Social Programs

[Rackat]

For the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists. Can any of you name

1. A social program that works?
2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?
3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?
4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above.

[PosterChild]

The only social program that I support is Medicaid. There must be a safety net for certain populations. Is it abused? Yes, it's human nature. You will find individuals or business entities corrupting a system or a business opportunity or a religion--whatever the concern--people will find ways to game it for personal advantage. It's the responsibility of those charged with its stewardship to prevent or curtail it. It has to be better administered, but it, or some analogue, must exist in a civilized society.

Don't believe me? Consider your predicament if you are stricken with an illness that incapacitated you. It didn't kill, just caused you to languish for years and years, depleting every resource at your disposal. And imagine that once you have exhausted all funds, including private insurance of course (caps exist), and you are tossed out of the health care system and onto the street as the orderly dusts himself off and wishes you luck.

[Rackat]

The only social program that I support is Medicaid. There must be a safety net for certain populations. Is it abused? Yes, it's human nature. You will find individuals or business entities corrupting a system or a business opportunity or a religion--whatever the concern--people will find ways to game it for personal advantage. It's the responsibility of those charged with its stewardship to prevent or curtail it. It has to be better administered, but it, or some analogue, must exist in a civilized society.

Don't believe me? Consider your predicament if you are stricken with an illness that incapacitated you. It didn't kill, just caused you to languish for years and years, depleting every resource at your disposal. And imagine that once you have exhausted all funds, including private insurance of course (caps exist), and you are tossed out of the health care system and onto the street as the orderly dusts himself off and wishes you luck.
Which is all very well and good, but it did not answer any of the questions.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't know why we stop at any of the social programs. Why not just keep adding them. Shoot, I want a social program that will give me a 50" Flat Screen LCD TV. Why not?

It's the new government cheese.

[PosterChild]

For the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists. Can any of you name

1. A social program that works?
2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?
3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?
4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above.

Well, ok.
1. Medicaid
2. Medicaid
3. Medicaid
4. Medicaid

It could easily be surmised that Medicaid satisfies all the criteria from my comments.

Do you contend that Medicaid strips your liberties or empowers the govt? Is that what you're implying?

[Sasquatch]

I don't know why we stop at any of the social programs. Why not just keep adding them. Shoot, I want a social program that will give me a 50" Flat Screen LCD TV. Why not?

It's the new government cheese.

What's your ideal, places like Somalia and Afghanistan? These places don't have social programs and governmental power is non-existent. How's that working for them?

I think experience shows that government is hardly as bad as extremist conservatives like to think. The problem is not government per se but the way our present system is organized which minimizes the influence of individual citizens and their votes while granting undue say to corporations and money.

[PosterChild]

I don't know why we stop at any of the social programs. Why not just keep adding them. Shoot, I want a social program that will give me a 50" Flat Screen LCD TV. Why not?

It's the new government cheese.


That's part of the Edwards platform. There are two Americas: those with HD TV's and those without. John Edwards will unite us all under the Big Screen HDTV Empowerment Deal.

Hold tight.

[Cajuncowboy]

What's your ideal, places like Somalia and Afghanistan? These places don't have social programs and governmental power is non-existent. How's that working for them?

I think experience shows that government is hardly as bad as extremist conservatives like to think. The problem is not government per se but the way our present system is organized which minimizes the influence of individual citizens and their votes while granting undue say to corporations and money.

whoa, I pretty much agree with that. My point was that there is always another social program on the horizon. The never ending attempt by politicians to pander to a group of people by telling them they will give them this or that if they would just elect them is what bothers me.

I am all for helping the elderly, the infirmed and the like. As a matter of fact, they are the programs I feel we mostly need to concentrate on.

But every time we turn around there is yet another program out there for someone who doesn't really deserve it. So to that I say....


I WANT MY FLAT SCREEN! :D

[Cajuncowboy]

That's part of the Edwards platform. There are two Americas: those with HD TV's and those without. John Edwards will unite us all under the Big Screen HDTV Empowerment Deal.

Hold tight.

:laugh2:

OK, I'll be in that long line as well.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:laugh2:

OK, I'll be in that long line as well.

Let's say we will vote for him to get our flat screen...then turn around and vote for someone else once we get the TV.:D

[Rackat]

Well, ok.
1. Medicaid
2. Medicaid
3. Medicaid
4. Medicaid

It could easily be surmised that Medicaid satisfies all the criteria from my comments.

How does it meet the criteria?

Do you contend that Medicaid strips your liberties or empowers the govt? Is that what you're implying?
That's a red herring and has nothing to do with the OP.

[Doomsday101]

What I don't like with the social program it is ran by the Government and they do a poor job of overseaing these programs and the abuse that takes place within these programs.

[Rackat]

What's your ideal, places like Somalia and Afghanistan? These places don't have social programs and governmental power is non-existent. How's that working for them?

Another red herring. An anarchical society in an undeveloped third world country is not equivilant to a social program discussion about the United States, or even Canada or the UK where they have more socialized programs than we do.


I think experience shows that government is hardly as bad as extremist conservatives like to think. The problem is not government per se but the way our present system is organized which minimizes the influence of individual citizens and their votes while granting undue say to corporations and money.
Nice pot shot there, kettle. Being concerned about social programs reform does not equate to being an extremist conservative, but nice try.

[Rackat]

Let's say we will vote for him to get our flat screen...then turn around and vote for someone else once we get the TV.:D
For me to vote for Edwards it would have to be a 60' flat panel. :D

[zrinkill]

I think experience shows that government is hardly as bad as extremist conservatives like to think.

:eek:

The person who thinks our Government are always the bad guys saying this?

:eek: again!

[Sasquatch]

Another red herring. An anarchical society in an undeveloped third world country is not equivilant to a social program discussion about the United States, or even Canada or the UK where they have more socialized programs than we do.



Nice pot shot there, kettle. Being concerned about social programs reform does not equate to being an extremist conservative, but nice try.

I think a comparative perspective can yield valuable insights in such a discussion. Closing yourself to the experience of others results in an extremely limited basis decision making. But it might not be a good idea from a certain political perspective that distrusts anything government does since education, health care, and other statistics would show that the US is falling behind countries where government is more involved and allocates more money to these programs.

[Rackat]

I think a comparative perspective can yield valuable insights in such a discussion. Closing yourself to the experience of others results in an extremely limited basis decision making. But it might not be a good idea from a certain political perspective that distrusts anything government does since education, health care, and other statistics would show that the US is falling behind countries where government is more involved and allocates more money to these programs.
That was a verbose, confounding, ill prepared attempt to direct the discussion away from the topic. It is my contention that your arrogant rambling statement is quite possibly as chock full of bull manure as any I have ever read on this particular forum. While it appears that you were attempting, as with other arrogant faux intellectuals, to appear more intelligent than you actually are. It is inherently humorous to read such tripe, and it is exceedingly tiresome to see this tactic used by someone so obviously ill equipped to do so. However, please carry on. I am sure you are amusing yourself.

[Sasquatch]

That was a verbose, confounding, ill prepared attempt to direct the discussion away from the topic. It is my contention that your arrogant rambling statement is quite possibly as chock full of bull manure as any I have ever read on this particular forum. While it appears that you were attempting, as with other arrogant faux intellectuals, to appear more intelligent than you actually are. It is inherently humorous to read such tripe, and it is exceedingly tiresome to see this tactic used by someone so obviously ill equipped to do so. However, please carry on. I am sure you are amusing yourself.

Whoa, why the hostility? Someone needs more fiber in their diet.

[Rackat]

Whoa, why the hostility? Someone needs more fiber in their diet.
Not really. I just want the topic debated. It's obvious that your presence in this topic is to misdirect and cast aspersion, not to engage in debate.

[Sasquatch]

Not really. I just want the topic debated. It's obvious that your presence in this topic is to misdirect and cast aspersion, not to engage in debate.

I don't think my posts have been totally irrelevant. As for "casting aspersions," I think you're being a little over sensitive and reading more into my posts that was intended. Besides, given the content of your previous two posts, your accusations appear a bit disingenuous. Nonetheless, I'll butt out and leave you to policing your thread.

[jterrell]

For the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists. Can any of you name

1. A social program that works?
2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?
3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?
4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above.

It is hard to have intelligent conversations when you use rather faulty premises.

"Social program" is the big diatribe here so first we need to adequately and accurately define that term. You do not, so answers could be wide and varied, yet all be technically very correct. At the same time after much effort was applied you could dismiss them as not being what you meant.

If you are seriously seeking answers here then this website is a good place to start as it uses actual evidence and info to provide a list of social programs that both work and do not work.

http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/

As to your specific questions.
1. See the link above.
2. Who cares? If a program works I could care less if it has been altered in its means or intents.
3. ROFL. This is simple sophistry. The government already has power over it's individuals. That is its purpose; to govern us, it's citizens.
4. Restating 3 hardly makes this a new question but does allow more sophistry.

All in all a very weak attempt to point out you do not feel social programs work. Which is fine except many of them in fact do work.

Many social programs are crucial to very poor people's basic survival.

These social programs allow these people to exist on ridiculously low wages and thus that money we spend is still divided up as it would as if we simply paid them more and made less.

Would we be better off with a 15 dollar per hour minimum wage or with social programs? It does not work both ways. You do not get to set ridiculously low wages and at the same time pay next to nothing in labor costs.

Really what is boil down to is no one likes taxes but it is unbecoming of a grown man to cry like a baby when he has to pay his fair share.

As to social security our parents received it and our grandparents did as well. If we do not it is because our politicians have screwed it up.

[Rackat]

It is hard to have intelligent conversations when you use rather faulty premises.

"Social program" is the big diatribe here so first we need to adequately and accurately define that term. You do not, so answers could be wide and varied, yet all be technically very correct. At the same time after much effort was applied you could dismiss them as not being what you meant.

If you are seriously seeking answers here then this website is a good place to start as it uses actual evidence and info to provide a list of social programs that both work and do not work.

http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/

As to your specific questions.
1. See the link above.
2. Who cares? If a program works I could care less if it has been altered in its means or intents.
3. ROFL. This is simple sophistry. The government already has power over it's individuals. That is its purpose; to govern us, it's citizens.
4. Restating 3 hardly makes this a new question but does allow more sophistry.

All in all a very weak attempt to point out you do not feel social programs work. Which is fine except many of them in fact do work.

Many social programs are crucial to very poor people's basic survival.

These social programs allow these people to exist on ridiculously low wages and thus that money we spend is still divided up as it would as if we simply paid them more and made less.

Would we be better off with a 15 dollar per hour minimum wage or with social programs? It does not work both ways. You do not get to set ridiculously low wages and at the same time pay next to nothing in labor costs.

Really what is boil down to is no one likes taxes but it is unbecoming of a grown man to cry like a baby when he has to pay his fair share.

As to social security our parents received it and our grandparents did as well. If we do not it is because our politicians have screwed it up.

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to the topic with relevant information and opinions. Also, you are quite accurate in your assessment of the lack of definition for the questions in the OP. It is my responsibility to be more clear and I wasn't.

1. See the link above. – I will review the link later. For some reason it is blocked here.
2. Who cares? If a program works I could care less if it has been altered in its means or intents. – that is true, if a program works.
3. ROFL. This is simple sophistry. The government already has power over it's individuals. That is its purpose; to govern us, it's citizens. – as I said above, I should have been more clear. It was not intended to be deceptive or specious. My intent was that we lose more individual freedom by allowing our government to take over functions which we should be taking care of ourselves.
4. Restating 3 hardly makes this a new question but does allow more sophistry. – again, it is not intended to be deceptive or specious, and definitely could have been stated more succinctly and definitively.

[PosterChild]

How does it meet the criteria?



1. A social program that works?
2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?
3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?
4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above


Well I'll try to make it very plain.

1&2) Medicaid does work such as it is--a safety net for our poorest members of society.


3) A trick question. You realize as we all do that you trade away power to the govt when you are fully dependent on it for your care. That's understood. So what? It's not an ideal circumstance but nobody has claimed otherwise. If you'd like to improve it, I'm all ears. Many are trying. Maybe you'd do away with and that's cool.

4) Answer is same as above. But I assure you the Govt isn't empowered-other than in the sense already described above- by managing the program. It's a burden upon it and an enormous challenge meeting beneficiaries' demands under tight budget constraints.

Now if you find this final reply lacking that's just unfortunate. I've pretty well stated my position quite clearly as to what ONE GOVT PRGM I fully support and why. I don't see anyone else bewildered by my response here. Just you.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

No one ever wants a social program until they need it.

[PosterChild]

I should further inform you that I've been involved with this and other govt-run programs for 13 years now, and I have a first-hand perspective/insight you may not share with me. I've seen the good and the bad in the program but cannot comprehend a society without it. I'm optimistic enough to believe that you would become a good deal more compassionate about at least this one last resort institution if you could see what I have seen.

Now I could be making assumptions about you that are false but since you've chosen strangely not to divulge clearly your position, I must speculate. You certainly don't give the impression that you are in favor of any program based on your initial post in the thread, and subsequent hints. Maybe you just enjoy a rousing debate. LOL If I'm mistaken you'll have to correct me. :)

[Jordan55]

I don't believe anyone is against the programs, it's the management of the programs and the waste of tax payer dollars implementing these benefits to the needy, would like to see it taken out of the hands of the Government, considering we all know how efficient our government is run, talk about cutting costs.
This would be a start.
Love my country, but Fear my Government

[jterrell]

No one ever wants a social program until they need it.

I think there is a gut reaction upon looking at a carved up paycheck and saying FDSKSFP#!!!!! We are all guilty of it to some extent I'd wager.

By the same token I think what PC is saying is also correct; when you narrow it down to specifics and say this kid with a single working mom who cleans motel rooms for 8 bucks an hour with no health benefits(because the company only allows her to work 31.5 hours to week to insure it is legal to forego benefits) gets a broken leg do we allow a hospital to turn him away or do we treat him?

Do we allow those kids to have free or reduced cost school lunches?

For me I think the corporate welfare is the problem. I say that because "trickle-down" has been absolutely proven not to work at all. Companies do not last long enough in any one form. They re-organize, sell off, move, go public, go private, whatever they can do to make a little bit more money and much of the time that monetary gain is meant to only be a short term solution.

Business cycles are now at most one budget to the next. With that type of short term planning you simply can not have true growth based of priming the pump for businesses.

[PosterChild]

I don't believe anyone is against the programs, it's the management of the programs and the waste of tax payer dollars implementing these benefits to the needy, would like to see it taken out of the hands of the Government, considering we all know how efficient our government is run, talk about cutting costs.
This would be a start.

Actually Texas Medicaid is providing access to some its programs through private management companies already. This trend will increase in the next few years. And Medicare is moving toward completive bidding via its contractors on limited market basis beginning in 2009.

[jterrell]

I don't believe anyone is against the programs, it's the management of the programs and the waste of tax payer dollars implementing these benefits to the needy, would like to see it taken out of the hands of the Government, considering we all know how efficient our government is run, talk about cutting costs.
This would be a start.

Yea, we all know private firms are efficient and well run....

The Enron folks do need jobs now... maybe Kenneth Lay would have been a good President for this unnamed company running Medicaid.

We have had 200 years of government and there are no easy solutions or they would have already been implemented.
Privatization is not any better than bureaucracy, just a different devil but the same level of h3ll.

[Rackat]

Well I'll try to make it very plain.

1&2) Medicaid does work such as it is--a safety net for our poorest members of society.


3) A trick question. You realize as we all do that you trade away power to the govt when you are fully dependent on it for your care. That's understood. So what? It's not an ideal circumstance but nobody has claimed otherwise. If you'd like to improve it, I'm all ears. Many are trying. Maybe you'd do away with and that's cool.

4) Answer is same as above. But I assure you the Govt isn't empowered-other than in the sense already described above- by managing the program. It's a burden upon it and an enormous challenge meeting beneficiaries' demands under tight budget constraints.

Now if you find this final reply lacking that's just unfortunate. I've pretty well stated my position quite clearly as to what ONE GOVT PRGM I fully support and why. I don't see anyone else bewildered by my response here. Just you.

You assume that I am bewildered by your argument, I am not. I apologize for my delayed responses as I am at work and must respond as time allows.

I should further inform you that I've been involved with this and other govt-run programs for 13 years now, and I have a first-hand perspective/insight you may not share with me. I've seen the good and the bad in the program but cannot comprehend a society without it. I'm optimistic enough to believe that you would become a good deal more compassionate about at least this one last resort institution if you could see what I have seen.

Now I could be making assumptions about you that are false but since you've chosen strangely not to divulge clearly your position, I must speculate. You certainly don't give the impression that you are in favor of any program based on your initial post in the thread, and subsequent hints. Maybe you just enjoy a rousing debate. LOL If I'm mistaken you'll have to correct me. :)
I started out in the health care field in 1982 as a Nurse Aide. Of all the programs that the government subsidizes, this is one that I do somewhat support. Not because I like it, but because it does truly assist those that need it. However, like most government run programs, it is flawed and ill-ran to a large extent.

I am not in favor of government handouts. Programs that perpetuate spongeing off the government are one of the banes of our society. I am for government asistance with education, but not welfare. I am for job training, but I would like to see those that recieve it pay back the government (hence payback the tax payers) for that training once finished. I am for any program that holds the person recieving assistance accountable for upholding their end of the assistance; in other getting off the program as soon aspossible and paying back for the assistance they receive so that more people may recieve assistance. I am for individual reponsibility and abhore welfare.

[Rackat]

And for disclosure, I am still in the health care field. I am the Director of Health Information Management for our hospital.

[jterrell]

And for disclosure, I am still in the health care field. I am the Director of Health Information Management for our hospital.

Very nice, Rackat!
I have worked for a few of your colleagues on various IT projects such as HIPAA compliance, PACS or Unix server engineering.

I am sure you see a lot of the white collar side of the issue with budget demands and hard to obtain Medicaid pay outs.

Your position makes much more sense now:)

[PosterChild]

You assume that I am bewildered by your argument, I am not. I apologize for my delayed responses as I am at work and must respond as time allows.


I started out in the health care field in 1982 as a Nurse Aide. Of all the programs that the government subsidizes, this is one that I do somewhat support. Not because I like it, but because it does truly assist those that need it. However, like most government run programs, it is flawed and ill-ran to a large extent.

I am not in favor of government handouts. Programs that perpetuate spongeing off the government are one of the banes of our society. I am for government asistance with education, but not welfare. I am for job training, but I would like to see those that recieve it pay back the government (hence payback the tax payers) for that training once finished. I am for any program that holds the person recieving assistance accountable for upholding their end of the assistance; in other getting off the program as soon aspossible and paying back for the assistance they receive so that more people may recieve assistance. I am for individual reponsibility and abhore welfare.

Well, I see where you're coming from and the values you espouse are noble, if not always practical. I'm sure you know that some find themselves in a position unable to ever get off Medicaid until their death cert is prepared. They are who I have been focusing on here.

There are always those who are simply lazy or otherwise unwilling to take personal responsibility, and I'm in favor of denying them all but emergent care. I really don't see those people and they're kind of out of sight out of mind. It might surprise you to learn that I have no less disdain for these types than you do.

[Doomsday]

I don't know why we stop at any of the social programs. Why not just keep adding them. Shoot, I want a social program that will give me a 50" Flat Screen LCD TV. Why not?

It's the new government cheese.

Instead of spending millions and millions on advertising and campaigning, candidates should just position people at polls promising me a 50" TV to vote for their candidate. My vote can be bought. :D

[jterrell]

Instead of spending millions and millions on advertising and campaigning, candidates should just position people at polls promising me a 50" TV to vote for their candidate. My vote can be bought. :D

An even cheaper but equally effective method is providing the hooters girls and free beers at the polling stations.

[Jordan55]

Yea, we all know private firms are efficient and well run....

The Enron folks do need jobs now... maybe Kenneth Lay would have been a good President for this unnamed company running Medicaid.

We have had 200 years of government and there are no easy solutions or they would have already been implemented.
Privatization is not any better than bureaucracy, just a different devil but the same level of h3ll.

You have a good point, but if the Government was a business, it would be out of business plain and simple, some how we have to get a grip on Government spending or become more efficient on what is being spent.
How many Enrons, have we had, (Kenneth Lay, by the way could not have picked a better time to exit stage right) Compare UPS or FED EX with the US Postal Service is my point.
If anything they may have created a more competitive postal service, I may be wrong but I believe I read the Post Office is usings their services
Privatize with Government oversight, to keep an Enron, from happening.

[Doomsday]

An even cheaper but equally effective method is providing the hooters girls and free beers at the polling stations.

That would definately for Republicans, there would be a record number of blue collar voters if they did that.

[jterrell]

Yea, we all know private firms are efficient and well run....

The Enron folks do need jobs now... maybe Kenneth Lay would have been a good President for this unnamed company running Medicaid.

We have had 200 years of government and there are no easy solutions or they would have already been implemented.
Privatization is not any better than bureaucracy, just a different devil but the same level of h3ll.

You have a good point, but if the Government was a business, it would be out of business plain and simple, some how we have to get a grip on Government spending or become more efficient on what is being spent.
How many Enrons, have we had, (Kenneth Lay, by the way could not have picked a better time to exit stage right) Compare UPS or FED EX with the US Postal Service is my point.
If anything they may have created a more competitive postal service, I may be wrong but I believe I read the Post Office is usings their services
Privatize with Government oversight, to keep an Enron, from happening.

I am not disagreeing completely here but essentially Medicaid should be run for the benefit of the needy not for business sakes.

The US Post Office still delivers more raw mail than Fed Ex and UPS combined.
A business can and will choose what areas to enter and cover based on financial data but privatized companies offering that level of support are far and few between.

As someone mentioned above some states are using some private firms but it is seldom to much extent because the larger the issue the harder to tackle efficiently without a significant(and expensive) network in place.

What I'd like to see is these governmental entities managed to the extent that they hired the best and brightest and managing them well and efficiently was rewarded financially.

Private firms tend to run too short term for my tastes.

Government jobs tend to pay to little to attract the right folks but that could be changed.

[Rackat]

Very nice, Rackat!
I have worked for a few of your colleagues on various IT projects such as HIPAA compliance, PACS or Unix server engineering.

I am sure you see a lot of the white collar side of the issue with budget demands and hard to obtain Medicaid pay outs.

Your position makes much more sense now:)

My first full Director's position was in 1998. I was the HIM Director, IT director, and HIPAA compliance officer. The first thing they did was put me over the Y2K preperation. What a joke. But I did get 85 new PC's and 4 Unix servers out of them. :D

It's not so much the budgetary constraints that piss me off. It's no easier to get payment from normal insurers than it is from Medcaid. The problem is when I see some of these "recipients". I know full well that they are milking the system, I see the ICD-9-CM codes and have to do the medical record reviews for these "recipients".

Well, I see where you're coming from and the values you espouse are noble, if not always practical. I'm sure you know that some find themselves in a position unable to ever get off Medicaid until their death cert is prepared. They are who I have been focusing on here.

There are always those who are simply lazy or otherwise unwilling to take personal responsibility, and I'm in favor of denying them all but emergent care. I really don't see those people and they're kind of out of sight out of mind. It might surprise you to learn that I have no less disdain for these types than you do.
It's not the ones that can't, it's the ones that can get off the programs that piss me off.

[Eric_Boyer]

a liberal definition of being independent. (http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057499847-post11.html)

[vta]

a liberal definition of being independent. (http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057499847-post11.html)

"And I Aint Black"

:lmao2:

My God that chick is nuts.

[jterrell]

"And I Aint Black"

:lmao2:

My God that chick is nuts.

That can only come from inbreeding.

[vta]

That can only come from inbreeding.

I don't mean in an arrogant sense, but I feel bad for her.
She let's on a lot about her personal life, and I think she's disillusioned and none too happy.

... though you wouldn't know by my last response.

[heavyg]

Im as conservative as they come. And I believe social programs are needed. The problem with most of them is they are not set up to actually help someone. They are set up to keep you in the program once you get in it. At one point I was almost completely down and out due to an at work inury. I was out of work and could not find a job. I had a very small retirement check coming in that allowed us to keep making the payment on our only car. My wife worked and made just enough to pay rent and utilities. We went and tried to get food stamps. We were denied due to our car. They said if we sold the car they would give us food stamps. However, if we sold the car my wife would have lost her job. I wouldnt be able to look for a job. Then not only would we need food stamps we would need a welfare check to boot. The system needs to be revamped to help those in need and willing to work to get off it.

[Rackat]

Im as conservative as they come. And I believe social programs are needed. The problem with most of them is they are not set up to actually help someone. They are set up to keep you in the program once you get in it. At one point I was almost completely down and out due to an at work inury. I was out of work and could not find a job. I had a very small retirement check coming in that allowed us to keep making the payment on our only car. My wife worked and made just enough to pay rent and utilities. We went and tried to get food stamps. We were denied due to our car. They said if we sold the car they would give us food stamps. However, if we sold the car my wife would have lost her job. I wouldnt be able to look for a job. Then not only would we need food stamps we would need a welfare check to boot. The system needs to be revamped to help those in need and willing to work to get off it.
Amen.

[ConcordCowboy]

Here's one thing that pisses me off.

My 42 y/o brother-in-law works here in Ohio in Road Construction.

They generally work 6/7 months of the year, depending on the weather.

Then when the weather gets bad and they can't work he just sits on his *** and starts collecting Unemployment for 5/6 months EVERY YEAR!

That's BS and should be stopped. He's able bodied and should have to get another job for that time.

He's a sponge on society that should be wringed out.

And to think that there are thousands like him in Ohio and other states that you can't work year round because of the weather.

Obviously just one small example of milking the system...but come on man.

6 months of unemployment payments EVERY YEAR!

[Jordan55]

Could be one of the reasons the Buckeye state has serious problems, that and their unions. Lot's of welfare in this state. How much does he collect?
Maybe I have been looking at this situation all wrong.
With the Dems, coming into office, who can turn down the gift horse,
Who's going to pick up the tab, oh that's right tax the evil rich, they are only paying 80% of the taxes now or something like that, let them take the financial risks on opening new businesses and hiring attorney's to defend them in BS lawsuits,
McDonald's with the coffee cup, what did the Old Lady get for burning her crotch, better yet what did the attorney get?
I would have called that case of crotch burn, first, fuctional obsolescense and 2nd down right stupidy.
Now all the cups have to say Hot Coffee burns like hell, now who do we blame, let's blame the school system, how did she pass, We can't fire her Teachers because it's impossible with the Teacher Union. Where is the accountability?
I need a drink

[Jordan55]

I am not disagreeing completely here but essentially Medicaid should be run for the benefit of the needy not for business sakes.

The US Post Office still delivers more raw mail than Fed Ex and UPS combined.
A business can and will choose what areas to enter and cover based on financial data but privatized companies offering that level of support are far and few between.

As someone mentioned above some states are using some private firms but it is seldom to much extent because the larger the issue the harder to tackle efficiently without a significant(and expensive) network in place.

What I'd like to see is these governmental entities managed to the extent that they hired the best and brightest and managing them well and efficiently was rewarded financially.

Private firms tend to run too short term for my tastes.

Government jobs tend to pay to little to attract the right folks but that could be changed.
Government Jobs come with great perks, something the private sector can't afford.
If you ask me are senators and congessmen or women are over payed. By the way they just voted themselves a raise today.
They also have great perks once they retire,or once their in office as long as they don't get caught, how much did the Clinton's make?
As far as the Post office goes what's a stamp now 42 cents, how many times has that gone up in the last fives years. If managed correctly they should be profitable
My post man is pissed because Playboy and Penthouse are now coming in a plastic wrap.
Could never understand the advertising for the Post Ofiice during the Olympics, who paid for those, and Why? Who's the competition?

[ConcordCowboy]

Could be one of the reasons the Buckeye state has serious problems, that and their unions. Lot's of welfare in this state. How much does he collect/
Maybe I have been looking at this all wrong.

I don't know how much he collects, but whatever it is it's too much.

[Jordan55]

Ohio State let me down last night, LSU looked damn good

[ConcordCowboy]

Ohio State let me down last night, LSU looked damn good

Yeah they let me down just a little bit too. :bang2:

[ThaBigP]

What's your ideal, places like Somalia and Afghanistan? These places don't have social programs and governmental power is non-existent. How's that working for them?

I think experience shows that government is hardly as bad as extremist conservatives like to think. The problem is not government per se but the way our present system is organized which minimizes the influence of individual citizens and their votes while granting undue say to corporations and money.

Yeah, those third world countries are the way they are due to lack of social programs. Same goes for the United States prior to FDR and the New Deal....wait. Your argument has merit, how exactly?

By the way, you said that the "problem isnot government per se", then go on to suggest the problem is "the way our present system is organized...". Allow me to ***** slap some information into you... "our present system" is....drumroll please....our "government". What you in effect said was "government isn't the problem, government is".

[ThaBigP]

For the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists. Can any of you name

1. A social program that works?
2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?
3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?
4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above.

And for the record, any program that takes property from one group, shoves it through the government's beurocratic skimming machine, and the remaining 5% handed over to another group is *by the very definition*:

a) eroding liberty of individuals
and
b) empowering government at the expense of the citizens

The right to own the fruits of your own labor is one of the most important cornerstones of liberty. When the government seizes property under the umbrella of "social programs", it's still seizing property. Then you have the situation where, if you want any of that property back, you'll dance to the tune the government wants you to. Think Social Security, et al. And unlike the private sector, you CANNOT chose to not participate. Because doing so requires you to not pay your taxes (or to try to pro-rate down the amount you pay by deducting the percentages of your tax that would otherwise have gone to programs you don't want to fund). Doing either lands you in jail.

Another example: the government takes money from you in order to build public roadways. THEN, they dictate the manner in which you will use them (seat belt laws, helmet laws, insurance laws, etc). Not arguing whether we agree the above laws are appropriate or propper, but you MUST realize that your liberty is eroded. The reason they *can* dictate to you how you use the roadways is because the government holds the purse strings.

[ThaBigP]

I think a comparative perspective can yield valuable insights in such a discussion. Closing yourself to the experience of others results in an extremely limited basis decision making. But it might not be a good idea from a certain political perspective that distrusts anything government does since education, health care, and other statistics would show that the US is falling behind countries where government is more involved and allocates more money to these programs.

Uh, Earth to Sassy? The government currently RUNS our education system. Our education system started falling behind shortly after the Nixon administration. Wanna know what happened during the Nixon administration? He created the Department of Education, which effectively nationalized our education system. Prior to that there was virtually no federal government involvement, those affairs were handled by the states (as the Constitution dicatates, but who reads that outdated "old-man" document anymore anyway). The Republicans, during the 90s, wanted to start unraveling that federal government hold on education by the modest measure of handing the Federal School Lunch program back over to the states, as such things had been for about 200 years prior to Nixon and the modern "federal control" education system model. Their reward was to be called "extremists" and they were accused of wanting to "starve children". So, by that measure, this nation was full of extremists and were starving their children up until Solomon reincarnate (i.e. Nixon) had the wisdom to start feeding our children. By creating a federal government beuracracy to oversee our education. More like "overlook" if you ask me.

Oh, and the same is true of our medical system - government meddling has lead to the run-away cost problems we have now. Take this one, for instance. If you buy health insurance through your employer, you get a tax break. Try that if you buy a policy on your own. You won't get a tax break on that. Policies like these prevent competition and market forces from keeping costs down. After all, you cannot shop around for a better deal. Thank you yet again, Big Brother.

[Sasquatch]

Yeah, those third world countries are the way they are due to lack of social programs. Same goes for the United States prior to FDR and the New Deal....wait. Your argument has merit, how exactly?

By the way, you said that the "problem isnot government per se", then go on to suggest the problem is "the way our present system is organized...". Allow me to ***** slap some information into you... "our present system" is....drumroll please....our "government". What you in effect said was "government isn't the problem, government is".

Charming, as always.

The subtext of this discussion, as pointed out in your philosophically superficial post on liberty, is the underlying ideology that views government as fundamentally bad and antagonistic to the interests of ordinary citizens. I dispute that on the grounds that government works just fine for some people as it is presently organized. That doesn't invalidate government per se which could, if organized differently, serve the common weal more effectively.

In that sense, the Third World comparison is apt, since the conservative ideal is the radical attenuation of the powers of a central government. Yet, when you look around, it is those places with more government that have a higher standard of living by most objective standards.

[Sasquatch]

Uh, Earth to Sassy? The government currently RUNS our education system. Our education system started falling behind shortly after the Nixon administration. Wanna know what happened during the Nixon administration? He created the Department of Education, which effectively nationalized our education system. Prior to that there was virtually no federal government involvement, those affairs were handled by the states (as the Constitution dicatates, but who reads that outdated "old-man" document anymore anyway). The Republicans, during the 90s, wanted to start unraveling that federal government hold on education by the modest measure of handing the Federal School Lunch program back over to the states, as such things had been for about 200 years prior to Nixon and the modern "federal control" education system model. Their reward was to be called "extremists" and they were accused of wanting to "starve children". So, by that measure, this nation was full of extremists and were starving their children up until Solomon reincarnate (i.e. Nixon) had the wisdom to start feeding our children. By creating a federal government beuracracy to oversee our education. More like "overlook" if you ask me.

Oh, and the same is true of our medical system - government meddling has lead to the run-away cost problems we have now. Take this one, for instance. If you buy health insurance through your employer, you get a tax break. Try that if you buy a policy on your own. You won't get a tax break on that. Policies like these prevent competition and market forces from keeping costs down. After all, you cannot shop around for a better deal. Thank you yet again, Big Brother.

It's simply really.

Which countries have higher levels of academic achievement?

Which countries have healthier populations and better health care outcomes?

Those with more or less government involvement/expenditure in these areas?

[ThaBigP]

Jterrell wrote:

As to your specific questions.
1. See the link above.
2. Who cares? If a program works I could care less if it has been altered in its means or intents.
3. ROFL. This is simple sophistry. The government already has power over it's individuals. That is its purpose; to govern us, it's citizens.
4. Restating 3 hardly makes this a new question but does allow more sophistry.

Thank you - you've revealed the problem here. Some folks, like you, apparently have not read either the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, neither of which indicate that the purpose of government is to "govern us, it's citizens." They both unambiguously state that government should govern the nation as a whole, but leave other affairs to the individuals and their states. You've also revealed your true opinion about liberty by characterizing concern for it's well-being as "sophistry".

[ThaBigP]

Charming, as always.

The subtext of this discussion, as pointed out in your philosophically superficial post on liberty, is the underlying ideology that views government as fundamentally bad and antagonistic to the interests of ordinary citizens. I dispute that on the grounds that government works just fine for some people as it is presently organized. That doesn't invalidate government per se which could, if organized differently, serve the common weal more effectively.

In that sense, the Third World comparison is apt, since the conservative ideal is the radical attenuation of the powers of a central government. Yet, when you look around, it is those places with more government that have a higher standard of living by most objective standards.

You're still not receiving the calls from Earth. Turn on your radio. Damn, if it's off you won't even get that request. Look, the typical point of view of a typical US conservative is that government is a necissary evil, and must be contained (not discarded outright). Cracking open a history book now and again will refresh your memory of the horrors of unchecked government power.

The nature of government, in general, is to seek more and more power. Case in point our discussion here. For the first few centuries of our national being, social programs (at least what we would recognize them to be nowadays) were as scarce as Britney Spears and Michael Jackson at a Best Parents' Convention. And we did just fine. In fact, those were the times of the rise of America on the international scene as a leader in every feild you now observe us falling behind in. Our falling behind did not start until the federal government began meddling in affairs they have no reason (or legal standing, if one were to actually *read* the Constitution) to be meddling in. Our founding fathers believed very strongly that the closer the government is to the people, the more it will be accountable to the people. Therefore, almost all responsibilities of governing were reserved for the states and local governments. The federal government was only responsible for national affairs as a whole, and international affairs. After about 150 years, we began to slowly shift that back towards the centralized federal government. But I digress, I'm being superficial again.

[ThaBigP]

And Sassy, there seems to be a symantics issue between us regarding our philosophies. My (and the typical US conservative) POV is that government needs to be spread around - to be closer to the people, especially when dealing with issues that directly affect individuals. Only those issues that are national issues (such as defense, international trade agreements, and the like) should be handled by the *federal* government. Again, the closer government is to the people, the more accountable it is to the people.

I.E. you talk about "government" spending in other countries. Not a very good comparison, since many of those governments are unitarian in nature. We have a federal system of government, whereby we actually have two "levels" - state and federal. Both are (or were, at least) similar to our three branches of federal government - essentially co-equal modes of government, with each bearing certain responsibilities as outlined in our Constitution.

Might I also point out the irony of your position. Prior to federal government meddling, we were the leaders of the world in all the aforementioned areas you've talked about. Only after our federal government began seeking more and more control did we begin to falter, bringing us down to the level of, and in many cases lower than, the rest of the world that has had central government meddling all along. Now you dare to suggest that it is *their* central government meddling that is the reason for their success? They only appear to be "successful" because we have fallen from our once lofty position. If the leader of a race crashes, that doesn't make the #2 car any faster. It just won by default since the guy kicking his *** crashed out.

[ThaBigP]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59639


Any Questions?

[ThaBigP]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%2Fbi znetdaily%2F&nclick_check=1

Any more questions?

[jterrell]

Jterrell wrote:

As to your specific questions.
1. See the link above.
2. Who cares? If a program works I could care less if it has been altered in its means or intents.
3. ROFL. This is simple sophistry. The government already has power over it's individuals. That is its purpose; to govern us, it's citizens.
4. Restating 3 hardly makes this a new question but does allow more sophistry.

Thank you - you've revealed the problem here. Some folks, like you, apparently have not read either the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, neither of which indicate that the purpose of government is to "govern us, it's citizens." They both unambiguously state that government should govern the nation as a whole, but leave other affairs to the individuals and their states. You've also revealed your true opinion about liberty by characterizing concern for it's well-being as "sophistry".

yawn.....

I have had more intellectual reading from milk cartons.

Define government without using govern all you like, you are simply being intensely ummm daft.

We are afforded rights under the Constitution most certainly. This country was founded with protecting rights in mind as well. But there is nothing in the constitution that says you do not have to pay taxes.

States rights versus National rights has been argued as long as their has been a constitution. The nation won with the defeat of the Confederates and any real argument over who should be the governing authority went with it in the 1960's as states were found to be inadequate in ruling themselves with regards to basic civil rights(something the constitution guaranteed).

The Federal Government has the highest court in the land and is the ultimate purveyor of law.

The first state to completely refuse all federal aid can talk to me about state's rights and state's authority.

[jterrell]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%2Fbi znetdaily%2F&nclick_check=1

Any more questions?

This article is saying nothing.
We are at risk for credit rating because we are so far in debt. That debt isn't based on social programs but ont he last two wars we have fought int he desert.

The Democrats balanced the budget and left Bushie with a surplus.

[jterrell]

Oh, and CC...

your brother pays payroll taxes to enable his unemployment. It is split 50/50 between himself and his employer.

The surprising thing is his employer keeps hiring him each year because most of them get out of paying unemployment by any means possible.

Last I knew max unemployment is like 300 per week and is less if you make less.
It is pretty sad anyone would live off of that for 6 months every year.

[ThaBigP]

yawn.....

I have had more intellectual reading from milk cartons.

Define government without using govern all you like, you are simply being intensely ummm daft.

We are afforded rights under the Constitution most certainly. This country was founded with protecting rights in mind as well. But there is nothing in the constitution that says you do not have to pay taxes.

States rights versus National rights has been argued as long as their has been a constitution. The nation won with the defeat of the Confederates and any real argument over who should be the governing authority went with it in the 1960's as states were found to be inadequate in ruling themselves with regards to basic civil rights(something the constitution guaranteed).

The Federal Government has the highest court in the land and is the ultimate purveyor of law.

The first state to completely refuse all federal aid can talk to me about state's rights and state's authority.

You are frightening in your ignorance of how *YOUR OWN COUNTRY* was established, and how its system of governement is supposed to work. you think that the Civil War actually ended the federalist form of government we have? . And you believe the Federal Governemtn and the Suprime Court are the "ultimate purveyor of law"? Did you not know the little thing called the Constitution is the recognized suprime law of the land? And not any of the 3 branches of our federal governement? Not to mention, those branches are "equal branches of government", not one of them is anywhere in the Constitution tasked with being the "ultimate purveyor of law"... Damn, dude. Seriosly. This is so bad it isn't funny.

[jterrell]

You are frightening in your ignorance of how *YOUR OWN COUNTRY* was established, and how its system of governement is supposed to work. you think that the Civil War actually ended the federalist form of government we have? . And you believe the Federal Governemtn and the Suprime Court are the "ultimate purveyor of law"? Did you not know the little thing called the Constitution is the recognized suprime law of the land? And not any of the 3 branches of our federal governement? Not to mention, those branches are "equal branches of government", not one of them is anywhere in the Constitution tasked with being the "ultimate purveyor of law"... Damn, dude. Seriosly. This is so bad it isn't funny.
ROFL.
Pot meet Mr Kettle.

You seriously are slow.

It really is not that hard to understand that the Supreme Court is the body of our government which interprets and rules on Constitutional authority. I do not want to turn this into some sad Mock the moron game but good grief man.

The Constitution is a document not a body of government. The body of government which has the ability to interpret and wield the power of the constitution by creating actual law is ,,,,,, du dud du duuuuu... the Supreme Court.

Sheesh.

The Civil War was fought because States felt they could refuse to obey National orders. The North in winning and taking over Southern governments did in fact prove the right of the Federal government.

And to this day federal law supercedes state law.

That isn't even debatable.
In the absence of federal law, state law rules of course, as it should.

[theogt]

Not a Democrat/Liberal/Socialist, but I'll give this a shot.

1. A social program that works?Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

2. A social program that is functioning the way it was originally intended to function?Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

3. A social program that does not take power away from the people and place it in the government's hands?Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

4. A social program that does not erode our liberty and empower our goverment?Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Please provide some evidence if you claim there is a program that does any of the above.That's not the way it works. If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove that the status quo is broken.

[ThaBigP]

ROFL.
Pot meet Mr Kettle.

You seriously are slow.

It really is not that hard to understand that the Supreme Court is the body of our government which interprets and rules on Constitutional authority. I do not want to turn this into some sad Mock the moron game but good grief man.

The Constitution is a document not a body of government. The body of government which has the ability to interpret and wield the power of the constitution by creating actual law is ,,,,,, du dud du duuuuu... the Supreme Court.

Sheesh.

The Civil War was fought because States felt they could refuse to obey National orders. The North in winning and taking over Southern governments did in fact prove the right of the Federal government.

And to this day federal law supercedes state law.

That isn't even debatable.
In the absence of federal law, state law rules of course, as it should.


Ok, so in your Wonderful World Of Jterrel, the Suprime Court makes law. And the Constitution was completely rewritten after 1865 to remove the articles that laid the foundation for our Federalist form of government, thereby creating a new unitarian form of government where the states govern at the pleasure (rather than alongside of) the federal government. Because, I suppose, when the issue of whether or not a state can ceceed from the Union was settled, it was then decided to eliminate their Constitutional standing altogether. Now THAT is a conspiracy. After all, no history book has any of that information in it.

[ThaBigP]

But I must admit, Jterrel, you are quite amusing. I imagine you with the biggest grin on your face when you make your posts, 'cause I know you firmly believe you "got me" on the issues. Sorry bud. You are a teenager. I can tell by your lack of knowledge of the most basic, fundamental principles that our government was founded on and operates on. And no wonder. I'll bet in your highschool, "Social Studies" is what passes for what used to be "History" classes. Yes, that wonderful "social studies" class where you spend four years learning how to feel bad for being white, or feel victomized if you're non-white, but not much else. Oh, and can you actually tell me what a Civics class is, without having to look it up on Wikipedia? Didn't think so.

Three cheers for the federal-governement-run education system! YEAHHH!

[ConcordCowboy]

Oh, and CC...

your brother pays payroll taxes to enable his unemployment. It is split 50/50 between himself and his employer.

The surprising thing is his employer keeps hiring him each year because most of them get out of paying unemployment by any means possible.

Last I knew max unemployment is like 300 per week and is less if you make less.
It is pretty sad anyone would live off of that for 6 months every year.

While you may be right that by the law he is eligible to get unemployment and I don't disagree...What I have a problem with is that over the last 15 years or so he has taken more out of unemployment then he will EVER put into it...EVER.

It should be stopped...they should change the law or whatever.

Nobody should get unemployment for 6 months EVERY year...NOBODY.

He knows...and the state knows that he will EVERY year be out of a job for 6 months and yet they continue to let it go on.

Again it may be his right and it may be the law...but IMO it's total BS and a fleecing of the State of Ohio and the hard working people that support his worthless *** because he certainly didn't put the money in there.

He works for Anthony Allega a huge cement construction company here in NE Ohio.

He's hardly the only one that they do this with...everyone that he works with that doesn't go out and get a job for those 6 months does the same thing.

He's a loser that has for the last 6 years lived with his parents.

That's how you live off of unemployment for 6 months a year.

And he's my Brother-In-Law...not my Brother thank God or I'd have to kill him.:D

[Viper]

While you may be right that by the law he is eligible to get unemployment and I don't disagree...What I have a problem with is that over the last 15 years or so he has taken more out of unemployment then he will EVER put into it...EVER.

It should be stopped...they should change the law or whatever.

Nobody should get unemployment for 6 months EVERY year...NOBODY.

He knows...and the state knows that he will EVERY year be out of a job for 6 months and yet they continue to let it go on.

Again it may be his right and it may be the law...but IMO it's total BS and a fleecing of the State of Ohio and the hard working people that support his worthless *** because he certainly didn't put the money in there.

He works for Anthony Allega a huge cement construction company here in NE Ohio.

He's hardly the only one that they do this with...everyone that he works with that doesn't go out and get a job for those 6 months does the same thing.

He's a loser that has for the last 6 years lived with his parents.

That's how you live off of unemployment for 6 months a year.

And he's my Brother-In-Law...not my Brother thank God or I'd have to kill him.:D

I am a bit confused, aren't you the one electing the individuals who make the laws that allow him to do this? Listen to Cajun, he's your friend... he'll guide you away from the darkside.

[theogt]

Here's one thing that pisses me off.

My 42 y/o brother-in-law works here in Ohio in Road Construction.

They generally work 6/7 months of the year, depending on the weather.

Then when the weather gets bad and they can't work he just sits on his *** and starts collecting Unemployment for 5/6 months EVERY YEAR!

That's BS and should be stopped. He's able bodied and should have to get another job for that time.

He's a sponge on society that should be wringed out.

And to think that there are thousands like him in Ohio and other states that you can't work year round because of the weather.

Obviously just one small example of milking the system...but come on man.

6 months of unemployment payments EVERY YEAR!There are a lot of jobs like this, that are either cyclical by necessity or by design that take advantage of unemployment. Any that are cyclical by design should certainly be dealt with, but those that are cyclical by nature (like construction, due to weather) are much harder to deal with. Simply getting rid of unemployment benefits would likely mean your brother and others like him would simply find other jobs and it'd be much more difficult to fill those construction jobs that are necessary.

[ConcordCowboy]

I am a bit confused, aren't you the one electing the individuals who make the laws that allow him to do this? Listen to Cajun, he's your friend... he'll guide you away from the darkside.

Well considering I've voted for Republican lawmakers in my state up intil the last two elections and they didn't change things...why would I think they're going to know? This just didn't start...this has been going on for more that 15 years with him.

I'm not blaming anyone...I'm just saying something should change...will it?

Doubtful.

To me this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue...It's a right or wrong issue.

I don't care who fixes it...it just needs to be fixed.

This isn't a major issue to me...just pisses me off.

More so because I see my worthless Brother-In-Law doing it...so it hits home more.

There are a lot of jobs like this, that are either cyclical by necessity or by design that take advantage of unemployment. Any that are cyclical by design should certainly be dealt with, but those that are cyclical by nature (like construction, due to weather) are much harder to deal with. Simply getting rid of unemployment benefits would likely mean your brother and others like him would simply find other jobs and it'd be much more difficult to fill those construction jobs that are necessary.

Bottom line to me...I said ME is no one should EVER get six months of unemployment every year no matter what the circumstances.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Guys please remember that this is a family friendly board. So don't let the language get out of hand.

Also please remember the guidelines...

* Politics and political discussions are allowed ONLY in the Political Zone. Political discussions outside of that Zone are strictly forbidden and the enforcement of this Guideline will be strict. If you cannot stand another poster because of his/her politics your best course of action is the Ignore feature. If wars between political combatants spill into other forums the enforcement will be strict. Violating this guideline may result in your post being deleted and/or your account being suspended or banned.

* Offensive language will not be tolerated on this site. This includes but is not limited to circumventing the language filter. This means misspelling a word to get around the filter will not be tolerated. You should be able to express your opinions without using vulgar language. If you cannot express yourself without being vulgar this site is not for you. Before you post anything, it is in your best interest to read it back to yourself, and wonder if there will be an issue with it. If you are not sure, do NOT post the content you are not sure of. Violating this guideline may result in your post being edited or deleted and/or your account being suspended or banned.

* Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of this site are not allowed. Name-calling and commentary about another user's family, intelligence, etc. may all be considered personal in nature. We understand that some good-natured ribbing will occur. If this good-natured ribbing starts to become personal we will step in and put a stop to it. Discretion on when something becomes too personal is entirely up to the Staff with one notable exception; if you feel someone is becoming too personal with you, report this to a member of the Staff. Under no circumstances should you retaliate in kind. This cannot be stressed enough. We will NOT care who started it. Violating this guideline may result in your post being deleted and/or your account being suspended or banned.

[theogt]

Bottom line to me...I said ME is no one should EVER get six months of unemployment every year no matter what the circumstances.I think you're just being short-sighted. If it allows construction workers to actually maintain their jobs, don't you think that some of the construction done by these workers could actually benefit you, at least indirectly? Or at least benefit the economy such that it offsets the tax money spent on the unemployment?

I don't know that that is the case, but it certainly could be. We just don't know.

[ConcordCowboy]

I think you're just being short-sighted. If it allows construction workers to actually maintain their jobs, don't you think that some of the construction done by these workers could actually benefit you, at least indirectly? Or at least benefit the economy such that it offsets the tax money spent on the unemployment?

I don't know that that is the case, but it certainly could be. We just don't know.

What's wrong with getting some kind of job for the six months that he doesn't work?

I mean just sitting on your arse for six months and doing nothing and collecting a paycheck?

Sorry but you'll never convince me that what he does is THAT beneficial to me or the economy.

What would be beneficial is if he actually went out and got a job during those six months and contributed to society.

Just because he got a job in those six months doesn't mean that he can't or won't go back to his construction job...it just means that he's not going to sit around and be a worthless slug.

If that job is better than his construction job and he doesn't go back...Oh well there are always going to be people who can pour or cut cement.

If that's short sighted..oh well.