Cut taxes at any cost! GREAT idea! - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

From the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US

1996 - 4.4 million families (12.3 million recipients) receiving TANF aid and declining every year after the welfare reform was implemented, to:
2007 - 1.7 million families (3.9 million recipients) receiving TANF aid

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0553.pdf

Facts are a stubborn thing.

As I said 3 Card Monty

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth

..

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

As I said 3 Card Monty

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth

..

Ah...the Heritage Foundation.

No bias there.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:03 PM

How are facts bias?

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

How are facts bias?

The fact remains that the entitlement increase as percent of GDP is almost entirely the result of Social Security and Medicare.

TANF beneficiaries have decreased; and Food Stamps and other direct payments have only marginally increased in recent years..and all are used overwhelming by short-termers.

Heritage uses its own definitions of "welfare" and and cherry picked data to support their pre-disposed position.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:07 PM

Isn't it strange how all other programs increased around the mid 90's when cash, food and housing leveled out?

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Isn't it strange how all other programs increased around the mid 90's when cash, food and housing leveled out?

It is not strange at all the AFDC/TANF recipients decreased starting in 96...it is directly related to the comprehensive reform implemented that year.

Social security and Medicare increased as a result of more beneficiaries.

Food Stamps didnt start increasing significantly until the 2006-07. In 2000-03, it was lower than the early 90s.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0558.pdf

I would suggest using source data as opposed to Heritage reports.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:20 PM

Indeed. So making the recipients work for their money got them out of the program?

But it still did not decrease overall spending in welfare.

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

But it still did not decrease overall spending in welfare.

*shrug"

Depends how you define welfare.

Heritage uses a very broad definition, far broader than any objective definition, for its own benefit.

The more important fact is that the vast majority of recipients of direct assistance are short-termers and dont fit your anecdotal profile....of lazy, cheating, baby-factory, drug users.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:36 PM

Welfare: Financial assistance paid to people by governments.

Any way you cut it, the system is out of control and needs to be reformed. Your own assertions validate my original post. When reform in a segment was implemented it increased the well-being of those who left the mighty tit and relieved some burden in that segment. The rest of the system needs the same reforms to weed out the abusers who simply slipped under another shell.

dippin · 02-10-2010, 09:38 PM

If anyone wants to make "overall [insert economic variable]" here always grow, it's fairly easy. Just make it in currency, without any sort of basis or share measurement. Most if not all economic statistics trend upward, even when controlled for inflation.

As a percentage of GDP, total welfare spending in the US (including unemployment benefits)

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Welfare: Financial assistance paid to people by governments.

Any way you cut it, the system is out of control and needs to be reformed. Your own assertions validate my original post. When reform in a segment was implemented it increased the well-being of those who left the mighty tit and relieved some burden in that segment. The rest of the system needs the same reforms to weed out the abusers who simply slipped under another shell.

Food stamps are a good example and I dont think it validates your original post at all. Quite the contrary.

Quote:

The Food Stamp Program serves as a temporary safety net for millions of families experiencing short-term economic crises. Most people turn to food stamps because of a job loss or reduction in earnings, and remain on the program for a brief period of time. The single most important reason for people leaving the program is a household's increase in earnings.

Half of food stamp participants receive benefits for nine months or less. The average length of participation is less than two years.

FRAC - Food Stamp Program FAQ

It is welfare?

Not to me.

It is a temporary social safety net as a result of a temporary economic setback.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 09:43 PM

That's wiki's definition of welfare.

Just looking at a single segment of the system is ignoring the reality of the big picture.

I can quit buying hamburger and brag all day about the money I'm saving not buying hamburger, but if I'm buying steak instead, I'm still spending more money. Just not on hamburger.

dc_dux · 02-10-2010, 09:45 PM

But you are still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of recipients of direct assistance (TANF, SNAP, etc) are short-termers and dont fit your anecdotal profile....of lazy, cheating, baby-factory, drug users.

dippin · 02-10-2010, 09:46 PM

And that welfare spending is not continuously growing. It grows during recessions... like it's supposed to.

RogueGypsy · 02-10-2010, 10:08 PM

Not at all, you're assuming my definition of welfare is limited to those programs and not the whole system of government assistance.

As far as I'm concerned the short term users needing a little temporary help are who the system was intended to help. While I have met very few of these people, life members of the welfare club abound. I can think of a couple dozen of these dead beats without much thought at all. They all seem to have some mysterious incurable/recurring ailment that prevents them from seeking gainful employment or can't afford to feed their kids because their baby daddies are on welfare too, or need housing assistance because they don't want to live in the part of town they can afford -don't even ask how that one works, I have no clue-. Maybe I just attract dirt bags and the respectable short term users avoid me.

---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

And that welfare spending is not continuously growing. It grows during recessions... like it's supposed to.

What recession? I thought Pelosi, Reid and Obama fixed that.

dippin · 02-10-2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

What recession? I thought Pelosi, Reid and Obama fixed that.

If that is the game you want to play, I'm done with you.

dogzilla · 02-11-2010, 02:36 AM

Here's an article that was posted this morning
NYT: Food stamps find new acceptance - The New York Times- msnbc.com

Quote:

A decade ago, New York City officials were so reluctant to give out food stamps, they made people register one day and return the next just to get an application. The welfare commissioner said the program caused dependency and the poor were “better off” without it.

Now the city urges the needy to seek aid (in languages from Albanian to Yiddish). Neighborhood groups recruit clients at churches and grocery stores, with materials that all but proclaim a civic duty to apply — to “help New York farmers, grocers, and businesses.” There is even a program on Rikers Island to enroll inmates leaving the jail.

“Applying for food stamps is easier than ever,” city posters say.
The same is true nationwide. After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support. Following deep cuts in the 1990s, Congress reversed course to expand eligibility, cut red tape and burnish the program’s image, with a special effort to enroll the working poor. These changes, combined with soaring unemployment, have pushed enrollment to record highs, with one in eight Americans now getting aid.

Maybe the feds claim to have cut welfare, but they have just renamed it.

How about when the politicians in DC say they did something, they really do it?

Rekna · 02-11-2010, 08:14 AM

Are public schools government welfare? Because they seem to match your definition. Should we close down the public school system?

RogueGypsy · 02-11-2010, 08:34 AM

Once again, that is not my (as in I made it up) definition of welfare, it is the (as in generally accepted in the English language) definition from Wiki.

There a specific taxes paid for schools, they are not government assistance. If you read my original post you may also not that I suggest using money saved from revamping welfare to better fund schools and to include 2 years of college for any citizen.

dc_dux · 02-11-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Once again, that is not my (as in I made it up) definition of welfare, it is the (as in generally accepted in the English language) definition from Wiki.

By your own definition - Financial assistance paid to people by governments - most of the programs that Heritage (and you) call welfare, are not.

WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant, etc. are not financial assistance paid to people. Even Medicaid and/or SCHIP do not meet that definition.

ASU2003 · 02-11-2010, 10:27 AM

So, what percentage of my taxes goes to Welfare (food stamps, housing assistance, utility payments)? 1%, 2%, 3%? What percentage goes to other programs that I would rather cut?

Now, I would be open to the idea that people who were on welfare and now have jobs will need to pay a little higher taxes to cover their expenses during that time of their life. But, I think the current system works fairly well.

james t kirk · 02-25-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

My opinion? First, limit entitlement programs strictly to those who are disabled and cannot work. Second, any non-essential government services are either funded on a self-supporting basis or they are closed. If I want to take advantage of a park, a daycare, cultural event or other non-essential government function, then I should have to pay for it. Third, until government debt is reduced to much more reasonable levels, government spending for anything other than key government responsibilities of defense, public safety and education is at best cut significantly and at worst held to no increases. Key government programs need justifiable reasons for any increases. And no, going off to Iraq and Afghanistan in search of problems is not justifiable. Fourth, public employee benefits are renegotiated downward. Fifth, earmarks, or whatever other pork Congressmen return to their districts is forbidden. Sixth, taxation is not to be used as a form of wealth redistribution.

I've been reading this thread till now.

You've kind of strayed off the topic of the thread. The topic was actually municiple taxation and you've plowed right into Federal taxation.

Never the less, explain to me why national defense in the USA is a sacred cow. I seem to recall that the US defense budget is around a trillion dollars (if you factor in all the pork that takes 800 billion to a trillion) That's more than every other country in the world combined. When Bush took power, it was slightly less than 400 billion and that was insane. I believe there are 400 US Military bases.

Seems to me you could cut it in half and you'd still be the cock of the walk.

The fact of the matter is that no group of people complains about paying taxes more than Americans. It's a national treasure - bitch about your taxes to the point of absurdity.

Americans pay less tax, far less tax in fact than any other industrialized country in the world.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

Getting back to the TOPIC of the thread - Municiple Taxes, i.e. property taxes....

It's interesting that the people of Colorado Springs (heard of it, have no clue about it, but it doesn't sound like a cool place to live) seem to think that cutting municiple services is a good idea. Typically, Municiple Services are the one thing that I support, much more than Federal.

Municiple Services are typically financed through property taxes and Municiple levies.

Municipalities typically deliver the services that we all notice and use the most - water, sewage, roads, bridges (where we live), parks, community centres, public transit, police, fire, ambulance, etc.

Cutting those sevices are really in your face cuts.

Take for example my own little corner of paradise - TORONTO.

I love living in Toronto. It's one of the best places in the world in which to live and I consider myself very proud of my town (even though I was born and raised in Hamilton and was bred to despise Toronto (that will only mean something to a few members of this board)). I support the City of Toronto in its endevours and the building of a better city.

My property taxes are almost exactly $5,000.oo a year.

I actually would not have a problem paying $6,000 a year IF (and it's a big if) it was being used to finance capital infrastructure construction - better roads, subways, water, parks, beaches, etc. or to better run the existing infrastructure we have.

The problem that I see in my Toronto world is that our current council and Mayor are a band of merry socialists and have a twisted sense of priorities. (In my humble opinion). Their budget is 9 billion dollars for a city of 2.5 million people and yet every year they are 500 million in the hole.

Cimarron29414 · 02-25-2010, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Never the less, explain to me why national defense in the USA is a sacred cow. I seem to recall that the US defense budget is around a trillion dollars (if you factor in all the pork that takes 800 billion to a trillion) That's more than every other country in the world combined. When Bush took power, it was slightly less than 400 billion and that was insane. I believe there are 400 US Military bases.

...because pussy countries like

keep asking us to fight their wars for them?

I keed, I keed. Calm down.

Baraka_Guru · 02-25-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Getting back to the TOPIC of the thread - Municiple Taxes, i.e. property taxes....

[...]

My property taxes are almost exactly $5,000.oo a year.

I actually would not have a problem paying $6,000 a year IF (and it's a big if) it was being used to finance capital infrastructure construction - better roads, subways, water, parks, beaches, etc.

This begs the question: if the citizens of Colorado Springs were up in arms about the tripling of property taxes, what pittances are they paying the city currently? Could you imagine Toronto putting such a thing to a vote? Would you pay $15,000 a year in property taxes?

Yeah, no. That's my point. What the fuck are they paying in property taxes in Colorado Springs?

james t kirk · 02-25-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

...because pussy countries like

keep asking us to fight their wars for them?

I keed, I keed. Calm down.

There's only one country that I'm worried about invading Canada.

The United States of America.

You've done it something like 7 times, the Big one being the War of 1812 (too bad you lost).

Will America protect Canada from Americans?

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This begs the question: if the citizens of Colorado Springs were up in arms about the tripling of property taxes, what pittances are they paying the city currently? Could you imagine Toronto putting such a thing to a vote? Would you pay $15,000 a year in property taxes?

Yeah, no. That's my point. What the fuck are they paying in property taxes in Colorado Springs?

No, I wouldn't pay 15 grand a year in property taxes.

But "tripling the property tax" can mean allot of things.

For example, what was the average property tax bill prior to this vote?

Was it $500.00 or $5,000.00?

Big difference should one's property tax go from $500.00 to $1,500.00 vs. $5,000 to $15,000.

If Toronto tripled its property taxes, it's tax revenue would go from 9 biillion to 27 billion. (Assuming that all revenue at the City is derived from Property Taxes.)

Ok,

So I did some googling to see what Property taxes are like in Colorado Springs. Looks to be very low.

Here's what I found....

Colorado Springs Property Tax Measure appeared on the November 3, 2009 ballot in El Paso County for voters in Colorado Springs.
The measure proposed raising property tax every year for the next five years. The increase would start at $126 annually and end at $210, according to the average home price of $262,000 in Colorado Springs. According to city officials, the tax measure, if approved, is estimated to generate $27.6 million in additional revenue in 2010 and $46 million in additional revenue in 2014.[1]

Link:

Colorado Springs Property Tax Measure, 2009 - Ballotpedia

So it starts at $126.00 and presumably increases in a linear fashion over 5 years.

Year 1 = $126.00
Year 2 =$145
Year 3 = $165
Year 4 = $185
Year 5 = $210.00

If a grand means that one's property tax TRIPLES, their current property tax is about $500.00 per house.

That's a joke.

The good residents of Colorado Springs would have a massive coronary if they had to pay my property taxes. The City of Toronto just passed a property tax increase of 4% which translates to $200.00 for me in this year alone. (And I don't get to vote on it.)

One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what happens in Colorado Springs.

Baraka_Guru · 02-25-2010, 07:38 PM

Thanks for looking into that for me. I suspected they were low to begin with. But not that low. Jesus.

Charlatan · 02-25-2010, 07:43 PM

This convinces me that the people of Colorado Springs are idiots.

Martian · 02-25-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

...because pussy countries like

keep asking us to fight their wars for them?

I keed, I keed. Calm down.

Please elaborate. Which wars within the last fifty years were instigated by Canada or could in any way be considered "Canada's wars?"

I think you got it backward.

ottopilot · 02-26-2010, 06:18 AM

for the sake of levity, will someone please post South Park's "Blame Canada"? I'm on my cell phone...

Baraka_Guru · 02-26-2010, 06:57 AM

Well, I think we should just leave Canada out of this. Compared to the U.S., all levels of government in Canada look like they're run by certified accountants when it comes to taxing and spending. It's a mismatched comparison.

filtherton · 02-26-2010, 08:43 AM

Holy shit, Colorado Springs, those are some really high taxes

. I guess you get the government you deserve.

Baraka_Guru · 02-26-2010, 09:01 AM

How far can you stretch $500 in a year?

Jinn · 02-26-2010, 10:52 AM

So when I walked away from this thread it was about Colorado Springs asinine decision to vote down a necessary increase in municipal funding and now that I'm back I really have no idea what it's about.

Interesting spin as of late, here in the Springs. Because the city chose to cut police, fire, hospital, and street lights (in addition to $100 million in employee benefits and more than 1000 city employees), conservatives are calling it 'punitive' in an effort by the liberals to 'punish' the good people of Colorado Springs for voting down a liberal 'social agenda' and 'unfair taxation.'

It's really irritating, because they've managed to take a realistic result of what happens when you have huge deficits in a city's budget (cutting essential services) and turned it into a talking point about how the liberals are punishing us for not voting for their socialistic tax hikes.

I had a coworker tell me that them cutting street lights was because it was a 'high visibility' way to punish the people who didn't vote for tax increases.

P.S. Charlatan - not all of us.

james t kirk · 02-26-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, I think we should just leave Canada out of this. Compared to the U.S., all levels of government in Canada look like they're run by certified accountants when it comes to taxing and spending. It's a mismatched comparison.

I've often said that the Americans should hire our Auditor General to go over the US Military's books.

What she would find would be staggering I am sure.

For those who don't know, the Auditor General - headed up by Sheila Fraiser is basically the independent body that ensures the government is spending money properly.

I don't believe the Americans have a similar such body.

OAG Welcome to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

So when I walked away from this thread it was about Colorado Springs asinine decision to vote down a necessary increase in municipal funding and now that I'm back I really have no idea what it's about.

Interesting spin as of late, here in the Springs. Because the city chose to cut police, fire, hospital, and street lights (in addition to $100 million in employee benefits and more than 1000 city employees), conservatives are calling it 'punitive' in an effort by the liberals to 'punish' the good people of Colorado Springs for voting down a liberal 'social agenda' and 'unfair taxation.'

It's really irritating, because they've managed to take a realistic result of what happens when you have huge deficits in a city's budget (cutting essential services) and turned it into a talking point about how the liberals are punishing us for not voting for their socialistic tax hikes.

I had a coworker tell me that them cutting street lights was because it was a 'high visibility' way to punish the people who didn't vote for tax increases.

P.S. Charlatan - not all of us.

It morphed into a rant about taxes in General, but then I tried to bring it back to Municiple Spending.

I see both sides of the arguement on this one.

Taking Toronto for example, I can assure you that if the politicians here were forced to cut say 500 million from their budget of 9 billion, they would cut where the public would notice it the MOST. They would close the Sheppard Subway (already been threatened), the would close libraries, (already been threatened), they would close pools, parks, day care, etc. In short, cut where the people of the city will notice it the most so they will scream the loudest. (They could easily cut 500 million from their budget and the public at large would never notice 1 iota of difference in the delivery of services within the City of Toronto.)

I think that in the case of Colorado Springs the Municiple Government is so strapped for money - they have no choice frankly. They are short 28 million bucks in an overall budget of $212 million or about 14%.

I'm sure that Colorado Springs has their fixed costs and their varible costs. Lowering fixed costs would be pretty tough, so all they can do is lower variable costs. Unfortunately, this will mean making major cuts on the variable side of things - which includes the number of municiple workers.

Plus, nothing scares conservatives more than the threat of reducing the number of cops out there. Cons tend to be the fearful type that think that society is inherinently bad and only waiting to do them in. Hence more cops with guns that go bang good, more government anything else - bad.

Getting back to Toronto, imagine what would happen here if the people of T.O. forced a 14% budget cut to the City. Based on a 9 billion annual budget, that would mean a cut of 1.25 billion. I cannot imagine that.

Baraka_Guru · 02-26-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I've often said that the Americans should hire our Auditor General to go over the US Military's books.

What she would find would be staggering I am sure.

For those who don't know, the Auditor General - headed up by Sheila Fraiser is basically the independent body that ensures the government is spending money properly.

I don't believe the Americans have a similar such body.

Don't forget the recently appointed (2008) Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, an office created out of the Federal Accountability Act. This is another independent body that looks at government spending. It reports to parliament, but is actually an office within the Library of Parliament, and so it isn't even technically a part of the House of Commons. It was done so intentionally to remain arm's length. Page has already created a bunch of controversy be being so adamant about accountability. It's been difficult for the Tory's to do their politicking when he's out there informing the House about everything that's going on.

That said, despite these bodies being on the federal level, maybe Colorado Springs needs something like this to show the public what actual spending is going on, or to at least ensure there isn't some kind of socialist usurping going on in their dear, cheap city.

The City of Toronto has an Auditor General (spending), an Integrity Commissioner (ethics), an Ombudsman (complaints), and a Lobbyist Registrar (disclosure), all in place to tackle the city's overall accountability. Does Colorado Springs have such things?

Lindy · 02-26-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ah...the Heritage Foundation.

No bias there.

Nice example of ad hominem attack, dc. Of course, this thread is full of it. I mean full of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

.....Yeah, no. That's my point. What the fuck are they paying in property taxes in Colorado Springs?

Colorado Springs taxes from my own research: (before the failed increase)
Total property taxes on a 200,000 house in different areas of Colorado Springs.

Harrison School District 2 levies a tax of 41.409 mills, for a grand total of 58.584 mills and a total bill of $932.65.
Widefield School District 3 levies 47.683 mills, for a total of 64.858 mills and a total bill of $1,032.52.
The total for School District 11, after the addition of a levy of 42.331 mills for a total of 59.506 mills, is $947.33.
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12 levies a tax of 42.331 mills, for a total of 61.969 mills and a total of $986.54.
And Academy School District 20 adds 60.216 mills for a total of 77.391 mills and a payment of $1,232.06.

(from Colorado Springs business Journal, Sept. 25, 2009)
They seem pretty low to me. But more than a pittance. In rural Kansas, property tax rate is about double that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

.....My property taxes are almost exactly $5,000.oo a year.

Without knowing your property value, that figure doesn't have much meaning. $5000 on a $100,000 house would be outrageous.

$5000 on a million dollar property would truly be a pittance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

Wow, an article that I'm actually relevantly tied to!
Seeing as how I live in Colorado Springs, I actually saw this first hand and was really dissapointed with the budget cuts and the ballot issues that people voted against simply because it might mean giving an extra 12 cents a month to that horrible, evil government......

Maybe you're just exaggerating (or is it minimizing,) but if you call the population of the Springs at 400,00 then giving 12 cents per person per month ought to give the city another $576,000 per year. If that's all they need to solve the city's problems, then they really are a bunch of pikers. Or Pike's Peakers.

Lindy

james t kirk · 02-26-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindy

Without knowing your property value, that figure doesn't have much meaning. $5000 on a $100,000 house would be outrageous.

$5000 on a million dollar property would truly be a pittance.

Lindy

A million dollar house in Toronto is nothing unusual. There is simply no such thing as a house for 100k in Toronto. Not even a dog house. You can't compare a million dollar house in T.O. and a million dollar house in Prospect Texas.

Here, see if you think this house is worth 1.1 million dollars.

REALTOR.ca - Property Details C1744236

or this one being worth 1.3 million.....

REALTOR.ca - Property Details C1795925

Charlatan · 02-28-2010, 05:34 AM

Hey Jinn... I know. I was being too general with my wide paint brush.

02-10-2010, 09:03 PM	#83 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	How are facts bias? __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-10-2010, 09:07 PM	#85 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	Isn't it strange how all other programs increased around the mid 90's when cash, food and housing leveled out? __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-10-2010, 09:20 PM	#87 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	Indeed. So making the recipients work for their money got them out of the program? But it still did not decrease overall spending in welfare. __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-10-2010, 09:36 PM	#89 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	Welfare: Financial assistance paid to people by governments. Any way you cut it, the system is out of control and needs to be reformed. Your own assertions validate my original post. When reform in a segment was implemented it increased the well-being of those who left the mighty tit and relieved some burden in that segment. The rest of the system needs the same reforms to weed out the abusers who simply slipped under another shell. __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-10-2010, 09:43 PM	#92 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	That's wiki's definition of welfare. Just looking at a single segment of the system is ignoring the reality of the big picture. I can quit buying hamburger and brag all day about the money I'm saving not buying hamburger, but if I'm buying steak instead, I'm still spending more money. Just not on hamburger. __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-10-2010, 09:38 PM	#90 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	If anyone wants to make "overall [insert economic variable]" here always grow, it's fairly easy. Just make it in currency, without any sort of basis or share measurement. Most if not all economic statistics trend upward, even when controlled for inflation. As a percentage of GDP, total welfare spending in the US (including unemployment benefits)

02-10-2010, 09:45 PM	#93 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	But you are still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of recipients of direct assistance (TANF, SNAP, etc) are short-termers and dont fit your anecdotal profile....of lazy, cheating, baby-factory, drug users. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-10-2010, 09:46 PM	#94 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	And that welfare spending is not continuously growing. It grows during recessions... like it's supposed to.

02-11-2010, 08:14 AM	#98 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Are public schools government welfare? Because they seem to match your definition. Should we close down the public school system?

02-11-2010, 08:34 AM	#99 (permalink)
RogueGypsy Insane Location: The Great NorthWet	Once again, that is not my (as in I made it up) definition of welfare, it is the (as in generally accepted in the English language) definition from Wiki. There a specific taxes paid for schools, they are not government assistance. If you read my original post you may also not that I suggest using money saved from revamping welfare to better fund schools and to include 2 years of college for any citizen. __________________ Methods, application and intensity of application vary by the individual. All legal wavers must be signed before 'treatment' begins. Self 'Medicating' is not recommend. However, if necessary, it is best to have an 'assistant' or 'soft landing zone' nearby. Any and all legal issues resulting from improperly applied techniques should be forwarded to: Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Intercourse, PA 17534. Attn: Anonymous.

02-11-2010, 10:27 AM	#101 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	So, what percentage of my taxes goes to Welfare (food stamps, housing assistance, utility payments)? 1%, 2%, 3%? What percentage goes to other programs that I would rather cut? Now, I would be open to the idea that people who were on welfare and now have jobs will need to pay a little higher taxes to cover their expenses during that time of their life. But, I think the current system works fairly well.

02-25-2010, 07:38 PM	#106 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Thanks for looking into that for me. I suspected they were low to begin with. But not that low. Jesus. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-25-2010, 07:43 PM	#107 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This convinces me that the people of Colorado Springs are idiots. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-26-2010, 06:18 AM	#109 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	for the sake of levity, will someone please post South Park's "Blame Canada"? I'm on my cell phone... __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

02-26-2010, 06:57 AM	#110 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, I think we should just leave Canada out of this. Compared to the U.S., all levels of government in Canada look like they're run by certified accountants when it comes to taxing and spending. It's a mismatched comparison. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-26-2010, 08:43 AM	#111 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Holy shit, Colorado Springs, those are some really high taxes . I guess you get the government you deserve.

02-26-2010, 09:01 AM	#112 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	How far can you stretch $500 in a year? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-26-2010, 10:52 AM	#113 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	So when I walked away from this thread it was about Colorado Springs asinine decision to vote down a necessary increase in municipal funding and now that I'm back I really have no idea what it's about. Interesting spin as of late, here in the Springs. Because the city chose to cut police, fire, hospital, and street lights (in addition to $100 million in employee benefits and more than 1000 city employees), conservatives are calling it 'punitive' in an effort by the liberals to 'punish' the good people of Colorado Springs for voting down a liberal 'social agenda' and 'unfair taxation.' It's really irritating, because they've managed to take a realistic result of what happens when you have huge deficits in a city's budget (cutting essential services) and turned it into a talking point about how the liberals are punishing us for not voting for their socialistic tax hikes. I had a coworker tell me that them cutting street lights was because it was a 'high visibility' way to punish the people who didn't vote for tax increases. P.S. Charlatan - not all of us. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 02-26-2010 at 10:54 AM..

02-28-2010, 05:34 AM	#118 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Hey Jinn... I know. I was being too general with my wide paint brush. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke