The Republican Thread

[witesoxfan]

Well I advocate getting rid of the assistance programs. Kind of... its a complicated, I can explain it if you want.

 

I'm interested. Let's hear (read) it.

[southsider2k5]

Maxine Waters says 170 million jobs could be lost.

 

That's all? They are ratcheting down the fearmongering.

[mr_genius]

That's all? They are ratcheting down the fearmongering.

 

she meant 170 billion

[Reddy]

THINK OF THE CHILLENS doesn't work on me. I dont give a s*** about the kids, if they are really being neglected to the point its criminal the state can seize them and give them to a new family.

 

 

Well I advocate getting rid of the assistance programs. Kind of... its a complicated, I can explain it if you want.

 

YAAAAYYYY we both got un-suspended! Things are going to be interesting again!

[mr_genius]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/0...m#ixzz2Hye9eRZy

 

Dyed-blue-in-the-wool supporters of President Obama are blue as can be after opening their paychecks and discovering that "ordinary folks," as the president likes to call them, got slapped with a sizeable tax hike on New Year's Day.

 

"What happened?" was the exclamation found repeatedly by the Washington Times' Joseph Curl as he surveyed commentaries posted on liberal websites.

 

"What happened that my Social Security withholding in my paycheck just went up?" a DemocraticUnderground.com post asked. "I guarantee this decrease is gonna hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?"

 

The squeals came from people with usernames like "RomneyLies," "DemocratToTheEnd" and "BlueIndyBlue."

 

haha. i love it.

[DukeNukeEm]

I'm interested. Let's hear (read) it.

I'd rather there be no welfare at all. Honestly, just none... that's unfortunately impossible nowadays so I have to tone myself down a little.

 

Way I see it welfare is having an individuals life subsidized by the state, and by state I really mean taxpayers. Taxpayers deserve to be updated on their investments and have every single possible guarantee possible to information that facilitates that process. What does that mean?

 

(1) Welfare recipients must use one debit card for all transactions made with taxpayer dollars. This debit card cannot be used to withdraw cash. All cash purchases must be accompanied by a matching receipt and reported.

(2) That information is then made public to the taxpayers, so we know exactly where, when and how our money is being spent.

(3) Taxpayers can file complaints against what they see as waste and within a week a judge must make a ruling on whether the complaints are legitimate. If the judge rules that they are indeed valid the welfare recipient is cut off from funds permanently.

(4) Once a month all welfare recipients must attend a public forum to answer questions from taxpayers about their efforts to get off welfare. Failure to attend is automatic grounds for removal from the welfare system.

(5) Purchases of more than $500, changing of address, conceiving a child* and trips outside the resident state by a welfare recipient must be pre-approved by a judge.

(6) Mandatory drug testing

 

*if rejected the baby does not need to be aborted, but will be put up for adoption immediately upon birth.

 

I know this will create a little bureaucracy, but the damage it does to the welfare system will offset that cost and then some. Before you say its a breach of someone's rights, if you're on welfare you've given up all of your rights except the right to life and cruel and unusual punishment. You've become government property and should be treated as such, if you dont like it get off welfare.

[Jake]

I'd rather there be no welfare at all. Honestly, just none... that's unfortunately impossible nowadays so I have to tone myself down a little.

 

Way I see it welfare is having an individuals life subsidized by the state, and by state I really mean taxpayers. Taxpayers deserve to be updated on their investments and have every single possible guarantee possible to information that facilitates that process. What does that mean?

 

(1) Welfare recipients must use one debit card for all transactions made with taxpayer dollars. This debit card cannot be used to withdraw cash. All cash purchases must be accompanied by a matching receipt and reported.

(2) That information is then made public to the taxpayers, so we know exactly where, when and how our money is being spent.

(3) Taxpayers can file complaints against what they see as waste and within a week a judge must make a ruling on whether the complaints are legitimate. If the judge rules that they are indeed valid the welfare recipient is cut off from funds permanently.

(4) Once a month all welfare recipients must attend a public forum to answer questions from taxpayers about their efforts to get off welfare. Failure to attend is automatic grounds for removal from the welfare system.

(5) Purchases of more than $500, changing of address, conceiving a child* and trips outside the resident state by a welfare recipient must be pre-approved by a judge.

(6) Mandatory drug testing

 

*if rejected the baby does not need to be aborted, but will be put up for adoption immediately upon birth.

 

I know this will create a little bureaucracy, but the damage it does to the welfare system will offset that cost and then some. Before you say its a breach of someone's rights, if you're on welfare you've given up all of your rights except the right to life and cruel and unusual punishment. You've become government property and should be treated as such, if you dont like it get off welfare.

 

I feel like you would be against restricting freedoms, but this essentially slavery. "Do things right and we'll let you go free!"

 

[DukeNukeEm]

I feel like you would be against restricting freedoms, but this essentially slavery. "Do things right and we'll let you go free!"

Not at all. If you want public money you are essentially owned by the public. Its a choice, nobody is forced onto welfare.

[Reddy]

Not at all. If you want public money you are essentially owned by the public. Its a choice, nobody is forced onto welfare.

You seem to see the world in black and white and ignore the shades of gray. You need to explore some inner city slums and tell me that children born there CHOOSE to be on welfare and CHOOSE to not get a better education.

[StrangeSox]

"owned by the public" pure ideology

 

For #1, isn't that pretty much how WIC cards work already? Pre-loaded debit card that can only be used on WIC-approved items?

[Balta1701]

"owned by the public" pure ideology

 

For #1, isn't that pretty much how WIC cards work already? Pre-loaded debit card that can only be used on WIC-approved items?

Well, WIC approved items and the fees that the bank charges to use the card.

[DukeNukeEm]

You seem to see the world in black and white and ignore the shades of gray. You need to explore some inner city slums and tell me that children born there CHOOSE to be on welfare and CHOOSE to not get a better education.

If the judge says they can be. You ignore the part where I say people on welfare cannot have children without prior permission.

 

And the world is black and white, there are no shades of grey for you and your limp-wristed liberal ideology to fall back on. The contrast is stark, live as a free American without welfare or be a public slave on welfare. Which you choose is entirely up to you, but there needs to be consequences for not being able to support yourself. I wouldn't mind some sort of mandated sign that a person must display that show they are on welfare at all times. Stigmatize them, force them into oppression, make every day they spend on welfare a living hell... I want them to feel like the whole world would rather they just go away.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[StrangeSox]

"a little bureaucracy"

 

maybe something like this for their badge?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

"owned by the public" pure ideology

 

For #1, isn't that pretty much how WIC cards work already? Pre-loaded debit card that can only be used on WIC-approved items?

 

WIC is a voucher system. At least it used to be when I worked at a grocery store in high school. Link was more like a debit-card. None have the "public knowledge" aspect Duke is advocating for.

 

I agree with a lot of Duke's proposals. I think forcing people that receive welfare to go through audits is a good idea. If people are wasting money on bulls***, they should be warned about it. Welfare is about getting people back on track, not maintaining a lifestyle.

[StrangeSox]

Just gonna point out that you don't seem to have any idea how our welfare system works or any concept of the size and expense of the bureaucracy that would need to be created for these crazy ideas for your "public slaves."

 

Other than Duke's stated desire to act like this:

 

 

what purpose do his proposals serve? It certainly won't make the system any more efficient or cheaper, instead increasing it by at least an order of magnitude.

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Just gonna point out that you don't seem to have any idea how our welfare system works or any concept of the size and expense of the bureaucracy that would need to be created for these crazy ideas for your "public slaves."

 

Is this directed at me?

[Jake]

Just gonna point out that you don't seem to have any idea how our welfare system works or any concept of the size and expense of the bureaucracy that would need to be created for these crazy ideas for your "public slaves."

 

Other than Duke's stated desire to act like this:

 

 

what purpose does his proposals serve? It certainly won't make the system any more efficient or cheaper, instead increasing it by at least an order of magnitude.

 

[StrangeSox]

Is this directed at me?

It's directed at Duke and anyone who thinks what he proposed is a good idea.

[Jenksismyhero]

You think holding people accountable for receiving government funds is a bad thing? You don't think on some level it would be a good idea to make sure people using those funds are using them for their intended purpose?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

There's an order-of-magnitude difference between duke's sociopathic proposals and some level of structure to a social program. As it is, we already have a system that only allows WIC funds to be used on pre-approved goods.

 

[Reddy]

If the judge says they can be. You ignore the part where I say people on welfare cannot have children without prior permission.

 

And the world is black and white, there are no shades of grey for you and your limp-wristed liberal ideology to fall back on. The contrast is stark, live as a free American without welfare or be a public slave on welfare. Which you choose is entirely up to you, but there needs to be consequences for not being able to support yourself. I wouldn't mind some sort of mandated sign that a person must display that show they are on welfare at all times. Stigmatize them, force them into oppression, make every day they spend on welfare a living hell... I want them to feel like the whole world would rather they just go away.

 

Guys im gonna get suspended again pretty quickly.

 

Isnt limp-wristed a euphamism for gay? What is your DEAL dude? Be a friggin human being and learn some goddamned empathy. More so, learn how to treat people. Otherwise these attitudes are gonna come back to bite you some day when you piss off the wrong person. Wish I could see it. Karma is, as they say, a b****.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's an order-of-magnitude difference between duke's sociopathic proposals and some level of structure to a social program. As it is, we already have a system that only allows WIC funds to be used on pre-approved goods.

 

Ok great, but Link cards don't work like that.

[StrangeSox]

For the SNAP benefits, they do:

 

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30357

 

For the cash assisstance, you're right, they don't. People need cash to pay bills, pay the rent, etc. etc. How large and expensive of a bureaucracy do you think you'd need to create to track and judicially review every one of those expenditures?

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[pettie4sox]

 

Duke really does have "balls of steels" proposing something like that that will cost taxpayers more in the long run.

[EvilMonkey]

For the SNAP benefits, they do:

 

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30357

 

For the cash assisstance, you're right, they don't. People need cash to pay bills, pay the rent, etc. etc. How large and expensive of a bureaucracy do you think you'd need to create to track and judicially review every one of those expenditures?

 

 

SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy:

 

Hot foods ready to eat,

Food intended to be heated in the store,

Lunch counter items or foods to be eaten in the store,

Vitamins or medicines,

Pet foods,

Any nonfood items (except seeds and plants),

Alcoholic beverages,

Tobacco

 

Except when they go to the corner liquor store that accepts the LINK card and sells them booze anyway, but rings it up as some food item they happen to carry. I have seen it, often. Or they ring up $100 in 'charges' and the store hands them $70 cash. I have seen that as well, but not as often. It also doesn't prevent them from buying potato chips, pop tarts, candy bars or anything else that is 'bad' for them.