The Welfare Myth

[RidgeHunter]

I couldn't have said this better myself.

This same thing is true for liberals. There's a few who are well educated and believe in their "team." Then you have the rest of them who are there because it makes them feel good about themselves.

Agreed, but not nearly to the same extent. Even the most brain-dead liberals I know can articulate in some manner that they believe social justice should be a component of government.

The average republican can articulate he kinda believes social justice shouldn't be a component of government...sometimes. Or he can articulate it shouldn't be while totally contradicting his statement with his actions and lifestyle. Even the current republican platform and candidates positions are vague and ambiguous on this subject. The democrat's is simple: they believe in social justice and related entitlements and a mixed economy. Ain't nobody voting democrat that doesn't know they party position on social justice and government economic involvement and agree with it. I couldn't tell you the Republican position because they don't seem to know it themselves.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I think y'all are trying really hard to over-simplify it and to group all R in one group and that's just not factual.

Here in OK, we're going to have around 66% of people vote R in this election. At that same time, there are around 15% of Okies on Food Stamps. While I'm sure there is some crossover, and there is definitely some irony in that, it's not an all encompassing view of the conservative collective.

Why can't a conservative say that he's for LIMITED social welfare?
Why can't a conservative say that he's concerned about the level at which we've allowed ourselves to get to as a nation?
Why can't there be a reasonable amount of help for those who truly NEED it?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing...

Not saying you can't.

I'm saying the Republican rhetoric about "moochers" and "free markets" "socialism" gets really old, especially when the party position will always moderate after elections. Couple this with he fact red states are poor states, it annoys me. It also bugs me to see Romney explaining why his capital gains tax rates are fair and then see him win Arkansas and Oklahoma and Mississippi in landslides. Are these states voting for him because of his tax plan? No. OSA voters are, but OSA voters are not normal. We've done polls here which spending a lot of time on this site I don't doubt the results of...and many OSA members have incomes much higher than state average and college educations. OSA does not represent the average Okie or the average southerner. It annoys me to see Romney speaking at a fundraiser about the "47% who are dependent on government" when I live in Oklahoma and I've been to the south. I'm not implying the majority of GOP voters are on foodstamps/ Not implying the average GOP voters is poor (most poor people vote democratic...way more than vote republican) I'm implying the GOP would *not* be viable at all if not for poor people and poor states. And I'm implying reason the GOP has the votes of these poor people has nothing to do with domestic economic platforms.

 

[HMFIC]

Not saying you can't.

I'm saying the Republican rhetoric about "moochers" and "free markets" "socialism" gets really old, especially when the party position will always moderate after elections. Coupled this with he fact red states are poor states, it annoys me. It also bugs me to see Romney explaining why his capital gains tax rates are fair and then see him win Arkansas and Oklahoma and Mississippi in landslides. Are these states voting for him because of his tax plan? No. OSA voters are, but OSA voters are not normal. We've done polls here which spending a lot of time on this site I don't doubt the results of...and many OSA members have incomes much higher than state average and college educations. OSA does not represent the average Okie or the average southerner. It annoys me to see Romney speaking at a fundraiser about the "47% who are dependent on government" when I live in Oklahoma and I've been to the south. I'm not implying the majority of GOP voters are on foodstamps, I'm implying the GOP would *not* be viable at all if not for poor people and poor states. And I'm implying reason the GOP has the votes of these poor people has nothing to do with domestic economic platforms.

Ya... you're probably right. I've already spent more time than I care to even considering all of it.

I'm about tired of politics this season fo sho.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Ya... you're probably right. I've already spent more time than I care to even considering all of it.

I'm about tired of politics this season fo sho.

Ya, but good news is

When in reality, regardless of who wins, life will go on. We'll get up and go to our crappy jobs, marry bitchy women, have mediocre children, drink cheap beer, watch the History Channel close in on the elusive Bigfoot. Retire, maybe buy an RV and hit a few National Parks one year before we decide 'it's just too much maintenance' and sell it. Wander around the house looking for plumbing/electrical/mechanical problems, call a repairman (on a Saturday), watch him work over his shoulder, look concerned. Go to coffee shop to ***** about the bill, realize all your friends are dead, go home, watch Price is Right. 54-year-old Justin Beiber is hosting it. Shoot TV with .357. Put it on the curb for the trash man to pick up, he won't take it, write letter to the editor. Shuffle around the doctor's office in double-knit pants mumbling "you already have my ******* insurance card you snotty *****' under your breath. Your kids come over on your birthday and you stare at them with deep contempt as they lecture you about not driving anymore and maybe moving somewhere 'you could make friends'. Wish you'd got that vasectomy 9 years earlier. Death, casket, funeral. 150 people show up to mourn. You haven't talked to 3 souls in the last 18 months of your life.

 

[HMFIC]

Ya, but good news is

That's a fact jack!

 

[ez bake]

For 2012 it's sitting around 750 Billion and that doesn't include SS

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html


Family and children 135.4B
Unemployment 77.6B
Unemployment trust 171.6B
Workers compensation 21.8B
Housing 71.7B
Social exclusion n.e.c. 265.1B
R&D Social protection 0.0B
Social protection n.e.c. 7.4B

Fair enough - that number includes unemployment and Worker's Comp though. Several of the other programs listed in that aren't what most folks consider "welfare", so maybe the better question might be:

What actually is "Welfare"?

Is it any and all programs for things like education (if they're under the DHHS budget), or is it just housing/Cost-of-Living/Foodstamps?

 

[TwoForFlinching]

What actually is "Welfare"?

Apparently it's a mandatory charity, at which given a choice, people would rather donate to save a dog/cats life in leiu of a fellow human being... After all, humans can apparently make a choice to succeed or not...

 

[HMFIC]

Fair enough - that number includes unemployment and Worker's Comp though. Several of the other programs listed in that aren't what most folks consider "welfare", so maybe the better question might be:

What actually is "Welfare"?

Is it any and all programs for things like education (if they're under the DHHS budget), or is it just housing/Cost-of-Living/Foodstamps?

That's a good question.

I don't understand exactly what the unemployment and worker's comp numbers are in this model either. Aren't both of those programs State funded through employer dollars so I'm going to kind of lean towards this being the extended benefits that have been thrown out there in recent years to allow people to stay on unemployment for years beyond the normally funded and understood lengths of time.

You can also go to that website and it has a breakdown within each category as well. There might be some additional detail that would give us a clue, but I didn't spend a lot of time with it.

The highest $ category is Social exclusion n.e.c. 265.1B which seems to amount primarily to tax exclusions including EIC and mortgage interest, etc...

 

[Westsidebob]

One of the biggest problems that we have is that you can't select the needed programs, you have to sign up for all of them to qualify for any. I have two daughters, both single mothers with two kids each. They get little if any support from the semen donors and have applied for help with daycare for the kids, the oldest is 4. Without help, their daycare runs over $400/week for daycare. So their options are not work, stay home with their kids, be completely dependent on the government, work the night shift so we can watch the kids, but then they would have to sleep in the daytime, and no one to watch the kids, or ask for help with their daycare. They do not want housing, food stamps, or any other aid, they just need help with reduced daycare. For them to qualify, they must sign up for everything or they are accused of not being compliant and denied even the reduced daycare. That is a system that is broken.

I'm certainly don't mean to offend, but many think that family should care of family, it sounds like your daughters might have made bad decisions, along with pursuing the sperm donor, you are the father and grandfather, step up.

 

[338Shooter]

See, even the classical liberal and progressive hater WTJ can't commit. I think only Blinocac and maybe DustingAunder have committed in this thread. Broken system, functional system. It's still the same system.

Basically I have no problem with you guys who are strongly opposed to social justice as a component of government a la Blinocac or however he spells it. At least you can articulate it and remain consistent.
The part that's annoying is "moocher" talk for them GOP mainstream, who the above minority does not have a lot in common with. Romeny's 47% moocher comments being defended by anyone but someone fundamentally opposed to any and all government assistance is completely laughable. Always love how Republicans are all for "cutting the moochers"..."except when". Oh shut up. Except when they vote R, right? You're either a social-justice believing liberal or you ain't. Pick a team. Welfare is acceptable or it's not.

Basically the republican platform is welfare is wrong unless it's doled out of a republican-ran welfare office to fellow republicans by republican volunteers and you must present a screenshot of your republican-marked ballot on your RomneyPhone to get your check. The sign out front of the office will read "HAND UP LINE FOR TEMPORARILY INCONVENIENCED VENTURE CAPITALISTS"

I haven't even posted in this thread.