Why is the gov't actively seeking new recruits for welfare?

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I'm missing the part where they're recruiting for welfare.

I see them telling people that their tax dollars have paid for services and that they can use them should they need them... Including credit counselor and medical treatment.

How is this a bad thing?

Did "their" tax dollars pay for these services? For example, how exactly did a foreigner's tax dollars pay for food stamps?

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is like raising the debt ceiling - it's money already spent.

If people get the assistance they need then maybe the economy would also be stimulated a little more. But we all know Repubs don't really want that, because then they might lose...

Explain how expansion of a government program, which obviously comes with an increased cost, is like raising the debt ceiling? How exactly is it "money already spent" if more and more people use these programs? That doesn't make sense.

Do you honestly think that taking $1 from Joe and handing it to Bob, stimulates the economy? Moreover, do you think that increasing debt does absolutely nothing to the economy? Have you ever heard of the term - interest?

Pom-poms are a-waving in here today.

Nobody's taking anything from Joe. The gov't already has the money. Joe's taxes haven't changed.

Bob gets $1 and is about 99% likely to spend it on food or something, thus stimulating the economy. I don't see how it's that hard.

The benefits are already the law. There is a gov't agency in charge of administering these benefits and they are doing an outreach program, which is their job. So what the fuck is the problem? :roll:

Johnny Abruzzo

Also, since you're so insistent that we are in a "depression" then why are you opposed to people getting temporary help? This is when people need it most, right?

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Nobody's taking anything from Joe. The gov't already has the money. Joe's taxes haven't changed.

Bob gets $1 and is about 99% likely to spend it on food or something, thus stimulating the economy. I don't see how it's that hard.

The benefits are already the law. There is a gov't agency in charge of administering these benefits and they are doing an outreach program, which is their job. So what the fuck is the problem? :roll:

The money comes from somewhere. Tax money, or debt, is where it comes from. And, yes, if the program doesn't have enough money it will result in more debt. In fact, government is like a pot of money. There's not enough money for everything they like to spend on. Every single aspect of how they spend adds to our debt.

So you ask what's the fucking problem?

Answer - we're fucking broke.

The government is trying to get people who are receiving help from friends/family, to receive help from them.... when we're BROKE.

We have no money. We're borrowing to do this shit. It's beyond stupid.

It's one thing to say - yes, we have welfare programs to help people. It's another to actively seek new people. That's beyond stupid. And, no, it won't stimulate the economy because of the transaction costs and debt that are involved. A $1 to $1 shift, I suppose could be argued to stimulate the economy - do I buy that logic - no... but, I'll give you that. The problem - it's not a fucking $1 to $1 change of hands. We're broke. Our government is paying more than $1 because they need to borrow in order to pay it. Further, there's transaction costs associated with setting up a food stamp. This discussion is idiotic.

These programs should be there as a last resort. If people have other options, friends/family, the government shouldn't be trying to pull them away from them BECAUSE THE GOVT IS BROKE.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

because more people are failing between the cracks of society and the governments wants to catch them in the social safety net?

You don't think there's a slightly likelihood that this makes them dependent on government and therefore more likely to support politicians that want to implement socialist-style policies?

Here's a paragraph from the CNN article you linked to:
"President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004."

So which politicians are doing this for votes?

You keep dropping the pom-pom reference when you're the one using party line buzz words like 'dependent on government' and 'socialist-style'.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Also, since you're so insistent that we are in a "depression" then why are you opposed to people getting temporary help? This is when people need it most, right?

I'll repeat this one more time. Here's what I'm opposed to:

The government trying to pull people away from other non-governmental forms of assistance. Why? One real good reason is we're fucking broke. That's the fucking point.

Our debt is one reason we're in the mess we're in.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

Here's a paragraph from the CNN article you linked to:
"President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004."

So which politicians are doing this for votes?

You keep dropping the pom-pom reference when you're the one using party line buzz words like 'dependent on government' and 'socialist-style'.

Bush was a horrible, horrible President - maybe not as bad as Obama, but damn close... could be worse - who knows. If Republicans are pushing for it - they are idiots. If Democrats are - they are idiots. We're broke.

You're the one bring political parties into this, pom-poms. Not me. I'm saying unnecessary expansion of the program - right now - is stupid - given we're broke. I'm also saying seeking dependence on these programs is not a positive thing.

Republicans can be just as socialist-style or big government as Democrats in certain areas. I think you're trying to imply they can't, and I was bringing up political parties by saying those words. That's not true. Expansion of these policies - I believe - are expansion of big government and socialist style policies.... take those words as you will.

Johnny Abruzzo

Even with our record deficit and credit downgrade interest rates are still at record lows.

It's cheap for the government to borrow and any increased tax revenue from the economic stimulus could perhaps offset the spending.

If you're really worried about the "depression" then you should support government stimulation to the economy. I have a feeling you supported Bush sending people $100 bills in 2007 or whatever he did.

Welfare ain't the reason for our deficit. The main reasons are the unnecessary Bush tax cuts, the multi-trillion dollar wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the Medicare Part D Act, all of which continue to pile up the deficit to this day.

brianlux

I honestly had no idea this was going to be one of those "we're becoming socialist" threads. Now it sounds like just so much more fear and division fodder.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Even with our record deficit and credit downgrade interest rates are still at record lows.

It's cheap for the government to borrow and any increased tax revenue from the economic stimulus could perhaps offset the spending.

If you're really worried about the "depression" then you should support government stimulation to the economy. I have a feeling you supported Bush sending people $100 bills in 2007 or whatever he did.

Welfare ain't the reason for our deficit. The main reasons are the unnecessary Bush tax cuts, the multi-trillion dollar wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the Medicare Part D Act, all of which continue to pile up the deficit to this day.

I'm an economist, bro.

Please don't tell me that I should support government stimulation. I don't support government stimulation. Reason - government "stimulation" has long run consequences - which are always negative. For example, our housing situation was brought forth by "government stimulation". The Fed lowered rates post-9/11 and kept them low for too long, our government also was encouraging "stimulation" within housing. It seemed to work, then the bubble popped and caused a dramatic recession. We responded with more "stimulus" - monetary and fiscal. Our government debt problem exploded. Now, we and other nations - who were even worse off originally with Debt/GDP - are in a bind. Our issues are driven by Debt/GDP now. Because we used this Keynesian approach. It's ignorant.

And to add to your last point - the main reasons for our debt are: deficits... lots of them. Sure, the wars were a large expense, as is medicare/medicaid, social security, Obamacare, stimulus, bailouts,... another reason was the recession. Mostly though - it's deficits... we're spending more than we're taking in.

Cliffy6745

inlet13 wrote:

I'm an economist, bro.

Well then....



So is Paul Krugman

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm an economist, bro.

Well then....



So is Paul Krugman

True. He's a Keynesian to the utmost degree.

Johnny Abruzzo

Cliffy6745 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm an economist, bro.

Well then....



So is Paul Krugman

Yeah, that settles it. "I'm smart, and you're not, so there!"

Obamacare is responsible for, oh, about $0 of the deficit. You just had to throw it in there though, didn't ya? You're not the only person who, you know, knows stuff.

Johnny Abruzzo

Regarding Romney campaign's welfare ads:

Romney Campaign: We Will Not 'Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers'
TAMPA, Fla. -- The Romney campaign said on Tuesday that its ads attacking President Obama's waiver policy on welfare have been its most effective to date. And while the spots have been roundly criticized as lacking any factual basis, the campaign said it didn't really care.

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News.

This is a different standard than the one Romney himself has held up for the election-season ad wars. Reacting to attacks by a pro-Obama super PAC, Romney recently told a radio station that "in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad."

The presumptive nominee's top communications hand, Eric Ferhnstrom, was quick to make the case that the two instances were not comparable.

"This is a good discussion to have," he said. "We are not accusing the president of being a felon, we are not accusing him of killing somebody."

The latter was in referrence to the Priorities USA Action ad that tied the closure of a steel mill by Bain Capital to a woman's death several years later (without her husband's insurance coverage, she couldn't pay for care).

"Clearly they are giving states the option to change the welfare-to-work requirement," Ferhnstrom said in reference to the basis for the anti-Obama ad. "We heard from those [Republican] governors [who requested waivers], they said, 'No we don't want to change the work requirement in our states.'"

-- Sam Stein

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Regarding Romney campaign's welfare ads:

Romney Campaign: We Will Not 'Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers'
TAMPA, Fla. -- The Romney campaign said on Tuesday that its ads attacking President Obama's waiver policy on welfare have been its most effective to date. And while the spots have been roundly criticized as lacking any factual basis, the campaign said it didn't really care.

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News.

This is a different standard than the one Romney himself has held up for the election-season ad wars. Reacting to attacks by a pro-Obama super PAC, Romney recently told a radio station that "in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad."

The presumptive nominee's top communications hand, Eric Ferhnstrom, was quick to make the case that the two instances were not comparable.

"This is a good discussion to have," he said. "We are not accusing the president of being a felon, we are not accusing him of killing somebody."

The latter was in referrence to the Priorities USA Action ad that tied the closure of a steel mill by Bain Capital to a woman's death several years later (without her husband's insurance coverage, she couldn't pay for care).

"Clearly they are giving states the option to change the welfare-to-work requirement," Ferhnstrom said in reference to the basis for the anti-Obama ad. "We heard from those [Republican] governors [who requested waivers], they said, 'No we don't want to change the work requirement in our states.'"

-- Sam Stein

Question - what does this have to do with the thread? Just curious. The thread's about a government program, or programs, not cheerleading political parties.

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

Question - what does this have to do with the thread? Just curious. The thread's about a government program, or programs, not cheerleading political parties.

Because your are waiving pom poms for Romney's devious campaign attack regarding welfare, so the fact that the attack is not truthful is certainly relevant.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Question - what does this have to do with the thread? Just curious. The thread's about a government program, or programs, not cheerleading political parties.

Because your are waiving pom poms for Romney's devious campaign attack regarding welfare, so the fact that the attack is not truthful is certainly relevant.

I could not care less about Romney and I'm not a supporter. I have no idea what you're talking about. Now, let's ask you, are you a pro-Obama fellow? ummm.. Yep. All fine, but I'm not bringing up political parties or people - you are. I was simply trying to discuss an "issue". How we got here, why they are doing and so on...

To summarize - the thread is on the government actively trying to boost demand for welfare, not political parties and their dim-witted leaders.

pandora

Seems to me making people dependent on the government removes their power,
keeps them docile and just plain needy...
can anyone say baaaaaaaaaaa...

all that and a blade of grass is addicting as hell and contagious.

Name of the game take take take...
get away with what you can ... people used to be too proud.

Johnny Abruzzo

You are echoing Romney's campaign.

I already addressed all your issues about "expanding welfare demand" and "budget busting" with logical responses, and I see no need to argue in circles.


I am an Obama supporter but in general I am opposed to things like perpetual welfare, affirmative action, racial quotas and shit like that. I think the Clinton welfare reforms of the 90s did a great deal to reduce abuse in the welfare system and i have no problem with the way the Obama Admin (or the Bush Admin for that matter) has handled the program. And I stand by my case that welfare is, if anything, a minuscule contributor to the national debt.

My main reason for supporting Democrats is to stop Republicans from evil things like aggressive warfare and allowing our natural environment to be run roughshod over. I used to vote for Republicans until Bush and then the Tea Party happened.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

I could not care less about Romney and I'm not a supporter. I have no idea what you're talking about. Now, let's ask you, are you a pro-Obama fellow? ummm.. Yep. All fine, but I'm not bringing up political parties or people - you are. I was simply trying to discuss an "issue". How we got here, why they are doing and so on...

To summarize - the thread is on the government actively trying to boost demand for welfare, not political parties and their dim-witted leaders.

You were the first to bring up parties and suggest that the marketing being done to get the word out to more people about food stamp availability was a political move. You were also the first to bring up "pom poms". Just asking "why" about something begs for circular go-arounds, like when a 5 year old asks "why can't I eat 5 cookies" 20 minutes before dinner.

Why are they marketing? Beacause there a many people who qualify for food stamps that aren't accessing it. This does not "boost demand for welfare". The demand is already there, they are saying if you want it, this is what it is and how you access it.

For someone who gets his undies in a bunch about staying on topic, you're going all over the place. If you don't think more money should be spent on public assistance when we're running a deficit, then make the thread about that.