For those that voted for Obama - how do you feel (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy


How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

Honestly, didn't see the Bain thing...didn't matter to me. Harry Reid is a caricature of a politician. I remember his assertion and also remember Romney specifically choosing not to clear the air. Romney's standard for others wasn't the standard for himself in that regard. That would have been easy to avoid but he chose not to leaving us wonder what he was hiding. The tax cut thing was a complete debacle as there were no real details ever presented. He went out of his way to basically say "Don't worry about the details, we'll get to those once I'm elected, but trust me, I have it covered". I think the same applied to his healthcare plan as well...no specifics ever given or committed to leaving us to wonder what it would all look like. Yes, I remember all that stuff and it's a lot of the stuff I was thinking about when I wrote

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

 

[The Commish]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

It happens, but it's not the norm. Would you rather hemorrhage money by trying to micromanage the system so that no one can abuse it? Or you rather them all be on the street begging you for money, or worse? Out of all the wastes of our governments, to me this should be way down the list on things to address.

These aren't the only options. We can also alter the system so that it requires those who are taking to give back as well. Whether it's time or whatever, a system that is designed to provide handouts without the beneficiary of those handouts having to contribute in some fashion is inherently broken.

 

[McGarnicle]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

We should implode every housing project and do away with welfare. Get off your lazy ### and earn an honest wage, or you and your 10 kids can starve to death. These people are propagating rapidly, spreading their toxic lazy idiot genes wider and wider into the gene pool. There will be a tipping point when the takers outnumber the earners to an extent that is simple not sustainable. The ensuing chaos will make the riots in Greece look like a day at the beach. We'll probably all be dead by then, but it's immoral to keep us on this track.

 

[dozer]

Hopefully you morher####ers that voted for this piece of #### feel proud to be part of the 51% living off my paycheck. This is an embarrassing time to be an American

I wish you'd stop drinking so much and get to work. I need a new obamaphone, this months rent, and a birthday cake for three of my ten kids.

 

[HellToupee]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

 

[rct]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

 

[HellToupee]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright liesHow about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxesHow about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions. just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

You're just another rube holding a balloon walking down the midway. They sold it , you bought it.

 

[jamny]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

 

[badmojo1006]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright liesHow about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxesHow about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions. just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

You're just another rube holding a balloon walking down the midway. They sold it , you bought it.

Cute metaphor. But you completely ignored what he said. You just can't handle the truth

 

[cstu]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

 

[cstu]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

We should implode every housing project and do away with welfare. Get off your lazy ### and earn an honest wage, or you and your 10 kids can starve to death. These people are propagating rapidly, spreading their toxic lazy idiot genes wider and wider into the gene pool. There will be a tipping point when the takers outnumber the earners to an extent that is simple not sustainable. The ensuing chaos will make the riots in Greece look like a day at the beach. We'll probably all be dead by then, but it's immoral to keep us on this track.

91% of welfare benefits go to the elderly, disabled or working households.

 

[TPW]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

 

[cstu]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

It happens, but it's not the norm. Would you rather hemorrhage money by trying to micromanage the system so that no one can abuse it? Or you rather them all be on the street begging you for money, or worse? Out of all the wastes of our governments, to me this should be way down the list on things to address.

It is absolutely the "norm" in these communities. Trust me.

I'm not saying that "welfare" is what is hemorrhaging the country. Just providing some first hand knowledge as to how it isn't as utopia as some on the left would like to believe.

But again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life heard a liberal or progressive person state that our welfare system is a utopia. Not once. What they say, usually, is that despite the corruption that is inevitable with any large government program, it's worth it, because needy people are helped. And that is not an argument that you have been able to refute.

Once again, you're looking for an argument you can't even discuss.

Welfare or the dole isn't a Left or Right issue. It's the least damaging alternative to dealing with a society. Anybody thinking that welfare is costing a very wealthy nation in the US into the red doesn't know economics. Money given is money being spent somewhere. Money not given means even more money spent to those who wind up in the penal system. The only argument to have to cut off those on welfare is that you can make money on the other side is if they do wind up incarcerated, thus privatizing incarceration. Policing costs a helluva lot more money within municipal budgets than a Federal stipend to a county or city. Hell, take everybody in California off of welfare, and see how much more case loads the county and city courts would have.

Exactly. There are so many downsides to removing welfare that people fail to comprehend. Visit some countries without a welfare system for awhile and report back.

 

[timschochet]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

It happens, but it's not the norm. Would you rather hemorrhage money by trying to micromanage the system so that no one can abuse it? Or you rather them all be on the street begging you for money, or worse? Out of all the wastes of our governments, to me this should be way down the list on things to address.

It is absolutely the "norm" in these communities. Trust me.I'm not saying that "welfare" is what is hemorrhaging the country. Just providing some first hand knowledge as to how it isn't as utopia as some on the left would like to believe.

But again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life heard a liberal or progressive person state that our welfare system is a utopia. Not once. What they say, usually, is that despite the corruption that is inevitable with any large government program, it's worth it, because needy people are helped. And that is not an argument that you have been able to refute.

Once again, you're looking for an argument you can't even discuss.

Welfare or the dole isn't a Left or Right issue. It's the least damaging alternative to dealing with a society. Anybody thinking that welfare is costing a very wealthy nation in the US into the red doesn't know economics. Money given is money being spent somewhere. Money not given means even more money spent to those who wind up in the penal system. The only argument to have to cut off those on welfare is that you can make money on the other side is if they do wind up incarcerated, thus privatizing incarceration. Policing costs a helluva lot more money within municipal budgets than a Federal stipend to a county or city. Hell, take everybody in California off of welfare, and see how much more case loads the county and city courts would have.

I agree with everything you wrote. My response was to Top Dog's absurd assertion that liberals see the welfare state as a "utopia". Hopefully your excellent post here is being read by plenty of people, especially Top Dog and McGarnicle.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

The bold is absurd. Needing temporary public assistance does not = "would rather leech off the system than contribute".

Is there a bigger "gimme" in political patronage than the "I'll cut your taxes" gimme that is the pillar of the current Republican narrative?

 

[HellToupee]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

The bold is absurd. Needing temporary public assistance does not = "would rather leech off the system than contribute".

Is there a bigger "gimme" in political patronage than the "I'll cut your taxes" gimme that is the pillar of the current Republican narrative?

Temporary help is one thing but when generations are brought up in "the family business" of receiving a monthly kiss from the government its not good for anybody. There is clearly a problem , I don't know of a solution but one has to be found.

 

[Lutherman2112]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

I don't know about the bolded:

Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth
By Frank Bass - Nov 5, 2012 12:00 AM ET

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said in May that he’d written off votes from 47 percent of Americans who are collecting government aid. Turns out many of them are part of his political base.

Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.

That means Romney is counting on votes from areas where lower-income people have become more reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps. Mark Baisley, who heads Douglas County’s Republican Party, said many recipients will back Romney in hopes he’ll improve the economy.

“Would you rather be sitting at home wishing you had a job and relying upon the kindness of neighbors?” Baisley said in a telephone interview from Colorado, one of the swing states that Romney and President Barack Obama are battling over. “Or would you rather be self-supporting, with a job that sustains your family?”

In a video from a May fundraiser, Romney said “there are 47 percent who are with him,” referring to Obama, “who are dependent on government.” They “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”

...

 

[Steve Tasker]

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

This is really 100% true. The race was really never close.

 

[The Commish]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Among a many other things along the way. It was just a terrible campaign from the beginning.

 

[The Commish]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

The bold is absurd. Needing temporary public assistance does not = "would rather leech off the system than contribute".

Is there a bigger "gimme" in political patronage than the "I'll cut your taxes" gimme that is the pillar of the current Republican narrative?

That you get the bold from what you bolded is absurd. Growing up my father was a financial aid director at a local community college. Being such we were deeply involved in the community especially with folks in what I'd consider (now) substantial financial crisis. I can't count how many cases we ran across where people were perfectly content letting the government take care of them via food stamps, assisted living, medical benefits etc. I can't count how many women had more kids simply to keep these benefits rather than work. THOSE are the people he's talking about and there are more than you'd ever think out there. Not sure it's 10s of millions but a bunch. I can't fault them for it...they are playing by the rules. It's the crappy system our government's come up with and I get the honor of paying for it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

The bold is absurd. Needing temporary public assistance does not = "would rather leech off the system than contribute".

Is there a bigger "gimme" in political patronage than the "I'll cut your taxes" gimme that is the pillar of the current Republican narrative?

That you get the bold from what you bolded is absurd. Growing up my father was a financial aid director at a local community college. Being such we were deeply involved in the community especially with folks in what I'd consider (now) substantial financial crisis. I can't count how many cases we ran across where people were perfectly content letting the government take care of them via food stamps, assisted living, medical benefits etc. I can't count how many women had more kids simply to keep these benefits rather than work. THOSE are the people he's talking about and there are more than you'd ever think out there. Not sure it's 10s of millions but a bunch. I can't fault them for it...they are playing by the rules. It's the crappy system our government's come up with and I get the honor of paying for it.

Buhlshet.

 

[timschochet]

How about the lies about what Romney said about Detroit and the bankruptcy

How about that Bain video that was full of inaccuracies and outright lies

How about Harry Reid saying he had proof of Romney cheating on his taxes

How about the disputed $5 trillion dollar tax cut issue - never adding that it included cutting loopholes.

and that Romney's health care plan didn't have consideration for pre-existing conditions.

just a couple of things. If you didn't see during all that time that there was a concerted effort in social media to hack and distort Romney's positions during the election, you weren't paying attention. Unfortunately, that's the way elections have to be from now on. Perception over reality and bash, bash, bash.

From where I'm standing, Romney's own actions are what killed him. Changing his position on the things that you could actually get him to take a position on in the first place, being so vague in his platform and the double standard of transparency was more than enough for me.

What killed Mitt's chances was playing it safe the last two weeks of the campaign. The went into the bunker , did no media . They should've went balls to the wall aggressive.

Nothing he could have done the last two weeks would have saved him. He was a terrible candidate, as evidenced by the fact that people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and even Michelle Bachmann polled strongly against him at various times. As others pointed out, he has the persona of a used car salesman and changed his position on seemingly everything, including Romneycare - oh, I meant to say Obamacare.

I'm not saying Romney wasn't at fault for his own loss. My original point was that social media contributed to it. There were so many completely inaccurate memes flying around the web and everyone would just "like" it without realizing the lies. Anytime I'd try and set the record straight, the person would eventually just say "whatever" or change the topic to something completely different. Romney was cast as an evil rich guy who hates "____________" (fill in the blank to serve your purpose) It was pathetic and will only get worse in the next election.

After watching the 47% video what do imagine Romney thinks of the average American?

Have you ever considered that he's right? There's tens of millions of people in this nation now who would rather leech off the system than contribute in a meaningful fashion.

What he said most certainly hurt his election chances. Sometimes the truth hurts. But most of those 47% he made mention of would never have voted for him to begin with. You're never going to out gimme the Democrats in the game of political patronage.

The bold is absurd. Needing temporary public assistance does not = "would rather leech off the system than contribute".

Is there a bigger "gimme" in political patronage than the "I'll cut your taxes" gimme that is the pillar of the current Republican narrative?

That you get the bold from what you bolded is absurd. Growing up my father was a financial aid director at a local community college. Being such we were deeply involved in the community especially with folks in what I'd consider (now) substantial financial crisis. I can't count how many cases we ran across where people were perfectly content letting the government take care of them via food stamps, assisted living, medical benefits etc. I can't count how many women had more kids simply to keep these benefits rather than work. THOSE are the people he's talking about and there are more than you'd ever think out there. Not sure it's 10s of millions but a bunch. I can't fault them for it...they are playing by the rules. It's the crappy system our government's come up with and I get the honor of paying for it.

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

 

[datonn]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I essentially agree with you, Tim. Though I'd dial it waaaaaaaaaaay back in using terms such as "the deserving." All millions of currently "deserving" people did to "deserve" food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc. is #### around in school instead of taking it seriously and getting an education that was freely offered to them, abuse alcohol/drugs, have unprotected sex, commit felonies (and have an incredibly hard time finding employment), etc. Helping people out after they lose a spouse or are laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own (not performance related) is one thing. Paying for dumb### decisions and priorities from one's youth is quite another.

 

[flapgreen]

Oh no. This guy is an idiot.

 

[drummer]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I essentially agree with you, Tim. Though I'd dial it waaaaaaaaaaay back in using terms such as "the deserving." All millions of currently "deserving" people did to "deserve" food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc. is #### around in school instead of taking it seriously and getting an education that was freely offered to them, abuse alcohol/drugs, have unprotected sex, commit felonies (and have an incredibly hard time finding employment), etc. Helping people out after they lose a spouse or are laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own (not performance related) is one thing. Paying for dumb### decisions and priorities from one's youth is quite another.

Other people pay for your dumb decisions whether you're on welfare, or not.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

It was a hijack ....sprinkle in TG's ignorant comment and you get a comment from me....I guess I'm weak but I can't help it when people make strawmen out of this issue. It's not a significant monetary issue but it is a serious societal issue IMO.

 

[top dog]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

It happens, but it's not the norm. Would you rather hemorrhage money by trying to micromanage the system so that no one can abuse it? Or you rather them all be on the street begging you for money, or worse? Out of all the wastes of our governments, to me this should be way down the list on things to address.

It is absolutely the "norm" in these communities. Trust me.I'm not saying that "welfare" is what is hemorrhaging the country. Just providing some first hand knowledge as to how it isn't as utopia as some on the left would like to believe.

But again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life heard a liberal or progressive person state that our welfare system is a utopia. Not once. What they say, usually, is that despite the corruption that is inevitable with any large government program, it's worth it, because needy people are helped. And that is not an argument that you have been able to refute.

Once again, you're looking for an argument you can't even discuss.

Welfare or the dole isn't a Left or Right issue. It's the least damaging alternative to dealing with a society. Anybody thinking that welfare is costing a very wealthy nation in the US into the red doesn't know economics. Money given is money being spent somewhere. Money not given means even more money spent to those who wind up in the penal system. The only argument to have to cut off those on welfare is that you can make money on the other side is if they do wind up incarcerated, thus privatizing incarceration. Policing costs a helluva lot more money within municipal budgets than a Federal stipend to a county or city. Hell, take everybody in California off of welfare, and see how much more case loads the county and city courts would have.

I agree with everything you wrote. My response was to Top Dog's absurd assertion that liberals see the welfare state as a "utopia".Hopefully your excellent post here is being read by plenty of people, especially Top Dog and McGarnicle.

You are misinterpreting what my point was in all of this. I'm not advocating in any way shape or form dissolving welfare. I've seen first hand the terrible times people can go through. I didn't grow up wealthy. Still live in a city that many would feel is not the best to live in. I also never claimed that welfare was killing this country. Just providing some insight into the system that many feel is not broke. "Well, that's not the norm..", "97% are elderly, disabled or working class.." blah blah blah.

The system sucks. It really does. Provides no accountability and incentive to get off. Sure you have to apply for work to receive cash benefits or whatever.. But these guys know how to play the system and play the system they do. One complex in their company has a grandmother living in one unit, her daughter in another, and the daughter of that daughter living in another. 3 generations. Paying 0 rent and receiving a utility check (to help with their utilities) every month.

 

[datonn]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I essentially agree with you, Tim. Though I'd dial it waaaaaaaaaaay back in using terms such as "the deserving." All millions of currently "deserving" people did to "deserve" food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc. is #### around in school instead of taking it seriously and getting an education that was freely offered to them, abuse alcohol/drugs, have unprotected sex, commit felonies (and have an incredibly hard time finding employment), etc. Helping people out after they lose a spouse or are laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own (not performance related) is one thing. Paying for dumb### decisions and priorities from one's youth is quite another.

Other people pay for your dumb decisions whether you're on welfare, or not.

Yep. But does that mean we should have a system that rewards dumb decisions?

Drunk driving, for example. Just because millions of people do it, and it probably costs billions in legal/medical/penal/insurance costs that we all pay for each year...on top of thousands of lives, does that mean we just slap people on the wrist or tell them that we're letting them off with a warning? Or do you take away their right to drive a vehicle for, like, ever? And let them pay every last cent in losses back that they caused to other people and/or society? Or work on a "pound 'em in the ###" chain-gang for $0.50/hour until their dumb###ery really sinks into their brains...if they don't have the cash to pay the rest of us back after they've sold every possession they own?

Punish bad, illegal, selfish behavior. Don't encourage it.

 

[top dog]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

It was a hijack ....sprinkle in TG's ignorant comment and you get a comment from me....I guess I'm weak but I can't help it when people make strawmen out of this issue. It's not a significant monetary issue but it is a serious societal issue IMO.

You can resort to attacking the messenger ("ignorant comment") or you can accept what is happening out there. Your choice. It is just very sad to see people resort to making derogatory comments about other posters when their views do not fall in line with their own. But what else is new around here I suppose..

 

[drummer]

All shtick aside.. I can tell you that my opinion of welfare has changed dramatically since my wife has worked in the public housing industry. She is a property manager for HUD based housing apartments. She has worked in a number of different complexes ranging from a pretty upstanding neighborhood in a prosperous community to the worst of the worst. The pattern of abuse is across the board. Claiming 0 income when there is obvious income coming in... Kids with no sheets on the beds but the parents having the latest Jordans... Now everyone and their brother is getting on SSI benefits. The system is broke. A resident can come into her office and say, "I quit my job." and they have to reduce their rent to 0. Where is the incentive?? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. She sees it every day.

It happens, but it's not the norm. Would you rather hemorrhage money by trying to micromanage the system so that no one can abuse it? Or you rather them all be on the street begging you for money, or worse? Out of all the wastes of our governments, to me this should be way down the list on things to address.

It is absolutely the "norm" in these communities. Trust me.I'm not saying that "welfare" is what is hemorrhaging the country. Just providing some first hand knowledge as to how it isn't as utopia as some on the left would like to believe.

But again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life heard a liberal or progressive person state that our welfare system is a utopia. Not once. What they say, usually, is that despite the corruption that is inevitable with any large government program, it's worth it, because needy people are helped. And that is not an argument that you have been able to refute.

Once again, you're looking for an argument you can't even discuss.

Welfare or the dole isn't a Left or Right issue. It's the least damaging alternative to dealing with a society. Anybody thinking that welfare is costing a very wealthy nation in the US into the red doesn't know economics. Money given is money being spent somewhere. Money not given means even more money spent to those who wind up in the penal system. The only argument to have to cut off those on welfare is that you can make money on the other side is if they do wind up incarcerated, thus privatizing incarceration. Policing costs a helluva lot more money within municipal budgets than a Federal stipend to a county or city. Hell, take everybody in California off of welfare, and see how much more case loads the county and city courts would have.

I agree with everything you wrote. My response was to Top Dog's absurd assertion that liberals see the welfare state as a "utopia".Hopefully your excellent post here is being read by plenty of people, especially Top Dog and McGarnicle.

You are misinterpreting what my point was in all of this. I'm not advocating in any way shape or form dissolving welfare. I've seen first hand the terrible times people can go through. I didn't grow up wealthy. Still live in a city that many would feel is not the best to live in. I also never claimed that welfare was killing this country. Just providing some insight into the system that many feel is not broke. "Well, that's not the norm..", "97% are elderly, disabled or working class.." blah blah blah.

The system sucks. It really does. Provides no accountability and incentive to get off. Sure you have to apply for work to receive cash benefits or whatever.. But these guys know how to play the system and play the system they do. One complex in their company has a grandmother living in one unit, her daughter in another, and the daughter of that daughter living in another. 3 generations. Paying 0 rent and receiving a utility check (to help with their utilities) every month.

Gaming the system isn't exclusive to those on welfare. Business and banks do it all the time. Politics all the way up to the Federal Government is ultimately an amoral business, especially when it comes down to the dollars. Trying to make sense of anything moral out of this is a pretty demoralizing exercise.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

It was a hijack ....sprinkle in TG's ignorant comment and you get a comment from me....I guess I'm weak but I can't help it when people make strawmen out of this issue. It's not a significant monetary issue but it is a serious societal issue IMO.

You can resort to attacking the messenger ("ignorant comment") or you can accept what is happening out there. Your choice. It is just very sad to see people resort to making derogatory comments about other posters when their views do not fall in line with their own. But what else is new around here I suppose..

You should probably read that whole exchange....I'm pretty much in lock step agreement with you on this issue as I have seen the exact same things as you mention. TG suggests that those people don't exist or aren't a significant portion of those programs. I think that's ignorant just based on what I've seen personally...don't even have to go national with it

 

[drummer]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I essentially agree with you, Tim. Though I'd dial it waaaaaaaaaaay back in using terms such as "the deserving." All millions of currently "deserving" people did to "deserve" food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc. is #### around in school instead of taking it seriously and getting an education that was freely offered to them, abuse alcohol/drugs, have unprotected sex, commit felonies (and have an incredibly hard time finding employment), etc. Helping people out after they lose a spouse or are laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own (not performance related) is one thing. Paying for dumb### decisions and priorities from one's youth is quite another.

Other people pay for your dumb decisions whether you're on welfare, or not.

Yep. But does that mean we should have a system that rewards dumb decisions?

Drunk driving, for example. Just because millions of people do it, and it probably costs billions in legal/medical/penal/insurance costs that we all pay for each year...on top of thousands of lives, does that mean we just slap people on the wrist or tell them that we're letting them off with a warning? Or do you take away their right to drive a vehicle for, like, ever? And let them pay every last cent in losses back that they caused to other people and/or society? Or work on a "pound 'em in the ###" chain-gang for $0.50/hour until their dumb###ery really sinks into their brains...if they don't have the cash to pay the rest of us back after they've sold every possession they own?

Punish bad, illegal, selfish behavior. Don't encourage it.

Well should we punish those who own drinking establishments? Lot's of dumb decisions are made there.

 

[top dog]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

It was a hijack ....sprinkle in TG's ignorant comment and you get a comment from me....I guess I'm weak but I can't help it when people make strawmen out of this issue. It's not a significant monetary issue but it is a serious societal issue IMO.

You can resort to attacking the messenger ("ignorant comment") or you can accept what is happening out there. Your choice. It is just very sad to see people resort to making derogatory comments about other posters when their views do not fall in line with their own. But what else is new around here I suppose..

You should probably read that whole exchange....I'm pretty much in lock step agreement with you on this issue as I have seen the exact same things as you mention. TG suggests that those people don't exist or aren't a significant portion of those programs. I think that's ignorant just based on what I've seen personally...don't even have to go national with it

Oops. my mistake. Saw the "TG" and assumed you were piling on with Tim on the "Utopia" statement I had made. I probably shouldn't be so short sighted to think that there aren't any other posters that can be refereed to as "TG" in a thread other than me.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I'm seeking a system where those taking from it are required to give back in some fashion so it becomes self sustaining and motivates people to get off their butts rather than sucking at the government's collective ### free of charge. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and I understand that there are some who can't give back even if they wanted to, but to have a system in place that just doesn't care if you give back is unacceptable to me. This is probably the most conservative view I posses and I always find guys like TG to provide fantastic commentary on a subject, they clearly have no idea about.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with what you're talking about, except to add two points:

1. I have no idea how to achieve what you want. The standard conservative viewpoint seems to be that we should simply reduce spending on these items, and that will lead to greater efficiency and greater individual responsibility. I am fairly sure it won't.

2. What bothers me most about this subject is not the truth of what you're arguing (because, unlike Tommy, I believe you are substantially correct in your complaint) but the misplaced attention that so many people give this issue. In the larger scheme of things, how much we spend on welfare and food stamps is woefully unimportant compared to the amounts that we spend on Medicare, Social Security, and defense- we could eliminate all welfare spending tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in our overall debt issue. Yet so many people focus on this.

Charity work is an easy way to allow folks to give back. It doesn't have to be monetary. Donation of time is a very powerful action. Helping others out who can't help themselves etc. For me, I don't focus on it, for the reason you say....monetarily it's insignificant. This is a principle matter for me. We need to get back to working for what we achieve rather than raising self entitled shmucks who think things should just be given to them. Programs like welfare CAN be an example of how to do that, but alas, the implementation is woefully wrong.

Regarding the bolded, I believe you. And yet, here we are discussing it in a thread about Obama's performance- as if this were a vital aspect to judge him on.

It was a hijack ....sprinkle in TG's ignorant comment and you get a comment from me....I guess I'm weak but I can't help it when people make strawmen out of this issue. It's not a significant monetary issue but it is a serious societal issue IMO.

You can resort to attacking the messenger ("ignorant comment") or you can accept what is happening out there. Your choice. It is just very sad to see people resort to making derogatory comments about other posters when their views do not fall in line with their own. But what else is new around here I suppose..

You should probably read that whole exchange....I'm pretty much in lock step agreement with you on this issue as I have seen the exact same things as you mention. TG suggests that those people don't exist or aren't a significant portion of those programs. I think that's ignorant just based on what I've seen personally...don't even have to go national with it

Oops. my mistake. Saw the "TG" and assumed you were piling on with Tim on the "Utopia" statement I had made. I probably shouldn't be so short sighted to think that there aren't any other posters that can be refereed to as "TG" in a thread other than me.

wouldn't you be "TD"???

 

[datonn]

Let's assume that your anecdotal information is accurate and representative. I still don't understand what you seek to accomplish. Are you looking to end the corruption in food stamps, medical benefits, and the rest of it? Any serious attempt to do so will cost us much more than we're spending now, without the guarantee of positive results. Are you seeking to either cut the programs significantly or end them? There is no way to do that without hurting the deserving right along with the undeserving- and if history is any basis of example, hurting the deserving much more. Are you simply looking to gripe about government without any solution as to what to do about it? If so, what's the point?

I essentially agree with you, Tim. Though I'd dial it waaaaaaaaaaay back in using terms such as "the deserving." All millions of currently "deserving" people did to "deserve" food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc. is #### around in school instead of taking it seriously and getting an education that was freely offered to them, abuse alcohol/drugs, have unprotected sex, commit felonies (and have an incredibly hard time finding employment), etc. Helping people out after they lose a spouse or are laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own (not performance related) is one thing. Paying for dumb### decisions and priorities from one's youth is quite another.

Other people pay for your dumb decisions whether you're on welfare, or not.

Yep. But does that mean we should have a system that rewards dumb decisions?

Drunk driving, for example. Just because millions of people do it, and it probably costs billions in legal/medical/penal/insurance costs that we all pay for each year...on top of thousands of lives, does that mean we just slap people on the wrist or tell them that we're letting them off with a warning? Or do you take away their right to drive a vehicle for, like, ever? And let them pay every last cent in losses back that they caused to other people and/or society? Or work on a "pound 'em in the ###" chain-gang for $0.50/hour until their dumb###ery really sinks into their brains...if they don't have the cash to pay the rest of us back after they've sold every possession they own?

Punish bad, illegal, selfish behavior. Don't encourage it.

Well should we punish those who own drinking establishments? Lot's of dumb decisions are made there.

If they're breaking the law? Yes. But otherwise, no. What are you gonna do...punish the car manufacturer of said dumb### who drives drunk? Punish the person who owns the gas station that sold them the gas?!

Lots of things are legal to own/sell, but illegal to abuse/misuse. Punish (REALLY punish) the people doing the abusing/misusing...as if they don't have the intelligence or the willpower to put down the bottle, that's on them.

 

[Lutherman2112]

So this is another big Finless crap thread where he makes obscure references without concrete evidence and then puts on a bravado show in which he makes grandiose statements about his abilities, but then never really backs it up.

Lesson learned.

 

[Widbil83]

Funniest political thread you will ever read.