The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Becoming more like Europe everyday. Spending tops 1 TRILLION in 2011. 2012 bound to be more.

Check out the ad from AARP on the bottom of the page saying you may be eligible for food stamps. lol

There are better choices.     https://amac.us/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/welfare-spending-topped-1-trillion-in-2011-study-shows/

You're right.  We need to have more homeless/starving children, elderly, and disabled people in this republic, lest we turn into France.

You know that the overwhelming majority of "welfare" assistance goes to households consisting of those three groups, right?

Which country in Europe are we becoming more like? Europe is a very large continent with many, many different countries and many different economies, governments, etc.

So, in order to have an intelligent discussion on rather we are becoming more like Europe everyday,  I need to know which part you are comparing us to.

What is wrong with this?  Do you have equal disdain to H&R Block for saying "you might be eligable for a tax deduction or refund"? 

Does the tax refund come from my personal taxes? No, that is the difference. Just find it odd that a corp. would be soliciting what amounts to membership through government giveaways. Do you really think that people who "need" assistance have to have someone tell them?

How about them Seahawks!!  ;D 

Yes, it does.  If someone pays the govement $100 instead of $1100 the gov't has $1000 less to work with.  That either means someone else needs to pay $1000 more or the debt goes up by $1000.


Need to be told they are hurting, no I am sure they can't figure that out on their own.  That there are gov't programs that can assist them.  That they may need help with. 

I know someone who was out of work and broke and eligible for food stamps and didn't apply b/c she thought that someone who owned a home couldn't apply.  It wasn't until she lost her house to forclosure that she learned she could have applied for that and several other programs a lot sooner. 

You probably already know this, but you do know that you're fighting a losing battle around here don't you ? This site is full of bleeding hearts, race cards, and elitist lefties trying to save the world at the expense of others. I understand and agree with what you are talking about and there are also a good many here that agree that just don't feel like arguing or being called a racist everyday. Point out a real fact about a certain demographic and they have excuses. Remind them that we can't afford to GIVE everything away to people who don't EARN it and they cry and act like pussies. Facts don't matter and personal responsibility doesn't matter to these people.

If you're called a racist every day by multiple people, it's worth considering that it's you.  Not them.

I don't care what your politics are.  All I see in your posts is seething hate and bigotry.

There is some solid advice right there. 

As one recovering aloholic put it, "If one person tell you have a drinking problem, you might have a drinking problem, but you might not.  Ten different people all tell you that you are an alcoholic than you NEED to go to AA." 

You're about to be accused of being a 'minority lover'.

^^^^X2. How convenient for a bunch of liberals to call someone a racist that they perceive as a republican or someone that doesn't agree with them. What you bunch of clowns call me is irrelevant. YOU PEOPLE DON'T DEFINE ME. But just so I don't disappoint your hopes to have someone to call a racist, here goes.

FUCK ALL CAUCASIANS
FUCK ALL NEGROS
FUCK ALL INDIANS
FUCK ALL HISPANICS
FUCK ALL JEWS
FUCK ALL CHRISTIANS
FUCK ALL MUSLIMS
FUCK ALL HOMOSEXUALS
FUCK ALL  PEOPLE
FUCK THE WORLD

MAY YOU ALL ROT IN HELL FOR WHO YOU ARE !!!

There, now you can all go have your testosterone free orgy of liberalism together.

See.  He's not angry.  He's just misunderstood.

No it doesn't. HR Block is a tax preparer service who's goal it is to get your business and try to get you as much money on your tax return as legally possible. Nothing wrong with that. Besides Warren Buffet, who wants to pay more than they owe? Got a secret for ya. Even Buffet does not pay more than he has to. He just spouts off like blowhards do.

If you owe the govt. 1100 and pay them 100 you will; be introduced to the IRS and believe me, they will collect their money. Been there, done that. 

Like I said, H&R Block wants to give you back YOUR OWN MONEY. AARP wants to GIVE YOU MINE.   

Man, I like people who are non-pc but damn, you're coming off pretty extreme.

Ha, ha, if you are referring to me, take comfort in the fact that I'm playing the role for the race cards around here. Might as well give em what they want  >:D

"Why are you guys calling me a racist just because I complain about Kool-Aid drinking welfare mothers supporting gold-toothed baby daddies that wear expensive Nike sneakers (and other "bling") while driving luxury SUVs with flashy wheels?  None of that stuff implies race at all!"

Let me see if I have this straight:

If an organization advocates for me to receive government payouts in the form of food stamps, they are advocating socialist wealth redistribution.

HOWEVER

If a different organization advocates for me to receive government payouts in the form of straight cash, why, that's just giving me my own money back!

Before you respond, please consider the following facts:

1) The amount of money one can receive as a federal income tax refund is not limited to the amount of money that one contributed in federal income tax (e.g. EITC, child credits, etc.)

2) People who apply for (and receive) food stamp benefits ALMOST CERTAINLY pay many other forms of taxes (be they payroll taxes, state unemployment insurance, state disability insurance, property taxes, car registration fees, gas taxes, telecommunication taxes, utility taxes, etc.)

Why aren't food stamp recipients getting their own money back?  Are federal income taxes the only taxes that count?

Hey Fins!!!  You didn't answer my question. What part of Europe are we discussing? I'd love to hop in here, but I need to know if we're discussing Western Europe, Eastern Europe. Germany, the UK, Poland, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania?

Oh, wait. Are you just trolling? If so, then troll on, brah!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png)

Call me what you want. I won't lose sleep over it, count on it !!!


Just because facts imply race, it doesn't invalidate those facts. So without adieu, more facts racism from me, the racist. In this nation, there are more negros on welfare than all other demographic when adjusted for population. By a wide margin, and it's not even close. As far as your other argument about government funded abortion. Adjusted for population, there are more negro women getting abortions than any other demographic. By population, they lead in HIV infections, single mother households, incarceration, poverty, and many others. Government statistics indicate that “43% of all murder victims in 2007 were black, 93.1% of whom were killed were black.” I guess those facts make me a racist also. I would be willing to bet that if all these issues didn't exist in the black community that you wouldn't argue for or care much about them. Since you want to fight for black people so much, maybe you might want to get out in the black community and do something to help their situation instead of worrying about the vernacular I use on a daily basis on a random internet website. I guess it's easier for you play on the internet and do nothing than it is to make a difference for your people. Oh, that's right, you do something, you argue with a racist about how it's everyone else fault and the government should "fix" all their problems that "the evil white man" creates. And I'm the racist, oh the hypocrisy, ha ha haaaaaaaaa

So basically, you're saying that the when categorized by race, the segment of the population that is the most poverty-stricken... also receives the most welfare?  Surely this is some sort of mistake!

And this same segment of the population... the one that can least afford the extra expense of a child... is leading the nation in abortion rates?  Say not so!

And these same black women, who are the poorest women in the nation, are least able to maintain a stable family?  And the sons of these lowest-income households are the most highly incarcerated of all races?  I am shocked!

But maybe you're right.  Either "the negroes" are simply the most unlucky group of people in the world, or there is some innate genetic inferiority that causes them, as a race, to continually engage in the cycle of poverty, welfare, and crime.

It's certainly nothing as simple as poor people growing up in harsh conditions and having a harder life.  Because, as you have already proven, their lives are full of luxury vehicles, expensive sneakers, gaudy jewelry, and lobster dinners, all courtesy of the government dole.

I guess that having a "harder life" outweighs personal responsibility and poor choices in life, huh?  I never said that the government provided all of those things you listed. I guess that $3000 shiny wheels on a $1200 car or gold teeth should be a priority in life to poor people. Take it how you like it, and think of me how you will, but the truth hurts. Black people in general seem to think that they are owed something and expect certain things that others in this country don't. They seem to also want to have and do things that they think other groups shouldn't get to have or do. That in itself is racism.

I think the urban dictionary sums it up nicely:

2.    black people    

A potentially great people who have a lot of problems that need to be addressed. Quite rightly they feel a great injustice has been done to them in the past, but this tends to negate any ability they might have to look upon themselves self critically…thus perpetuating a cycle of crime and underachievement.

Historically black people have suffered a lot at the hands of others, but for how long can they keep blaming the past for their problems?

The urban dictionary!  Don't see how I can top that citation.

Well played, sir.

generalized statements and stereotyping of an entire ethnic group is the textbook definition of racism

Fau, you're mistaken.

It's not racist to state that black people in general have a sense of entitlement.  It's that sense of entitlement itself (you know, that sense that is generally shared across the entire race) that's racist!

It's kind of like how it's not racist to say that the Jews are generally trying to financially exploit everyone else... it's their race-wide effort to financially exploit other races that's racist!

You could maybe try MAD Magazine or the Sunday comics...

Badger's already admitted he's a racist, pseudo-justified it, and stated that he didn't care what anyone else up here thinks. Please stop calling him out on it, as listening to him spew intolerance-spiel that's not-so-cleverly disguised as self righteous social commentary is right up there with "listening to Gilbert Gottfried reviewing Keeping Up With The Kardashians" on my "That Shit Gets Old in a Hurry" list.

Misanthropy for the win.

Wait a sec.  When you say "ALL INDIANS," does that mean folks from India or Native Americans?  Can we include the Inuit to the mix because they've been entitled to too many words for snow for so damn long?  Or does this fall under the main category of "ALL PEOPLE?"  Are we sure the Inuit have a soul to damn?  I just want to make sure we're all FUCKED equally.

I just want to know where all this free shit I'm supposed to feel entitled to is. My Jetta needs rims and I'd look like a badass with gold teeth.

I know the way the information is being provided is quite extreme but at times, there are points being made by badger6 in terms of personal responsibility, but it probably applies for a lot of low income people, not just the black population. For instance, I believe the personal responsibility just isn't there and their (poor people) priorities are messed up. I live by a very low-income area but it's not shocking to see people living in a 400sq.ft. house with a run down cadillac sporting new 22"-chromed out rims with the new iPhone. I will admit, I know nothing of their financial situation or even their background, but just from the outside looking in, how in the world can you be spending money on luxury items like that when you live in a dilapidated house? It just never made sense to me.

Anyway, carry on.

Well that depends on if you think stereotyping, generalizations, and being a racist are the same things ? I would say that they are different. Stereotypes and generalized statements are basically the same. I would also say that a true racist hates other races. Does someone using generalizations and stereotypes about certain groups make someone a hateful racist ? I don't think so, well at least not if the statements are true. The thing about stereotypes is that if they aren't true, they wouldn't be stereotypes. If they weren't true, they wouldn't survive long as stereotypes. Stereotypes tell us about groups of people and their traits in general, there are numerous individual exceptions, but generalizations still holds true at the population level. They do not, however tell us how we should to treat people.

I think that your comment really only applies to a small minority and most blacks or other races don't feel a sense of entitlement that you refer to. However, those in that small minority make things miserable and stir the pot for the others.

Also, the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of the world make it more difficult to come together as a nation.

I have always said, our forefathers had no idea when they enslaved Africans, that it would be a debt that America would never be able to repay in the eyes of their descendants.

Your great, great grandfather was a slave. OK, what do you want me to do about it? Give you free stuff? lol

Well aside from where the definition came from, can you tell me what about it is inaccurate or unacceptable to you ?


I agree totally. If people are hung up on whether I am a racist or not, that's fine. Like I said earlier, I won't lose sleep over what "internet people" think of me. However, maybe a new thread or poll should be created called, "Is Badger6 a sorry motherfucking piece of shit racist who should die ?" and be discussed there. The topic here is "A Welfare Nation" and I have kindly stated that the statistics show that people of color lead in these categories. No one has refuted these statements as of now, so I will take it that most here agree with my statements. If not speak up.

Misanthropy 4 us all, proceed sir  ;D

 Well I think we both know that stereotypes and generalizations don't apply to individuals in said group, they apply as a whole on a population level. But that begs the question, are you seeking attention ? Why are you twisting this to make it about you personally when you know that it's not about you on a singular level ?

OK, conservatives: I'm trying to be as clear and respectful as possible.  Meet me half-way.

Here's the rub:

I don't think that the world exists as you describe it.  I agree that a hoodlum hanging out on the porch, using his welfare check to buy bong hits and his food stamps to buy lobster, while some poor sap with two kids busts his ass in a cole mine has to live on macaroni -- That pisses me off, too.

And I'm sure there are cases where that happens -- but they are so few are far between that they are statistically irrelevant.  So, where you paint this as a solvable problem -- I disagree -- at least not at the cost of harming those that we all want to protect.

Instead, when the right goes after entitlements, they gloss over the fact that the vast majority of those that take advantage of these programs are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, etc. -- people that the masses generally agree are worth helping out.

So, when liberals are painted as those propping up a system where we don't want people to work, it's just not true.  We just think that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that you do, and to solve it the way you're asking would mean severely hurting those that really need it.

You better stop kind of agreeing with me. You will be labeled according to the racist you hang out with  :o

You bet your ass that there are points being made by me. The funny thing is that no one here has even admitted a lack of personal responsibility. And you're right, it does apply to all low income people. Actually, it applies to all people across the board. But if colored people lead in a good majority of negative categories, there must be a reason why. Not just "the white devil slave master" did it to us. That's not personal responsibility, it's a cop out.

^^^ Like I said before, I have no problem with non-pc people (as I feel like I am one). A lot of people don't want to hear that the problem is their own doing and they don't want to have the personal responsibility to make things right, instead they'll vote for whoever will give them free stuff. Some times people are just down on their luck and all they have is welfare, which is fine. Just have the right priorities with your current situation.

I think I have kind of made it clear that I'm not registered as conservative or liberal, I just prefer to not be labeled as anything. If anything, maybe libertarian? I dunno. That's what my ex-coworker, who was a libertarian said he would classify me as.

I disagree totally. The way I see it is that the Democrats need the minority vote to win the majority of the time. They know this. They know the more drugs (ie, free shit) they offer minorities, the more they will become dependent on them (ie, the democrats) for their free shit. Minorities think that democrats are their friends, they are not. What they are doing is buying votes of the lower class with entitlements in order to keep their power and justify their salaries. In a general sense, the both are milking the system and both responsible.

^^ Sometimes its not about the vote.  Think bigger.  Believe it or not, BOTH candidates are trying to improve the country.  Sometimes its about helping people and improving things, not just getting votes.

I'm not talking about "Democrats".  I'm talking about me and my views.  I certainly understand that politicians court voting blocks, but I do not have views to court any kind of vote.  I ask, please legitimately criticize my position.

I will meet you 1/2 Dave. I agree that those that abuse the system are in the great minority and those who get assistance need it. However, there should be something in place to ensure that the situation is temporary and they can get back to productive lives. Agree?

Have to disagree that conservatives gloss over the fact that most on programs are elderly or vets. I have never heard one single conservative (politician for that matter) criticize helping those people.

Just one question. Since the food stamp program has almost doubled during the current administration, does this mean the population of elderly and homeless has also doubled?    

Well stated. This is why we should discuss entitlement "reform" rather than the "cutting" of entitlements. We all know that entitlements/benefits aid those people who need them, and that their so doing is a very, very good thing for society.

But, similarly, we (read: moderate conservatives) fear the tremendous sovereign debt which they cause us to pile on (source: http://econperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-federal-government-spending-by.html). The trouble is this: our intentions w/ these programs are good, and the effect they have are good... but, like any company looking off into the future, are they feasible over the long term?

If we continue on w/ the programs (and the government in general, to be fair) *as they are* we will eventually run out of money, and the government will not be able to pay off its creditors, and the whole system will collapse, because our money is based in the solvency of the federal government. (I think we can all agree that this is true.) Whichever generation bears the brunt of that calamity is going to really struggle. We have seen this happen before, in the wreckage of western Europe for the five to six-hundred years subsequent to the fall of Rome. I'm not trying to fear-monger here, I just think it should be admitted that, when a large, centralized government which governs over a large territory collapses (for whatever reason; as the Roman fall was precipitated more by outward invaders than internal economic pressures) the result is very bad and persists for a long, long time.

In my opinion, what we need to agree on is as follows:

1. Someone is going to have to bear the brunt of cuts, or restructuring, to some extent. This brunt, or pain, should be spread as widely as possible to negate the pain of the overall effect.

2. The programs that help people, and which can be restructured, ought to be, to preserve them. This will hurt many, many people, because it'll cause them to spend much more out of pocket, and have to work much longer, BUT, I believe it's necessary for one of the currently existing generations (boomers, Gen-X, Millenials) to have to sacrifice so that society as we know it can continue.

3. The rich, probably the top 20% of earners, need to accept the fact that they will have to sacrifice the most. Yes... they are the "job creators." Great. However, if a person earns 10 million a year, re-invests 70% of it, and they live off the 3 million, they're going to have to learn to live, let's say, off of 500k a year. I realize that is a pinch, and I realize that this means 'high taxes' (which are, frankly, a bogeyman for conservatives), and I realize that, in the world as we know it, this means rich folk will move away from those nations who are suffering under tremendous sovereign debt, to those nations which aren't, and which are tax havens, BUT, let's just say it: if you love your country, and are a patriot, you'll sacrifice for it. And, as I've said... we're going to all have to sacrifice to get things back on track. After all - if you run away from your country w/ your millions, but those dollars suddenly become worthless... then you won't remain rich.

4. [Easily the most controversial] The Constitution, as regards the federal government (but not the people, or their *Constitutional* rights - not benefits), needs to be suspended. Think of it as a bankruptcy - we should vote on someone who'll hold the Federal Government in a type of receivership until such time as it is on an inextricable path to solvency. This person would do so in 4 year terms, like the president, and he would not be restricted by the other branches of government, which would ceaselessly bog down the procedure to appease their constituencies. I am well aware that this could go very, very badly. All one could do is hope that it wouldn't - there are some historical precedents (like Cincinatus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus#Dictator) that indicate that it MAY not... but who knows.


In my opinion, the real trouble started w/ the baby-boomers. They, because they were so well-treated by their parents, (who'd suffered so horribly in the Depression and WW2) reached adult life with a mind that was not prepared to sacrifice, to give up things, to spend themselves for something more important than their individual desires. Thus, they (in some cases good, and in some cases bad) demanded and received more and greater rights. This was fine, insofar as it went, but, simultaneously set a dangerous precedent, as the subsequent generations, raised by adult children (not trying to offend any baby boomers here, but you have to admit many of the people in your generation are just that) were farther and farther away from the concept of sacrifice, and incapable of performing it.

And now we are where we are.  We are close enough to the cliff's edge to feel the faint pressure of fear, but, not close enough to feel compelled to do something about it. It's a shame - the WW2 generation, I believe, would have.

Thanks for reading my rant.

How is that any different from the millionaire who spends $10,000 a month on a penthouse suite (or however much they are), has 4 lamborghini's, 3 houses, 2 boats and a cottage in the moutains and ends up broke? Irresponsibility isn't something that's only for the poor, PLENTY of rich people are equally irresponsible. The only difference is that we call rich people eccentric. They have so much money they made up their own word for irresponsibility.

^^^ Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. We were talking about lower income people in the current conversation. Of course, at the time, they could afford it so they can spend their money however they'd like to, if they kept in mind their wealth may not last. I think our culture looks more down on those who had everything and lost it for being stupid/reckless and are less likely to help those kind of people, while turning a kind of blind eye to those with barely anything but have luxury items.

I was thinking more along the lines of misguided soul that I should pray for.

And I'm giving you an example of how lower income folks aren't ANY different from higher income folks. Irresponsibility isn't a function of one's age, sex, ethnicity, social status, upbringing, income, etc, etc, etc. It's simply a byproduct of free will. Some choose to be irresponsible and some choose not to.

Thanks for the thought and I really hope you don't take this the wrong way because I really do think that your faith is a good thing, just no my thing.

Don't bother, in the end nothing will help any of us. >:D

First off, thanks for being reasonable and talking.  Sure, I agree with your point.  I am all for limiting waste in those programs.  I don't have any specific ideas to make changes, but the ones that I hear most often (drug testing, etc), I think would hurt the wrong people.


I don't mean that conservatives don't want to help those people.  What I mean is that they fail to recognize that the vast, vast majority of people on entitlements are those very people and not the "welfare queens".


No, but it's a down economy.  The percentages of all kinds of people that would need that program have gone up, because more people, in general, are struggling.  That's poor, middle class, and the elderly.  I think it's naive to believe that it's Obama's policies that have caused the increase in food stamp need.  It's a larger economic issue.  As the economy gets better, the dependence on welfare and food stamps will, as well, regardless of who is President.

Ok, then tell me how a entire ethnic race in America gets to the top of so many negative categories including entitlements if none of those things that you listed have any factor in it....

SC, I think you're the first person I've ever "known" who is both socially conservative and fiscally liberal.  It's an odd mix that you don't often find.  You're like the anti-libertarian.

No offense taken, I'm not really much into praying for others anyway, but I do still hope that one day you'll see things with a more open mind. Whether that inspiration comes from God or somewhere else really doesn't matter to me. :)

Black is not a demographic, that's a particular trait of a demographic. You see "black" and I see "female ages 16-20 from low income household in urban areas". That's a demographic and I bet if you compare the numbers for that demographic you would see similar numbers. So is it the fact that they are black or the fact that they are from low income households in the ages from 16-20 from urban areas? Could that possibly be the reason? How many non african americans fall into that demographic and how many of them hit those same negative categories? Bet the white women that fall into that same demographic experience approximately the same issues that the black women do. If that's the case then it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they are black, it has to do with a lot of other factors, wouldn't you agree?

Nah, a open mind is overrated. Make your own choices in life and deal with the results, no big deal. I may be a cynical asshole but at least I have integrity and take responsibility. Got to be worth something right ?

 

Pardon me sir, I made an error, please forgive me. My post has been corrected to reflect my accurate reply. It is below.

Gold!

Platinum. I win !!!

The problem with the "concern" over debt is that deficit, by definition, is when revenues are less than expenditures.

The idea that our debt must be reduced by harsh spending cuts is not particularly credible.  If you look at the last time we were in surplus (the end of Clinton's last term), we didn't have draconian cuts to government programs across the board.  Instead, we had reasonable, fiscally responsible tax rates.

Now, you can argue that those tax rates would not support the number of people joining the rolls of SS/Medicare,  and you may be right.  If we want to maintain the same standards in Medicare/SS, raising taxes should be on the table.  There is a price to pay for the kind of society we want; one where the elderly are not sickly and destitute.

I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously though - I was sitting thinking one day and I realized that while both sides talked up freedom because it sounded nice on the campaign trail, neither one really wanted it. Regulated freedom, a/k/a ordered liberty, is where it's at.

I would also note that I'd be a pretty typical Democrat in the 1950s, or a Republican of the 1980s. I think that shows that the goalposts have moved all over the place in this country.



Which is precisely why I'm not in favor of harsh spending cuts. I am in favor of spending cuts that occur from the necessities of re-structuring, and some of those cuts may be "harsh" in the sense that they may cause some economic pain for some people, but I'm not here arguing for the privatization of social security (though, I could see myself doing so, if the situation were to call for it).

Anyway, as regards the Clintonian surpluses, I think we need to be careful and not get locked into thinking that the situation we had during that time is *the one true way of taxing and spending.* Look at this chart: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

The Dems have been in control during a number of years where deficits were exacerbated. The Republicans too. Neither side has the magic bullet in their political dogma. Not to mention, Clinton had the luck to be President while the internet became a part of everyday life, which eventually caused a minor bubble that he never had to manage.

So, the answer must be a little bit of both, it would seem - cut spending where you can (have a duplicative government program? do away with the less advantageous program!), and maybe raise some taxes (but only on individuals, not corporations, as the corporations just pass the losses down the chain to the consumer, and this by and large hurts those who are poorest, like gas, energy and food prices), but I would much prefer the cuts.

Yes, there is a price for the society in which we live, but we have to grasp the fact that, well, maybe we've lived a little too high on the hog. Life has its ups and downs. Americans need to realize this, grow accustomed to it, and learn to manage the situation that confronts them.

Hell, if a whiny ninnie like me can do it, anyone can.

Actually it the bulk of the Republican party.  "W" was hardly fiscally conservative even though he claimed otherwise. 

SCFinFan, I would just add one more thing:

I don't see any real point in even attempting to combat the national debt while the Grover Norquist wing of the GOP maintains control of that party.  You may recall that when last we had a surplus, many so-called "fiscal conservatives" insisted that a surplus necessarily means that we are overtaxing the citizenry, and that tax cuts should immediately be enacted to return this extra money back to the pockets of the taxpayers.

Why even bother agreeing to cutbacks in the safety net when the reward for such tough fiscal discipline is more tax cuts?

Others have tried to point out that in areas where there are not a lot of minorities, a lot of whites both use the system, and a portion of them abuse it. So the entitlement abusers do not drive around in Cadillacs, buy $300 basketball shoes, eat lobster, etc. They also do not live in urban areas, but in nice, rual farming communities too.
There is way too much screaming and over-generalization when it comes to those who use entitlements, or get money from the government.
I also notice there seems to be a whisper from the right when it comes to the free money in the form of subsidies that go to businesses that do not create jobs.
I wish the people and politicians who are so angry over misuses of entitlements by the people, are as angry by the misuses of money by businesses and corporations too.

Especially the abuses of religious organizations that have a tax exempt status and then actively campaign for a candidate from the pulpit. That's a severe abuse of a government welfare program.

I was unaware of that. If it is true... well, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I don't have a problem returning tax surpluses to the citizenry per se. My big problem here, again, is the dogma of either side. Arguing that we are necessarily overtaxing people simply because we have a surplus doesn't follow. That said, if you can fully fund government with the tax rates you have, then, I can see why a slight decrease in taxes may be warranted assuming there are no obvious headwinds in the economy.

Likewise, stating that the surplus money is the government's and the government's only is irrational as well. After all, the government in a republic like ours should mainly be acting as a steward of tax revenues - using them in the best interests of the people. However, we all know that surplus money won't necessarily be shoved into programs to make them better, or even national defense/intelligence to make sure we are more secure. It may just go into administrative costs, or into government investments which don't pan out. These choices are not normally in the bests interests of the people, and, frankly, often are caused mainly by politics, rather than good entrepreneurship.

I think the trouble, again, is that both sides think they have the magic bullet when they don't. The only orthodoxy in economics, as far as I can tell, is pragmatism. If you can fully fund government and are doing well, ok, maybe invest more in the programs which help your people live in a more comfortable, enjoyable, secure world and promote domestic tranquility. If you can't fully fund government, then restructure your programs (or, again, if the situation is dire, cut them at least temporarily) and go from there.

Anyway, Spider, if you Dave, Brian, Fau, CF, and a few of the other reasonable people on here can come to a couple of joint agreements/compromises regarding these issues (and I think we, to an extent, have), I don't see why politicians can't. Yes, the Republicans are radicalized. So are the Democrats. But... the people, us, elected them. We're getting what we deserve.

It cuts both ways, Fau. There are plenty of instances of the government impinging upon "free exercise thereof," or at least attempting to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._EEOC

Given that the government often steps on the toes of the churches and the religious, in derogation of their constitutional rights, should the churches not be expected to push back?

If the stated purpose of the spending cuts/tax increases is to combat the national debt, then the surplus money most certainly IS for the government alone.  That's the point.

In order to pay down the supposedly-crippling national debt, we need to have many years of substantial surpluses.

http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Closures-Layoffs-Jan-25-31-Caterpillar-Microsoft-Home-Depot-Layoff-Tally-Tops-32000/109532

8 years of pro-business GOP policies led Home Depot to announce 7,000 layoffs in January 2009.

Perhaps this gentleman is not quite the best person to articulate what is and is not needed for business to succeed.

That's an incredibly strange example to choose.  A teacher at a Lutheran school left on disability, was medically cleared to return to work, and when she attempted to do so, she was informed that she no longer had a job.  She sued them because normally, you can't do that.  The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the church (on employment discrimination grounds), while specifically leaving open the possibility of other cases suing a church on other grounds (e.g. breach of contract).

If it is your position that labor laws obviously shouldn't apply to religious organizations (for some reason), then I guess you might see that as an "infringement of liberty."  It seems to me that such a position would lead to the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable for the principal of a religious school to tell one of his teachers that she should start dating him or be fired.

In any case: given the taxpayer subsidies that we all provide to these organizations (via tax-exempt status, or even direct payments in the case of many Catholic hospitals), I think the best way to make sure that they enjoy maximum liberty is to remove all gov't subsidies.  Then they can act without worrying about all the restrictions that tax-exempt organizations face.

Home Depot's problem is quite simple-- they import too much cheap crap from China. 

Home Depot use to sell quaility merchandise now they only sell inferior stuff.  You can pay a $1 or so less for a can of paint but it will be peeling in half the time.  Home Depot has gone to suppliers and spefically asked for lower price in exchange for lower quaility control on the goods.

Most people now realize this and when you figure in the cost and/or effort involved in home improvement projects... buying stuff there is pennywise and poundfoolish.     

Not necessarily, what if part of the budgetary expenditures for a governmental fiscal year include debt service (which I believe they do)? If that is the case, and we can pay our own way for all of our other government expenditures, then, the surplus could possibly be best spent on checks to the taxpayers.

Admittedly, the best way to clear a debt is to save up your money (or win the lottery), and then slam the debt w/ the wall of money you have specifically for that purpose. But, if the government can make minimum payments and pay its own way on everything else... then there isn't necessarily a NEED, but rather, merely the option.

Also, think of it this way: some sovereign debt is held by citizens, right? Ok, well, then, if you take your surplus money to pay off, say, treasury bonds which are held by US citizens, what is the difference between that and repaying excess tax levies? The only difference would be that one clears a debt quicker than the other. It would still go to the same place... it would actually, if you think about it, be an extra boon to those who bought treasury bonds. They'd receive a check from the government to repay their bond-debt, and also a check to pay back on taxes w/ their surplus money.


The heart of the free exercise clause is that the government does not get entangled with the internal governance of churches and other religious establishments. This is probably the most clearly defined precedent in free exercise clause jurisprudence. Ms. Perich was a "called" minister-teacher. That they fired her is a clear matter of internal church governance, as is every decision concerning who they consider a minister, who they consider fit for ministry, etc.

And yet, the EEOC went right after this church for the violation of labor laws, as if they applied to, again, what is clearly a matter of internal church governance. The Obama administration is brazen in that way. They act like the free exercise clause doesn't exist. To quote Justice Roberts in Hosana-Tabor:

�

Let's cut to the end of this discussion: if we can spend the money we saved (via cutting safety net programs) on tax cuts because we don't need to pay down the debt that quickly, then we never needed to cut those programs in the first place.  Q.E.D.

edit: split the other part into another thread, as I think it's an interesting (but completely separate) discussion

This is the only truth about D.C. right now. Both parties are only listening to the fringe elements, because those people will always vote for their chosen party no matter what. The middle is ignored until it is time to try and woo them over during elections. Of course the middle buys into the lesser-of-two-evils theory, instead of demanding better candidates and refusing to vote for either of the two main parties until that happens.

LOL  I give up. We are just too different and will never agree. For every example you give, I can find one to dispute it.

Laying off is not all that unusual. Businesses go through cycles and you can't blame HD on what has been happening in the entire economy. You failed to mention HD hired over 3000 about a year ago. 

I asked you your age and education which you declined to answer and that is OK. However, I want you to know that I am 52, been involved with businesses all my life. In college I studied psychology and business. Ended up getting a MBA and minored in psych. I like to think I know just a little bit.

Have a nice day.  Let's just agree to disagree on religion and economic issues. We still have the Dolphins. I think?? lol

Are you saying that HD hired over 3000 people under Obama?  That doesn't seem consistent with Marcus' claims that Obama is bad for the economy.

Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) won a Nobel Prize for economics and believes strongly in Keynesian economics.  (And he's older than you, too.)  I'd like to think he knows just a little bit more.  So when the things that you say are at odds with the things that he says, I'm going to go with him.

Of course, we probably could have some sort of proxy discussion where instead of me making my own statements, I simply cite people (that agree with me) who are older and have more letters after their name than you do.  I'm not sure how productive that would be, though.

You're certainly not required to respond to my posts.  However, discussion is what the message board is for.  If you don't like having your points disputed, there's one way to avoid that...

Government interventions and spending is the main problem with the Keynesian thought process. Governments are totally incapable of stopping the money printing and borrowing money. All this does in the long run is to debase our currency and raise debt to unsustainable levels. Alternatively, the markets and economy corrects itself over time if allowed to according to the Austrian model.

Our economy is based on debt and spending instead of savings and productivity. We are on the wrong path and it will only end badly.....


“Gold is money, everything else is credit.” - JP Morgan

"Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants - but debt is the money of slaves" - Norm Franz

Your boy Obama won a Nobel Prize too. What was that for again? Breathing or being vertical? ROFLMAO!!! That certainly demeans the value of the prize, don't you think?  Oh, maybe it was for being the BULLSHIT ARTIST OF THE YEAR. I can see that for sure. Just never knew there was a prize for it. I will tell my brother in law. Billy can sell an ice cube to an Eskimo just like Obama can sell a load of lying shit to so many voters. 

Yes, agree you post on people that agree with you. Why have an open mind? Thank goodness you only have 1 vote.

Oh, I forgot, conservatives don't like the Nobel Prize.  Krugman also has a Ph.D in economics from MIT, so I think you still lose.

And if you define "having an open mind" as listening to a random forum poster who cites his age (?!) as a "qualification" vs. listening to a Nobel laureate journalist with a Ph.D in economics, then consider me Mr. Closed Mind.  My mind is never so open that my brains fall out.

Agree. I don't care for you either. I tried to end the conflict in an earlier post when I said let's agree to disagree. I am done wrestling in the mud with you.

Because they do factor into it, that's how.

i know i'm a week or two late.. but we should be more like Europe .. i'd love for us to have a system like Denmark or Sweden. But i'm european, so go figure

cool you sound like lucifer.