This ain't your mom/dads USA !

[Moose]

I stayed up last night, as alot of you all did, to watch the election results and the surprising end, and one of the guest speaker's was O'Reilly. He of course talked of the voter's and the country's economy and problems. He mentioned how he was completely baffled how the voter's would accept the state of the economy, the welfare situation, the jobless situation at the highest ever, and still vote for O'bama. Then he made a comment that hit me....he said that the voter's just want 'stuff' from their government. They want things given to them. He generally mentioned that the majority running the country now is Hispanic, latino's, gay's, black and women. That anyone who watched and understood the country's situation and future would no way vote to repeat. Ummm....what say you?

[Seven]

I don't know how else to explain a victory by the lesser candidate. I can speak from experience, my parents voted for Obama because my sister still lives at home, unemployed, and the extension of healthcare to children lets her stay on my dad's plan until she's 26. So while O'Reilly can be extreme, I would be lying if I said I thought he was wrong. Just look at how many people are on food stamps. Up 50% since Obama took office. Think those people want to give that free money up? No way!

[fansince'76]

Dow's already down 300+. Just sayin'...

Yeah, I know, bu-bu-bu-Europe!

[Vis]

What were those economic and welfare bills pushed through by Obama that changed everything?

[SCSTILLER]

What were those economic and welfare bills pushed through by Obama that changed everything?

It's not the bills pushed through by him, but instead his economic policies that have people relying on the bills to get by (or take advantage of)

[Vis]

It's not the bills pushed through by him, but instead his economic policies that have people relying on the bills to get by (or take advantage of)

List them. I know it's the meme, I'm looking for facts.

[X-Terminator]

Given that there are several very able-bodied members of my family living off welfare instead of working, you know there was no way in hell they were going to vote for anyone other than Obama. Welfare in and of itself isn't the problem...lazy-ass people with a sense of entitlement is the problem. If they have no incentive to work, why the hell would they? So basically I, and every other American with a job, is paying for my family members to suck off the public teat and keep pumping out babies to get more money. It makes me sick.

[Vis]

Given that there are several very able-bodied members of my family living off welfare instead of working, you know there was no way in hell they were going to vote for anyone other than Obama. Welfare in and of itself isn't the problem...lazy-ass people with a sense of entitlement is the problem. If they have no incentive to work, why the hell would they? So basically I, and every other American with a job, is paying for my family members to suck off the public teat and keep pumping out babies to get more money. It makes me sick.

That's their problem. I have never heard of a candidate proposing a system that can't be scammed. If they did, don't believe it. You can put in a system that excludes people who legitimately need help if you want but I think everyone's standard of living suffers if we have shantytowns and hoovervilles.

[Moose]

I don't know how else to explain a victory by the lesser candidate. I can speak from experience, my parents voted for Obama because my sister still lives at home, unemployed, and the extension of healthcare to children lets her stay on my dad's plan until she's 26. So while O'Reilly can be extreme, I would be lying if I said I thought he was wrong. Just look at how many people are on food stamps. Up 50% since Obama took office. Think those people want to give that free money up? No way!

I agree with you Seven. I thought about what O'Reilly said and I do agree with him. It wasn't long after O'Reilly's appearance a political reporter came on and more or less said the same thing. He mentioned that the Republican party ( and Democrats ) will have to change their way of thinking from here on out. No more of the old party stances. That the U.S. will have to start catering to the gay's ( as alot of states adopted same sex marriages ), and start catering to hispanic/latino's way of life. The 'likeability' of a candidate is now starting to take preference over what can the candidate do with the country. Asinine, I know !! But, I guess this is what we get when we let all the minorities run the world. I guess that's where the O'Reilly statement of, " they want 'stuff' from the government " comes to light. I do agree with your mom/dad's situation about your sister. With the economy and no job's situation going on now, you sure can't afford to have no insurance, and your sister being jobless it's definitely great that she can still be on your mom/dad's plan. But, what happens after 26 yrs. old ? It's scary for her I'm sure. I don't know how this Obama plan is going to work out, but I hate the thought of MY insurance (from work) going UP to pay for those that don't have job's and want insurance. My family doctor said last year that IF Obama plan goes into affect that he's thinking of retiring because, as he put it, " I'm not going to give things for free !". It's going to be interesting for sure my fellow American's. I hope Obama can get things together. Guess I'll fill up my motorcycle and buy a heavy coat....got a feeling that gas prices are going to spike.

Oh yea, the political reporter also said he wouldn't be surprised if the next candidate ( Rep. or Dem.) would be a Hispanic/Latino/gay/woman......or all of. That's definitely something to think about.....ugh.

[Vis]

The title of this tread is true. demographics have shifted. Marriage equality is just a matter of time. The GOP can't win with the white male vote again, there aren't enough of us. They will have to reach out to minorities, women, etc. You can't do that with idiots who talk dismissively about rape in a campaign or speak of all Hispanics as illegals and suggest English as a national language when Spanish was here first in many states.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how else to explain a victory by the lesser candidate. I can speak from experience, my parents voted for Obama because my sister still lives at home, unemployed, and the extension of healthcare to children lets her stay on my dad's plan until she's 26. So while O'Reilly can be extreme, I would be lying if I said I thought he was wrong. Just look at how many people are on food stamps. Up 50% since Obama took office. Think those people want to give that free money up? No way!

Have you ever known anyone on food stamps who wouldn't rather have an income above that threshold? Your take home pay has to be under 11k a year to qualify. If you think they have it made, quit your job and live off that incredible food stamp wealth.

[Vis]

Oh yea, the political reporter also said he wouldn't be surprised if the next candidate ( Rep. or Dem.) would be a Hispanic/Latino/gay/woman......or all of. That's definitely something to think about.....ugh.

This is a telling statement. I really have no words in response to this vile thinking.

[BnG_Hevn]

The title of this tread is true. demographics have shifted. Marriage equality is just a matter of time. The GOP can't win with the white male vote again, there aren't enough of us. They will have to reach out to minorities, women, etc. You can't do that with idiots who talk dismissively about rape in a campaign or speak of all Hispanics as illegals and suggest English as a national language when Spanish was here first in many states.

- - - Updated - - -





Have you ever known anyone on food stamps who wouldn't rather have an income above that threshold? Your take home pay has to be under 11k a year to qualify. If you think they have it made, quit your job and live off that incredible food stamp wealth.

I grew up in projects and saw the something: Able bodied workers collecting all the public assistance they can.

The problem with finding a job that will make them more is that they are uneducated and lazy so IF they were to get a job, it would be at / near the minimum wage. They'd have to work two jobs or even three to make the money they get for sitting around.

There are ways to reform it but no president will ever make the moves necessary.

The thing about the minorities running the country is this: When the country goes bankrupt, they are ALL SCREWED. I don't know how the government going bankrupt would affect the country, maybe that's what's needed. Bite the bullet in order to "clean house".

If the government went bankrupt, what would happen? Maybe I'll start a thread about it.

[Vis]

The thing about the minorities running the country is this: When the country goes bankrupt, they are ALL SCREWED.

Wow. Which groups of people are you speaking of exactly? Any minority of any kind or do you have specific racial categories of people in mind?

This thread is getting ugly fast. Maybe it's unfair that all conservatives get lumped in with those who think like this but to counter that, some conservatives will have to call bigotry out.

[X-Terminator]

That's their problem. I have never heard of a candidate proposing a system that can't be scammed. If they did, don't believe it. You can put in a system that excludes people who legitimately need help if you want but I think everyone's standard of living suffers if we have shantytowns and hoovervilles.

I'm not sure where in my response I said I wanted to put in a system that excludes people who legitimately need help, but OK. As I said, I don't have a problem with the welfare system. I simply want the wasted money saved and the scammers stopped dead in their tracks.

[Vis]

I'm not sure where in my response I said I wanted to put in a system that excludes people who legitimately need help, but OK. As I said, I don't have a problem with the welfare system. I simply want the wasted money saved and the scammers stopped dead in their tracks.

You didn't say that. My point is, you can't have the perfect system that covers everyone who needs it and catches everyone who's playing the system. It's like everything else, there are trade offs. If you want to increase police powers until there can be no crime you can do so at the expense of all freedom. Trade offs. Freedoms leave room for abuses.

[Seven]

The title of this tread is true. demographics have shifted. Marriage equality is just a matter of time. The GOP can't win with the white male vote again, there aren't enough of us. They will have to reach out to minorities, women, etc. You can't do that with idiots who talk dismissively about rape in a campaign or speak of all Hispanics as illegals and suggest English as a national language when Spanish was here first in many states.

- - - Updated - - -



Have you ever known anyone on food stamps who wouldn't rather have an income above that threshold? Your take home pay has to be under 11k a year to qualify. If you think they have it made, quit your job and live off that incredible food stamp wealth.

I worked a job where I made less than 8k a year while going through college. Most of the people I worked with used food stamps and had no ambition to change for the better. I don't think they have it made by any means, but I can tell you coming from that situation - they​ think they do.

[X-Terminator]

You didn't say that. My point is, you can't have the perfect system that covers everyone who needs it and catches everyone who's playing the system. It's like everything else, there are trade offs. If you want to increase police powers until there can be no crime you can do so at the expense of all freedom. Trade offs. Freedoms leave room for abuses.

Best you can do is put in work provisions, like many states already do. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and creating generations of welfare families. Some people would rather see that requirement eliminated, to which I say...are you out of your damn minds? Why shouldn't they have to work or at the very least attend college/tech school or some kind of career training in order to keep their benefits? We want more people off the public dole, not on it.

[Vis]

Best you can do is put in work provisions, like many states already do. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and creating generations of welfare families. Some people would rather see that requirement eliminated, to which I say...are you out of your damn minds? Why shouldn't they have to work or at the very least attend college/tech school or some kind of career training in order to keep their benefits? We want more people off the public dole, not on it.

The first thing you have to do is leave resentment for people on welfare out of the design of the policy. Then you have to have a policy that accounts for people who can work and should have a work requirement and those who truly cannot. You also need to account for people who are borderline in their ability to learn new tasks - above special needs but not candidates for technical work. Then the system choice comes in with the costs involved in determining what you are dealing with. Is it more or less expensive to test everyone to find their highest level of ability or do you need to stick with broad categories that allows some to slip through?

If there was an easy solution it would have been implemented long ago.

[X-Terminator]

The first thing you have to do is leave resentment for people on welfare out of the design of the policy. Then you have to have a policy that accounts for people who can work and should have a work requirement and those who truly cannot. You also need to account for people who are borderline in their ability to learn new tasks - above special needs but not candidates for technical work. Then the system choice comes in with the costs involved in determining what you are dealing with. Is it more or less expensive to test everyone to find their highest level of ability or do you need to stick with broad categories that allows some to slip through?

If there was an easy solution it would have been implemented long ago.

Of course there is no easy solution, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't look for one. We didn't get to be the greatest country on Earth by doing things the easy way or making easy decisions.

[Craic]

The first thing you have to do is leave resentment for people on welfare out of the design of the policy. Then you have to have a policy that accounts for people who can work and should have a work requirement and those who truly cannot. You also need to account for people who are borderline in their ability to learn new tasks - above special needs but not candidates for technical work. Then the system choice comes in with the costs involved in determining what you are dealing with. Is it more or less expensive to test everyone to find their highest level of ability or do you need to stick with broad categories that allows some to slip through?

If there was an easy solution it would have been implemented long ago.

And here, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our entire society. I'm not speaking of the fact that we should or shouldn't care about people who can't work, but the fact that we've moved to place where we depend on the government to fix the problem, rather than the people on the local communities fixing the problems in their communities. There was a time when those people were given menial labor by people so that they could earn a little bit of money, the churches would help out with food and clothing, sometimes shelter, the local police would keep an eye out for the person to make sure he was okay. . . . That was the model that allowed a small federal govt.

There's too many things that has caused the general breakdown of society and the result of the previous paragraph no longer happening. Now instead of getting help from your neighbors, you (general you) look to the govt. for help. The worse parts about it: (1) it's a system that enslaves the people into it once they start, and (2) people get to vote to have someone raise someone else's taxes, and then claim to be "compassionate" and "caring," and it's all a crock. Instead, it allows people to become that much more secluded from others and not have to get involved in their lives, not have to do anything more than give them a few dollars and feel good about it, and all the while, feel like they're "doing something" for the poor.

Like I said, it's a crock - a divestment of responsibility under the cloak of caring and responsibility.

[Vis]

And here, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our entire society. I'm not speaking of the fact that we should or shouldn't care about people who can't work, but the fact that we've moved to place where we depend on the government to fix the problem, rather than the people on the local communities fixing the problems in their communities. There was a time when those people were given menial labor by people so that they could earn a little bit of money, the churches would help out with food and clothing, sometimes shelter, the local police would keep an eye out for the person to make sure he was okay. . . . That was the model that allowed a small federal govt.

There's too many things that has caused the general breakdown of society and the result of the previous paragraph no longer happening. Now instead of getting help from your neighbors, you (general you) look to the govt. for help. The worse parts about it: (1) it's a system that enslaves the people into it once they start, and (2) people get to vote to have someone raise someone else's taxes, and then claim to be "compassionate" and "caring," and it's all a crock. Instead, it allows people to become that much more secluded from others and not have to get involved in their lives, not have to do anything more than give them a few dollars and feel good about it, and all the while, feel like they're "doing something" for the poor.

Like I said, it's a crock - a divestment of responsibility under the cloak of caring and responsibility.

During those times when local communities helped some people, they didn't help all. People did starve. People were stepped over as they died in the gutters. It was accepted. That wasn't the good ole days

[Craic]

During those times when local communities helped some people, they didn't help all. People did starve. People were stepped over as they died in the gutters. It was accepted. That wasn't the good ole days

In the big cities on the coasts . . . yep. But in the small communities, nope. That didn't happen unless you were a different skin color - which puts the argument in an entirely different discussion. I personally know of someone who watched as his father (early 1900's, the guy is almost 90) and a few of the townsfolk men had a "talk" with a guy.

The guy took the money he'd made from a job, and instead of feeding his starving wife and kids, went and spent it on liquor. The guys all got together, took him down the road to an empty barn, and let him know in very specific terms what was going to happen to him if he continued to treat his wife and family that way. The wives, by the way, took food over to the family and took care of them.

Amazing what happened - the family never had to be fed or clothed by the community again. Why? Because the community took care of the root of the problem. While we won't abide by the methods now, the fact is, the further away you get from the local problem, the less the ability to take care of the local problem.

[Vis]

In the big cities on the coasts . . . yep. But in the small communities, nope. That didn't happen unless you were a different skin color - which puts the argument in an entirely different discussion. I personally know of someone who watched, as his father (early 1900's, the guy is almost 90) and a few of the townsfolk men had a "talk" with a guy.

The guy took the money he'd made from a job, and instead of feeding his starving wife and kids, went and spent it on liquor. The guys all got together, took him down the road to an empty barn, and let him know in very specific terms what was going to happen to him if he continued to treat his wife and family that way. The wives, by the way, took food over to the family and took care of them.

Amazing what happened - the family never had to be fed or clothed by the community again. Why? Because the community took care of the root of the problem. While we won't abide by the methods now, the fact is, the further away you get from the local problem, the less the ability to take care of the local problem.

Pick a community and I'll find an historical horror. Still, the beauty of private charity is the ability to pick who gets it and who freezes. Keeps things homogenous.

[Craic]

Pick a community and I'll find an historical horror. Still, the beauty of private charity is the ability to pick who gets it and who freezes. Keeps things homogenous.

First, you know as well as I do that "a historical horror" does not equate to negating my argument.

Second, you really don't do a lot of work with private charities, do you? When I was a pastor, we'd help out anyone and everyone the first time with food other whatever else they needed (except money and bus passes). The second time, we'd work with them to figure out what was going on, and help try to direct them to places (most likely, other private, but sometimes govt. sponsored) charities or places of help.

In my scenario, a lot of those issues were driven by drugs. We'd help them get to places to beat the addiction and even come along side the family and help them through it, including marriage counseling and other types of help. Sometimes we were successful, sometimes we weren't. But the only time we every "turned down" someone, was when they were trying to run scams on us - and yes, that happened often. The most common one was "I need food for my child/wife/husband/mother/etc." "Sure," I'd say, I'll meet you over at the grocery store in about twenty minutes and I'll buy you $$$ amount of food."

Do you know how many showed up? Zero. They were so desperate, until they realized that they weren't going to get cash. BTW, it's also why we never gave away bus passes, because often they go and sell them for money, then use the money to buy drugs.

So like I said, with that kind of comment, I doubt you really have worked closely with a number of private charities.

[Vis]

First, you know as well as I do that "a historical horror" does not equate to negating my argument.

Second, you really don't do a lot of work with private charities, do you? When I was a pastor, we'd help out anyone and everyone the first time with food other whatever else they needed (except money and bus passes). The second time, we'd work with them to figure out what was going on, and help try to direct them to places (most likely, other private, but sometimes govt. sponsored) charities or places of help.

In my scenario, a lot of those issues were driven by drugs. We'd help them get to places to beat the addiction and even come along side the family and help them through it, including marriage counseling and other types of help. Sometimes we were successful, sometimes we weren't. But the only time we every "turned down" someone, was when they were trying to run scams on us - and yes, that happened often. The most common one was "I need food for my child/wife/husband/mother/etc." "Sure," I'd say, I'll meet you over at the grocery store in about twenty minutes and I'll buy you $$$ amount of food."

Do you know how many showed up? Zero. They were so desperate, until they realized that they weren't going to get cash. BTW, it's also why we never gave away bus passes, because often they go and sell them for money, then use the money to buy drugs.

So like I said, with that kind of comment, I doubt you really have worked closely with a number of private charities.

Are you actually advocating removing the safety net and going with charity alone or are you just bemoaning the realities of an imperfect present with nostalgia for a Hallmark version of what was a very imperfect past?

[Craic]

Are you actually advocating removing the safety net and going with charity alone or are you just bemoaning the realities of an imperfect present with nostalgia for a Hallmark version of what was a very imperfect past?

Actually, right now I'm laughing at the fact that neither option means anything in the context of this discussion between us, where I began by explaining that the points in your post are the epitome of the problems (not your thinking, but the issues you brought up) in this country and what it has moved away from. So, I'm neither bemoaning nor advocating, just stating what I consider is a fact and the major contributor to the monstrosity we now call the US govt.

It hasn't escaped me however, that you continue to change the conversation, rather than answer the questions. So once again - have you worked closely with not for profit charities that you impugn as being bigoted (yes, homogeneous is such a nicer word) - can you find more than "a historical horror" that does little to discount the overall argument I made - what do you say to the fact that in the cities that are considered liberal, even back then, were people "walking over" others and letting them starve to death in the streets, but that was seldom seen in the small towns where "community" was more important?

[Vis]

Actually, right now I'm laughing at the fact that neither option means anything in the context of this discussion between us, where I began by explaining that the points in your post are the epitome of the problems (not your thinking, but the issues you brought up) in this country and what it has moved away from. So, I'm neither bemoaning nor advocating, just stating what I consider is a fact and the major contributor to the monstrosity we now call the US govt.

That's what bemoaning means

[Craic]

That's what bemoaning means

be·moan

   [bih-mohn] Show IPA
verb (used with object)1.to express distress or grief over; lament: tobemoan one's fate.

2.to regard with regret or disapproval.

Dictionary.com






My post once again:

Actually, right now I'm laughing at the fact that neither option means anything in the context of this discussion between us, where I began by explaining that the points in your post are the epitome of the problems (not your thinking, but the issues you brought up) in this country and what it has moved away from. So, I'm neither bemoaning nor advocating, just stating what I consider is a fact and the major contributor to the monstrosity we now call the US govt.

Have I expressed distress, grief, lament, or regarded with regret or disapproval? Nope, in this statement, I have presented an argument that your post shows the epitome of the problems, and why we are in a place that we are in now. I haven't engaged in any kind of value judgment yet, because in order to do so, I then have to include other factors such as the racial tensions, etc. Nope, this is simply interpretation of an observation.

That's a far cry from bemoaning.

But - and this was added as an edit to my last post so you might not have caught it, it hasn't escaped my notice that you still haven't answered my questions. See my last post.

[BnG_Hevn]

If you took away government assistance then people who are able to work would be forced to work or they'd starve. How fast do you think they'd find work then?

If the government goes bankrupt, by definition they can't support the "needy" so that is exactly what would happen.

If that were to happen, the communities would need to step up and take care of themselves with the ones who are leeches getting a raw deal from the people that work for a living.

And guess what? If you have to explain to your fellow neighbors about needing money, that will certainly light a fire under you to NOT need their help. Getting help from the government is easy b/c you're just a number. Begging for help from your neighbors, who have an idea what you own in regards to materialistic items, is a whole 'nother story.

I wouldn't turn away anyone who is needy and if all hell breaks loose and I still am employed, I'll definitely help out via my local church but *NOT* if deadbeats benefit.

[Vis]

be·moan

   [bih-mohn] Show IPA
verb (used with object)1.to express distress or grief over; lament: tobemoan one's fate.

2.to regard with regret or disapproval.

Dictionary.com






My post once again:



Have I expressed distress, grief, lament, or regarded with regret or disapproval? Nope, in this statement, I have presented an argument that your post shows the epitome of the problems, and why we are in a place that we are in now. I haven't engaged in any kind of value judgment yet, because in order to do so, I then have to include other factors such as the racial tensions, etc. Nope, this is simply interpretation of an observation.

That's a far cry from bemoaning.

But - and this was added as an edit to my last post so you might not have caught it, it hasn't escaped my notice that you still haven't answered my questions. See my last post.

Bemoaning - "And here, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our entire society...."