Welcome to Thunderdome

Cakedaddy wrote: I think the biggest boost to welfare recipients would be if they got rid of all lotteries. Scratch off, powerball, etc. I see so many poor people wasting money on lottery tickets, its infuriating.

On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other, people should be free to whatever.

Cakedaddy wrote: A combination of a raise and more hours at time and half. Instead, he quit his job so he could go back to getting $1600 a month (plus stamps, etc) by not working at all.

We definitely need a better gradient towards unsubsidizing people.

Agree. Free to do whatever. But with my money too?

Cakedaddy wrote: Agree. Free to do whatever. But with my money too?

I've always had the opinion that beggars can't be choosers, and when tax payers are directly paying for food and health care for other people, then tax payers should have a direct say in how that money gets spent/how these people feed and take care of themselves.

Others on this forum (or formerly on) argued about that, saying tax payer money doesn't go DIRECTLY to other people, it goes into the general fund, gets all mixed up, then paid out, and for that reason no, people with the money don't get to boss around the people taking that money.

I find that argument to be morally ignorant, but you can't change any minds.

I think people would become a lot more self-sufficient if suddenly they actually had to work for their meals. Get the kids out... not their fault... but give tough love to everyone else.

TheCatt wrote: Providing this as a counter-point. Not my argument.
Counter-point

That counter point is clearly biased as fuck and not exactly playing with facts. It's propaganda. Let me prove it.

Here's what I said, and what the MSM said about Trump's proposed reforms:

Leisher wrote: He wants more of them working if they can.

Here's a quote from her counterpoint:

Make no mistake: taking healthcare, food, and housing away from struggling workers has nothing to do with helping anyone work.

Emphasis mine. She's, literally, trying to have it both ways. "These poor people work so hard! you can't make them work!"

Here's another of her "facts":

But let’s get one thing clear. WE DON’T HAVE WELFARE IN AMERICA ANYMORE. Congress eliminated it in 1996.

The word "welfare" sure is used a lot in the U.S. Budget... Maybe they meant to type "1% tax cuts" and it came out as "welfare"?

All of her listed stats mean nothing with unbiased sources. This is a stance I've decided to start taking due to all the anti-gun nuts constantly citing "30,000 annual deaths to gun violence", which is one of the most manipulative stats in history.

Also, I think it's hilarious that she lists out how welfare programs work a paragraph after saying welfare no longer exists.

Rather, pushing for “work requirements” is at the core of the GOP strategy to reinforce the following myths about poverty in America...

Do I even need to make a comment? Anytime your argument is draped in blatant bigotry, you lose because half your audience stops listening. The only people still listening are the people already converted.

1) That “the poor” are some stagnant group of people who “just don’t want to work”

Ignorance, propaganda, or both. Trying to end loopholes to prevent 5 fucking generations of a family from subsisting strictly upon welfare, something Katrina exposed with countless examples, isn't a condemnation of all poor people.

2) That anyone who wants a well-paying job can snap her fingers to make one appear

Emphasis mine. I forget where this example comes from, but there was a documentary or a John Stozel piece that detailed folks looking for jobs. One man had been on welfare for years. When asked what he had done to find a job, he indicated that he sends out resumes and makes calls every month. They followed up and asked him what he was looking for..."management level jobs". Ok, have you worked in management? What are your qualifications? No college degree. No job longer than a year. Never even achieved an assistant manager level. His final quote was "I know what I can do and what I'm worth. Until I get offered a management position, I won't have a job." Yep, that's really a "struggling worker" and not someone taking advantage of a broken system.

3) That having a job is all it takes to not be poor

Ignorance, propaganda, or both. Nobody says that. People with jobs know what it takes to get one, and the pay level needed to survive. Whatever happened to busting your ass working more than one job? Working and going to school (something I'm currently doing...)? Bust your ass and do a good fucking job so you can get a better one.

If this woman's facts and argument were correct, Cake's worker wouldn't have been able to quit a good paying job to live off the government tit. I wouldn't have worked with a guy who for over a decade worked during part of fall, winter, and part of spring, then would get himself fired to take summers off and live off unemployment/welfare. There wouldn't be generations of people who don't work and only exist thanks to government checks.

Is it really so fucking wrong to simply ask folks getting free money, training, health care, etc. from tax payers that they work if they're able?

Again, welfare isn't supposed to be a way to live. It's a crutch until you can walk on your own.

In other Trump news...

Considering mandatory drug testing for welfare.

It's a fact that drug dealers take SNAP cards and whatnot, so clearly this might find some offenders. However, I doubt this will have the intended effect. It'll probably just be higher costs and forcing some people into crime.

Trump might have an illegitimate child.

There's zero proof or evidence, but it's being reported as fact because a doorman who knows the rumor seems to have been paid off ala Stormy Daniels. Interesting that a doorman was paid off, but not the woman...

Serious question: Does the IRS take notice of this stuff? "Hey Stormy, we see you made $130K a few years back that you didn't report..."

Leisher wrote: In other Trump news...

Considering mandatory drug testing for welfare.

It's a fact that drug dealers take SNAP cards and whatnot, so clearly this might find some offenders. However, I doubt this will have the intended effect. It'll probably just be higher costs and forcing some people into crime.

I HEARD that they did this in some state, and only found like 1% of welfare recipients using drugs, and the test kits cost 100x the money they saved in welfare.

But the other scam, trading their SNAP cards for cash for less than the value, will only be solved by taking away the SNAP card and doling out the food. And then babysitting the recipient for 30 days straight making sure they consume the food and not sell it at a deep discount.

Leisher wrote: Considering mandatory drug testing for welfare.

Please don't waste my money.

Leisher wrote: There's zero proof or evidence, but it's being reported as fact because a doorman who knows the rumor seems to have been paid off ala Stormy Daniels. Interesting that a doorman was paid off, but not the woman...

For all we know, she was paid off really well?

TheCatt wrote: For all we know, she was paid off really well?

I hope so.

I just think it's so weird that they paid a doorman to shut up based on him knowing a rumor. I think we should start a rumor and try to get paid off to shut up about it.

1% of welfare recipients using drugs. I guess if you're going to lie, lie big. OH, wait. Unless it's the old "I don't do drugs. I smoke weed. But I don't do drugs." argument. But then, you'd have to count children as well. You have to figure most of the beneficiaries of the welfare system are children/infants. Were they drug testing infants too?

Cakedaddy wrote: 1% of welfare recipients using drugs. I guess if you're going to lie, lie big. OH, wait. Unless it's the old "I don't do drugs. I smoke weed. But I don't do drugs." argument. But then, you'd have to count children as well. You have to figure most of the beneficiaries of the welfare system are children/infants. Were they drug testing infants too?

I don't remember the details. It was in some state that liberals hate... Minnesota? And they actually drug tested welfare recipients, but they weren't getting many hits, and the drug tests cost a lot of money.

I don't know... one could prolly google it if they were curious.

They should have used those drug kits that cops use that ping positive for meth when exposed to donut glaze. They'd get a lot more hits, then.

Cakedaddy wrote: 1% of welfare recipients using drugs. I guess if you're going to lie, lie big. OH, wait. Unless it's the old "I don't do drugs. I smoke weed. But I don't do drugs." argument. But then, you'd have to count children as well. You have to figure most of the beneficiaries of the welfare system are children/infants. Were they drug testing infants too?

Drugs aren't cheap

Alcohol abuse seems to be more prevalent among the upper income bracket, and also correlates with higher education:
Approximately 78% of individuals with an income of $75,000 and above reported that they consumed alcohol, compared with 45% of those with an annual income of less than $30,000.
More than 80% of college graduates reported that they drank, in comparison to less than 52% of those who had a high-school education or less.
In another study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers found that people living in high income areas had the highest alcohol and marijuana consumption rates.

Alcohol and marijuana aren't cheap. They're legal.

Street drugs can be had for much cheaper prices.

Leisher wrote: Trump wants back in on trans-pac.

You know what would have been great? Doing the TPP a year ago.

I expect he’ll eventually join back up with the climate agreement too.

The AM Twitter tirades this week have just been embarrassing. A sitting president having a hissy fit on Twitter as part of his morning constitution or something.

Even the Russians have asked him to stop, because it hurts diplomatic relations when he threatens to bomb countries on SOCIAL MEDIA. The fucking Russians.

I don’t have anything witty to wrap this up. It sucks.

I'm sooooo over him.

It's in no way justifiable.

He's a fucking ego driven child in the body of a man whose shape is that of whatever container you pour him into. (Shout out to Patrice O'Neal on that one.)

This one's for Cake:
Latest lottery winner was playing for only the second time.

The one before that was a girl playing for the first time. Stories like this are why people spend all their money on lotto tickets.

Press Sec lying her face off. Which IS her job, to be fair. She should just do it better.

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/985329759759601665

1. VP Pence was on a trip in Peru
2. PressSec would not be allowed in the Situation Room during a military action