Jump to content
Want daily summaries and Breaking News alerts?
As of Thursday, April 18, 2013
© Copyright 2014
What is our exit strategy in the war on poverty?
For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.
To submit a squawk, Click here.
CUT OFF FOOD STAMPS AND CHECKS FOR ANYONE HEALTHY AND YOUNG ENOUGH TO WORK, EVEN IN THE FIELDS. NO ASSISTANCE FOR MOTHERS AFTER THE FIRST CHILD. TIME LIMITS ON PUBLIC HOUSING. NO MORE GENERATIONAL OWNERSHIP OF A HOUSING UNIT. START THERE. LET'S TALK ABOUT CORPORATE WELFARE, ANY TAKERS?
Would this no generational transference of housing apply to those million dollar apartment dwellers in the big cities who will the lease to a relative?
AS LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT THEMSELVES, NO HARM, NO FOUL.
So you want to continue the separation of rules: there are different rules for poor people and rich people. What is so wrong with getting assistance? Is it because it's 'your' money or what?
Why can't these people get off their lazy butts, get them a job and pay for it themselves. That's how I do it.
Actually, War Welfare and Corporate Welfare take up way more of the domestic budget than social assistance. Yet, it is the paucity of social and educational funding that will be the ultimate downfall of the U.S. if it does not focus internally. You can't have a dumb society and expect to rule the world. Allowing for poverty to persist as it does in black, white, hispanic, and other communities lays the groundwork for the lack of educational achievement for the MASSES.
The exit strategy is for man to finally admit that he has messed up everything down here and ask God to take us out of our misery and start all over again where women were in charge before men brutally overtook the God ordained authority of the female!
by Everything you get from the GOVERNMENT
Today, there is absolutely and unequivocally NO war on poverty. The primary strategy of the Democrat party is to a) keep people currently in poverty to stay there, and b) bring in as many more people as possible, especially Hispanics, INTO poverty.
In short: The Democrat Party has realized the UGLY TRUTH that DOLLARS BUY VOTES. And they have finally achieved a pluraity of "voters" who are dependent on their so-called kindness and generosity which takes the form of stealing from the Makers and giving to the takers.
Repubs had eight years to do this; why didn't they do something?
Lax gun control laws.
I'd like to expand on your comment, The current laws are not lax, the enforcement of those laws are. In 2010 approx. 40,000 convicted felons, those with reported mental health issues, and convicted domestic violence perpetrators were denied purchase of a firearm by the current background check system NCIS. Under current law an attempt to purchase a firearm by these people is a felony. Want to guess how many the Dept. of Justice brought charges against? Just 44, yes that is one thousanth of one percent. What good are more laws if the current laws aren't being enforced? Respectfully awaiting your reply.
"In a video, American-born terrorist Azzam al-Amriki, aka Adam Gadahn, urges “lone wolf” terrorists to exploit weaknesses in gun laws, saying these gaps present a “golden opportunity” to do “major damage to the enemies of Islam, waging war on their religion, sacred places, and things, and brethren:”
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”
Just thought you would like to know some of the people who agree with you on more laws about background checks.
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification
You can also go to any store and buy pressure cookers and other everyday items with no ID at all and build a bomb and injure hundreds of people like they did at the Boston marathon.
You have to possess the knowledge and skill to assemble the parts just to build it. Then if you want to use the device(s) for harm you must have an elaborate plan to inflict harm. To get away with it you must have an even more elaborate plan.
To inflict harm with a gun? Aim and pull the trigger.
To inflict harm with a knife? Aim and pull your arm forward. That's what that guy in Texas did last week when he wounded 14 people.
Point I was making is the bomb was made with parts that an 8 year old could buy easily at your local walmart. Who is to say 100's of people are not being trained on how to make these bombs?
As I have said before, people will always find a way to kill.
Birds of a feather ...........
We had a chance to make our citizens safer this week and failed to do so. It is more than enforcing laws on the books, but, yes, we must enforce laws.
Sherwood seriously? Are you inhaling the smoke they are blowing up your__? Just how was this NEW law going to make our citizens safer? Hmmm o yea from the few mental people and thugs that are too stupid to stop and think…before I pay for this background check will I pass? This was nothing more than smoke and mirrors for those that blindly follow and can not realize someone looking to get around the New Law would just buy a gun on the street. How many of Albany’s thug shooters passed a Georgia background check for the illegal guns they used? How many were already felons but still had guns…..This was nothing more than O’s way to declare war on the NRA. Just because they start a news story with “A new survey shows” don’t fall for the misinformation they are feeding you.
You just answered your own question, abytaxpayer. I was careful to say this would make us safer not completely safe.
I don't think it will make us any safer at all, because the wrong person will always get their gun one way or another. They need to focas on the people, not the weapon.
If it prevents one person from obtaining a weapon that he or she would have used to harm another person, then we as a society are safer. Not completely safe but safer.
Would you be implying they should all be shot?
No, it was a "tongue-in-cheek" comment on our "plan" to end poverty.
Fryer, usually you are better informed. Yes you can get a machinegun in Georgia as long as you comply with the standards of the National Firearms Code. To obtain a class 3 weapon, you first have to find someone willing to sell one. Then you have to patition the Counties highest law enforcement official to say you are of character to own one. Then you submit the paperwork with $250 dollars. Several months later you may be approved to purchase the one you have contracted for. So just how does one wlk out of a gun show with one? Just curious, as you are usually better informed than to make a misstatement like that.
Why go to all that when any one can buy a m60 machine gun on the street.
Sorry, Trudy that is not the truth, a M60 (if you could find one) costs over $28,000 if you go throught the channels Walt explained. Probably closer to $50,000 on the black market. And there is only one case in the last 20 years where a fully automatic "assault" weapon was used in a crime. The Bank robbery in Los Angeles in 1994, and those were illegally converted AK-47's. See the problem here? There was and is a Federal law against converting a semi-automatic to fully automatic. Also laws against robbing a bank, stealing cars, and shooting cops. That did not stop those bank robbers from commiting EVIL. Typical un-informed response is to blame the effect not the cause.
It's not my information. It is an authentic advertisement by a certified terrorist who agrees with you that it is a good situation to buy guns for terroristic activities because there are no background checks or identity requirements. So you and Wayne LaP and the terrorists are on the same page.
Until you can provide employment, at a rate that far exceeds welfare, there is no exit strategy.
You have to start with the kids that are in poverty. We, the people, need to show the kids of poverty that there is a better life if they apply themselves in school and all aspects of life. Like Walt said, we have to give them an option. The adults in poverty choose to remain on the government dole, because the mentality has been ingrained for several generations. I am not trying to be trite, but this is just the reality in which we live. It all starts with the education of the younger generation to help them get off of welfare and out of poverty. The democrats do not want to do this, however, because they are just raising a new crop of young voters.
Why is it wrong to accept government assistance? Are people angry because it is a matter of not wanting to pay taxes for others or is there a deeper moral or value question?
If you have a coupon for an item that saves you significant money, do you use it? In other words, is it not a SMART move to take advantage of the discounts provided to you?
Isn't it the democrats who want to fund the schools? Isn't it the democrats who want to bring jobs back and cut the tax loopholes and incentives companies get for shipping the jobs overseas?
Erudite... Your questions indicate how well the liberals have manipulated the public's view of conservatives. Use of government assistance is not the issue as long as it serves as a boost to someone attempting to make the climb. Conservatives get angry over more and more money going to a growing class of Americans who believe they deserve to be supported with no sense of personal responsibility. Our tax money can do a lot more for the elderly and infirm if so much of it did not go to those who simply prefer a free ride. Moral or value question? Yes. There is something morally wrong in expecting someone else to support you when you are capable of doing it yourself.
I don't believe you thought through your second analogy. Discount coupons are given by the business that sells or produces the goods. They are basically giving away their own money. The government's "coupons" make the politicians, mostly democrats, look benevolent but have to be reimbursed by taxpayers.
Republicans also want to fund schools. Who told you otherwise? The media, Obama? Wanting to be wise in spending money is not the same as not wanting to spend the money. People learn that when it is their own money they are spending.
Republicans also want more jobs and to cut tax loopholes etc. They have a different perspective on how to accomplish those goals. History suggests the Republican's philosophy more likely to accomplish those goals.
So, why did the Repubs let it get this way under Bush2. He had eight years to change it but he did not. so why is it now Obama's fault?
My analogy is not to the coupons; it is to the smartness of getting something cheaper or for free. Sop perhaps you did not think critically enough.
Why is it morally wrong? I don't think it is listed in the Jewish commandments, is ti? (The 10 C's are Jewish law not xtian law; they were given to Moses not anyone after Jesus.)
To what historical evidence do you refer? Prior to the early 1900's, the Republicans were today's democrats.
One thing is for sure, it has gotten a lot worse under Obumya, and it is going to get even worse than it is now.
Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Can you be specific about the "it" you are referring to? Generally speaking, Republicans have been trying to bring a little common sense to the government assistance programs. Unfortunately, the democrats, with the assistance the media, portrays anything less than more benefits as cruel, greedy, selfish, etc. It's a tough line to hold when the principles upon which the arguments are made are ignored and demagoguery poses as news.
Regarding the coupon analogy, I understand that you are suggesting that it is simply a smart move to make use of the legal opportunities presented by the government. The issue is not whether it is smart to take advantage of the opportunities, but to what expense and what level do those opportunities rise? In discussing how much of a burden one part of society should take on for the benefit of another, the coupon analogy fails for the reason I stated earlier.
Regarding morality, the concept extends far beyond the Judeo-Christian world. While issues of sex, marriage, drugs, and drinking and even responsibility for offspring vary, it seems almost universal that those who can support themselves are responsible for doing so.
Take a look at recent history and you will find that recessions were shorter and the exits from them were more energetic when people were allowed to keep more of the money they earned.
"Xtian"? You have a real fur ball caught in there, don''t you? ;)
erudite, that's the stupidest analagy I've ever heard.
Try to insult with properly spelled words, OK? Oh yeah, and how did you 'hear' it? Didn't you 'read' it?
Did you make the naive assumption that they would actually take a job and actually work? I saw Help Wanted signs at Chic Fil A yesterday. I see them around town all the time. But life's too good on the porch and the mailman still comes 6 days a week.
Sherwood, are you the man that stands on the corner holding a sign? We have gun laws but do not enforce them.
As to the war on poverty, cut people off after one year if they are able to work.
I fear my comment went over your head, Pappa.
Sherwood, no guns were involved in the two major explosions this week, one that killed 3 and injured 166 and the other leveled homes and injured and killed an unknown number. What has lax gun control laws have to do with poverty? Since the advent of Medicaid, people that were physically able to work would not since they had a check coming in paying them to stay.
Go work in health care and see the types that come to the ER with a headache times 3 days paying for the trip with their gold card or should i say we, the workers in the hospital pays for the visit and we the worker have to pay for our own visit only after we pay our deductible and have a valid emergency. Stop with the lax gun control. I saw more deaths and injuries in the 20 yrs i worked in healthcare due to drugs and alcohol but we hear nothing about these killers.
Another NRA devotee: guns are OK because those people were not killed with guns. Makes sense.
Makes perfect sense, guns don't kill, people do.
To exit poverty there must be a desire by the individual to accept there must be changes made in their life (examples: read and educate themselves, observe what makes others successful, get off the sofa, or out of degrading negative groups, and work at making improvements, think positively about yourself, have respect for others, etc. etc. etc.). If we know of someone in poverty, we must provide them with encouragement for them to do better, but not continue to give them everything they need. They must learn to be self-sufficient. Teach them to fish, and they will eat for a life-time.
As for the comment about lax gun control laws, the only laxness is with enforcing the laws that are already on the books, and holding "people" more accountable for their actions.
To be blunt, anyone advocating more laws to stop selling semi-auto scary looking rifles with a 30 round clip is to be considered a shallow-thinking fool. It is not the gun or clip that kills. A mentally impaired person with no respect for human life is the problem, and this should be the focus for finding solutions. A person who thinks about killing innocent people will find any means available to kill, whether it be with a knife, a bomb, a brick, a bat, a pistol, or even with poison substances. So to target a specific rifle and clip is a clear indication of foolish thinking and lacks credibility! THINK about it.
Good point B4it. I think that Sherwood was being a bit sarcastic with the lax gun laws comment...or at least I hope so.
I don't know, I think Sherwood is anti gun period.
Not anti-gun. I don't want someone without proper training to have the ability to obtain weapons that are meant for battlefields.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment on our "plan" to eliminate poverty.
There is a higher percentage of people in "poverty" than before the war on poverty was declared. The goal of the war was to create democratic voters. That has been successful. People on welfare do not care what damage it does to their country they just want their monthly stipend. It also creates criminals. A bunch of IRS employees have been caught receiving welfare fraudulently. When, not if, welfare is reduced there will be violence. This regime has started social security pay reduction and at some point the same will happen to welfare. We have spent $17 or $18 trillion for the failed war on poverty. Which happens to be our national debt. First, eliminate fraud, the begin gradual welfare payment reduction and certainly no amnesty for 12 million illegals. That will open up some jobs.
From boston- another example of killing in the name of their god. Has anything caused more death worldwide than religion?
No evidence this was an extremist Islamic act of terror at this point.
erudite, your first comment???
Hey erudite, can I hold your peach card? I'm a little short after paying my taxes.
As soon as he gets back from test driving that new Lexus....you can borrow it
No peach card or lexus here; work for my money, always have. basic car but it does have AC. I have more money than necessary pulled from my paycheck for taxes so I am enjoying my refund.
rent, don't own. no vacations, no big screen tv, no gas grill.
I understand that a lot of things are not personal issues but rather are public problems and artifacts of history.
What is the old adage? Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
He can also steal fish someone else caught.
...and if the government gives him a fish he will expect to be fed for a lifetime.
no no no, it goes: Give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit out on the lake and drink beer from sun rise to sun set.
Sounds good to me. :)
A famous SEAL saying, even used on JAG once. "With a fishing line I can feed my Team, with a concussion grenade I can feed the whole village."
The Squawk is better reading than the Sunday funnies, however, I usually wear a sweater when reading the cold as ice comments of a seemingly frustrated population.
As I stated the last time I posted here, enjoy your day........
Question: What happens when we have more takers than producers? Civil War?
argumentum ad absurdum
Latin. I'm impressed. However, you leave me with a feeling as to why you think my questions are absurd. Do you think our government is this solid structure that will always be here? Please... Do you think our country can continue its current trajectory? Some of us think that the 16Trillion is a meaningless number but it is not. When those checks and EBT cards are not refilled with tax payers dollars, what do you think those hungry people will do? Go peacefully and being to garden???? NOPE, Civil Unrest. Why do you think homeland security just recieved a few billion rounds of ammo? Target practicing? I hope you are right Fryar, but as a person who studies History, I have seen this story before.
Answer is in "Atlas Shrugged". The book.
Atlas Shrugs is bull shut!
The debt aint the problem. It's unemployment. The debt is really shrinking and if we can get a rational energy program organized and employment beefed up we'll be okay. Other issues that really need addressing is the long term costs of healthcare, including fraud, along with getting a formula in Washington that makes things work. The debt coming due is to a great extent the military adventurism of W and Obi Wan. The debt is really not a major stress factor. Get Washington functional, folks employed, rational energy policy and soldiers home, this country will be in great shape. Our problems are savable. I have pet peeves too. I want this stupid war on drugs to end. I want foreign aid to reflect better values. I want international megacorps out of our nation's wallet. A few more things but that'll do for now.
Fry how are we going to get employment beefed up when so many are paid so well not to work? The vacuum of willing workers is the leading cause for illegals coming into the US to work.
"The debt is really shrinking"
Guess I missed the "shrinking debt" memo. When we have a return of the Jimmy Carter-type inflation, I think your opinion on debt not being a "major stress factor" will suddenly become "the major stress factor".
You didn't miss the debt memo you just don't understand it.
A great article on welfare benefits in Britain and the Prime Minister's efforts to deal with it is at the link below:
In the US, I don't know whether there is any sincere interest on the part of our national politicians to actually do away with poverty. Government benefit support buys votes for those wishing to stay in power regardless of party. Give the money away and get reelected by the growing number of those who receive benefits. Oppose the growth of benefits and get reelected for the seemingly feeble efforts to stem the tide. No one wants to lose the power and other trappings that come with Congressional positions.
Please don't bring up the UK unless you know economics which you don't. Even the most conservative, I mean even to the right of Maggie Thatcher is a socialist. You don't understand economics well enough to discuss it so just move on.
Perhaps others can read Fryar. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Don't worry about thinking outside the box, just think for awhile, Fryar.
Please enlighten us on the UK issue before we move on, bro.
Three and a half more years. It took over four years to come up with a budget. The strategy is, there is no strategy.
Whether that is the "intended" strategy is questionable but I tend to agree with your remark that there is no strategy for much of anything in Obi Wan's administration and with the exception of the health care bill there is little to show for his two terms in office. I will give him his well focused use of the military and listening to the outstanding military minds. That's his longest and strongest suit IMO.