Welfare is Unconstitutional

[The Derp]

Kansas is not the USA and a single state is a poor barometer by which to evaluate national policy.

What they did in KS is "exactly" what they want to do in DC. McConnell even said so. So explain why trickle-down would work nationally if it didn't work in KS?

Many things in Kansas definitely did improve under the tax reform:

No. Nothing improved. KS' GDP growth was below the national average. It's rate of job creation was below the national average. It's rate of business creation was below the national average. It's surpluses were erased, school funding was cut, and the jobs just weren't there.

The Kansas economy is on a par with Nebraska in the middle of the pack and significantly better than other neighboring states, Missouri and Oklahoma

Is it? You sure about that? And the promise wasn't that Kansas would tread water...the promise was that the tax cuts would create all this growth. If you're now telling me that the growth Kansas had was on par with the states that didn't cut their taxes, then how is that a defense of the tax cuts??? It just shows the fundamentals of KS' economy aren't strong.

Welfare reform in the 1990's pretty well allowed the USA to essentially balance the budget and significantly slowed down the debt clock. If similar reforms are included in the proposed tax reform at the federal level, it is likely we will see similar results.

Welfare reform changed distribution of benefits from direct-from-DC to block grants to states. States were then required to use 33% of that block grant on federal welfare programs, and the remaining 67% can be spent on state-based programs. Only, that didn't happen. Instead what happened was that Conservatives took the welfare block grant, distributed out the minimum required, then put the rest of it toward the deficits created by their tax policy. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to pay for trickle-down. Which would make Conservatism's fiscal policies entirely dependent on welfare. That's why red states want block grants...they need to fix their deficits that are caused by poor fiscal policy. If that welfare block grant gravy train were ended, all those red states that use the block grant to paper over their deficits would be forced to raise taxes and/or cut benefits, which drives people out of the state.

 

[The Derp]

Guarantees come with proof to back them up. A 5 year old can use a broom but you want an adult who has the ability to do only that to be paid more than that 5 year old gets in an allowance. Don't work like that.

It actually does work like that, despite what you think. I have a hard time believing that most jobs can be done by 5-year-olds. And why would you want 5 year olds to work? The wage people get isn't determined by the value of the work they do, it's determined by the profit margins of the company. Your theory is blown apart by the fact that productivity has increased the last 40 years, yet wages haven't. So people aren't getting paid their true value.

In my situation for those low skilled jobs, turnover isn't an issue either way.

Well, that's bullshit because employee turnover ends up costing the employer far more than if they simply just paid people more money to keep them in the jobs. You seriously expect me to believe you when you say turnover isn't bad for business? I can tell you don't know much about business if that's your thinking.

When it comes to sweeping, picking up trash, and cleaning, I don't have to have someone fill out an application. All I need to know is are they willing to work. I can teach them that, if they don't already know how, it 2 minutes. If they leave, I'll find someone else willing to do it. For those that actually provide skills in other areas, they don't leave because they get paid what those skills are worth and it's very good.

But again, a business isn't paying people according to their productivity. A business is paying people according to their margins. So the true cost of labor is obscured by that because of the social safety net, which keeps pressure on wages to be low. That's how Walmart made $14B in profit last year instead of $8B.

Wages won't change.

Of course they'll change! If you got rid of the social safety net, how are you making up for that gap? Are you lowering living standards? Are you price-fixing? These are things you support?

Workers will especially those that now know if they want that LW they'll have to earn it. Most will figure out they have to finally do something and those that don't, well, the laws of nature will fix that.

So that's very lazy thinking and just articulates that your views are shaped by faith and not facts. You have a sort of "let the chips fall where they may" because you don't want to have to do the hard work of thinking critically. Because you're lazy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kansas is not the USA and a single state is a poor barometer by which to evaluate national policy.

What they did in KS is "exactly" what they want to do in DC. McConnell even said so. So explain why trickle-down would work nationally if it didn't work in KS?

Many things in Kansas definitely did improve under the tax reform:

No. Nothing improved. KS' GDP growth was below the national average. It's rate of job creation was below the national average. It's rate of business creation was below the national average. It's surpluses were erased, school funding was cut, and the jobs just weren't there.

The Kansas economy is on a par with Nebraska in the middle of the pack and significantly better than other neighboring states, Missouri and Oklahoma

Is it? You sure about that? And the promise wasn't that Kansas would tread water...the promise was that the tax cuts would create all this growth. If you're now telling me that the growth Kansas had was on par with the states that didn't cut their taxes, then how is that a defense of the tax cuts??? It just shows the fundamentals of KS' economy aren't strong.

Welfare reform in the 1990's pretty well allowed the USA to essentially balance the budget and significantly slowed down the debt clock. If similar reforms are included in the proposed tax reform at the federal level, it is likely we will see similar results.

Welfare reform changed distribution of benefits from direct-from-DC to block grants to states. States were then required to use 33% of that block grant on federal welfare programs, and the remaining 67% can be spent on state-based programs. Only, that didn't happen. Instead what happened was that Conservatives took the welfare block grant, distributed out the minimum required, then put the rest of it toward the deficits created by their tax policy. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to pay for trickle-down. Which would make Conservatism's fiscal policies entirely dependent on welfare. That's why red states want block grants...they need to fix their deficits that are caused by poor fiscal policy. If that welfare block grant gravy train were ended, all those red states that use the block grant to paper over their deficits would be forced to raise taxes and/or cut benefits, which drives people out of the state.

Sorry, I don't respond to chopped up posts, most especially when they take things out of context or include a lot of non sequitur that I didn't say. If there is a question in there somewhere, please respond to my post in its full context and I will happily respond.

 

[The Derp]

Sorry, I don't respond to chopped up posts, most especially when they take things out of context or include a lot of non sequitur that I didn't say. If there is a question in there somewhere, please respond to my post in its full context and I will happily respond.

Sigh...OK. Then I'll boil it down to one simple point:

The Brownback Tax Cuts weren't sold as a means for Kansas' economy to merely tread water. The promise was that cutting taxes would create all this stupendous growth. If you're now telling me the growth between Kansas and states that didn't cut there taxes isn't much different, then how is that a defense of tax cuts and not an indictment of Kansas' weak economic fundamentals?

 

[Conservative65]

So learning 2 + 2 = 4 is different in NY vs. TX? Does 2 + 2 = 5 in NY?

No, but learning about Climate Change in NY vs. not learning about it in TX gives advantage to the TX student in the global economy, how?

Is learning about the Revolutionary War teaching different material in TX vs. NY? Does NY teach that Independence Day is something other than July 4?

No, but learning different reasons as to why there was a revolution does result in different outcomes. Your experience with education only seems to be skin-deep. You forego the details for the broad strokes. So yes, both students in NY and TX learn that the US declared its independence on July 4th, yet students in NY learn that we declared our independence on the principle of no taxation without representation, whereas students in TX learn that we declared our independence because Jesus. So who is disadvantaged in that scenario?

If the Constitution doesn't delegate to the federal government the authority to deal with either healthcare or education, in essence and according to the Constitution making it a reserved power of the States, your argument "if should" is irrelevant and invalid.

See, that's where we disagree because it certainly does delegate federal authority thusly. The 10th Amendment argument is wholly stupid because it was written at a time when commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders, people rarely traveled outside of their geographic location, the best way to get in touch with someone was to send a carrier pigeon. Obviously, all of that is different today. When you can sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Miami, pay for it with a credit card based in Delaware, and have it shipped by a company based in Texas, you're already acknowledging that state borders don't matter when it comes to commerce. So why the fuck should they matter when it comes to education and health care? Do you think teaching kids different things in all 50 states gives those students the advantages to compete in the global economy?

There's an easy way to solve the disagreement. If you want someone to have healthcare that currently doesn't have it because they SAY they can't afford it, write a check on their behalf. If someone's kid can't go to college because his/her parents refuse to fund it, write a check on their behalf. It's really that simple.

So you think health care and education are privileges, OK. So what if a student is a high achiever, yet comes from a poor home...you're saying that child shouldn't get education and health care and instead have to rely on the benevolence of others??? WTF??? You realize the totality of all charitble giving doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget, right? And that's with the massive charitable tax break people already get and includes all forms of charity including the NYC Ballet and tithing to the Mormon Church...which isn't a charity.

The results can't be anything but the same if the same material is taught? Your examples are foolish and nothing more than a big government leftist proving he hasn't a clue. Any differences would be with things that can't be controlled.

You simply don't like the 10th Amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative of "big government good". You're using the "it should be" argument. Doesn't work that way.

If that kid is a high achiever, there are more than enough scholarships available to cover the costs. Seems you're saying that because someone won't do for their children what the rest of us don't mind doing it's OK to force the taxpayers to do it for them?

That charitable giving isn't to the level you think it should be doesn't mean, by default, the government has the right to say "you didn't give enough so we'll tell you how much you should have given". If you care as much as you claim, write a check. If I don't do what you think I should, YOU make up the difference.

 

[The Derp]

The results can't be anything but the same if the same material is taught?

No, it's not stupid. That was my point. You don't seem to "get" education. Merely memorizing that the US declared its independence is not the same thing as learning why we did. The why is where you disadvantage students because you cheat them out of detail. So what ends up happening is you get a whole slew of people who think that the ends justify the means. And that's dangerous. And stupid. And childish.

Your examples are foolish and nothing more than a big government leftist proving he hasn't a clue. Any differences would be with things that can't be controlled.

Well, you didn't even fucking read what I wrote, clearly, so I'm not expecting you to respond with any intelligence. You don't seem to be able to reconcile that the US of 2017 bears little resemblance to the US of 1776. I think you think that way because you're too lazy to think critically about your beliefs. So no self-criticism means what you believe is actually dogma. And dogma = shit. People in Kansas don't get a different kind of lung cancer than people in Georgia, so why do you think they do?

You simply don't like the 10th Amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative of "big government good". You're using the "it should be" argument. Doesn't work that way.

No, I don't like your 10th Amendment argument because it's stupid. In 1776, commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders. It does now. So applying an 18th century standard to a 21st century issue is laziness. You are lazy. But it's OK...most Conservatives are.

If that kid is a high achiever, there are more than enough scholarships available to cover the costs.

No. Not really. There are Pell Grants...which you want to eliminate, right? So having to rely on the benevolence of strangers is no way to conduct policy. it's fanciful, faith-based, wishful thinking that is clearly disproved by reality. We already give massively generous tax breaks for charitable giving, yet the totality of all charitable giving in the US doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget. And that's all charitable giving like tithing to the church, which isn't a charity.

Seems you're saying that because someone won't do for their children what the rest of us don't mind doing it's OK to force the taxpayers to do it for them?

You're not being forced to do shit. Unless you're in the 1% (which you clearly and obviously aren't), then you're not paying for anything. Of course, you probably think of yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". Any day now that shitty idea you had is gonna pay off, right? That's your thinking? So you're protecting yourself in the event you actually become a success. What happens if you're not? Then you just shit all over yourself for no good reason apart from pride. Get over yourself.

That charitable giving isn't to the level you think it should be

It's not what I think it should be, it's that it doesn't come close to meeting the needs. That's what you don't get. You think magically, people will just give money to charity if we suddenly cut benefits? In what world do you imagine that happening? We already give massive charitable tax breaks and all the giving in the US doesn't even come close to the budget required for one of the most essential benefits programs (Medicaid). So from where is all this charity going to come if it hasn't already? Have you ever thought of that? Of course not. You only think about yourself.

doesn't mean, by default, the government has the right to say "you didn't give enough so we'll tell you how much you should have given". If you care as much as you claim, write a check. If I don't do what you think I should, YOU make up the difference.

Fuck you. Firstly, that's a fucking lazy argument to make. Secondly, you're the one who thinks charity can make up the gap when we already allow 100% of charitable tax deductions. And even doing that doesn't result in what's needed to provide the most basic essential things. You live in a fantasy world. That's because your thinking is informed by faith. And faith runs in direct contradiction to critical thinking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, I don't respond to chopped up posts, most especially when they take things out of context or include a lot of non sequitur that I didn't say. If there is a question in there somewhere, please respond to my post in its full context and I will happily respond.

Sigh...OK. Then I'll boil it down to one simple point:

The Brownback Tax Cuts weren't sold as a means for Kansas' economy to merely tread water. The promise was that cutting taxes would create all this stupendous growth. If you're now telling me the growth between Kansas and states that didn't cut there taxes isn't much different, then how is that a defense of tax cuts and not an indictment of Kansas' weak economic fundamentals?

And you completely ignored my comments about how some ill advised policy in that legislation had unintended negative results.

Tax cuts in and of themselves don't necessarily accomplish much of anything. But properly applied and intelligent tax policy will indeed generate more economic prosperity.

Reagan raised taxes on promise that Congress would cut spending when he first took office with dismal results. He then cut a deal with Tip O'Neill to cut targeted taxes in return for some spending Congress wanted to do. We never got those budget cuts--we did get a lot of new spending--but the tax cuts generated economic activity resulting in billions of additional revenue for the treasury.

Bill Clinton was headed for a failed presidency when he was fortunate enough to get a big batch of reform minded Republicans plus about 30 conservative Democrats led by Tim Penny of Minnesota who dragged him kicking and screaming into welfare reform and also pushed through significant tax reform to lower capital gains taxes. Clinton to his credit eventually, after several vetoes, signed the legislation.

The result, vast amounts of revenue into the U.S. treasury and pretty much a balanced budget.

It was not the tax cuts that hurt Kansas but rather the ill advised way that it was done. And it didn't take into account the negative impact of Obamacare and other really bad federal policy. But evenso the Kansas economy has hung in there really well considering the dismal economy across the USA as a whole.

 

[Conservative65]

The results can't be anything but the same if the same material is taught?

No, it's not stupid. That was my point. You don't seem to "get" education. Merely memorizing that the US declared its independence is not the same thing as learning why we did. The why is where you disadvantage students because you cheat them out of detail. So what ends up happening is you get a whole slew of people who think that the ends justify the means. And that's dangerous. And stupid. And childish.

Your examples are foolish and nothing more than a big government leftist proving he hasn't a clue. Any differences would be with things that can't be controlled.

Well, you didn't even fucking read what I wrote, clearly, so I'm not expecting you to respond with any intelligence. You don't seem to be able to reconcile that the US of 2017 bears little resemblance to the US of 1776. I think you think that way because you're too lazy to think critically about your beliefs. So no self-criticism means what you believe is actually dogma. And dogma = shit. People in Kansas don't get a different kind of lung cancer than people in Georgia, so why do you think they do?

You simply don't like the 10th Amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative of "big government good". You're using the "it should be" argument. Doesn't work that way.

No, I don't like your 10th Amendment argument because it's stupid. In 1776, commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders. It does now. So applying an 18th century standard to a 21st century issue is laziness. You are lazy. But it's OK...most Conservatives are.

If that kid is a high achiever, there are more than enough scholarships available to cover the costs.

No. Not really. There are Pell Grants...which you want to eliminate, right? So having to rely on the benevolence of strangers is no way to conduct policy. it's fanciful, faith-based, wishful thinking that is clearly disproved by reality. We already give massively generous tax breaks for charitable giving, yet the totality of all charitable giving in the US doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget. And that's all charitable giving like tithing to the church, which isn't a charity.

Seems you're saying that because someone won't do for their children what the rest of us don't mind doing it's OK to force the taxpayers to do it for them?

You're not being forced to do shit. Unless you're in the 1% (which you clearly and obviously aren't), then you're not paying for anything. Of course, you probably think of yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". Any day now that shitty idea you had is gonna pay off, right? That's your thinking? So you're protecting yourself in the event you actually become a success. What happens if you're not? Then you just shit all over yourself for no good reason apart from pride. Get over yourself.

That charitable giving isn't to the level you think it should be

It's not what I think it should be, it's that it doesn't come close to meeting the needs. That's what you don't get. You think magically, people will just give money to charity if we suddenly cut benefits? In what world do you imagine that happening? We already give massive charitable tax breaks and all the giving in the US doesn't even come close to the budget required for one of the most essential benefits programs (Medicaid). So from where is all this charity going to come if it hasn't already? Have you ever thought of that? Of course not. You only think about yourself.

doesn't mean, by default, the government has the right to say "you didn't give enough so we'll tell you how much you should have given". If you care as much as you claim, write a check. If I don't do what you think I should, YOU make up the difference.

Fuck you. Firstly, that's a fucking lazy argument to make. Secondly, you're the one who thinks charity can make up the gap when we already allow 100% of charitable tax deductions. And even doing that doesn't result in what's needed to provide the most basic essential things. You live in a fantasy world. That's because your thinking is informed by faith. And faith runs in direct contradiction to critical thinking.

I don't really give a shit if those unwilling to do for themselves have an ounce of food to eat, their kids go to college, or they have anything they want. If they aren't willing to do for themselves, that's their problem and not the responsibility of anyone else to make up for their not wanting to do what they should be doing.

Damn right I think about myself and my family. THEY are my ONLY responsibility. Someone else's choices and someone else's unwilling to do aren't. If what they choose to do it their life produces results they don't like, tough shit. Poor planning on their part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine.

I live in the real world. People like you and the POS leeches you support live in the fantasy world that because they don't have what they want others are somehow supposed to meet that need. I've provided a way, if you truly care, to show you care by providing for them with YOUR money. If you're unwilling to do that, you and all those unwilling to provide for themselves go together. Two entities that expect others to do more for them than they are willing to do for themselves.

How sad it must be to know that the only way you have something in life or a place to sleep or food to eat or clothing on your children's backs is because someone else that didn't produce the results your choices did is expected to pay for those choices while you sit back and beg for more.

 

[Foxfyre]

The results can't be anything but the same if the same material is taught?

No, it's not stupid. That was my point. You don't seem to "get" education. Merely memorizing that the US declared its independence is not the same thing as learning why we did. The why is where you disadvantage students because you cheat them out of detail. So what ends up happening is you get a whole slew of people who think that the ends justify the means. And that's dangerous. And stupid. And childish.

Your examples are foolish and nothing more than a big government leftist proving he hasn't a clue. Any differences would be with things that can't be controlled.

Well, you didn't even fucking read what I wrote, clearly, so I'm not expecting you to respond with any intelligence. You don't seem to be able to reconcile that the US of 2017 bears little resemblance to the US of 1776. I think you think that way because you're too lazy to think critically about your beliefs. So no self-criticism means what you believe is actually dogma. And dogma = shit. People in Kansas don't get a different kind of lung cancer than people in Georgia, so why do you think they do?

You simply don't like the 10th Amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative of "big government good". You're using the "it should be" argument. Doesn't work that way.

No, I don't like your 10th Amendment argument because it's stupid. In 1776, commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders. It does now. So applying an 18th century standard to a 21st century issue is laziness. You are lazy. But it's OK...most Conservatives are.

If that kid is a high achiever, there are more than enough scholarships available to cover the costs.

No. Not really. There are Pell Grants...which you want to eliminate, right? So having to rely on the benevolence of strangers is no way to conduct policy. it's fanciful, faith-based, wishful thinking that is clearly disproved by reality. We already give massively generous tax breaks for charitable giving, yet the totality of all charitable giving in the US doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget. And that's all charitable giving like tithing to the church, which isn't a charity.

Seems you're saying that because someone won't do for their children what the rest of us don't mind doing it's OK to force the taxpayers to do it for them?

You're not being forced to do shit. Unless you're in the 1% (which you clearly and obviously aren't), then you're not paying for anything. Of course, you probably think of yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". Any day now that shitty idea you had is gonna pay off, right? That's your thinking? So you're protecting yourself in the event you actually become a success. What happens if you're not? Then you just shit all over yourself for no good reason apart from pride. Get over yourself.

That charitable giving isn't to the level you think it should be

It's not what I think it should be, it's that it doesn't come close to meeting the needs. That's what you don't get. You think magically, people will just give money to charity if we suddenly cut benefits? In what world do you imagine that happening? We already give massive charitable tax breaks and all the giving in the US doesn't even come close to the budget required for one of the most essential benefits programs (Medicaid). So from where is all this charity going to come if it hasn't already? Have you ever thought of that? Of course not. You only think about yourself.

doesn't mean, by default, the government has the right to say "you didn't give enough so we'll tell you how much you should have given". If you care as much as you claim, write a check. If I don't do what you think I should, YOU make up the difference.

Fuck you. Firstly, that's a fucking lazy argument to make. Secondly, you're the one who thinks charity can make up the gap when we already allow 100% of charitable tax deductions. And even doing that doesn't result in what's needed to provide the most basic essential things. You live in a fantasy world. That's because your thinking is informed by faith. And faith runs in direct contradiction to critical thinking.

I don't really give a shit if those unwilling to do for themselves have an ounce of food to eat, their kids go to college, or they have anything they want. If they aren't willing to do for themselves, that's their problem and not the responsibility of anyone else to make up for their not wanting to do what they should be doing.

Damn right I think about myself and my family. THEY are my ONLY responsibility. Someone else's choices and someone else's unwilling to do aren't. If what they choose to do it their life produces results they don't like, tough shit. Poor planning on their part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine.

I live in the real world. People like you and the POS leeches you support live in the fantasy world that because they don't have what they want others are somehow supposed to meet that need. I've provided a way, if you truly care, to show you care by providing for them with YOUR money. If you're unwilling to do that, you and all those unwilling to provide for themselves go together. Two entities that expect others to do more for them than they are willing to do for themselves.

How sad it must be to know that the only way you have something in life or a place to sleep or food to eat or clothing on your children's backs is because someone else that didn't produce the results your choices did is expected to pay for those choices while you sit back and beg for more.

I'm with that but not quite as hard nosed as you. I have been privileged for some years to work with welfare families, almost all single parent families, who are willing to accept a mentor to teach some basic skills such as budgeting, couponing, diet and nutrition etc. where many are woefully deficient.

And more often than not it is thankless work pretty much whistling in the wind producing little of value. What makes it worth while is the fairly rare person who really is interested in being the best she can be.

I have come to believe that many of those unwilling to help themselves are literally trained to to be that way. Almost every one grows up not seeing a parent or parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up and appropriately dressed and go off to work as what people are supposed to do. They see Mom get a government check or in some other way government programs that keep a roof over their heads and some food in the refrigerator. Many have computers, smart phones, televisions, the kids might have an Xbox.

With essentially no positive role models and a constant media barrage of how the rich exploit the poor, how President Trump (or whomever) and the Republicans (or whomever) hate the poor, how they can't expect a fair shake in the world, how oppressed they are, what a shitty deal they have gotten because of selfish, greedy people or corporations, something switches off in their heads.

Most quit school without graduating and many have never held a real job for any length of time. Even those who don't get hooked on booze or drugs simply cannot see past their tunnel vision of victimization and how unfair it all is and they deserve that subsidized or free housing, those food stamps, that government check, etc.

What we need is a government program supplemented by all service/social agencies to start reprogramming them.

As you said, instill a sense of personal responsibility again. A real man and woman get married and support themselves, and raise their children to be productive citizens. And teach them the keys to accomplish that and offer a hand up where warranted.

 

[Conservative65]

The results can't be anything but the same if the same material is taught?

No, it's not stupid. That was my point. You don't seem to "get" education. Merely memorizing that the US declared its independence is not the same thing as learning why we did. The why is where you disadvantage students because you cheat them out of detail. So what ends up happening is you get a whole slew of people who think that the ends justify the means. And that's dangerous. And stupid. And childish.

Your examples are foolish and nothing more than a big government leftist proving he hasn't a clue. Any differences would be with things that can't be controlled.

Well, you didn't even fucking read what I wrote, clearly, so I'm not expecting you to respond with any intelligence. You don't seem to be able to reconcile that the US of 2017 bears little resemblance to the US of 1776. I think you think that way because you're too lazy to think critically about your beliefs. So no self-criticism means what you believe is actually dogma. And dogma = shit. People in Kansas don't get a different kind of lung cancer than people in Georgia, so why do you think they do?

You simply don't like the 10th Amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative of "big government good". You're using the "it should be" argument. Doesn't work that way.

No, I don't like your 10th Amendment argument because it's stupid. In 1776, commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders. It does now. So applying an 18th century standard to a 21st century issue is laziness. You are lazy. But it's OK...most Conservatives are.

If that kid is a high achiever, there are more than enough scholarships available to cover the costs.

No. Not really. There are Pell Grants...which you want to eliminate, right? So having to rely on the benevolence of strangers is no way to conduct policy. it's fanciful, faith-based, wishful thinking that is clearly disproved by reality. We already give massively generous tax breaks for charitable giving, yet the totality of all charitable giving in the US doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget. And that's all charitable giving like tithing to the church, which isn't a charity.

Seems you're saying that because someone won't do for their children what the rest of us don't mind doing it's OK to force the taxpayers to do it for them?

You're not being forced to do shit. Unless you're in the 1% (which you clearly and obviously aren't), then you're not paying for anything. Of course, you probably think of yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". Any day now that shitty idea you had is gonna pay off, right? That's your thinking? So you're protecting yourself in the event you actually become a success. What happens if you're not? Then you just shit all over yourself for no good reason apart from pride. Get over yourself.

That charitable giving isn't to the level you think it should be

It's not what I think it should be, it's that it doesn't come close to meeting the needs. That's what you don't get. You think magically, people will just give money to charity if we suddenly cut benefits? In what world do you imagine that happening? We already give massive charitable tax breaks and all the giving in the US doesn't even come close to the budget required for one of the most essential benefits programs (Medicaid). So from where is all this charity going to come if it hasn't already? Have you ever thought of that? Of course not. You only think about yourself.

doesn't mean, by default, the government has the right to say "you didn't give enough so we'll tell you how much you should have given". If you care as much as you claim, write a check. If I don't do what you think I should, YOU make up the difference.

Fuck you. Firstly, that's a fucking lazy argument to make. Secondly, you're the one who thinks charity can make up the gap when we already allow 100% of charitable tax deductions. And even doing that doesn't result in what's needed to provide the most basic essential things. You live in a fantasy world. That's because your thinking is informed by faith. And faith runs in direct contradiction to critical thinking.

I don't really give a shit if those unwilling to do for themselves have an ounce of food to eat, their kids go to college, or they have anything they want. If they aren't willing to do for themselves, that's their problem and not the responsibility of anyone else to make up for their not wanting to do what they should be doing.

Damn right I think about myself and my family. THEY are my ONLY responsibility. Someone else's choices and someone else's unwilling to do aren't. If what they choose to do it their life produces results they don't like, tough shit. Poor planning on their part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine.

I live in the real world. People like you and the POS leeches you support live in the fantasy world that because they don't have what they want others are somehow supposed to meet that need. I've provided a way, if you truly care, to show you care by providing for them with YOUR money. If you're unwilling to do that, you and all those unwilling to provide for themselves go together. Two entities that expect others to do more for them than they are willing to do for themselves.

How sad it must be to know that the only way you have something in life or a place to sleep or food to eat or clothing on your children's backs is because someone else that didn't produce the results your choices did is expected to pay for those choices while you sit back and beg for more.

I'm with that but not quite as hard nosed as you. I have been privileged for some years to work with welfare families, almost all single parent families, who are willing to accept a mentor to teach some basic skills such as budgeting, couponing, diet and nutrition etc. where many are woefully deficient.

And more often than not it is thankless work pretty much whistling in the wind producing little of value. What makes it worth while is the fairly rare person who really is interested in being the best she can be.

I have come to believe that many of those unwilling to help themselves are literally trained to to be that way. Almost every one grows up seeing Mom get a government check or in some other way keeps a roof over their heads and some food in the refrigerator. Many have computers, smart phones, televisions, the kids might have an Xbox.

With essentially no positive role models and a constant media barrage of how the rich exploit the poor, how President Trump (or whomever) and the Republicans (or whomever) hate the poor, how they can't expect a fair shake in the world, how oppressed they are, what a shitty deal they have gotten, something switches off in their heads.

Most quit school without graduating and many have never held a real job for any length of time. Even those who don't get hooking on booze or drugs simply cannot see past their tunnel vision of victimization and how unfair it all is and they deserve that subsidized or free housing, those food stamps, that government check, etc.

What we need is a government program supplemented by all service/social agencies to start reprogramming them.

As you said, instill a sense of personal responsibility again. A real man and woman get married and support themselves, and raise their children to be productive citizens. And teach them the keys to accomplish that and offer a hand up where warranted.

I'm hard nosed because I've too much of what you say for too long.

I'm tired of seeing the mother with multiple kids in tow using EBT because she said she can't afford to feed them yet have cash money to buy things for which EBT doesn't fund. On more than one occasion, I've simply said "You're welcome" when seeing one do things like that. Sometimes I get a smart ass look which causes me to think they believe it's owed to them. Sometimes I get a puzzled look causing me to think they don't have a clue that the reason their children are eating is because someone else was forced to pay for it.

As for the victimization mindset, as long as they've been taught that the reason they are where they are is because someone else caused it, they believe they deserve someone else's money. If the Democrats can convince them it's because the Republicans, they'll vote Democrat.

For those that quit school, I have no sympathy for them. Since educational level has a direction relationship to income, someone quitting school then not being able to support themselves isn't my problem. I didn't create the situation which means I'm not one of those that should be responsible for the results.

When it comes to personal responsibility, that's the root of the entire matter. Too many automatically look to the government and find someone to blame when things don't go their way. If I didn't get dressed every time something didn't go my way, I'd spent half my life walking around in my underwear. Instead of feeling sorry for myself and finding some excuse, I spend that time overcoming it.



15 kids by three baby daddies and her response is "somebody needs to pay" and "Somebody needs to be held accountable". I know who it is. Since the one that was arrested is the father of 10, he's responsible for 67%. I don't know the breakdown of how the other five are split between the other 2 baby daddies but those 2 are responsible for the other 33%. If they aren't doing it, it's on her. That's 100% on the ones for whom she spread her legs and 0% on those that didn't father them. Her response is so typical of those that think someone owes them something.

 

[regent]

Explain to me why you hate the Constitution. I posted what the Constitution says and you say that isn't good.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and because American workers have to compete in the global marketplace with foreign workers, how exactly does teaching one thing in Texas vs. something different in California give us an advantage when competing in the global economy where nations teach the same things to all their students, regardless of their geography?

It's the same argument about health care; do people in MA get a different kind of cancer than people in OK? No. So since we have a centralized economy, why shouldn't education and health care also be centralized? What advantage does it give a student in TX to learn something different than a student in NY?

That was Common Core.

 

[dblack]

I don't think we can rely on the Constitution to protect our freedom. Ultimately, 'we the people' have to value it. If we can't convince a critical mass of citizens that freedom is worth preserving, the socialists will win.

 

[danielpalos]

no that isn't what happens.

Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:

W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)

So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".

So, W + S = LW

If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr

If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr

Understand?

see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!

Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%

Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%

So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?

Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?

Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%

The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.

There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.

Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.

Analysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

"When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."

fk me?.......................fk you

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...hington-unemployment-rate-drops-to-46-percent

Washington State Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

I said city of Seattle. posted city of seattle. what is their LW?

lol. the first link is from the Seattle Times. No wonder, nobody takes the right wing seriously.