The time I took a Government "Handout"

Go Beavers wrote:

You have to look at it stepping outside your mind.

No thanks. Instead of this, why don't you look at this stepping out of your mind instead?

Go Beavers wrote:

You said somewhere else the blanket statement that the private sector is more efficient than the government.

It is.

Go Beavers wrote:

I think that's one of those phrases where it's often repeated, so eventually it's believed by many.

You're wrong.

Go Beavers wrote:

But dig into that statement more. How do you measure efficiency?

I'd say one way is productivity. Once again, go to a DMV. Please tell me those workers are "productive". You crack me up.

Go Beavers wrote:

What services have been provided by the government but then handed over to the private sector only to see the company fail at executing it?

I can't think of one. I can think of a service that was primarily provided my government, but then handed over to the private sector (in a small form) - shipping bulk mail. Fed Ex, etc. They are relatively efficient. Much more so than the bankrupt postal service.

Go Beavers wrote:

Why do some areas of government get the trust of the public and others don't?

Ask the public.

Go Beavers wrote:

Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?

THIS IS MY FAVORITE!

Ha ha. Have you ever heard of a Wawa? Probably not. Basically it's a 7/11 with food inside. Subs, Chips, Sodas, Coffee, etc. Now, when you go up to swipe to pay your food. There's an option there - "EBT Cash". EBT = foodstamp card. So, apparently, not only can they buy hoagies and tastycakes and soda... you can also get STRAIGHT CASH! 1 in 7 people have these f'ing cards. That's 46 million people. Moreover aren't we trying to get people to eat healthy? lol.

Here you go bro - This is "efficient" right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk

My friend, who's not political at all joked about getting an EBT card - he's well off. He looked into it when he was laid off, although he was quite comfortable financially and found out what you can get. Totally efficient, bro.

Go Beavers wrote:

When you made the statement "providing checks", maybe you're referring to people who receive TANF, or cash welfare. The expectations of the recipient vary from state to state, but things were tightened up in the 90's and state's are raising the bar with expectations of the recipient. There are exemptions, but there is a work requirement when receiving tanf (again will vary state to state). Caseworkers also make home visits to follow up on what's being reported with the expectation. Remember that any program to develop skills and also trying to stop fraud is expensive in itself.

:roll:

Go Beavers wrote:

One can donate, but often the conservative argument relies on the notion that if taxes that went to public assistance was somehow given back to the individual, that an equal contribution to charitable organizations would occur. This doesn't play out in reality. When people get a tax kicker or 'stimulus' or whatever, they spend it on paying down some personal debt, saving some of it, and also buying crap made in China.

Thanks for providing us permission to donate. :fp: This is exactly the issue. Why can't we decide how or if we want to "donate"? Why does the US government, that is horribly inefficient enough to have more debt than our entire economy, get to tell us how they plan to solve this issue? I don't trust them... get it through your head. I agree this is an issue, but they won't EVER solve it.

On your point - When people get a "stimulus" the economy is most likely hurting. Lots of people focus on themselves in those times, because their own personal family is hurting. Like I've said in other threads, it's the economy - stupid. That's the problem.

I don't care what the "conservative" pom-pom waving argument is, nor do I care how you interpret it with your liberal pom-poms waving as being wrong. Both sides are sheep and can't think independently.

I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:

Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?

Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?

Anyway, he's right - that's what's destroyed the middle class. That's the reason couples (gay and straight) have to both work in middle class families, whereas they didn't (in greater numbers) years ago.

This place is such a joke.

yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.

Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.

Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?

Anyway, he's right - that's what's destroyed the middle class. That's the reason couples (gay and straight) have to both work in middle class families, whereas they didn't (in greater numbers) years ago.

This place is such a joke.

yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.

Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.

Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.

cost of living has gone up because of inflation yes (I didn't deny that)...however couple that with getting paid less, not having a job, tax cuts on the rich who have demonstrated a propensity for NOT spending their cash means we have a whole shitload of people shopping at Wal-Mart for their low prices while collecting welfare checks. it is inflation, but not only inflation that has fucked shit up here. of course the latter pokes holes in the old deregulating free markets idea, just like every other instance of deregulating free markets failing getting the old "crony capitalism" eyeroll. well duh, how are you gonna regulate against crony capitalism if the only people regulating things are the one's with money and power - like what we see now around the world.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?

This place is such a joke.

Did you read his line that "taxation is theft?"

The same people who complain that they have to pay taxes and hiw it's "theft" are often the same ones complaining about how long it takes the police to arrive and how dirty the public parks are.

His underlying point was responding to another poster's thoughts on the decimation of the middle class. He's underlying point was - it's due to inflation. Do you disagree?

inlet13 wrote:

Why can't I get people to answer questions around here.

Inlet, I think you are our Johnny Ramone.

Jeanwah wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Why can't I get people to answer questions around here.

Inlet, I think you are our Johnny Ramone.

He would be Johnny, you'd be Joey, Brian.

who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey

RW81233 wrote:

who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey

You're a classy guy, bro.

there is a great stat that says that basically if the world lived like americans - we would need 4.1 times the resources the world has now ...

the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...

RW81233 wrote:

in fact, nearly every time we buy something we are getting it at below its cost to the world around us (environmentally, socially, culturally, economically, etc.).

To me, this is a hugely important factor. I find it very frustrating that these costs are so seldom included in a discussion on economics. If these cost of consumed goods continue at the rate they have been we might very well see a time when our environment and societies can no longer support them and we will be having a discussion of a very different nature.

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey

You're a classy guy, bro.

dude seriously lighten up...you're like the bully that cries when someone says something mean back - only after you've put down every person you respond to in a condescending manner. you can't be the victimizer and claim victimhood - well actually you do it so I guess it's possible. either way it was totally a joke i honestly don't hope that brian steals your significant other leading to you both coexisting for years and never speaking to one another.

I said: "you're classy, bro".

You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.