The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

No, I just prefer not to live in a country where people and children die left and right out of hunger because someone decided to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater because they wanted an illogical solution to a problem posed by a minority of miscreants.

Does such a fantasy place exist?

[Annoyed]

Here's a nice little bit of indigestion for those that work and pay their own way in this world..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...s-follow-suit/

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

And you folks on the left wonder why people like me want to scrap the entire welfare system.

[aretood2]

Does such a fantasy place exist?

Do you live under a rock? last I checked we don't have 3rd world level rates of mortality among infants or any age group do to starvation or poverty. I'm not saying that there's a perfect solution, but that's my point. We either deal with a system that'll be abused and try to mitigate those abuses as much as possible, or we scrap it and cause another host of issues which will have a spill over effect.

Here's a nice little bit of indigestion for those that work and pay their own way in this world..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...s-follow-suit/



And you folks on the left wonder why people like me want to scrap the entire welfare system.

Not that I am in favor of such increases in minimum wage, but I do have a few issues with the article. How do they know that people are asking for less hours specifically to keep benefits? What exactly is the evidence and how was it collected and by who collected it? How is this happening if the wage is a very gradual increase over the next few years? And why is the only source a talk show host from a radio talk show?

[garhkal]

On the school quality issue...here in the Dallas area, parents that can afford to send their children to private schools. Yes, they still have to pay property taxes which go to the public schools...but they send their children to private schools.

That is something i have always hated. WHy should EVERYONE who pays property taxes prop up schools, even if A) they don't have kids themselves, or B) have kids but send them to private schools../?

Well, jobs that pay say $10 an hour can certainly feed a family (if both spouses earn as much) in a small town in Kansas, but would starve a family in New York City if regular hours are worked. And there are tons of those jobs. But there are jobs that pay just a bit more and thus manage to be just a bit above the line. There are also many families who are under the poverty line or pretty darn close that refuse welfare out of principle.

True.. There are those who could qualify for welfare and the rest, who don't take it cause they either
A) have principles, or
B) feel they don't need it.
And on the where they live angle, have you heard the lastest from Seattle, where they did the 15/hr min wage hike..
People are actually asking for a cutback in hours, so they 'dont lose their welfare and other stuff', which was one of the bigger reasons it was pushed as a good thing.. So people got out of poverty.
Its also having an affect on people dining out, as they are no longer tipping (or not tipping as much as they normally would)..

Once again, punishing the successful/responsible many for the actions of a lesser group. Sounds more like an emotional argument than one based on logic. The thing I don't like about emotional arguments is that they are mostly emotion. They offer no real solution that doesn't lead to disaster. Do you really want to reintroduce child mortality rates to this country? Do you really want homelessness to explode? The recession that would precipitate as a result? You can't dismantle something and not have a replacement in place. A logical argument would include such replacement. I actually have a better solution myself. Mainly a thought.

True, those of us who wish it disbanded should have a replacement option. Its like several of my old Chiefs said. Don't just ***** and moan about a problem. Come to me with a solution as well, or just keep your griping to yourself..

BUT how can we do such a thing with so many it seems, on these programs without having a heck of alot of people up in arms?

And if you have a 'better solution' i would love to hear it.

Illegals

The proper term for Illegal Immigrants. Not the PC term these days, Undocumented aliens.
And yes, illegals who 'came out of the woodwork' back in the mid 80s-90s in the UK seemed to get practically everything they wanted, just handed to them by our government..

There are illegal families in the UK? I think the British have bigger problems to deal with...

Such as what?

It would seem that you'd need a merit based system as opposed to a faith based system, which is what we have now. Where you have to do things to get the assistance much like the way unemployment pay works.

Agreed. Which is one reason i can't understand why there was so much backlash when Florida tried to implement a "Wizz quiz' requirement to stay ON welfare, when so many jobs these days (both private and public) require a wizz quiz to get the job, heck some even require it as part of your application process BEFORE you get interviewed.

I have never encountered that mentality in my life. I have yet to run into someone who looks forward to welfare and to staying in that lifestyle. Then again, my parents came here dirt poor and managed without a cent from Uncle Sam. To me, welfare would be synonymous with failure. If uneducated immigrants were able to make an honest living and gain wealth (in an economic sense) why shouldn't someone born in the US with at least a high school education?

Unfortunately i have. Mostly from one segment of the population (Black).. Back when i worked for one security firm which did outside security for some night clubs and 'after hours' establishments, several of the people going in during pre-opening chit chat, mentioned they didn't even bother finishing HS, let alone wanted to go to College, cause ole uncle sam would take care of them. Also heard that from several people back down in Gulfport, and when i was living/stationed in Norfolk.

On the flip side, those who suffered through no fault of their own suffered with those who did bring it upon themselves. Since the welfare system, rainy days are no longer death sentences for honest people.

True. BUT imo the issue, is how do you identify the truely needy/honest people and weed out the lazy?

Being from the UK and being an NHS front line worker i can honestly say i have no clue what you are on about and have never seen or heard of any of this.

From when did you start working there? When i lived there (77-90), i saw it several times, and read/listened to the news reports on it a lot more often.
The 'car issue' came up iirc in 97-98 time frame when MANY of the news papers (inc the mirror, sun and times) were all calling to issue several recent counts of "asylum seekers' who were just given their cars all on the tax payer's dime.

Because the UN has the power and authority to pass international resolutions.
A Yahoo article stated --
"UN resolution 'clear message' Iran deal is path forward: Obama"

But how is the US treaty with Iran an 'international resolution? That's what i am seeing red over.
Also if it IS a treaty, how the F can obama get the UN to rule on it before Congress (which by law is supposed to be the ones MAKING The treaty) even comes up with it?
IMO its another attempt by Obama to make an End run around both Congress and the Constitution.

Would you like to borrow some tinfoil to make a hat? It seems that anyone who sees this train wreck coming is considered to be paranoid.

It does seem like on a # of other sites i see people making these same conclusions, that those making it are often called conspiracy nuts..

No, I just prefer not to live in a country where people and children die left and right out of hunger because someone decided to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater because they wanted an illogical solution to a problem posed by a minority of miscreants.

IMO its cause of too many people having that belief, that they would rather suffer the miscreants and cheats, rather than see 'just one righteous' suffer, that we are in this mess..

[Annoyed]

But how is the US treaty with Iran an 'international resolution? That's what i am seeing red over.
Also if it IS a treaty, how the F can obama get the UN to rule on it before Congress (which by law is supposed to be the ones MAKING The treaty) even comes up with it?
IMO its another attempt by Obama to make an End run around both Congress and the Constitution.

Actually, the Constitution gives the President the authority to propose and negotiate treaties, which must then be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

That doesn't change the fact that the LSoS is doing yet another end run around the Constitution, but the Const. does give the President the power to negotiate them.

Additionally, I think I recall something about "no treaty can surrender the sovereignty of the U.S." (or some such), which the recent TPP treaty clearly does, so that's another end run right there.

[LtColCarter]

That is something i have always hated. WHy should EVERYONE who pays property taxes prop up schools, even if A) they don't have kids themselves, or B) have kids but send them to private schools../?

The taxes you pay also provide police coverage, fire coverage, emergency response, public libraries...etc Just because I've never called the fire department or police...does that mean the portion of my taxes allocated for those services should go to something else that I have used? Or if I don't use any public services...should I not have to pay any taxes? Its not merely to "prop up schools."

[aretood2]

That is something i have always hated. WHy should EVERYONE who pays property taxes prop up schools, even if A) they don't have kids themselves, or B) have kids but send them to private schools../?

Because an educated public does provide for an improved population. Can you imagine living in a community where no one has an education? My parents did, and thus they left. It's gotten better since, and thus less people are leaving and property values are starting to exist as well as a rise in small business...because more people are getting an education. It's no different than paying a taxes that fund tax subsidies to business you don't have a direct stake in. You do, however, have an indirect stake in it.

True.. There are those who could qualify for welfare and the rest, who don't take it cause they either
A) have principles, or
B) feel they don't need it.
And on the where they live angle, have you heard the lastest from Seattle, where they did the 15/hr min wage hike..
People are actually asking for a cutback in hours, so they 'dont lose their welfare and other stuff', which was one of the bigger reasons it was pushed as a good thing.. So people got out of poverty.
Its also having an affect on people dining out, as they are no longer tipping (or not tipping as much as they normally would)..

I have issues with that report. Given that the minimum wage hasn't yet changed to begin with. Refer to my comment in reply to Annoyed.

True, those of us who wish it disbanded should have a replacement option. Its like several of my old Chiefs said. Don't just ***** and moan about a problem. Come to me with a solution as well, or just keep your griping to yourself..

BUT how can we do such a thing with so many it seems, on these programs without having a heck of alot of people up in arms?

And if you have a 'better solution' i would love to hear it.

Well any time you change something people will get up in arms to maintain the status quo.

For starters, make real requirements for welfare. Say you graduated from high school and can't afford college and start working in the big city. Well, you have a kid and are married and both you and your spouse are having a hard time given you are working at minimum wage. So you apply for some assistance, but to get it you need to do a few things.

First you need to prove that you have a diploma or are in good standing in a GED program. Then you need to prove that you are either applying for better paying jobs in the area, working extra hours, and state how you plan on leaving the system.

If you plan to get post-secondary education in order to get a better job, then you need to actually do that to keep the assistance. If you go to a college, you need to get certain grades to keep your assistance or a certain level of assistance. Once you graduate you need to actively apply....and drug tests also should be taken.

If you need it, you could get help in finding jobs and counseling on how to interview for jobs (Should be a public service for everyone really). If you are lost and your parents/whoever did a horrible job in teaching you how to do things, then you'd get assistance in learning how (teach a man how to fish deal).

None of that currently exists. Which feeds into the problems many talk about. It's not a perfect solution, but then I don't believe government or man can ever truly solve any problem. Just mitigate it so it's not as bad as it could be.

The proper term for Illegal Immigrants. Not the PC term these days, Undocumented aliens.
And yes, illegals who 'came out of the woodwork' back in the mid 80s-90s in the UK seemed to get practically everything they wanted, just handed to them by our government..

Well here's my thing. When you just say "illegal" and nothing else, your are saying that the human being himself is wrong, you are speaking to the person's existence. But when you say "Illegal Immigrant/Alien" you are actually talking about the person's status, not the person's being. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in displaying human decency. No one is "illegal" but there are such things as "illegal immigrants."

Such as what?

Such as making the existence of certain families illegal. It was a joke/shot at your poor choice of words.

Agreed. Which is one reason i can't understand why there was so much backlash when Florida tried to implement a "Wizz quiz' requirement to stay ON welfare, when so many jobs these days (both private and public) require a wizz quiz to get the job, heck some even require it as part of your application process BEFORE you get interviewed.

I don't get it either. It makes perfect sense to test someone for it. Actually...can anyone explain that? Why shouldn't you have drug tests if you're on welfare?

Unfortunately i have. Mostly from one segment of the population (Black).. Back when i worked for one security firm which did outside security for some night clubs and 'after hours' establishments, several of the people going in during pre-opening chit chat, mentioned they didn't even bother finishing HS, let alone wanted to go to College, cause ole uncle sam would take care of them. Also heard that from several people back down in Gulfport, and when i was living/stationed in Norfolk.

What I described above would certainly curtail that. But like I said, I have never encountered such a thing. It is outside of the scope of my experience and without something to make it real, I can't really speak to it.

True. BUT imo the issue, is how do you identify the truely needy/honest people and weed out the lazy?

The honest people will constantly try to better themselves. By looking at what they do or try to do, that's how you can tell. But you'd need a process and measuring procedure to be able to determine that, which doesn't currently exist.

But how is the US treaty with Iran an 'international resolution? That's what i am seeing red over.
Also if it IS a treaty, how the F can obama get the UN to rule on it before Congress (which by law is supposed to be the ones MAKING The treaty) even comes up with it?
IMO its another attempt by Obama to make an End run around both Congress and the Constitution.

Not that I like the deal, but he can thanks to the 79th Congress which ratified the charter of the UN during WWII which established that very procedure. By ratifying the UN charter, they included that procedure into US law. Obama was representing the UNSC, not the USA therefore the deal didn't needed US Senate approval, because the 79th Senate already approved it.

If you feel bad and you feel like the President gave the American people the cold shoulder, well...that's nothing compared to what he has done to Israel.

It does seem like on a # of other sites i see people making these same conclusions, that those making it are often called conspiracy nuts..

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And ordinary evidence is lacking, let alone there being extraordinary evidence. And it sounds like a rip off of some X-files plot or something of the kind.

IMO its cause of too many people having that belief, that they would rather suffer the miscreants and cheats, rather than see 'just one righteous' suffer, that we are in this mess..

Someone is always going to suffer something until there's some sort of divine intervention.

Actually, the Constitution gives the President the authority to propose and negotiate treaties, which must then be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

That doesn't change the fact that the LSoS is doing yet another end run around the Constitution, but the Const. does give the President the power to negotiate them.

*cough* 79th Congress *cough*

Additionally, I think I recall something about "no treaty can surrender the sovereignty of the U.S." (or some such), which the recent TPP treaty clearly does, so that's another end run right there.

The closest thing to that quote I can think of is "No power but Congress could surrender our sovereignty..." from an encyclopedia written by Woodrow Wilson. But it's not found in any US document that I can think of or find.

[Annoyed]

Do you live under a rock? last I checked we don't have 3rd world level rates of mortality among infants or any age group do to starvation or poverty. I'm not saying that there's a perfect solution, but that's my point. We either deal with a system that'll be abused and try to mitigate those abuses as much as possible, or we scrap it and cause another host of issues which will have a spill over effect.

As has been noted here before, the "mainstream" media is heavily biased towards the left, and often will not report on things such as this, because it shows flaws in the agenda of the left. So you get what you can where you can get it.

Bah. Quoted the wrong section of your post, but this addresses the source question.

[Annoyed]

For starters, make real requirements for welfare. Say you graduated from high school and can't afford college and start working in the big city. Well, you have a kid and are married and both you and your spouse are having a hard time given you are working at minimum wage. So you apply for some assistance, but to get it you need to do a few things.

First you need to prove that you have a diploma or are in good standing in a GED program. Then you need to prove that you are either applying for better paying jobs in the area, working extra hours, and state how you plan on leaving the system.

If you plan to get post-secondary education in order to get a better job, then you need to actually do that to keep the assistance. If you go to a college, you need to get certain grades to keep your assistance or a certain level of assistance. Once you graduate you need to actively apply....and drug tests also should be taken.

If you need it, you could get help in finding jobs and counseling on how to interview for jobs (Should be a public service for everyone really). If you are lost and your parents/whoever did a horrible job in teaching you how to do things, then you'd get assistance in learning how (teach a man how to fish deal).

None of that currently exists. Which feeds into the problems many talk about. It's not a perfect solution, but then I don't believe government or man can ever truly solve any problem. Just mitigate it so it's not as bad as it could be.




I don't get it either. It makes perfect sense to test someone for it. Actually...can anyone explain that? Why shouldn't you have drug tests if you're on welfare?

I don't have time for a full response now, will edit this later or post a new response.
But consider the symbiotic relationship between the leeches and the people who tend to the needs of the leeches.

[Starsaber]

I don't get it either. It makes perfect sense to test someone for it. Actually...can anyone explain that? Why shouldn't you have drug tests if you're on welfare?

As a Florida resident, my issue was more in terms of how it was implemented. False positives are always a possibility, and from what I remember, the recipient had to pay out of pocket for the test and got reimbursed for it if they passed. If someone can't afford food, how can they afford a drug test? Also, the contract for the drug tests just happened to go to a company that the governor's wife was involved with.

[mad_gater]

maybe the prospect of having to pay out of pocket for these tests might prompt them to stop spending what little they do legitimately earn form working on addictive drugs perhaps?

[mad_gater]

just like all the people on welfare who smoke....it's like....hello perhaps you might not need welfare if you weren't spending hundreds of dollars on cigarettes!

[aretood2]

As has been noted here before, the "mainstream" media is heavily biased towards the left, and often will not report on things such as this, because it shows flaws in the agenda of the left. So you get what you can where you can get it.

Bah. Quoted the wrong section of your post, but this addresses the source question.

Compare it to other articles from the Fox News .Sources are mentioned, numbers are given, people are quoted. The only quote here is from some obscure radio talk show host which seems to be its only source. Not to mention the lack of logic in the article itself.

So, given the fact that wages haven't actually gone up yet, they compare the change in caseloads for welfare from one month to another? What's the point? The wage hasn't changed yet, there isn't going to be an effect on the number of people on welfare one way or another for a few years as the wage increases.

Then there's already motivation applied to peoples action with an ambiguous "evidence shows" slapped on it. What evidence? Was there an investigative journalist? A poll? Have employers reported this? Did people themselves report this? Why doesn't the article say it? Did a Survey report this? Was there a Think Tank study or a university study? Did a government department report this? The article fails to mention any of this.

And who said that the rest of the media is heavily biased? How is it biased? By not printing empty articles devoid of actual information? I simply don't get your comments at all.

As a Florida resident, my issue was more in terms of how it was implemented. False positives are always a possibility, and from what I remember, the recipient had to pay out of pocket for the test and got reimbursed for it if they passed. If someone can't afford food, how can they afford a drug test? Also, the contract for the drug tests just happened to go to a company that the governor's wife was involved with.

So how to people on Probation do it? How are false positives handled? Couldn't there be an appeal process or a retest or something?

[Gatefan1976]

just like all the people on welfare who smoke....it's like....hello perhaps you might not need welfare if you weren't spending hundreds of dollars on cigarettes!

Hello, if you were not taxing them at disgraceful amounts because they are a "sin product", they may not be paying hundreds of dollars on them...............

[Coco Pops]

Hello, if you were not taxing them at disgraceful amounts because they are a "sin product", they may not be paying hundreds of dollars on them...............

See that's the thing I don't get.. Smoking is LEGAL yet the govt. seems to not want you to smoke hence a lot of anti smoking campaigns in the USA and here in Australia and we have the QUIT organization ... Yet it's a legal activity..