What's wrong with this thinking?

[cheri1122]

The main thing wrong with that thinking [besides the fact that the last two points are completely irrelevant] is how welfare is viewed as a benefit for [mostly] unappreciative and [often] undeserving people, rather than a boon for already wealthy corporations and people.

Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

So who benefits most from the public perception that is illustrated so well in the OP?

 

[paullud]

The main thing wrong with that thinking [besides the fact that the last two points are completely irrelevant] is how welfare is viewed as a benefit for [mostly] unappreciative and [often] undeserving people, rather than a boon for already wealthy corporations and people.

Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

So who benefits most from the public perception that is illustrated so well in the OP?

Do you even need to be told how much liberal BS is in that article or are you willing to admit you drink the Kool Aid and just don't care about the truth?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[cheri1122]

Do you even need to be told how much liberal BS is in that article or are you willing to admit you drink the Kool Aid and just don't care about the truth?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Do you need to be told that engaging in personal attacks and name calling is the wrong way to participate in a discussion? Apparently so, as there isn't anything in this comment beyond the usual scorn for my point of view, which is hardly conclusive proof that it's wrong.
If you have something that refutes the statements in the article I linked, then, by all means, produce it.
Otherwise, you're way out of bounds.

 

[Turtle]

Do you even need to be told how much liberal BS is in that article or are you willing to admit you drink the Kool Aid and just don't care about the truth?

"You" "You" "You"

YOU made YOUR response 100 percent personal against Cheri, rather than about the things you disagree with in the article. That's off-topic and a personal attack. Like Cheri said, if you have something that refutes the statements in the article she linked, then, by all means, produce it, otherwise, you're way out of bounds in your attempt to refute her rather than the article. Please don't do that. There's no reason for it. We're here to discuss issues, not slam other members for their beliefs.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is no problem with helping people past a rough path, just not for free. People should be required to pay for the assistance that they receive. That can either be a full monetary pay back or some form of community service. People need to be allowed to learn the value of self reliance. When people are cared for they are denied the ability to fend for themselves. The idea that people are entitled to other's wages must end. It is NOT good for the individual, the country or the species.

 

[paullud]

Do you need to be told that engaging in personal attacks and name calling is the wrong way to participate in a discussion? Apparently so, as there isn't anything in this comment beyond the usual scorn for my point of view, which is hardly conclusive proof that it's wrong.
If you have something that refutes the statements in the article I linked, then, by all means, produce it.
Otherwise, you're way out of bounds.

There was no personal attack or name calling. I pointed out that you are taking a clearly biased article and then saying it is proof of something you want to believe. Trying to play all high and mighty now especially when you have said far worse and even tried a little jab in your response doesn't really work. Either you want to look at things from different angles or you don't, looking at everything from one side left or right leaves you ignorant.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[paullud]

"You" "You" "You"

YOU made YOUR response 100 percent personal against Cheri, rather than about the things you disagree with in the article. That's off-topic and a personal attack. Like Cheri said, if you have something that refutes the statements in the article she linked, then, by all means, produce it, otherwise, you're way out of bounds in your attempt to refute her rather than the article. Please don't do that. There's no reason for it. We're here to discuss issues, not slam other members for their beliefs.

There is a reason for it and it's not as though I called her an idiot and left it at that. I pointed out that the constant posting of biased articles as proof of something is pointless, the same has been done to other members here when it's Fox News.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[jaminjim]

If you have something that refutes the statements in the article I linked, then, by all means, produce it.

RealClearMarkets - Don't Believe the Economists About 'Low' U.S. Corporate Taxes

 

[jaminjim]

Originally Posted by cheri1122
If you have something that refutes the statements in the article I linked, then, by all means, produce it.






https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html

 

[Turtle]

There is a reason for it and it's not as though I called her an idiot and left it at that.

I don't care what the reason for it is. You responded to the poster, not the post. Not a thing in your response even attempted to refute what was in the link she provided. Your response was 100% about her, not about what she posted. See if you can craft a response to her that doesn't include the words "you" or "your" and have it say the same thing. You can't.

I pointed out that the constant posting of biased articles as proof of something is pointless, the same has been done to other members here when it's Fox News.

No you didn't, Paul. Your response was about whether or not she needed to be told something, or whether she was willing to admit to drinking Kool-Aid. You want to argue the issues, fine, but if you want to argue the person, take it to a PM. When you respond to the person, instead of what that person said, this is what we have, a derailed thread with several posts that are not about the issues at all.

From the Code of Conduct:

17. The Soapbox Forum
You will not be permitted to post messages in The Soapbox Forum until you have at least 25 posts of consequence in other forums. The Soapbox contains topics which engender strong opinions and passions, therefore the Code of Conduct rules are often less rigidly enforced so as to allow a more free and relaxed discussion. However, insults directly or indirectly towards individuals or entire groups (religious, political or otherwise) will not be tolerated. Responses must be on-topic and not directed at the individual (respond to the post, NOT to the poster!). The Soapbox Forum is a forum for expediters to express their opinions to other expediters. Most of the problems in The Soapbox Forum have been caused by people who aren't even expediters, accordingly if you are not an actual expediter (i.e., a dispatcher, fleet owner or not even in the industry), you may still participate, but only with the understanding that the Code of Conduct will be more strictly enforced so as to prevent disruptions within the forums.

Take a look at this page: Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs | Student News Daily

You'll see that Cheri falls squarely on the left side of most or maybe all of the positions. Now that you know that, there should never again be a need to respond to her personally, and you should be able to stick strictly to the issues.

 

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cheri1122
If you have something that refutes the statements in the article I linked, then, by all means, produce it.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html

In all fairness, comparing means-tested poverty and welfare programs to the spending on a handful of budgeted spending items is like comparing the monthly cost of fuel and oil to the monthly cost of putting air in your tires. Why wasn't defense spending included in that nifty chart?

If you want to see the actual spending, take a look at this:
Current Spending: History and Charts for US Governments

And if you want a more thorough explanation of the Weekly Standard piece, go here:
The government spends more on welfare than everything else!

 

[jaminjim]

If you want to see the actual spending, take a look at this:
Current Spending: History and Charts for US Governments

Looks like a decent place to spend a few days, does it come with the 'Turtle stamp of Approval'?
Meaning, do you think it's reliable, and somewhat unbiased?

 

[Turtle]

Looks like a decent place to spend a few days, does it come with the 'Turtle stamp of Approval'?
Meaning, do you think it's reliable, and somewhat unbiased?

The author of the site is definitely conservatively biased (he writes for The American Thinker, among others), but his numbers and charts are not biased at all. He's a computer and stat uber geek. He lays out the numbers for what they so you can see exactly how the money is spent, and does so without political bias. Here is a list of his other sites. The Government-Debt, Budget and Revenue sites on the list are similar. All of his data sources are from official sources, and he tells you exactly where everything comes from so you can check it out yourself. It's a very interesting suite of sites, I think.

 

[jaminjim]

Thanks, I'll try to bone up on my Governments spending.

 

[jaminjim]

That why this all makes sense.
Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

How Much Does Your State Depend on the Federal Government? | Watchdog WireWatchdog Wire

 

[Turtle]

How Much Does Your State Depend on the Federal Government? | Watchdog WireWatchdog Wire

Like that article says, the truth is more murky than snappy headlines or talking points would suggest. One factor that's rarely mentioned, two really, is the level of education a population has, and how religious the state is. On the religion, there are of course a couple of exceptions on both extremes, with Kansas being the glaring exception on the Least Dependent, and Maine being the exception on the Most Dependent. So religion is hardly the primary factor. Same with education, even though no exceptions stand out on the extremes.