Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Area Politician Says: Government Doesn't Work, So Let's Try Government Instead
In the wake of the Baltimore riots and our "everything old is new again" conversation on poverty, Paul Ryan has some startling news...Poverty won The War on Poverty.
"After a 50-year war on poverty and trillions of dollars spent, we still have the same poverty rates – 45 million people in poverty," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "What we as a country – this isn't a Republican-Democrat thing – it's we as a country need to say, "That's not good enough. … We're not getting the results we need."Hard to argue with that. Of course the logical conclusion one would reach from this half-century plus of failure is government is simply incapable of doing anything about fundamental societal problems like multi-generational poverty. Well, it can do somethings, mostly it can make it worse by destroying families. While the left sees that as a rousing success, it's not something conservatives should be shooting for. So clearly a smart guy like Paul Ryan realizes that government isn't the solution to this particular problem anymore than say a plumber is the right person to call when your car breaks down. Well, not exactly.
Ryan, the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and former vice presidential candidate, said federal programs aimed at alleviating poverty should be scaled back to allow states a great role in the effort. "What the federal government's good at doing is providing resources. What the federal government is bad at doing is dictating solutions," he said. "What I think the federal government has done is displaced local problem solving with top-down, one-size-fits-all, and it's not working."Huh. Let's get something out of the way up front, "block grants" are a magic incantation conservative reformers like to throw out there to pretend they are "getting Washington out of the way." They aren't. No one is going to just write billions and billions of checks and not put strings on how they are spent or require oversight and an accounting of results. So the idea that genius state policy makers will just be getting dump truck loads of cash unencumbered by policy makers in DC is a lie. As far as the idea that the federal government is good at "providing resources" I guess that's true in as much as it can essentially create money out of thin air and "spread it around". I'm not sure that's a talent we should be encouraging though. As for the idea that state governments are some how bastions of nimble and talented problem solvers I submit three names....California, New York and Massachusetts. From whence does this mystical faith in state governments to change the hearts and fates of men come? On constitutional grounds states are often the preferable level of government but on a competency grounds? The advantage of state control isn't improved results but rather limited damage. For every damaging policy California implements there are escape destinations. People don't go to Florida or Texas because they are running super smart and innovative state governments, they go there because they are running relatively small and non-invasive ones. More importantly, can we simply stop accepting the leftist notion that if given enough resources used wisely enough government at any level can change the fortunes of the poor? If it's simply a question or "providing resources", how much? Tell how much it will take to turn the denizens of the drug infested neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing members of society. Is money the only issues keeping these fine folks from productive careers and the comforts of middle class America? If not, and I don't think anyone thinks it is, whatever is missing is something government simply can not provide. We should be arguing for alternatives to government that enable people to do the best they can on their own. Only the individual knows what they want and what they are willing to work to achieve. No government bureaucracy will ever be smart, nimble or caring enough to deftly guide an individual through life. State governments are just as a much of a blunt force instrument as the federal government. The only differences are the geographic limits of the damage they can do and the ability of people to move to avoid the worst of it. Put not your faith in self-dealing bureaucrats at any level. Until conservative "leaders" accept this, conservative "reformers" will simply be rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking nation. We spend a lot of time debating how government should do things. What we need is to spend some time thinking about what government really can or should even try to do.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
What, subsidizing dysfunction isn't a smart policy? Shut up!
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:04 AM (GMG6W)
2
That asshole Paul Ryan wrote a book last year on this. The man is a huge-government shit-head.
That asshole Paul Ryan wrote a book last year on this. The man is a huge-government shit-head.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 11:06 AM (5luh1)
3
Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:06 AM (kff5f)
4
I think some dude said "You will always have the poor with you" or something. But that was like a hundred years ago. Like, before the Constitution even. We know better.
Posted by: kartoffel at May 04, 2015 11:06 AM (sGRH7)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:06 AM (kff5f)
6
Ryan is a govbot.
He is following his programming.
He cannot do anything else.
Replace him with a thinking human being.
He is following his programming.
He cannot do anything else.
Replace him with a thinking human being.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (MQEz6)
7
Funny, the idea of having a robust economy with a diversity of opportunity to make more money that the gubmint will give you never enters their little minds.
#WASTF
#WASTF
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (0HooB)
8
Block grants strike me as a step in the right direction. I don't think states will magically cure all - but they will spend better and more efficiently (some anyway). Competition in government is good too. Yes - I would agree that the better course of action is to get government out of the way entirely, and I agree that it is somewhat foolish to think that the federal government will just dole out money without strings attached. But as I started - this strikes me as a good first step.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (gmeXX)
9
"What the federal government's good at doing is providing resources.>>>
Yeah once they take their cut after stealing it from me.
Yeah once they take their cut after stealing it from me.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (Mxs5H)
10
The War on Poverty is the longest quagmire in US history.
Posted by: George McGovern at May 04, 2015 11:08 AM (e8kgV)
11
Paul Ryan is incredibly conservative.
The media told me so. They said he even read an Ayn Rand book in high school.
He even proposed an extremist budget that would balance in about 50 years (well, not really. it was almost all budget gimmicks.) just to prove how extremely conservative he is, like his severely conservative former running mate from MA.
The media told me so. They said he even read an Ayn Rand book in high school.
He even proposed an extremist budget that would balance in about 50 years (well, not really. it was almost all budget gimmicks.) just to prove how extremely conservative he is, like his severely conservative former running mate from MA.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:08 AM (AkOaV)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 11:08 AM (5luh1)
13
It *does* rather seem like "begging the question" doesn't it?
If you *start* from the premise that the problem is simply that the poor don't have enough money, then the solution is simply to give them more money- and the only problem then becomes distribution.
However, Conservatives assert that the premise itself is flawed. The problem is *not* simply that the poor don't have enough money. Their lack of money is a symptom, not the disease.
If you want to cure the disease, MOAR MUNY isn't necessarily going to be the write answer. Evidence accumulated to date suggests, in fact, that it is exactly the wrong answer.
If you *start* from the premise that the problem is simply that the poor don't have enough money, then the solution is simply to give them more money- and the only problem then becomes distribution.
However, Conservatives assert that the premise itself is flawed. The problem is *not* simply that the poor don't have enough money. Their lack of money is a symptom, not the disease.
If you want to cure the disease, MOAR MUNY isn't necessarily going to be the write answer. Evidence accumulated to date suggests, in fact, that it is exactly the wrong answer.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (kff5f)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (0HooB)
16
Part of the problem arises out of human nature. Rather than being thankful for assistance, the FSA feels entitled to someone else's money. I don't see an easy way to deal with that. Cutting off aid cold turkey is so mean-spirited.
Posted by: wisenheimer at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (qnhj2)
17
"What I think the federal government has done is displaced local problem solving with top-down, one-size-fits-all, and it's not working."
"One size fits all" never works.
"One size fits all" never works.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (8Jl4+)
18
Tell how much it will take to turn the denizens of the drug infested
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society.
***
Actually, it would take literally no dollars.
Cut off welfare off all types and pretty soon people are going to be seriously looking for work.
If you want to cushion the blow, stop giving cash, and give out a day's worth of food every morning, from 6-8 AM at the local welfare office.
You got up at noon after a heroin bender? Oh, that's too bad. See you tomorrow!
Once people start working, even at crappy jobs, they are going to be too busy to riot, use drugs, or cause trouble in general.
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society.
***
Actually, it would take literally no dollars.
Cut off welfare off all types and pretty soon people are going to be seriously looking for work.
If you want to cushion the blow, stop giving cash, and give out a day's worth of food every morning, from 6-8 AM at the local welfare office.
You got up at noon after a heroin bender? Oh, that's too bad. See you tomorrow!
Once people start working, even at crappy jobs, they are going to be too busy to riot, use drugs, or cause trouble in general.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 04, 2015 11:09 AM (78TbK)
19
The advantage of state control isn't improved results but rather limited damage
------
Yes but there are other advantages. The other advantage is the idea that the more localized government is the more responsive it is. So state control should be more "efficient" than federal control. Not always and that does not mean efficient - just more efficient.
Of course, at the end of the day - states have plenary powers that the federal government does not.
------
Yes but there are other advantages. The other advantage is the idea that the more localized government is the more responsive it is. So state control should be more "efficient" than federal control. Not always and that does not mean efficient - just more efficient.
Of course, at the end of the day - states have plenary powers that the federal government does not.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (gmeXX)
20
You guys kapeesh what I'm saying?
R's and D's want to do the exact same things; the only difference, at this point, is why they want to do them.
Kapeesh?
You guys kapeesh what I'm saying?
R's and D's want to do the exact same things; the only difference, at this point, is why they want to do them.
Kapeesh?
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (5luh1)
21
That said- in a world where DC *is* going to be "spreading the wealth around," I prefer block-grants to the current setup.
Of course there will be "strings," but the strings will be result related instead of the current process/policy related requirements. That's a big step in the right direction.
Of course there will be "strings," but the strings will be result related instead of the current process/policy related requirements. That's a big step in the right direction.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
22
Normally, when something isn't working, one stops doing it.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (dquK7)
23
The theory is that if you do X, you get result Y.
So you do X. You do not get Y.
So you do more X. You do not get Y.
So you do EVEN MORE X. You do not get Y.
After 50 years and trillions of dollars spent on doing X and not getting Y, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board and re-examine your assumptions. And maybe you should listen to the people who have been telling you all along that it won't work because your assumptions are wrong.
So you do X. You do not get Y.
So you do more X. You do not get Y.
So you do EVEN MORE X. You do not get Y.
After 50 years and trillions of dollars spent on doing X and not getting Y, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board and re-examine your assumptions. And maybe you should listen to the people who have been telling you all along that it won't work because your assumptions are wrong.
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (J6suc)
24
It is a bad first step.
Government social programs are the problem.
Changing how they are carried out is an act of missing the point.
Government social programs are the problem.
Changing how they are carried out is an act of missing the point.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (MQEz6)
25
From whence does this mystical faith in state governments to change the hearts and fates of men come?
To be fair to Mr. Ryan, I think he understands that if money is going to be spent on anti-poverty programs, it's best spent at the state level, because the few that rise to the top in terms of performance will be emulated eventually. States that don't will crater and depopulate, like CA, NY, IL, etc.
To be fair to Mr. Ryan, I think he understands that if money is going to be spent on anti-poverty programs, it's best spent at the state level, because the few that rise to the top in terms of performance will be emulated eventually. States that don't will crater and depopulate, like CA, NY, IL, etc.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (GMG6W)
26
" ... Block grants strike me as a step in the right direction. ..."
How about instead, we have the federal government lower taxes by whatever the tax increases the states vote in.
Call the the "New Federalism"
How about instead, we have the federal government lower taxes by whatever the tax increases the states vote in.
Call the the "New Federalism"
Posted by: Thomas Bayes at May 04, 2015 11:11 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Jeanne of the no. at May 04, 2015 11:11 AM (sJiQa)
28
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (gmeXX)
The big advantage states have over the fedgov when it comes to being efficient is that states cannot print money, and most have balanced budget requirements.
So they're not necessarily efficient, they're just not able to be as reckless at the federal government.
Which is an improvement I suppose. Still, i would like to see no money going from DC to the states, and for the states to fund their own bullshit.
Because the government makes the "money trail" so murky that none of us really know how much we're paying for what and how fucked we're really getting.
If the state came to me and said, "hey, we need to raise your taxes to pay for more welfare" I'm in a better position to say "go fuck yourself" then if some of my federal tax money is peeled off, a vig is taken, then it's sent to my state with a million strings attached.
The big advantage states have over the fedgov when it comes to being efficient is that states cannot print money, and most have balanced budget requirements.
So they're not necessarily efficient, they're just not able to be as reckless at the federal government.
Which is an improvement I suppose. Still, i would like to see no money going from DC to the states, and for the states to fund their own bullshit.
Because the government makes the "money trail" so murky that none of us really know how much we're paying for what and how fucked we're really getting.
If the state came to me and said, "hey, we need to raise your taxes to pay for more welfare" I'm in a better position to say "go fuck yourself" then if some of my federal tax money is peeled off, a vig is taken, then it's sent to my state with a million strings attached.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:11 AM (AkOaV)
Posted by: Adrienne Barbeau, Loni Anderson, Lana Woods at May 04, 2015 11:11 AM (JO9+V)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 11:11 AM (5luh1)
31
21 That said- in a world where DC *is* going to be "spreading the wealth around," I prefer block-grants to the current setup.
Of course there will be "strings," but the strings will be result related instead of the current process/policy related requirements. That's a big step in the right direction.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
No, it is not.
It is a step in the same direction.
21 That said- in a world where DC *is* going to be "spreading the wealth around," I prefer block-grants to the current setup.
Of course there will be "strings," but the strings will be result related instead of the current process/policy related requirements. That's a big step in the right direction.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
No, it is not.
It is a step in the same direction.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:12 AM (MQEz6)
32
They'd do much better to strip away encumbrances like stifling EPA regulations, over-bearing insurance laws, and forcing cutbacks on silly local zoning codes. Creating areas of business enterprise zones to encourage start-ups and other small businesses. But we don't like that kind of nonsense anymore.
Posted by: chiefjaybob at May 04, 2015 11:12 AM (2L77z)
33
It is because they aren't using vouchers
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 04, 2015 11:12 AM (dquK7)
34
I think some dude said "You will always have the poor with you" or something.
Like, we admire him for his teaching and stuff, but following his teaching makes you a bigot H8r that needs to be eliminated from society.
Like, we admire him for his teaching and stuff, but following his teaching makes you a bigot H8r that needs to be eliminated from society.
Posted by: America's self-annointed elite at May 04, 2015 11:13 AM (ZKzrr)
35
This government cannot solve the problem. But that government over there - they can do it!
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:13 AM (J6suc)
36
>Normally, when something isn't working, one stops doing it.
You're assuming creating multi-generational dependence is a bug, not a feature. I'd say it's working fine. Marx would have altered his "opiate of the masses" quote if he'd seen our fully armed and operational welfare state.
You're assuming creating multi-generational dependence is a bug, not a feature. I'd say it's working fine. Marx would have altered his "opiate of the masses" quote if he'd seen our fully armed and operational welfare state.
Posted by: kartoffel at May 04, 2015 11:13 AM (sGRH7)
37
Which is an improvement I suppose. Still, i would like to see no money going from DC to the states, and for the states to fund their own bullshit.
------
I would too. I see block grants as a way to get there.
Hey I'm open to any approach that will cause the elimination of the Department of Education.
------
I would too. I see block grants as a way to get there.
Hey I'm open to any approach that will cause the elimination of the Department of Education.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (gmeXX)
38
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (gmeXX)
Again, your faith in places like California, New York and Massachusetts is greater than mine.
And you know the largest recipients of these block grants will be big blue states. But sure, hand them piles of money. I'm sure it'll work out.
Again, your faith in places like California, New York and Massachusetts is greater than mine.
And you know the largest recipients of these block grants will be big blue states. But sure, hand them piles of money. I'm sure it'll work out.
Posted by: DrewM at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (YvRAm)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (rDqRv)
40
Federal money handd to the States makes the States ride along on the Federal waste, borrow, and print money runaway train.
It corrupts the States and everything it touches.
Changing the style is no help.
It corrupts the States and everything it touches.
Changing the style is no help.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (MQEz6)
41
What, subsidizing dysfunction isn't a smart policy? Shut up!
___
If you work we are going to take half of what you earn, and Allah help you if you make a mistake on your taxes...yeah that's right you have to figure out how much you are going to pay us.
Why yes there is an alternative. But you wouldn't want that.
Just tell us where to mail your EBT card. Don't worry no drug testing! It is kind of like a permanent weekend.
But hey if you work hard, don't do alcohol or drugs in excess, and get up at 6 AM every day for the next 10 years, you'll start to make more then you'd get on that silly EBT card.
Wait, why is everyone choosing the EBT card?
___
If you work we are going to take half of what you earn, and Allah help you if you make a mistake on your taxes...yeah that's right you have to figure out how much you are going to pay us.
Why yes there is an alternative. But you wouldn't want that.
Just tell us where to mail your EBT card. Don't worry no drug testing! It is kind of like a permanent weekend.
But hey if you work hard, don't do alcohol or drugs in excess, and get up at 6 AM every day for the next 10 years, you'll start to make more then you'd get on that silly EBT card.
Wait, why is everyone choosing the EBT card?
Posted by: Some Welfare Office Bureaucrat at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (78TbK)
42
I can see no reason for anyone to be allowed to own a gun.
Posted by: Ben Carson, MD at May 04, 2015 11:15 AM (hSlC9)
43
If I paint my car red will it go faster?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 04, 2015 11:15 AM (Mxs5H)
44
I used to help distribute county funds in the form of rental and utilities assistance. The anger I would receive when I had to tell someone they just didn't qualify was unbelievable. "You're supposed to give me help!"
Posted by: wisenheimer at May 04, 2015 11:15 AM (qnhj2)
45
Once people start working, even at crappy jobs, they are going to be too busy to riot, use drugs, or cause trouble in general.
And that's another problem: gubmint deliberately stifling business through overtaxation and overregulation, as the 1st Quarter GDP of .2% aptly shows.
And that's another problem: gubmint deliberately stifling business through overtaxation and overregulation, as the 1st Quarter GDP of .2% aptly shows.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at May 04, 2015 11:15 AM (0HooB)
46
And you know the largest recipients of these block grants will be big
blue states. But sure, hand them piles of money. I'm sure it'll work
out.
It won't, of course. What will work is watching as your cities turn into Detroit and Baltimore because you refuse to recognize reality.
What can't go on forever, won't.
blue states. But sure, hand them piles of money. I'm sure it'll work
out.
It won't, of course. What will work is watching as your cities turn into Detroit and Baltimore because you refuse to recognize reality.
What can't go on forever, won't.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (GMG6W)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (St6BJ)
48
Normally, when something isn't working, one stops doing it.
___
Not sure if racism...
But guessing so...
___
Not sure if racism...
But guessing so...
Posted by: Some Liberal at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (78TbK)
49
22 Normally, when something isn't working, one stops doing it.
We're Americans, damn it! We can do anything! We can square circles and get blood out of stones! 2 + 2 = 5 if you just believe and KEEP TRYING! And give us MORE MONEY!
We're Americans, damn it! We can do anything! We can square circles and get blood out of stones! 2 + 2 = 5 if you just believe and KEEP TRYING! And give us MORE MONEY!
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (J6suc)
50
Again, your faith in places like California, New York and Massachusetts is greater than mine.
-----
I have no faith in CA, NY, or Mass. Frankly, I have little faith in my home state of Texas. But I have more faith in Texas than those states because the voters here are more like-minded to me than I am to the voters in those states you listed.
And while yes it would be my money going there - it would be their problem (not mine). That strikes me better than what we have now.
And if 30 states start doing things better than the CA, NY and MA's of the world, there will be greater political pressure to reduce the amount of taxes sent to the federal government.
-----
I have no faith in CA, NY, or Mass. Frankly, I have little faith in my home state of Texas. But I have more faith in Texas than those states because the voters here are more like-minded to me than I am to the voters in those states you listed.
And while yes it would be my money going there - it would be their problem (not mine). That strikes me better than what we have now.
And if 30 states start doing things better than the CA, NY and MA's of the world, there will be greater political pressure to reduce the amount of taxes sent to the federal government.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (gmeXX)
51
Government will always have a terrific reason for needing just a little more of your money.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at May 04, 2015 11:16 AM (2AlPN)
52
If republicans actually did what they run on, they would be reducing the level of government. If the level of government decreases, then the power and opportunity for bribes goes down, thus they cannot do what they run on, for fear of legislating themselves out of a job and a large bank account.
If republicans actually did what they run on, they would be reducing the level of government. If the level of government decreases, then the power and opportunity for bribes goes down, thus they cannot do what they run on, for fear of legislating themselves out of a job and a large bank account.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM (dquK7)
53
But hey if you work hard, don't do alcohol or drugs in excess, and get
up at 6 AM every day for the next 10 years, you'll start to make more
then you'd get on that silly EBT card.
Minus the half that gets taken out for people who don't work, of course.
(Which includes SS, but people cling so bitterly to that lie that it's different...)
up at 6 AM every day for the next 10 years, you'll start to make more
then you'd get on that silly EBT card.
Minus the half that gets taken out for people who don't work, of course.
(Which includes SS, but people cling so bitterly to that lie that it's different...)
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM (ZKzrr)
54
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
I look at it this way. The federal government has long paid for a share of maintaining interstate highways running through states, and for maintaining post roads.
In the 80s, under Reagan, the fedgov came along and said, 'hey! states with a drinking age of 18! Do you like federal highway money? If so, you'd better change your drinking age to 21."
And they all ended up having to.
Now we can debate whether 18, 21, 25, 47 whatever is the correct drinking age, but I don't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that Congress has the (enumerated) power to set a national drinking age. They clearly don't.
Same with their war on drugs bullshit. "HEY! State, if you want some of these awesome cool new toys and a sweet flow of federal money ear marked for your police, you need to make xyz illegal, set up xyz penalties, do this that, and a million other things"
They do this CONSTANTLY. So much of what our states spend is spent on compliance costs with federal mandates, many of which are contradictory to other federal mandates and/or state law.
I look at it this way. The federal government has long paid for a share of maintaining interstate highways running through states, and for maintaining post roads.
In the 80s, under Reagan, the fedgov came along and said, 'hey! states with a drinking age of 18! Do you like federal highway money? If so, you'd better change your drinking age to 21."
And they all ended up having to.
Now we can debate whether 18, 21, 25, 47 whatever is the correct drinking age, but I don't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that Congress has the (enumerated) power to set a national drinking age. They clearly don't.
Same with their war on drugs bullshit. "HEY! State, if you want some of these awesome cool new toys and a sweet flow of federal money ear marked for your police, you need to make xyz illegal, set up xyz penalties, do this that, and a million other things"
They do this CONSTANTLY. So much of what our states spend is spent on compliance costs with federal mandates, many of which are contradictory to other federal mandates and/or state law.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM (AkOaV)
55
Body cams will fix everything!
Posted by: Usual suspects at May 04, 2015 11:18 AM (9BRsg)
56
Where do I apply for my block grant?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 04, 2015 11:18 AM (rDqRv)
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:18 AM (MQEz6)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at May 04, 2015 11:19 AM (2AlPN)
59
Normally, when something isn't working, one stops doing it.
Mao just didn't know how to implement it correctly, but Hillary!
Mao just didn't know how to implement it correctly, but Hillary!
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 11:19 AM (ZKzrr)
60
"Tell how much it will take to turn the denizens of the drug infested neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing members of society."
And so we have the answer to the old atheist question: Yes indeed, God can create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it.
And so we have the answer to the old atheist question: Yes indeed, God can create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it.
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:19 AM (J6suc)
61
6 Ryan is a govbot.
He is following his programming.
He cannot do anything else.
Replace him with a thinking human being.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (MQEz6)
Yep, this.
He is following his programming.
He cannot do anything else.
Replace him with a thinking human being.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:07 AM (MQEz6)
Yep, this.
Posted by: rickl at May 04, 2015 11:19 AM (zoehZ)
62
DrewM, you don't get the point with block grants, principally because you want everything and you want it NOW and you whine like a 2 year old if you don't get it. I know this is tough, but think 2 or 3 steps ahead like a problem solver and not like a bomb thrower. The IRS is a far more efficient tax collector than the states, and the problem is that if the federal government spends the money directly it never stops.
But if the federal government takes that IRS money and then repackages it to the states, especially the entitlement money that is the real issue, that gives the ability in a budget-cutting context to shrink the block grants gradually. That reduces the size and scope of federal government without attacking any individual program.
Attacking individual programs is almost impossible in a legislature, which is why nothing ever gets cut. James Buchanan got an economics Nobel Prize for public choice theory. A small but vocal lobby of beneficiaries of a program can organize and overwhelm the disparate interests of taxpayers at large, especially if they can point to a specific benefit, while no one lobbies for the offsetting cost. So one answer is to bundle a bunch of programs together and pass the buck to the states, where most constitutions require balanced budgets.
Now, as the federal dollars decline, some states will cut benefits (let's call them "red," for short) and, as you point out, some states will likely try to maintain benefit levels (let's call them "blue"). Businesses and taxpayers will continue to migrate, as they have been doing for years, from blue to red, and rent-seekers will continue to migrate, as they have been doing for years, from red to blue. Red will continue to prosper and blue will continue to stagnate.
I don't know how this is not a win.
But if the federal government takes that IRS money and then repackages it to the states, especially the entitlement money that is the real issue, that gives the ability in a budget-cutting context to shrink the block grants gradually. That reduces the size and scope of federal government without attacking any individual program.
Attacking individual programs is almost impossible in a legislature, which is why nothing ever gets cut. James Buchanan got an economics Nobel Prize for public choice theory. A small but vocal lobby of beneficiaries of a program can organize and overwhelm the disparate interests of taxpayers at large, especially if they can point to a specific benefit, while no one lobbies for the offsetting cost. So one answer is to bundle a bunch of programs together and pass the buck to the states, where most constitutions require balanced budgets.
Now, as the federal dollars decline, some states will cut benefits (let's call them "red," for short) and, as you point out, some states will likely try to maintain benefit levels (let's call them "blue"). Businesses and taxpayers will continue to migrate, as they have been doing for years, from blue to red, and rent-seekers will continue to migrate, as they have been doing for years, from red to blue. Red will continue to prosper and blue will continue to stagnate.
I don't know how this is not a win.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:20 AM (5f5bM)
63
We've never tried government government.
Posted by: Whoopi Cushion at May 04, 2015 11:21 AM (W5DcG)
64
Posted by: DrewM at May 04, 2015 11:14 AM (YvRAm)
I almost look at block grants as a money laundering scheme.
No one can get too worked up about how the money is wasted since "it's not state money, it's federal money!"
No, its my money, that was taken from me, sent to washington where they took their cut, then sent back to my state with a million strings attached that added all kinds of additional compliance costs.
So the $100 that left my wallet comes back as $80, but requires $30 to pay for the compliance costs to stay in compliance with the federal department of grant compliance.
And even then, the localities have to apply for the money, which requires paying "experts" to write grant proposals, and well, before you know it, we're talking only pennies on the dollar going to what it's supposed to go to, and even then it's done in a stupid, wasteful, inefficient way that often makes the problem worse then if we had just left that $100 in my pocket in the first place.
I almost look at block grants as a money laundering scheme.
No one can get too worked up about how the money is wasted since "it's not state money, it's federal money!"
No, its my money, that was taken from me, sent to washington where they took their cut, then sent back to my state with a million strings attached that added all kinds of additional compliance costs.
So the $100 that left my wallet comes back as $80, but requires $30 to pay for the compliance costs to stay in compliance with the federal department of grant compliance.
And even then, the localities have to apply for the money, which requires paying "experts" to write grant proposals, and well, before you know it, we're talking only pennies on the dollar going to what it's supposed to go to, and even then it's done in a stupid, wasteful, inefficient way that often makes the problem worse then if we had just left that $100 in my pocket in the first place.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:22 AM (AkOaV)
65
I married into a family with a single mother raising two sons, one mentally ill, so the issue of how we should help those in need has rolled around in my head for quite a while.
I would prefer private charities to take over but they can't handle everything and they need oversight. Plus somebody is always going to object to the origins of the charities. There's always going to be somebody who needs some kind of help that the state is best equipped to provide -- mental health care for the violent or those unable to take care of themselves springs to mind -- so in those cases I would rather it be handled at the state and local level than at the federal level.
More and more I come around to the concept of a guaranteed income: Everybody gets X dollars per year, up to a certain income level. If you take the guaranteed income you cannot have any other assistance of any kind. You can give the income to anybody but once it's gone it's gone.
Failing this, and bearing in mind that there really, truly are people who need our help, block grants are probably the best we can do.
I would prefer private charities to take over but they can't handle everything and they need oversight. Plus somebody is always going to object to the origins of the charities. There's always going to be somebody who needs some kind of help that the state is best equipped to provide -- mental health care for the violent or those unable to take care of themselves springs to mind -- so in those cases I would rather it be handled at the state and local level than at the federal level.
More and more I come around to the concept of a guaranteed income: Everybody gets X dollars per year, up to a certain income level. If you take the guaranteed income you cannot have any other assistance of any kind. You can give the income to anybody but once it's gone it's gone.
Failing this, and bearing in mind that there really, truly are people who need our help, block grants are probably the best we can do.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 11:22 AM (RD7QR)
66
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM
Quite right. All money comes with strings, and the government will pull on those strings to make the states dance whatever tune they call. It's not violating the Constitution if the states VOLUNTARILY surrender their rights in order to maintain their flow of government cheese.
Quite right. All money comes with strings, and the government will pull on those strings to make the states dance whatever tune they call. It's not violating the Constitution if the states VOLUNTARILY surrender their rights in order to maintain their flow of government cheese.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (PtTYB)
67
I don't know how this is not a win.
----
That is how I feel. In my ideal world, the federal government would collect dollars for very few federal government needs - namely the military. If CA and NY want to have a war on poverty - collect from your own states. That should be the end goal.
It may be all moot anyway. We will reach that point when the money runs out. I have no clue when that day will arrive.
----
That is how I feel. In my ideal world, the federal government would collect dollars for very few federal government needs - namely the military. If CA and NY want to have a war on poverty - collect from your own states. That should be the end goal.
It may be all moot anyway. We will reach that point when the money runs out. I have no clue when that day will arrive.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (gmeXX)
68
15% or thereabouts live in poverty today. Same as in 1965.
Is the determinate the bottom 15 percent or is there a true definition of poverty?
I submit the 15 percent of today live way better than those of 1965.
Just more gubmint gobbledegook subsidizing and rewarding bad behavior and choices.
Is the determinate the bottom 15 percent or is there a true definition of poverty?
I submit the 15 percent of today live way better than those of 1965.
Just more gubmint gobbledegook subsidizing and rewarding bad behavior and choices.
Posted by: Golfman at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (48QDY)
69
F*ck pretty boy Paul Ryan. He's the poster boy for the false promise, sickly deceptive packaging and endlessly manipulative, quisling guiles of the GOP. He wouldn't say sh*t to the Left if he had a mouth full of it, as we witnessed in his flaccid performance against Biden. I can still see his stupid, uncomplaining cowboy smile as Biden mauled him.
Posted by: rrpjr at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (s/yC1)
70
DrewM truly jumped the shark after this one.
Posted by: Cruzinator at May 04, 2015 11:24 AM (mt2jL)
71
Give each state $200,000,000,000...and put it on Underhill's tax bill.
Posted by: Rep. I.M. Fletcher at May 04, 2015 11:24 AM (cL79m)
72
AllenG, kudos on proper use of "beg the question" (stupid esoteric language hobby horse of mine). Too late to rescue the phrase, but given the near-universal hostility to basic logic, maybe that's academic anyway.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (afQnV)
73
Look up the term "wicked problem". Wicked problems have existed, unsolved, ever since there have been humans.
There's a reason for that.
There's a reason for that.
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (SCcgT)
74
"Revenue Sharing" Nixon called it. Social Security taxes were too high and there was more social security money coming in than the federal government knew what to do with, so Nixon sent it back to the states in the belief it would buy him support.
Social Security taxes were too high because everyone thought the surplus would be put 'on deposit' somewhere, in some bank vault, so that when the day came that it was needed, it would be there. Instead, it was spent by government agencies and IOUs were put in the 'lock box' because everyone thought that when the day came the government would have to covert those IOUs to cash, cash would be available.
Social Security taxes were too high because everyone thought the surplus would be put 'on deposit' somewhere, in some bank vault, so that when the day came that it was needed, it would be there. Instead, it was spent by government agencies and IOUs were put in the 'lock box' because everyone thought that when the day came the government would have to covert those IOUs to cash, cash would be available.
Posted by: Gladius Day at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (M3u4q)
75
AllenG, kudos on proper use of "beg the question"
(stupid esoteric language hobby horse of mine). Too late to rescue the
phrase, but given the near-universal hostility to basic logic, maybe
that's academic anyway.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (afQnV)
***********
+1
(stupid esoteric language hobby horse of mine). Too late to rescue the
phrase, but given the near-universal hostility to basic logic, maybe
that's academic anyway.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (afQnV)
***********
+1
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:26 AM (5f5bM)
76
And even then, the localities have to apply for the money, which requires paying "experts" to write grant proposals,
It's increasingly obvious the purpose of these programs is not to "help people"--it's to provide jobs and slush funds for connected progressives with Studies degrees.
It's increasingly obvious the purpose of these programs is not to "help people"--it's to provide jobs and slush funds for connected progressives with Studies degrees.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 11:26 AM (ZKzrr)
77
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:20 AM (5f5bM)
Because that's not how it will play out.
It may play out like that if close to 100% of the country agreed with you, and saw it as an interim "wind down" step.
But that's not what it will be. It will be yet another opportunity for our corrupticrats to keep the money flowing through the sluices, while obscuring the origin, and taking away more sovereignty from the states.
How long until they say "in order to get any bloc grant money, you need to increase welfare eligibility to include everyone making under $50,000" or whatever?
How long until they force every state to expand medicaid?
You act like it'll be politically easier to say "benefits: off" at the state level then it will at the federal. It won't, especially if the state leaders can say, "hey, nothing we can do about it. We lose billions if we even touch the welfare system." and the feds say "I dunno! we just 'em block grants, blame the state"
Because that's not how it will play out.
It may play out like that if close to 100% of the country agreed with you, and saw it as an interim "wind down" step.
But that's not what it will be. It will be yet another opportunity for our corrupticrats to keep the money flowing through the sluices, while obscuring the origin, and taking away more sovereignty from the states.
How long until they say "in order to get any bloc grant money, you need to increase welfare eligibility to include everyone making under $50,000" or whatever?
How long until they force every state to expand medicaid?
You act like it'll be politically easier to say "benefits: off" at the state level then it will at the federal. It won't, especially if the state leaders can say, "hey, nothing we can do about it. We lose billions if we even touch the welfare system." and the feds say "I dunno! we just 'em block grants, blame the state"
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:26 AM (AkOaV)
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:26 AM (J6suc)
79
I've got he solution you wing nuts.
We give everyone a trillion dollar coin.
Then we're all rich! Even those poor people you haters hate with your hatey hateness.
Did I mention I won the Nobel Prize?
We give everyone a trillion dollar coin.
Then we're all rich! Even those poor people you haters hate with your hatey hateness.
Did I mention I won the Nobel Prize?
Posted by: Paul Krugman at May 04, 2015 11:27 AM (78TbK)
80
Tell how much it will take to turn the denizens of the drug infested
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society.
You can't because society doesn't want them. It has no jobs, and no use for them.
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society.
You can't because society doesn't want them. It has no jobs, and no use for them.
Posted by: DFCtomm at May 04, 2015 11:27 AM (dSPg9)
Posted by: Gladius Day at May 04, 2015 11:27 AM (M3u4q)
82
>>>15% or thereabouts live in poverty today. Same as in 1965.
There will always be a lowest 15%. Now, let's compare our lowest 15% with the lowest 15% in place like India, Brazil, Russia or even France.
There will always be a lowest 15%. Now, let's compare our lowest 15% with the lowest 15% in place like India, Brazil, Russia or even France.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (PtTYB)
83
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 11:26 AM (ZKzrr)
Yeah.
You should see how many "e-rate" experts are out there getting their cut of money going to put "high speed internet in classrooms across the country"
Small school districts hire consultants to apply for the money, big districts have in house salaried consultants.
Thats millions and millions of dollars wasted being compliant with JUST THAT one program.
Yeah.
You should see how many "e-rate" experts are out there getting their cut of money going to put "high speed internet in classrooms across the country"
Small school districts hire consultants to apply for the money, big districts have in house salaried consultants.
Thats millions and millions of dollars wasted being compliant with JUST THAT one program.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (AkOaV)
84
I look at it this way. The federal government has long paid for a share of maintaining interstate highways running through states, and for maintaining post roads.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM (AkOaV)
-------
Highways are a perfect subject for study with regard to the role of governmenst, federalism, private enterprise versus government, eminent domain, public works as welfare, and block grants. Very complex.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:17 AM (AkOaV)
-------
Highways are a perfect subject for study with regard to the role of governmenst, federalism, private enterprise versus government, eminent domain, public works as welfare, and block grants. Very complex.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (NUqwG)
85
Ed Miliband, the head of the British Labor Party, wishes to criminalize "Islamophobia" and President Asshole Obama has repeatedly declared the "war on terror" is over.
All the best places chorus, "what me? Worry?" There is no war. There is no problem that a little silence, a little censorship and a little John Kerry won't amend.
Yet no one is safe.
All the best places chorus, "what me? Worry?" There is no war. There is no problem that a little silence, a little censorship and a little John Kerry won't amend.
Yet no one is safe.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (e8kgV)
86
That is how I feel. In my ideal world, the federal
government would collect dollars for very few federal government needs -
namely the military. If CA and NY want to have a war on poverty -
collect from your own states. That should be the end goal.
It may be all moot anyway. We will reach that point when the money runs out. I have no clue when that day will arrive.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (gmeXX)
******************
I trust Austin (specifically, Greg Abbott and the Lege) to manage my tax money responsibly a lot more than I do Washington. Give them more responsibility and funding and give Washington less. If that means Jerry Brown continues to be an idiot and spend it on bullet trains and Covered California, so be it, that's their problem, not mine.
government would collect dollars for very few federal government needs -
namely the military. If CA and NY want to have a war on poverty -
collect from your own states. That should be the end goal.
It may be all moot anyway. We will reach that point when the money runs out. I have no clue when that day will arrive.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:23 AM (gmeXX)
******************
I trust Austin (specifically, Greg Abbott and the Lege) to manage my tax money responsibly a lot more than I do Washington. Give them more responsibility and funding and give Washington less. If that means Jerry Brown continues to be an idiot and spend it on bullet trains and Covered California, so be it, that's their problem, not mine.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (5f5bM)
87
And yet nobody will ever notice that at the lower line ranks in the IRS...people are evaluating options and trying to run away to the private sector for more safe positions than being set up for failure by your own leadership.
Posted by: Lieutenant Blantyre at May 04, 2015 11:29 AM (RatoD)
88
You act like it'll be politically easier
-----
I really don't know what will be politically easier. I know any conservative solution will be politically hard - because too many people want their "benefits." I am of the mind that block grants would be an easier sell - though admittedly a less than desirable solution.
I really don't think anything will happen until the boomers are basically gone. They have too many "benefits" flowing to them and I do not see them voluntarily reducing their "benefits."
-----
I really don't know what will be politically easier. I know any conservative solution will be politically hard - because too many people want their "benefits." I am of the mind that block grants would be an easier sell - though admittedly a less than desirable solution.
I really don't think anything will happen until the boomers are basically gone. They have too many "benefits" flowing to them and I do not see them voluntarily reducing their "benefits."
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:29 AM (gmeXX)
89
79
I've got he solution you wing nuts.
We give everyone a trillion dollar coin.
Then we're all rich! Even those poor people you haters hate with your hatey hateness.
Did I mention I won the Nobel Prize?
Disregarding inflation how long do you think it would take the spendthrifts to burn through 1 trillion dollars? They could do it in a lifetime and be right back begging for other peoples money.
I've got he solution you wing nuts.
We give everyone a trillion dollar coin.
Then we're all rich! Even those poor people you haters hate with your hatey hateness.
Did I mention I won the Nobel Prize?
Disregarding inflation how long do you think it would take the spendthrifts to burn through 1 trillion dollars? They could do it in a lifetime and be right back begging for other peoples money.
Posted by: DFCtomm at May 04, 2015 11:30 AM (dSPg9)
90
Oh FFS
Alex Bevan,local washed up hippie Northern Ohio guitarist
from the 70's, posts a remembrance in honor of the Kent State
shootings 45 years ago.which shall live on forever in the minds of
leftist as the day free speech died. Not only did free speech take a
blow at Kent State, according to Alex, it should not be confused with
certain event in Texas, which was all about hate. Pretty much had it
coming, those haters.
Can't believe I ever liked this guy, his
music or the whole leftist-peace- music-industrial-complex but at least I
had the excuse I was young. These people are in their 50's, 60's 70's and their youthful political idealism hasn't made the slightest adjustment to account for reality. The events at Kent State provide a useful slogan to show your compassion and commitment, nothing more. Fake some tears, pump that fist in the air and demand justice and peace! ( Good party to follow)
They will go to their graves stoned, clueless and delusional.
Alex Bevan,local washed up hippie Northern Ohio guitarist
from the 70's, posts a remembrance in honor of the Kent State
shootings 45 years ago.which shall live on forever in the minds of
leftist as the day free speech died. Not only did free speech take a
blow at Kent State, according to Alex, it should not be confused with
certain event in Texas, which was all about hate. Pretty much had it
coming, those haters.
Can't believe I ever liked this guy, his
music or the whole leftist-peace- music-industrial-complex but at least I
had the excuse I was young. These people are in their 50's, 60's 70's and their youthful political idealism hasn't made the slightest adjustment to account for reality. The events at Kent State provide a useful slogan to show your compassion and commitment, nothing more. Fake some tears, pump that fist in the air and demand justice and peace! ( Good party to follow)
They will go to their graves stoned, clueless and delusional.
Posted by: The Burning Times at May 04, 2015 11:30 AM (1BQGO)
91
Now, let's compare our lowest 15% with the lowest 15% in place like India, Brazil, Russia or even France.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (PtTYB)
*******************
Better yet, compare the standard of living of our lowest 15% with the median in those countries.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (PtTYB)
*******************
Better yet, compare the standard of living of our lowest 15% with the median in those countries.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:30 AM (5f5bM)
92
Posted by: Gladius Day at May 04, 2015 11:25 AM (M3u4q)
No, from day 1 there was never any lock box or anything else.
The payroll tax and SS are related, but not really. It was a gimmick from the beginning.
Payroll tax has always gone directly to the treasury, with "intra government treasury bonds" going to SSA (on paper at least.)
Just realize this: SSA started paying out benefits on the same day they started collecting payroll taxes. So from day 1, money from Joe Sixpacks paycheck was going to pay for Granny Sixpacks SS check, and NEVER went in to some super secret bank account. Any excess went in to the treasury and disappeared down whatever rat hole it disappears down.
No, from day 1 there was never any lock box or anything else.
The payroll tax and SS are related, but not really. It was a gimmick from the beginning.
Payroll tax has always gone directly to the treasury, with "intra government treasury bonds" going to SSA (on paper at least.)
Just realize this: SSA started paying out benefits on the same day they started collecting payroll taxes. So from day 1, money from Joe Sixpacks paycheck was going to pay for Granny Sixpacks SS check, and NEVER went in to some super secret bank account. Any excess went in to the treasury and disappeared down whatever rat hole it disappears down.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (AkOaV)
93
There will always be a lowest 15%. Now, let's compare our lowest 15% with the lowest 15% in place like India, Brazil, Russia or even France.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (PtTYB)
------
... and how that they would compare without the existing welfare state. Then which is to be preferred - with or without the welfare state.
Posted by: Citizen Cake at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (PtTYB)
------
... and how that they would compare without the existing welfare state. Then which is to be preferred - with or without the welfare state.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (NUqwG)
94
You act like it'll be politically easier to say "benefits: off" at the state level then it will at the federal. It won't
Some will, most won't. Then people will move in large numbers from the won't states to the will states because their taxes are lower and their economies are booming. All it takes is a few leaders, and then the math eventually catches up with the laggards.
Some will, most won't. Then people will move in large numbers from the won't states to the will states because their taxes are lower and their economies are booming. All it takes is a few leaders, and then the math eventually catches up with the laggards.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (GMG6W)
95
If I paint my car red will it go faster?
Yes. It's the well-known red shift effect we men of science understand so well.
Yes. It's the well-known red shift effect we men of science understand so well.
Posted by: Neil deGrasse Tyson at May 04, 2015 11:32 AM (JO9+V)
96
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:29 AM (gmeXX)
Yes, but the Boomers are going to fuck us big time before they do us the favor of dying.
Too many of them retiring to us younger folk to continue supporting them, and our own families, and our adopted families who we support through welfare.
Yes, but the Boomers are going to fuck us big time before they do us the favor of dying.
Too many of them retiring to us younger folk to continue supporting them, and our own families, and our adopted families who we support through welfare.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:32 AM (AkOaV)
97
Better yet, compare the standard of living of our lowest 15% with the median in those countries.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:30 AM (5f5bM)
Yep. Flat screens and xBoxes and cell phones and AC and a chicken in every pot ain't fixed Baltimore.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:30 AM (5f5bM)
Yep. Flat screens and xBoxes and cell phones and AC and a chicken in every pot ain't fixed Baltimore.
Posted by: Golfman at May 04, 2015 11:33 AM (48QDY)
98
Yes, but the Boomers are going to fuck us big time before they do us the favor of dying.
----
Unfortunately, they have the votes.
----
Unfortunately, they have the votes.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 11:33 AM (gmeXX)
99
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (GMG6W)
I have seen no evidence of that ever happening. Ever.
Why hasn't TX or OK or UT gotten rid of all state benefits then? Why haven't they dumped medicaid?
I have seen no evidence of that ever happening. Ever.
Why hasn't TX or OK or UT gotten rid of all state benefits then? Why haven't they dumped medicaid?
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:33 AM (AkOaV)
100
The federal government has long paid for a share of maintaining interstate highways running through states, and for maintaining post roads.
Why then are Michigan roads in such terrible shape? Especially around Detroit! And why then is Synder, Gov, MI campaigning on raising taxes for 'safe roads'?
Answer, because the money doesn't get spent on roads.
Why then are Michigan roads in such terrible shape? Especially around Detroit! And why then is Synder, Gov, MI campaigning on raising taxes for 'safe roads'?
Answer, because the money doesn't get spent on roads.
Posted by: Gladius Day at May 04, 2015 11:34 AM (M3u4q)
101
94
You act like it'll be politically easier to say "benefits: off" at the state level then it will at the federal. It won't
Some
will, most won't. Then people will move in large numbers from the won't
states to the will states because their taxes are lower and their
economies are booming. All it takes is a few leaders, and then the math
eventually catches up with the laggards.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (GMG6W)
***********
^^ this. Most states have to balance budgets. The federal government doesn't. It is easier to cut programs in a state, because the constituencies are less organized and have to fight for their cut in 50 places rather than one. Some states will do a better job than others, but in aggregate they will do a far better job than Washington.
You act like it'll be politically easier to say "benefits: off" at the state level then it will at the federal. It won't
Some
will, most won't. Then people will move in large numbers from the won't
states to the will states because their taxes are lower and their
economies are booming. All it takes is a few leaders, and then the math
eventually catches up with the laggards.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (GMG6W)
***********
^^ this. Most states have to balance budgets. The federal government doesn't. It is easier to cut programs in a state, because the constituencies are less organized and have to fight for their cut in 50 places rather than one. Some states will do a better job than others, but in aggregate they will do a far better job than Washington.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:34 AM (5f5bM)
102
I really don't think anything will happen until the boomers are
basically gone. They have too many "benefits" flowing to them and I do
not see them voluntarily reducing their "benefits."
I'm already resigned to the fact that I'll be means-tested out of the program into which I've been paying since I was 15. There's nothing extraordinary about the boomers and their greed. That's human nature.
basically gone. They have too many "benefits" flowing to them and I do
not see them voluntarily reducing their "benefits."
I'm already resigned to the fact that I'll be means-tested out of the program into which I've been paying since I was 15. There's nothing extraordinary about the boomers and their greed. That's human nature.
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:34 AM (GMG6W)
103
Federal makes States into clients of the Empire.
Wake the fuck up.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:18 AM (MQEz6)
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Federal makes States into clients of the Empire.
Wake the fuck up.
Posted by: eman at May 04, 2015 11:18 AM (MQEz6)
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 04, 2015 11:34 AM (Txrlv)
104
I know, let's not have corrupt, unnamed, faceless bureaucrats in DC control your life -- let's have corrupt, unnamed, faceless bureaucrats in your state capital control your life!!
Posted by: Costanza Defense at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (ZPrif)
105
Insanity is expecting different results by repeating the same thing that failed the first time. Block grants have been around since that famous conservative Richard Nixon promoted them under the idea of New Federalism.
In an ideal world, the states being closer to the people of their state could tailor responses to serve their constituents best in an efficient and effective manner.
We don't live in that ideal world: instead, grants create a new new constituency for increasing spending which are state governments. Block grants for such things as Head Start that does not work become entrenched, in part, because of the state government dependency on handing out the goodies for patronage purposes.
Handing out the goodies becomes so important that as the fed's ratchet up procedural requirements to get those sweet "free" dollars that state governments, even Republican controlled ones, will sell their sovereignty for "free" cash. To wit, see Kasich's expansion of Medicaid in Ohio. The most sanctimonious such as Kasich will then chastise those conservatives opposing such as cruel un-Christian monsters who flog the poor for amusement. The real story is that the medical industrial complex in Ohio and elsewhere just wants someone dependable such as taxpayers to foot the bill for those who cannot pay instead of writing it off as not collectable.
The rationing occurs when very few providers accept Medicaid and often these providers are at the bottom of the barrel in quality in services provided. What procedures are done is also limited. A great deal of Medicaid expense also occurs when seniors go into nursing homes after transferring as many assets as possible to their progeny in order to become indigent.
BTW, controlled studies in Oregon have shown that Medicaid does little to improve health care for the poor but only makes the poor less likely to worry about health care expenses.
In an ideal world, the states being closer to the people of their state could tailor responses to serve their constituents best in an efficient and effective manner.
We don't live in that ideal world: instead, grants create a new new constituency for increasing spending which are state governments. Block grants for such things as Head Start that does not work become entrenched, in part, because of the state government dependency on handing out the goodies for patronage purposes.
Handing out the goodies becomes so important that as the fed's ratchet up procedural requirements to get those sweet "free" dollars that state governments, even Republican controlled ones, will sell their sovereignty for "free" cash. To wit, see Kasich's expansion of Medicaid in Ohio. The most sanctimonious such as Kasich will then chastise those conservatives opposing such as cruel un-Christian monsters who flog the poor for amusement. The real story is that the medical industrial complex in Ohio and elsewhere just wants someone dependable such as taxpayers to foot the bill for those who cannot pay instead of writing it off as not collectable.
The rationing occurs when very few providers accept Medicaid and often these providers are at the bottom of the barrel in quality in services provided. What procedures are done is also limited. A great deal of Medicaid expense also occurs when seniors go into nursing homes after transferring as many assets as possible to their progeny in order to become indigent.
BTW, controlled studies in Oregon have shown that Medicaid does little to improve health care for the poor but only makes the poor less likely to worry about health care expenses.
Posted by: wg at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (6CwMF)
106
Why hasn't TX or OK or UT gotten rid of all state benefits then? Why haven't they dumped medicaid?
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:33 AM (AkOaV)
*****
They can't. But when they had the choice to refuse Medicaid expansion, a lot of states did.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:33 AM (AkOaV)
*****
They can't. But when they had the choice to refuse Medicaid expansion, a lot of states did.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (5f5bM)
107
Headstart doesn't work (even by the assessments of Democrat administrations,) we still pay for it. Educational achievement remains flat, we still pour more and more money into it. The laundry list of LBJs social programs didn't allieviate poverty, we still pay for them.
Facts don't matter.
We need to run on a platform of "If you like your government spending, you can keep your government spending."
Facts don't matter.
We need to run on a platform of "If you like your government spending, you can keep your government spending."
Posted by: Glen at May 04, 2015 11:36 AM (1x4u/)
108
Why hasn't TX or OK or UT gotten rid of all state benefits then? Why haven't they dumped medicaid?
Posted by: mynewhandle
compare the benefits level in those states vs blue states
Posted by: mynewhandle
compare the benefits level in those states vs blue states
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:36 AM (GMG6W)
109
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:28 AM (NUqwG)
Well, shouldn't be.
Interstate highway system was unconstitutional. Eisenhower half assedly justified it as a military necessity to transport troops.
But it should be quickly and easily turned over to the states. They can manage roads within their own borders, they already do to a large extent. No reason to have federal fingers involved.
Post roads are a little different, since the constitution says the federal government shall build and maintain post roads. I'd say pass a constitutional amendment ending the USPS and all post road / post office requirements. Turn those roads 100% over to the states, let them decide if they want to keep them as state roads or turn them over to local government.
Post office is an outdated concept. Between email and fedex, I see no reason for a postal system to exist.
Well, shouldn't be.
Interstate highway system was unconstitutional. Eisenhower half assedly justified it as a military necessity to transport troops.
But it should be quickly and easily turned over to the states. They can manage roads within their own borders, they already do to a large extent. No reason to have federal fingers involved.
Post roads are a little different, since the constitution says the federal government shall build and maintain post roads. I'd say pass a constitutional amendment ending the USPS and all post road / post office requirements. Turn those roads 100% over to the states, let them decide if they want to keep them as state roads or turn them over to local government.
Post office is an outdated concept. Between email and fedex, I see no reason for a postal system to exist.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:37 AM (AkOaV)
110
Aren't highway funds, more or less, block grants?
Block grants that imposed nationwide drinking ages, 55MPH speed limits, etc.?
Block grants that imposed nationwide drinking ages, 55MPH speed limits, etc.?
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 11:37 AM (ZvKdv)
111
let's have corrupt, unnamed, faceless bureaucrats in your state capital control your life!!
Posted by: Costanza Defense at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (ZPrif)
Welcome toIllin Chicago!
Posted by: Costanza Defense at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (ZPrif)
Welcome to
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at May 04, 2015 11:38 AM (DCpyI)
112
Nobody is ever going to say "benefits: off". That switch happens to double as the "on" switch for your local barbarian horde. If you want to be realistic you're much better off discussing relocation and secession.
Posted by: kartoffel at May 04, 2015 11:38 AM (sGRH7)
113
Attention, various deep thinking idiots:
The best anti-poverty program is a thriving economy. Anything that undermines that objective is regreessive and counterproductive.
The best anti-poverty program is a thriving economy. Anything that undermines that objective is regreessive and counterproductive.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 04, 2015 11:38 AM (659DL)
114
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:36 AM (GMG6W)
Well, depending on the source, they either pay more than blue states or around the same.
I don't see any sources claiming TX pays out less per poor person in welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If you have a link demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
Well, depending on the source, they either pay more than blue states or around the same.
I don't see any sources claiming TX pays out less per poor person in welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If you have a link demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:39 AM (AkOaV)
115
Tell how much it will take to turn the denizens of the drug infested
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society. Is money the only issues keeping these fine folks
from productive careers and the comforts of middle class America?
We all know why, but just can't say. But anyone who's ever had the misfortune of watching a segment of Jerry Springer knows why.
neighborhoods of Baltimore or predominately white rural areas where meth
and Heroin use are skyrocketing, into fine upstanding contributing
members of society. Is money the only issues keeping these fine folks
from productive careers and the comforts of middle class America?
We all know why, but just can't say. But anyone who's ever had the misfortune of watching a segment of Jerry Springer knows why.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 11:40 AM (oKE6c)
116
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 11:37 AM (ZvKdv)
yes. that was my point above.
It's just another way for feds to take over state sovereignty.
yes. that was my point above.
It's just another way for feds to take over state sovereignty.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:40 AM (AkOaV)
117
Headstart doesn't work (even by the assessments of Democrat administrations,) we still pay for it. Educational achievement remains flat, we still pour more and more money into it.
Posted by: Glen at May 04, 2015 11:36 AM (1x4u/)
-------
Unfortunately there is now growing bi-partisan support throughout the country for major expansion of various pre-K programs. None of which have any better results than the long-running Head Start.
Posted by: Glen at May 04, 2015 11:36 AM (1x4u/)
-------
Unfortunately there is now growing bi-partisan support throughout the country for major expansion of various pre-K programs. None of which have any better results than the long-running Head Start.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:40 AM (NUqwG)
118
>Post office is an outdated concept. Between email and fedex, I see no reason for a postal system to exist.
Try telling the federales that.
Try telling the federales that.
Posted by: Lysander Spooner at May 04, 2015 11:40 AM (sGRH7)
119
Way, way off topic-
Pam Geller absolutely destroy CNN progtard about last night's jihadfail and freedom of speech:
http://twitchy.com/2015/05/04/making-a-complete-
fool-out-of-her-cnns-alisyn-camerota-schooled-by-
pamela-geller-video/
If only we had some Republicans, who could throw out the progtard bias, throw it back in their faces and speak truth to power this way.
MOAR PLEEZ.
Pam Geller absolutely destroy CNN progtard about last night's jihadfail and freedom of speech:
http://twitchy.com/2015/05/04/making-a-complete-
fool-out-of-her-cnns-alisyn-camerota-schooled-by-
pamela-geller-video/
If only we had some Republicans, who could throw out the progtard bias, throw it back in their faces and speak truth to power this way.
MOAR PLEEZ.
Posted by: naturalfake at May 04, 2015 11:41 AM (KUa85)
120
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:31 AM (AkOaV)
Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail, when they stop growing.
Some Politicians know this... and think that bringing in large amounts of Immigrants will be that growth... but it won't work because there are only so many jobs in this post Industrial age American economy.
I love how the Government absolves itself of wrongdoing... ie things that if we did them? we'd go to jail... but since THEY do it? its OK...
Soc Sec is a Ponzi scheme...
Congress insider trading...
Political False Advertising...
Bribery... (campaign contributions)...
Hell... the Lottery... ( illegal for a private citizen to create one like that)...
Oh.. and the payout of the lottery, is so low that it would be illegal in any State that has legalized gambling...
I could go on and on....
Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail, when they stop growing.
Some Politicians know this... and think that bringing in large amounts of Immigrants will be that growth... but it won't work because there are only so many jobs in this post Industrial age American economy.
I love how the Government absolves itself of wrongdoing... ie things that if we did them? we'd go to jail... but since THEY do it? its OK...
Soc Sec is a Ponzi scheme...
Congress insider trading...
Political False Advertising...
Bribery... (campaign contributions)...
Hell... the Lottery... ( illegal for a private citizen to create one like that)...
Oh.. and the payout of the lottery, is so low that it would be illegal in any State that has legalized gambling...
I could go on and on....
Posted by: BB Wolf at May 04, 2015 11:41 AM (qh617)
121
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:35 AM (5f5bM)
Why can't they?
If I recall, the govt tried to force states in to medicaid, was unsuccessful, so promised to pay for a portion of it with federal money and made entering in to the program totally "voluntary".
Which is why Obama couldnt' force states to EXPAND medicaid either.
Why can't they?
If I recall, the govt tried to force states in to medicaid, was unsuccessful, so promised to pay for a portion of it with federal money and made entering in to the program totally "voluntary".
Which is why Obama couldnt' force states to EXPAND medicaid either.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:41 AM (AkOaV)
122
-They gave me a bunch of money. Everybody's rich now. Can you sell me some food?
-Well, I'm rich now, too. Why the hell should I bother making food for you?
-Well, I'm rich now, too. Why the hell should I bother making food for you?
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (SCcgT)
123
Some states, like California, are not nimble. Give all 57 states the freedom to experiment, and they will become examples of what works and what doesn't.
I agree that the fed doesn't need to be handing out printed money, but the freedom to set policy at the state level would, in fact, do wonders.
I agree that the fed doesn't need to be handing out printed money, but the freedom to set policy at the state level would, in fact, do wonders.
Posted by: Old Hob at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (ZufZo)
124
I don't see any sources claiming TX pays out less
per poor person in welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If
you have a link demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:39 AM (AkOaV)
I think that's actually pretty easy to find, and I'll look. But just consider this -- when was the last time you heard of anyone moving to Texas from California because the welfare is better? But you DO hear of people moving to California (especially for MediCal).
per poor person in welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If
you have a link demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:39 AM (AkOaV)
I think that's actually pretty easy to find, and I'll look. But just consider this -- when was the last time you heard of anyone moving to Texas from California because the welfare is better? But you DO hear of people moving to California (especially for MediCal).
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (5f5bM)
125
Isn't poverty a fixed rate adjusted for inflation??
So it will always be with us.
=============
Yes.
And you qualify for benefits at 150% of the official poverty level for your area.
Which then gets you counted as part of the "poor."
Which increases the number of "poor" in your area.
Which increases the official poverty level in your area.
Isn't that fucking awesome?
So it will always be with us.
=============
Yes.
And you qualify for benefits at 150% of the official poverty level for your area.
Which then gets you counted as part of the "poor."
Which increases the number of "poor" in your area.
Which increases the official poverty level in your area.
Isn't that fucking awesome?
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (ZvKdv)
126
I don't see any sources claiming TX pays out less per poor person in
welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If you have a link
demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
http://tinyurl.com/nxgkxyz
welfare than NY, but I haven't dug in TOO deeply. If you have a link
demonstrating that, I'd be interested.
http://tinyurl.com/nxgkxyz
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (GMG6W)
127
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:34 AM (5f5bM)
You're living in a dream world. They will simply increase the size of the block grants if state budgets get too tight.
Do you see anyone in the GOP talking about revoking ObamaCare's Medicare expansion?
When push comes to shove, Republicans will make sure the federal government "provides resources."
You're living in a dream world. They will simply increase the size of the block grants if state budgets get too tight.
Do you see anyone in the GOP talking about revoking ObamaCare's Medicare expansion?
When push comes to shove, Republicans will make sure the federal government "provides resources."
Posted by: DrewM at May 04, 2015 11:43 AM (YvRAm)
128
119 Way, way off topic-
Pam Geller absolutely destroy CNN progtard about last night's jihadfail and freedom of speech:
I'm off too but just heard about the Texas shootings... Any more information on the perps?
Pam Geller absolutely destroy CNN progtard about last night's jihadfail and freedom of speech:
I'm off too but just heard about the Texas shootings... Any more information on the perps?
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 11:43 AM (Bn6aD)
129
Posted by: BB Wolf at May 04, 2015 11:41 AM (qh617)
Yeah.
Oh, everyone in DC knows how fucked SS is.
And yes, bringing in millions and millions of immigrants is one of their (panicked) solutions. Won't help, of course, because bringing new investors in to the pyramid scheme does not make it not a pyramid scheme, just buys you a little time while ensuring that when the house of cards collapses, it brings more people down with it.
I mean, usually in a ponzi scheme this is the point where newer investors (like me) say "ehh... I'm sketched. I'll take my money and get out please" and the guy organizing the scheme starts making excuses as to why I can't get my money back, and new investors start fleeing.
but of course, we dont have that choice since this is a mandatory participation ponzi scheme.
Yeah.
Oh, everyone in DC knows how fucked SS is.
And yes, bringing in millions and millions of immigrants is one of their (panicked) solutions. Won't help, of course, because bringing new investors in to the pyramid scheme does not make it not a pyramid scheme, just buys you a little time while ensuring that when the house of cards collapses, it brings more people down with it.
I mean, usually in a ponzi scheme this is the point where newer investors (like me) say "ehh... I'm sketched. I'll take my money and get out please" and the guy organizing the scheme starts making excuses as to why I can't get my money back, and new investors start fleeing.
but of course, we dont have that choice since this is a mandatory participation ponzi scheme.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:44 AM (AkOaV)
130
The Donk vision is that everybody has the same lifestyle whether they work or not. (Elites excepted, of course.)
Posted by: The Great White Snark at May 04, 2015 11:46 AM (vk+Kb)
131
Big topic, but as some have pointed out, logic plus decades of experiene provide literally zero evidence that the block grant gimmick will, predictably or reliably, change anything.
I'd be puzzled that this "weird trick" thing is getting any support, but I'll have to rack it up to (understandable, shared) frustration verging on desperation.
Term limits, const. balanced budget amendments - all these attempts at engineered, rules-based changesare pointless. Only actual changes in policy, meaning actual votes to change policies and priorities, will ever change our course. Votes by office-holders - as 2010 and 2014 show, the link between electorate and public policy is now mostly broken, just gone.
Oh - and consistent with the point about rules, states are "required" to have balanced budgets like the IRS is obligated to operate lawfully. Right. The political will to disregard the CA const. on balanced budgets existed, and therefore it was done. First under Davis, then Arnie, now Brown. Pretty amazing, really. Don't know the score in other states, but in CA it was uprecedented. Which gets us back to basics - when laws mean nothing, and unwritten rules of governance and public responsibility mean nothing, when there is no consequence in elections or public opinion for massive failure or corruption or lawlessness, well ..... it's all just flotsam being washed around on the beach by the wavelets. Hard to analyze, even harder to fix.
I'd be puzzled that this "weird trick" thing is getting any support, but I'll have to rack it up to (understandable, shared) frustration verging on desperation.
Term limits, const. balanced budget amendments - all these attempts at engineered, rules-based changesare pointless. Only actual changes in policy, meaning actual votes to change policies and priorities, will ever change our course. Votes by office-holders - as 2010 and 2014 show, the link between electorate and public policy is now mostly broken, just gone.
Oh - and consistent with the point about rules, states are "required" to have balanced budgets like the IRS is obligated to operate lawfully. Right. The political will to disregard the CA const. on balanced budgets existed, and therefore it was done. First under Davis, then Arnie, now Brown. Pretty amazing, really. Don't know the score in other states, but in CA it was uprecedented. Which gets us back to basics - when laws mean nothing, and unwritten rules of governance and public responsibility mean nothing, when there is no consequence in elections or public opinion for massive failure or corruption or lawlessness, well ..... it's all just flotsam being washed around on the beach by the wavelets. Hard to analyze, even harder to fix.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:46 AM (afQnV)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (ODxAs)
133
Interstate highway system was unconstitutional. Eisenhower half assedly justified it as a military necessity to transport troops.
But it should be quickly and easily turned over to the states. They can manage roads within their own borders, they already do to a large extent....
===
The Interstate was a good thing, IMO. To my knowledge, each local segment is maintained by the states, with varying results. In some states, they are full of potholes and are horribly maintained, while in others they are safe and smooth. The difference seems to correlate with the size of the local welfare constituency.
But it should be quickly and easily turned over to the states. They can manage roads within their own borders, they already do to a large extent....
===
The Interstate was a good thing, IMO. To my knowledge, each local segment is maintained by the states, with varying results. In some states, they are full of potholes and are horribly maintained, while in others they are safe and smooth. The difference seems to correlate with the size of the local welfare constituency.
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (J6suc)
134
Maybe sudden Global Cooling will also chill the ardor to burn by the thugs who are abetted by Democrats. Chill as in encase the hotheads in ice and not be discovered for a century.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (wPxCh)
135
Posted by: pep at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (GMG6W)
That article is saying TANF cash benefits have not kept up with the rate of inflation, basically, and that some states haven't *raised* pay outs as much as others.
And of the top pay out states, I'm seeing "cost of living" as the leading indicator, not whether the state voted blue or red.
That article is saying TANF cash benefits have not kept up with the rate of inflation, basically, and that some states haven't *raised* pay outs as much as others.
And of the top pay out states, I'm seeing "cost of living" as the leading indicator, not whether the state voted blue or red.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (AkOaV)
136
My voting record is perfect in one regard -- I always vote in any election where there is any kind of tax increase/bond proposal on the ballot. The reader can guess my consistent position on those proposals.
But in all my long voting history, never once has there been a proposal on the ballot to reduce a tax.
It's almost like there is a one way ratcheting effect going on there.
And once a group of politicos get their paws on a source of dinero, they immediately start plotting on how to distribute it so that they can buy moar votes for themselves. And if a few shekels were to fall into their friends and family's pockets at the same time, all the better, non?
But in all my long voting history, never once has there been a proposal on the ballot to reduce a tax.
It's almost like there is a one way ratcheting effect going on there.
And once a group of politicos get their paws on a source of dinero, they immediately start plotting on how to distribute it so that they can buy moar votes for themselves. And if a few shekels were to fall into their friends and family's pockets at the same time, all the better, non?
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (pbY3m)
137
We spend a lot of time debating how government should do things. What we need is to spend some time thinking about what government really can or should even try to do.
------------------------------------------
Oops! Too late thinking about that.
------------------------------------------
Oops! Too late thinking about that.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 11:48 AM (/HX7u)
138
Post office is an outdated concept. Between email and fedex, I see no reason for a postal system to exist.
Fed-Up.
Fed Ex - UPS merger.
Fed-Up.
Fed Ex - UPS merger.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (8Jl4+)
139
As for size of welfare benefits by state:
In 2013 Texas paid on average $18,037 per beneficiary per year and New York paid $38,004. Go to pages 4-5 for the table.
http://tinyurl.com/lr8zxty
In 2013 Texas paid on average $18,037 per beneficiary per year and New York paid $38,004. Go to pages 4-5 for the table.
http://tinyurl.com/lr8zxty
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (5f5bM)
140
Posted by: despair at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (J6suc)
No, the federal government maintains the federal highways (a portion of it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
And it was a horrible idea. Just a way to get states more indebted to the federal government.
They could have built their own damned roads. In fact, the vast majority of highways in most states are state highways.
They even manage to work with neighboring states to match their highways up so its a seemless border crossing. All without federal help.
No, the federal government maintains the federal highways (a portion of it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
And it was a horrible idea. Just a way to get states more indebted to the federal government.
They could have built their own damned roads. In fact, the vast majority of highways in most states are state highways.
They even manage to work with neighboring states to match their highways up so its a seemless border crossing. All without federal help.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (AkOaV)
141
OT: Saturday was World Naked Gardening Day.
http://bit.ly/1KH7C0z
I trust that all of the 'Ettes have their compliance pics ready.
OT: Saturday was World Naked Gardening Day.
http://bit.ly/1KH7C0z
I trust that all of the 'Ettes have their compliance pics ready.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (JtwS4)
142
136 My voting record is perfect in one regard -- I always vote in any election where there is any kind of tax increase/bond proposal on the ballot. The reader can guess my consistent position on those proposals.
Yep here in my area we have a special election for a sales tax increase..... Again... I'll vote no but it will pass like it always does here in Lib ville...For the chillren don't you know...
Yep here in my area we have a special election for a sales tax increase..... Again... I'll vote no but it will pass like it always does here in Lib ville...For the chillren don't you know...
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (Bn6aD)
143
isn't everyone clear that children shouldn't eat lead paint? this isn't a new thing
Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (0O7c5)
144
Yes, but the Boomers are going to fuck us big time before they do us the favor of dying.
-
We've always gotten things the way we want them and that's not going to change. It's going to be champagne retirement and caviar medicine all supplied by you.
-
We've always gotten things the way we want them and that's not going to change. It's going to be champagne retirement and caviar medicine all supplied by you.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at May 04, 2015 11:51 AM (vk+Kb)
145
isn't everyone clear that children shouldn't eat lead paint? this isn't a new thing
nom nom nom wait, wut?
nom nom nom wait, wut?
Posted by: Neil deGrasse Tyson at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (JO9+V)
146
"We spend a lot of time debating how government should do things. What we need is to spend some time thinking about what government really can or should even try to do."
Gosh, you're SO. RIGHT. about this! We have a "Fun Camp" run by our friend, Mr. Pol-Pot, where you and your associates may discuss this subject at your leisure.....
Let us know in 20-50 years what you come up with, okay?
Gosh, you're SO. RIGHT. about this! We have a "Fun Camp" run by our friend, Mr. Pol-Pot, where you and your associates may discuss this subject at your leisure.....
Let us know in 20-50 years what you come up with, okay?
Posted by: Stalin, Hilter, & Mao, esq. at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (1YaFR)
147
Arguments for government programs to solve social problems are simply anti-Capitalism masquerading as "concern."
The Left has been quite open that their objective is to bring down the "evil capitalist system." It's exactly the opposite of empowering individuals. Talking about people taking control of their lives goes right over their pointy heads.
The Left has been quite open that their objective is to bring down the "evil capitalist system." It's exactly the opposite of empowering individuals. Talking about people taking control of their lives goes right over their pointy heads.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (laMCB)
148
But in all my long voting history, never once has there been a proposal on the ballot to reduce a tax.
It's almost like there is a one way ratcheting effect going on there.
And even when they are doing it by government bill: All tax cuts are temporary, all tax increases are permanent.
It's almost like there is a one way ratcheting effect going on there.
And even when they are doing it by government bill: All tax cuts are temporary, all tax increases are permanent.
Posted by: buzzion at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (zt+N6)
149
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (5f5bM)
again, this is *federal* benefits, so cost of living is the main driver of differences. which is why you see hawaii on top, followed by new england and why california is #11 (high cost of living on the coasts, not so much inland).
I'm looking for the per person state expenditure for state programs only.
again, this is *federal* benefits, so cost of living is the main driver of differences. which is why you see hawaii on top, followed by new england and why california is #11 (high cost of living on the coasts, not so much inland).
I'm looking for the per person state expenditure for state programs only.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (AkOaV)
150
Oh - and consistent with the point about rules,
states are "required" to have balanced budgets like the IRS is obligated
to operate lawfully. Right. The political will to disregard the CA
const. on balanced budgets existed, and therefore it was done. First
under Davis, then Arnie, now Brown. Pretty amazing, really. Don't know
the score in other states, but in CA it was uprecedented. Which gets us
back to basics - when laws mean nothing, and unwritten rules of
governance and public responsibility mean nothing, when there is no
consequence in elections or public opinion for massive failure or
corruption or lawlessness, well ..... it's all just flotsam being washed
around on the beach by the wavelets. Hard to analyze, even harder to
fix.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:46 AM (afQnV)
*******************
Rhomboid, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We know that it does not work at the macro level in Washington. If it works in some states (i.e., "red") and not others (i.e., "blue"), that is better than none. The red states continue to win and the blue states continue to circle the toilet, and eventually a few go down the drain and force change.
states are "required" to have balanced budgets like the IRS is obligated
to operate lawfully. Right. The political will to disregard the CA
const. on balanced budgets existed, and therefore it was done. First
under Davis, then Arnie, now Brown. Pretty amazing, really. Don't know
the score in other states, but in CA it was uprecedented. Which gets us
back to basics - when laws mean nothing, and unwritten rules of
governance and public responsibility mean nothing, when there is no
consequence in elections or public opinion for massive failure or
corruption or lawlessness, well ..... it's all just flotsam being washed
around on the beach by the wavelets. Hard to analyze, even harder to
fix.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 11:46 AM (afQnV)
*******************
Rhomboid, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We know that it does not work at the macro level in Washington. If it works in some states (i.e., "red") and not others (i.e., "blue"), that is better than none. The red states continue to win and the blue states continue to circle the toilet, and eventually a few go down the drain and force change.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:53 AM (5f5bM)
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at May 04, 2015 11:54 AM (laMCB)
152
again, this is *federal* benefits, so cost of living
is the main driver of differences. which is why you see hawaii on top,
followed by new england and why california is #11 (high cost of living
on the coasts, not so much inland).
I'm looking for the per person state expenditure for state programs only.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (AkOaV)
No, it's all benefits, read the study.
is the main driver of differences. which is why you see hawaii on top,
followed by new england and why california is #11 (high cost of living
on the coasts, not so much inland).
I'm looking for the per person state expenditure for state programs only.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:52 AM (AkOaV)
No, it's all benefits, read the study.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:55 AM (5f5bM)
153
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (5f5bM)
basically my point was that if we give states block grants for welfare, they will not cut welfare.
basically my point was that if we give states block grants for welfare, they will not cut welfare.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:55 AM (AkOaV)
154
I don't want the government to care about me. I would prefer the government leave me the hell alone as much as possible.
On constitutional grounds states are often the preferable level of government but on a competency grounds?
I've always thought that the reason for devolving power to the states is that the Founding Fathers had met other humans and thus knew that humanity is not precisely overflowing with kindness, grace and humility and thus wanted the power to be as close to the people as possible so that the people could know and shame their family, friends and neighbors who are doing such awful things.
On constitutional grounds states are often the preferable level of government but on a competency grounds?
I've always thought that the reason for devolving power to the states is that the Founding Fathers had met other humans and thus knew that humanity is not precisely overflowing with kindness, grace and humility and thus wanted the power to be as close to the people as possible so that the people could know and shame their family, friends and neighbors who are doing such awful things.
Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 04, 2015 11:55 AM (mf5HN)
155
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:55 AM (5f5bM)
Right, but the states have no control over federal benefits.
Someone upthread was arguing that if we gave states control over benefits, they'd cut them.
And I said that well, the states all offer their own *additional* benefits on top of fed benefits right now, and I don't see any states making huge efforts to cut them. What makes you think they would down the line?
I'm not trying to argue about which states are the biggest mooches, just that I don't see any evidence to suggest that TX would phase out welfare if we turned federal welfare over to the states.
Since they haven't done it with their own state programs.
Right, but the states have no control over federal benefits.
Someone upthread was arguing that if we gave states control over benefits, they'd cut them.
And I said that well, the states all offer their own *additional* benefits on top of fed benefits right now, and I don't see any states making huge efforts to cut them. What makes you think they would down the line?
I'm not trying to argue about which states are the biggest mooches, just that I don't see any evidence to suggest that TX would phase out welfare if we turned federal welfare over to the states.
Since they haven't done it with their own state programs.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:56 AM (AkOaV)
156
I personally can name hundreds of rich folks hooked on drugs. So, methinks pouring money at poor folks will do nothing to change their appetites.
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at May 04, 2015 11:56 AM (1W6Z5)
157
122 -They gave me a bunch of money. Everybody's rich now. Can you sell me some food?
-Well, I'm rich now, too. Why the hell should I bother making food for you?
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (SCcgT)
Congratulations. Here's your degree in economics. We took it away from some liberal who's still spouting leftist nonsense.
Let me underscore your point, and in the process ensure that will get transported into the camps (where, btw, I already called top bunk): "inequality" is a necessary driving force to make the economy work. Those that have less want to get more, and (in principle, at least) are willing to work to get it. (Either work, or vote Democrat.)
The principle extends beyond economics. Eukaryotic cells create "inequality" (an electrochemical potential gradient) across mitochondrial membranes, and use that "inequality" to generate ATP (essentially the currency of life). Cells that fail to do this are called "dead."
All electrical devices run depending on similar "inequality." If there's no voltage difference across a circuit, there's no current flow (which is why birds can perch on high tension wires; there's no potential difference between their feet).
Just a friendly reminder, I DID call "top bunk."
-Well, I'm rich now, too. Why the hell should I bother making food for you?
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at May 04, 2015 11:42 AM (SCcgT)
Congratulations. Here's your degree in economics. We took it away from some liberal who's still spouting leftist nonsense.
Let me underscore your point, and in the process ensure that will get transported into the camps (where, btw, I already called top bunk): "inequality" is a necessary driving force to make the economy work. Those that have less want to get more, and (in principle, at least) are willing to work to get it. (Either work, or vote Democrat.)
The principle extends beyond economics. Eukaryotic cells create "inequality" (an electrochemical potential gradient) across mitochondrial membranes, and use that "inequality" to generate ATP (essentially the currency of life). Cells that fail to do this are called "dead."
All electrical devices run depending on similar "inequality." If there's no voltage difference across a circuit, there's no current flow (which is why birds can perch on high tension wires; there's no potential difference between their feet).
Just a friendly reminder, I DID call "top bunk."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (oKE6c)
158
Hey, girl. You're gonna love my block grant when I pump the Fed.
Posted by: Fritz at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (ty633)
159
Everybody knows the solution is to kill it (welfare) in its entirety. And we also know that won't happen until the burning times.
Everybody knows the solution is to kill it (welfare) in its entirety. And we also know that won't happen until the burning times.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (ODxAs)
160
I would argue our economic system *has* eliminated poverty.... in our country.
Our poverty line when compared to the rest of the worlds population falls on about the 95th percentile of the worlds income.
Our entire population in this country is at or above the top 5% of incomes world wide.
I would argue our economic system *has* eliminated poverty.... in our country.
Our poverty line when compared to the rest of the worlds population falls on about the 95th percentile of the worlds income.
Our entire population in this country is at or above the top 5% of incomes world wide.
Posted by: fixerupper at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (8XRCm)
161
"No one is going to just write billions and billions of checks and not put strings on how they are spent or require oversight and an accounting of results. So the idea that genius state policy makers will just be getting dump truck loads of cash unencumbered by policy makers in DC is a lie."
Medicare.
Medicare.
Posted by: DCPensFan at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (ma/2m)
162
We are proving thatwe can govern! By bringing you moar gubmint.
Posted by: GOPe dumf*ck at May 04, 2015 11:57 AM (hKyl0)
163
Yes, but the Boomers are going to fuck us big time before they do us the favor of dying. Too many of them retiring to us younger folk to continue supporting them, and our own families, and our adopted families who we support through welfare.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:32 AM (AkOaV)
Why are you blaming boomers? Why don't you blame all leftists.
Hmmm. I wonder which generation has the most leftists right now. Perhaps the ones that gave us Choomboy..........twice.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:32 AM (AkOaV)
Why are you blaming boomers? Why don't you blame all leftists.
Hmmm. I wonder which generation has the most leftists right now. Perhaps the ones that gave us Choomboy..........twice.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 11:58 AM (/HX7u)
164
You're living in a dream world. They will simply increase the size of the block grants if state budgets get too tight.
Do you see anyone in the GOP talking about revoking ObamaCare's Medicare expansion?
When push comes to shove, Republicans will make sure the federal government "provides resources."
Posted by: DrewM at May 04, 2015 11:43 AM (YvRAm)
**************************
You're projecting your Republican hatred. Predictable as usual.
It is not the whole answer, but you're not about answers that are implementable in the real world, are you? It is a reasonable step to improve the ability to cut. Can you see that?
Do you see anyone in the GOP talking about revoking ObamaCare's Medicare expansion?
When push comes to shove, Republicans will make sure the federal government "provides resources."
Posted by: DrewM at May 04, 2015 11:43 AM (YvRAm)
**************************
You're projecting your Republican hatred. Predictable as usual.
It is not the whole answer, but you're not about answers that are implementable in the real world, are you? It is a reasonable step to improve the ability to cut. Can you see that?
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 11:58 AM (5f5bM)
165
They even manage to work with neighboring states to match their highways up so its a seemless border crossing. All without federal help.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (AkOaV)
------
But this did not happen until the federal Public Roads Administration became involved in planning. Prior to that the handful of national roads were few and pitiful. Modern state highway systems are echoes of the original interstate highway system (the two-lane version, not the Eisenhower version) of US highways.
I suppose there is no reason for the states to be involved in highways wither. Let the counties and townships handle them. In northern Maine the roads are private - that could be a model for the rest of teh country.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:49 AM (AkOaV)
------
But this did not happen until the federal Public Roads Administration became involved in planning. Prior to that the handful of national roads were few and pitiful. Modern state highway systems are echoes of the original interstate highway system (the two-lane version, not the Eisenhower version) of US highways.
I suppose there is no reason for the states to be involved in highways wither. Let the counties and townships handle them. In northern Maine the roads are private - that could be a model for the rest of teh country.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:59 AM (NUqwG)
166
People that don't take responsibility for themselves are not responsible.
This is not hard. Some folks need to feel the pain of poverty to climb out of it. Now, it's not an inconvenience, but a live style. I am reminded of this....
http://tinyurl.com/bqezxd7
This is not hard. Some folks need to feel the pain of poverty to climb out of it. Now, it's not an inconvenience, but a live style. I am reminded of this....
http://tinyurl.com/bqezxd7
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (0FSuD)
167
160 I would argue our economic system *has* eliminated poverty.... in our country.
You haven't been to Philly recently I take it. To look at parts of it, you may as well be in Guatamala or Uganda.
You haven't been to Philly recently I take it. To look at parts of it, you may as well be in Guatamala or Uganda.
Posted by: bystander at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (hKyl0)
168
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 11:58 AM (/HX7u)
Yeah, but look at how left leaning the boomers were when THEY were in their 20s.
Anyways, the millenials are a normal sized generation -- boomers have used their massive size to vote to steal from other generations to continue the gravy train for themselves.
And they have steadfastly refused to reform the programs their parents and grandparents created as a "social safety net" because they're reaching the age where they want to enjoy SS and medicare.
But theyre such a big generation (not their fault) that their retirement is what will realllly fuck over the younger, smaller, generations.
Yeah, but look at how left leaning the boomers were when THEY were in their 20s.
Anyways, the millenials are a normal sized generation -- boomers have used their massive size to vote to steal from other generations to continue the gravy train for themselves.
And they have steadfastly refused to reform the programs their parents and grandparents created as a "social safety net" because they're reaching the age where they want to enjoy SS and medicare.
But theyre such a big generation (not their fault) that their retirement is what will realllly fuck over the younger, smaller, generations.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (AkOaV)
169
"No, the federal government maintains the federal highways (a portion of
it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed
limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
"
I remember back in the 80's when the feds were forcing states to raise the drinking age with the blackmail of withholding part of highway funding. Ohio had a referendum on the issue. The people voted overwhelmingly (like 70% or more) in favor of the 18 year old drinking age. The governor simply announced that the drinking age would be raised anyway due to the threat of loss of funding , the state legislature complied and the will of the people completely ignored. Provided me a valuable lesson the the danger of a powerful central govt. Today we are in a position immeasurably worse.
it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed
limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
"
I remember back in the 80's when the feds were forcing states to raise the drinking age with the blackmail of withholding part of highway funding. Ohio had a referendum on the issue. The people voted overwhelmingly (like 70% or more) in favor of the 18 year old drinking age. The governor simply announced that the drinking age would be raised anyway due to the threat of loss of funding , the state legislature complied and the will of the people completely ignored. Provided me a valuable lesson the the danger of a powerful central govt. Today we are in a position immeasurably worse.
Posted by: The Burning Times at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (1BQGO)
170
Posted by: bystander at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (hKyl0)
No one in Philly is dying on the streets from starvation.
No one in Philly is dying on the streets from starvation.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (AkOaV)
171
We need bloc grants because ... hmmmm .... the internetz are FULL!
Posted by: mrp at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (JBggj)
172
Posted by: The Burning Times at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (1BQGO)
Yeah, if I recall, Wyoming was the only state that held out.
Eventually they, too, caved, because the fedgov cut off millions and millions of dollars and the population of Wyoming is so low, and there are so many miles of highway, that they claimed they could not afford to both pay taxes for the federal highway system, yet not receive any money back.
Yeah, if I recall, Wyoming was the only state that held out.
Eventually they, too, caved, because the fedgov cut off millions and millions of dollars and the population of Wyoming is so low, and there are so many miles of highway, that they claimed they could not afford to both pay taxes for the federal highway system, yet not receive any money back.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:03 PM (AkOaV)
173
I don't know if its legal, per say, but I would love to see one state say, 'eh, we're done with the welfare thing', just to see what would happen.
My guess is a whole lot of welfarers would move to adjacent states.
I don't know if its legal, per say, but I would love to see one state say, 'eh, we're done with the welfare thing', just to see what would happen.
My guess is a whole lot of welfarers would move to adjacent states.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (ODxAs)
174
I'm not trying to argue about which states are the
biggest mooches, just that I don't see any evidence to suggest that TX
would phase out welfare if we turned federal welfare over to the states.
Since they haven't done it with their own state programs.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:56 AM (AkOaV)
****************
I live in Texas. Trust me, no one comes here to live the welfare lifestyle. The programs that you think should be cut don't exist here at all, which is why they don't cost anything. I have lived in Massachusetts and Illinois. They had programs I could not believe, with concomitant administrative costs (which of course are part of the justification). Like the state income tax, those programs do not exist in Texas. You refuse to believe that Texas spends less than those states, but I am telling you with my own eyes it is a fact, and I showed you the facts, and you refuse to believe them.
I will say this -- I trust Greg Abbott and the Texas Legislature with my money a lot more than I trust Barack Obama and Congress.
biggest mooches, just that I don't see any evidence to suggest that TX
would phase out welfare if we turned federal welfare over to the states.
Since they haven't done it with their own state programs.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:56 AM (AkOaV)
****************
I live in Texas. Trust me, no one comes here to live the welfare lifestyle. The programs that you think should be cut don't exist here at all, which is why they don't cost anything. I have lived in Massachusetts and Illinois. They had programs I could not believe, with concomitant administrative costs (which of course are part of the justification). Like the state income tax, those programs do not exist in Texas. You refuse to believe that Texas spends less than those states, but I am telling you with my own eyes it is a fact, and I showed you the facts, and you refuse to believe them.
I will say this -- I trust Greg Abbott and the Texas Legislature with my money a lot more than I trust Barack Obama and Congress.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (5f5bM)
175
169 "No, the federal government maintains the federal highways (a portion of
it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed
limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
"
I remember back in the 80's when the feds were forcing states to raise the drinking age with the blackmail of withholding part of highway funding. Ohio had a referendum on the issue. The people voted overwhelmingly (like 70% or more) in favor of the 18 year old drinking age. The governor simply announced that the drinking age would be raised anyway due to the threat of loss of funding , the state legislature complied and the will of the people completely ignored. Provided me a valuable lesson the the danger of a powerful central govt. Today we are in a position immeasurably worse.
Posted by: The Burning Times at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (1BQGO)
Referenda are essentially a democratic punching bag now: a way for voters to blow off steam. Then the politicians do through the courts what they were going to do anyway. As an example, see California.
it) through block grants, which is why we had a national 55 mph speed
limit and why we now have a drinking age of 21.
"
I remember back in the 80's when the feds were forcing states to raise the drinking age with the blackmail of withholding part of highway funding. Ohio had a referendum on the issue. The people voted overwhelmingly (like 70% or more) in favor of the 18 year old drinking age. The governor simply announced that the drinking age would be raised anyway due to the threat of loss of funding , the state legislature complied and the will of the people completely ignored. Provided me a valuable lesson the the danger of a powerful central govt. Today we are in a position immeasurably worse.
Posted by: The Burning Times at May 04, 2015 12:01 PM (1BQGO)
Referenda are essentially a democratic punching bag now: a way for voters to blow off steam. Then the politicians do through the courts what they were going to do anyway. As an example, see California.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (RD7QR)
176
So Ryan has a plan to balance the budget in 50 years. I bet they have things figured out just as well as the climate models as far as predicting future performance.
I wonder, does this magnificent plan allow for 1/3 of all jobs to be replaced by robots with 10-15 years? Is it possible that this new revolution, Machine Age II, has not been fully factored in?
Ryan's a dope.
I wonder, does this magnificent plan allow for 1/3 of all jobs to be replaced by robots with 10-15 years? Is it possible that this new revolution, Machine Age II, has not been fully factored in?
Ryan's a dope.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 12:05 PM (pbY3m)
177
This is not hard. Some folks need to feel the pain of poverty to climb out of it.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (0FSuD)
Now just to absolutely guarantee I end up in a "Fun Camp," I will posit that it is important to let some people crash and burn to serve as an example to others. They're going to crash and burn regardless of what anyone does - some people just seem to be destined to follow that trajectory* - so we might as well point to them as an example to others.
* Anyone who's ever taught has seen this phenomenon in action.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (0FSuD)
Now just to absolutely guarantee I end up in a "Fun Camp," I will posit that it is important to let some people crash and burn to serve as an example to others. They're going to crash and burn regardless of what anyone does - some people just seem to be destined to follow that trajectory* - so we might as well point to them as an example to others.
* Anyone who's ever taught has seen this phenomenon in action.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:05 PM (oKE6c)
178
Caesar, this is the classic example of a jello-grabbing contest (too big a topic for a comment section discussion). I would just contend that block grants have not been and will not be, of themselves, any big thing, that helps change anything. Better run states will (inshallah) remain better run.
The far more interesting idea/phenomenon is, of course, states turning down federal money (and with it federal mandates). *That* area provides potential for real contrasts between states (there are contrasts, of course, but all these CA-to-Texas references are wrong if they imply that things like welfare policy linked to federal $$$ are the basis for the migration - they're not). Can't think of an important policy area that wouldn't see more dramatic improvement from state refusal of federal $$$ than from any sort of block grant scheme.
"Weird tricks" are not the "good", and actual policy changes and budgeting changes are not the "perfect", just the normal way the country functions when it's functioning. But at this point, in this country, at this time, weird tricks like block grants are mostly an irrelevancy. And Drew's starting point was Ryan's statement, which is mostly stale and baseless talking point stuff. Or worse, if one wants to be more serious about it. The federal govt. borrowing a quarter of its expenditures, with zero interest rates, and the debt being monetized by the Fed, is "good at providing resources"? WTF?
Not gonna try to grab the jello any more here, but Drew highlights why things are so bleak. Ryan is one of the "smart" Beltway types. Not on the alien/freak/racist/statist fringe, that is not a Democrat. And behold how silly his deep thoughts are.
The far more interesting idea/phenomenon is, of course, states turning down federal money (and with it federal mandates). *That* area provides potential for real contrasts between states (there are contrasts, of course, but all these CA-to-Texas references are wrong if they imply that things like welfare policy linked to federal $$$ are the basis for the migration - they're not). Can't think of an important policy area that wouldn't see more dramatic improvement from state refusal of federal $$$ than from any sort of block grant scheme.
"Weird tricks" are not the "good", and actual policy changes and budgeting changes are not the "perfect", just the normal way the country functions when it's functioning. But at this point, in this country, at this time, weird tricks like block grants are mostly an irrelevancy. And Drew's starting point was Ryan's statement, which is mostly stale and baseless talking point stuff. Or worse, if one wants to be more serious about it. The federal govt. borrowing a quarter of its expenditures, with zero interest rates, and the debt being monetized by the Fed, is "good at providing resources"? WTF?
Not gonna try to grab the jello any more here, but Drew highlights why things are so bleak. Ryan is one of the "smart" Beltway types. Not on the alien/freak/racist/statist fringe, that is not a Democrat. And behold how silly his deep thoughts are.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:05 PM (afQnV)
179
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 11:59 AM (NUqwG)
uhh... NY and CT had an interstate highway in the 1930s -- the Merritt parkway / Hutchinson Parkway.
One of the first limited access highways built in the country.
Don't think the feds were involved at all.
If you look around new england, you'll find state roads and highways from the early 1900s and earlier that flow through 2 or more states.
I mean, they exist everywhere.
And if you want to expand that out to non-limited access highways, there are town and state roads from the 1600 and 1700s that connect in 2 states and pre date the federal governments creation.
So no, I don't think the federal government was required in order for neighboring states to find a way to make their roads connect to each other. They figured that shit out hundreds of years ago. Not very difficult to do.
uhh... NY and CT had an interstate highway in the 1930s -- the Merritt parkway / Hutchinson Parkway.
One of the first limited access highways built in the country.
Don't think the feds were involved at all.
If you look around new england, you'll find state roads and highways from the early 1900s and earlier that flow through 2 or more states.
I mean, they exist everywhere.
And if you want to expand that out to non-limited access highways, there are town and state roads from the 1600 and 1700s that connect in 2 states and pre date the federal governments creation.
So no, I don't think the federal government was required in order for neighboring states to find a way to make their roads connect to each other. They figured that shit out hundreds of years ago. Not very difficult to do.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:06 PM (AkOaV)
180
You're all a bunch of paid fronts for George Soros!
Posted by: Little Ceasars Pizza Pizza at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (zt+N6)
181
Yeah, but look at how left leaning the boomers were when THEY were in their 20s. Anyways, the millenials are a normal sized generation -- boomers have used their massive size to vote to steal from other generations to continue the gravy train for themselves. And they have steadfastly refused to reform the programs their parents and grandparents created as a "social safety net" because they're reaching the age where they want to enjoy SS and medicare. But theyre such a big generation (not their fault) that their retirement is what will realllly fuck over the younger, smaller, generations.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (AkOaV)
----------------------------------------------
Actually, It was the "Greatest Generation" that gave us SS under FDR, and still the great majority of the votes that gave us the Great Society was the "Greatest Generation". Boomers are a mixed breed. We're the ones who elected Reagan.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (AkOaV)
----------------------------------------------
Actually, It was the "Greatest Generation" that gave us SS under FDR, and still the great majority of the votes that gave us the Great Society was the "Greatest Generation". Boomers are a mixed breed. We're the ones who elected Reagan.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (/HX7u)
182
Of course there will be "strings," but the strings will be result related instead of the current process/policy related requirements. That's a big step in the right direction.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
What's the proof for this? So much disagrees, like title IX as one example.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 04, 2015 11:10 AM (kff5f)
What's the proof for this? So much disagrees, like title IX as one example.
Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (UUheN)
183
DrewM,
I am really fucking offended that you didn't include New Jersey in your sbort list of monumentally fcuked-up states.
We have the biggest tax burden of any state in the nation, and a cursory glance at the state will reveal how dysfunctional and wasteful its government is.
We're Number One!
I am really fucking offended that you didn't include New Jersey in your sbort list of monumentally fcuked-up states.
We have the biggest tax burden of any state in the nation, and a cursory glance at the state will reveal how dysfunctional and wasteful its government is.
We're Number One!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (BFQDC)
184
180 You're all a bunch of paid fronts for George Soros!
Posted by: Little Ceasars Pizza Pizza at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (zt+N6)
Then the wretched little Kapo owes me a lot of money because I'm not seeing any checks.
Posted by: Little Ceasars Pizza Pizza at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (zt+N6)
Then the wretched little Kapo owes me a lot of money because I'm not seeing any checks.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (RD7QR)
185
*looks at side-bar*
Councilman taking a tinkle with a live mic... meets a piranha
Think I could sell that to Amazon Studios?
Councilman taking a tinkle with a live mic... meets a piranha
Think I could sell that to Amazon Studios?
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (wPxCh)
186
Referenda are essentially a democratic punching bag now: a way for voters to blow off steam. Then the politicians do through the courts what they were going to do anyway. As an example, see California.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (RD7QR)
Ah, but you leave out the pernicious role of ballot initiatives here. For example, Prop. 98 mandates - as a constitutional amendment - that the state spend 39+% of the state budget on K-12 education, all other factors and considerations be damned.
Thanks, teachers' unions!
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (RD7QR)
Ah, but you leave out the pernicious role of ballot initiatives here. For example, Prop. 98 mandates - as a constitutional amendment - that the state spend 39+% of the state budget on K-12 education, all other factors and considerations be damned.
Thanks, teachers' unions!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (oKE6c)
187
the solution to the problems of Baltimore ...
The ultra-luxury housing market is scaling new heights as a record number of properties around the world command prices topping $100 million.
Demand for mega-mansions and penthouses has accelerated as wealthy buyers seek havens for their cash and search for alternative investments such as art and collectible real estate, according to a report Thursday by Christie's International Real Estate, owned by auction house Christie's. Five homes sold for more than $100 million last year, with at least 20 more on the market with nine-figure asking prices, the brokerage said.
"You're looking at a universe of over 1,800 billionaires who are starting to become members of this club of collectors of the most unique and incredible real estate in the world," Dan Conn, chief executive officer of Christie's International Real Estate, said in a telephone interview. "It's something they'll hold onto for a lifetime, the same way they'll hold onto a Picasso or a Warhol or any number of the great pieces of art we've sold over the years."
... isn't this
The ultra-luxury housing market is scaling new heights as a record number of properties around the world command prices topping $100 million.
Demand for mega-mansions and penthouses has accelerated as wealthy buyers seek havens for their cash and search for alternative investments such as art and collectible real estate, according to a report Thursday by Christie's International Real Estate, owned by auction house Christie's. Five homes sold for more than $100 million last year, with at least 20 more on the market with nine-figure asking prices, the brokerage said.
"You're looking at a universe of over 1,800 billionaires who are starting to become members of this club of collectors of the most unique and incredible real estate in the world," Dan Conn, chief executive officer of Christie's International Real Estate, said in a telephone interview. "It's something they'll hold onto for a lifetime, the same way they'll hold onto a Picasso or a Warhol or any number of the great pieces of art we've sold over the years."
... isn't this
Posted by: Dr. Jeremy Stone at May 04, 2015 12:09 PM (e8kgV)
188
Completely O/T
Wonder why you haven't seen a picture of the TX Mohammedan terrorist?
Yep, be was Black. FBI has mug shots, funny, seen any of them??
ABC has a picture of him doing a selfie.
Wonder why you haven't seen a picture of the TX Mohammedan terrorist?
Yep, be was Black. FBI has mug shots, funny, seen any of them??
ABC has a picture of him doing a selfie.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 04, 2015 12:09 PM (0FSuD)
189
Well that ancient little Kapo might be on the hook with the IRS to the tune of $6.7 billion in deferred taxes.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:09 PM (wPxCh)
190
Posted by: bystander at May 04, 2015 12:00 PM (hKyl0)
Your wrong. Having lived in a third world country for a year and travelled extensively in south and central America if you took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to heaven.
Your wrong. Having lived in a third world country for a year and travelled extensively in south and central America if you took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
191
47--winnah! bring on the next thread
Posted by: bystander at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (hKyl0)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (0HooB)
193
We're Number One!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (BFQDC)
Pffft. California fucks up more before lunch than New Jersey ever dreamed of. We've got 30% of all welfare recipients in the country, are now proudly 49th in state educational achievement, and are bleating about a water shortage while wasting half of the available fresh water - HALF - on a fucking guppy.
Let's see NJ top that.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:08 PM (BFQDC)
Pffft. California fucks up more before lunch than New Jersey ever dreamed of. We've got 30% of all welfare recipients in the country, are now proudly 49th in state educational achievement, and are bleating about a water shortage while wasting half of the available fresh water - HALF - on a fucking guppy.
Let's see NJ top that.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (oKE6c)
194
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (5f5bM)
Yup, just checked -- TX has TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, something called the "summer food service", WIC, the "special milk program", CHIP, headstart, and the Comprehensive Energy Program, all of which get *some* (most of these, all) funding from the state above and beyond the federal pay outs.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. It's a laughable assertion to say that TX doesn't pay for welfare.
And if you control for the federal money and cost of living, TX probably does pay out less than MA or IL, but they still pay out a lot more than the bare minimum they have to.
Which is what my whole argument was -- reverting control to the states does not eliminate welfare.
Even the reddest of the red states like OK TX and UT have what most of us would consider generous welfare benefits ensconced in state law and paid for out of the state treasury.
Yup, just checked -- TX has TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, something called the "summer food service", WIC, the "special milk program", CHIP, headstart, and the Comprehensive Energy Program, all of which get *some* (most of these, all) funding from the state above and beyond the federal pay outs.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. It's a laughable assertion to say that TX doesn't pay for welfare.
And if you control for the federal money and cost of living, TX probably does pay out less than MA or IL, but they still pay out a lot more than the bare minimum they have to.
Which is what my whole argument was -- reverting control to the states does not eliminate welfare.
Even the reddest of the red states like OK TX and UT have what most of us would consider generous welfare benefits ensconced in state law and paid for out of the state treasury.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (AkOaV)
195
wrg500, exactamundo!
We had host nation locals in South America opening up red bio-bags thinking the Yanguis had thrown away valuables in them. So we went back to burning our sh1t.
We had host nation locals in South America opening up red bio-bags thinking the Yanguis had thrown away valuables in them. So we went back to burning our sh1t.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (wPxCh)
196
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:06 PM (AkOaV)
------
Of course states had connecting roads before the federal government was involved. Before the states were involved there were private with relative investment greater than that of the Eisenhower Defense Highway system - at least until recently the largest public works program in history.
The simple fact is though the United States had no useful national-scale highway system until the federal government became involved.
------
Of course states had connecting roads before the federal government was involved. Before the states were involved there were private with relative investment greater than that of the Eisenhower Defense Highway system - at least until recently the largest public works program in history.
The simple fact is though the United States had no useful national-scale highway system until the federal government became involved.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (NUqwG)
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (0FSuD)
198
I am reluctantly willing to consider the end of the War on Drugs. Anyone who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low a level of usage to make sense.
That said, if we discontinue the War on Drugs, it's time to discontinue the War on Poverty at the same time and for the same reason. Both have consumed massive amounts of resources for virtually no net benefit.
I am reluctantly willing to consider the end of the War on Drugs. Anyone who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low a level of usage to make sense.
That said, if we discontinue the War on Drugs, it's time to discontinue the War on Poverty at the same time and for the same reason. Both have consumed massive amounts of resources for virtually no net benefit.
Posted by: Advo at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (7vbG1)
199
They're going to crash and burn regardless of what anyone does - some people just seem to be destined to follow that trajectory* - so we might as well point to them as an example to others.
* Anyone who's ever taught has seen this phenomenon in action.
Same with prisons. The two units I worked on were max security, 3rd time offenders, 20 to life.
3rd time!
* Anyone who's ever taught has seen this phenomenon in action.
Same with prisons. The two units I worked on were max security, 3rd time offenders, 20 to life.
3rd time!
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (8Jl4+)
200
Your wrong. Having lived in a third world country
for a year and travelled extensively in south and central America if you
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
Hence illegal immigration. There's your driving force right there.
for a year and travelled extensively in south and central America if you
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
Hence illegal immigration. There's your driving force right there.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (oKE6c)
201
Same with prisons. The two units I worked on were max security, 3rd time offenders, 20 to life.
3rd time!
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (8Jl4+)
But if they got a fourth chance ... /liberal
3rd time!
Posted by: rickb223 at May 04, 2015 12:12 PM (8Jl4+)
But if they got a fourth chance ... /liberal
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:13 PM (oKE6c)
202
Rhomboid, so LIB and that's it?
What is going to happen, eventually and inexorably, is that things will have to be cut, probably driven by the bond markets. The least painful way to get it done is to bundle a bunch of entitlement programs and turn them over to the states to manage, with dollars attached that decline over time (perhaps in inflation-adjusted terms). Some states will manage better than others, and the productive in society will continue to vote with their feet to move to the better-managed states.
That is a far more realistic solution than to dream that entire programs will be eliminated in Washington. So if Albany or Springfield or Sacramento won't cut it but Austin or Oklahoma City or Tallahassee will, then that's better than nothing.
What is going to happen, eventually and inexorably, is that things will have to be cut, probably driven by the bond markets. The least painful way to get it done is to bundle a bunch of entitlement programs and turn them over to the states to manage, with dollars attached that decline over time (perhaps in inflation-adjusted terms). Some states will manage better than others, and the productive in society will continue to vote with their feet to move to the better-managed states.
That is a far more realistic solution than to dream that entire programs will be eliminated in Washington. So if Albany or Springfield or Sacramento won't cut it but Austin or Oklahoma City or Tallahassee will, then that's better than nothing.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:13 PM (5f5bM)
203
Actually, It was the "Greatest Generation" that gave us SS under FDR
Most of them weren't 21 in 1932. It was their parents and grandparents who wanted the free shit.
And now old people can't shut up about how they *deserve* to rip off younger people because they let themselves get ripped off for forty years.
Most of them weren't 21 in 1932. It was their parents and grandparents who wanted the free shit.
And now old people can't shut up about how they *deserve* to rip off younger people because they let themselves get ripped off for forty years.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at May 04, 2015 12:13 PM (ZKzrr)
204
if you
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
----
To what extent is that due to the existing welfare state?
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
----
To what extent is that due to the existing welfare state?
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (NUqwG)
205
Is it possible that this new revolution, Machine Age II, has not been fully factored in?
Not only that, they don't realize their actions are bringing it on.
Incentives and disincentives, how do they work...
Not only that, they don't realize their actions are bringing it on.
Incentives and disincentives, how do they work...
Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (DT3rQ)
206
Yeoman Janice Rand (Grace Lee Whitney) is no more.
Posted by: Deathknyte at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (LJWr2)
207
Can I be VP candidate again? I promise we'll win my home state this time, really!
Posted by: Paul Ryan at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (Eszro)
208
Even the reddest of the red states like OK TX and UT have what most of us would consider generous welfare benefits ensconced in state law and paid for out of the state treasury.
----
No doubt. As I said, I don't trust Texas - just as I don't trust CA, NY, Mass. But I trust Texas to be better than those other states (admittedly a low bar).
Its a starting point.
My ideal world would be to not have to worry about block grants.
But we don't live in my ideal world. So block grants would be better than simply federal run programs.
----
No doubt. As I said, I don't trust Texas - just as I don't trust CA, NY, Mass. But I trust Texas to be better than those other states (admittedly a low bar).
Its a starting point.
My ideal world would be to not have to worry about block grants.
But we don't live in my ideal world. So block grants would be better than simply federal run programs.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (gmeXX)
209
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 12:07 PM (/HX7u)
Yes, the so-called "lost" generation and the "greatest generation" laid the foundation for all of this, without a doubt.
But boomers took those foundations and built mega mansions of benefits on top of them.
And when the earlier generations were passing SS and such they said, "eh, fuck it, I have 8 kids. They'll pay for this shit."
The boomers said "well, i was one of 8. 5 of my siblings had no kids, my wife and I have 2... but fuck it, we're keeping this gravy train rolling!"
Yes, the so-called "lost" generation and the "greatest generation" laid the foundation for all of this, without a doubt.
But boomers took those foundations and built mega mansions of benefits on top of them.
And when the earlier generations were passing SS and such they said, "eh, fuck it, I have 8 kids. They'll pay for this shit."
The boomers said "well, i was one of 8. 5 of my siblings had no kids, my wife and I have 2... but fuck it, we're keeping this gravy train rolling!"
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (AkOaV)
210
Jay, let's combine your comment and the other one, to clarify that ballot referenda are now basically suggestions, not laws (as the state constitution has always treated them).
So, your referenced teachers' union atrocity, and the idiotic free-range chicken initiative, and the even more idiotic stem-cell research institute, and the even *more* idiotic bullet train thing - they all count. (well, it's actually even worse than THAT - the bullet train fiasco doesn't even have to comply with the law creating it when it comes to budgeting)
Now Prop Eight, however, or Prop 1Eighty7 - now those are different. Plain and sensible and constitutional affirmations of public sentiment and preference on basic issues of governance and culture - those are merely trifles to be flushed away by faithless "constitutional officers" (ha!) and a "judiciary" about as respectable as theMilitary Collegium that sent hundreds of thousands of Soviet officers and party members to their arbitrary executions.
So, your referenced teachers' union atrocity, and the idiotic free-range chicken initiative, and the even more idiotic stem-cell research institute, and the even *more* idiotic bullet train thing - they all count. (well, it's actually even worse than THAT - the bullet train fiasco doesn't even have to comply with the law creating it when it comes to budgeting)
Now Prop Eight, however, or Prop 1Eighty7 - now those are different. Plain and sensible and constitutional affirmations of public sentiment and preference on basic issues of governance and culture - those are merely trifles to be flushed away by faithless "constitutional officers" (ha!) and a "judiciary" about as respectable as theMilitary Collegium that sent hundreds of thousands of Soviet officers and party members to their arbitrary executions.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:16 PM (afQnV)
211
I live in Texas. Trust me, no one comes here to live the welfare lifestyle.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (5f5bM)
I think you forgot about me.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:04 PM (5f5bM)
I think you forgot about me.
Posted by: Pedro at May 04, 2015 12:17 PM (48QDY)
212
John Bolten on "Outnumbered". Looks to be enjoying himself.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 12:17 PM (/HX7u)
213
And now old people can't shut up about how they *deserve* to rip off younger people because they let themselves get ripped off for forty years.
-----
Its been sold as a pay-in type program. It was rather genius really. Welfare doesn't have the broad support that SS/Medicare has because people know what it is. But after 75 years, the people have been deluded that SS/Medicare is not a form of welfare. And to some extent I understand, there has been a FICA tax taken out of their paycheck for 40 years. It looks like a separate program they paid for.
-----
Its been sold as a pay-in type program. It was rather genius really. Welfare doesn't have the broad support that SS/Medicare has because people know what it is. But after 75 years, the people have been deluded that SS/Medicare is not a form of welfare. And to some extent I understand, there has been a FICA tax taken out of their paycheck for 40 years. It looks like a separate program they paid for.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:18 PM (gmeXX)
214
The poor will always be with us.
The poor will always be with us.
Posted by: Lea at May 04, 2015 12:18 PM (lIU4e)
215
I read last year about how a bunch of NYC Jamaicans were spending their EBT bennies on dried and canned goods until they had a plastic barrel full, then shipping it all to Jamaica, where the goods could be resold for much higher prices.
hmm, my bad -- It was a 2013 article, and also involves Haitians and Dominicans (NY Post):
http://tinyurl.com/kmeykad
Yeah, block grants will totes fix this.
hmm, my bad -- It was a 2013 article, and also involves Haitians and Dominicans (NY Post):
http://tinyurl.com/kmeykad
Yeah, block grants will totes fix this.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 12:19 PM (pbY3m)
216
214
The poor will always be with us.
Posted by: Lea at May 04, 2015 12:18 PM (lIU4e)
eating lead paint
The poor will always be with us.
Posted by: Lea at May 04, 2015 12:18 PM (lIU4e)
eating lead paint
Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 04, 2015 12:19 PM (0O7c5)
217
John Bolten on "Outnumbered". Looks to be enjoying himself.
Hell what man won't. I'd just sit and smile keeping my hands strategically place in my lap.
Hell what man won't. I'd just sit and smile keeping my hands strategically place in my lap.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:19 PM (kQBSd)
218
Moar. Faster.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 04, 2015 12:20 PM (LA7Cm)
219
Now, this must be racist ....
Star Wars Cover: J.J. Abrams Reveals His Idea to Kill Jar Jar Binks
For some Star Wars fans, there's no May the Fourth news finer than this: director J. J. Abrams revealed that he's thought about killing off the very controversial Jar Jar Binks. Sitting in an edit bay at his Bad Robot production office and pointing to a frame of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Abrams told Vanity Fair contributing editor Bruce Handy, "I have a thought about putting Jar Jar Binks's bones in the desert there. I'm serious! Only three people will notice, but they'll love it."
Star Wars Cover: J.J. Abrams Reveals His Idea to Kill Jar Jar Binks
For some Star Wars fans, there's no May the Fourth news finer than this: director J. J. Abrams revealed that he's thought about killing off the very controversial Jar Jar Binks. Sitting in an edit bay at his Bad Robot production office and pointing to a frame of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Abrams told Vanity Fair contributing editor Bruce Handy, "I have a thought about putting Jar Jar Binks's bones in the desert there. I'm serious! Only three people will notice, but they'll love it."
Posted by: Harry Callahan at May 04, 2015 12:20 PM (e8kgV)
220
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (oKE6c)
I will grant that CA is the largest waster of resources, but per capita waste in NJ will be hard to beat.
We have the highest property tax rate in the country, coupled with some of the highest housing prices.
That combination is too hard to best, even with the snail darter.
I will grant that CA is the largest waster of resources, but per capita waste in NJ will be hard to beat.
We have the highest property tax rate in the country, coupled with some of the highest housing prices.
That combination is too hard to best, even with the snail darter.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (Q01GY)
221
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:18 PM (gmeXX)
How many people really believe that though?
I mean I think everyone knows what the deal is with SS whether they want to admit it or not.
I know my entire life, growing up in a liberal area with liberal teachers, i was told that republicans stole all of the money from SS and that I will never see a cent of it when I retire.
So if even LIBERALS accept that there is no actual money in the so called trust fund, then who are we talking about who believes theres a bank account down at chase with their name on it that the governments been taking care of for them?
How many people really believe that though?
I mean I think everyone knows what the deal is with SS whether they want to admit it or not.
I know my entire life, growing up in a liberal area with liberal teachers, i was told that republicans stole all of the money from SS and that I will never see a cent of it when I retire.
So if even LIBERALS accept that there is no actual money in the so called trust fund, then who are we talking about who believes theres a bank account down at chase with their name on it that the governments been taking care of for them?
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (AkOaV)
222
204 if you
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
----
To what extent is that due to the existing welfare state?
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (NUqwG)
To a large extent. The welfare state has essentially replaced what economic activity there otherwise might be. And if you pulled the welfare tomorrow there would be precious little economic activity to take up the slack, barring drug dealing.
The problem is that there wasn't much economic activity there in the first place, and welfare was a more reliable bet.
took someone from the poor areas of a third world country and dropped
them in a poor area of the US they would think they had died and gone to
heaven.
Posted by: wrg500 at May 04, 2015 12:10 PM (kQBSd)
----
To what extent is that due to the existing welfare state?
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (NUqwG)
To a large extent. The welfare state has essentially replaced what economic activity there otherwise might be. And if you pulled the welfare tomorrow there would be precious little economic activity to take up the slack, barring drug dealing.
The problem is that there wasn't much economic activity there in the first place, and welfare was a more reliable bet.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (RD7QR)
223
But boomers took those foundations and built mega mansions of benefits on top of them. And when the earlier generations were passing SS and such they said, "eh, fuck it, I have 8 kids. They'll pay for this shit." The boomers said "well, i was one of 8. 5 of my siblings had no kids, my wife and I have 2... but fuck it, we're keeping this gravy train rolling!"
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (AkOaV)
--------------------------------------------------
Once again, why don't you blame the leftists/progressives who have populated every generation since Andrew Jackson instead of generalizing whole generations.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:15 PM (AkOaV)
--------------------------------------------------
Once again, why don't you blame the leftists/progressives who have populated every generation since Andrew Jackson instead of generalizing whole generations.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (/HX7u)
224
Yeah, block grants will totes fix this.
-----
I don't think those of us arguing in favor of block grants think it will fix everything.
We simply think it better than the status quo.
If you want to keep the status quo - fine.
If you want to argue for eliminating welfare - great. We agree.
Not sure what the issue is.
All that got accomplished was that Drew was able to bitch about the government and the GOP again.
-----
I don't think those of us arguing in favor of block grants think it will fix everything.
We simply think it better than the status quo.
If you want to keep the status quo - fine.
If you want to argue for eliminating welfare - great. We agree.
Not sure what the issue is.
All that got accomplished was that Drew was able to bitch about the government and the GOP again.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (gmeXX)
225
To what extent is that due to the existing welfare state?
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (NUqwG)
-----
I would argue.... some.... But I would further argue that our "poor" would be even better off untethered to the federal dole and participating in a fully functional market economy.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:14 PM (NUqwG)
-----
I would argue.... some.... But I would further argue that our "poor" would be even better off untethered to the federal dole and participating in a fully functional market economy.
Posted by: fixerupper at May 04, 2015 12:22 PM (8XRCm)
226
Make the states fund their own wars on poverty as they see fit. That way at least the good people of New York will have to flush their own money down the toilet that is NY state/city governance, rather than everyone else's.
Posted by: Mark in Portland at May 04, 2015 12:22 PM (DpRZj)
227
This weekend in Chicago:
32 people shot, 5 dead. A typical weekend in Chicago. Looks like this is going to be a great month.
This weekend in Chicago:
32 people shot, 5 dead. A typical weekend in Chicago. Looks like this is going to be a great month.
Posted by: Bruce J. at May 04, 2015 12:22 PM (iQIUe)
228
How many people really believe that though?
I mean I think everyone knows what the deal is with SS whether they want to admit it or not.
-----
I would say most. Most people look at it as a program that they paid in to.
I mean I think everyone knows what the deal is with SS whether they want to admit it or not.
-----
I would say most. Most people look at it as a program that they paid in to.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:23 PM (gmeXX)
229
Which is what my whole argument was -- reverting control to the states does not eliminate welfare.
Even the reddest of the red states like OK TX and UT have what most
of us would consider generous welfare benefits ensconced in state law
and paid for out of the state treasury.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (AkOaV)
******************
Yes, but if they had control of it rather than adminstering federal programs, they would do a better job. I suspect lower overheads too.
Even the reddest of the red states like OK TX and UT have what most
of us would consider generous welfare benefits ensconced in state law
and paid for out of the state treasury.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:11 PM (AkOaV)
******************
Yes, but if they had control of it rather than adminstering federal programs, they would do a better job. I suspect lower overheads too.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:23 PM (5f5bM)
230
so that the people could know and shame hang their family, friends and neighbors who are doing such awful things.
Soon!
Soon!
Posted by: DaveA at May 04, 2015 12:24 PM (DL2i+)
231
I am reluctantly willing to consider the end of the War on Drugs. Anyone
who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the
family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low
a level of usage to make sense.
Singapore won the War on Drugs, and handily at that.
who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the
family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low
a level of usage to make sense.
Singapore won the War on Drugs, and handily at that.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (oKE6c)
232
227
This weekend in Chicago:
32 people shot, 5 dead. A typical weekend in Chicago. Looks like this is going to be a great month.
Posted by: Bruce J. at May 04, 2015 12:22 PM (iQIUe)
Spring, when a young thug's fancy turns to thugging.
This weekend in Chicago:
32 people shot, 5 dead. A typical weekend in Chicago. Looks like this is going to be a great month.
Posted by: Bruce J. at May 04, 2015 12:22 PM (iQIUe)
Spring, when a young thug's fancy turns to thugging.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (RD7QR)
233
Caesar, now play nice, WTF with "LIB"? Not a term I use. Nor is anything I've said (ever) around here reasonably crammed into the cliche of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
But sorry - and I really will cease commenting on this topic right here - block grants are not going to materially change anything, they will not grease the skids to better policies or less spending, they haven't for the last 40 years, for a reason. They won't cause any harm, either.
But again, the topic of the post. Ryan's comments are pathetic. He implies that the federal fiscal catastrophe is actually OK, then waves a wand and says that something that's been done since he was in kindergarten (block grants) will change things, in an area of public policy where $$$ obviously are NOT almost any part of any "solution".
Bond market? I have vague memories of something like that. There's a legend that, once upon a time, a brief conference call between a Fed chairman, a Treasury secretary, and some of the primary dealers in NY resulted in an administration's budget being essentially withdrawn and reworked (because the markets wouldn't buy it). But that was in an almost mythical America, long long ago (40 years).
But sorry - and I really will cease commenting on this topic right here - block grants are not going to materially change anything, they will not grease the skids to better policies or less spending, they haven't for the last 40 years, for a reason. They won't cause any harm, either.
But again, the topic of the post. Ryan's comments are pathetic. He implies that the federal fiscal catastrophe is actually OK, then waves a wand and says that something that's been done since he was in kindergarten (block grants) will change things, in an area of public policy where $$$ obviously are NOT almost any part of any "solution".
Bond market? I have vague memories of something like that. There's a legend that, once upon a time, a brief conference call between a Fed chairman, a Treasury secretary, and some of the primary dealers in NY resulted in an administration's budget being essentially withdrawn and reworked (because the markets wouldn't buy it). But that was in an almost mythical America, long long ago (40 years).
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (afQnV)
234
All that got accomplished was that Drew was able to bitch about the government and the GOP again.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (gmeXX)
+1
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (gmeXX)
+1
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (5f5bM)
235
I would say most. Most people look at it as a program that they paid in to.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:23 PM (gmeXX)
----
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:23 PM (gmeXX)
----
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
Posted by: fixerupper at May 04, 2015 12:26 PM (8XRCm)
236
State vs Fed:
It is a WHOLE lot easier to manipulate State level politicians. Our State Rep lives in our community, and owns business here.
He would crap a wad in his pants if his manager contacted him to say there were 100 pissed Patriots outside his store, with him hanging in effigy because he supported some nonsense Liberal tripe.
It is a WHOLE lot easier to manipulate State level politicians. Our State Rep lives in our community, and owns business here.
He would crap a wad in his pants if his manager contacted him to say there were 100 pissed Patriots outside his store, with him hanging in effigy because he supported some nonsense Liberal tripe.
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at May 04, 2015 12:26 PM (1W6Z5)
237
And of the top pay out states, I'm seeing "cost of living" as the leading indicator, not whether the state voted blue or red.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (AkOaV)
****************
By the way, there is an enormous connection between those two things.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 11:47 AM (AkOaV)
****************
By the way, there is an enormous connection between those two things.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:26 PM (5f5bM)
238
231 I am reluctantly willing to consider the end of the War on Drugs. Anyone
who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the
family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low
a level of usage to make sense.
Singapore won the War on Drugs, and handily at that.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (oKE6c)
City state with Chinese family values run by oligarchs who had essentially unfettered police powers. Not really a valid comparison.
who says drug use is victimless probably never had a junkie in the
family. On the other hand, we're putting too many people away at too low
a level of usage to make sense.
Singapore won the War on Drugs, and handily at that.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:25 PM (oKE6c)
City state with Chinese family values run by oligarchs who had essentially unfettered police powers. Not really a valid comparison.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:27 PM (RD7QR)
239
t is important to let some people crash and burn
-
Life is not about being too cowardly to fall.down, it's about being courageous enough to get up.
-
Life is not about being too cowardly to fall.down, it's about being courageous enough to get up.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at May 04, 2015 12:27 PM (sQMc7)
240
Of course the poverty rate hasn't changed, the left keeps moving the goalposts; the current definition of "poverty" in the US is only having two TV sets in the household. Even the poor in the US live like the Kings of most 3rd world countries. Of course Barely the O - King of the USA - says he can do something about that.
Posted by: An Observation at May 04, 2015 12:27 PM (V/9XL)
241
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
-----
I'm with you there.
-----
I'm with you there.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (gmeXX)
242
John Bolten on "Outnumbered". Looks to be enjoying himself.
If he has half the smile my uncle did when he sat on set with those ladies (off air) last week, it will be huge!
If he has half the smile my uncle did when he sat on set with those ladies (off air) last week, it will be huge!
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (FdFgz)
243
Ex-Machina will bring on ex-employee.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (wPxCh)
244
I see that Gary Cole has reprised his Mr Lumberg role from Office Space for some thing called hipchat.
I see that Gary Cole has reprised his Mr Lumberg role from Office Space for some thing called hipchat.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (5luh1)
245
Posted by: fixerupper at May 04, 2015 12:26 PM (8XRCm)
That would be the only way to end SS in a "fair" way, except it wouldn't be fair, since the money you "paid in" has already been paid out to someone else, so to give you your hundreds of thousands back would require the government to borrow the money, thus saddling future generations with paying for your social security pay out, while not getting the benefit of their own social security pay out.
The system was designed that way. Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people.
That would be the only way to end SS in a "fair" way, except it wouldn't be fair, since the money you "paid in" has already been paid out to someone else, so to give you your hundreds of thousands back would require the government to borrow the money, thus saddling future generations with paying for your social security pay out, while not getting the benefit of their own social security pay out.
The system was designed that way. Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
246
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
-----
I'm with you there.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (gmeXX)
---------------------------------
Same here.
-----
I'm with you there.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (gmeXX)
---------------------------------
Same here.
Posted by: Soona at May 04, 2015 12:30 PM (/HX7u)
247
241
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever
renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my
employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would
do that in a heart beat.
-----
I'm with you there.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (gmeXX)
same
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever
renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my
employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would
do that in a heart beat.
-----
I'm with you there.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (gmeXX)
same
Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 04, 2015 12:30 PM (0O7c5)
248
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
Me too.
Me too.
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (FdFgz)
249
The system was designed that way. Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people.
-----
Which is why it will only screw over Gen X. They will have "paid in" (i.e., taxed) for most of their working lives but will receive none of the "benefits."
The breaks of being a small generation sandwiched between two big ones. One who wants to make sure they get theirs, and the other that doesn't want to be taxed to pay ours.
-----
Which is why it will only screw over Gen X. They will have "paid in" (i.e., taxed) for most of their working lives but will receive none of the "benefits."
The breaks of being a small generation sandwiched between two big ones. One who wants to make sure they get theirs, and the other that doesn't want to be taxed to pay ours.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (gmeXX)
250
All that got accomplished was that Drew was able to bitch about the government and the GOP again.
I personally think that is a feature, not a bug. The Dems hate us and don't mind telling us they hate us and are gonna screw us in the cornhole un-lubed. The GOP hate us and don't mind telling us they love us and then screw us in the cornhole un-lubed, but tell us next time they will use lube.
I personally think that is a feature, not a bug. The Dems hate us and don't mind telling us they hate us and are gonna screw us in the cornhole un-lubed. The GOP hate us and don't mind telling us they love us and then screw us in the cornhole un-lubed, but tell us next time they will use lube.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (ODxAs)
251
I think you forgot about me.
Posted by: Pedro at May 04, 2015 12:17 PM (48QDY)
****************
Pedro (actually Maria) does a lot better on welfare in California than he does in Texas, so that's where he goes if he intends to get on it.
Posted by: Pedro at May 04, 2015 12:17 PM (48QDY)
****************
Pedro (actually Maria) does a lot better on welfare in California than he does in Texas, so that's where he goes if he intends to get on it.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (5f5bM)
252
So how were the results of the Poverty on Poverty affected by the increased importation of poverty?
Sort of a pre-W. Bush flypaper strategy.
Sort of a pre-W. Bush flypaper strategy.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (NUqwG)
253
So how were the results of the Poverty on Poverty affected by the increased importation of poverty?
Sort of a pre-W. Bush flypaper strategy.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (NUqwG)
---
'War on Poverty'
Sort of a pre-W. Bush flypaper strategy.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (NUqwG)
---
'War on Poverty'
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (NUqwG)
254
Breaking news! Police in Garland, TX say they have NOT, repeat NOT ruled out terrorism.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (sQMc7)
255
242 John Bolten on "Outnumbered". Looks to be enjoying himself.
If he has half the smile my uncle did when he sat on set with those ladies (off air) last week, it will be huge!
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (FdFgz)
Well, adequate at least.
If he has half the smile my uncle did when he sat on set with those ladies (off air) last week, it will be huge!
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:28 PM (FdFgz)
Well, adequate at least.
Posted by: Mrs. Bolton at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (vgIRn)
256
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:26 PM (5f5bM)
Mmmm... to an extent, but...
It's also just the availability of land. If you're going to work in NYC and you want to keep your commute under 90 minutes, you're very limited in where you can live. Low supply, high demand, means real estate is very expensive. That influences the costs of everything in your life. If the gas station is paying $50,000 a year in property taxes and is paying off a mortgage for $2 million for the land, well, thats going to add to the cost of everything they sell.
but yes, taxes, regulations, etc, etc, etc do influence all of that directly and indirectly for sure.
Mmmm... to an extent, but...
It's also just the availability of land. If you're going to work in NYC and you want to keep your commute under 90 minutes, you're very limited in where you can live. Low supply, high demand, means real estate is very expensive. That influences the costs of everything in your life. If the gas station is paying $50,000 a year in property taxes and is paying off a mortgage for $2 million for the land, well, thats going to add to the cost of everything they sell.
but yes, taxes, regulations, etc, etc, etc do influence all of that directly and indirectly for sure.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (AkOaV)
257
We have the highest property tax rate in the country, coupled with some of the highest housing prices.
That combination is too hard to best, even with the snail darter.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (Q01GY)
Fair enough, CBD, but right now the only thing saving us from surging into the lead in that category is Prop. 13,* which effectively caps property taxes (strictly speaking, caps the rate of increase). Who hated it and opposed the hell out of it when it was on the ballot, you ask? Why, that would be Jerry Brown, who was (mis)governor at the time. I fear Prop. 13 is on Death Row, in which case we'll blow by NJ so fast we'll suck the doors off it.
*a rare example of a ballot initiative that did not bone the state further. Thanks, Howard Jarvis!
That combination is too hard to best, even with the snail darter.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (Q01GY)
Fair enough, CBD, but right now the only thing saving us from surging into the lead in that category is Prop. 13,* which effectively caps property taxes (strictly speaking, caps the rate of increase). Who hated it and opposed the hell out of it when it was on the ballot, you ask? Why, that would be Jerry Brown, who was (mis)governor at the time. I fear Prop. 13 is on Death Row, in which case we'll blow by NJ so fast we'll suck the doors off it.
*a rare example of a ballot initiative that did not bone the state further. Thanks, Howard Jarvis!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (oKE6c)
258
Now if they shot Jar Jar Binks being killed, well instant blockbuster. So many people would be rooting and hollering.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:33 PM (wPxCh)
259
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:21 PM (gmeXX)
Not sure what the issue is.
Seeing as how EBT has been expanded by about 18 million families under TFG, no one eve proposes going back to the bad old days of 2008 when people were clearly starving. /sarc
Here's how block grants would work in this case -- You might recall they were running ads to get moar signups; the states would do the same because the grants would be based on the # of 'customers'.
Moar signups = bigger block grants the next year.
C'mon, you've seen this same scenario play out over and over; this time it will be different? Also, spend it or lose it. That sound familiar?
Not sure what the issue is.
Seeing as how EBT has been expanded by about 18 million families under TFG, no one eve proposes going back to the bad old days of 2008 when people were clearly starving. /sarc
Here's how block grants would work in this case -- You might recall they were running ads to get moar signups; the states would do the same because the grants would be based on the # of 'customers'.
Moar signups = bigger block grants the next year.
C'mon, you've seen this same scenario play out over and over; this time it will be different? Also, spend it or lose it. That sound familiar?
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 04, 2015 12:33 PM (pbY3m)
260
Heh Mrs. bolton
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (FdFgz)
261
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (gmeXX)
Well, I think I'm considered a millenial... and my generation is going to get fucked, too. Whether thats through increased taxes to pay for the boomers and/or lower / no benefits when we retire.
so its not like I'm getting some great deal either.
Well, I think I'm considered a millenial... and my generation is going to get fucked, too. Whether thats through increased taxes to pay for the boomers and/or lower / no benefits when we retire.
so its not like I'm getting some great deal either.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (AkOaV)
262
Missouri is one of those states that have to balance its budget every year, so when the federal government comes through the trailer park that is Jefferson City, waving hundred dollar bills, politicians of a certain party come out with their backsides in the air.
Then they blast the other side for refusing to fund "critical programs" with free federal money.
Ryan is not only not the answer in Washington, he is fundamentally responsible for any and all small government types at the state level from being able to make their case to a people who are otherwise smart enough to smell the rat when it comes from their side, but assume it's just fine and dandy when the former Veep candidate does it.
Screw him.
Then they blast the other side for refusing to fund "critical programs" with free federal money.
Ryan is not only not the answer in Washington, he is fundamentally responsible for any and all small government types at the state level from being able to make their case to a people who are otherwise smart enough to smell the rat when it comes from their side, but assume it's just fine and dandy when the former Veep candidate does it.
Screw him.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (TOk1P)
263
258 Now if they shot Jar Jar Binks being killed, well instant blockbuster. So many people would be rooting and hollering.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:33 PM (wPxCh)
I wouldn't even care if he died tragically and heroically; he would still be DEAD.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at May 04, 2015 12:33 PM (wPxCh)
I wouldn't even care if he died tragically and heroically; he would still be DEAD.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (RD7QR)
264
Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
-------
Well then there must be some additional reason that the politicians would not end it. They seem to have no aversion to fcucking over a large number of people.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
-------
Well then there must be some additional reason that the politicians would not end it. They seem to have no aversion to fcucking over a large number of people.
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:35 PM (NUqwG)
265
Screw him.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (TOk1P)
----
Don't you mean 'Stone' him? /
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (TOk1P)
----
Don't you mean 'Stone' him? /
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:36 PM (NUqwG)
266
Im in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere
that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I
get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay
anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
Me too.
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (FdFgz)
Same here. Hell, I'd sign if they just guarantee they won't expropriate my savings. Keep my Social Security contributions, but let me keep what I put away, which I have no doubt the Democrats are casting longing eyes on.
that I would forever renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I
get to keep my and my employers SS contribution and don't have to pay
anymore in.... I would do that in a heart beat.
Me too.
Posted by: DangerGirl at May 04, 2015 12:31 PM (FdFgz)
Same here. Hell, I'd sign if they just guarantee they won't expropriate my savings. Keep my Social Security contributions, but let me keep what I put away, which I have no doubt the Democrats are casting longing eyes on.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:37 PM (oKE6c)
267
This is a big essay I'm sitting on waiting for a good hook to build it around: the way too many conservatives have without knowing it fallen for the left's lie that every solution comes from government.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 12:37 PM (39g3+)
268
C'mon, you've seen this same scenario play out over and over; this time it will be different? Also, spend it or lose it. That sound familiar?
-----
I don't see why you can't or shouldn't argue for both?
We all want to cut spending on welfare. Our preferred # is probably 0. We all agree that is unlikely.
So how do we cut that number? And what will do it quickest.
Many of us think block grants is a potential way. Perhaps that is the wrong approach.
I don't think it is the ideal solution or only solution. Just a step in the right direction.
But if given a choice of two politicians - one who supports block grants but no cuts in spending or one who supports cutting spending - I'd support the one who wants to cut spending.
But I don't see why you can't propose both.
-----
I don't see why you can't or shouldn't argue for both?
We all want to cut spending on welfare. Our preferred # is probably 0. We all agree that is unlikely.
So how do we cut that number? And what will do it quickest.
Many of us think block grants is a potential way. Perhaps that is the wrong approach.
I don't think it is the ideal solution or only solution. Just a step in the right direction.
But if given a choice of two politicians - one who supports block grants but no cuts in spending or one who supports cutting spending - I'd support the one who wants to cut spending.
But I don't see why you can't propose both.
Posted by: SH at May 04, 2015 12:37 PM (gmeXX)
269
I wouldn't even care if he died tragically and heroically; he would still be DEAD.
-
Yeah, well, so was Obi Wan Kenobe.
-
Yeah, well, so was Obi Wan Kenobe.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at May 04, 2015 12:38 PM (Lvg+g)
270
N00d.
Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at May 04, 2015 12:39 PM (RD7QR)
271
Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people. Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
-----------------------------------------
Oh, it'll end. Hehehehehe.
-----------------------------------------
Oh, it'll end. Hehehehehe.
Posted by: Math at May 04, 2015 12:39 PM (/HX7u)
272
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:35 PM (NUqwG)
Because theres nothing in it for them. How do they get rich and powerful from ending SS? They don't.
Unless they can manage a way to "privatize" it, which would allow their bank cronies to make billions on transaction fees. But even then, that potential reward is probably not worth the risk for the politicians.
Because theres nothing in it for them. How do they get rich and powerful from ending SS? They don't.
Unless they can manage a way to "privatize" it, which would allow their bank cronies to make billions on transaction fees. But even then, that potential reward is probably not worth the risk for the politicians.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:39 PM (AkOaV)
273
I'd easily give up my social security benefits but I paid so little into it over the years because I've been unemployed almost all my life due to health issues that I am getting virtually nothing anyway. Its not a sacrifice for me.
Social Security will end one way or another anyway. Its just a question of whether it will end being phased out with a way of people finding something to replace it... or suddenly leaving people helpless. Its like slavery: it was on its way out, but idiots chose massive slaughter over gradually phasing it out, because they refused to let it go.
Social Security will end one way or another anyway. Its just a question of whether it will end being phased out with a way of people finding something to replace it... or suddenly leaving people helpless. Its like slavery: it was on its way out, but idiots chose massive slaughter over gradually phasing it out, because they refused to let it go.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (39g3+)
274
Jay, Idon't bother to track everyparticularsub-elementof the civil degradation in CA- but do you really think that Prop 13 might be legislated away?
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps. And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps. And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (afQnV)
275
Screw him.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (TOk1P)
----
Don't you mean 'Stone' him? /
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:36 PM (NUqwG)
I don't know, he is awfully cute.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:34 PM (TOk1P)
----
Don't you mean 'Stone' him? /
Posted by: RioBravo at May 04, 2015 12:36 PM (NUqwG)
I don't know, he is awfully cute.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (TOk1P)
276
Damned near impossible to end in any way that doesn't fuck over a large number of people.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
It could be done by freezing benefits for a generation or two, and letting inflation nibble down the value of the payments. That would give people time to adjust. We could unwind welfare the same way.
The problem, of course, is that no Congress/state legislature can encumber a future one with its decisions, and doing this in one session would provide Democrats with a Heaven-sent opportunity to engage in demagoguery. Not that they would ever do that, of course.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
It could be done by freezing benefits for a generation or two, and letting inflation nibble down the value of the payments. That would give people time to adjust. We could unwind welfare the same way.
The problem, of course, is that no Congress/state legislature can encumber a future one with its decisions, and doing this in one session would provide Democrats with a Heaven-sent opportunity to engage in demagoguery. Not that they would ever do that, of course.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (oKE6c)
277
but yes, taxes, regulations, etc, etc, etc do influence all of that directly and indirectly for sure.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (AkOaV)
Yep. Glad we agree on that.
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:32 PM (AkOaV)
Yep. Glad we agree on that.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:41 PM (5f5bM)
278
I'm going to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt and think he's playing the deep game here. Cutting Welfare or whatever payments directly going to individuals from the Federal Gov't is politically impossible. You may not like that fact but it is a fact. But if direct payments are turned into block grants, then cutting them (or at least controlling the rate of increase) is easier. Individuals draw their Dane-geld (because that's what welfare is essentially, a bribe to the poor not to riot) from the states, so if there are cuts the blame goes to the state. As the Blue states continue to fail and go bankrupt, the last thing they'll cut is welfare which will drive productive individuals to red states and this will help to counter Obama's current strategy.
He's terribly disappointed in the American electorate so he's trading it in on a new one.
He's terribly disappointed in the American electorate so he's trading it in on a new one.
Posted by: Pluskat's Dog at May 04, 2015 12:42 PM (IbP8q)
279
idiots chose massive slaughter over gradually phasing it out, because they refused to let it go.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (39g3+)
Next thing we'll be arguing longbows versus crossbows, and then it's on!
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (39g3+)
Next thing we'll be arguing longbows versus crossbows, and then it's on!
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at May 04, 2015 12:43 PM (5f5bM)
280
I'm in my Fifties. If I could could sign somewhere that I would forever
renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my
employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would
do that in a heart beat.
Same here. In fact, once in while I can actually engage a LIV on how bad this countries finances are. I throw that out and it always get their attention. Then something comes on reality TV and they return to their daze.
renounce my SS claims at retirement, but that I get to keep my and my
employers SS contribution and don't have to pay anymore in.... I would
do that in a heart beat.
Same here. In fact, once in while I can actually engage a LIV on how bad this countries finances are. I throw that out and it always get their attention. Then something comes on reality TV and they return to their daze.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at May 04, 2015 12:44 PM (1BQGO)
281
I really want/ed to like Paul Ryan, but I just couldn't after he was unable to destroy Joe Biden in the VP debate. A drunk, crying clown could have done better. And all this poor people crap is making me dislike him all the more.
Posted by: Eli Cash at May 04, 2015 12:45 PM (a+WIL)
282
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (oKE6c)
How does freezing pay outs help anything?
It just pushes the inevitable back a little bit, but requires the ever dwindling supply of workers in younger generations to continue to pay an ever growing amount of their money to support the old guy down the street with the paid off house and the boat in the yard, while current workers can barely keep food on their tables.
How does freezing pay outs help anything?
It just pushes the inevitable back a little bit, but requires the ever dwindling supply of workers in younger generations to continue to pay an ever growing amount of their money to support the old guy down the street with the paid off house and the boat in the yard, while current workers can barely keep food on their tables.
Posted by: Barack Obama at May 04, 2015 12:46 PM (AkOaV)
283
274 Jay, Idon't bother to track everyparticularsub-elementof the civil degradation in CA- but do you really think that Prop 13 might be legislated away?
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps. And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (afQnV)
Not right away, my brother, but I have NO doubt that the Reds would love to dispense with it. The Dems lost their super majority in the legislature when there was that big misunderstanding about Yee selling RPGs (and a few other miscreants getting rung up at the same time), but when the cash crunch gets bad enough, yeah, I think they'll be looking hard at repealing Prop. 13. (Dems have already railed against it in speeches.)
Think about it: it's the perfect target for them. There's a lot of money to be had, just being wasted on people who earned it, and who would they be kicking in the balls? Property owners! Woot! The opportunities for demagoguery are obvious, since many renters are too stupid to grasp that they will be the ones paying the property tax. Unless, of course, the Reds also impose rent control (that's the next stage of the pathology), in which case rental units come off the market (either by condo conversions or by arson, a la NY).
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps. And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (afQnV)
Not right away, my brother, but I have NO doubt that the Reds would love to dispense with it. The Dems lost their super majority in the legislature when there was that big misunderstanding about Yee selling RPGs (and a few other miscreants getting rung up at the same time), but when the cash crunch gets bad enough, yeah, I think they'll be looking hard at repealing Prop. 13. (Dems have already railed against it in speeches.)
Think about it: it's the perfect target for them. There's a lot of money to be had, just being wasted on people who earned it, and who would they be kicking in the balls? Property owners! Woot! The opportunities for demagoguery are obvious, since many renters are too stupid to grasp that they will be the ones paying the property tax. Unless, of course, the Reds also impose rent control (that's the next stage of the pathology), in which case rental units come off the market (either by condo conversions or by arson, a la NY).
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:46 PM (oKE6c)
284
oops, sock off
Posted by: mynewhandle at May 04, 2015 12:46 PM (AkOaV)
285
How does freezing pay outs help anything?
It just pushes the inevitable back a little bit, but requires the
ever dwindling supply of workers in younger generations to continue to
pay an ever growing amount of their money to support the old guy down
the street with the paid off house and the boat in the yard, while
current workers can barely keep food on their tables.
Posted by: Barack Obama at May 04, 2015 12:46 PM (AkOaV)
It helps because a fixed payout becomes less and less value over time owing to inflation. When I was in college, I could by a week's groceries for $10 (and I had a ravenous appetite). A $10/wk payout then would have sufficed to keep someone like me in groceries, but now - assuming no COLA, so it's still $10/wk - it ain't shit. But the change wouldn't happen with a stroke of the pen; it would happen over decades, so people could adjust.
It just pushes the inevitable back a little bit, but requires the
ever dwindling supply of workers in younger generations to continue to
pay an ever growing amount of their money to support the old guy down
the street with the paid off house and the boat in the yard, while
current workers can barely keep food on their tables.
Posted by: Barack Obama at May 04, 2015 12:46 PM (AkOaV)
It helps because a fixed payout becomes less and less value over time owing to inflation. When I was in college, I could by a week's groceries for $10 (and I had a ravenous appetite). A $10/wk payout then would have sufficed to keep someone like me in groceries, but now - assuming no COLA, so it's still $10/wk - it ain't shit. But the change wouldn't happen with a stroke of the pen; it would happen over decades, so people could adjust.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:49 PM (oKE6c)
286
274 Jay, Idon't bother to track everyparticularsub-elementof the
civil degradation in CA- but do you really think that Prop 13 might be
legislated away?
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps.
And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered
by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be
enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (afQnV)
Sorry, afterthought. The other thing that is staying the Reds' hand right now, I suspect, is the uproar that would ensue. But ... a couple years ago a state legislator proposed an "exit tax" on anyone who sold a house in CA and didn't buy another one. It didn't pass, didn't even come to a vote, but it shows how they're thinking. "Exit tax," "ransom," what's in a word?
civil degradation in CA- but do you really think that Prop 13 might be
legislated away?
THAT would finally be the last straw, perhaps.
And no amount of schadenfreude at the titanic tax wallops to be suffered
by the cretinous Coastal Clueless who have made this possible will be
enough to compensate.
If such a thing were in prospect, speculation in Yuma and Reno commercial real estate might actually become a rational concept.
Posted by: rhomboid at May 04, 2015 12:40 PM (afQnV)
Sorry, afterthought. The other thing that is staying the Reds' hand right now, I suspect, is the uproar that would ensue. But ... a couple years ago a state legislator proposed an "exit tax" on anyone who sold a house in CA and didn't buy another one. It didn't pass, didn't even come to a vote, but it shows how they're thinking. "Exit tax," "ransom," what's in a word?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 04, 2015 12:53 PM (oKE6c)
287
I was over at Salon this morning (yeah, I know). It never ceases to amaze me how dim, humorless, illiterate, and angry the commenters over there are.
Especially in comparison to our commenters, who are intelligent, witty, articulate, and angry.
Especially in comparison to our commenters, who are intelligent, witty, articulate, and angry.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at May 04, 2015 12:56 PM (laMCB)
288
And now old people can't shut up about how they *deserve* to rip off younger people because they let themselves get ripped off for forty years.
Posted by: HR
-------------------------
Well...., people have a curious expectation of receiving a return on their investment. Those who paid into the SS system are not unreasonable in expecting to receive it back.
The boomers were simply compelled to invest in a Ponzi scheme. The system will fail, not because of greedy boomers, the system will fail because of a socialist policy.
Posted by: HR
-------------------------
Well...., people have a curious expectation of receiving a return on their investment. Those who paid into the SS system are not unreasonable in expecting to receive it back.
The boomers were simply compelled to invest in a Ponzi scheme. The system will fail, not because of greedy boomers, the system will fail because of a socialist policy.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at May 04, 2015 01:01 PM (F2IAQ)
289
Well those blue states did do a miraculous job at making health care web sites. And the federalies did a super job too.
Posted by: Jukin, Former Republican at May 04, 2015 01:06 PM (TV9BR)
290
They should give everyone back every cent they paid into the system and end the program for good.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 04, 2015 01:19 PM (nCKKS)
291
290 They should give everyone back every cent they paid into the system and end the program for good.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 04, 2015 01:19 PM (nCKKS)
Sorry, we already spent it. Many years ago, in fact.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 04, 2015 01:19 PM (nCKKS)
Sorry, we already spent it. Many years ago, in fact.
Posted by: Your betters in D.C. at May 04, 2015 01:59 PM (laMCB)
292
Oh, the humanity!
What is this supposed to mean? "fundamental societal problems like multi-generational poverty"?
That was not a problem before the War on Poverty. America was then the upwardly mobile society. The poor were rarely the same people/families from generation to generation, even if the percentages of poverty were similar over time.
It is in fact government largesse which has created a small but persistent dependent class who have been on benefits of one sort or another for generations. But even now, that number is not large. Generation to generation, the faces and families still change for the most part. What "multi-generational poverty" there is was created by the government actions.
What is this supposed to mean? "fundamental societal problems like multi-generational poverty"?
That was not a problem before the War on Poverty. America was then the upwardly mobile society. The poor were rarely the same people/families from generation to generation, even if the percentages of poverty were similar over time.
It is in fact government largesse which has created a small but persistent dependent class who have been on benefits of one sort or another for generations. But even now, that number is not large. Generation to generation, the faces and families still change for the most part. What "multi-generational poverty" there is was created by the government actions.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 04, 2015 04:25 PM (QIQ6j)
293
The Poverty Line
The bottom fifteen percent
By definition
Since the Department of Agriculture defines "Poverty" as the lowest 15% of the income range, it is not at all surprising that we have 15% of the population living in "Poverty", year after year.
According to the definition, the poorest person in America could be making $100,000 a year, but since he is in the bottom 15%, he is still poor.
The Poverty Line
The bottom fifteen percent
By definition
Since the Department of Agriculture defines "Poverty" as the lowest 15% of the income range, it is not at all surprising that we have 15% of the population living in "Poverty", year after year.
According to the definition, the poorest person in America could be making $100,000 a year, but since he is in the bottom 15%, he is still poor.
Posted by: Haiku Guy at May 04, 2015 04:29 PM (hmj8n)
294
this crap is so tiresome already. didn't we already go through the 70s? I was there, and I distinctly remember some thing about this so-called war on poverty as a kid. it didn't work. we spent a ton of other people's money. do we really need a repeat?
well, how about this: you are all responsible for your own condition in life. period. regardless of the circumstances, it is your life. if you come from the worst possible situation imaginable, guess what? if you try, and try very very hard, people WILL help you. the operative word here is PEOPLE. not the government. how do I know? because I've been there. life is not easy, but it doesn't always have to be a struggle to survive and get by.
if you don't try, well, it's your choice. don't expect other people to pay for the consequences of your choices. one's life is a sum of choices and dreams.
well, how about this: you are all responsible for your own condition in life. period. regardless of the circumstances, it is your life. if you come from the worst possible situation imaginable, guess what? if you try, and try very very hard, people WILL help you. the operative word here is PEOPLE. not the government. how do I know? because I've been there. life is not easy, but it doesn't always have to be a struggle to survive and get by.
if you don't try, well, it's your choice. don't expect other people to pay for the consequences of your choices. one's life is a sum of choices and dreams.
Posted by: Mistress Overdone at May 04, 2015 08:28 PM (2/oBD)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0383 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.012 seconds, 303 records returned.
Page size 201 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat