Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]And there are many positions in between saying global warming is a hoax, and saying it is an urgent threat to life on earth demanding radical government action.[/quote]

it'd be nice for status quo's to actually admit GW might or might not be the case, instead of saying it is in fact true or not. that's the point of XIX. he's not referring to the people that are open. so the above quote has nothing to do with XIX's point.

i also want to add. the logic of the article is apparently, less welfare and denpendcy has worked in reforms, so perhaps charity would be even better. it's not a dumb conclusion, but it's certainly unsubstantiated. the article seems to actually stand for the proposition only that throwing money at it all isn't productive, and you have to be smart about it, cause that works better. i think the article is actually leading to an opposite conclusion it asserts.

Edited November 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also the article says we should focus on prevention of getting people on welfare. no one would disagree with this.
but, what people would disagree with, is how to prevent. the only real way for government to do anything is for it to embrace some liberal principles like helping out with education etc. granted, there's an argument that gov can do nothing; i'm only referring to if it does something, that would be inherently a liberal principle.

the notion that someone on welfare isn't being self sufficient enough only reinforces that they need help.
it's hard to say who will be helped and who won't, so why focus on those who aren't helped? err on the side of aid is my contention.

i guess i admit i could see someone arguing the people who got helped by welfare re probably people who could have been helped but charity. and those who aren't helped by welfare are just getting a boost in their quality of life and not really pulling themselves out of their stupor. i guess i'd still err on the side of welfare for those who are helped, but also, as the article suggests, government needs to do more than just give people stuff.

Edited November 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's a complicated issue, as i always said.

just an fyi cause intersting.
[quote]Presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowing to "end welfare as we know it." Clinton, once elected, worked with a Democratic congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable. The stage was already set by 1996. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).[Haskins 2006; Blank 2002].[/quote]

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Sounds like the book was written by Rush Limbaugh and edited by Shaun Hannity! =0)

Edited November 24, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1424237' date='Nov 24 2007, 01:18 PM']you're not missing anything.
it's because some people are status quo to their party line. when you come across someone who is all or nothing to conservatism or liberalism, you've met what i call a status quo.
no critical thinking other than enough to back up their party line.
sure, they may disagree on how to be conservative, for example, but it's always a conservative position with these people.[/quote]
"Status quo conservative," "Status quo conservative," "Status quo conservative," blah, blah, blah.
This "Status quo conservative" line's getting old and boring, and you seem to be under the impression that typing those three words in itself somehow refutes whatever position I argue. (And it's not even accurate, as more often than not I oppose the current status quo.) If I see "status quo conservative" or some close variation thereof again, you're going on ignore permanently. This sort of condescending ad-hominem carp endlessly repeated is one reason why I don't waste much time with your posts anymore.

And if conservatives disagree on issues (including with the Republican party), how can there be a "party line"?

[quote]actually the article you're citing is mentioning all the new incentives that reformed welfare has given the people to work. the gov gave assistance when it was needed, and then inticed them to get off welfare.

also, just because people are not dying doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped out of their cycle of poverty. as long as you're not dying i doubt most charities would do a whole lot more to help you out too much.[/quote]
I think the fed government should get out of the welfare business altogether, and give more leeway to the states on what programs they use. And more should be handed over to private charities, which can handle those cases where it is really needed, once all the free-loaders are weeded out.
This is in accord with subsidiarity. Massive Federal bureaucracies are not in the best position to handle such problems.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

so you're not opposed to the state working, at least sometimes, when charities could and should do something but don't? if this is the case, what times might those be? like examples. (unless you're simply saying you wouldn't be opposed to it but no good example comes to mind. that seems like a reasonable response to me)

or are you saying it's the state job to wean the feds out of it, such that the states would give it to private charity never to intervene again, as long as charity could and should operate?

Edited November 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

remember too though that you often call people socialist and communist and liberal etc in disparaging ways.
in fact, i think the reason i'm more disparaging towards you than other conservatives is because of yoru disparaing and arrogant behavior.

i also think you misunderstand my use and implications of status quo. and i don't think i'm ad homineming or ignoring your points by doing that, as i always respond to your points separately.
also, i was not meaning to implicate you so much. i responding to XIX's points about how people can be predicable in their beliefs, given that GW has nothing to do with economics or gay/abortion morality, yet often you know what they are going to believe before they even say anything, as one example of status quo.

but, i'll try to temper my tongue and not use those words since it bothers you. promise.

Edited November 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

I have no problem with the state aiding it's weakest and helpless citizens with health care and subsidies, at least until they are able to stand up.. after all if the feds can bail out United Airlines, GM, Ford, and the other corporations - why not do the same for the little guy? Also, the feds give out ridiculous tax breaks to these million dollar companies, with tax payer dollars - instead of funneling my hard earned dollars to support a never created product like EV1, why not spend it on health and education?.. $30-50000 for a bachelor's degree is capitalism on steroids and needs reining in.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1424413' date='Nov 24 2007, 10:31 PM']so you're not opposed to the state working, at least sometimes, when charities could and should do something but don't? if this is the case, what times might those be? like examples. (unless you're simply saying you wouldn't be opposed to it but no good example comes to mind. that seems like a reasonable response to me)

or are you saying it's the state job to wean the feds out of it, such that the states would give it to private charity never to intervene again, as long as charity could and should operate?[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]$30-50000 for a bachelor's degree is capitalism on steroids and needs reining in.[/quote]

my sentiments exactly.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure if this is what soc wants me to stop talking about. if it is then i will stop.
but.

XIX is saying people tend to be right side or left side. there are many ways to be right side for example.... traditionalist, etc, all the things soc mentioned. but, that doesn't mean they aren't still right side. true, some issues, like the war in iraq, can happen to overlap with a liberal position given certain conservative typologies, but they are still generally right sided. that they are anti war is an outlyer and doesn't rectify their predictability if it's merely part of a conservative typology.

i don't think anyone would reasonably dispute that many people take positios simply because the position corresponds to their right or left side ideology. especally younger people. (and i'd argue as an example young college kids who are liberal in everything, really only given their liberal environment) especially given as XIX said, some things don't have much to do with other issues, yet people believe it anyway. (like GW doesn't have to do with abortion yet you know who's going to be pushing what. this is just an example, as some coservatives would perhaps reasonably say that there's a thread connected to GW and abortion, but the point is that there's often issues that are not necessarily tied together yet people espouse those positions tied to right or left side)

Edited November 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1424428' date='Nov 24 2007, 11:56 PM']I have no problem with the state aiding it's weakest and helpless citizens with health care and subsidies, at least until they are able to stand up.. after all if the feds can bail out United Airlines, GM, Ford, and the other corporations - why not do the same for the little guy? Also, the feds give out ridiculous tax breaks to these million dollar companies, with tax payer dollars - instead of funneling my hard earned dollars to support a never created product like EV1, why not spend it on health and education?.. $30-50000 for a bachelor's degree is capitalism on steroids and needs reining in.[/quote]
Or how about the federal government getting out of the subsidy business all together, and drastically lowering taxes across the board? It's working people without vast amounts of wealth who are hurt most by taxation.

All the vast amounts of money the government has poured into "education" have not done much to improve the kid's learning. Many kids are coming out of our public schools woefully ignorant of the basics.

Ironic about college education being "capitalism on steroids," as you'll find more self-proclaimed socialists in academia than about any other area of work.
However, while some colleges no doubt inflate their prices, running a college is [i]very[/i] expensive. Schools must pay not only for faculty and staff salaries, but construction, electronics, maintenence of buildings and equipment, food services, security, etc., etc. This seriously adds up.
My parents work for a very small college which has a tuition in the $20,000s, but as it accepts no government loans, it is dependent on donations to cover expenses (and this college has a quite modest campus).
In most colleges and universities, scholarships are available for those that qualify. However, the government essentially giving every citizen a $30,000+ scholarship would be ridiculously expensive. Do the math.
The problem is, there is no free lunch. [i]Somebody[/i] must pay the cost for everything.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

What exactly is so different about an education at DePaul vs. St. Michael's College in Toronto? St. Mike's costs about $3000, while DePaul will set one back about $27000/yr. I understand scholarships are available, but they are available at every uni. Btw, the old argument that money is wasted in education, it is a falsity - the US spends less in % per student than China, Japan, or India - yes, they US does "spend" more, as US funds are higher when converted, but the amount spent per student in the US is woefully inadequate. In addition to this engineering, medicine, maths and sciences are falling to record lows as far as educated graduates; while India and China are producing more and more. That does not bode well for the future of the US.

[BG45]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1419580' date='Nov 14 2007, 10:57 PM']Love that book! If I ever have kids, I'll read it to them every night.

They're never too young for political indoctrination! [/quote]

Of course! I must raise good kids for a party. I want good cartoons to go with books too.

[LouisianaCatholic]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1419564' date='Nov 14 2007, 09:47 PM']Why is Mommy a Democrat?

Because "Mommy"'s a lazy welfare-dependent bisexual crack-addict silly sally who aborted all her other kids, and wants Uncle Sam to subsidize all her various vices?[/quote]


That is just a little stereotypical, don't you think? Not exactly the Christian understanding us Catholic's are supposed to espouse.

[Didacus]

[quote]"Who wrote this thing?"
-Rush Limbaugh, panning Why Mommy is a Democrat,
The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/6/06[/quote]