Paul Ryan!!!

[Brock Beauchamp]

P.S. - can we at least all agree that the billions spent on the drug war and on imprisoning users is a total waste?

 

No argument here.

[Ultima Ratio]

P.S. - can we at least all agree that the billions spent on the drug war and on imprisoning users is a total waste?

 

No argument here.

 

[video=youtube;5G4HxrVx20A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4HxrVx20A

[TheLeviathan]

If only the liberals could put social programs on the table and the conservatives could put tax rates (and the defense budget) on the table, then I think that we could still get out of this mess. On the other hand, our system seems to broken to allow for compromise

 

I think that's the problem glunn - when there is compromise it is "We'll give more social programs if you give more on tax rates." We keep moving in the wrong direction in both ways rather than thinking practically.

 

I will say this, if we could do something like you're talking about to cut benefits if people aren't working a certain amount it will do two thing - it will incentivize those that are working to continue and it will push those that would slack if allowed to keep at it. It has to come with an increase in taxes and a closing of loopholes, but what worries me is that almost every left-wing driven policy in this country right now is actually making matters worse (long-term) for not only the lowest rungs (in the name of short term gains), but also for the entire middle class.

[diehardtwinsfan]

conservatives need to put these wars on the table too. 1/3 of the budget goes towards that type of stuff. We cannot pretend to want to scale back government and social welfare while ignoring this obvious expense... it doesn't work...

 

and on drugs, I'm with you there too. Instead of spending billions to fight it (unsuccessfully I'd add), why not legalize it and tax it?

[Jocko87]

Look, I am absolutely trying to rub Jocko the wrong way, not you--that's where the tone is coming from. I am being smug (and I do take some pleasure in the irony of 'laziness' motif). If you want to bring some integrity to the conversation why don't you practice it? Sorry, if I don't take your offense seriously, when you whip smugness right back at me and let Jocko's smugness slide. Lovejoys? Drivel? I mean, come on, dude.

 

Is there an emoticon or something for smugness? This is the internet, everybody sounds smug to me. Please don't bother trying to rub me the wrong way, it seems you are just a little bit too confident in your ability to affect somebody through a message board. I've played this game before, the fact that you are resorting to these tactics illustrates the weakness of your argument. I don't have alot of patience for debating with anger-baiters.

 

Do I realize that I am talking in very grand terms? Of course I do. One of the problems as I see it is that people tend to want to continue to band aid problems because they don't realize how deeply ingrained into our culture that this problem is. Love him or hate him, but Rush Limbaugh makes a very effective argument when he talks about how the democratic party NEEDS a permanent underclass in order to survive. This is reflected in by the silly people in the streets scare tactics. I would obviously add republicans as guilty parties here but to a lesser degree. Politicians in general have become vote buying scum and have transformed the public into a highly dependent group. They are at least united on this one front and they need us to be divided so they can maintain their hold on the power and control of money. That's a big part of the problem with welfare and I will say it again and again, dependency reduces accountability.

 

I don't understand how you can say that nobody aspires to be on welfare. Isn't one of the big liberal talking points "no corporate welfare"? What do you think they do? If an opportunity for government money comes, they are all over it just like a sad number of individuals will. It is in our culture that this is acceptable and that is the biggest obstacle that we face. I realize that I said lazy in my post earlier but you and everybody else knows I was illustrating a point. What I didn't mention is that I could see me being one of those people. Not now, unless you can get the benefits up to a level that you would be comfortable with, but had a few things worked out differently it would have been pretty easy to go down that road. I don't necessarily blame people who are on welfare even though I do believe many do seek it out. Why are we advertising our welfare programs at the Mexican border? Why is there an ad every commercial break about something that the government will provide? Because we are training people to look to government for everything. Dups like you are more than happy to sing along while I see a problem and would like to address the real issues. I'm not laying out policy here, all I'm saying is that a change of attitude is needed. We need to be trying to get people off welfare, our current administration is doing the opposite.

[Jocko87]

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

 

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

 

 

I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

 

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

[TheLeviathan]

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

 

I'm not sure what you read in Brock's remark - but I don't think you're disagreeing with him at all. Or maybe I read his post wrong.

 

I think both sides can agree that funneling money into job skills is the way to go. The problem is that the left wants to pull that money from the tax base rather than from the existing expenditure.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

 

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

 

 

I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

 

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

 

I think you misunderstand my point. Say you are on welfare, getting $300 a week. You are offered a job at McDonald's making $300 a week. At that point, you have ZERO incentive to go to work. Why would you?

 

But what if the government said "take that job at McDonald's and we'll pay you $150 a week for six months. After that, we'll pay you $75 a week for another six months. At which point, you become ineligible for welfare for a year (because you'd have unemployment insurance to fall back on should you lose your job). The system is incentivizing work instead of staying on the government dole. People live a little better and gain work experience (even if it's ****ty work). The system gains relief while the tax system sees a minor uptick. It's not a perfect system but it's a system that looks at the REAL situation instead of trying to tell people "work harder, you lazy ass" or just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will sort itself out.

 

Because you can't just cut people off. Not if they have children. And if you incentivize having children, that only encourages poor people to go have more kids. That's a losing situation for everybody. The only thing you can do in return is to hand out as many contraceptives and birth control pills as you can, give people a reason to go back to work, and cross your fingers that making more money will outweigh being a lazy bastard.

 

And while people are on welfare, I'm all for supporting as much education as possible. You have to do as much as you can to deter sloth and breeding, even if it costs you more in the short-term. Because no matter how much education costs the system, it's a hell of a lot less than raising two kids for 18 years.

[Jocko87]

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

 

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

 

 

I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

 

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

 

I think you misunderstand my point. Say you are on welfare, getting $300 a week. You are offered a job at McDonald's making $300 a week. At that point, you have ZERO incentive to go to work. Why would you?

 

But what if the government said "take that job at McDonald's and we'll pay you $150 a week for six months. After that, we'll pay you $75 a week for another six months. At which point, you become ineligible for welfare for a year (because you'd have unemployment insurance to fall back on should you lose your job). The system is incentivizing work instead of staying on the government dole. People live a little better and gain work experience (even if it's ****ty work). The system gains relief while the tax system sees a minor uptick. It's not a perfect system but it's a system that looks at the REAL situation instead of trying to tell people "work harder, you lazy ass" or just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will sort itself out.

 

Because you can't just cut people off. Not if they have children. And if you incentivize having children, that only encourages poor people to go have more kids. That's a losing situation for everybody. The only thing you can do in return is to hand out as many contraceptives and birth control pills as you can, give people a reason to go back to work, and cross your fingers that making more money will outweigh being a lazy bastard.

 

And while people are on welfare, I'm all for supporting as much education as possible. You have to do as much as you can to deter sloth and breeding, even if it costs you more in the short-term. Because no matter how much education costs the system, it's a hell of a lot less than raising two kids for 18 years.

 

I agree with you on the premise and I wish more or this kind of thinking went on in Washington. I think I just assumed you meant working for the government. I can see how something like that could work and be part of an actual solution. My thought was very similar except that I was thinking of using some sort of training rather than the work. Maybe while someone is on welfare they could be in welding school or something similar. You could add some job search requirements at the end to tie things up. I did all of my schooling while working more than full time so I know how hard it is to find time for learning a new skill. If I had kids or a relative to take care of I don't know if I could have found the time. Obviously not everybody would be a good fit for this but I think a significant number of people would see it as an opportunity. You can do really well as a welder, plumber or electrician and these jobs are generally available.

 

If somebody is already a welder, maybe they are a better fit in your plan. The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

[diehardtwinsfan]

everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

[Brock Beauchamp]

The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

 

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

[Brock Beauchamp]

everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

 

I don't think anyone would make that claim. Still, any financial relief you can provide the welfare system should be considered a good thing.

[Willihammer]

The economy suffers for the same reason the Twins are in a fix: ie. depleted farm system and stubborn old-way thinking from the front offices. There is engineering/financial/biomedical talent in the workforce but Of who is talented, some are ignored by employers in favor of experienced veterans who work on the cheap. We are in a difficult state of social evolution but no gov't agency should interrupt at this point. State Interference in hiring practice would cost temporarily a slice of economic freedom and long-term much litigation / legislation to fix when inevitably the education system starts failing to produce another generation as talented as the current one.

 

Ask any CEO, the number one demand of struggling companies is not a change in interest rate or anything else the president might adjunctly affect, its only more talented employees.

 

Destroy the education system and start anew. There is substantial waste caused by unions (I am a union employee at the U of MN), there is as much or more waste by administrators. The unions like to think a dollar spent on a union employee is 100% recycled and multiplied back into the economy. Its not. The administrators like to think they are earning their free lunches and support staffs. They're not. BLow it up, start over, and make the focus turning out science/math/business majors, not funding a blok of voters.

[TheLeviathan]

Destroy the education system and start anew. There is substantial waste caused by unions (I am a union employee at the U of MN), there is as much or more waste by administrators. The unions like to think a dollar spent on a union employee is 100% recycled and multiplied back into the economy. Its not. The administrators like to think they are earning their free lunches and support staffs. They're not. BLow it up, start over, and make the focus turning out science/math/business majors, not funding a blok of voters.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

 

Yes and no diehard. You're right that available jobs are few and far between, but again it's because we aren't training people to fit the actual needs in the system. The laziness angle is systemic in a very expensive government program - if we could take those dollars and help train people for skilled positions it will do two things in my book: A) It will give people a higher quality of life and turn them from tax recipients to tax payers and it will reward hard work and the middle class attitude. I don't think the economy will start churning merely with job creation, it also has to come from people spending disposable income. Right now most blue collar, middle class families have little to none even though they're working hard. When we start incentivizing that attitude and not the mooching attitude with the money we save, I think we can really get the economic pistons firing again.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

I don't think the economy will start churning merely with job creation, it also has to come from people spending disposable income. Right now most blue collar, middle class families have little to none even though they're working hard.

 

This right here is a reason for the economic mess. A few things are going on here, and fixing welfare, abolishing it, or expanding it will not solve these. The middle class has no money for a few reasons:

 

1) Incomes have been largely stagnant for about a decade now

2) Inflation has not been. Using the cooked numbers (e.g. core inflation) posted by the government shows a decline in purchasing power during that same time. If you add real inflation for products that people actually by (like food and gasoline) that purchasing power has dropped even further

3) Crippling debt, which is partly their fault and partly not.

 

Even today more than 40% of homeowners are underwater with their homes. They cannot sell to take advantage of the lower prices/rates. Fixing welfare won't fix any of these root cause issues, and creating incentives to work might help small pockets of it, but right now we are suffering due to debt and inflation. There are some ways where it would make sense to fix this, such as letting debt be marked to market. If the government was smart in 2008, they would have let rates rise and let banks fail. This would have been much better off long term because prices would have dropped across the board and debt would have been deleveraged. Instead, they handed trillions of dollars that we do not have to bail out the failed banks and told the people to keep on paying their debts. And not one person was prosecuted for this mess, which is sad.

 

 

What we should have done was follow the example of Iceland. The economy would be much better off right now had we done so.

[biggentleben]

The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

 

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

 

Many have, in fact, they're built into every title II or title XVI program. You work, you still get some benefits. The problem is that there is little to no money going toward those who have to provide the excess training to the uneducated and/or working disabled, so employers have minimal incentive to hire that person and promote them, especially when a simple cart-pusher at Wal-mart working part time costs that Wal-mart store over $2,000 just to hire, drug test, and train, and then they could just not enjoy the job and leave. It's much, much worse if there are any provided health/vacation benefits with willingness to bring on someone who is actively using something like Vocational Rehabilitation Services. My job for nearly a decade now has focuse in one way or another with finding employment for different marginalized groups (DD and mental health primarily), and I get no incentive for placing someone, the rules to claim any payment from the federal or state funds for the training I do provide are ridiculous, and employers simply do not want to hire someone working with a job coach.

[TheLeviathan]

If the government was smart in 2008, they would have let rates rise and let banks fail.

 

I go back and forth on this particular point, but I'd argue we aren't talking about different issues. There is a systemic tendency right now to manipulate the government's policies rather than valuing hard work. The amount of disposable income the middle class has relates to the overall success of the economy - which is gong to get better the more people we have spending their own hard-earned money rather than essentially money laundering tax dollars.

[fatbeer]

Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

[TheLeviathan]

Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

 

Don't you think if you want to be controversial...you should at least make sense?

[PseudoSABR]

The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

 

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

 

Many have, in fact, they're built into every title II or title XVI program. You work, you still get some benefits. The problem is that there is little to no money going toward those who have to provide the excess training to the uneducated and/or working disabled, so employers have minimal incentive to hire that person and promote them, especially when a simple cart-pusher at Wal-mart working part time costs that Wal-mart store over $2,000 just to hire, drug test, and train, and then they could just not enjoy the job and leave. It's much, much worse if there are any provided health/vacation benefits with willingness to bring on someone who is actively using something like Vocational Rehabilitation Services. My job for nearly a decade now has focuse in one way or another with finding employment for different marginalized groups (DD and mental health primarily), and I get no incentive for placing someone, the rules to claim any payment from the federal or state funds for the training I do provide are ridiculous, and employers simply do not want to hire someone working with a job coach.

These are interesting insights. Thanks.

[fatbeer]

Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

 

Don't you think if you want to be controversial...you should at least make sense?

 

I know boys don't have babies, and the rape wasn't classified as legitimate, but still the kid should get to murder an infant or something. If partial birth abortion is OK why not 3 month olds? You could even allow a women to make the choice for him.

[TheLeviathan]

Again, no context and just wild incendiary nonsense.

[fatbeer]

So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

[biggentleben]

So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

Once again, sense...you're making none. These have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but good try in attempting to equate them.

[TheLeviathan]

So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

Well, at least you're approaching making sense. Your first two posts were just ridiculous.

 

The reality is, right or wrong, political sex scandals are almost so commonplace that we don't pay attention unless they are truly outlandish. The DFL guy should be condemned and everyone, regardless of affiliation, should call for resignation. What the moron Republican said feeds a talking point of the Democrats and gives it merit. That has political ramifications because it strengthen's the opposition's message. There is your difference.

[fatbeer]

I agree it feeds a talking point, but on day one every Republican called him out on it. The DFL failed to call out a child molester for several days. I think the Obama campaign is in so deep on talking points lies and rethoric that it's becoming see through. We all understand most Republicans are pro life, the fact that one guys reasoning isn't all that intelligent is meaningless. I'd say it's just as idiotic to be pro choice because women have it so bad using things like equal pay as a justification as I saw Howard Dean do on MSNBC yesterday. If you think the baby is not worth anything and doesn't yet know it exist then sure be pro life. I have a tough time seeing a difference between an infant being murdered and a late term abortion.

[fatbeer]

Convention delayed until Tuesday because of the hurricane. Kind of a non story, the Ann Romney speech was already moved to Tuesday and no network coverage was planned for Monday, but if the Rand Paul speech is eliminated or inserted in the middle of the afternoon, it's gonna hurt. Some Paul supporters are gonna consider this the last straw especially if the storm is pretty routine in the Tampa area. It will be interesting how the Paul supporters react during the nomination process. Nothing wrong with passion for another candidate in the room so long as they don't start chanting Gary Johnson.

[old nurse]

I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree it feeds a talking point, but on day one every Republican called him out on it. The DFL failed to call out a child molester for several days.

 

You are comparing a state rep to a u.s. rep - it's incredibly stupid. Just stop.

[fatbeer]

I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

 

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed.