Trump Continues to Lead After Debate

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 10:42 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: You guys on the left continue to make these unreasonable charges against those that don't agree with you, which puts them in a position of always having to defend themselves against nothing, making it appear like they must be guilty of something. The liberal media uses that tactic all the time. Neat trick.

The right does the exact same thing.

[Rotobeast]

(09-06-2015, 11:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is correct.

The human race has always had some who are weak and some who are strong.  So when you have a capitalist society with lim ited number of jobs and resources the weaker ones are going to be the ones that don't have jobs or can't take care of themselves.

If cutting off benefits would suddenly mean that these people would all be able to get jobs and support themselves then I would be in favor of cutting off benefits.  But the fact is that even if everyone of these people worked as hard as they could they still would not have well paying jobs.  there simple are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one.

So the question is "What do we do with the poor?".  To we let them suffer, starve, and live in unhealthy filthy conditions, or do we provide them with a place to live and some food to eat?

We should provide them with food, shelter, and education.
However, I recommend we change the model and house then in decommissioned military bases.
There they can be taught how to raise their own food, learn daycare skills to allow others time to work and be educated, and learn to be a functioning member of society.
I mean, hey, some seem to want socialism, so let's go for it.

[Beaker]

(09-06-2015, 11:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But the fact is that even if everyone of these people worked as hard as they could they still would not have well paying jobs. 

Some would find good jobs, others would not. So it's not really a fact stated the way you stated it.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 12:34 PM)Beaker Wrote: Some would find good jobs, others would not. So it's not really a fact stated the way you stated it.

It is an absolute 100% fact that there are not enough good paying jobs for everyone to have one.

So even if all of them worked as hard as possible there would still be a major portion of the population either unemployed or working a low paying jobs.

And that is the the basis of the number one myth perpetuated by people like Jake.  "If everyone just worked hard then everyone would have a good paying job."  And that is a complete lie.

[GMDino]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-slams-radio-host-after-stumbling-interview-n421716

Quote:Trump Slams Radio Host After Stumbling in Interview
by CARRIE DANN

Donald Trump slammed conservative broadcaster Hugh Hewitt as a "third rate radio announcer" on Friday, one day after an interview with Hewitt exposed major gaps in Trump's foreign policy knowledge.

"It was like gotcha, gotcha," Trump said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Every question was do I know this one and that one? It was like he worked hard on that."

On Thursday, Hewitt asked Trump on his radio program about Quds Force commander Ghasem Soleimani. Trump responded an his oft-repeated line about how Kurds have been "mistreated."

"Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said Kurds," he added when corrected.

But Trump quickly pivoted to slamming Hewitt for asking "gotcha questions" after the radio host suggested that the commander-in-chief should have an in-depth knowledge of players on the world stage.

"I'm looking for the next commander-in-chief, to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?" Hewitt asked.

"No, you know, I'll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they'll all be changed," Trump shot back, calling Hewitt's line of questioning "ridiculous."

"I'm a delegator," he said. "I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I'll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people."

When he's elected, Trump added, "I will be so good at the military, your head will spin."

[Beaker]

(09-06-2015, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is an absolute 100% fact that there are not enough good paying jobs for everyone to have one.

So even if all of them worked as hard as possible there would still be a major portion of the population either unemployed or working a low paying jobs.

And that is the the basis of the number one myth perpetuated by people like Jake.  "If everyone just worked hard then everyone would have a good paying job."  And that is a complete lie.

I didn't debate that there were not enough jobs for everyone fred. Look what I quoted and wrote. I said some would find good jobs, some would not. That is 100% accurate. Then look at the part of your quote I took issue with. I think my reply was good and fair.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:23 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You haven't offered any hard evidence of this culture of dependency you allege. I read a Heritage Foundation study that alleged this same thing a while back, and to my utter non-surprise, it was completely fallacious in its methodology. You will need to prove this in some way other than simply describing the mechanics of social programs and essentially saying "See? That makes people dependent, because I don't see how it wouldn't".

Besides the EITC and additional child tax credit, could you name me any programs the federal government has in place to encourage low income or non-working people to work more?

Thanks in advance.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 11:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And here is a perfect example of why I don't believe anything that any claims on a message board. 

In other threads Jake has repeatedly bragged about how helping the poor is none of his business and that his ONLY responsibility was taking care of his family.  Then he goes off about helping the poor just makes them more lazy and dependent.

But when he gets called out he suddenly changes his entire story and claims he is compassionate and does help the poor.  So basically he claims he is encouraging the poor to remain poor at the same time that he squeals about how bad that is.

Funny that he would claim I know nothing about his compassion for other people when he has already told everyone how he feels in other threads.

There is a large difference between a charitable and compassionate doing things VOLUNTARILY to help other people, and being forced by government to do them. 

If you can't distinguish between the two, I'd say you're largely ignorant.  

[*PhilHos*]

(09-06-2015, 11:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is correct.

The human race has always had some who are weak and some who are strong.  So when you have a capitalist society with lim ited number of jobs and resources the weaker ones are going to be the ones that don't have jobs or can't take care of themselves.

If cutting off benefits would suddenly mean that these people would all be able to get jobs and support themselves then I would be in favor of cutting off benefits.  But the fact is that even if everyone of these people worked as hard as they could they still would not have well paying jobs.  there simple are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one.

So the question is "What do we do with the poor?".  To we let them suffer, starve, and live in unhealthy filthy conditions, or do we provide them with a place to live and some food to eat?

I'm not in disagreement and I don't think too many conservatives are in favor of outright cutting all benefits. However, there needs to be SOME effort in trying to get the system to where it's only helping those that actually NEED the help.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 05:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not in disagreement and I don't think too many conservatives are in favor of outright cutting all benefits. However, there needs to be SOME effort in trying to get the system to where it's only helping those that actually NEED the help.

I'm not in favor of cutting all benefits.  I'm in favor of having a safety net, but I'd also like a system that provided incentive for people to do more for themselves instead of less, and making poverty suck more than it currently does.

Sorry, but when I'm at a grocery store and I'm behind someone in line with 2 grocery carts full of steaks, lobster, pop, and junk food paying with an EBT card, it pisses me off.  You're on the dole.  Sorry bout your luck, but here's a couple of cans of beans, oatmeal, bread, bologna, peanut butter, and bottled water.  All generic stuff, too.  You don't want to eat that way?  Go work 2 jobs and buy it yourself. 

My brother in law is a store manager at Speedway, and he'll tell me constantly about people coming in and buying things with EBT cards and then pulling out cash to buy beer, cigarettes, and lottery.  If people have money for that stuff, they should be feeding themselves and their kids on their own. 

[SunsetBengal]

(09-06-2015, 05:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not in disagreement and I don't think too many conservatives are in favor of outright cutting all benefits. However, there needs to be SOME effort in trying to get the system to where it's only helping those that actually NEED the help.

I'm all in favor of the work for benefits programs.  Just like a job;  you show up for work each day, pass an initial drug screen, you earn your keep.

Lefties will say I'm "mean spirited" or "discriminatory", I say a good meal tastes better when it's earned.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 05:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm all in favor of the work for benefits programs.  Just like a job;  you show up for work each day, pass an initial drug screen, you earn your keep.

Lefties will say I'm "mean spirited" or "discriminatory", I say a good meal tastes better when it's earned.

Yeah, but God forbid we put any rules in place to ensure that our tax dollars aren't being misused or to ensure people aren't gaming the system. 

Won't be long before we get accused of being racists and wanting to see poor people starving to death in the alley.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 05:17 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Besides the EITC and additional child tax credit, could you name me any programs the federal government has in place to encourage low income or non-working people to work more?

Thanks in advance.

Allow me to explain how this works. You made a truth claim. Not me, you. You said government programs create dependency. When a truth claim is made, the burden of proof rests on the one making it. It isn't my job to prove the opposite; it's your job to prove what you said true.

I won't hold my breath, given your well-known aversion to actually discussing facts or offering sources for anything you have to say.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 05:44 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:   You don't want to eat that way?  Go work 2 jobs and buy it yourself. 

Where are all of those jobs available right now?

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 05:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: There is a large difference between a charitable and compassionate doing things VOLUNTARILY to help other people, and being forced by government to do them. 

If you can't distinguish between the two, I'd say you're largely ignorant.  

I know the difference.  But when you say you have no responsibility to help anyone but your own family that excludes both voluntary charity and government benefits.  

And when you say that giving help to the poor just makes them more lazy that also includes voluntary charity.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 09:53 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Allow me to explain how this works. You made a truth claim. Not me, you. You said government programs create dependency. When a truth claim is made, the burden of proof rests on the one making it. It isn't my job to prove the opposite; it's your job to prove what you said true.

I won't hold my breath, given your well-known aversion to actually discussing facts or offering sources for anything you have to say.

What exactly do you want here?  Is there a study available that goes door to door and asks people on the government dole whether they're still on it the following year?

49% of US households receive some sort of government assistance.  Highest ever.

46 million on food stamps.  Highest ever.

11 million on disability.  Highest ever.

None of these numbers are going down.  They're all trending up and have been.  That doesn't sound like a culture that's not dependent on government programs to me, but you just keep on keepin on with your circular logic and moving the goal posts.  






 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Where are all of those jobs available right now?

You need one?  If you practice law like you talk on here, I'm not surprised.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know the difference.  But when you say you have no responsibility to help anyone but your own family that excludes both voluntary charity and government benefits.  

And when you say that giving help to the poor just makes them more lazy that also includes voluntary charity.

No, that doesn't exclude anything.

If I choose to give my money or time to a charity, that's my choice.  Who is more compassionate, the guy who pays 10k per year in taxes because he's forced to, or the guy that pays 8k per year in taxes and gives 2k to charities voluntarily?

Your second sentence makes zero sense.  Not every charitable donation is given to just the poor.  I've donated time and money to various causes, like youth groups, senior centers and citizens, disabled veterans, parks, zoos, youth athletics, etc...

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 05:17 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Besides the EITC and additional child tax credit, could you name me any programs the federal government has in place to encourage low income or non-working people to work more?

Thanks in advance.

For a guy who claims to be educated you really have a hard time with researching an issue for yourself.




TANF Work Requirements

In 1996, Congress enacted welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This law replaced AFDC with TANF. At the core of the TANF program were the work participation requirements in Section 407 of the act.

1. Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.
2. Work activities are defined very broadly and include unsubsidized employment; subsidized employment; on-the-job training; up to 12 months of vocational education; community service work; job search (for up to six weeks) and job readiness training; high school or GED education for recipients under age 20; and high school or GED education for those 20 or over 20 if combined with other listed activities.
3. Individuals are required to engage in activities for 20 hours per week if a parent has a child under age six in the home and for 30 hours per week if all children are over six.
   

The 1996 reform also placed a five year limit on benefits.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 10:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For a guy who claims to be educated you really have a hard time with researching an issue for yourself.




TANF Work Requirements

In 1996, Congress enacted welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This law replaced AFDC with TANF. At the core of the TANF program were the work participation requirements in Section 407 of the act.

1. Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.
   
   

I stopped reading and started laughing right there.