help make this happen!

No, I meant execution. As in an order to kill them.

You offer no explanation of how any historical events happened. Use detail, I did. Don't give me some bs answer like "we'll I think FDR did good"

Li agree that businesses are in the drivers seat. They craft policy that benifits them. The influence the government with they're money. The do it no matter who is in charge. That's why federal power needs to be limited. The less they do the less they do for all these big business you hate. We don't have free markets! We have corporatism. BIG difference.

I hate repubicans too btw. I'm not defending them but bush is not a typical republican. The bush repubs are awful. Most repubs support tax cuts for the poor and middle class. I support tax cuts for everyone, on a massive scale. Rep Ron Paul has introduced a bill several times to stop taxing tips because waitors and waitresses is one of the few professions that someone with little skills can do and make a alright living. The dems don't support it.
Paul is a part of the small libertarian wing of the republican party though.
Republicans hate bush too. He ruined the party(as much as you can ruin crap). Trickle down is his thing, not the parties. There are bush republicans. The dems are no better though. They voted for and supported his tax cut! They controled the congress at the time! They're the same, wake up!

Yes, the act "encouraged" by penalizing for not having enough sub prime loans and offering government backing if they went bad.

Those fraud filled contracts were commited by realitors so they could get more commission. Not the banks. It wasn't widespread either.

We live in a world economy. We have to compete globaly. Do you think raising taxes on business will bring them back? Really? I can see the american and european quality of life going down a little because of this. I can't think of a way around it. Can you? If they can produce cheaper elsewhere where are they gonna produce? Do you plan to force companies to stay at the point of a gun?
Or is the plan to socialize the industry? Then it would be produced here but at much higher cost. Damn. That would make it more expensive. No one would by it. Banning competitive imports would have to be done too. Then we would be denying people the option of saving money or of possibly buying something better. It SUCKS! Give me a realistic solution to international competition. I wanna hear it. We can all bitch and moan all the time but it doesn't change the situation. Companies were leaving under clinton too.

Laying off. Yeah, companies do that. We can't spend 50,000 to make a 30,000 car. Sorry. If some of the cost is taxes then cutting those taxes would mean less lay offs. When a company manufactures something they are taking one or more things, doing something to them, and making something more valuable. Tht builds wealth. When a company losses money they are taking something and making something less valuable. That destroys wealth.
I don't like these giant business either. But they wouldn't exist, at least on this scale, without government help. The dems too. Who gave all of the big companies lots of money to keep them around? The dems and the repubs. No difference. Who showed those big insurance companies they couldn't get away with that crap by forcing everyone to buy their product which lines their pockets? That 1 was all the dems.

Open your eyes. Your all the republicans this, the republicans that. Even if you don't agree with what I think at least open your eyes to the fact that there isn't a difference. They have the same policies. You tell me how the republicans did something and I'll tell you how the dems did it too. And vise versa.

 

You didn't answer the question. Why did the Great Depression last so long? Your trying to invalidate the question instead of giving an answer. FDR was in control. We had massive government invervention that was meant to bring us out of the recession quickly. Those are FACTS. Why did it last so long?

I have an answer. My answer is that the New Deal did not work and prolonged the recession.

I want to hear your answer. Your explanation. It seems to me like your avoiding the question. You can disagree with my answer. That's fine. I just would like to hear yours. Saying "your wrong" is not an alternative answer. By trying to invalidate the question that's what your saying, at least in my opinion.

 

I would like to hear some examples of liertarian teory not working. Simply saying it doesn't contributes nothing to any discussion of ideas.

 

Be specific. The power has changed hands many times over the 65 years between then and now. The parties have changed too.
The dems used to be against welfare. The repubs started it. A lot of their views and methods have changed over the years. The rebulicans passed equal oppertunity. They also freed the slaves, Lincon was the 1st republican president. The republicans ended segregation too. You have to be more specific about which republican party. Give me a ten year period and specific problems in that period. Repubs used to be small business and didn't like the big corporations. Come on now.
It's like your trying to give dems credit for everything good that's ever happened and blame the repubs for anything bad.

Yes, I know Lincon was totally out of time period. I just used the example to show how much a party can change. The dems supported slavery.

 

On second thought. I might be wrong about segregation.

 

Brilliant!


Also: Can we stop blindly throwing the term 'liberty' into economic libertarian philosophy? I get it, 'liberty's' the root word and all. But to a lot of people, 'liberty' isn't living in a corporate wasteland where you have to beg for charity when you're out of work. It isn't a place where there's hardly a social safety net, if at all. It isn't a place where the weak and sick essentially have to work or starve to death.

To me, that sounds fucking retarded. Why do these people insist that 'liberty' only be extended to the wealthy or those lucky enough not to have their jobbed shipped to Mumbai?

 

Let's settle this one first. Who did Obama order killed? An execution order is for a specific person. Who is it and why?

.

 

Cost more money to drug test recipients than it saves money. This is why even more conservative states don't do it. Government aid isn't dependent on behavior either. It's available to everyone regardless of how you wound up in your circumstances. Besides isn't this yet more state control and interference with someone's personal life? Do we also test for alcohol and nicotine? Prescription drugs? House cleanliness?

Apparently you missed reality where this is exactly what happened in the 90's with the welfare reforms during the Clinton administration.

How the hell do you find a father if you don't know who or where he is? Do you really want the state to have power to be able to paternity test you just because a woman says you might be the father? More state control there.

Oh wonderful, so a 6 child household is getting the same amount of food stamps as a house with 2 children, fucking brilliant system.

Yea, Americans by far give more to chairty per capita than any other country, yet we have one of the highest poverty rates, infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies in the western world along with the most austere social systems. Apparently charity isn't working so well. Everything else you say is just lies. Since 1960 the poverty rate has fallen from near 25%, so how do you explain the fact charity and churches obviously did not provide enough then, and still don't despite Americans giving more than anyone else along with a welfare state to supplement it, combined with the fact the poverty rate has fallen since Kennedy and Johnson instituted the first real welfare programs.


Why do people believe in some idealized version of the past that never existed where everyone lived affluent, poverty free lives with no government help?


Welfare also doesn't eclipse defense spending, social security spending does, and just barely. Since most of social security are retirement payments, it doesn't fall under the welfare category

Excellent, standard "I did it so everyone can do it" footnote. Suppose all those adults still making only $13 an hour at 2 different jobs just need to work harder.

And yes, that's the point of unemployment. You pay into into it so you don't have to find a job right away purposely so you can take your time and try to find a job in the same line of work and same level of salary as your previous ones.

Or we can do it your way and just whip everyone at the unemployment office while banging a drum and chanting WORK HARDER.

 

Just to add to what Mad said:

If one has been convicted of a drug charge, they can't get public assistance, yet a convicted killer can. And you're going to have to show me the statistics on drug use by welfare recipients, I don't buy your claim.

This is already a law. And, yes Mad, they do give DNA testing to potential fathers.

Reality check, the extra benefits for additional children hardly cover the costs for that child. You're relying on old wives tales here.

The very reason welfare was started was because private charities were not working and many churches required everyone to attend the sermon before eating.


You're making a lot of assumptions based on incorrect information. You're railing against a welfare system of which you evidently know nothing about. ie, an adult can only qualify for about $150 per month in food stamps, that's all, nothing more. I'm not seeing hordes of people quitting their day jobs for this bonanza.

.

 

Here, I'll just give you sources from now on cause aparently anything that goes against a preconcived notion isn't true.

Btw, when the american civil liberties union tried to find out how many other u.s. citizens had been targeted they said a few but wouldn't give a number of any names for security reasons.
I had to really search to find an artical that I think you'd trust on the matter. Couldn't find more info from any sources you wouldn't disregard because of the mainstream medias lack of coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html

 

Drug use among welfare recipiants:
"For the total population aged 12 or older, the estimates of drug use were nearly twice as high among people who reported that they or someone in their household received welfare assistance during the past year (Table 13.2). For example, about 18% of people in households where someone had received welfare reported past year illicit drug use compared with about 11% of people in households without a family member receiving welfare. Among adults aged 35 or older, those who received welfare were three times more likely than those who did not to have used marijuana or cocaine in the past year."
This is from a government study. Since they said it it must be true.
They also stated that drug use was hardley different among income levels. What could that mean? Could it mean that poor people who aren't on the dole aren't more likely to use drugs but those that are on it are more likely?
Here's the source, read for yourself.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/1997main/nhsda1997mfWeb-114.htm

Yes, the extra benifits hardley cover the cost. But if you have a habit, your kids eat free in school anyway, you can sell your food stamps, your rent is chheap or free, and you don't give it that much consideration then you might do it anyway.

No, people don't quit jobs for welfare. They just don't get them because of it. Why go work at a minimum wage job when you can make as much not working. Most people don't think about the minimum wage job as a spepping stone to something better. They don't realize that the big gap in they're employment while the were drawing unemployment hurts them.

Wow, people had to listen to a sermon to get a meal? That's horrible!
There are non religious charities now that we didn't have then. Also, welfare was started not long after the great depression and we didn't have the wealth that we do now. We also didn't pay around 60% of income in taxes. Do you think that with our current wealth that if we paid far fewer taxes charity might be more efficint than it was?
Yes, 60%. I'll break down my pay if you like.

 

What you are calling a "preconceived notion," I call experience and education.

I read your link and boy, did you ever misrepresent that one. This is an order to capture a terrorist, dead or alive. You stated:

1. He also signed execution orders on american citizens living abroad
2. No, I meant execution. As in an order to kill them.

Aren't those, who he is leading, the ones who just put 2 bombs on 2 different jet planes heading for America? What do you want the President to do, invite him to the White House for a couple of beers so they can talk about it?

I have to get up early for a doctor's appointment, so I'll address the other stuff tomorrow night.

.

 

I was out of work for several years, during which I received food stamps for about a year. I had absolutely no income, yet once in a while a friend would stop by with a bud and share it with me. So what !

I'll say it again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Food banks and charities across the country cannot find enough food and donations to feed the people who need it. And, are you aware that many food banks and charities charge the poor for food and necessities?

Damn, you need a new accountant, my brother is worth millions and he pays less than 40%.

And, what current wealth? Only the rich have money and they aren't parting with it, for any reason.

I just have to ask, why are you so stingy when it comes to the poor and disabled?

off to bed now

.

 

Hear's a news flash for you jack. Obama ordered the killing of innocent women & children. His military carries out the orders each and every time their told too.
Not that it matters much to me, everybody has to die eventually. You & me too.
I don't want my government killing innocent people, and I don't want it to help you stay alive.
In reality that's your damn responsibility. Why don't you get with the program?
Do whatever you want, because I certainly don't give a shit about you.
Just don't ask me to help you out through the government.
If you stop by the house, we can smoke a blunt. I'll feed your mind, and give you a bite to eat too.
I HOPE my words weren't too blunt for you, but they are the truth, and I will not CHANGE it for you.
I'm not Barak Obama,
In reality I'm virtually jesus christ!
Are you ready for what's comin' down the road?

 

You're a bit off topic here, you should be in the war thread. The issue here is his order to kill American citizens.

So, why are you here saying anything?

Who the hell is your government?

No thanks

.

 

Really? Cause i thought the drug testing was a regurgitated republican idea. A drug test cost $40. How many test could you pay for with the money saved by not supporting 1 crack habit for 1 year?

Your referring to only 1 welfare program and that's not even true. After taking a break from drawing it you can go back an reapply and start a new five year period. Or you can have another kid. Another policy that encourages irresponsible behaviour. But maybe you definition of a limit is different. I don't consider a break a limit. Guess that's just me.

How the hell do you not know who the father is or at least have an idea unless your a hooker? Guess you just think poor women go around having sex with strangers all the time. A lot of women(its pretty common in the hood, not that you would know from any kind of experiance) will say they don't know cause it'll mean they might get less benefits.

Yes, don't keep increasing benifits indefinatly because it encourages people who don't realize they're screwing themselves to have kids that they can't afford. If they know that they'll be resposibly for them and not have much assistance it'll encourage resposible decisions.

See above about charity. Except all add this. Your graph and stats are based on the CPI(comsumer price index). It takes a bunch of items, looks at the price, compares it to income in the u.s., compares it to past numbers, and comes up with a quality of life scale and determines the poverty level. What you don't know is that every time it starts to look like qaulity of life is going down they change items in the group. For example changing steak to hamburger. But hamburger and steak aren't the same quality of life now is it? The offical poverty line is a little over 17,000 a year for a family of 4. Have you ever taken care of a family of 4 on 17,000? Could you imagine that! A family of 4 making less than 25,000 is in poverty if you ask me. But you keep using the government standard and manipulated CPI as your gage.
Also, how can ya'll claim that the middle class is getting pushed out by the rich and put into poverty and that poverty is decreasing at the same time? Those two things can't happen simultainiously.

Give us some figures on infant mortality rates. Life expectantcy is probable cause americans aren't exactly healthy. Also, how is that somehow charity's fault when we've had your welfare system for so long?
You left out Nixon, don't forget Nixon. Don't wanna give repubs any crdit for your programs I guess.

The point of unemplyment is not for people to sit around making no attempt to find work. Also, saying you should get the same wage and same type of job is ridiculous. What if you make a product that no one wants to buy any more? You should change professions if your profession isn't in demand. Even though a job doesn't pay what an old one did doesn't mean you should give up your unemployment. The large gap in employment while your "looking" for a job is detrimental to job hunters. A lot of good jobs won't hire if you have big gaps in employment. People hurt themselves long term by staying on umemployment instead of taking whatever job they can get, even if it pays less than unemployment. Not only because of the lack of gap in employment but also because of the new job skills that you could learn. Can't forget to meantion that just cause a job starts out paying less doesn't mean you couldn't move up and get raises. Then there is the advantage of keeping yourself busy and in the habit of getting up and working every day. That's a very good habit to have.

If you have 2 jobs making 13 an hour your circumstances will change, quickly. I know that 1st hand. Didn't make 13 though. That would have been nice.

People don't have to keep working harder and harder. You shouldn't belittle hard work. Its us that work hard that pay for all your welfare after all.

 

Have any of you ever had any personal experiance iving in projects? Being surrounded by people on all types of welfare? I have. LOTS.

Let me tell you about life in the hood. I'm most city housing projects practically everyone draws welfare. Almost all of them sell their food stamps. Almost all blow their welfare check on dumb crap. Most don't, and make no attempt to work. You think it's uncommon but its not. I remember sitting and reading about how much good these programs did when I was a teenager and looking around me and I couldn't help but laugh. But I'm sure ya'll have been there. Sure you know all about it.

40% in income taxes? Cause I'm talking about ALL the taxes. Gas taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, etc, etc, etc.
There's a differance. 40 right off the top with ss, medicade, income, state, county, and local income taxes. Then 10% on everything you spend. Then your property. Additional taxes on gas(more for me I travel for work).

You drew foodstamps and your brothers worth millions? Yeah, that figures. All you lazy greedy asses would rather the government take care of and help the poor and your families than to do it yourself. That's why you don't believe charity would work I guess. Think people are greedy like ya'll. I give money for charity on the other hand and take care of my family. Even my siblings and nephews. Have fun living in your fantasy world. Like you needed food stamps with a wealthy family. You were just sucking the system. My whole point is that people should take resonsibility for themselves and their families.
People who just sit around sucking the teet when they don't need it for real are the reason the whole welfare system is collapsing(and it is collapsing).
The question has never been should we get rid of it. It's always been how do we whean people off it before it all goes belly up and it's too late.
You disregard any option that doesn't increase the number of people on the dole.
I even suggested a bunch that I don't really think would work to see.

Btw, I have nothing against people smoking weed, or doing coke for that matter(government studies consider crack coke). If you ant afford food though maybe that shouldn't be your priority. Guess you'd rather they stay strung out on crack and in the projects than risk having to work with 'em or live next door.

 

So all we need is suspicion and accusation and the president now can order an execution order on anyone with no judicial oversight? Wow.
You completely ignored the KILL part of the capture or KILL order.
That's a great idea to give the president that power btw. Maybe someone in the future will use it to label anyone who dissagrees with them ememies of the state.
This is the American Civil Liberties Union were talking about filing suit here.

 

As far as your graph on government spending goes. We'll leave out social security. As far as I'm concerned it quit being a retirement program and started being a welfare program when they started spending the money on everything else though. At that point social security taxes became no different than all the other taxes. You can thank Clinton for putting the final nail in that coffin, bush did it too though.
However, we have to add in medicare, medicade, housing and urban development, and health and human services. Is that data current, last year, or the year before? Just curious. It changes year to year.

 

I'm not stingy. I just think people should be resposible for themselves. Part of freedom is your free to do what you want but when you screw up you have to deal with the consiquinces. I give to charity. And with americas wealth I believe that if we had more in our pockets we would give more(lower taxes).
Also, a lot of americas charitable giving is given overseas. If we had problems after phasing out welfare(I'm sure we would) then we would see a lot of that get transferred back to charities here in the u.s.
Also, we HAVE to cut spending drastically our the system will collapse. We can't keep printing and borrowing money to pay for the welfare/warfare state. It will end. Whether it ends because we wean people off it gradually or it ends suddenly when the system collapses is the only issue really. The suffering would be far worse and far less managable if it is sudden. I don't like it any more than you do but that's the reality of the situation. I fear that day and the suffering that will happen.