Worst President since WWII?

[Chisoxfn]

As opposed to "raising children on someone else's dime"?

You know...I should have kids that someone else should pay for. I mean really, do some of these posters think that is how we should run this country. Once they have the kids, we are stuck providing for the kids (and should), cause the kids shouldn't get hosed because they came from dumb parents. They already have to deal with overcoming their genetics they inherited from those "dumb" parents.

 

But come on....its a right so therefor we need to pay for it. Is having an Iphone a right too? I see enough freaking poor people with phones that blow my mine out of the water (technically I have an S4 that I got for free so maybe not...but for years this would have been the case cause I refuse to pay 200 bucks for a phone).

[southsider2k5]

You know...I should have kids that someone else should pay for. I mean really, do some of these posters think that is how we should run this country. Once they have the kids, we are stuck providing for the kids (and should), cause the kids shouldn't get hosed because they came from dumb parents. They already have to deal with overcoming their genetics they inherited from those "dumb" parents.

 

But come on....its a right so therefor we need to pay for it. Is having an Iphone a right too? I see enough freaking poor people with phones that blow my mine out of the water (technically I have an S4 that I got for free so maybe not...but for years this would have been the case cause I refuse to pay 200 bucks for a phone).

 

For my two cents, I got fixed after two kids. I had a certain standard I wanted to provide for my kids. Until we were able to meet that standard, we didn't have kids. Once we having more kids would hurt the rest, we stopped. Why is that such a horrible or difficult thing?

[Chisoxfn]

For my two cents, I got fixed after two kids. I had a certain standard I wanted to provide for my kids. Until we were able to meet that standard, we didn't have kids. Once we having more kids would hurt the rest, we stopped. Why is that such a horrible or difficult thing?

It isn't...but Mike, that is because we empower ourselves and don't think we are "entitled" to things no matter what. We also understand that we, more then anyone else, control our destinies. There is always luck in things (could we die tomorrow or get sick and be unable to work or in an accident, sure) but in general, we have a lot of control. God forbid a place where I had to sit around and rely on a bunch of other people.

[Jenksismyhero]

For my two cents, I got fixed after two kids. I had a certain standard I wanted to provide for my kids. Until we were able to meet that standard, we didn't have kids. Once we having more kids would hurt the rest, we stopped. Why is that such a horrible or difficult thing?

 

Stop with your completely reasonable position. I want 5 kids and if I can't afford it, f*** you all, you're paying for it. IT'S MY RIGHT.

[StrangeSox]

yeah. yeah!!

[Jenksismyhero]

It isn't...but Mike, that is because we empower ourselves and don't think we are "entitled" to things no matter what. We also understand that we, more then anyone else, control our destinies. There is always luck in things (could we die tomorrow or get sick and be unable to work or in an accident, sure) but in general, we have a lot of control. God forbid a place where I had to sit around and rely on a bunch of other people.

 

The response to this is that pulling up your boot straps has proven to not be doable for some people. Which I agree with. But when it's not doable, you don't compound the problem by adding a kid or two or three to the situation. And you don't compound THAT problem by teaching those kids that even if you f*** up and have kids you can't pay for, Big Daddy Government will pay for it.

[Iwritecode]

I know of someone even worse than this. He makes about 98,000$ a year, and has a kid with the girl he lives with. They're not married because she's on welfare. So, on top of his 98k a year, they receive full welfare benefits for her and the child, which basically equates to free food for them (among other free services).

 

If he was to marry her, she'd lose those benefits.

 

And there are a LOT of people that do this...by the way.

 

My wife and I have joked about that before. We had kids before we got married and got a some big tax returns for a couple of years because neither one of us was making much money. Then we got married and now I make about 3 times what she does. So if we got divorced and she claimed the kids, we’d get a big tax return and she could get all sorts of assistance.

 

But we’ve never done it because we have morals.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Iwritecode

[southsider2k5]

It isn't...but Mike, that is because we empower ourselves and don't think we are "entitled" to things no matter what. We also understand that we, more then anyone else, control our destinies. There is always luck in things (could we die tomorrow or get sick and be unable to work or in an accident, sure) but in general, we have a lot of control. God forbid a place where I had to sit around and rely on a bunch of other people.

 

Anyone can take care of what they have control of.

[Cknolls]

You know...I should have kids that someone else should pay for. I mean really, do some of these posters think that is how we should run this country. Once they have the kids, we are stuck providing for the kids (and should), cause the kids shouldn't get hosed because they came from dumb parents. They already have to deal with overcoming their genetics they inherited from those "dumb" parents.

 

But come on....its a right so therefor we need to pay for it. Is having an Iphone a right too? I see enough freaking poor people with phones that blow my mine out of the water (technically I have an S4 that I got for free so maybe not...but for years this would have been the case cause I refuse to pay 200 bucks for a phone).

 

Oh absolutely. This and we should also be responsible for thousands of illegal aliens pouring into our land. f*** the citizens, it may mean some more votes.

[southsider2k5]

I do think it is funny how these polls are now meaningless.

[caulfield12]

I think the problem is we have created a system which doesn't empower people to get away from it and stand on their own and the key should be finding ways to do that. Part of that is a cultural struggle that we seem to be losing. 50 years ago I think it would be a lot less likely people would look to the government to lend a hand. If they couldn't get anything, okay, help, but as soon as I can find a way to fend on my way, I'll do it on my own. I think we've just created a culture that is more needy as a whole and therefor people have come to expect certain things.

 

I know it gets used a lot but I always find it hilarious that people who are legitimately poor have better phones and far more premium cable channels than I do.

 

The problem is that lots of companies aren't hiring, they're outsourcing, they're sitting on their record profits...

 

So what will stimulate an economic expansion when companies are sitting on their profits, they're not even putting as much into R&D, the Dow's been at an all-time high...nobody is "owed" a job by the government or private industry, but what is your suggestion?

 

If you go back to Ayn Rand's central thesis, it's clearly not government...just that people have to be more creative, more innovative, take more initiative, etc. But that's not going to be possible when 60-65% of Americans can't go to colleges/universities (now more and more often due to affordability issues) and, once again, the Fortune 500 companies aren't going to provide worker training/retraining/skills retooling programs unless they generate profits as well.

 

 

Some would argue here in China families become more accountable/responsible with/to each other because there's no such thing as God/religion and charities/non-profits aren't trusted, either. As we all know, part of the huge social safety net (in the U.S.) is provided by churches/soup kitchens/shelters and charitable foundations. So wouldn't just as good an argument be that if these programs didn't exist, then nobody could rely upon them...at least not any more than they rely upon government programs?

 

Or that if people didn't believe in God, they would be forced to realize nobody will help them but themselves....another classic Ayn Rand argument, as she wasn't a big believer in religion, either.

Edited July 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[chw42]

No one is really saying this. But there should be an understanding that there is a decent number of people who abuse the system and that instead of saying "whelp, they deserve it!" we should be figuring out ways to stop the abuse. Welfare was meant to be a short-term crutch, not a lifetime entitlement. Not a "well, i'd prefer to do this, not that so gimme gimme gimme."

 

That's not what I see when I see conservatives complaining about government handouts.

 

I have absolutely no issues with getting rid of loopholes that enable people to abuse the welfare system. It's made for people who are legitimately in need of help, not free-loaders. I don't want to support drug addicts who spend their welfare checks on...well...more drugs. I don't want to support people who can work, but don't feel like it. However, it's my belief that those are in the minority of people who do receive welfare and that they're probably not getting enough money to live a great lifestyle.

 

The problem I see is that conservative media likes to give extremely broad statements about government-aid. It's usually some anecdotal story about how so and so got this much government aid and we should all be pissed off about it and THANKS OBAMA! So of course, the base relays this type of sentiment and it leaves an impression that conservatives just hate welfare. Not just welfare for free-loaders, but welfare for everyone. To on-lookers who aren't conservative (a decent amount of the country, according to the previous two Presidential elections), this can leave an impression of conservatives being selfish and hypocritical. It's selfish because, well, imagine a guy making 6 figures a year (conservatives usually have more income) kicking a homeless person to the curb and telling them they can't have food stamps and that they should just stay poor, stay hungry, and deal with it. It's also hypocritical because a huge amount of the conservative base is Christian and one of the pillars of Christianity is charity and welfare. Talking about welfare in generic and politically-designed catch-phrases isn't going to help the overall debate and it's not helping the image of conservatives.

 

While you may think no one is really saying we should get rid of welfare, almost everything the conservative media throws out there (*cough Fox News) says they don't want any welfare. I find the same problem with Liberterians arguing for smaller government. That's fine and all, but if you get rid of the entire government, who the hell is going to build the roads and teach your kids?

 

There won't be a real discussion about any of these issues until people stop talking about them in such broad and generic ways.

[caulfield12]

That's not what I see when I see conservatives complaining about government handouts.

 

I have absolutely no issues with getting rid of loopholes that enable people to abuse the welfare system. It's made for people who are legitimately in need of help, not free-loaders. I don't want to support drug addicts who spend their welfare checks on...well...more drugs. I don't want to support people who can work, but don't feel like it. However, it's my belief that those are in the minority of people who do receive welfare and that they're probably not getting enough money to live a great lifestyle.

 

The problem I see is that conservative media likes to give extremely broad statements about government-aid. It's usually some anecdotal story about how so and so got this much government aid and we should all be pissed off about it and THANKS OBAMA! So of course, the base relays this type of sentiment and it leaves an impression that conservatives just hate welfare. Not just welfare for free-loaders, but welfare for everyone. To on-lookers who aren't conservative (a decent amount of the country, according to the previous two Presidential elections), this can leave an impression of conservatives being selfish and hypocritical. It's selfish because, well, imagine a guy making 6 figures a year (conservatives usually have more income) kicking a homeless person to the curb and telling them they can't have food stamps and that they should just stay poor, stay hungry, and deal with it. It's also hypocritical because a huge amount of the conservative base is Christian and one of the pillars of Christianity is charity and welfare. Talking about welfare in generic and politically-designed catch-phrases isn't going to help the overall debate and it's not helping the image of conservatives.

 

While you may think no one is really saying we should get rid of welfare, almost everything the conservative media throws out there (*cough Fox News) says they don't want any welfare. I find the same problem with Liberterians arguing for smaller government. That's fine and all, but if you get rid of the entire government, who the hell is going to build the roads and teach your kids?

 

There won't be a real discussion about any of these issues until people stop talking about them in such broad and generic ways.

 

Non-sectarian amen.

Edited July 4, 2014 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

I do think it is funny how these polls are now meaningless.

I'm actually impressed how well the last guy has held up. It's always the current guy who tops this poll, but in 2006, Bush was at 34%, and he's only dropped to 28% 6 years after our long national nightmare ended. In that same 2006 poll, Clinton was at 16%. Bush has barely eroded at all while Clinton dropped into the middle of the pack.

[EvilMonkey]

That's not what I see when I see conservatives complaining about government handouts.

 

I have absolutely no issues with getting rid of loopholes that enable people to abuse the welfare system. It's made for people who are legitimately in need of help, not free-loaders. I don't want to support drug addicts who spend their welfare checks on...well...more drugs. I don't want to support people who can work, but don't feel like it. However, it's my belief that those are in the minority of people who do receive welfare and that they're probably not getting enough money to live a great lifestyle.

 

The problem I see is that conservative media likes to give extremely broad statements about government-aid. It's usually some anecdotal story about how so and so got this much government aid and we should all be pissed off about it and THANKS OBAMA! So of course, the base relays this type of sentiment and it leaves an impression that conservatives just hate welfare. Not just welfare for free-loaders, but welfare for everyone. To on-lookers who aren't conservative (a decent amount of the country, according to the previous two Presidential elections), this can leave an impression of conservatives being selfish and hypocritical. It's selfish because, well, imagine a guy making 6 figures a year (conservatives usually have more income) kicking a homeless person to the curb and telling them they can't have food stamps and that they should just stay poor, stay hungry, and deal with it. It's also hypocritical because a huge amount of the conservative base is Christian and one of the pillars of Christianity is charity and welfare. Talking about welfare in generic and politically-designed catch-phrases isn't going to help the overall debate and it's not helping the image of conservatives.

 

While you may think no one is really saying we should get rid of welfare, almost everything the conservative media throws out there (*cough Fox News) says they don't want any welfare. I find the same problem with Liberterians arguing for smaller government. That's fine and all, but if you get rid of the entire government, who the hell is going to build the roads and teach your kids?

 

There won't be a real discussion about any of these issues until people stop talking about them in such broad and generic ways.

And how do you propose they do that? Catch the cheaters, that is? Because every time any kind of means testing or rules are suggested to do just that, they get labeled as racist, trying to keep food from babies and so on. My mother works in a fairly poor school district which had about 70% on free or reduced lunch programs (before this new crap program). The killer was that anyone could apply for it, and the school was forbidden to check the information on the form. Parent(s) would fill out that they didn't work, yet on the school information form there would be emergency work phone numbers. Kids would come to the office and have to call for a ride home would give work phone numbers to call, when the lunch apps said they didn't work. The school also used to make a small amount of money selling other things at lunch to the kids. Lets just say that more than 30% of them had enough money to buy snacks. If they could have afforded those, perhaps they could have afforded to buy lunch?

 

You also managed to hit just about every talking point in your screed. Republicans usually make more, Republicans are Christians and should be for charity, Fox news calls to end welfare and food stamps, keep poor people poor. Have you ever even watched Fox News? While many conservatives are Christian and do believe in charity, they don't think that government is the vehicle for it. Conservatives donate more to private charity than progs. That is where charity belongs, from free will, not from confiscation by the state. Conservatives in general don't mind charity programs for those who need it, but there needs to be ways off of it, not encouragements to stay on. Needs to be checks to make sure those on it deserve it, not make it easier for cheats to get on it. As for being the party of the rich, you must be blind to all the Democratic millionaires that are out there, and how the Dems have been helping out big business more than Republicans ever have lately.