy. The offshoot is that you end up with lots of people losing limbs and ending up on welfare for veterans anyway, which is going to cost the country an absolute fortune.
Large corporations, party due to the country competing against itself and paying companies to be in locations.

You know, that sort of thing.

No state is truly Democratic or Republican, but the people passing the laws are. You can see patterns, like Republican politicians in Southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi making completely whacko laws.

Unemployment is different to not being in employment. If a person makes it rich and doesn't work and doesn't collect unemployment benefits, they're not unemployed. That's why you have unemployment statistics. The number of people not in employment but not unemployed doesn't matter so much, unless of course the Republicans or Democrats decided to go on about it and confuse the hell out of people.

 

[Kondor3]

...The founders did not mean exclusively for the militia...

Or, alternatively, the Founders intended that The People comprise the ultimate militia in the United States; as they did a few years prior, at the outbreak of the Revolution.

...Even the founders realized that we would not have militias forever. Militias would eventually evolve into a military which the founders wanted citizens to have equal firepower against...

Disagree about militias; there was a strong element that was dead-set against standing armies.

Agree about many of them favoring a populace sufficiently well-armed to resist or revolt again, if need be.

...I'm here to tell you most of our problems stem from liberalism.

Left to its own devices, conservatism tends to rape the economy and oppress The People, sooner or later.

Left to its own devices, liberalism tends to create terrible welfare dependencies to perpetuate its political power.

As with most things, The Truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Kondor3]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled to the contrary time and again. I will defer to their opinion in this instance.

Actualy, it's only ruled that way once. Other rulings have indicated that gun ownership is not a "right". - Miller v. US, etc,

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap and Hillary is going to appoint his replacement, that'll be an end to that foolishness.

Wake me up when that happens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...Take the 2A. The right claim it means something it clearly does not mean, bear arms does not mean carry arms, it means militia duty...

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled to the contrary time and again. I will defer to their opinion in this instance.

... ...However the left then fight against the right by attacking what the right say, and not knowing what it means either. A massive mess.

Indeed. Both Left and Right are oftentimes guilty of this, in any number of contexts.

I'd like to see where the US Supreme Court has ruled "time and again" (this means what, at least 3 times) that it doesn't mean militia duty.

 

[JoeB131]

You mean like unions that create situations where shitty employees can't be gotten rid of without an act of congress?

again, I've seen too many shitty employees kept around because they are pals with the boss, and too many good employees fucked over for petty reasons. Unions aren't the problem in the workforce.

If 40% of those households have someone working, they don't need food stamps. If they do, tells me the one working isn't offering much in the way of skills.

If the only job someone can get is Walmart of McDonalds, tells me they don't have much to offer in skills.

No, it tells me that big corporations will screw working people. We have adjunct professors on food stamps and pilots selling their blood plasma.

Most born out of wedlock have their fathers in their lives? Prove it. If they do, then why do those of us not those fathers get the bill when the mother raising them can't support herself or her kids. If he's in the life of his child, wouldn't that mean the costs to the rest of us wouldn't be there? That's right. You say things that aren't true then expect the rest of us to believe you.

For Millennials, Out-of-Wedlock Childbirth Is the Norm. Now What? 

Not all of those mothers were single: Many were living with partners. Among high school graduates, depicted in the chart below, for instance, 28 percent of children were born to cohabiting couples. Combine that with the 41 percent of children born to married couples, then most babies were born into two-parent households.

actually, you repeat whatever shit you heard on Hate Radio and think it's true. that's kind of the problem.

The first problem is you think that there's a permanent welfare class. there isn't. Welfare isn't a hammock, it's a safety net.

http://www.newsleader.com/story/opi...6/04/people-welfare-use-temporarily/28494357/

This new data follows participation from 2009 to 2012. And it reveals, across those four years, that the vast majority of people receiving welfare — about 63 percent — participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for cumulatively less than 12 months. Less than 10 percent were enrolled in the program for most of that time. Similarly, about a third of people using food stamps and Medicaid were what the Census would consider “short-term program participants.” And the same is true of about a quarter of people getting housing assistance.

Of course, a big cause of this isn't out of wedlock birth, it's divorce..

Reason: In-depth study: After divorce, 44% of women fell into poverty

The income decline that follows divorce, particularly among women, is well documented. Divorcing or separating mothers are 2.83 times more likely to be in poverty than those who remain married.

Following a divorce, the parent with custody of the children experiences a 52 percent drop in his or her family income.

The children of divorced mothers are less likely to earn incomes in the top third of the income distribution, regardless of where in the income distribution their parents’ income fell.

 

[JoeB131]

Wake me up when that happens.

You'll be screaming like a little bitch when it does.

 

[Kondor3]

Wake me up when that happens.

You'll be screaming like a little bitch when it does.

Nasty little phukker this morning, aren't you, Princess? Personally, I neither own nor practice with firearms; I have no skin in this game; other than the Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean like unions that create situations where shitty employees can't be gotten rid of without an act of congress?

again, I've seen too many shitty employees kept around because they are pals with the boss, and too many good employees fucked over for petty reasons. Unions aren't the problem in the workforce.

If 40% of those households have someone working, they don't need food stamps. If they do, tells me the one working isn't offering much in the way of skills.

If the only job someone can get is Walmart of McDonalds, tells me they don't have much to offer in skills.

No, it tells me that big corporations will screw working people. We have adjunct professors on food stamps and pilots selling their blood plasma.

Most born out of wedlock have their fathers in their lives? Prove it. If they do, then why do those of us not those fathers get the bill when the mother raising them can't support herself or her kids. If he's in the life of his child, wouldn't that mean the costs to the rest of us wouldn't be there? That's right. You say things that aren't true then expect the rest of us to believe you.

For Millennials, Out-of-Wedlock Childbirth Is the Norm. Now What?

Not all of those mothers were single: Many were living with partners. Among high school graduates, depicted in the chart below, for instance, 28 percent of children were born to cohabiting couples. Combine that with the 41 percent of children born to married couples, then most babies were born into two-parent households.

actually, you repeat whatever shit you heard on Hate Radio and think it's true. that's kind of the problem.

The first problem is you think that there's a permanent welfare class. there isn't. Welfare isn't a hammock, it's a safety net.

http://www.newsleader.com/story/opi...6/04/people-welfare-use-temporarily/28494357/

This new data follows participation from 2009 to 2012. And it reveals, across those four years, that the vast majority of people receiving welfare — about 63 percent — participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for cumulatively less than 12 months. Less than 10 percent were enrolled in the program for most of that time. Similarly, about a third of people using food stamps and Medicaid were what the Census would consider “short-term program participants.” And the same is true of about a quarter of people getting housing assistance.

Of course, a big cause of this isn't out of wedlock birth, it's divorce..

Reason: In-depth study: After divorce, 44% of women fell into poverty

The income decline that follows divorce, particularly among women, is well documented. Divorcing or separating mothers are 2.83 times more likely to be in poverty than those who remain married.

Following a divorce, the parent with custody of the children experiences a 52 percent drop in his or her family income.

The children of divorced mothers are less likely to earn incomes in the top third of the income distribution, regardless of where in the income distribution their parents’ income fell.

What it amounts to is you were one of those shitty employees that though more highly of yourself than you were worth and got mad when they let you go.

Social welfare isn't a safety net. It's a way of life. It the safety net part were true, residents of these government housing complexes wouldn't be lifelong residents.

Bastards births are becoming the norm. If the ones having them know the government will force someone else to support their kids, what's to stop them from having more and more. Nothing.

Does the responsibility for supporting someone's kids fall on the rest of us because of a divorce? No.

 

[JoeB131]

What it amounts to is you were one of those shitty employees that though more highly of yourself than you were worth and got mad when they let you go.

Naw, what got me mad is the people who fucked it up and lost the big account that I worked on (like the 6 figure sales rep who never visited the customer) got to keep their jobs and the folks like me who did the hard work didn't.

So I'm done marvelling at how impressed the 1% is with itself

Social welfare isn't a safety net. It's a way of life. It the safety net part were true, residents of these government housing complexes wouldn't be lifelong residents.

You do realize they tore those down years ago and are using scattered site housing now, right?

Bastards births are becoming the norm. If the ones having them know the government will force someone else to support their kids, what's to stop them from having more and more. Nothing.

Again, you traffic in hate radio stereotypes... when most people on welfare are on it for only a short time... No one is having "Welfare babies", dude. Thats a racist fantasy by people who like to think they are better off, but are just one paycheck away from ruin themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What it amounts to is you were one of those shitty employees that though more highly of yourself than you were worth and got mad when they let you go.

Naw, what got me mad is the people who fucked it up and lost the big account that I worked on (like the 6 figure sales rep who never visited the customer) got to keep their jobs and the folks like me who did the hard work didn't.

So I'm done marvelling at how impressed the 1% is with itself

Social welfare isn't a safety net. It's a way of life. It the safety net part were true, residents of these government housing complexes wouldn't be lifelong residents.

You do realize they tore those down years ago and are using scattered site housing now, right?

Bastards births are becoming the norm. If the ones having them know the government will force someone else to support their kids, what's to stop them from having more and more. Nothing.

Again, you traffic in hate radio stereotypes... when most people on welfare are on it for only a short time... No one is having "Welfare babies", dude. Thats a racist fantasy by people who like to think they are better off, but are just one paycheck away from ruin themselves.

You do realize they tore those down years ago and are using scattered site housing now, right?

Not here they're not. Plenty of project buildings throughout Ohio.

Again, you traffic in hate radio stereotypes... when most people on welfare are on it for only a short time...

Right, it's just a coincidence that when they come to the grocery store, they have three or four kids with them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean like unions that create situations where shitty employees can't be gotten rid of without an act of congress?

again, I've seen too many shitty employees kept around because they are pals with the boss, and too many good employees fucked over for petty reasons. Unions aren't the problem in the workforce.

If 40% of those households have someone working, they don't need food stamps. If they do, tells me the one working isn't offering much in the way of skills.

If the only job someone can get is Walmart of McDonalds, tells me they don't have much to offer in skills.

No, it tells me that big corporations will screw working people. We have adjunct professors on food stamps and pilots selling their blood plasma.

Most born out of wedlock have their fathers in their lives? Prove it. If they do, then why do those of us not those fathers get the bill when the mother raising them can't support herself or her kids. If he's in the life of his child, wouldn't that mean the costs to the rest of us wouldn't be there? That's right. You say things that aren't true then expect the rest of us to believe you.

For Millennials, Out-of-Wedlock Childbirth Is the Norm. Now What?

Not all of those mothers were single: Many were living with partners. Among high school graduates, depicted in the chart below, for instance, 28 percent of children were born to cohabiting couples. Combine that with the 41 percent of children born to married couples, then most babies were born into two-parent households.

actually, you repeat whatever shit you heard on Hate Radio and think it's true. that's kind of the problem.

The first problem is you think that there's a permanent welfare class. there isn't. Welfare isn't a hammock, it's a safety net.

http://www.newsleader.com/story/opi...6/04/people-welfare-use-temporarily/28494357/

This new data follows participation from 2009 to 2012. And it reveals, across those four years, that the vast majority of people receiving welfare — about 63 percent — participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for cumulatively less than 12 months. Less than 10 percent were enrolled in the program for most of that time. Similarly, about a third of people using food stamps and Medicaid were what the Census would consider “short-term program participants.” And the same is true of about a quarter of people getting housing assistance.

Of course, a big cause of this isn't out of wedlock birth, it's divorce..

Reason: In-depth study: After divorce, 44% of women fell into poverty

The income decline that follows divorce, particularly among women, is well documented. Divorcing or separating mothers are 2.83 times more likely to be in poverty than those who remain married.

Following a divorce, the parent with custody of the children experiences a 52 percent drop in his or her family income.

The children of divorced mothers are less likely to earn incomes in the top third of the income distribution, regardless of where in the income distribution their parents’ income fell.

No, it tells me that big corporations will screw working people. We have adjunct professors on food stamps and pilots selling their blood plasma.

again, I've seen too many shitty employees kept around because they are pals with the boss, and too many good employees fucked over for petty reasons. Unions aren't the problem in the workforce.

That is utter bull. Unions are what helped close down shops and making them move out of state or out of the country. We've lost several customers because of stupid unions.

As a truck driver, I could write a book on union workers; much of it comedy because it's so unrealistic to believe. If I went to make a delivery to a company I was totally unfamiliar with, I could tell you within ten minutes if they were union or not simply by the attitude of the workers--particularly shipping and receiving.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unemployment is different to not being in employment. If a person makes it rich and doesn't work and doesn't collect unemployment benefits, they're not unemployed. That's why you have unemployment statistics. The number of people not in employment but not unemployed doesn't matter so much, unless of course the Republicans or Democrats decided to go on about it and confuse the hell out of people.

Nope, it's the way they've been taking those surveys for years.

If you are out of a job and looking for one, you are considered part of the workforce. If you are not working nor looking for a job, you are not in the workforce. It doesn't matter whether you are collecting unemployment or not. Believe it or not, many of the unemployed never collect unemployment.

Many jobless in U.S. don't collect unemployment

So unemployment is calculated basically by those in the workforce not working and looking for work. If you would add all those people not considered in the workforce, your unemployment numbers would be much higher.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actualy, it's only ruled that way once. Other rulings have indicated that gun ownership is not a "right". - Miller v. US, etc,

Now that Scalia is taking a dirt nap and Hillary is going to appoint his replacement, that'll be an end to that foolishness.

And if that does happen, criminals will be throwing a party coast to coast.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fair enough. So what policy(s) have Republicans sponsored that contributed to government dependency?

As to your unemployment numbers, no state is totally Republican or Democrat. They are pretty close in most cases. Also, one of the biggest contributors to todays unemployment numbers are those who dropped out of the workforce. If enough people drop out of the workforce, that lowers the unemployment rate be it state or federal. If the "out of workforce" numbers were the same today as when DumBama took office, our unemployment rate would probably be closer to the 7% range.

So what your numbers may also suggest is that less people are dropping out of the workforce in Republican states than Democrat states.

Not this tired lie again...

Guy, the Workforce participation number has been dropping since 1999. Long before Obama got there.

Prior to the 1970's, it was well below where it is now because men brought home good union paychecks and their wives could stay home with the kids. Then you genius fucking republicans thought, "Hey, those union guys are making too much. Free markets." and when those union jobs started vanishing either due to union busting or outsourcing, a lot of those ladies had to drop what they were doing and earn a paycheck.

Now the rate is dropping, partially because free trade is eliminating more of those service jobs, partially because we are having a lot more people aging out of the workforce and yes, partially because the economy never recovered fully from Bush's Second Recession.

But if you want to see what is REALLY causing increased government dependency, it's this...

Please note, adjusted for inflation, working wages peaked in 1970's, dropped quite a bit during Ford's recession... continued to get driven down under Raygun and Bush, stayed flat under Dubya... and they only really went up under Clinton and Obama.

Not this tired lie again...

Guy, the Workforce participation number has been dropping since 1999. Long before Obama got there.

It dropped slightly, but no where near the nose dive it took after DumBama took over the White House. Look at the chart yourself.

Prior to the 1970's, it was well below where it is now because men brought home good union paychecks and their wives could stay home with the kids. Then you genius fucking republicans thought, "Hey, those union guys are making too much. Free markets." and when those union jobs started vanishing either due to union busting or outsourcing, a lot of those ladies had to drop what they were doing and earn a paycheck.

Now the rate is dropping, partially because free trade is eliminating more of those service jobs, partially because we are having a lot more people aging out of the workforce and yes, partially because the economy never recovered fully from Bush's Second Recession.

But if you want to see what is REALLY causing increased government dependency, it's this...

No, women were not forced to work in most cases. Remember it was the NOW gals that promoted working women and single-parent households. The Democrats nurtured this group for political favor, and working women became the norm. It was their decision to work instead of being a stay at home wife or mother.

Yes, the jobs pay less because consumers demanded cheaper products. We still do today. That's why Walmart is still number one and has been for some time. The American consumer chose cheap products because they didn't care where they were made or how many Americans it put out of work.

But outsourcing is less the reason for cheap labor than automation. As workers that did monkey jobs wanted more, and Democrats kept pushing for higher minimum wages, it was worth the employers money to invest in automation. Machines don't get increases in pay because Democrats are in office. Machines don't join unions. Machines don't ask for paid leave like Hillary is promising to force on industry. Machines don't count as an employee that's subject to Obama Care. Machines work 24/7 with no overtime pay.

Thanks to the push for even higher minimum wages, even places like McDonald's and Wendy's are buying machines to replace humans. In the very near future, you will not be greeted by that teenage girl at the menu window at the drive-thru. You will see a kiosk instead and you will have to punch your own order in.

Please note, adjusted for inflation, working wages peaked in 1970's, dropped quite a bit during Ford's recession... continued to get driven down under Raygun and Bush, stayed flat under Dubya... and they only really went up under Clinton and Obama.

Yes, they went up under Clinton thanks to supply and demand. According to your chart, wages did increase after Republicans regained control over Congress, but what about money coming into the household?

As we can see, median household income dropped like a rocket after DumBama took over and has never recovered since.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm here to tell you most of our problems stem from liberalism.

Then how come all the fucked up stuff- wars, recessions - only seem to happen when REpublican "conservatives" are in power.

Fair enough. So what policy(s) have Republicans sponsored that contributed to government dependency?

Well, to start with, Republicans sponsored "Right to work" laws, which has contributed to poverty. It's made it a lot easier for greedy rich people to screw over the people who do the actual work. They also support "At-Will Employment" laws that make it easier to fire people on a whim. And they, of course, are the ones who supported every bad free trade deal that came along.

It's why 40% of households that utilize food stamps have at least one person with a job.

Increased dependency on the government, which is decay, has occurred over the last 50 years. Strange that it coincides with the start of the Great Society and all sorts of social welfare programs. Are you saying Conservatives put those programs in place?

The illegitimate birth rate, a sign of decay, has increased over the past 50 years. Strange that it coincides with social welfare programs exploding. Are you saying Conservatives put those programs in place?

No, what the republicans put into place are the laws that made it easier for the wealth to shift from the working class to the investor class. You see, if you want to talk about the last 50 years, of those, Republicans have been in charge for 30 of them (Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bush Crime Family)

You see, the real problem isn't that people aren't investing in an outmoded social construct to make families. (Most children born out of wedlock have their fathers in their lives, and a lot of children born in wedlock don't, because divorce.) The problem is, those father and mothers end up working shit jobs for companies like WalMart and McDonalds, who tell their employees on their website how to apply for food stamps and section 8.

How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year

Well, to start with, Republicans sponsored "Right to work" laws, which has contributed to poverty. It's made it a lot easier for greedy rich people to screw over the people who do the actual work. They also support "At-Will Employment" laws that make it easier to fire people on a whim. And they, of course, are the ones who supported every bad free trade deal that came along.

It's why 40% of households that utilize food stamps have at least one person with a job.

For your information, Democrats supported the same trade deals. Remember it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law. Furthermore is that unions should not have the right to force potential employees into their union against their will. Unions should not have the power to force companies to overpay people working monkey jobs and promoting people that are absolutely worthless in the company because they were with the company for a length of time.

If we eliminated food stamps today, do you know what those on food stamps would do? Get a job or work more hours. Walmart nor McDonald's created these social programs and it's the politicians that are to blame for them and their abuses.

 

[JoeB131]

That is utter bull. Unions are what helped close down shops and making them move out of state or out of the country. We've lost several customers because of stupid unions.

Right. Frakly, I've never worked in a union shop outside my time in the service when I had to deal with gov. workers. I've seen plenty of non-union shops get closed down, usually because of shitty management decisions that often hastened the demise of the company.

For your information, Democrats supported the same trade deals. Remember it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law.

After Bush-41 negotiated it. And Republicans in Congress approved it.

Furthermore is that unions should not have the right to force potential employees into their union against their will. Unions should not have the power to force companies to overpay people working monkey jobs and promoting people that are absolutely worthless in the company because they were with the company for a length of time.

Why not? Frankly, I've never seen a company where they promoted on the basis of merit. The good people usually leave for better paying gigs (which is what I usually end up doing).

As far as Im concerned, "working monkeys" getting paid fair wages is better for the economy than a few rich douchebags making six and seven figures.

Guy, we've tried it your way. Everything since Ronnie Raygun has been a fucking disaster. I'm sort of done with the oky-dokes from the plutocrats....

But you'll sit there, let your boss FUCK you out of good health insurance, and blame the black guy.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, they went up under Clinton thanks to supply and demand. According to your chart, wages did increase after Republicans regained control over Congress, but what about money coming into the household?

According to your chart, the drop started under Bush and Obama actually won some ground back.. According to your chart. but obviously, "Chart Reading" isn't one of those skills you picked up.

 

[JoeB131]

No, women were not forced to work in most cases. Remember it was the NOW gals that promoted working women and single-parent households. The Democrats nurtured this group for political favor, and working women became the norm. It was their decision to work instead of being a stay at home wife or mother.

Sorry, didn't happen that way. What happened was that when Repukes stripped away all those good union jobs, Moms had to go into the workforce.

Not because of the feminists nor the gummit, but because the 1% is too fucking greedy.

But you keep greasing up your butthole for the Plutocrats, buddy.