The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

I think Jenks has a point which some people are trying to gloss over. Everyone would love to stay at home and raise their family, who really prefers to work. The only reason I work is that they pay me to do it, if I could get paid to sit at home, I would.

 

The question is, why should the govt pay for people who choose not to work at the expense of the rest of us who choose to work?

 

Its a fundamentally sound question.

 

Have any of you really looked into this as an alternative option? Getting WIC will not replace your current salary unless you're the part time fry guy at McDonalds.

[Soxbadger]

Im not even sure communist philosophy would support this type of program.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

The essence of Communism would suggest that the mother should work to the best of her ability if she can. Communism really doesnt give the workers a choice of not working.

 

(edit)

 

Of course I havent looked at this option, I dont have a family and hopefully I never will qualify for govt assistance.

 

This isnt about being poor sucking, this is about whether or not we should let people choose to not seek employment and still retain benefits.

 

I dont care about giving a person benefits if they are actually looking for a job and want to help themselves. I have a problem if they dont have to do anything. Its not really that difficult to see where the problem lies.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

[Balta1701]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a "Family values" level statement that its better for the child/children to have one parent at home than to have the kid in day care all day.

 

Anyway, repeating my question...am I wrong that the 96 reform act added in limits to the amount of time you could spend on SNAP benefits?

[Jenksismyhero]

No. Not at all.

 

We have a 7 week old baby. In 3 more weeks my wife's leave is up and she has to return to work. Our options are to send our 10 week old infant to daycare or get a nanny, both quite expensive, or have one of us stay home. We have grown so attached to our little girl in these last 7 weeks and know that once my wife starts going back to work it will be extremely difficult for her since she will miss our little girl.

 

Think about it. It will be 10 weeks of spending all of your time with your newborn that you love to death down to a couple hours a day of seeing your baby until the weekend arrives (Leave work first thing in the morning....get home by 6pm...baby in bed at 8pm). That's a huge transition that is very difficult for parents so I don't see anything wrong with one of the parents deciding to stay home to rear the child until they're ready for kindergarten. If WIC was truly such a cash cow as you claim, then my wife would easily decide to stay home and raise our little girl but it won't come remotely close to substituting her high salary and lets not pretend it could.

 

How is it not? Welcome to what MILLIONS of Americans do every single year. My two sisters (5 combined kids) have done EXACTLY what you're going through. A lot of our friends too. And it sucks. That doesn't mean they just decided "well, if i just don't go back to work, we can still support this baby because the government will help us out." That's such a bulls*** mentality that liberalism has cast onto society - "worry not, government is the great provider." It's absolutely wonderful that we live in a society that ASSISTS people that NEED assistance. But this is the case of people that CHOOSE to put themselves in a position to NEED assistance. Why the f*** should I continue working? According to you I should just be able to quit (who wants to work anyway? I'd rather just stay home and play xbox) and the government should provide me SOME assistance and no one should think twice about it. Hell, according to you EVERYONE thinks that's a GREAT idea.

 

And I've never claimed it was a cash cow. But it clearly provides a LOT of things for families. And it's clearly enough in the example we're talking about. It's absolute bulls*** that millions of parents work their jobs and don't get free food or diapers or the like, but because this women decides she'd rather not work we all get to contribute to her kid. That's f***ed up.

 

And just so you don't think i'm some heartless bastard, which i'm sure you already do, i'm 1000000000000000000000000000% in favor of our s***ty working society reanalyzing the importance of family and spending time with kids and working from home and all that. I completely understand our society sucks because kids are f***ing expensive and we all have to work to provide for them. As I said, my wife and I are incredibly depressed that right now despite obtaining two professional degrees we can't afford to have a kid. But I would never in a million years find it acceptable for one of us to stop working simply because we can expect to drop into the income level that qualifies for state aid.

 

 

[Y2HH]

How is it not? Welcome to what MILLIONS of Americans do every single year. My two sisters (5 combined kids) have done EXACTLY what you're going through. A lot of our friends too. And it sucks. That doesn't mean they just decided "well, if i just don't go back to work, we can still support this baby because the government will help us out." That's such a bulls*** mentality that liberalism has cast onto society - "worry not, government is the great provider." It's absolutely wonderful that we live in a society that ASSISTS people that NEED assistance. But this is the case of people that CHOOSE to put themselves in a position to NEED assistance. Why the f*** should I continue working? According to you I should just be able to quit (who wants to work anyway? I'd rather just stay home and play xbox) and the government should provide me SOME assistance and no one should think twice about it. Hell, according to you EVERYONE thinks that's a GREAT idea.

 

And I've never claimed it was a cash cow. But it clearly provides a LOT of things for families. And it's clearly enough in the example we're talking about. It's absolute bulls*** that millions of parents work their jobs and don't get free food or diapers or the like, but because this women decides she'd rather not work we all get to contribute to her kid. That's f***ed up.

 

And just so you don't think i'm some heartless bastard, which i'm sure you already do, i'm 1000000000000000000000000000% in favor of our s***ty working society reanalyzing the importance of family and spending time with kids and working from home and all that. I completely understand our society sucks because kids are f***ing expensive and we all have to work to provide for them. As I said, my wife and I are incredibly depressed that right now despite obtaining two professional degrees we can't afford to have a kid. But I would never in a million years find it acceptable for one of us to stop working simply because we can expect to drop into the income level that qualifies for state aid.

 

While I agree and I would never willingly put myself into such a position, if temporary government assistance to care for the child until it's in school ends up meaning one less street raised kid looking forward to a lifetime of welfare then I'm all for it, and the system worked as it should. Society temporarily helped out a family that otherwise couldn't have existed.

 

It's called assistance for a reason.

 

If it gets a family through a rough spot, and allowed them to have a child that they otherwise wouldn't be able to raise properly, then IMO, society has "arrived" to a pretty damn good place...we call it civilization.

 

Now, the story completely changes if this becomes a way of life, and they keep having more and more kids despite barely being able to afford the one. While I'm all for "assisting" people in need, so they can live a better life, and have that family they otherwise couldn't have, it's also where I draw the line.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[kapkomet]

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Think paying college athletes is a good idea? Think again.

 

There's a dark side to paying student-athletes to play college football.

 

Collective bargaining

If the rules-makers can't stop a kid from trading pants for tattoos, how can they expect to prevent an 18-year-old — with maybe $100 in his checking account — from listening to a union rep's lure of riches?

 

"A strike by college athletes would make the current work stoppages in the NFL and NBA look like child's play, and would impact more people and communities," Buckner said.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

White House finally gives up completely, resorts to rickrolling.

[BigSqwert]

Michele Bachmann today: Totally out of bounds to scrutinize my husband while I'm running for President.

 

Michele Bachmann in 2008: Michelle Obama has "very anti-American views."

 

[Rex Kickass]

The GOP dominated house shot down Reid's proposal (which by the way hasn't even gotten to Cloture votes yet in the Senate) and did so by a special rule that would require a 2/3 majority to pass in the House. (Boehner's plan wouldn't have passed under the same rules)

 

I think its time to start making some coins.

[Balta1701]

The GOP dominated house shot down Reid's proposal (which by the way hasn't even gotten to Cloture votes yet in the Senate) and did so by a special rule that would require a 2/3 majority to pass in the House. (Boehner's plan wouldn't have passed under the same rules)

 

I think its time to start making some coins.

I'm really hoping we see the Monty Burns solution. Gotta love having the Simpsons predict reality 15 years in advance.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm really hoping we see the Monty Burns solution. Gotta love having the Simpsons predict reality 15 years in advance.

 

You know if he just makes 14 of these Trillion dollar coins, we won't have to deal with this for a decade!

[Balta1701]

You know if he just makes 14 of these Trillion dollar coins, we won't have to deal with this for a decade!

Think about what happens next though...we go from the Monty Burns theft to the Die Hard with a Vengeance hit on the NY Federal Reserve bank.

[Balta1701]

The deficit deal ends student loans for graduate school

 

I was this close to needing that program in grad school. Guess anyone else is SOL. Thankfully, a highly educated workforce has no economic benefit.

[bmags]

i'm not downloading that.

[Balta1701]

it's a pdf of the congressional budget office's statement to the speaker on the bill. Here's that section.

Eliminate the subsidized loan program for graduate students. Beginning July 1,

2012, the bill would eliminate the interest subsidy on subsidized student loans for

almost all graduate students while a borrower is in school, in the post-school grace

period, and during any authorized deferment period. (Certain post-baccalaureate

students would still be eligible.) The current annual and cumulative loan limits for

unsubsidized loans would be adjusted to permit students to borrow additional

funds in the unsubsidized loan program. CBO projects that, over the 2012-2021

period, the provision would shift approximately $125 billion in loan volume from

the subsidized to the unsubsidized loan program. Because borrowers would be

responsible for the interest accrued on those loans while in school, CBO estimates

that this provision would reduce direct spending by $8.2 billion over the 2012-

2016 period and $18.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period.

[bmags]

what's the post-school grace period?

 

[farmteam]

6 months, I think.

 

This is a great thing to read when you're starting law school in 3 weeks.

 

Anyway, doesn't this basically mean that you'll just have to get unsubsidized loans instead of subsidized? You won't have to actually pay them back during school, they'll just capitalize.

[Rex Kickass]

So the Senate was unable to restore FAA authorization before August recess, because Tom Coburn decided that there has to be a bright line on EAS subsidies that was different than the bright line that the bipartisan plan provided - despite the fact that the bright line would have chopped 4 times the EAS subsidy that was originally proposed. Orrin Hatch than blocked a clean authorization bill because it didn't discuss union rules.

 

In the meantime, 4,000 FAA workers are unemployed until at least September. Over 2.5 billion dollars of infrastructure improvement programs at the nation's airports are halted, and to make matters worse, there are a number of safety inspectors who have to still work, but their pay is withheld until the authorization is granted again. Also, the federal government can no longer collect excise taxes on flights - costing the federal government approximately a quarter billion in revenue a week. What does this mean? It means, that by September, certain deficit hawk Senators who decided to block the reauthorization of an air safety organization will end up adding 1.2 billion dollars to the deficit.

[Balta1701]

So the Senate was unable to restore FAA authorization before August recess, because Tom Coburn decided that there has to be a bright line on EAS subsidies that was different than the bright line that the bipartisan plan provided - despite the fact that the bright line would have chopped 4 times the EAS subsidy that was originally proposed. Orrin Hatch than blocked a clean authorization bill because it didn't discuss union rules.

 

In the meantime, 4,000 FAA workers are unemployed until at least September. Over 2.5 billion dollars of infrastructure improvement programs at the nation's airports are halted, and to make matters worse, there are a number of safety inspectors who have to still work, but their pay is withheld until the authorization is granted again. Also, the federal government can no longer collect excise taxes on flights - costing the federal government approximately a quarter billion in revenue a week. What does this mean? It means, that by September, certain deficit hawk Senators who decided to block the reauthorization of an air safety organization will end up adding 1.2 billion dollars to the deficit.

And those $1.2 bil are being taken up by the airlines, who just adjusted their prices to compensate for the tax decrease.

[Y2HH]

And those $1.2 bil are being taken up by the airlines, who just adjusted their prices to compensate for the tax decrease.

 

Who are mostly all still going bankrupt or running in the red.

[Rex Kickass]

And those $1.2 bil are being taken up by the airlines, who just adjusted their prices to compensate for the tax decrease.

I really don't blame them for this one bit. It's an extremely competitive landscape out there and this is a boon for airlines which operate on extremely razor thin margins.

[bmags]

how many pages was the debt compromise?

[Balta1701]

how many pages was the debt compromise?

74 I think. With 1 day to read/process it.