Dorkington Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Well, if we're calling for removal of social assistance because a small percentage abuse said assistance, I'd much rather remove the people who are abusing the assistance, and see if the assistance can resume support for those who need it...
Rob's House Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) If you know people who are abusing the system, wouldn't it be prudent to report them to the proper authorities, so that the system can continue for those who need it? They're not breaking any laws. The point is that this contrived system (That IMO has more to do with appearing compassionate and allowing us to feel good about leading self-serving lives while otherwise turning a blind eye to those in need) all too often leaves the needy out in the cold while catering to the lazy, the not so needy, the rich, and corporations with campaign contribution budgets. It's a scam shrouded in charity. So do you really know pot heads pumping out kids? lol Friends? Relatives (by marriage) Edited May 6, 2014 by Rob's House
B-Man Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Claiming that the District of Columbia's ObamaCare exchange is just too darn small in size to pay for itself, Mayor Vince Gray (D) is proposing the city council "approve legislation granting the District's exchange board broad new power to tax any health-related insurance product sold in the city -- regardless of whether it's offered on the exchange," Washington Post staffer Aaron Davis reported this morning. "If Gray and exchange officials get their way," Davis noted, a new "1 percent tax on more than $250 million in insurance premiums paid annually" by D.C. resident. Of course, Davis's story was buried on page four of the Metro section and slapped with a snoozer of a headline, "Council to vote on new tax power for health exchange,"* rather than something which would arrest the readers attention like say, "Mayor calls for new tax on health plans." Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz30xN1a616
keepthefaith Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 If you know people who are abusing the system, wouldn't it be prudent to report them to the proper authorities, so that the system can continue for those who need it? Shouldn't the government closely scrutinize the eligibility of those that receive benefits? From what I've seen they they usually lean hard in favor of the recipient when it's questionable. We need time limits on benefits. Otherwise people get comfortable being "in the system" and stay there forever.
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Shouldn't the government closely scrutinize the eligibility of those that receive benefits? No, because that's discriminatory. Like voter ID.
B-Man Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) SO MUCH FOR SAVING $2,500 PER YEAR: John Merline breaks down the high cost of getting Obamacare up and running: Add it all up, and ObamaCare’s startup cost is at least $6.7 billion. Even if every one of the 8 million enrollees pays their premiums all year, the cost is more than $837 per sign-up. And if recent surveys are correct that just a third of enrollees previously lacked coverage, ObamaCare will have cost $2,500 for each newly insured person. Yikes. And this doesn’t even count the double-digit increases in health insurance policies fueled by Obamacare’s cornucopia of benefit mandates. . Edited May 6, 2014 by B-Man
OCinBuffalo Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Well, if we're calling for removal of social assistance because a small percentage abuse said assistance, I'd much rather remove the people who are abusing the assistance, and see if the assistance can resume support for those who need it... Shouldn't the government closely scrutinize the eligibility of those that receive benefits? From what I've seen they they usually lean hard in favor of the recipient when it's questionable. We need time limits on benefits. Otherwise people get comfortable being "in the system" and stay there forever. It seems neither of you get it. The "it" here is not whether or not one lazy/needy person gets benefits. It's about forcing many people, who otherwise could "fend for themselves" , into a government-controlled system. Once this forcing has been done: the electoral math becomes "vote for me and I'll increase your Obamacare". Also,"it" becomes: "vote for me, and I'll get you a job working for/next door to the government, from which you can never be fired, and for which you eternally owe me a vote". But....you really think any of these people(politicians/needy/lazy/scammers/employed by government people) care if they get scammed? Not in the slighest. Why? Solution to being scammed: hire more government people, who have more time, to see more people, who therefore can get $ easier, and this all requires more money....so....vote for me because I bring "Teh Justiss". /facepalm You care about people, you want to make sure the needy get what they need, and you don't care if that means some overage to the lazy/scammer. Great. That attitude is admirable, and exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. Unfortunately? That attitude is about as naive as it gets, and is also exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. This ain't about needy people, and it never was. This is ALWAYS about stealing more money from somewhere, and moving it on in return for votes. Edited May 7, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Dorkington Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 When there isn't enough jobs to employ those who want to work, the idea of "forcing someone" into government assistance seems kinda silly. It's a shame for those that need the system, that they get painted by the same brush that those who abuse the system deserve. One of my best friends recently lost his job, and is struggling to make ends meet through side jobs/self employment. He feeds his kids with food stamps. I don't consider him to be a lazy piece of ****, I consider him to be someone who ran into bad luck.
Azalin Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 When there isn't enough jobs to employ those who want to work, the idea of "forcing someone" into government assistance seems kinda silly. It's a shame for those that need the system, that they get painted by the same brush that those who abuse the system deserve. One of my best friends recently lost his job, and is struggling to make ends meet through side jobs/self employment. He feeds his kids with food stamps. I don't consider him to be a lazy piece of ****, I consider him to be someone who ran into bad luck. I think most people here would agree that your friend isn't a lazy piece of **** because he uses food stamps to feed his children. I also think that most people here that are critical of government assistance feel that way because of the widespread abuse of that system, not simply because some people need it and use it. something I rarely see anyone consider is that sometimes when people lose jobs - for example when a manufacturing plant closes - they need to move to a place where they can get more work. that might sound cold hearted at first, but think about it...there are areas in the country where the only thing that keeps people living in economically depressed areas is the welfare they receive that's intended to help them. I'm sure many people posting on this forum have had to move to take a job or a promotion, and that's completely normal. why then do so few seem to believe that it's not incumbent upon the jobless to go to where there are jobs if they are capable of doing so?
birdog1960 Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) When there isn't enough jobs to employ those who want to work, the idea of "forcing someone" into government assistance seems kinda silly. It's a shame for those that need the system, that they get painted by the same brush that those who abuse the system deserve. One of my best friends recently lost his job, and is struggling to make ends meet through side jobs/self employment. He feeds his kids with food stamps. I don't consider him to be a lazy piece of ****, I consider him to be someone who ran into bad luck. He's the new normal: http://www.policymic...y-be-in-poverty. 40% of americans will live at least 1 year in poverty. 1/2 of all children will live in a household using food stamps for some time. ama zing how those here seem to defy the statisitics. if they were typical, it might change their perspective. Edited May 7, 2014 by birdog1960
Azalin Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 He's the new normal: http://www.policymic...y-be-in-poverty. 40% of americans will live at least 1 year in poverty. 1/2 of all children will live in a household using food stamps for some time. ama zing how those here seem to defy the statisitics. if they were typical, it might change their perspective. almost 100% of the people I know have spent at least 1 year in poverty, at least according to what the government defines as poverty. in fact, I lived below the poverty line from age 19 until age 35 while working full time. I wasn't very smart back then, but at least I was smart enough to not try to start a family.
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 He's the new normal: http://www.policymic...y-be-in-poverty. 40% of americans will live at least 1 year in poverty. 1/2 of all children will live in a household using food stamps for some time. Obama would say that's a good thing. ama zing how those here seem to defy the statisitics. if they were typical, it might change their perspective. How many years have you spent under the poverty line?
birdog1960 Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Obama would say that's a good thing. no he would not How many years have you spent under the poverty line? zero and i certainly don't wish it on myself or anyone else.
B-Man Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Washington Post concedes that Obamacare propaganda push has failed: In just one week, a barrage of national polling has reached the same verdict: Obamacare's Rocky Balboa-esque announcement that 8 million people have signed up for health care has done absolutely nothing to reverse the law's basic and long-standing unpopularity. … The stagnant numbers would seem to fly in the face of the strong publicity the law earned by passing 7 million and then 8 million sign-ups. For a law that had experienced almost nothing but bad news for months, one would think a little good news would lead to at least a little recovery. And some polls initially suggested that might be the case. But whatever momentum the law carried from the sign-ups announcement -- and a later projection that it will actually cost less than previously thought -- has gone by the wayside. The stark numbers are bad news for Democrats, but they also shouldn't be surprising. Attitudes on the law have not fluctuated much since its passage in 2010 and are deeply entwined with long-held partisan loyalties, helped along by a highly political public debate. It is not just that 55% oppose the law, according to Pew. WaPo fails to mention that only 41% approve. WaPo also repeats the 8 million number without bothering to point out that it's a phony number created by the administration. .Why Obamacare isn't getting any more popular — and probably won't Edited May 7, 2014 by B-Man
birdog1960 Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) from the newspaper of the largest physician specialty organization in the US and the world: http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2014/05/washington.htm. I fully agree. Edited May 7, 2014 by birdog1960
TH3 Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Obama would say that's a good thing. Comments like that say exactly what your agenda is.... Washington Post concedes that Obamacare propaganda push has failed: .Why Obamacare isn't getting any more popular — and probably won't Seriously....Polls? Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything?
IDBillzFan Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything? Given the last two presidential elections, I'm gonna say the answer is "No."
B-Man Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Seriously....Polls? Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything? Seriously ? If you would think, instead of react, you would realize that the point of the story was the Administration's costly campaign to influence the polls....................and its failure. and as to your little faith in the American people, well, the less said the better. . . Edited May 7, 2014 by B-Man
keepthefaith Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 It seems neither of you get it. The "it" here is not whether or not one lazy/needy person gets benefits. It's about forcing many people, who otherwise could "fend for themselves" , into a government-controlled system. Once this forcing has been done: the electoral math becomes "vote for me and I'll increase your Obamacare". Also,"it" becomes: "vote for me, and I'll get you a job working for/next door to the government, from which you can never be fired, and for which you eternally owe me a vote". But....you really think any of these people(politicians/needy/lazy/scammers/employed by government people) care if they get scammed? Not in the slighest. Why? Solution to being scammed: hire more government people, who have more time, to see more people, who therefore can get $ easier, and this all requires more money....so....vote for me because I bring "Teh Justiss". /facepalm You care about people, you want to make sure the needy get what they need, and you don't care if that means some overage to the lazy/scammer. Great. That attitude is admirable, and exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. Unfortunately? That attitude is about as naive as it gets, and is also exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. This ain't about needy people, and it never was. This is ALWAYS about stealing more money from somewhere, and moving it on in return for votes. My comment had nothing to do with the politics of entitlements of which I'm quite aware. I simply commented that that government should put new limits on benefits and better qualify recipients. Now do I think that'll happen any time soon? Hell no.
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Not only would he, he already has. This administration has trumpeted the increase in food stamp enrollment as a success. zero and i certainly don't wish it on myself or anyone else. In other words, your opinion is based on complete ignorance.
Recommended Posts