I'm not one of them. The only time I had to go to those offices was when I just could not for the life of me get a job.
A few months of food stamps that I gave up after I finally got a job.
I never had kids either. Not because they were going to be poor babies. But because I never found a mother to give birth to them. Hey after all I made society a favor.
Question!
WHY do those who most adamantly protest welfare programs and seek to reduce the benefits of such go ape-shit ballistic at the idea of ‘Ways and Means’ testing before a couple conceives a child?
WHY is aborting a fetus from a young mother/family that is clearly unable now as well as the foreseeable future too afford prenatal care and subsequent cost of raising another child; so absolutely repugnant to the very people incensed by, actively protesting, and seeking reduction of the welfare system?
Social “welfare” programs are said to be a “safety net”; but there are relatively few ‘falling’ into the net it seems. It’s seems more a cradle-to-grave entitlement program perpetuated by the moral precepts of the constituency most opposed to it.
If I walk into a Ferrari dealership they won’t even let me test drive the 25 year old ‘beater’ out back unless I can show some proof of fiscal ability. But dirt poor, married or single, 1 previous child or 6; the Conservatives(fiscal & social) will unanimously and fervently champion “birth rights”.
Forgive my naiveté; but I don’t get it!
If you dare venture into any Social Services center you’ll not see any casually dressed but “down sized” middle class or formerly rich individual or family that suffered a catastrophic hit to their fiscal well being. What you WILL see is a conspicuous preponderance of young, marginally educated adults(often in families) that obviously were raised poor, got married poor, and then gave birth to “poor’ babies. And often these “poor young adults” are pregnant with yet ANOTHER soon to be ‘poor’ baby.
Question!
WHY do those who most adamantly protest welfare programs and seek to reduce the benefits of such go ape-shit ballistic at the idea of ‘Ways and Means’ testing before a couple conceives a child?
WHY is aborting a fetus from a young mother/family that is clearly unable now as well as the foreseeable future too afford prenatal care and subsequent cost of raising another child; so absolutely repugnant to the very people incensed by, actively protesting, and seeking reduction of the welfare system?
Social “welfare” programs are said to be a “safety net”; but there are relatively few ‘falling’ into the net it seems. It’s seems more a cradle-to-grave entitlement program perpetuated by the moral precepts of the constituency most opposed to it.
If I walk into a Ferrari dealership they won’t even let me test drive the 25 year old ‘beater’ out back unless I can show some proof of fiscal ability. But dirt poor, married or single, 1 previous child or 6; the Conservatives(fiscal & social) will unanimously and fervently champion “birth rights”.
Forgive my naiveté; but I don’t get it
and the right for any person to reproduce is the main factor.
When you frame your observation in to a political, and fiscal debate. You raise a good point.
How many political issues have you come across that were evenly split from the left to the right?
I'm not one of them. The only time I had to go to those offices was when I just could not for the life of me get a job.
A few months of food stamps that I gave up after I finally got a job.
I never had kids either. Not because they were going to be poor babies. But because I never found a mother to give birth to them. Hey after all I made society a favor.
Question!
WHY do those who most adamantly protest welfare programs and seek to reduce the benefits of such go ape-shit ballistic at the idea of ‘Ways and Means’ testing before a couple conceives a child?
WHY is aborting a fetus from a young mother/family that is clearly unable now as well as the foreseeable future too afford prenatal care and subsequent cost of raising another child; so absolutely repugnant to the very people incensed by, actively protesting, and seeking reduction of the welfare system?
Social “welfare” programs are said to be a “safety net”; but there are relatively few ‘falling’ into the net it seems. It’s seems more a cradle-to-grave entitlement program perpetuated by the moral precepts of the constituency most opposed to it.
If I walk into a Ferrari dealership they won’t even let me test drive the 25 year old ‘beater’ out back unless I can show some proof of fiscal ability. But dirt poor, married or single, 1 previous child or 6; the Conservatives(fiscal & social) will unanimously and fervently champion “birth rights”.
Forgive my naiveté; but I don’t get it!
Yep! It's a combination of our never ending indoctrination regarding romance and innate individual self worth or potential, until they prove to be unworthy or having little or no potential, then let them perish. Romance is pushed on us, particularly girls at a very young age, through toys, music, movies, TV, ads, etc. And, who can choose who can be in a romantic relationship, and who can't. Of course, as is often the case, only the female thinks it's a romantic relationship, the guy is just trying to get in her pants, and hopes she is going to take on 100% of the responsibility for birth control. Ya, the right wants them born because they are 'made in the Image of God,' but shortly after they are born, they're at the mercy of biological contributors who are ill equip to care for them, and a society that really has no use for them. A society that really doesn't have anything productive for them to do once they are adults, so why pour good money after bad by supporting their education.
I can't speak for the Pro-lifers, but that is my view of the situation! 
We all have a "dog eat dog" mindset. We not only believe in personal responsibility, but in our spare time we like to persecute and mock minorities, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, gays, kids, other religions, and anybody from San Francisco, New York, Seattle, and the westside of LA. Does that about cover it?
The conservative that you are depicting are actually a minority, Thank God. They are to Republicans what Progressives are to Democrats. Both are minorities, both are fervent ideologues, and both are just big fucking assholes.
Most people, including many conservatives, don't have a problem with a "social safety" net, or the programs that support the "net". They do have a problem with how these programs are designed, implemented, managed, tracked, budgeted, and most important, an expiration date.
Let me explain it in very current terms. Mattradd made a comment about ACA,, and I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said, "we need to give Obamacare at least 5 years to see if it works". I've heard similar comments from other liberals. Does that phrase bother you?
What happens after 5 years? What happens to any program after 5 years? Just think about it. They don't go away. They just get bigger. An more people rely on them, expect them, depend on them.
And with respect to abortion, I am one of those conservatives that is pro-choice. Now I want you think about that word CHOICE, because a liberal will defend that word to no end. But God forbid I bring up the word "CHOICE" in respect to school choice, well all hell breaks loose. And believe me, you never want to be encircled at a West LA liberal/progressive party, and dare utter a word that deviates from their philosophy.
I do get it!!!!
“What happens after 5 years? What happens to any program after 5 years? Just think about it. They don't go away. They just get bigger. An more people rely on them, expect them, depend on them.”
We’ll assume that you are correct, although it would not be hard to find members of the Peace Corp, Project Head Start, Voice of America, and many other fed programs withering on the vine who would argue with you.
But if we repealed Obamacare today, what would we be left with? Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA, HIPAA, and Medicare Part D, among other legislation. By your reasoning, they would all continue to grow in a bloated, inefficient manner, right? So keeping Obamacare is a wash, except for two points you overlook:
Obamacare is an improvement over the current patchwork health care legislation; and the current healthcare system does not work very well.
Now let’s look at the funding difference between Obamacare and the existing system. Obamacare is self-funded though the new taxes imposed, the fee on providers and insurers, and the ever growing mandate penalty. The other programs are not Congress - always has to budget new money for them. And Obamacare through the Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power to limit health care costs virtually free from political interference - none of the other programs can do that.
The winner? Duke 94 UCLA 60. Oh sorry, I meant – Obamacare
-- Modified on 11/26/2013 1:03:28 PM
to life, it cannot be repealed by Congress until 2017 during a six month window and only by super majority vote. And there is no administrative or judicial review of its decisions. So basically you have a small group of unelected guys making decisions about Medicare who are answerable to no one.
This is the real "demon " in Obamacare that most people are not even aware of.
Quote :
The Senate's rules change will likely make it much easier for President Obama to fill the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB—a 15-member panel tasked with slowing the growth in Medicare spending.
Technically, the board only recommends cuts to Congress, but the process is structured so that its cuts are highly likely to take effect. Congress has to proactively block the IPAB's recommendations and come up with equivalent savings somewhere else in the budget.
GOP critics oppose the IPAB largely because it puts the power to set Medicare payments in the hands of unelected experts. Supporters say that's exactly the point: Congress lacks the political will to actually make meaningful cuts to doctors, hospitals, and other providers, so an administrative panel is the only way to control Medicare's costs.
Republicans are also afraid that the IPAB will "ration" care. The law prohibits the board from "rationing," and it is not allowed to cut seniors' benefits—only providers' payments. But critics say the board will drive payments so low that doctors in certain fields will quit accepting Medicare payments.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/nuclear-option-revives-a-big-controversial-part-of-obamacare-20131121
-- Modified on 11/26/2013 4:00:48 PM
by making certain procedures non-refundable under Medicare. Mr. Obama has been less than forthcoming about this problem sort of like his "you can keep your doctor" promise which is only true with qualifications.
Romney would lead Obama, 49% to 45%, among registered voters in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday.
Poll: If voters had known they’d lose insurance, Romney would have won.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/poll-if-voters-had-known-theyd-lose-insurance-romney-would-have-won/
-- Modified on 11/26/2013 4:18:12 PM
If Romney could have had Bill Clinton as an advisor, he would have wiped the floor with Obama, He, just like McCain before him ran a horrible campaign. Even worse than McCain believe it or not, McCain never had a chance in the first place, 2012 was Romney's race to lose, which of course he did. Everything he did from his selection of a running mate to not simply beating Obama over the head about ObamaCare like Bill Clinton did with the "it the economy stupid" Romney did virtually everything wrong.
FWIW, he probably would have made a lousy POTUS to boot, but he would have been better than Obama.
Since when is Voice of America and the Peace Corps social safety net programs? We are talking about social safety nets?
I have a solution to Project Head Start, but no one is going like it. And how is that program working out? Just gotta love a good government mission statement, "the government will foster stable family relationships, enhance children's physical and emotional well-being, blah, blah, blah. It's just a glorified babysitting service. What did your parents do with your ass when you were 4 years old? Sorry, just remembered you were raised in the Hamptons.
Obamacare's projected 10 year budget is $2.5T. Excluding the individual mandate, the 20 various new taxes imposed comes to about $500B over 10 years. Self-funding mari? This is just one big ass tax credit program administered by the IRS, and paid for by me.
You and me, Thanksgiving dinner at a house full of Progressives picked by you no less. Let's talk politics and bet who gets thrown out first. $10 bucks says you get "Teed up", oops tossed before the salad comes out. Do you like apple or pumpkin pie? I'll bring you a piece while you are sitting outside on the curb.
I'll dismiss that 90-64 projection, but I will say UCLA-Duke, New York, Madison Square Garden, December 19th, sounds like a bucket item list to me. Maybe while you are there, you can catch the musical "Guys and Dolls" (lmao).
West LA. I was invited by a friend to a Drinking Liberally meeting. I've been in a room full of Marines who seemed far tamer than some of those rabid people at the meeting. It really opened my eyes to the hostility they harbor, all the while presenting as being such humanitarians. I never went back.
Regarding your paraphrase of me, I predict in around 5 years we will be on our way to a single payer system, for two reasons. First, ACA will not work according to expectations, but will be better than what we've had previously. Second, practically all rich western allies have it, because it works and saves them money, and improves the quality of life of their citizens.
single payer here.
I do agree that it does need to be implemented, along with other socialist programs. Something has to take over for the decline in growth. Which will only get worse as technology progresses. For example there will be a lot of unemployed cabbies in NYC once autonomous cars are a mainstream reality.
I think the reality is another depression, war/victory, rebuild/lend/spend our way to prosperity cycle.
...it worked before.
What about medical debt in collection status, will that go away once we adopt single payer?
It is starting too appear to me that ACA is like a "101 course" in learning to waive your long expected 4th & 5th Amendment privacies/Rights along with increased government ability to tax. Then after the population has learned/adjusted to letting the government know everything about them and their state of health a fully "Socialized Medicine" can be instituted. (The o'l boiling a frog analogy).
Innate and redundant character flaws in ‘government’ seem to be as replete as those in the citizenry.
I wonder if an answer or working compromise will ever be found
I agree completely that ObamaCare is simply a stepping stone to complete Socialized medicine, and I agree with your boiling the frog analogy. How they got the public to play along is what amazes me.
The first step of course is to pass something so totally fucked up that it makes socialized medicine look good in comparison even to the likes of me. and I will confess they are well on their way to doing that, and you make valid points that what little is left to our "right to privacy" after The Patriot Act will of course be thrown away in the process.
The second part should be simple, rather than simply undo ObamaCare, which once enacted will be all but impossible, after a few years, maybe that "five years to see if it works" time span will prove to be prophetic? but sometime in the rather near future EVERYONE will conclude that ACA, but the Dems will convince us ("US" of course being the stupid people) that the only reason it doesn't work is that is doesn't go far enough, At that point they can finish the job, and our rights with it, and simply go to a completely socialized medical care system, giving the Federal Government complete control over another 1/6 of our GDP.
From there it shouldn't be too hard to convince people that nationalizing the Oil Industry, the Auto Industry (or rather finish that job that's already been started), The farming industry of course, and every other industry presently controlled by the private sector, and then so much for this experiment in self direction and self government called the United States of America. Good thing I am too old to be proven right in my lifetime.
...Social Security numbers should only be given to banks and employers. California requires you to give your Social to the DMV when applying for a DL ostensibly so they can track down deadbeat dads.
The Fourth Amendment is almost dead and Scalia and his stooges can't wait to deliver the final few blows.
to them. As I observe my very small, dwindling, spread out in other states, family. I had the last child on Christmas Day 1990..She was a lonely only child, although completely spoiled by very well off grandparents. The last two in line to have children from my family, are gay. My Thanksgiving dinner consists of 5 family members. At Christmas, we are so small that we combine our families with in-laws, ex-laws, ex's with girlfriends 
It is what it is.
I observe one of my friends on facebook that lived very different than me. Her and her husband never paid taxes, won't have any Social Security to draw on when elderly. Will pay rent until they can't do it anymore. But by god, they aren't lonely people. And I bet someone in that large, 20 grandchild family.. I bet someone takes care of them when they are old (it won't be the burden of one child). And there will be about 40 at their Thanksgiving dinner. And they are happy, so why should I judge their dysfunction that is different than mine
My observations are the once very honorable concept of a "Christian work ethic" has been corrupted into "No matter how much you're currently earning you can ALWAYS earn MORE!"
Even long retired people in their Septuagenarian and Octogenarian years are now subtly disdained if they're not actively seeking ways to at least have their 'money' work harder.
Where/how is the magnificent "gift of live" enjoyed if it is spent toiling to our last breath for another Dollar to be listed on our score sheet?
It is what it is. I observe one of my friends on facebook that lived very different than me. Her and her husband never paid taxes, won't have any Social Security to draw on when elderly. Will pay rent until they can't do it anymore. But by god, they aren't lonely people. And I bet someone in that large, 20 grandchild family.. I bet someone takes care of them when they are old (it won't be the burden of one child). And there will be about 40 at their Thanksgiving dinner. And they are happy, so why should I judge their dysfunction that is different than mine?
Greed money, and more of...is the American way. Nothing else matters.
We are going to consume anyway, business doesn't need to push.
I would like if the government didn't get involved with social issues at all. I don't think the people ever come out ahead, once they do.
It IS treason to the current capitalist ethos. No longer does one "save" for a rainy day, or retirement. Today it's all about "investing" for a greater yield on your "capital".
No-one buys a home anymore so that they can simply have a place too raise a family, and then rest their head "rent-free" in 20 years. Now it's a ceaseless "flipping" property in hopes of working your way into a home too large and with too great of a property tax to ever maintain or afford once decrepit and on a fixed income.
"Greed money, and more of...is the American way. Nothing else matters."
I think you've stumbled onto the reason why 50% or more Americans are on prescription anti-depressant drugs, and why our laws hypocritically victimize those who would rather smoke a weed grown for free in their back yard.
We are going to consume anyway, business doesn't need to push.
I would like if the government didn't get involved with social issues at all. I don't think the people ever come out ahead, once they do.
Being content with what one has, isn't looked upon highly.
Folks shouldn't be penalized for not wanting to live up to, preconceived illusion of what life should be.
Business will still make money.
What makes right-wingers think this has anything to do with socialized medicine? What is being regulated is the insurance industry, which has been ripping people off for decades. People spend a third of their income on insurance or on covering what insurance companies refuse to cover. That used to be what we spent on our homes. Now most people spend half or over on housing.
Instead of worrying about all the people who haven't been able to see a doctor lining up in front of you for your flu shot, you should be worried that unemployed flimflam artists will loose their insurance agent business cards and resort to gunning the citizens down in their desperate rage. The American way, you know.
Greed has its place. It's just not acceptable as a way of life for those with more pleasurable things on their minds.
Not to mention a complete straw man.
You're on your way to TSTTT