Welfare reform

[Turtle]

If there is an error in my posts I prefer that it be pointed out. Information needs to be accurate. Yes, SS is referred to at an Earned Benefit. It is also referred to as Government Pensions. Both are entitlements because people are entitled to those benefits. In the federal government, the budgets, and everywhere else inside the Beltway, Entitlement Spending refers to government pensions (including all earned benefits), healthcare, and welfare. I'm really sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it is. You can certainly refer to it any way you like, but that won't change the way those in government refer to it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending

 

[skyraider]

It does appear that most of the responses are from well to do men in here with a good income, a leak proof home on

wheels who most likely eat 3 meals a day, drink coffee, are in decent health, and just might have a nice

life,,possibly.,imho. I did recognize one lady responding out of at least 50 women that could have responded, but
didn't. It does appear that many are jealous of others so called freebees. Now that said, each of you should go to a large city that handles welfare and child support problems and just listen to the stories from the folks waiting in chairs for their turn at seeing a social worker /benefits person. I have been there and listened in the huge waiting room to what folks are talking about, it is an eye opener, oh, yes ,it takes about 2 or 3 hours of screaming kids, loud existing adults,and crying of kids and adults to realize there are a lot of hurting and hungry people out there. For a woman in Tennessee who needs help for child support/ freebee if you will, it takes about 4 or 5 visits and tons of paperwork to get a check. The last time I was involved in that mess, the system if you can call it a system is a mess....but then so are the folks that work there and the clients. So, if you wanna get a first hand wake up call, go to a large city and go visit that place of Welfare and Child Support Services. Take you nerve meds boys.

PS- It is not really about freebees at all, it is really about the moral decay of the people..

 

[golfournut]

If there is an error in my posts I prefer that it be pointed out. Information needs to be accurate. Yes, SS is referred to at an Earned Benefit. It is also referred to as Government Pensions. Both are entitlements because people are entitled to those benefits. In the federal government, the budgets, and everywhere else inside the Beltway, Entitlement Spending refers to government pensions (including all earned benefits), healthcare, and welfare. I'm really sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it is. You can certainly refer to it any way you like, but that won't change the way those in government refer to it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending

Sorry, but you're incorrect. That is not what happens inside the beltway, budgets or in both houses.

The news media and unofficial websites, as in the link you keep providing do sometimes. Apparently, you haven't read the official budget! Just a third party breakdown.

 

[golfournut]

If there is an error in my posts I prefer that it be pointed out. Information needs to be accurate. Yes, SS is referred to at an Earned Benefit. It is also referred to as Government Pensions. Both are entitlements because people are entitled to those benefits. In the federal government, the budgets, and everywhere else inside the Beltway, Entitlement Spending refers to government pensions (including all earned benefits), healthcare, and welfare. I'm really sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it is. You can certainly refer to it any way you like, but that won't change the way those in government refer to it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending

Apparently I didn't make the difference between PEOPLE that receive earned benefits and entitlements simple enough to understand.

 

[Turtle]

Look, you came on here screaming that Social Security isn't an entitlement, because Social Security is <insert definition of entitlement here> as proof that Social Security isn't an <insert definition of entitlement here>. I agreed with you, and noted that nevertheless Social Security, which is something people have a right to, ironically an entitlement, and Welfare, a gift that people have no right to, something to which they are not entitled to, are both currently access historically classified together as entitlement something. And you wanna fight.

You got all bent out of shape because I'm lumping them together, as if I'm the one who invented lumping them together. And you wanna fight.

The notion that only certain Websites, legislators, economists, and me, refer to Social Security and welfare together as entitlement spending is, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly retarded and ginormously ignorant. And you wanna fight.

I can give you a link to a YouTube video where real, actual American Congressman and Senators, in Washington D.C., regret to both Social Security and welfare as being entitlement spending, and you'll wanna fight.

Did you know that not only can people be denied welfare for a myriad of reasons, but people can also be denied Social Security for a whole host of reasons?

Wanna fight?

 

[golfournut]

Look, you came on here screaming that Social Security isn't an entitlement, because Social Security is <insert definition of entitlement here> as proof that Social Security isn't an <insert definition of entitlement here>. I agreed with you, and noted that nevertheless Social Security, which is something people have a right to, ironically an entitlement, and Welfare, a gift that people have no right to, something to which they are not entitled to, are both currently access historically classified together as entitlement something. And you wanna fight.

You got all bent out of shape because I'm lumping them together, as if I'm the one who invented lumping them together. And you wanna fight.

The notion that only certain Websites, legislators, economists, and me, refer to Social Security and welfare together as entitlement spending is, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly retarded and ginormously ignorant. And you wanna fight.

I can give you a link to a YouTube video where real, actual American Congressman and Senators, in Washington D.C., regret to both Social Security and welfare as being entitlement spending, and you'll wanna fight.

Did you know that not only can people be denied welfare for a myriad of reasons, but people can also be denied Social Security for a whole host of reasons?

Wanna fight?

Yes,

Who are the legislators and economists you are referring to?

Please post the you tube links.

Read my previous posts for the definitions.

And yes, people can be denied for all kinds of government programs for a vast majority of reasons.

I never said you invented lumping them together. What I said was I was correcting your error. Not anyone elses. And I think you said thank you in your condescending way.

 

[Turtle]

Yes,

Who are the legislators and economists you are referring to?

Every single one that I've ever heard talk about entitlement spending.

Please post the you tube links.

I don't feel like going and looking them up.

Read my previous posts for the definitions.

No. I read it the first time, understood it, and still remember it.Go back and read my post where I noted that the word "entitlement" has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups.

And yes, people can be denied for all kinds of government programs for a vast majority of reasons.

Just checking, since you seemed to think what you paid in was somehow due to you.

I never said you invented lumping them together. What I said was I was correcting your error. Not anyone elses.

You asked why I lumped them together, as if I'm the first one to do that. And you apparently still think lumping them together is my error. I really don't give a rat's furry little behind what category you or anyone else puts it in. In the grand scheme of important things, it's not even on the list.

And I think you said thank you in your condescending way.

At least you're not oblivious to everything.

 

[cranis]

And while we have trash like this woman cranking out welfare babies we have veterans who deserve thanks and help and respect barely getting by. There should be a rule that welfare never increases with additional babies though.

http://blog.theveteranssite.com/hun...mpaign=hungry-vet-calls-911&utm_term=20150613

Pa tried that about 15 years ago, but it did not go far.

 

[cheri1122]

It's interesting all the many things people tell their doctor, especially when over time the doctor treats two and sometimes three generations of the same family. Over a career of 50 years, 49 on the same corner, a doctor may hear direct from the patients mouths, plural, they are having a baby for the extra benefits. Perhaps not every doctor on every corner but definitely one and likely many.

So your opinion is based upon anecdotal evidence. And not just anecdotal, but clearly outdated anecdotal evidence. Because we know that doctor has passed on, [may he rest in peace], and what he told you was true - decades ago. It is not true any longer - not to any degree that justifies even mentioning it as a reason for reducing benefits to needy people.
Some women have babies just to harm them - [Munchausen by proxy]. Does that justify a suspicious attitude towards pregnant women?

If it's wrong then let's hear you agree and say while they aren't common there are those women who have babies just to get additional money. Let's hear you say there are some people getting comparatively large amounts of money as the figures show. Let's hear you say that although you disagree with the numbers provided by the government for the amounts given they are presumably accurate since they are in fact government provided figures. So far you have only ever disagreed with known facts and government figures. Until then, your comments and position so far require a response of right, not wrong.

I have not disagreed with any facts or figures. The government says people "can receive" $XX in benefits, and so they can: in theory. Just like in theory, I can drive a flatbed or a tanker truck, but in reality, the tarps and hoses/fittings are too heavy, so I can't. Reality says there are very few people who get all [or even most of] the benefits they're eligible for.
The implication that people can get more from government assistance than working full time may be true in theory, but in reality? How many people actually do?
And most important: how many people on government assistance actually are working?

 

[LDB]

It has been several years but decades ago makes it sound like half a century or more since he had any clue. It was actually during the current century. Again, while I don't believe and never said it is anywhere near all who are doing this you refuse to accept there are some and that it can and does happen.

 

[cheri1122]

We can agree that there is far too much money spent on government assistance - at both ends of the income scale. And what about "price supports"? Paying farmers to not plant something? Import duties, to keep prices low on domestic goods? All are government assistance, aren't they? Why is the only one anyone gets upset about is the one that assists poor people, many of them working poor?
I get angry that people who work for a living can't afford to rent an apartment, much less save for a home.
No one objects when the government intervenes to prop prices up [the sugar industry?!], but they scream bloody murder at the idea of the government intervening to increase wages, because what business wants is more important than what people need.
We have become an oligarchy, plain and simple.

 

[cheri1122]

It has been several years but decades ago makes it sound like half a century or more since he had any clue. It was actually during the current century. Again, while I don't believe and never said it is anywhere near all who are doing this you refuse to accept there are some and that it can and does happen.

That is flat out wrong. Please reread my exact words, in the first post - I have never said it doesn't exist. There are some, but not in numbers enough to warrant policies that harm others.
And yet, some people will mention them as a justification for such policies, guaranteed, every time the subject is discussed. And they'll back it up with anecdotal evidence, from long ago, to 'prove' their beliefs are correct.
Forty years ago, you would have been more right than wrong - but that was then, this is now, and your "information" is outdated and incorrect.

 

[cheri1122]

An excellent start to reducing the number of children on welfare would be to increase access for low income women to contraception, but Rick Perry bragged about defunding Planned Parenthood in Texas, so good luck with that.
It's also helpful to teach teens about sex and how to not have babies they can't support and aren't ready for, but when all they get is abstinence based wishful thinking, more babies just keep arriving - good luck with that too.

 

[Ragman]

 

[Turtle]

An excellent start to reducing the number of children on welfare would be to increase access for low income women to contraception, but Rick Perry bragged about defunding Planned Parenthood in Texas, so good luck with that.

Ironically, in 1970 when Republican Richard Nixon signed into law the Title X amendment to the Public Health Service Act, liberals were all for it because increased access to contraception would give people and families more control over their lives, and conservatives were for it as a way to keep people off welfare. The end result has been federal money funding abortions and ever-increasing record numbers of welfare recipients. So, good job, Federal Government. :thumbsup: As per normal, when the government throws money at a problem, instead of fixing the problem they just get more of the problem, which of course, requires more money to fix, which results in more of the problem. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

It's also helpful to teach teens about sex and how to not have babies they can't support and aren't ready for, but when all they get is abstinence based wishful thinking, more babies just keep arriving - good luck with that too.

Except, ironically, the more information teens have on sex and how not to have babies they can't support and aren't ready for, has resulted in even more babies they can't support and aren't ready for, that end up being supported by welfare and supervised by the State.

So, a program designed to give more control to families over their lives has resulted in less control, a program designed to reduce the number of people on welfare has increased the number of people on welfare, and a program designed specifically to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies has resulted in unwanted pregnancies in mind-numbing numbers, many of which are aborted using backdoor federal funds from a program put in place when abortions weren't even legal.

 

[Ragman]

Ironically, in 1970 when Republican Richard Nixon signed into law the Title X amendment to the Public Health Service Act, liberals were all for it because increased access to contraception would give people and families more control over their lives, and conservatives were for it as a way to keep people off welfare. The end result has been federal money funding abortions and ever-increasing record numbers of welfare recipients. So, good job, Federal Government. :thumbsup: As per normal, when the government throws money at a problem, instead of fixing the problem they just get more of the problem, which of course, requires more money to fix, which results in more of the problem. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Except, ironically, the more information teens have on sex and how not to have babies they can't support and aren't ready for, has resulted in even more babies they can't support and aren't ready for, that end up being supported by welfare and supervised by the State.

So, a program designed to give more control to families over their lives has resulted in less control, a program designed to reduce the number of people on welfare has increased the number of people on welfare, and a program designed specifically to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies has resulted in unwanted pregnancies in mind-numbing numbers, many of which are aborted using backdoor federal funds from a program put in place when abortions weren't even legal.

And to think, some want federal control of health care.

 

[LDB]

Bottom line, my way certainly isn't the current way and the current way is exponentially beyond an absolute failure, as is almost everything the government and liberals want and are doing.

 

[davekc]

Well you know when you throw money at it, the problem gets worse. You know this because we never had these problems at the level they are now 20 years ago, and very little got thrown at it then.

 

[Ragman]

... You know this because we never had these problems at the level they are now 20 years ago, and very little got thrown at it then.

20 years ago we were in the middle of the Bill Clinton years. It was pretty good then, wasn't it.

 

[aristotle]

20 years ago we were in the middle of the Bill Clinton years. It was pretty good then, wasn't it.

Bill Clinton was good at governing in the sense that he was willing to work with the Republicans in Congress to "end welfare as we know it." Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was the blueprint which to a decade of prosperity. Bill Clinton was the best Democrat president since JFK. He understood the art of governing.