21 total posts
I hope not....
FOX News is still talking about the old one....
FOX News...ALL GRUBER........ALL THE TIME
CBS & NBC is "No Gruber, All The Time"
RE: gov dependency
The accumulating damage wrought by the permanent war economy started to accelerate in the 1970s, and by 1980, the cancer metastasized: militarization and managerialization began to openly thrive at the expense of the traditional high-wage manufacturing sector, in effect, siphoning off money flows via a combination of government handouts and favorable tax treatment that in effect rewarded both the looting of the tax base and the draining of competitiveness and ingenuity from the civilian manufacturing sector (via the increased defense subsidy, leveraged buyouts, offshoring of jobs, emphasizing short-term focus to pump stock prices, etc.)
In America, this evolution has created a weird political situation where a peculiar political darwinism (taking the form of a corporatist alliance of big business and the federal government) co-exists with the neo-liberal ideology of social darwinism. The former stresses mutual dependency and subsidies for survival and the latter stresses individuality and survival of the fittest in a Hobbesian universe. Yet the contradiction between the two modes of thought does not impede the ideologues who promoted both and continue to engage in the looting and draining operations.
That cognitive dissonance is now poised to grow much worse, if as is likely, the government moves in the coming months to impose neoliberal austerity economics on the middle class, while government becomes more embedded with and protects the banksters, the defense contractors, and other corporatist allies. That is because the only way to do social and political darwinism at the same time is to fling what is left of the middle class off the fiscal cliff by defunding Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure modernization, education, etc
why are you into the Carter Administration?
Anyway, whoever wrote that has some sort of obsessive attraction to word play. Reminds me of someone trying to impress his teacher, and failing.
But she's a job creator
Look at all the people she keeps employed by handling her checks and maybe caring for her 4 kids. She also helps keep a tattoo artist in business. What could be more important than that. And she appears to have a smart phone as a best friend. How can anyone think this is a waste of tax money.
"but she's a job creator"
So is a sow and her piglets. At least there's a market for them.
So someone finally found Reagan's welfare queen.
I believe that Massachusetts is one of the states that is asking the Federal government to go back to the rule that people on welfare have to either work 20 hours a week or volunteer or go to school.
It was waived for states where the unemployment was high. Next year she will have to start doing something.
Wonder where she lives now since she was kicked out of government housing for living with her boyfriend.
So she makes $1280 a month plus W.I.C and supports herself and four kids. I wonder how she does it in Boston? I though I was frugal but I could learn some things from her.
Besides I bet social services are scanning their roles to see who Kiara is. I know that a law was signed in by Clinton that you will get paid for the kids you have when you go on welfare but, if you have more after that, you won't get anymore for the additional kids.
There will always be people that game the system. She does it for about %1500 a month (give or take depending on how much her W.I.C.) is worth. Corporations do it for millions through the wars and overcharging on Medicaid and Medicare. But that's okay because they are "job creators".
So, in your opinion
it's ok to scam the system when you vote Dem and milk taxpayers to support you, your kids, and your boyfriend (until you're caught)..........just keep your hand out and move around a lot.
I don't but I will say that, when I first learned about
welfare, in high school, it was supposed to pay less than what someone could make at minimum wage so the incentive to work was stronger than staying on welfare.
Now minimum wage is so low, it's more cost effective to stay on welfare (esp. if you don't have to pay for child care).
Also all the people I know that get food stamps and WIC are working full time and relatives watch the children.
You do need to catch them just like you have to catch the ones over-billing Medicare and Medicaid.
How many on welfare do you know
that don't have fancy cellphones, cable tv, flat screen televisions, pretty decent vehicles, tatoos, jewelry up the gazoo, leather jackets, $200 'tennis shoes', and fancy manicures with hair dye jobs? All of that stuff costs money......and nobody I knew on welfare ever had any of that stuff and yet it's normal, every day living for those on welfare now. That's a pretty good living without working for any of it. When BO took away the work requirement, things got crazier than ever.
Most ride the bus and their brother or parents pay for their cell phone on a family plan or all of everything. Most do have the internet but not cable TV. They watch programs on their phones or laptop. They do their own hair and manicures. Most of them are black and don't die their hair. I die my hair but only spend about $3.00 every six weeks.
A lot of them have cars and TVs that they had before they went on welfare.
Obama didn't do away with the work requirement. It has been waived for those states that had an unemployment above the national average. With unemployment going down more states are requesting an end to the waivers.
No answer about minimum wage should be high enough to make welfare less attractive.
Welfare was never meant to be attractive, Diana
I made $90 per week with three kids and couldn't qualify for any type of welfare. I figured it out by working two jobs when I had to and never had family to watch my kids. Most people because of BO are working two jobs still after all these years when it should have ended long ago. Stop making excuses for him.....he DID take away the work requirement when the waiver went into effect.....and it wouldn't have been 'necessary' if he had done as he said he would do. But 'shovel ready jobs' just weren't there? Are you kidding? Every State in the Union and liberal Democrats have been screaming about 'INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE' since he took office and they haven't done a damn thing about it..........even with all that stimulus money available. Tell me why? Because, like Keystone, BO has stated that construction jobs are 'temporary' and only a short term 'fix' so he'll veto Keystone just like he did with a wave of his hand and a joke back then. And you know why he'll REALLY veto Keystone even though the pipes are the safest method of moving oil? Because his pal, Buffett, owns the railroads and trucking companies hauling it (and having massive spills that the liberal media hardly mentions).
The Keystone pipeline will have
jobs for a couple of years and then they would be gone.
Infrastructure expenses (which the House won't vote on) will be going on for a very long time.
As for the shovel ready jobs, remember he was a new President and trusted the ones around him and found out they weren't as ready as claimed.
As for work requirements
Time limits for being on welfare One of those states with no time limit is Massachusetts.
WOW....how easily you excuse him
>>>>remember he was a new President and trusted the ones around him and found out they weren't as ready as claimed.>>>
But Bush gets the blame for 8 months on the job when 9-11 happened...when Clinton had 8 years.
Construction workers are ALL temporary workers, Diana....they move on to another construction job when one is finished. So your logic doesn't work.........
I never blamed Bush for 9/11
I do blame him for two wars (one that totally destablized the region) on the credit card. I do blame him for giving lots of tax breaks for the wealthy while ignoring everyone else.
I blame him for praising the soldier and ignoring the veteran.
Infrastructure jobs will last for years while the Keystone pipeline will only have jobs for a couple of years at most. Then there will be 35 jobs. Of course, there will be lots of jobs cleaning up the leaks and trying to restore the farmland.
Stats prove you're wrong
about pipelines and leaks, Diana....there is far more damage done via accidents on railroads and trucks hauling it than there has ever been from a pipeline.
There may be only 35 jobs permanently when it's done, but even temporary jobs are better than none at all. Why do you think so many are taken by the unemployed during BO's rein? You are comparing apples to apples and trying to make them different, when in fact every construction worker is temporary and once a job is complete, they move on to the next one. The 35 permanent jobs are probably going to be for those who check and maintain the line after everyone else is gone. And construction jobs ARE infrastructure jobs....do you know how many road crews are 'temporary' out of state contractors? They aren't permanent DOT employees, Diana.
There will also be thousands of new jobs created along that pipeline.....but you don't seem to give a crap about them.
Infrastructure jobs will ALWAYS be 'shovel ready'........BO just refused to part with that stimulus money in order to pad the pockets of his 'green energy' buddies first and then ran out of cash once he spent it all on stupid crap like Cash For Clunkers, and Cash for Caulkers. Gimme a break. Do you honestly believe that NO infrastructure jobs were around and ready to get bids on when he made that stupid comment? Contractors out of jobs to do would have been chomping at the bit to get their bids in. BO had an entirely different agenda and he has NO problem LYING to get HIS job done. So why is infrastructure again such an important issue six years later? It's like immigration 'reform'.....
He voted against it as a Senator because he was catering to the Unions big time....he did nothing about it when he had the chance with a full deck for his first two years because he still needed the Unions to get re-elected. That's been accomplished and he doesn't need them anymore, so now it's time to suck up to the illegals in order to garner the Latino vote for the Dems in two years....even though he doesn't actually give a crap about the Latinos OR the Dems anymore. He got what he wanted......and he'll 'write' another book about the chapter in his life where he had to go up against those evil Republicans and Tea Party people and beat them all....
His ego won't let him do anything else.....including admitting the truth about what a POS he has been and continues to be for this country he claims to love.
I have said over and over that welfare was not supposed to
It was supposed to be below the minimum wage so it is better to get a job. Now it is more attractive because it pays more than the minimum wage. That is why I'm in favor of increasing the minimum wage. It has been shown over and over again that those states that have higher than the Federal minimum wage has lower unemployment.
but you complain about
people making $10 an hour at Walmart and that's above minimum wage of $7.25 and probably above where the Democrats want it to be. I'm not adamantly opposed to wage increases, even minimum, because Federal Reserve Policy under Greenspan let other forms of inflation happen, then decided to clamp down ONLY when he was worried wages might go up and "create inflation". Meanwhile gas prices, milk prices, bread prices all went up and Greenspan couldn't see it as inflation. Now the dollar is strengthening, which would make those on wages start to have a chance, and suddenly the Fed sees the other side of it, claiming we need to worry about deflation. Federal Reserve policies have been the worst thing to hit the wage scale to keep it from rising with the price inflation in the past 10 years or so. Sometimes I think the ONLY inflation the Federal Reserve ever recognizes is from wages.
I take issue with what is counted
when the government calculates inflation. Manipulating numbers is just too easy. I'd want inflation statistics to be based on those items that everyone must have. I did read that, for SS purposes, this administration changed the food category from name brand to store brand alternatives in order to get that part down. It was said that older people switching to these to save money was the reason for the change. To me, that's still inflation. People needing to make adjustments in order to afford what they truly need is still inflation.
When the government refuses to
count the basic necessities of fuel/energy and food prices into the equation, you will never get a real number regarding inflation. I don't know if that has always been the case or something in the recent past (50 years or so), but either way, it should have been allowed.