U.S. Budget & OBBB | OCT 1 - Gov’t Shutdown Begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 70K
  • Politics 
rodoheel said:
Why/how? How are you distinguishing the "good" of helping people "who, by no fault of their own, don't have the capability of being financially self-sufficient" from the "bad" of "actual welfare"?
Click to expand...
I'm also curious what Zen means by "actual welfare." Here are the programs that are generally considered welfare:
  • TANF/SSI subsidies for severely impoverished families with children, elderly people, or disabled people
  • SNAP/WIC food subsidies
  • Medicaid/CHIP medical programs
  • Section 8 housing subsidies
Zen, please explain to us how any of those programs have done "serious harm" to the country. TIA.
 
Last edited:
lawtig02 said:
I'm also curious what Zen means by "actual welfare." Here are the programs that are generally considered welfare:
  • TANF/SSI subsidies for the elderly, disabled or severely impoverished
  • SNAP/WIC food subsidies
  • Medicaid/CHIP medical programs
  • Section 8 housing subsidies
Zen, please explain to us how any of those programs have done "serious harm" to the country. TIA.
Click to expand...
Duh: calories are a gateway drug to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
 
rodoheel said:
Why/how? How are you distinguishing the "good" of helping people "who, by no fault of their own, don't have the capability of being financially self-sufficient" from the "bad" of "actual welfare"?
Click to expand...
Opinions will vary on where the line is drawn, but no redistribution doesn't work and full socialism-type redistribution also doesn't work.
 
ZenMode said:
Opinions will vary on where the line is drawn, but no redistribution doesn't work and full socialism-type redistribution also doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Uh, ok, but that isn't an answer to my question at all. What exactly are you saying has been bad for the country, and what is the basis/reason for saying that>
 
Should we just get rid of Congress? They don't do anything anymore and it appears most of America just wants a CEO president who can just decide what to do at any time.
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
Should we just get rid of Congress? They don't do anything anymore and it appears most of America just wants a CEO president who can just decide what to do at any time.
Click to expand...
We pretty much don't have a SCOTUS-so Yea, why not
 
rodoheel said:
Uh, ok, but that isn't an answer to my question at all. What exactly are you saying has been bad for the country, and what is the basis/reason for saying that>
Click to expand...
It's fairly well accepted that the growth of welfare has compromised the family structure in many communities.

Government money is replacing husbands/fathers.
 
ZenMode said:
It's fairly well accepted that the growth of welfare has compromised the family structure in many communities.

Government money is replacing husbands/fathers.
Click to expand...
Got any support for that? I'm happy to read anything on the subject. I have a hard time following the conclusion that welfare is what has caused families to break apart (or never form).
 
ZenMode said:
It's fairly well accepted that the growth of welfare has compromised the family structure in many communities.

Government money is replacing husbands/fathers.
Click to expand...
Wait, you think men are leaving their families because TANF and SNAP benefits are chasing them away?
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
Should we just get rid of Congress? They don't do anything anymore and it appears most of America just wants a CEO president who can just decide what to do at any time.
Click to expand...
We are fast following the track of the Roman Republic in this regard, and anyone who thinks it will end well is crazy. IMO restoring Congress to a functioning legislative body has to be a major priority for Dems. Which will mean, in part, sacking up and getting rid of (or at least substantially reforming) the modern filibuster. The problem right now is that a combination of factors, both internal and external to Congress, have incentivized individual members of Congress to effectively cede their own legislative power in exchange for a system that makes it more likely for them to get reelected. Many of them have determined that not passing legislation and pushing everything off on the president is the best way for them to survive.
 
rodoheel said:
Got any support for that? I'm happy to read anything on the subject. I have a hard time following the conclusion that welfare is what has caused families to break apart (or never form).
Click to expand...
There have been many studies done on the topic with the many finding negative impacts particularly among non-white women.

I'm surprised, given that this has been a fairly well discussed topic, even among liberals, that you are at all familiar.

It shouldn't be surprising that men would find it easier to leave knowing that the government will pick up the financial slack.

The research literature on the effects of welfare on marriage and fertility contains a large number of studies over the last 30 years. The studies use a variety of methodologies, employ several different datasets with different types of individuals, and cover different time periods. Several studies were conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s, but there has been a second wave of studies beginning in the mid-1980s and still under way. Based on the early studies, a consensus among researchers developed a decade or so ago that the welfare system had no effect on these demographic outcomes. However, a majority of the newer studies show that welfare has a significantly negative effect on marriage or a positive effect on fertility rather than none at all. Because of this shift in findings, the current consensus is that the welfare system probably has some effect on these demographic outcomes.

 
superrific said:
The courts have already decided. The Supreme Court merely stayed the judgment because they are fuckheads, but they didn't say it was legal. All the other courts have determined that Vought's bullshit is illegal.

My "rants" are nothing personal to you. It's just that you, like all of MAGA, seem congenitally incapable of caring about anything that doesn't affect you. Let's suppose, hypothetically speaking, the government were to take your bar license and prevent you from practicing law because it thinks you aren't aligned with the president's priorities. Would you sue? Would you think it unjust? Or would you just take it? Pretty sure I know the answer. And yet you are perfectly happy to fuck others over.

Your inability to answer these questions is telling on yourself.
Click to expand...
The government arbitrarily seizing my bar license for political differences is completely different from the government following the law in deporting illegals or from firing some unnecessary government workers (fucking others over?). There’s no lifetime tenure to possess a job in government. I have a property right in my license to practice law. No such right exists to remain illegally in this country or to have a salaried job.
 
rodoheel said:
BTW note that ram chose not to respond to this - because he agrees with it but knows he can't admit it out loud.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t agree with the way you phrased your loaded statement. I do agree that conservatives accept a lot from Trump since he supports our broad view of government, gets things done and generally outwits Dems.
 
Ramrouser said:
I certainly don’t agree with the way you phrased your loaded statement. I do agree that conservatives accept a lot from Trump since he supports our broad view of government, gets things done and generally outwits Dems.
Click to expand...
Yes, again, you're not saying anything inconsistent with what I posted. I totally get it - to you, winning the political fight trumps (no pun intended) everything else. There is no constitutional or legal violation (at least one that you're not the victim of) too big that you would let it get in the way of you winning the political fight. You don't care about the due process rights of people being removed from the country; if a few legal immigrants get swept up and sent to foreign countries, you don't care, because no one is going to deport people like you and you don't want those brown people here anyway. You don't care that the Trump admin keeps shamelessly lying to federal judges about its activities, because they're lying in service of policies you support. You don't care that Trump repeatedly does things, or tries to do things, that the constitution says he can't do, because you agree the things he's trying to do. You don't care about Trump trying to dictate what universities can or can't teach, because the things he wants to force them to teach are things you agree with.

That's the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - liberals care about the constitutional order, and civil liberties, and following the law, all the time, and not just when they stand to benefit. You, on the other hand, could not care less if Trump wads the constitution up and wipes his ass with it, because he's fighting on your behalf. You may bristle at labels like "fascism" and "authoritarianism" as pejorative, but in practice, nothing about those philosophies bother you as long as the power is being exercised to your benefit.

Your side is in power now - you don't have to try to hide it. You can embrace it. It's not like there's any point in pretending you care about the civil rights of your political opponents.
 
Ramrouser said:
The government arbitrarily seizing my bar license for political differences is completely different from the government following the law in deporting illegals or from firing some unnecessary government workers (fucking others over?). There’s no lifetime tenure to possess a job in government. I have a property right in my license to practice law. No such right exists to remain illegally in this country or to have a salaried job.
Click to expand...
1. A property right in your law license? You sure about that, chief?

2. But if Congress says, "this person shall have a job," your contention is that the executive can say, "nah, no lifetime tenure"? Or if Congress says, "we appropriate X dollars to this cause," the executive can say, "nah."

3. Do you understand that the issue isn't whether the person is being deprived of something, but rather the legality of the means?

4. Since you do not actually have a property right in your law license, according to the Georgia Supreme Court, isn't your own situation similar? You have a law license which can be taken from you, but only through certain procedures set forth in the law. Federal employees have a job that can be taken, but only through certain procedures set forth in the law.

5. The reason you would complain about the government pulling your law license isn't that it's property. It's that the government should follow the goddamn law because that's what rule of law means. But when you abandon the rule of law for others, you have no right to invoke it for yourself.
 
If Trump declares the Democratic Party a violent terrorist organization and declares it illegal for them to run candidates in elections - which is something Stephen Miller and others have openly said should be done - I can absolutely promise you that ramrouser will not raise one peep of protest about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top