Obama IS a socialist

[Bug]

Welfare is a shambles and an embarassment to the Democratic party.

Not because of what it tries to do nor because it is socialism.

But because it teaches successive generations that working for a living is stupid.

The welfare system needs a major overhaul. Most welfare recipients should be REQUIRED TO WORK to get anything beyond basic bread and cheese imo.

Half of them could be watching the kids from the other half while the second half works in the welfare office for all I care. My point is that kids need to see that their parents have to work to earn a living.

 

[Fairweather]

Welfare is a shambles and an embarassment to the Democratic party.

Not because of what it tries to do nor because it is socialism.

But because it teaches successive generations that working for a living is stupid.

The welfare system needs a major overhaul. Most welfare recipients should be REQUIRED TO WORK to get anything beyond basic bread and cheese imo.

Half of them could be watching the kids from the other half while the second half works in the welfare office for all I care. My point is that kids need to see that their parents have to work to earn a living.

 

First intelligent thing you've said in a long time.

[glassgowkiss]

Welfare is a shambles and an embarassment to the Democratic party.

Not because of what it tries to do nor because it is socialism.

But because it teaches successive generations that working for a living is stupid.

The welfare system needs a major overhaul. Most welfare recipients should be REQUIRED TO WORK to get anything beyond basic bread and cheese imo.

Half of them could be watching the kids from the other half while the second half works in the welfare office for all I care. My point is that kids need to see that their parents have to work to earn a living.

 

First intelligent thing you've said in a long time.

maybe first let's abolish corporate welfare. didn't we just spend 700 billions of dollars on corporate welfare? even more- 70 billions of dollars will be spent on upper management compensations- if this is not a welfare, i don't know what is! the point is that the expense of welfare spent on individuals is ten fold smaller then all the corporate bail-outs, tax giveaways, loopholes. how about 1 million dollar bus stops (compliments of ted stevens)? how about no-bid contracts for Haliburton? how about tax brakes for corporations moving their operations to china?

[glassgowkiss]

 

Uh... Duh. Ever heard of welfare? Oh. I thought that was a Democratic item. Huh.

like you are employed in a private sector, saltbreath?

[mattp]

You guys may have a point about welfare, but do you actually know what welfare is or how it works?

 

I sit in DSHS hearings one or two days a week and I gotta say: I have seen people who could be working and who are not for a variety of good and bad reasons but I have not seen many people who don't work because they receive welfare benefits.

 

Here is a bit of information I can assemble with 15 minutes using Google:

 

There are a lot of welfare programs, but the traditional welfare is what used to be known as Aid For Dependent Children (now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)

 

The applicant can have no more than $1,000 in assets and a $5,000 car. They are ineligible if they can work. The benefits are available for a maximum of five years in a lifetime (aggregate total). They must participate in work search and training programs. The program is not available to felons, and the State will recoup the benefits from an absent parent (deadebeat dad) if that parent has assets or income.

 

Some information here:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/f2ws03esaapps/onlinecso/tanf_support_services.asp

 

The benefits are hardly what I would call lavish. I don’t know current levels, but in 2003, the Internet says the maximum benefit for a family of three (a parent with two children) was $170 per month in Mississippi and $923 in Alaska.

 

Federal and state income support policies offer big rewards for going to work at least part time, even at low wage rates. Some states encourage work by setting very low benefit levels, while others encourage work by allowing employed recipients to keep more of their TANF benefits as they begin working.

http://www.urban.org/publications/308019.html

 

On top of the cash grant, you medical coupons and food stamps may be available.

 

Food Stamps:

Under new rules, may be available for a family of 4 with income of $3,534.00. The maximum benefit for a family of 4 is $588.00. What do you want to bet, they can't have the $3500 income and receive $588 in food stamps.

 

Medical Coupons:

I’m not sure how these work. I doubt this is a lavish benefit or that it is available to people who don't need it.

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

The idea of the welfare queen is a myth.

 

A welfare queen is a pejorative neologism used to describe women who are presumed to collect welfare checks, or excess amounts, through fraud or manipulation. Sensational reporting on (what would become known as) welfare queens began during the early-1960s, appearing in general interest magazines such as Readers Digest. The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side.[1] Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations.[2][3] Although women can no longer stay on welfare indefinitely, the term continues to shape American dialogue on poverty.[3]

[Fairweather]

 

Your chart doesn't take resource extraction into account. The port cities that export (and import) products produced in rural states (the raw materials at the very least) typically pay the higher white-collar salaries and are bases of operation for large companies. No surprises here. Your "chart" means nothing.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Fairweather

[glassgowkiss]

 

Your chart doesn't take resource extraction into account. The port cities that export (and import) products produced in rural states (the raw materials at the very least) typically pay the higher white-collar salaries and are bases of operation for large companies. No surprises here. Your "chart" means nothing.

no, the chart is right on, it's your opinion that means nothing.

[ivan]

"you're wrong!"

"no - you're wrong!"

[pc313]

[glassgowkiss]

i think events on economic front clearly showed who was wrong all along. except our big mouth is lacking cojones to accept responsibility. nothing new- republifuck all the way. create a mess and blame everyone else

[Bug]

Welfare is a shambles and an embarassment to the Democratic party.

Not because of what it tries to do nor because it is socialism.

But because it teaches successive generations that working for a living is stupid.

The welfare system needs a major overhaul. Most welfare recipients should be REQUIRED TO WORK to get anything beyond basic bread and cheese imo.

Half of them could be watching the kids from the other half while the second half works in the welfare office for all I care. My point is that kids need to see that their parents have to work to earn a living.

 

First intelligent thing you've said in a long time.

maybe first let's abolish corporate welfare. didn't we just spend 700 billions of dollars on corporate welfare? even more- 70 billions of dollars will be spent on upper management compensations- if this is not a welfare, i don't know what is! the point is that the expense of welfare spent on individuals is ten fold smaller then all the corporate bail-outs, tax giveaways, loopholes. how about 1 million dollar bus stops (compliments of ted stevens)? how about no-bid contracts for Haliburton? how about tax brakes for corporations moving their operations to china?

It is not the money I am concerned about so much as the number of kids who get a bad start.

Otherwise I agree with you.

 

Fairweather, you are so far to the right I don't think you would agree with my full stand on socialism.

[Bug]

"you're wrong!"

"no - you're wrong!"

.

 

 

I aren't either.

Onion head

 

Jeez

[pc313]

[glassgowkiss]

is it your fat ass?

if it's your pic, you should get the shit kicked out of your fat, lazy as a potential drag on healthcare! want to change things- start with yourself chub.

[Fairweather]

 

Fairweather, you are so far to the right I don't think you would agree with my full stand on socialism.

 

Since most Americans consider socialism pretty far left, you're probably correct. It's going to be an interesting 4 years if the socialist wins--and an interesting 2 or three months if he doesn't.

[Fairweather]

i think events on economic front clearly showed who was wrong all along. except our big mouth is lacking cojones to accept responsibility. nothing new- republifuck all the way. create a mess and blame everyone else

 

Go home, commie boy.

[ivan]

FW - it appears you would consider FDR a socialist president. in your opinion, was he a good president or not? if so, how were conditions in the 30s and 40s so different from today that a socialist couldn't once again serve us well? if not...well, um, how in the hell could you think that?

[Fairweather]

FW - it appears you would consider FDR a socialist president. in your opinion, was he a good president or not? if so, how were conditions in the 30s and 40s so different from today that a socialist couldn't once again serve us well? if not...well, um, how in the hell could you think that?

 

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same?

[Fairweather]

is it your fat ass?

if it's your pic, you should get the shit kicked out of your fat, lazy as a potential drag on healthcare! want to change things- start with yourself chub.

 

Really? Who's gonna do the shit kickin'? You?

[ivan]

FW - it appears you would consider FDR a socialist president. in your opinion, was he a good president or not? if so, how were conditions in the 30s and 40s so different from today that a socialist couldn't once again serve us well? if not...well, um, how in the hell could you think that?

 

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same?

okay - we're strait on the "what is a socialist" bit then, but you haven't really answered the important question: was he a good president or not? the question gets at the fact that there's much more to a leader than his economic policies (though i think you're pretty fringe in your judgment of those (wikipedia's entry agrees certainly that you're fringe amongst historians, and only a bit less so amongst economists) - are you actually hating on the CCC? FDIC? WPA? TVA? the repeal of prohibition? sure, the court-packing scheme was retarded, but that's exactly why we like our checks'n'balaces system, right?) was he a bad president in his approach to foreign policy? his conduct of ww2? immigration? law and order? i'll grant you he was far from enlightened on racial issues

[Fairweather]

FW - it appears you would consider FDR a socialist president. in your opinion, was he a good president or not? if so, how were conditions in the 30s and 40s so different from today that a socialist couldn't once again serve us well? if not...well, um, how in the hell could you think that?

 

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same?

okay - we're strait on the "what is a socialist" bit then, but you haven't really answered the important question: was he a good president or not? the question gets at the fact that there's much more to a leader than his economic policies (though i think you're pretty fringe in your judgment of those (wikipedia's entry agrees certainly that you're fringe amongst historians, and only a bit less so amongst economists) - are you actually hating on the CCC? FDIC? WPA? TVA? the repeal of prohibition? sure, the court-packing scheme was retarded, but that's exactly why we like our checks'n'balaces system, right?) was he a bad president in his approach to foreign policy? his conduct of ww2? immigration? law and order? i'll grant you he was far from enlightened on racial issues

 

Obviously, I don't think he was a bad leader re the war. (But his order to load incendiaries onto B29s and go after civilian population centers in Japan was pretty barbarian even by my standards.) But if you take a look at how short-lived the previous economic depressions under Van Buren (late 1830's) and Cleveland/McKinley (panic of 1893) were, it's easy to see how resisting populist demands for federal relief exemplified true leadership--even if it did cost them politically. Now Bush and the Dems in congress have started us down the same path with this "bailout" and, like FDR, Obama will only deepen what has already begun. (Although I would equate Obama more with a Eugene Debs than an FDR.)

[ivan]

okay - we're strait on the "what is a socialist" bit then, but you haven't really answered the important question: was he a good president or not? the question gets at the fact that there's much more to a leader than his economic policies (though i think you're pretty fringe in your judgment of those (wikipedia's entry agrees certainly that you're fringe amongst historians, and only a bit less so amongst economists) - are you actually hating on the CCC? FDIC? WPA? TVA? the repeal of prohibition? sure, the court-packing scheme was retarded, but that's exactly why we like our checks'n'balaces system, right?) was he a bad president in his approach to foreign policy? his conduct of ww2? immigration? law and order? i'll grant you he was far from enlightened on racial issues

 

Obviously, I don't think he was a bad leader re the war. (But his order to load incendiaries onto B29s and go after civilian population centers in Japan was pretty barbarian even by my standards.) But if you take a look at how short-lived the previous economic depressions under Van Buren (late 1830's) and Cleveland/McKinley (panic of 1893) were, it's easy to see how resisting populist demands for federal relief exemplified true leadership--even if it did cost them politically. Now Bush and the Dems in congress have started us down the same path and, like FDR, Obama will only deepen what has already begun. (Although I would equate Obama more with a Eugene Debs than an FDR.)

so...good president or not? this is VERY relevant to the original subject. can a socialist in fact still be a very good leader of our country?

[Fairweather]

so...good president or not? this is VERY relevant to the original subject. can a socialist in fact still be a very good leader of our country?

 

Probably not. This country was settled on capitalist principles (Jamestown, Mass Bay Co) and I don't consider wild deviations from these ideals to be congruent with good leadership at all, but, rather, caving to the demands of the vocal. Teddy Roosevelt was a major exception in that he understood the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Some consider his trust-busting socialism--I don't. FDR was the antithesis of Teddy. This pendulum we are talking about has been swinging back and forth since Hamilton versus Jefferson, and its generally been a healthy thing, but I worry that Obama's past associations indicate he will swing it too wildly left.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Fairweather

[ivan]

so...good president or not? this is VERY relevant to the original subject. can a socialist in fact still be a very good leader of our country?

 

Probably not.

okay - that's a strait answer i can work w/ - can you at least admit finally that, to so rank fdr, you exist within a very small fringe of americans? i am willing to concede, necessarily, that you may be the lonely prophet in the wilderness, seeing where others are blind, but, 76 years after the man was elected, when all of the consequences of his counsel have grown clear, the vast majority of literate americans rank fdr as one of our greatest presidents - doesn't it seem a wee bit presumptuous to think your evaluations more adept or insightful?

 

as a second question, why do you assume obama's policies would swing more leftward than fdr's? or that our illustrious system of checks n' balances would be more likely to fail now than then (especially given the # of conservatives in the courts!?!)