• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Compassionate Conservatives, all of them

ImTheCaptain said:
that's a different conversation. we're talking about attaching strings to recipients of federal dollars, businesses in particular. welfare/tax breaks...it's still giving money to someone at the expense of someone else.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When a for profit company pays billions of dollars in taxes and gets millions in tax breaks, it is a net payer. In effect, it is being asked to pay less. The government is giving it some of its own contributions back.

When someone doesn't pay in at all and only takes out, then you have redistribution.
 
still a different discussion.

are you getting financial assistance from the government? yes. then here are the strings.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
still a different discussion.

are you getting financial assistance from the government? yes. then here are the strings.
Click to expand...

If our government had tighter strings, we wouldn't be 20 trillion upside down. No objection here.

I still don't see how you fix an epidemic of cratering families with another handout. More anesthetic for bad choices isn't going to deter their recurrence. We've eventually got to address that, right? Or no?
 
right...but we're talking about reforming how we handle Welfare in to a better and more efficient use of funds, not whether or not it should exist.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If our government had tighter strings, we wouldn't be 20 trillion upside down. No objection here.
Click to expand...

Not all strings are equal, and you know that. We spend like 6% of GDP on defense every year, peace time or not, which is a couple hundred billion more than #2
 
ImTheCaptain said:
right...but we're talking about reforming how we handle Welfare in to a better and more efficient use of funds, not whether or not it should exist.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should exist, at least not in the way we are currently administering it. How much does it cost to feed a child for a week? I bet I could feed a child for $5.00 a day during times of scarcity and probably sustain in during most times at around $8.00 per day.

Do we really believe that most people on AFDC are incapable of generating $8.00 per day per person in their house? You can deal with housing, utilities and health care through third party payments, if we just asked people to provide food for their own children, how many really couldn't do it? I don't care about the $8.00, I care about the child seeing the example of effort and personal responsibility.

A loaf of bread costs $2.25.
A gallon of milk is $3.25.
A 5 lb. bag of apples is $4.00.
A dozen eggs is $2.00.
A bag of carrots is $0.74.
A can of tuna is $0.65.
A jar of Mayo is $1.50.

That would feed a child for three days. The money---government money, I mean---ain't the issue. The example and modeling is priceless.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
Not all strings are equal, and you know that. We spend like 6% of GDP on defense every year, peace time or not, which is a couple hundred billion more than #2
Click to expand...

[insert pie chart showing how entitlement spending dwarfs defense this year and every year here, version 2,742]
 
ImTheCaptain said:
so you consider Medicare and Medicaid the same as foodstamps? and SS?
Click to expand...

I don't consider Medicare and SS the same thing as Medicaid during the present.

In 35 years, I will, as they will all be extinct.

It is not the money I am concerned about.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I don't consider Medicare and SS the same thing as Medicaid during the present.

In 35 years, I will, as they will all be extinct.

It is not the money I am concerned about.
Click to expand...

You don't really believe that do you?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
still a different discussion.

are you getting financial assistance from the government? yes. then here are the strings.
Click to expand...

I'll take a drug test if you bring back direct payments to farmers.
 
Another interesting aspect Wrangor. If we're going to cut everyone off from government let's just call it support at this point for a failed drug test, are we going to reward people with government let's just call it support at this point if they take and pass a drug test?
 
ONW said:
Another interesting aspect Wrangor. If we're going to cut everyone off from government let's just call it support at this point for a failed drug test, are we going to reward people with government let's just call it support at this point if they take and pass a drug test?
Click to expand...

Kind of confusing wording. I think you may have been typing on your phone. But I think I agree with the concept. The reason government supports agriculture is the same reason it has welfare in my opinion. Bc it is in our nations best interest to have a stable agricultural base and because it is in iur nations best interest to keep people from starving. If keeping people off of drugs is also in the nations best interest (I personally agree with that idea) them I really would have no problem with some sort of no drug stipulation for aid. Not sure how it would practically work out (and it may not) but I have no philosophical quarrels with that concept.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that post is simply turrible use of the English language. I'm glad you were able to decipher it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Not necessarily. When a for profit company pays billions of dollars in taxes and gets millions in tax breaks, it is a net payer. In effect, it is being asked to pay less. The government is giving it some of its own contributions back.

When someone doesn't pay in at all and only takes out, then you have redistribution.
Click to expand...

If we'd all be net payers, then there would be no moochers to bitch about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top