I really hope the Republicans nominate Santorum

[Van]

So now that we have played "The Boring and Useless Antidotal Evidence Game" do you have anything that isn't a Fallacy to add to the mix?

[poptart]

by all means, cite me the part that specifically prohibits such federal participation...

Take a few laps and think this one over.


There is no Constitutional authorization for the feds to take money from one citizen and use it to build a crib for another citizen.

That's what's known as theft, my friend.


Look what you support. :)

[Dinsdale]

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the feds to do this? Want me to cite which part forbids it?

by all means, cite me the part that specifically prohibits such federal participation...

No prob.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And since you are utterly clueless (which you've proven betond all doubt), and since your next question will likely be asking for clarification, I'll help you try to improve upon your 0/33 civics abilities.

Here's what's "delegated to the United States by the Constitution:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Nope, I'm not seeing "take money from Peter to build Paul a cheap house" in there anywhere.

I'll educate you a little more -- any time anyone in Congress proposes anything beyond the Enumerated Powers, their buddy is getting rich off it... period.


Although there's nothing in there that prevents individual states from enacting housing legislation.


And Felix -- at your age (or any age above about 18), that someone actually had to explain this to is, is quite sad and pathetic.

[Felix]

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

first-what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"?

second-have you ever heard the term "cooperative federalism"

[Dinsdale]

It was to enforce foreign policies, and overall safety and prosperity.

Then, someone in government decided they and their buddies could get a whole bunch richer if it meant "take money from Mr. Smith, so we can give it to Mr. Jones... after taking our cut."

And somehow, they got the reallyreallyreally stupid and wimpy people to go along with and, and presto -- a guaranteed Right of all Citizens was declared null and void.

Taking money from the general populace and giving it to specific individuals certainly isn't "promoting the general welfare of the United States." It's promoting the SPECIFIC welfare of the beneficiaries, and detracting from the welfare of the benefactors... no sale. Nothing "general" about it.

[smackaholic]

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

first-what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"?

second-have you ever heard the term "cooperative federalism"

I take general welfare to mean that we simply have rule of law. I do not take it to mean theft.

i know a 33/33 civics dude should know what cooperative federalism is, but, I don't. Enlighten me.

[mvscal]

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the feds to do this? Want me to cite which part forbids it?

by all means, cite me the part that specifically prohibits such federal participation...

It's called the Tenth Amendment, you sperm belching fuckpuddle.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Dinsdale]

second-have you ever heard the term "cooperative federalism"

Yes, it's a system of government we don't have here, thank goodness.

[Dr_Phibes]

That is pure bullshit. The medical advances that come from the United States dwarf the medical advances of "every industrialised country on the planet with a modern health care system" combined. If you take the incentive to innovate and improve care out of the U.S. equation, all nations will suffer. And particularly Canada.

The money is all being siphoned off, you're paying twenty dollars for six apples, rather than twelve dollars for five.

'Government' being the problem , flies in the face of every existing model.

You clearly do not understand that "every existing model" relies heavily on technology developed in the United States, nor do you understand why the United States model works.

Is there any government program in the United States that delivers services to citizens more efficiently and better than a comparable private business?

So if I understand you correctly, the bloated costs of US healthcare are owing to taxpayers funding medical research, that is then used by lazy foreigners who aren't paying for it, thus skewing their own national statistics? This make no sense :?

Something you're missing in all this 'competition' thing, is duplication of tasks by thousands of little bureaucracies as opposed to one single payer and mass-purchasing power reducing costs (page one in the really big book for budding capitalists) and funnelling off of money in the form of dividend cheques.
Those factors are massive and it doesn't affect quality of care, or motivation of the healthcare workers involved, it's administrative.

[Dinsdale]

Something you're missing in all this 'competition' thing, is duplication of tasks by thousands of little bureaucracies

I'm proud of you... you finally "get it."

Get the government the living fuck out of it -- ALL of it, and watch those bureaucracies dry up, and prices plummet... just like America's world leading (BY FAR) system in the pre-government involvement days.

Back when you struck a deal with your insurance company for major stuff, and paid for the rest with a (small) check/cash. Back before this unholy mandated union of employers and insurers, dreamed up by someone incapable of passing a junior high econ class.

Last time I went to the doctor (clinic) uninsured, I paid cash -- they discounted the visit fee over 50%. But government-mandated insurance isn't the problem, right?

And these complete. fucking. idiots somehow thinking that requiring mass insurance administration for something as simple as a pack of birth control pills is going to help?

Complete lunacy, devoid of any and all logic.

[Dr_Phibes]

I've always 'got it', entrenched, resistant, bureaucracy isn't limited to government, it works both ways - it's something that has to be guarded against in any political system.
The fact that a government openly facilitates it in private form, doesn't speak to the concept of government, it's something else entirely.

[Mikey]

Last time I went to the doctor (clinic) uninsured, I paid cash -- they discounted the visit fee over 50%. But government-mandated insurance isn't the problem, right?

That must have made you really special.

Especially since they probably discount what they charge insurance companies around 75%.

[bradhusker]

the private sector is not going to shoulder the responsibility of low income housing.....paul wants to throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to subsidized low income housing....he mischaracterizes howthe Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program works, by stating

developers pocket $4 billion in annual tax credits while the rents in the buildings constructed under the program are generally no lower than they would have been in the absence of the program.

complete horseshit....rents are lower by mandate of the feds and LIHTC are the only incentive for developers, given that the feds limit the profitability owners/developers are allowed on low income projects....believe me, nobody from the private sector is willing to develop low income housing without some assurances from the feds...

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the feds to do this?

Want me to cite which part forbids it? I'll give you a hint -- it's in the second half of the first ten... the Forgotten Amendment.

If the nanny-staters had half a brain, they'd realize they'd probably achieve their (often nefarious) goals much more easily if they also opposed the totalitarian federal rule that's all the rage these days. Anyone who thinks putting the bulk of the nations resources into central control, rather than the states in which they originated is somehow going to "trickle down" and make everyone flush, they're insane.

Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. The people who advocate for everything being centralized in the fed are the same ones railing on about how corporations buying up the government...

"ponderous" doesn't even begin to describe the logical disconnect these people suffer from. Put about 700 people in chare of several trillion dollars, and you get... corruption? REALLY? Man, who ever would have seen that coming?

Yet they still insist on building their socialist utopia... on my dime, of course.

Dinsdale!!! THANK YOU!! Ive been screaming about liberalism being a "mental dis-order" for years now. And how felix is a dellusional clown who is emotionally disturbed as a liberal fuck tard.

Dins, YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. Please allow me to send you a small token of my appreciation!!!

[smackaholic]

I've always 'got it', entrenched, resistant, bureaucracy isn't limited to government, it works both ways - it's something that has to be guarded against in any political system.
The fact that a government openly facilitates it in private form, doesn't speak to the concept of government, it's something else entirely.

You still don't quite get it actually.

You admit that the gubmint bureacracy monster is a bad thing, as are private versions. What you don't seem to get is there is a simple way to deal with the private one. Tell it to fukk the fukk off. Just like Mit said with his firing people remark. With a government bureaucracy or a gov. mandated private one, you lose the only weapon you have to battle the monster.

[Felix]

Then, someone in government decided they and their buddies could get a whole bunch richer if it meant "take money from Mr. Smith, so we can give it to Mr. Jones... after taking our cut."

Taking money from the general populace and giving it to specific individuals certainly isn't "promoting the general welfare of the United States." It's promoting the SPECIFIC welfare of the beneficiaries, and detracting from the welfare of the benefactors... no sale. Nothing "general" about it.

when I come to Portland, I'd prefer not to see any more homeless people than are already out and about....eliminate low income housing projects and you'd increase the number of homeless people on the streets substantially....so, is that to the "general welfare of the public" or to the specific welfare of Portland...now insofar as your claim that low income housing developers are somehow taking the public for a ride, lets take a look at some numbers here...

Here's a breakdown of a new low-income housing project recently completed here in Idaho

Land Costs-$245,000
Cost of Construction-$1,900,000
Total Cost of Development-$2,145,000
Developer profit and entrepreneurial incentive-$285,000
Total Development -$2,430,000
Tax Credits Awarded-$193,000

By accepting the tax credits (which are awarded over a 10 years period and usually sold to syndicates that reinvest the money in rehabbing low income housing projects) the developer agrees that the property will be used as a low income housing complex for a minimum of 30 years....the developer is required to maintain ownership for a minimum of 15 years and the maximum allowed return on investment is 8% but that ROI is not guaranteed by the government....(typical ROI's on non-subsidized apartments is eleven to fourteen percent, depending on the owners leveraged position)....some of the low income rents may be partially subsidized by the feds, but not that often....the owner/developer is required to maintain an established sinking fund which can only be used to maintain the facility and upgrade the units as needed....the sinking fund must be maintained at a specific level and if that requires the owner to deposit money that would have been ROI, then that's what they have to do....

if the project is sold at the end of 15 years, the reversionary value of the improvements is usually determined by calculating the replacement costs for the facility, less any costs to rehab the facility to specified standards....sometimes, the reversion value of the improvement can be estimated by capitalization of the net income based on the existing rental rates, but extracting market derived capitalization rates for low income housing projects is a tricky process because of the limits on profitability imposed by the feds, so most times the reversion value is estimated via the cost analysis...the majority of the people occupying the rental units are elderly or low income families....

so, based on these numbers (which are actual) show me exactly where the huge monetary windfall is....

I'm not sure why you (or anyone else for that matter) has a big problem with assisting people less fortunate than ourselves.....the problem with such government programs is not the program itself, but oversight of the programs....

it isn't socialism, it's humanitarianism

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You are in the decay phase of capitalism.

Now, you begin to devour yourselves...

[Felix]

Philanthropy works a lot better when its not madatory. One of the organiazations I belong to does Xmas baskets for the needy each year - the average is over $500 spent on presents / food for needy families.

Almost everyione in this group is Middle class and None of the folks that contribute 'has to" - it's simply the spirit of giving.

your spelling is atrocious
/s/
goob's mctubesteak

Now ask this same group how they feel about tax dollars going to welfare and you'll get a totally different answer

that's because the term "welfare" conjures up images of laquisha (pray for her) spitting out 8 kids in order to increase her monthly welfare payment....that sort of welfare mooch is simply unacceptable and should be subject to mandatory sterilization.....but remember, welfare cheats aren't limited to poor people....how about the physicians that bilk medicaid out of millions of dollars every year?

by contrast, how about the single working mother of two whose husband died from surgical complications and she simply can't make ends meet on the money she earns from her job?

I know this particular woman and believe me she hates that circumstances have forced her to relocate into a low income housing complex....she shudders every time she has to use food stamps to help feed her kids.....but without government assistance, I don't know where she'd be....all of her friends have provided assistance as we can, but we simply can't provide enough support to sustain her month in month out....can we as a society, in good conscience, turn our backs on her?

yeah, we need serious welfare reform in this country but we should take a systematic approach to reform as opposed to a scorched earth policy....

[Goober McTuber]

Philanthropy works a lot better when its not madatory. One of the organiazations I belong to does Xmas baskets for the needy each year - the average is over $500 spent on presents / food for needy families.

Almost everyione in this group is Middle class and None of the folks that contribute 'has to" - it's simply the spirit of giving.

your spelling is atrocious
/s/
goob's mctubesteak

It certainly is, but at least he didn’t completely butcher the use of a word like you did. Nice to see it’s still sticking in your craw, Mr. Professional Writer.

[Moving Sale]

Last time I went to the doctor (clinic) uninsured, I paid cash -- they discounted the visit fee over 50%. But government-mandated insurance isn't the problem, right?

Yes we have heard about your anecdotal evidence on this page and the last page. Care to bring an argument that is NOT a Fallacy to the board?

[Felix]

It certainly is, but at least he didn’t completely butcher the use of a word like you did.

not the first time I've used a word incorrectly and I'm guessing it probably won't be the last...I'll do my level best not to offend your feigned intellect, because I can see this is pretty upsetting for you....

but I make no guarantees...

and as long as you're doling out writing lessons....

is the proper spelling peoples' or people's....a friend wants to know

[smackaholic]

Philanthropy works a lot better when its not madatory. One of the organiazations I belong to does Xmas baskets for the needy each year - the average is over $500 spent on presents / food for needy families.

Almost everyione in this group is Middle class and None of the folks that contribute 'has to" - it's simply the spirit of giving.

your spelling is atrocious
/s/
goob's mctubesteak

Now ask this same group how they feel about tax dollars going to welfare and you'll get a totally different answer

that's because the term "welfare" conjures up images of laquisha (pray for her) spitting out 8 kids in order to increase her monthly welfare payment....that sort of welfare mooch is simply unacceptable and should be subject to mandatory sterilization.....but remember, welfare cheats aren't limited to poor people....how about the physicians that bilk medicaid out of millions of dollars every year?

by contrast, how about the single working mother of two whose husband died from surgical complications and she simply can't make ends meet on the money she earns from her job?

I know this particular woman and believe me she hates that circumstances have forced her to relocate into a low income housing complex....she shudders every time she has to use food stamps to help feed her kids.....but without government assistance, I don't know where she'd be....all of her friends have provided assistance as we can, but we simply can't provide enough support to sustain her month in month out....can we as a society, in good conscience, turn our backs on her?

yeah, we need serious welfare reform in this country but we should take a systematic approach to reform as opposed to a scorched earth policy....

Unfortunately your antidotal example is the exception.

What do you suppose happened to people such as her before the fed gov took it upon itself to fix these problems?

Do you think they laid in the gutter and died?

No, they didn't. Family, friends, churches stepped in and in some cases local government did so. Ever here of the county home, aka "the poor house". It is where old folks without a family support structure went when in need. It was run and paid for locally, so you can goddamn well believe each penny was accounted for. My grandfather, who grew up under that system says that it was damn well run and those people sure as fukk were better looked after than what we have today, which is private convalescent homes which get a check from afar. The check writer or the check casher don't give two fukks about their "customers" and it shows.

It all comes down to one simple rule. When government intervention is neccessary for a service, it should be provided at the absolute lowest level of government.

Big gubmint shills will point to economies of scale in their arguement that things should be done on a high level. The trouble is, there really isn't much on the economy of scale side, but accountability goes to shit.

[LTS TRN 2]

I have no idea what that means Marty, but it sure sounds ominous

*cue Halloween theme song*

Really, KC? You have "no idea" what that means? :wink: I'll give you a hint...Greece is about to pull down the tent in Europe, which will expose our own house of cards to the winds of fate. In fact the entire Capitalist system has been fraudulent from the start, just pushing back and back the inevitable reckoning of imposing crippling debts upon manipulated nations while effectively stealing all their resources and viciously attacking them if they resist this "Free Market" utopia.

Notice, if you have the ability, that the economic chart, as it were, of America's history is in fact a series of depressions and crisis every twenty-years or so, each time rectified by some new pillaging or exploitation. It's been fake all the way, despite the brief post-WWII spurt of our auto, steel, textile, and similar industries--all now gone or absurdly diminished in proportion to our size and supposed wealth.

Now...ask yourself...why haven't any of the Wall Street shysters been prosecuted for the outright theft of trillions of dollars in 2008? What, did you suppose that money just vanished? Absolutely not. A tiny number of individuals and international corporations acquired it and have sucked it right out of the economy into off-shore accounts. Point is, the Capitalist game is not merely fraudulent, but absolutely criminally maintained.

Gee...Rusp Limpdick would bray like a birthing sow that this isn't true--in fact he regularly insists that "Capitalism needs no defending".... Well, I won't insult you by suggesting that anything that hack says is anything but a desperately inverted spin, but he does serve as a fat sweating canary in the coal mine as it were, and if you basically reverse everything he says (not that you should actually attempt to listen to his dreary droning) you'll get a helpful hotfoot in a hurry. Good luck getting "an idea."

WW

[Van]

As often as you quote Rush Limbaugh, it gives the impression that you must be a fan of his show.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

What should replace capitalism?

Total Socialism.

We all have to crawl out of the swamp some time.

[mvscal]

it isn't socialism, it's humanitarianism

When involuntary contributions to these "humanitarian" endeavors are coerced from taxpayers, it is indeed socialism.

[Goober McTuber]

It certainly is, but at least he didn’t completely butcher the use of a word like you did.

not the first time I've used a word incorrectly and I'm guessing it probably won't be the last...I'll do my level best not to offend your feigned intellect, because I can see this is pretty upsetting for you....

Not at all, but it's pretty amusing that you couldn't just admit your error and move on. Your angst is almost palatable palpable.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

it isn't socialism, it's humanitarianism

When involuntary contributions to these "humanitarian" endeavors are coerced from taxpayers, it is indeed socialism.

"Welfare" is state control over labour resource, numb-nuts. It's not "socialism".

Wage inflation is kept in check, with fluctuation either way (upward/downward) by insentivizing job creation schemes in the private sphere.

Wait...let me consult Kapital for any reference to "gubmint cheese"...


...nope. Nothing there.

[mvscal]

State control of labor resources isn't socialism?!?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

State control of labor resources isn't socialism?!?

It's not specific to socialism. It's a function of hierarchy.

Look, I'm an anarchist, you probably want to take this up with Phibes. He's much more "rank and file".

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

No, you're just a selfish jerk.

[Dr_Phibes]

Communists take your stuff. Anarchists just sort of.. well, no one's sure what they do, them included. They're a little vague.

[mvscal]

Anarchists just sort of.. well, no one's sure what they do, them included. They're a little vague.

I'm fairly certain they are, at least, keen to keep "their stuff" much like those "greedy, selfish" capitalists.

[War Wagon]

Anarchists just sort of.. well, no one's sure what they do, them included. They're a little vague.

aren't they like really good at throwing rocks, starting dumpster fires, and defecating on public property?

[Dr_Phibes]

Spot on Wags.
They aspire to communism, but they can't have leadership cause it's just not cool man, leaders are big meanies and we're all equal people.
They did gain a foothold in Spain during the civil war (with leadership :? errrr..) till Uncle Joe got fed up with their bullshit and kicked the piss out of them.

[poptart]

when I come to Portland, I'd prefer not to see any more homeless people than are already out and about....eliminate low income housing projects and you'd increase the number of homeless people on the streets substantially....so, is that to the "general welfare of the public" or to the specific welfare of Portland

"I'd prefer not to see..."

Dripping with arrogance.


Then go ahead and take one of 'em into your home, good guy.

Or better yet, build him a home on your dime, because a man who busts his hump to put a roof over his own family's head isn't obligated under the "general welfare clause" to have money stolen from him to put a roof over the head of a drunk deadbeat.

It's a fantasy reading of the clause.

Dinsdale already told you what it's meaning is, and if you weren't such a hand-wringing pantload, you'd GET it.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[mvscal]

Then go ahead and take one of 'em into your home, good guy.

Or better yet, build him a home on your dime, because a man who busts his hump to put a roof over his own family's head isn't obligated under the "general welfare clause" to have money stolen from him to put a roof over the head of a drunk deadbeat.

It's a fantasy reading of the clause.

It's more than that. It's a deliberately deceptive reading of the clause. It works flawlessly on dumbed down morons like feelsdix who lack even the meager amount of mental horsepower necessary to distinguish between individual welfare and general welfare to say nothing of the intellectual honesty to admit that difference.

[Felix]

When involuntary contributions to these "humanitarian" endeavors are coerced from taxpayers, it is indeed socialism.

then why don't you do something about it instead of gimping on about it....stop paying your taxes, go out and shoot some homeless people....make a difference

quit sitting on the sidelines and take the bull by the horns asshat....

Or better yet, build him a home on your dime

I do.....why don't you?

you know, for somebody that proclaims to follow the teaching of jesus, you're about as far away from what christ preached as I can imagine....

in the bible, jesus talks about mercy to those in trouble in 24 verses of the Gospels and specifically tells people to help the poor and/or spurn riches and the wealthy in 128 verses.

not much of a "christian" attitude there bud.....

[poptart]

When involuntary contributions to these "humanitarian" endeavors are coerced from taxpayers, it is indeed socialism.

then why don't you do something about it instead of gimping on about it....stop paying your taxes, go out and shoot some homeless people....make a difference

quit sitting on the sidelines and take the bull by the horns asshat....

Or better yet, build him a home on your dime

I do.....why don't you?

you know, for somebody that proclaims to follow the teaching of jesus, you're about as far away from what christ preached as I can imagine....

in the bible, jesus talks about mercy to those in trouble in 24 verses of the Gospels and specifically tells people to help the poor and/or spurn riches and the wealthy in 128 verses.

not much of a "christian" attitude there bud.....

1. What you advocate is nothing less than theft, Felix.

2. Charity is great and I salute those who voluntarily participate.

In my case, I give (conservatively) 20% of my income to my Church.
I know how they use the money.
It benefits the community and the world, and I approve of it.

The fed gov, on the other hand, pisses away (or blatantly STEALS) money with regularity.
I never feel good about them having my money.

3. What you said about the teaching of the Bible is not true.
Bring it to Theology if you want, because I'm not getting into that here.

[Felix]

1. What you advocate is nothing less than theft, Felix.

what am I advocating-helping people less fortunate than myself? yeah, I should probably be shot for believing that

2. Charity is great and I salute those who voluntarily participate.

In my case, I give (conservatively) 20% of my income to my Church.
I know how they use the money.
It benefits the community and the world, and I approve of it.

yeah, interesting thing....the woman I mentioned earlier approached her church about getting some help but they essentially said they were limited on how much help they could provide....most of which would be in the form of used clothing, food on an irregular basis, and an occasional check for about $100-I pointed her in the direction of the local food bank, which has provided her with some things, but she still needs food stamps....and somebody said a situation like this is more the exception than the rule-well not around here it's not....

The fed gov, on the other hand, pisses away (or blatantly STEALS) money with regularity.
I never feel good about them having my money.

how do you feel about the bankers and wall street types that nearly crashed the economy? they stole our money with impunity and none of them has been help accountable for their blatant thievery? what about the medical professionals that file false medicare and medicaid claims? In 2010 alone, improper payments were estimated at about 70 billion dollars....those are the people you should be pissed off at, not the woman who is trying to do right by her family and just needs some help from us.....

read the post I wrote about the low income housing project and tell me where the theft is in that scenario.....the only thing the feds do is give the developer a relatively low rate loan for construction for the developers guarantee to maintain ownership for a minimum of 15 years, tax credits, which are simply a dollar for dollar reduction in tax liability, and occasionally supplement the rents for really low income renters.....personally, I think that's a great use of federal resources....you might not agree, but having seen the positive effect it's had on the people living there, to me it's worth the price....

look I get your frustration...it's frustrating for me as well....our founding fathers recognized the danger in overly generous welfare policy in that too much would promote irresponsible behavior....but they also recognized that as a society, we need to help those that simply are unable to help themselves....and therein lies the problem....most of the welfare systems we have do not promote self-reliance and encourage reckless behavior.....

like I said, we need a major overhaul of many of the welfare systems in this country....but I think that it's grown to such a multiple headed monster, nobody really knows where to begin....Paul Ryan's budget proposal offers some realistic solutions to reformation of many of these programs, but in some critical areas, his proposals seeming take a scorched earth approach....if we're going to reform welfare (and I don't think there is anyone that posts here that doesn't believe welfare reform is desperately needed) lets take a systematic approach and make sure we do it the right way.....

[Diego in Seattle]

The church paying for people to all over the world & thump isn't helping the world.

Paying for bigger & fancier church buildings isn't making the world better.

That's not to say that they don't do some good things, but most of it is geared towards one thumping one way or another. People should have access to a hand up without having to listen to some tard thumping.