Enviromental Pollution Agency

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 12:52 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Food stamps are only one part of the entire social welfare spending platform.  

But you agree that since they only cost $80 billion a year they don't make any difference, right?

Because I am pretty sure that you just said an extra $125 billion a year really wouldn't make any difference.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you agree that since they only cost $80 billion a year they don't make any difference, right?

Because I am pretty sure that you just said an extra $125 billion a year really wouldn't make any difference.

Again, you're either being naive or disingenuous. 

In either case, food stamps alone are not the only welfare spending that we have. 

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 01:04 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Again, you're either being naive or disingenuous. 

And you are refusing to answer my question.

Is the $80 billion spent on SNAP a big enough amount to make a difference?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And you are refusing to answer my question.

Is the $80 billion spent on SNAP a big enough amount to make a difference?

I'll type slower, seeing if the 4th time saying it you can grasp it....

FOOD STAMPS ARE JUST ONE SMALL PART OF SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 01:18 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'll type slower, seeing if the 4th time saying it you can grasp it....

FOOD STAMPS ARE JUST ONE SMALL PART OF SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING.

I grasp it.

They are so small that they don't make a difference, right?

Best I can tell the Federal government spends about $300 billion a year on what you would call "social welfare".

So based on that it seems like $125 billion a year would be a very signifcant amount of money.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I grasp it.

They are so small that they don't make a difference, right?

Best I can tell the Federal government spends about $300 billion a year on what you would call "social welfare".

So based on that it seems like $125 billion a year would be a very signifcant amount of money.

Federal governments number one role is the protection of their citizens. 

I fail to comprehend why you feel that it's the role of the government to play the wet nurse. 

At the end of the day, we can just agree to disagree and move on.  You're not going to convince me of anything otherwise with your ridiculous assumptions and strawman arguments, so just let it go.

It's obvious that you have zero clue about how economics work, you're certainly not alone amongst liberals in that regard.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2015, 03:15 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Federal governments number one role is the protection of their citizens. 

I fail to comprehend why you feel that it's the role of the government to play the wet nurse. 

At the end of the day, we can just agree to disagree and move on.  You're not going to convince me of anything otherwise with your ridiculous assumptions and strawman arguments, so just let it go.

It's obvious that you have zero clue about how economics work, you're certainly not alone amongst liberals in that regard.

Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There are couple of things listed before the common defense. Also, there is that bit about promoting the general welfare. Seems to be it was an important thing to the Founders.

But that's just me, reading what the Constitution has on the matter.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-16-2015, 03:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are couple of things listed before the common defense. Also, there is that bit about promoting the general welfare. Seems to be it was an important thing to the Founders.

But that's just me, reading what the Constitution has on the matter.

Even though the SCOTUS was stupid enough to interpret that "promoting the general welfare" meant handing out free shit until the end of time, if you read the writings of any of the FF you will see that it was clearly not what they were referring to at all. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2015, 03:53 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Even though the SCOTUS was stupid enough to interpret that "promoting the general welfare" meant handing out free shit until the end of time, if you read the writings of any of the FF you will see that it was clearly not what they were referring to at all. 

Not really saying that the welfare programs in their current state were what was intended, but it is fairly obvious that the intention was there to insure the general welfare in some way. Reform is a better option then just cutting funds. But the farce of these programs being the problem with our budget is well entrenched with the GOP.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-16-2015, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not really saying that the welfare programs in their current state were what was intended, but it is fairly obvious that the intention was there to insure the general welfare in some way. Reform is a better option then just cutting funds. But the farce of these programs being the problem with our budget is well entrenched with the GOP.

Can't argue with your last sentence. 

Corporatism sucks, and the GOP is definitely on board with that.  That's one of the biggest reasons why I left the party years ago. 

That said, the DNC sucks worse IMO. 

Most elections people show up to vote against the other guy.  

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-16-2015, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not really saying that the welfare programs in their current state were what was intended, but it is fairly obvious that the intention was there to insure the general welfare in some way. Reform is a better option then just cutting funds. But the farce of these programs being the problem with our budget is well entrenched with the GOP.

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2015, 04:13 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Can't argue with your last sentence. 

Corporatism sucks, and the GOP is definitely on board with that.  That's one of the biggest reasons why I left the party years ago. 

That said, the DNC sucks worse IMO. 

Most elections people show up to vote against the other guy.  

They both suck equally, don't kid yourself. Two sides of the same coin.

(08-16-2015, 04:13 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote:

Because just cutting funds means no other actions taken. Reform cam save costs in many ways, but that is not what politicians are referring to in discussing welfare cuts. They don't want to make it more efficient, they just want the program smaller, or non-existant.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-16-2015, 04:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They both suck equally, don't kid yourself. Two sides of the same coin.

There are things about both sides that I despise.

I think the difference to me is simple:

Conservative ideals are way better...it's the politicians that "represent" that side who suck.

Liberals ideals suck...and so do their politicians. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2015, 11:17 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: There are things about both sides that I despise.

I think the difference to me is simple:

Conservative ideals are way better...it's the politicians that "represent" that side who suck.

Liberals ideals suck...and so do their politicians. 

That is nothing more than subjectivity and bias. Both sides hold positions that they feel benefit the country the best. Both sides have some things right, but they aren't willing to compromise on the points they have wrong. We have politicians in our government, not statesmen. That is the biggest problem. That and both sides ignoring the Constitution 90% of the time.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-16-2015, 11:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is nothing more than subjectivity and bias. Both sides hold positions that they feel benefit the country the best. Both sides have some things right, but they aren't willing to compromise on the points they have wrong. We have politicians in our government, not statesmen. That is the biggest problem. That and both sides ignoring the Constitution 90% of the time.

I'm referring to principles, not to the party or more specifically the politicians themselves. 

I lean right on a lot of my beliefs.  The reason that I left the GOP is not because of my problem with their principles, it was my problem of their politicians and their party's hypocrisy on many issues (overreaching big gov't, bailouts, spying on Americans, legalization, etc.). 

[fredtoast]

(08-16-2015, 11:17 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I think the difference to me is simple:

Conservative ideals are way better...it's the politicians that "represent" that side who suck.

Liberals ideals suck...and so do their politicians. 

Here is the difference to me.

Liberal ideas are based on reality.  My argument in favor of a strong government regulation is based on what really happened in our history and what is really happening in countries across the world right now.  The conservatives claims that weak regulation won't lead directly to exploitation of labor and destruction of the environment are based on fantasies that have no basis in history or current reality.

The conservatives theory that if the poor suffered more they would just work harder and rise out of poverty also ignores reality.  The fact is that no matter how hard all of the poor work there will always be a large position of the labor force employed at poverty level wages.  There simply are not millions of well paying jobs sitting empty just waiting for people that work harder.  Corporations in America are reaping record profits. They will not close up if they have to pay higher wages to the lowest level employees.  The rich have been getting richer for 30 years while the wages for the poor and middle class have remained stagnate.  Something has to be done to put a stop to this trend.

Finally the government spends billions more in aid to corporations that it does in aid to the poor.  Half of our budget goes to the military and we contract out a major portion of our military spending to private corporations.  The government also handed out $700 billion to millionaires to help save the private market finance industry in 2008.  Corporate loopholes in the tax code have allowed many top corporations with billions in profit to pay zero taxes.  U.S. Corporations pay a lower percentage of all income taxes than at any time in our history.  All of this corporate welfare costs the taxpayers much more than poor.  But the Republican party have done a great job demonizing the poor to create a smoke screen for what they are handing out to corporations. 

[*michaelsean*]

I don't think you can call purchasing military equipment from corporations in and of itself aid. They are purchasing something.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-18-2015, 01:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you can call purchasing military equipment from corporations in and of itself aid.  They are purchasing something.

OK?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-18-2015, 01:24 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: OK?

I meant to quote Fred's last paragraph.  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-17-2015, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Finally the government spends billions more in aid to corporations that it does in aid to the poor.  Half of our budget goes to the military and we contract out a major portion of our military spending to private corporations.  The government also handed out $700 billion to millionaires to help save the private market finance industry in 2008.  Corporate loopholes in the tax code have allowed many top corporations with billions in profit to pay zero taxes.  U.S. Corporations pay a lower percentage of all income taxes than at any time in our history.  All of this corporate welfare costs the taxpayers much more than poor.  But the Republican party have done a great job demonizing the poor to create a smoke screen for what they are handing out to corporations. 

(08-18-2015, 01:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I meant to quote Fred's last paragraph.  

I thought that might the case, however I'm still not following you.