• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%

Dpetty said:
The numbers state otherwise. I agree that it shouldnt be a comfortabel way of life. It should provide enough to keep one from starving to death, but no more. It should pay for cigarettes or lottery tickets, or big screen tv's, yet it does.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of the poor is total BS!

You've obviously gotten these ignorant ideas from people like Limbaugh or Hannity.
 
zimmer said:
... that's right... for too many it's a way of life.
Click to expand...

Welfare isn't a way of life for most Americans. It is a hand up so that people who fall on hard times have a path to being a productive citizen again. We can't get rid of social programs just because some abuse it. We would save a lot more tax payer dollars by getting rid of corporate welfare. The Wall Street fat cats got rich while they crashed the economy, then when they got bailed out they paid themselves millions in bonuses.
 
Fenton said:
Oh BS.....they didnt even adjust for seasonal employment

and how many dropped out of the labor force ?

If it wasn't for stupid people you guys would have no base because xou would have to be pretty thick to think that report is indicative of anything good.
Click to expand...
NOV-2012 - Not Seasonally Adjusted - 7.4%

NOV-2012 - Seasonally Adjusted - 7.7%

The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 63.6 percent
in November, offsetting an increase of the same amount in October. Total employment was
about unchanged in November, following a combined increase of 1.3 million over the prior
2 months. The employment-population ratio, at 58.7 percent, changed little
in November.
Click to expand...

Yeah some thick folks running wild out there, some of them even claim to have an upper hand on accredited professionals within their given field without so much as glancing over the report in dispute.
 
Taylor said:
Oh, please. That is, we have a higher proportion of younger people (16-64) who have chosen not to work than we've had since 1988.
Click to expand...
The main driver of that phenomena being the demand for higher education of some sort in high paying employment fields, rather than a sudden onset of slothfullness as some claim.
 
Taylor said:
I tend to agree with Old Ben on the idea of "less is more"

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

I might go with Swift's A Modest Proposal. :coffeepap. Or maybe Dickens.
 
Hairytic said:
Welfare isn't a way of life for most Americans. It is a hand up so that people who fall on hard times have a path to being a productive citizen again. We can't get rid of social programs just because some abuse it. We would save a lot more tax payer dollars by getting rid of corporate welfare. The Wall Street fat cats got rich while they crashed the economy, then when they got bailed out they paid themselves millions in bonuses.
Click to expand...

While I agree it isn't a way of life for "most", I have a feeling you underestimate the abuse. I recently read an audit of medicaid in NY City. They cited about 10% fraud. When you read a little further you realize that's "medical " fraud. Further on they happen to mention that there is an additional 20-30% "over paying for unnecessary services". And they're not only talking about doctors running extra tests but also things like driving services charging for giving people a ride to their appointments even though they've been dead for 2 years. If I transposed those numbers to my home state, you'd be talking 12-15% of the entire state budget. I know in Texas in the past they had one doctor steal $345 million.

Sadly in this country welfare abuse isn't as much a problem as it is an industry.
 
It's really disturbing how some people are cheering for the country to suffer merely because a Democrat is in the white house.
 
gingern44 said:
While I agree it isn't a way of life for "most", I have a feeling you underestimate the abuse. I recently read an audit of medicaid in NY City. They cited about 10% fraud. When you read a little further you realize that's "medical " fraud. Further on they happen to mention that there is an additional 20-30% "over paying for unnecessary services". And they're not only talking about doctors running extra tests but also things like driving services charging for giving people a ride to their appointments even though they've been dead for 2 years. If I transposed those numbers to my home state, you'd be talking 12-15% of the entire state budget. I know in Texas in the past they had one doctor steal $345 million.

Sadly in this country welfare abuse isn't as much a problem as it is an industry.
Click to expand...

Corporate welfare abuse costs the US much more than social welfare abuse. Still, we shouldn't force people who really need a hand up to starve and go without medical care because of the ones who abuse the system. Those who do abuse it and are caught get punished, so it's not like they get by with it over and over again. I worked for the prison for many years and we had inmates that were in for welfare fraud.
I simply don't see that abuse of the system is a reason why we should get rid of social welfare. Now, corporate welfare is another matter. We paid billions to bail out large banks, and the bank fat cats paid themselves millions. No one went to jail for it. Now that is real abuse in my opinion.
 
Helix said:
it's slowly crawling back. let's hope that the both sides don't screw it up by letting us go over the cliff, or by enacting the changes too quickly.
Click to expand...

No, we all know Obama cooked the books to help Biden in 2016..... as we all know, the BLS data is contained on an Excel spreadsheet sitting on Obama's harddrive.
 
upsideguy said:
No, we all know Obama cooked the books to help Biden in 2016..... as we all know, the BLS data is contained on an Excel spreadsheet sitting on Obama's harddrive.
Click to expand...

the positive reports are cooked; the negative reports are accurate. for democratic partisans, switch the terms "positive" and "negative."
 
Boo Radley said:
That's a stupid idea. Shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality of the human condition.
Click to expand...

Its the reality of the situation that Obama has created. Its got nothing to do with the human condition, whatever that means.
 
If the job results remain positive in the next couple of months one man in this forum will insist the results are cooked.
 
Hairytic said:
Welfare doesn't pay for luxuries. People who play the system work side jobs they don't report to buy those things. You can't judge everyone based on what a few do. There are a lot of people who need the social programs as a hand up, and they have no intention of staying on welfare. The majority of people getting public assistance would rather work and provide a better life for themselves and their families. There are also many cases where people can't rise above poverty because they have health problems that could be corrected with basic medical care. However, Most adults can't get Medicaid or cheap medical care. My daughter was working hard to provide for her and her children, until she fell ill When the medical bills pilled up and when she couldn't get medical care she ended up losing her job and the debt from medical bills caused her to have to move in with me and my husband. She is better now, but the point is there are many hard working people who try to take responsibility for themselves but face set backs which are not of their own making. Frankly I cam getting tired of the GOP claiming my daughter is a parasite on society when the real parasites are making millions in bonuses and having the government bail them out because they manage banks or big business.
Click to expand...

Wow, its a good thing I’m not affiliated with the GOP. Of course there are people out there that need help, both financially and medically. My problem is this shouldn’t be a government solution. there are plenty of charitable organizations out there that are designed specifically for problems like you stated above. Our federal is fat and bloated, and only getting fatter. The federal government was never designed to be the solution to peoples problems. In most cases, they are the cause of them! If the fed backed off and allowed people to be decent to one another, there wouldn’t be half the social problems there are now! Im not debating weather people in need should receive help, im simply stating that the help shouldnt come from the federal government.
 
Texmex said:
Your understanding of the poor is total BS!

You've obviously gotten these ignorant ideas from people like Limbaugh or Hannity.
Click to expand...

What am i wrong about? I work in a ghetto city and i see these small corner stores with people lined up around the corner on days when their horizon cards get money. They go to these po dunk stores and exchange their horizon money for cash (minus a fee of course) so they can buy cigarettes and whatever else they want that they otherwise couldnt get on horizon and food stamps. If these people were in such dire need, wouldnt they use the assistance they are given in better ways? You cant tell me my understanding is BS when i see it with my own eyes on a daily basis.
 
Dpetty said:
If the fed backed off and allowed people to be decent to one another, there wouldn’t be half the social problems there are now!
Click to expand...
Just what good deeds have the fed actively disrupted? Any soup kitchen raids of late?
 
Why would they look for work when they can live so comfortably on welfare? They dont even have to pretend to be looking for a job anymore!
Click to expand...

Dpetty said:
Its the reality of the situation that Obama has created.
Click to expand...
What situation would that be? Any structural changes you'd like to clue us in on? Drastic increases in per recipient expenditures and standard of living?
 
a351 said:
Just what good deeds have the fed actively disrupted? Any soup kitchen raids of late?
Click to expand...

They are taking more and more of our money every year in the form of taxes. Income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, investment taxes, and the list goes on. That doesn’t leave many people with much money that they can give to charity or help out their next door neighbor. The funny thing about your comment is that i know of a few soup kitchens that have had to close their doors because they couldn’t afford to stay open. If the fed let us keep more of OUR OWN money, then people who are inherently decent, would use that money far more effectively than government ever could. Government isn’t exactly know for spending money wisely.
 
Dpetty said:
Wow, its a good thing I’m not affiliated with the GOP. Of course there are people out there that need help, both financially and medically. My problem is this shouldn’t be a government solution. there are plenty of charitable organizations out there that are designed specifically for problems like you stated above. Our federal is fat and bloated, and only getting fatter. The federal government was never designed to be the solution to peoples problems. In most cases, they are the cause of them! If the fed backed off and allowed people to be decent to one another, there wouldn’t be half the social problems there are now! Im not debating weather people in need should receive help, im simply stating that the help shouldnt come from the federal government.
Click to expand...

The government being involved in social programs does not prevent people from being decent to one another. Government also does not prevent charities from opperating, however, charity organizations can not meet the needs of the masses. They can only supplement where government is lacking. Most charities rely on donations and government grants to opperate.
The point is, charities along can not provide for the poor as well as the government can. If you take the government grants out of private charities, they would be even more lacking in their ability to provide for the needy.
 
Dpetty said:
They are taking more and more of our money every year in the form of taxes.

The funny thing about your comment is that i know of a few soup kitchens that have had to close their doors because they couldn’t afford to stay open.

people who are inherently decent would use that money far more effectively than government ever could.
Click to expand...
Nope! Quite the opposite in fact. You'd have to travel back in time quite a ways to find a period in which the government confiscated less.

Due to federal intervention? Or the lack of communal support that you insist would suffice absent federal intervention?

Perhaps, but they certainly couldn't act on the same scale or capacity, nor would the rural and urban sectors needs be addressed equally. A myriad of aspects that would prevent private charity alone from meeting the needs of the populace at large.
 
a351 said:
What situation would that be? Any structural changes you'd like to clue us in on? Drastic increases in per recipient expenditures and standard of living?
Click to expand...

Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand for the last 4 years, which many Americans have, then you would already know the answer to that question. There are over 100 million Americans on welfare today. Thats up more than 10 million since 2009! And this is according to the census beareu. That doesnt even incluse those receiving social security and midicare! Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach 800 BILLIOn over the next decade. Obama spent over 1 TRILLION dollars on welfare spending in 2011 alone, that an increase of 32 percent over when he took office. He claims he wants to get people back to work, yet at the same time, he re writes the Clinton era reform to remove the work requirements! Is that enough change for ya? Id say thats pretty drastic expenditure increases.
 
Hairytic said:
The government being involved in social programs does not prevent people from being decent to one another. Government also does not prevent charities from opperating, however, charity organizations can not meet the needs of the masses. They can only supplement where government is lacking. Most charities rely on donations and government grants to opperate.
The point is, charities along can not provide for the poor as well as the government can. If you take the government grants out of private charities, they would be even more lacking in their ability to provide for the needy.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the government gets the money to make these grants in the first place?? Do you honestly not know where the government gets money?? Its from US!! They take our money because they think they can use it better than we can. If the government is so good at providing for the poor, why is the problem getting worse and worse every year? Id much prefer to keep my money and use it to help the poor directly, rather than letting the government waste it on useless spending.
 
a351 said:
Nope! Quite the opposite in fact. You'd have to travel back in time quite a ways to find a period in which the government confiscated less.
Click to expand...
Source?
Due to federal intervention? Or the lack of communal support that you insist would suffice absent federal intervention?
Click to expand...
There is no distinction as far as im concerned. People are being sucked dry to such an extent that they just dont have the money to support charity on a personal level. This is evidenced by the increasing amount of people lining up to RECEIVE charity. Before government got in te business of running peoples lives, people did support charity on their own. This isnt theory about the human psyche, its just the way it is, or used to be.

Perhaps, but they certainly couldn't act on the same scale or capacity, nor would the rural and urban sectors needs be addressed equally. A myriad of aspects that would prevent private charity alone from meeting the needs of the populace at large.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. Local organizations would be much better suited to meet the needs of the people locally because they would be better able to see and understand those needs. Local people helping local people. A national welfare system is far less likely to meet the individual needs of its recipients. Even if you insisted on it being done at a government leve, local government (city or state) would still be better suited than federal...
 
Last edited:
Dpetty said:
Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand for the last 4 years, which many Americans have, then you would already know the answer to that question. There are over 100 million Americans on welfare today. Thats up more than 10 million since 2009!

He claims he wants to get people back to work, yet at the same time, he re writes the Clinton era reform to remove the work requirements!

Is that enough change for ya? Id say thats pretty drastic expenditure increases.
Click to expand...
Any clue as to what may have caused this phenomena? A Catastrophic financial event of sorts? Or did a large chunk of individuals simply catch a bad case of the "lazies" right around the time period in which trillions of wealth vanished and millions of jobs as well? I think I'll go with the former.

News flash, this change in the allocation of assistance programs was lobbied for by dozens of governors, including one Mitt Romney of Massachuets in the prior decade. This stripping of the work requirement that so many have brayed and bemoaned endlessly about was simply a move that allows states to craft their own work requirements which can now include educational endeavors such as job training and trade focused classes. The states however, are not afforded this luxury unless they increase the work rolls of welfare recipents by 20%. A nod to states sovereignty and a move to increase the working rolls of welfare recipents, a Conservatives wet dream you would think?

Key phrase in the quote you're responding to:
a351 said:
Drastic increases in per recipient expenditures and standard of living?
Click to expand...
Most could've predicted an aggregate rise in recipients and overall expenditures due to the conditions mentioned above, but the trick would be demonstrating the seemingly lavish lifestyle of welfare recipents that you portrayed in earlier posts, and claimed Obama responsible for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom