Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Aggie23]

^^^I think I misread your post - are you saying Housing assistance, food and nutrition and other income security were/should/or should not have been included in the safety net figure? Not being argumentative, I'm just unclear.

[Synergy]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
I get that, along with your other arguments. And I agree - it's insane. Let's go after problems like that - it's the only smart thing to do. We can come up with example after example of stupid things that Federal money gets spent on. A lot of it just makes you shake your head and wonder "how?". Even if we were 100% efficient at reducing those types of things though (not counting defence), it still doesn't come close to being a problem solver.
<quoted text>
Absolutely there are people like that. They're disgusting. And although they are highly publicized and easy to spot - they're a very small percentage of legitimate welfare needs. Unfortunately, they're the only ones simple-minded idiots think of when they hear the word "welfare" or "entitlement". The truth is most welfare recipients are on it for a short time and really do need some temporary help. If we truly are a great nation, we'd rather pay for a few welfare thugs that play the system than let kids grow up malnourished and uneducated in one of the wealthiest societies on earth. And if we can weed out those who play the system, the better.
The problem is that so much propaganda is being bandied about and so much BS being spread on "talk radio" that very few people look at the reality and practical side of this. They just repeat the mantra. "We're going broke feeding the takers!!!" It's not remotely true.

This pretty much doesn't support your statement about people on welfare being on it for a short time. Of course, unless Obama or some left wing pundit says it, it's not true.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/ic2/et/learner/ge...

As far as wasted tax money and your suggestion of "let's go after that", geeeeee....great idea. No one has EVER thought of THAT. Your man has a great opportunity to do that now. When he was campaigning the first time, he was going to put a stop to lobbyists/special interests. How'd THAT work out? Okay. He doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, so let's see if he'll take care of the waste. Think he will?

I've noticed that you are convinced that YOU are right and those who don't agree with you are listening to BS on Talk Radio, are simple minded, idiots, etc. I admire Aggie for continuing to even bother with you. You are such a typical name calling liberal. There aren't enough facts in this world that will convince you to even QUESTION what the democrats/Obama are doing. Those of us who have been posting for quite some time realized pretty quickly that you and those like you are a waste of time. You try to give the impression that there are several(many?) liberals on here praising democrats/Obama when in fact, there are only a couple who keep switching ID's. YOU are the worst offender, Sybil. You must have a spreadsheet with all of your various, silly ID's.

[ChickenFajitas]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why in the world would you not want to include those three categories, they are part of the safety net.

Are we on the same page? The three I'm saying shouldn't be included are general retirement and disability insurance, Federal employee retirement and disability, and unemployment compensation.

Using unemployment compensation as an example, it's funded through unemployment insurance, paid for by the employer in theory - but ultimately it's paid for by the employee in the form of a reduced compensation package. The point is, unemployment compensation is self-funded, much like social security.

[Aggie23]

@ Chicken Fajitas
Leaving statistics behind and just talking philosophy here. As has been repeated ad nauseam, Republicans do not have a problem with helping the truly needy. But are you really prepared to say that the assistance programs are not overflowing with people who are gaming the system or who simply choose to not take responsibility for themselves. The war on poverty is a proven failure - billions have been spent and the poverty rate has not decreased an iota in this country. The illegitimacy rate alone is a huge problem - and is an indication of a complete lack of responsibility. The illegitimacy rate is now almost 50% in this country - and most of those children are receiving govt assistance in some form or fashion. A close member of my own family has two children but will not marry the mother because he would then become liable for her student loans that are in default. So those children and the mom receive govt assistance and did so with the pregnancies. It makes me furious. As a member of his family, I would be there to help if he needed help, but it burns me up that he and his baby momma expect tax payers to help them rather than take responsibility for themselves. And I think they are indicative of too many on the govt dole. So I feel very qualified to comment.

[ChickenFajitas]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
This pretty much doesn't support your statement about people on welfare being on it for a short time. Of course, unless Obama or some left wing pundit says it, it's not true.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/ic2/et/learner/ge...

Did you read what you posted a link to? There's a ton of great information there if you read through and think about everything that's being said. It absolutely supports what I said. It certainly doesn't feed the stereo-type of life-long welfare game players. There's a lot you could take from that study - but I won't bother - because you don't care. You just want to be anti-Obama, or anti-peoplewhosupportobama. Even if we did definitively agree on a fact, you'd ignore that you've ever heard it three days from now.

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>

As far as wasted tax money and your suggestion of "let's go after that", geeeeee....great idea. No one has EVER thought of THAT.

That was an agreement with Aggie23 - not some proclamation of a brilliant new idea. We're agreeing to common ground. I know the idea must look foreign to you.

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Your man has a great opportunity to do that now. When he was campaigning the first time, he was going to put a stop to lobbyists/special interests. How'd THAT work out? Okay. He doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, so let's see if he'll take care of the waste. Think he will?

Ah, the obligatory anti-obama stance from you!

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>

I've noticed that you are convinced that YOU are right and those who don't agree with you are listening to BS on Talk Radio, are simple minded, idiots, etc. I admire Aggie for continuing to even bother with you. You are such a typical name calling liberal. There aren't enough facts in this world that will convince you to even QUESTION what the democrats/Obama are doing. Those of us who have been posting for quite some time realized pretty quickly that you and those like you are a waste of time.

Ah the fury-filled ad-hominem attack we've come to know and love from you. Lot's of emotion and not one whit of substance.

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
You try to give the impression that there are several(many?) liberals on here praising democrats/Obama when in fact, there are only a couple who keep switching ID's. YOU are the worst offender, Sybil. You must have a spreadsheet with all of your various, silly ID's.

No, I don't try to give anyone the impression that I am "multiple liberals praising democrats". I make no effort to hide that it's me posting, and my posting-style if very recognizable.

Only an idiot would not be able to piece together that DarkMeat, ChicknButt,ChickenFajita,Chick enFlorentine,ChickenDiablo,Dru mStick,SickChicken, and Wishbone are all me. Which explains why it confuses you, I guess.

No spreadsheet required - I don't care what name I posted under last week, as long as I continue to be clear it's me. By the way, I use different identities for a very good and practical reason that should be easily apparent to anyone paying attention.

[Bill in Dville]

come on Syn, we know who this is, don't we?

[Synergy]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you read what you posted a link to? There's a ton of great information there if you read through and think about everything that's being said. It absolutely supports what I said. It certainly doesn't feed the stereo-type of life-long welfare game players. There's a lot you could take from that study - but I won't bother - because you don't care. You just want to be anti-Obama, or anti-peoplewhosupportobama. Even if we did definitively agree on a fact, you'd ignore that you've ever heard it three days from now.
<quoted text>
That was an agreement with Aggie23 - not some proclamation of a brilliant new idea. We're agreeing to common ground. I know the idea must look foreign to you.
<quoted text>
Ah, the obligatory anti-obama stance from you!
<quoted text>
Ah the fury-filled ad-hominem attack we've come to know and love from you. Lot's of emotion and not one whit of substance.
<quoted text>
No, I don't try to give anyone the impression that I am "multiple liberals praising democrats". I make no effort to hide that it's me posting, and my posting-style if very recognizable.
Only an idiot would not be able to piece together that DarkMeat, ChicknButt,ChickenFajita,Chick enFlorentine,ChickenDiablo,Dru mStick,SickChicken, and Wishbone are all me. Which explains why it confuses you, I guess.
No spreadsheet required - I don't care what name I posted under last week, as long as I continue to be clear it's me. By the way, I use different identities for a very good and practical reason that should be easily apparent to anyone paying attention.

Yes. I read the article. It basically points out WHY single women(the highest percentage on welfare) stay on it for SO LONG or either go OFF and ON for a long time if not for a lifetime(my words). It doesn't support your claim that a majority of recipients are on welfare for a brief period. I DO care. I am sick of the gamers and no one, not even your hero, is willing nor wanting to do ANYTHING about it.
Your multiple ID's do not confuse me. It's silly and you DO use that as a support system for yourself. As least you have finally admitted it.
Why should I like someone whom I think has a one party agenda whom I also KNOW has created class warfare and hatred? I absolutely DON'T CARE what you say about my feelings for that pathetic excuse of a so called leader we now have for four more years. BTW, there you go again with your double standard, i.e. three days later not remembering what has already been CLEARLY said.
I pointed out the "wasted money" statement to show, although I didn't do a very good job of it, how you are in total agreement with your hero about taking entitlement reform off the table. RIDICULOUS. Not even willling to compromise. See, what others who haven't been posting for very long don't understand is that you are doing nothing more than regurgitating left wing propaganda while accusing those who don't agree with you of regurgitating right wing propaganda, ergo: You're right and those who don't agree with you are listening to talk radio. It's the same old story from you. Rock on, Dude. I guess time will tell. What if you're wrong about Obama?

[ChickenTaco]

Aggie23 wrote:

@ Chicken Fajitas
Leaving statistics behind and just talking philosophy here. As has been repeated ad nauseam, Republicans do not have a problem with helping the truly needy. But are you really prepared to say that the assistance programs are not overflowing with people who are gaming the system or who simply choose to not take responsibility for themselves. The war on poverty is a proven failure - billions have been spent and the poverty rate has not decreased an iota in this country. The illegitimacy rate alone is a huge problem - and is an indication of a complete lack of responsibility. The illegitimacy rate is now almost 50% in this country - and most of those children are receiving govt assistance in some form or fashion. A close member of my own family has two children but will not marry the mother because he would then become liable for her student loans that are in default. So those children and the mom receive govt assistance and did so with the pregnancies. It makes me furious. As a member of his family, I would be there to help if he needed help, but it burns me up that he and his baby momma expect tax payers to help them rather than take responsibility for themselves. And I think they are indicative of too many on the govt dole. So I feel very qualified to comment.

Now this is an excellent post. Unfortunately, you've hit on more distinct yet important subjects that I can respond to at the level of depth that I'd like to discuss with you in a reasonable amount of time.

In short - do most Republican want to help the truly needy? I really don't think so. If you gave them, as a group, the opportunity to vote directly on eliminating welfare entirely right away, YES or NO, I believe that most of them would pull the YES lever on that without a moments thought. Most aren't willing to think through the issue as you are, and have been conditioned like one of Pavlovs dogs to think of the very worst of welfare recipients.

Which gets us to the subject of the very worst of welfare recipients. The world has changed, people to a large degree no longer hold personal honor in high regard, societal pressures are almost nil, and religion is not taken seriously if it all - when it comes to holding families together and getting married. This ain't the 50's anymore. So a man and a woman shack-up, the man makes 30k a year, the woman makes 9k a year maybe, they have 2 kids, they get food-stamps, free school lunches, tax breaks, earned income credits, tuition assistance,grant money, you name it. This is playing the system, and it needs to stop. But how? I would think it could be controlled by cross-matching addresses. But then- let's say somebody is legitimate, and has a room-mate. It's complicated. This is America - just as we'd rather let a killer go free than execute an innocent man. If you have a good solution I'd love to hear it. In the meantime we can at least rejoice in knowing the kids are being exposed to some kind of education and have some nutrition in them. And we can educate ourselves with the knowledge that this assistance isn't "breaking the bank" - it's a very small part of the budget - less than we pay for oil subsidies.

Which leads us to the next point. Education. It's the only way to combat poverty. Very few people are naturally stupid - they've just been raised by stupid parents and then end up stupid themselves. This goes on for generations. They breed like crazy, require assistance, then breed others that are stupid and require assistance. The only way to break that cycle is education. It will take a multi-generational effort to break that cycle, by exposing those kids to extremely good public education. WAY better than we're offering now. Our schools need much more funding and a complete overhaul. We need to produce better, smarter students. I'm out of characters - so that's all for now on the subject.

[ChickenTaco]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. I read the article. It basically points out WHY single women(the highest percentage on welfare) stay on it for SO LONG or either go OFF and ON for a long time if not for a lifetime(my words). It doesn't support your claim that a majority of recipients are on welfare for a brief period. I DO care. I am sick of the gamers and no one, not even your hero, is willing nor wanting to do ANYTHING about it.

Ok. What's the answer? In real-world practically-applicable terms, how should it be solved? What do you want done?

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Your multiple ID's do not confuse me. It's silly and you DO use that as a support system for yourself. As least you have finally admitted it.

Actually, no, I do not use it as a support system for myself. In fact, I said that.

No I did not "finally admit it". In fact, I expressly explained that I don't do that.

Don't be an idiot.

By the way - I'm running out of chicken names. I'm thinking about doing fish next. It's good, don't you think?

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should I like someone whom I think has a one party agenda whom I also KNOW has created class warfare and hatred? I absolutely DON'T CARE what you say about my feelings for that pathetic excuse of a so called leader we now have for four more years.

There's the classic Synergy Anti-Obama prattle we've come to expect from you! Imagine that!

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should I like someone whom I think has a one party agenda whom I also KNOW has created class warfare and hatred? I absolutely DON'T CARE what you say about my feelings for that pathetic excuse of a so called leader we now have for four more years. BTW, there you go again with your double standard, i.e. three days later not remembering what has already been CLEARLY said.
I pointed out the "wasted money" statement to show, although I didn't do a very good job of it, how you are in total agreement with your hero about taking entitlement reform off the table. RIDICULOUS.

Ok, you're getting fairly incomprehensible here. Why not just say "Obama Sucks!" like you normally do and save yourself the apoplectic fit?

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>

I pointed out the "wasted money" statement to show, although I didn't do a very good job of it, how you are in total agreement with your hero about taking entitlement reform off the table. RIDICULOUS. Not even willling to compromise. See, what others who haven't been posting for very long don't understand is that you are doing nothing more than regurgitating left wing propaganda while accusing those who don't agree with you of regurgitating right wing propaganda, ergo: You're right and those who don't agree with you are listening to talk radio. It's the same old story from you. Rock on, Dude. I guess time will tell.

It's amazing. It's like you have no reading comprehension at all! It's unbeleivable the conclusions you come to. All the same, we were rewarded with the ad-hominem attack we've come to know and love from you.

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
What if you're wrong about Obama?

You've typed that out a least 5 dozen times on this forum. It sounds idiotic! America was presented with two clearly defined choices this past election. Just like America has done every other election in history, we've picked the lesser of two evils. In this case, the FAR LESSER evil, which explains the complete az-whooping the Republicans got.

[Synergy]

I know you didn't post the above post to me, however, I would like to address a couple of things.
1. I don't think you are even nearly right about the welfare lever. I wouldn't DREAM of pulling that lever and I don't think MOST republicans would, either. See how even YOU have been listening to BS? But HOW can this country continue to support those who are able but won't? We simply can't do it.

2. If having checks and balances in regard to entitlement were as easy as cross matching addresses, I don't think we would be having this problem. My guess is that it would be very complicated and it would take hiring a LOT of people to take care if it. The powers that be simply do not want to do it. That would cost them votes and, of course, there would be the corruption angle.

3. You are correct about education, but how can you make parents CARE? You can't. Again. We can NOT keep supporting all of those people How can we have multi-generational education be effective when more people are being added to the welfare rolls every year? It's just easier to let the government take care of them and with entitlements being so easy to obtain and keep, why not take the easy way out???? What we really should be talking about is personal responsibility and pride. That is in short supply and the more people that is on the government dole, the easier they will be to control.

[formerresident]

If we are ever to impact poverty, then we have to teach innovation. Some of our greatest businesses were started by people who didn't finish or even attend college. Macy's, Microsoft, Apple, and Walmart come to mind.

Mounds of paper, and layers and layers of red tape, is the antithesis of innovation.

[Synergy]

ChickenTaco wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. What's the answer? In real-world practically-applicable terms, how should it be solved? What do you want done?
<quoted text>
Actually, no, I do not use it as a support system for myself. In fact, I said that.
No I did not "finally admit it". In fact, I expressly explained that I don't do that.
Don't be an idiot.
By the way - I'm running out of chicken names. I'm thinking about doing fish next. It's good, don't you think?
<quoted text>
There's the classic Synergy Anti-Obama prattle we've come to expect from you! Imagine that!
<quoted text>
Ok, you're getting fairly incomprehensible here. Why not just say "Obama Sucks!" like you normally do and save yourself the apoplectic fit?
<quoted text>
It's amazing. It's like you have no reading comprehension at all! It's unbeleivable the conclusions you come to. All the same, we were rewarded with the ad-hominem attack we've come to know and love from you.
<quoted text>
You've typed that out a least 5 dozen times on this forum. It sounds idiotic! America was presented with two clearly defined choices this past election. Just like America has done every other election in history, we've picked the lesser of two evils. In this case, the FAR LESSER evil, which explains the complete az-whooping the Republicans got.

1.Obama Sucks and I'll say that as long as it applies. AND I guess we'll continue to hear your republican hating prattle because you, like most libs, live by a double standard. AND I have asked the same question over and over because not ONE of you libs will answer it. What IF you're wrong about Obama? Are you going to answer that or are you going to do the regular duck and dodge?
2.You keep using the word, idiot. YOU'RE the one who won't answer the question and then complains that I keep asking the same question over and over. Who's the idiot? U.
3. I'd put my reading comprehension skills up against yours any day any time.
4. Your ID changing is immature, silly and you do use it as support. What do I think about your using fish names? If you want to continue being childish and immature, go for it.
5. To help sort through the entitlement debacle, I'd hire as many people(Jobs! What a concept) as needed to dump the gamers out of the system: check residential records, administer urine tests, enforce time limtis(if there were any), make home visits, check criminal records, REQUIRE job training, REQUIRE community service. In other words....NO FREE RIDES. I can probably think of more, but you get the idea.

[Aggie23]

ChickenTaco wrote:

<quoted text>
In short - do most Republican want to help the truly needy? I really don't think so. If you gave them, as a group, the opportunity to vote directly on eliminating welfare entirely right away, YES or NO, I believe that most of them would pull the YES lever on that without a moments thought. Most aren't willing to think through the issue as you are, and have been conditioned like one of Pavlovs dogs to think of the very worst of welfare recipients.

Which leads us to the next point. Education. It's the only way to combat poverty. Very few people are naturally stupid - they've just been raised by stupid parents and then end up stupid themselves. This goes on for generations. They breed like crazy, require assistance, then breed others that are stupid and require assistance. The only way to break that cycle is education. It will take a multi-generational effort to break that cycle, by exposing those kids to extremely good public education. WAY better than we're offering now. Our schools need much more funding and a complete overhaul. We need to produce better, smarter students. I'm out of characters - so that's all for now on the subject.

I repeat (again), Republicans have no trouble helping the TRULY needy and study after study shows that Republicans give far more to charity than Democrats. But the system is in desperate need of a complete overhaul - I do not know the procedures for getting government assistance or - perhaps more importantly for maintaining those benefits - but when the Dept of Agriculture spends $3million
on tv and radio ads encouraging people to sign up for food stamps when 1 in 7 Americans already receive them, we know we have a problem. In my fantasy world all current government assistance would be targeted to end 1 Jan 2014, new benefits would begin that same day. However, in that year's time, anyone currently receiving benefits would have to reapply and show why they needed assistance and there would follow mandatory reviews every six months in order to continue with those benefits. And no, I have NO CLUE as to what that would require - I said it was my fantasy world.

Education - I don't think there are many that would deny our educational system is broken. As long as I am inhabiting my fantasy world here is what I would do.
1. Dissolve the Department of Education immediately.
2. Somehow neuter the teachers' unions. NY city was spending $30 million a YEAR to have teachers who were facing years old disciplinary actions and FELONY charges that included accusations of child molestation sit in so called "rubber rooms" so they were not in contact with students, but the city wouldn't/couldn't fire them for fear of the legal costs from the union suing the city.
3. Children would no longer be bound to their local public school. Tax money would follow the child, not the other way around. Parents could choose any school within the geographic boundaries from which the school taxes/property taxes are levied. That would include any public school, charter school, private school, religious school, whatever. If the non-public schools cost more, the parents would be responsible for the balance. The key to improving schools is competition and if schools had to compete for the students and the tax money they would bring, we would see changes being made. Schools would be accountable to the parents if their children were not learning. Frankly, this would not be that hard to implement and the explosion of private schools would force the public schools to clean up their act.

[glad]

WhereOhWhere wrote:

We need new blood in the U.S. Senate. A 'NO' man won't get anything done, and and new man may as well be an Independent so he might vote his conscience.

so glad this is all over

[questionable]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
(breaking my policy of not responding to unregistered posters)
Actually, depending on the type of business you open and run, you are quite mistaken. Been there and done that.

Actually you are full of shite and anything you say is questionable.

[General Robert E Lee]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we on the same page? The three I'm saying shouldn't be included are general retirement and disability insurance, Federal employee retirement and disability, and unemployment compensation.
Using unemployment compensation as an example, it's funded through unemployment insurance, paid for by the employer in theory - but ultimately it's paid for by the employee in the form of a reduced compensation package. The point is, unemployment compensation is self-funded, much like social security.

Except that social security is not funded on an equal basis.

[General Robert E Lee]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we on the same page? The three I'm saying shouldn't be included are general retirement and disability insurance, Federal employee retirement and disability, and unemployment compensation.
Using unemployment compensation as an example, it's funded through unemployment insurance, paid for by the employer in theory - but ultimately it's paid for by the employee in the form of a reduced compensation package. The point is, unemployment compensation is self-funded, much like social security.

Tax revenues are not funded equally either.

[geez]

WhereOhWhere wrote:

We need new blood in the U.S. Senate. A 'NO' man won't get anything done, and and new man may as well be an Independent so he might vote his conscience.

crazy

[Respectyoself]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. I read the article. It basically points out WHY single women(the highest percentage on welfare) stay on it for SO LONG or either go OFF and ON for a long time if not for a lifetime(my words). It doesn't support your claim that a majority of recipients are on welfare for a brief period. I DO care. I am sick of the gamers and no one, not even your hero, is willing nor wanting to do ANYTHING about it.
Your multiple ID's do not confuse me. It's silly and you DO use that as a support system for yourself. As least you have finally admitted it.
Why should I like someone whom I think has a one party agenda whom I also KNOW has created class warfare and hatred? I absolutely DON'T CARE what you say about my feelings for that pathetic excuse of a so called leader we now have for four more years. BTW, there you go again with your double standard, i.e. three days later not remembering what has already been CLEARLY said.
I pointed out the "wasted money" statement to show, although I didn't do a very good job of it, how you are in total agreement with your hero about taking entitlement reform off the table. RIDICULOUS. Not even willling to compromise. See, what others who haven't been posting for very long don't understand is that you are doing nothing more than regurgitating left wing propaganda while accusing those who don't agree with you of regurgitating right wing propaganda, ergo: You're right and those who don't agree with you are listening to talk radio. It's the same old story from you. Rock on, Dude. I guess time will tell. What if you're wrong about Obama?

What if you are wrong about President Obama? You seem to be the one filled with hate!!!

[bored monitor]

Respectyoself wrote:

<quoted text>What if you are wrong about President Obama? You seem to be the one filled with hate!!!

he or she isn't wrong.