Republicans are too Liberal!!!

[Japher]

I'm made at my political party right now. They have given in to the enemy, and I don't know why. Does anyone?

The tax legislation that is going on right now is fine, IMO. Yet, coupled with the increase in government spending on social programs and tax credits being given to people who don't even pay taxes is just going to ruin the system... By giving the Dems a bone all we are going to end up doing is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. We are hindering the poor by giving them more money and more care (something which is a Liberal conspiracy) and helping the rich to get richer.

We are playing Robin Hood to both sides of the coin! And, in a fashion, making ourselves out to be Prince John.

All I have to say is that to many Dems gots thier hands in the Republican pot, and they're going to ruin us... Two party systems suk!

[SlowwHand]

A 2 party system is mandatory.

[Caligastia]

I agree Japher. I think the Libertarians are far more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The Republicans have sold out.

[Az]

Stop giving Americans such a bad rep, Sloww.

[Carver]

Your post wasn't very specific (more of a rant) but Republican Senators have forced the White House to accept smaller tax cuts because the country cannot afford the cuts Bush wants.

The social programs and tax credits for low income earners are almost completely insignificant to the budget. Social Security and Medicare for retired persons, along with defense, are the major expenditures the US has.

So you can kill the uninformed, factually incorrect crap about poor people busting the budget. It is the tax cuts for the wealthy that have erased the surpluses and given us the biggest deficit in history.

[Japher]

A 2 party system is mandatory.

They just seem to be the same these days, or they are in process of flipping poles, like a magnet.

My views on the economy, social reform, foreign poilcy, etc. have not changed yet I feel that thier's may have. Where can a right-winged conservative go these days?!

[chequita guevara]

Are you a fascist?

[Japher]

Your post wasn't very specific (more of a rant)

That is why I used the 'rant' emoticon

So you can kill the uninformed, factually incorrect crap about poor people busting the budget.

I don't believe I said the poor were killing the budget, if you want me to I will. I was saying that we increasing the gap between economic classes by imposing these mandates. Something which, IMO, will only lead to more harm than good.

[SlowwHand]

Definitely not the same.

Couple of things.
I don't agree with Liberatarians being more fiscally conservative, and
Azazel, WTF are you talking about?
Not that I should change my giving a bad rep; I'm just curious as to how I was able to accomplish it this time.

[Boris Godunov]

The Republicans have been giving money away to people who don't pay taxes for years--they're called huge corporations. See how much of a tax refund Enron got, and then see how much tax they actually paid.

By subsidizing these huge corporations that are mismanaged into the ground, the Republicans have ensured continuing fiscal scandals while culprits like Ken Lay get away with millions and the workers lose their retirements and get shafted.

Until you explain the ludicrous notion that offering social welfare programs somehow keeps the poor poor while making the rich richer, I will reject it as the steaming pile of rancid dung that it is.

[Defiant]

GEEEE Boris,
I work for a 30 million dollar/year company and we pay a hell of alot in taxes and we little return from the gov't.
I sure as hell haven't been given my company car yet.

BTW, right here in this plant we have workers that can only work so many hours or it disrupts their gov't check, what was that you were talking about how, social welfare doesn't help to keep the poor poor?

[Japher]

Until you explain the ludicrous notion that offering social welfare programs somehow keeps the poor poor while making the rich richer, I will reject it as the steaming pile of rancid dung that it is.

Nice flame A lot better than my Troll.

However I don't feel that the notion is ludicrous. While I feel that your assessment of Enron is correct I also see that by "subsidizing" the people, who are also "mismanaged", that Liberals have "ensured" stagnant poverty levels, as well as their vote. More so by increasing such funding they are only adding salt to the wound and not only prolonging the injustice, but wrosening it. Much in the same way that Enron colapsed, what would of happened if the government increased their subsidies to Enron?

By giving money to such programs that give handouts to poor people we are only giving poor people more to be poor with. Instead of fixing the problem we are only avoiding it. The problem is not that their is not enough money, the problem is that there are too many of the wrong types of programs or programs that mismanaged or, even worse, abused by second and third generation welfare recipents and illegal aliens, who can some reason, vote!

If your going to tell me that mismanagement of government funds is isolated to corporations, then I see your pile of rancid dung.

[Boris Godunov]

Your premise falls apart with a quick look at history.

Compare the standard of living of the poor in industrialized nations before social welfare programs were enacted. Compare them after.

You'll notice in that comparison that the standard of living for the poor improved quite dramatically.

Now, are welfare programs perfect? No. Are they mismanaged and waste money? Frequently, yes. I am all for cleaning up such programs to make them more efficient and fair.

However, having worked for SS, I can tell you that the horror stories of abuse are the rare instances, and the vast majority of welfare and disability cases are valid ones wherein a real need was addressed. We had the Great Depression to learn that the problems created by a lack of a social safety net are far less palatable than the problems it creates.

Ideally, we would have a world wherein welfare was unneccessary. But that is not the case, nor will it be any time soon. Democrats, albeit imperfectly, are at least on the right side by wanting to make sure everyone in the country has food on their plates and can be taken care of in times of great need. I have not seen the Republicans offering a solution other than the nebulous claim that market forces will provide for all, which is bull hockey.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I agree Japher. I think the Libertarians are far more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The Republicans have sold out.

Only to considerations of common sense. Anyone who believes in Libertarianism as a political system is nuts.

[Nubclear]

You complain about Republicans being too liberal? I complain about democrats being to conservative At least you have a party. Our party is falling apart at the seams.

And anyway.....Can anyone guess which country has the highest standards of living in the world?

Norway.

[Sava]

Social welfare programs work... only about 10% of people on welfare are chronically poor. Most are people that lose their jobs so some corporate fatcat can get a huge bonus.

You're entitled to your opinions Japher, but they are based on little fact. As with most conservatives, your opinions are ideological, and not based on real world evidence. I'm considered a "liberal" but I'm, in reality, a pragmatic thinker. I agree with the politicians that want such policies. More of them tend to be Democrats. Whether or not the Democratic Party is truthful in executing an agenda that parallels their rhetoric is another topic entirely. The fact of the matter is, the Republican rhetoric and ideology is wrong... and their actions and policies, which rarely follow their rhetoric, are even more obscene and immoral.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Can anyone guess which country has the highest standards of living in the world?

Definately not Russia.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Definately not Russia.

That depends. They would have the highest living standards, if having chronic borscht diarhea is considered a high standard of living.

[Sava]

News Analysis contains excerpts from the For Expert Comment service. The service, which provides timely faculty comments to media across the country, is distributed by the Office of University Communications.

Mark R. Rank, Ph.D., associate professor of social work, is an expert on poverty, welfare and social policy. Rank recently analyzed a national survey of 13,000 American households to determine the extent of intergenerational welfare use. His findings, to be published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family, disprove the notion that welfare traps many of its recipients into a chronic cycle of dependency.

The study, supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, found:


only 25 percent of recent welfare recipients said their parents had used welfare.

only 10 percent of current welfare recipients grew up in households that frequently used welfare.

only 5 percent of all welfare recipients were chronic welfare users (reporting welfare use in four of the last six years) who also grew up in households where parents were frequent users of welfare programs.

Thus, while many politicians claim that welfare reform is essential to break the "vicious cycle of dependency," Rank's study demonstrates that the vast majority of welfare recipients are first-generation users.
"So much of the welfare debate is based on this notion of chronic welfare dependency: freeloaders whose families abuse welfare from one generation to the next. Yet our analysis shows that this stereotype fits only a very small portion of the population," Rank said.

Nevertheless, Rank did find that children raised in families using public assistance are indeed more likely to use welfare as adults when compared with those growing up in non-welfare households. While previous research has suggested a correlation between childhood and adult welfare use, Rank's study breaks new ground in the welfare dependency debate by using complex statistical analysis to demonstrate why this link exists.

"Interestingly, this connection has little to do with welfare per se," Rank said. "Rather it has to do with poverty. Children from families who have relied on welfare usually come from families with low incomes. If parents have limited finances, their children obviously are going to have less opportunities, less resources. Our analysis shows that this translates into less education, less job skills and therefore, an increased chance of needing welfare assistance as adults. The bottom line is that rather than being a learned lifestyle, welfare dependency is simply a by-product of poverty."

The only important caveat is that a family history of welfare use does appear to increase the likelihood that a daughter will go on to become a female head of household -- a category that tends to be heavy users of the welfare system.

to support my chronic poverty assertions... this is from 1995

I must apologize, my earlier claim of 10% was vague on non-descript... here's a more detailed explanation of chronic poverty:

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

more myths about welfare can be found at http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Welfare makes up about 1% of the government budget. To be so concerned with "My Tax Dollars Funding A Welfare State" is silly. 99% of your money goes to other programs. If it's government waste you are concerned about... do more research. Our Vice-President still gets money from Halliburton, a company with one of the highest amounts of government waste/fraud attached to it.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm considered a "liberal" but I'm, in reality, a pragmatic thinker.

Me too.

[History Guy]

Well, they're all politicians, anyway.

The problem with them is that no one has a safe big enough to stuff them in for a trip to the bottom of the ocean.

[Sava]

Me too.

monkspider: Ha! I hope you are being tongue in cheek, Mr. TheRevolutionIsComing... I doubt there are many who are more idealist than you

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Sava

monkspider: Ha! I hope you are being tongue in cheek, Mr. TheRevolutionIsComing... I doubt there are many who are more idealist than you

A little bit of self-parody never hurt anyone.

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on it.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

What about welfare abuse though? there's plenty of people who make a nice amount of change under the table at jobs or they do semi-illegal or down-right illegal things but still collect welfare? with an emphasis on food stamps over checks though, things aren't as bad as they could be but abuse def is a problem.

[monkspider]

Well Albert, my philosophy on that is if someone needs money so bad that they have to cheat the system, then we should give them twice as much.

[DinoDoc]

Welfare makes up about 1% of the government budget.

"Entitlement" programs eat up much more money than that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Sava:

What about welfare abuse though? there's plenty of people who make a nice amount of change under the table at jobs or they do semi-illegal or down-right illegal things but still collect welfare? with an emphasis on food stamps over checks though, things aren't as bad as they could be but abuse def is a problem.

Have you ever collected welfare? I have twice. Once when I was fresh out of school and couldn't find a job (I got one and ended up collecting two week's dole in total). The second time when I had graduated and I had to register for the dole in order for my wife to get a married student allowance.

Both times I was treated like an ignorant criminal (oddly enough, by people who couldn't even spell). Trust me, very few people want to keep going through that crap.

[Al B. Sure!]

Agathon:

and yet people do it regularily... trust me. i'm not making this up.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Agathon:

and yet people do it regularily... trust me. i'm not making this up.

However, as Sava showed, it is statistically rare. Lambasting the whole system based on the malfeasance of a few is irrational.

[MRT144]

japher, republicans are in the majority and they dont have to throw a bone to anyone. they are simply doing what any politician does which is pork projects and party platform spending such as the military.