The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

<!--quoteo(post=2435905:date=Jul 19, 2011 -> 06:38 PM:name=southsider2k5)-->

<!--quotec-->Show me the cuts in the biggest entitlement programs.

 

A congressional commerical? Really? What's next a comedian?

[mr_genius]

5% of people making less than $22,000 a year have a photo copier? WTF? Why?

 

Not really making a comment about the whole poorpeople and necessities thing, as much as just saying... photocopier? Really?

 

probably from a printer/photocopier combo. they come free with a lot of computers.

Edited July 20, 2011 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

A congressional commerical? Really? What's next a comedian?

$500 billion in medicare cuts was the message that won the election last year. If you'd like to give that back then we can get back to working on the economy rather than abortion.

[southsider2k5]

$500 billion in medicare cuts was the message that won the election last year. If you'd like to give that back then we can get back to working on the economy rather than abortion.

 

Great, so now I will just steal talking points from the left wing as fact.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey, they're not as bad off as Somalians, therefore lets cut all social spending! They don't really need it!

 

 

 

This is just another form of blame the victim.

 

Who said anything about cutting all social spending?

 

"Victims" of what exactly? Are you really claiming that 7 million people in this country are poor because they're victims and not because they've contributed to their own position in life?

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey nice job dodging all my questions regarding potential advantages you held and then claiming I said poor people are incredibly stupid.

 

edit: have you ever taken a class on or studied or read about sociology?

 

Yeah, I addressed the "advantages" by making fun of that line of reasoning. Advantages aren't complete roadblocks. Might make the path a lot tougher to travel, but you can still travel it.

 

And I inferred that you were claiming that poor people are stupid since apparently in your mind they can't figure out the importance of education and how to go talk to someone at their school about going to college. I didn't realize that took an IQ of 140 to understand that. But that's pretty typical for the liberal mind - people are inherently dumb and need me to tell them what to do and what to think.

 

But hey, since you've taken sociology classes I guess you know better than me! SS you're so smart!

Edited July 20, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) *

I think that if someone has luxury goods like cell phones and xboxs and multiple tv's they're not making the right decisions to get themselves out of being poor.

 

Do not forget the Nike gym shoes man. Gotta have the shoes.

 

Maybe we should have a panel...sort of like a death panel but for poor people. Going forward all poor people will have to take every purchase they make and run it by the "poor panel" to make sure it fits in line with their lifestyle of poverty.

 

Decent gyms shoes? NO!

Cell phone? NO!

 

[The Sir]

"Victims" of what exactly? Are you really claiming that 7 million people in this country are poor because they're victims and not because they've contributed to their own position in life?

 

+1

[Jenksismyhero]

Maybe we should have a panel...sort of like a death panel but for poor people. Going forward all poor people will have to take every purchase they make and run it by the "poor panel" to make sure it fits in line with their lifestyle of poverty.

 

Decent gyms shoes? NO!

Cell phone? NO!

 

Nope, instead we should do the exact opposite - allow a "panel" to decide when someone is poor without even doing any investigation to see if they'd actually qualify:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,6804492.story

 

 

Illinois wanted to tighten up the way it reviews whether people are eligible for Medicaid coverage, but the Obama administration has refused to go along, an action a state Republican leader called “absolutely ridiculous.”

 

One of the long-sought goals of Illinois Medicaid reforms enacted this year was to require more proof that people lived in Illinois and that their incomes were not too high to qualify for the state and federal health care program for the poor.

 

Illinois wanted more proof of residency than the current requirement that calls for little more than writing down an address, officials said. The new Illinois law also asked for a month’s worth of pay stubs instead of just one paycheck to show income eligibility. That requirement, officials said, was aimed at lessening the chance that a person could become eligible simply by using a particularly small paycheck to make his overall income look smaller than it is.

 

The federal government denied the Illinois plans because states are not allowed to put in place procedures that are more restrictive than they were on March 23, 2010, the day Democratic President Barack Obama signed the sweeping federal Affordable Care Act.

 

“Frankly, this is what enrages people,” said Illinois Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont. “If all we want to do is find out if people are actually eligible for the services, and the federal government is telling us we can’t do that, that’s absolutely ridiculous.”

 

Julie Hamos, director of Gov. Pat Quinn’s Department of Healthcare and Family Services, said she was disappointed with the federal decision but had cautioned state lawmakers that she needed to run the eligibility issue by officials in Washington first. She said the tougher eligibility requirements were only a piece of the overall state Medicaid reforms.

 

She had estimated conservatively that the state may be able to save $1 million a year by looking more closely at people who claim to be eligible but are not. She said the stricter limits also would have acted as a deterrent against some people from trying to game the system.

 

The state still seeks to match the addresses Medicaid recipients write down when they seek care against addresses in secretary of state records of drivers licenses and identification cards, Hamos said. Another option it is reviewing for income is to use databases that might have a work number or some other method of identification, according to a letter from the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

 

The federal concerns would be alleviated with the electronic cross-matching because the methods would not require the recipients to produce more documentation and would not make it more difficult for a person seeking coverage, according to a letter from federal officials.

 

Hamos said she is looking for help on the issue from Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and other federal lawmakers to protest federal government’s denial for stricter standards to verify whether someone is eligible for Medicaid.

 

The income level of a family of four enrolled this month could be 300 percent the federal poverty level —or $67,000 — to get coverage for children.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/20/thi...private-sector/

 

CHICAGO (CBS) — A conservative think tank is warning that public sector pay scales are out of balance with those in the private sector.

 

As WBBM Newsradio 780’s John Cody reports, Ted Dabrowski, vice president of the free market think tank the Illinois Policy Institute, found Illinois state worker pay has jumped 18 percent from 1992 to 2008.

 

LISTEN: Newsradio 780′s John Cody reports

 

But private sector pay scales dropped 2 percent in that time, he said.

 

“Public sector pay and benefits are high, and it’s the private sector that has the tax increases that have to pay for them,” he said. “So we need to get things back in line, because today, they’re out of sync.

 

Dabrowski says the average State of Illinois state employee is paid $69,500, versus $56,500 for the equivalent job in the private sector.

[bigruss]

I will say from personal experience that many of the kids that came from "poor" households (most likely not poverty in the areas I lived, but you never know) had better clothes than I did growing up (and Im from what is probably considered an upper-middle class). My parents were extremely frugal on clothes, food, and other living expenses so that we could afford to go on vacation, or save for college. Meanwhile, I saw plenty of kids from middle school through college that were wearing $200 pairs of shoes among other clothes that were very expensive.

 

I do think many of these people don't realize that these types of purchases, like $200 for shoes, $300 for a video game system, $50 every 3 months for a new video game, add up to quite a bit of money in the long haul. I easily saw a few "poor" kids spending over a $1000 more on video games and clothes than me in one year.

 

The biggest problem is that I don't think many of these people are educated well enough in how to spend their money. I don't think they realize just how far $1000 a year could go in terms of investing and saving. The environment that they grow up in is stagnant, it's a "we can't afford college so might as well buy this xbox," when if taught that they could go to the community college or do well enough in classes in high school they could earn scholarships to go to school and that $1000 every year suddenly is possible in going to school.

 

But most will grow up in an environment that tells them to not advance themselves or their family because everything is against them and they may as well not try. It's a defeatist attitude that you really start to notice in high school.

[EvilMonkey]

Nope, instead we should do the exact opposite - allow a "panel" to decide when someone is poor without even doing any investigation to see if they'd actually qualify:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,6804492.story

Until she retired last year, my mother ran the office of the grade school where we grew up. 60% of the school was on 'free lunch'. 80% of the entire student body spent money buying 'extra' stuff with their free lunch, so much so that the school almost made money on it. To qualify for the free lunch they had to just fil out a form, with NO verification. The form asked if they worked, all said no. Yet most had a work phone number for emergencies. The problem with government social programs is that the workers will do whatever they can to create the least hassle for themselves. Only time they will get complaints is if they deny someone a service or benefit because they dont deserve it. So they do as little as possible in the way of denying people to avoid those complaints. If you drop your kids off at school in a new Lexus, have $100 nail job and your kid can spend $5 a day on extra stuff at lunch, you don't need the free lunch.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sorry, bigruss and alpha, your personal anecdotes aren't evidence of anything. All poor people are single mothers with 3 kids working three jobs. The blogosphere has proven this time and time again.

[Soxbadger]

People abuse the system, anyone who would argue otherwise is either naive or lying to themselves. I would absolutely be fine with more oversight to ensure that those who truly are in need receive aid.

 

I just dont believe that you should punish the whole for the actions of the few.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/20/thi...private-sector/

I know public school teachers who make $120,000+. Same kind of private school teachers make well under $100,000

[BigSqwert]

I know public school teachers who make $120,000+. Same kind of private school teachers make well under $100,000

I have no problem with teachers making a lot of money. They actually deserve to get paid a lot of money for the good they do. It's the CEOs making millions in bonuses while shipping jobs to overseas and laying people off that get me angry.

 

Besides, since when is $120K a lot of money? I keep getting told that incomes of $250K isn't really much.

Edited July 20, 2011 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

the general public is split at about 50-50 in a poll over whether default would be a big deal or not. 53% of Republicans don't think it would cause major problems, with a surprising 43% of independents thinking that way.

 

Here is one that shocked me, only 56% of Democrats think default would be a major crisis, with 28% seeing it as no big deal.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I have no problem with teachers making a lot of money. They actually deserve to get paid a lot of money for the good they do.

I am not saying they shouldn't be paid. Just showing the discrepancy.

[BigSqwert]

I am not saying they shouldn't be paid. Just showing the discrepancy.

There are a lot of factors that could explain that discrepancy. Do you think everyone across the US makes the exact same amount of money with the title that you currently have?

[HuskyCaucasian]

There are a lot of factors that could explain that discrepancy. Do you think everyone across the US makes the exact same amount of money with the title that you currently have?

The people I know are in the same town/district area

[BigSqwert]

The people I know are in the same town/district area

And have the exact same years of experience and graduated from the same schools with the same GPA and work the same hours and have the same size class rooms? What are the odds?

Edited July 20, 2011 by BigSqwert

[HuskyCaucasian]

And have the exact same years of experience and graduated from the same schools with the same GPA and work the same hours and have the same size class rooms? What are the odds?

I am not goign to get into specific details. I just know they are comparable, but the pay is very different.

 

I've even seen private school teachers leave the school they are at because they could get more in a public school in the same area.

[BigSqwert]

I am not goign to get into specific details. I just know they are comparable, but the pay is very different.

 

I've even seen private school teachers leave the school they are at because they could get more in a public school in the same area.

maybe you get a premium for working somewhere that has a more difficult workplace environment (i.e., more problem students, larger classroom sizes, etc)?

[Balta1701]

maybe you get a premium for working somewhere that has a more difficult workplace environment (i.e., more problem students, larger classroom sizes, etc)?

That's not what you get paid the premium for, you get paid the premium for working in the wealthier school districts.

[BigSqwert]

That's not what you get paid the premium for, you get paid the premium for working in the wealthier school districts.

Eh whatever. I'm not going to bust the balls of teachers that get paid a decent salary.