RE: A or B, not yes or no.

RE: A or B, not yes or no. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 6:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAnnamariela about the right wing radio being an opiate, i think u never listen to it so why slander it..you give no examples, just a deprecate comment..not good enough..very small, narrow minded...as many Dems, libs and independents and libertarians r on "right wing radio" ..so that would shoot down the generalization..so being mature about it helps..research? experience? best wishes. I've listened to dozens if not hundreds of hours of it via satellite radio and continue to do so weekly. I laugh my ass off as I do because it's better than any of the 4 comedy channels. NEXT!!! It is a blast to listen to....especially now.....OMG ...OMG ....rush is eating up inside...... But there are also plenty of media watch groups who listen to all the shows and point out,quote and report on what he says..... Years ago....rush would have gotten little attention using the word slut to describe a female apponant.....He used the word,,,,,feminazi for years and still does......It used to be boi and rich`s dirty little secret....they could get a laugh outta rush without any embarrassment... But today......with the watch groups and social media and advertisers` embarrassment......rush has been punished.

slvemike4u -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 6:25:39 PM)
I have taken to listening to it in the car...good comedy is funny no matter the political leanings [:)]

erieangel -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAnnamariela u mean women and children without husbands fathers or family right? married to the government..what a sad future..no inspiration, pride, creativity stimulation ..just get by...which is not working for Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia or...anywhere.. I'll have you know, I was one of those kids without a father--I turned out fine. I also didn't have a husband for long after I became disabled. It seems my husband was unable to deal with my disability and he bailed on a sick wife and 2 small children and soon became my ex-husband. If not for the social safety net in the form of SSI (supplemental security income) we would have been homeless. I own a home--and owe nothing on it!! Thanks for playing.

dcnovice -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:06:23 PM)
quote: u mean women and children without husbands fathers or family right? married to the government..what a sad future..no inspiration, pride, creativity stimulation ..just get by...which is not working for Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia or...anywhere.. [image]http://images.dailykos.com/i/user/141912/SingleMoms.jpg[/image]

tweakabelle -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:25:24 PM)
Thank you erieangel and dcnovice for speaking up on behalf single mothers, a group of people who are viciously maligned with little or no reason by so many on the Right. Single mums are usually too busy bringing up their kids to answer back to the slurs. They don't have the time, the energy or the inclination to answer back publicly and there's far too few people willing to stand up on their behalf. Your posts are proof positive that the stereotype of drug addled single mums gaming the welfare system (so beloved by the Right) are false and vicious caricatures that have little or nothing to do with reality. The real proof of contribution single mums make is the millions of well adjusted self sufficient citizens who were raised in single parent households. Thanks again.

slvemike4u -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:39:24 PM)
I sometimes sit and wonder just how wonderful my life would have been had I been raised by a single mother . It nearly happened,my mother to get away from an abusive husband had moved us all to Cleveland,her older sister lived there,I was young,attended kindergarten there,I remember being so happy. An illness in the family (an aunt had gotten cancer,soon to pass away,my uncle needed help with his children)brought us back to New York. My mother ,as often happens,once again fell prey to that scumbags charming ways.It was all good at first,meeting good old dad was a blast(I had forgotten him) but the violence started soon after...and it was a constant for the rest of my childhood. In some cases there are worse things than a father not being there.....he could actually be there

tazzygirl -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:40:57 PM)
Its the Bibilical belief that once a woman marries, its for life, for better or worse, regardless of how worse it becomes.

slvemike4u -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 7:47:15 PM)
That should never ,ever extend to "how worse" it becomes when it is the children paying that price. My mother is still with us,and I would never voice this anywhere near her...but no woman has the right to stay in an abusive relationship once she witness's her child getting struck...at least that's the way I look at it. But maybe that's because it was me getting struck so much....lol

TheHeretic -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 9:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I think it's important to distinguish between two questions: (a) How do we prevent abuses of the safety net, public or private? and (b) Can the private sector effectively address poverty entirely on its own? Let's take your second question first, DC. No, it it can't all happen in the NGO's. There is an important role for the government to play, both in providing the bare bones (or main load bearing lines, if we want to keep the metaphor intact) of the safety net, and certainly in the long-term disabilty segment. Block grants came up earlier in the thread (assuming the post is still there), and those can be used very well (or misused badly, depending). Abuses of the system come in lots of varieties, from bureaucratic bloat, to crazy and flat out crooked NGO's at the top, and down to outright fraud, and the stereotypical lazy welfare wastoids (say the live-in 20-something boyfriend of a chick with two kids, who sells a little weed, drinks cheap booze, and plays x-box all day) at the bottom. Bloat requires a government fix. We don't seem to have such a vision in Washinton currently. Bad NGO's are countered with rules and reporting requirements from the government, and the big corporate donors. This becomes a problem in itself. You asked about the percentage who are just playing the game. He couldn't tell you, beyond a guesstimate. He needs a big private grant for a full-time office staff, before he can even think about a grant to keep the place going, and build what he wants to see. Case fraud is a fun one. Nearly all welfare fraud goes to an administrative hearing and apeal, rather than any sort of criminal prosecution. Because those records stay private, it is easy for the impassioned and automatic defenders of the status quo to demand we produce the perpetrator, then call the odd ones that saw a jury, "isolated incidents." Ever do your shopping at a grocery store near a poor area, right around the first of the month? It's like the joke goes; "someday I'm going to save enough to get the cool new i-Phone, like the girl ahead of me with the food stamp card." I'd like to see a two-pronged approach, where we both get rid of the individual initiave destroying program rules that make a teen-ager who mows lawns a violation, and put some teeth into the prosecutions of outrageous fraud when it occurs. The mentality? The multi-generational sub-culture where Momma takes her 18 year old birthday girl down to put her name on the Section 8 waiting list? The recipient who is quite content to sit and get buzzed on a filthy old couch every day? The sort of incompetent dependency I referenced with the window story? I'm happy to brainstorm it, but I don't have an answer for that. We used to fight it with shame, but there really doesn't seem to be such a thing these days.

Owner59 -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 9:57:00 PM)
I`ll be ok with a few innocents getting killed by the nation`s justice system, in order to protect the populace,as you have implied in the past.... If you`ll be ok with a few dollars getting wasted/lost, in order to maintain a robust safety net. We could make defense spending the comparison...... I`ll be ok wasting a few hundred billions here and there in order to insure a robust defense program.... If you`ll be ok with some food stamp fraud ,in an effort to make sure no child goes without essential nuitrition and health cate.... My impression of republicans thus far is they`d rather have blood-lust and guns over butter and healthy UMs.

tazzygirl -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 11:00:29 PM)
quote: Case fraud is a fun one. Nearly all welfare fraud goes to an administrative hearing and apeal, rather than any sort of criminal prosecution. Because those records stay private, it is easy for the impassioned and automatic defenders of the status quo to demand we produce the perpetrator, then call the odd ones that saw a jury, "isolated incidents." Ever do your shopping at a grocery store near a poor area, right around the first of the month? It's like the joke goes; "someday I'm going to save enough to get the cool new i-Phone, like the girl ahead of me with the food stamp card." I'd like to see a two-pronged approach, where we both get rid of the individual initiave destroying program rules that make a teen-ager who mows lawns a violation, and put some teeth into the prosecutions of outrageous fraud when it occurs. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rendell-administration-announces-crackdown-on-welfare-fraud-in-allegheny-county-55065572.html http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/couple-in-seattle-lake-home-sued-in-welfare-fraud-222981/?print=1 http://triblive.com/news/fayette/2222255-74/fraud-welfare-costs-fines-general-guilty-inspector-office-ordered-pay#axzz2C5FE1P1e PA seems to prosecute.

tweakabelle -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/12/2012 11:19:23 PM)
Here's some interesting facts in relation to service delivery and 'welfare fraud' taken directly from my own experience. A few years ago, I was asked to conduct a comprehensive review of the operations of a small welfare agency catering to a small but highly marginalised community. The staff consisted of a F/T manager, a F/T admin worker, 3 F/T and 3 P/T case workers.Structurally the organisation was top heavy - 2 F/T workers supervising the operations of 4.5 F/T case workers. The obvious question was why were funds slated for funding service delivery being swallowed up by administration? The manager spent fully 1/3 of his time chasing new funding, another 1/3 ensuring existing funding requirements were honoured and the rest in work devoted to the community. This was clearly very inefficient. The admin duties were light and could have been handled quite easily by a single admin person. The amount of time wasted chasing funding or satisfying existing funding requirements could easily have funded another F/T case worker directly addressing the needs of the community the agency was established to serve. Leaving the manager aside for a moment, satisfying funding requirements also swallowed up to 40% of a case workers time on the job. Why was funding so difficult and time consuming to obtain and service? I found that the main reason was that funding was inordinately difficult to obtain, and when obtained, came with a host of unnecessary stringent conditions including funding body participation in service delivery management. Why was this an issue? Mainly to prevent public criticism of the agency by outsiders, media and Right wingers looking for political capital by exposing "welfare fraud and inefficiencies". The pressure for efficiency and fraud-proofing of public money was so onerous that it acted as a severe impediment to service delivery. It became so counter productive that it ended up being the leading cause of service inefficiency. The staff were adamant that they would much prefer to devote their time energy and skills to service delivery rather than satisfying unnecessary and onerous bureaucratic demands. More sensible funding arrangements, with only the necessary reporting requirements would have funded an additional 2 F/T service delivery positions. I could go on but the main point is obvious. The paranoia created by politically inspired criticism from circles whose agenda was welfare destruction - the usual Right Wing fare - was so insidious that it prevented sensible service delivery. The amount of time money and energy wasted preventing or seeking out the often non-existent welfare frauds - frauds and waste that the Right insist are there, despite the lack of evidence - can be far far greater than any savings that might (or might not) accrue.

LaTigresse -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 4:28:07 AM)
As a former teen mother. Then a single mother with two childre. I laugh at the far right's misconceptions of women like myself. I used more 'free' government handouts when I was married to my first husband. Because he, and his good christian mother and father (both business owners) encouraged it. I was the eldest child of six kids in a good christian house. Until my dad got sick of my mothers slutting around and my mother got sick of my dad's drinking and poor money management. My mother then went on welfare, and also, aborted her 7th child. Because it was the child of another 'married' man who was a bigshot in the town who didn't want to piss off his wife, co-owner of his business. When I got rid of my exhusband after years of his drug and alcohol abuse. I was forced to use government aid for approximately 6 months. Then I was able to find a decent job, an apartment for $80 a month, get a POS car, and I have supported my kids (who have NEVER used any sort of government aid as adults) until they were able to support themselves, and myself, all without any government aid, since. And without any sort of real, formal education. Because of my ex mother in law and her son, and more recently because of a crooked accountant, I've paid more than my fair share of taxes. Some of which go towards supporting others less fortunate. I am okay with that. Not everyone has the abilities I have. Not everyone had some of the right people come along to lift them up at just the right time, like I have. I am okay with some of my hard earned money going to help feed a kids with douchebag parents. Maybe that kid will grow up to be a more able adult than their parents..........like myself and my 5 siblings. All six of us, poor children of one of those nasty welfare hos. All six of us, working, paying taxes, supporting ourselves without government aid. All of us that have adult children, have working, tax paying children.

GotSteel -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 5:38:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This one of the ways the losers cope with rejection.....blame others.....after all,the losers are so damm awesome......it must be someone else`s fault they are a loser...... One really needs to summit bullshit mountain in order to accuse others of unfair characterizations of the other side while they themselves are the ones actually shoveling the bullshit.

TheHeretic -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:26:13 AM)
It sounds like you used the system as it should be used, LaT. Thanks for sharing.

tazzygirl -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:31:31 AM)
Many do, Rich. I navigated 3 years of nursing graduates through the system in NC. 3 years max on any use of public assistance before they were off.

mnottertail -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:37:17 AM)
I think there is fraud and waste in all parts of the private and public sectors.

tazzygirl -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:37:59 AM)
Oh definitely.... in every area.

TheHeretic -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl PA seems to prosecute. I don't have time for the links this morning, Tazzy, but I'll see if I can find you one from here, where a former welfare worker set up a string of non-existant day care centers. That one did make the papers. California may have 12% of the US population, but we've got 30% of the national caseload. We get some doozies in these parts.

mnottertail -> RE: A or B, not yes or no. (11/13/2012 6:43:36 AM)
And now (just like the voter id, we see) we hear all this whining about those who defraud welfare, and we read time to time in the papers about those actually convicted and sentenced, and it seems to be a 'catch' rate similar to the other sectors of society public and private....and when thinking of the debt and the fiscal responsibility, do we clean up generals as lobbyists and fraud in military contracts that run in the billions or do we run after the lady who traded a couple hundred in foodstamps for booze? I say all of em, each in perspective to that payoff. So far though, no plan b. Just alot of angst (without credible numbers) over the welfare fraud.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625