Conservative VS Liberal

[pattygreen 5]

In my post above I was referring to this post:

#525 by patty

That article on gov. waste I found online. Pick any waste # and click on the link and it will bring you to its source. # 19 says that the gov. owns 50,000 vacant homes. This info is reported from USA today.

[BJean 16]

patty I don't always have time to go to the link. YOU are the one posting the information and it is encumbent upon YOU to cite your sources. Otherwise it appears that YOU are the one writing the article. And in some circles you can get in trouble for that.

[pattygreen 5]

With reference to the government taking over the student loan program: They cut out the middle man (banks) and SAVED billions of dollars.

Previously the banks got the profit, while the federal government assumed the risk (by guaranteeing the loan). How is that fair?:thumbup:

Now the government eliminates this (yeah!) and puts the savings into Pell grants so more kids can go to college

A win-win for all.:thumbup:

You just don't get how important it is that the government doesn't continue to have more and more control over everything. Do you want to end up like other Nations with dictators?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You're a very nasty person. Do people in your real life like you? I wonder if you have any friends.

Leigha makes a legitimate observation about postings and you respond with a very hateful personal attack? That shows that you can't answer her observation in any other way. I think it just proves her point.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You just don't get how important it is that the government doesn't continue to have more and more control over everything. Do you want to end up like other Nations with dictators?

What does this have to do with dictators? I don't want my tax dollars guaranteeing loans while the banks assume no risk and only get the profits.

That's what happened with wall street. The big banks took risks with our money, lost it and we got stuck with the bill.

And you complain about the government's handling of our money? :thumbup: What about wall street's handling of our money? That is OUR money in their banks. You do know that, don't you?

And they took our money, played russian roulette with it and when they won, they took the profit, but when they lost they went running to the government (us taxpayers) to bail them out.

They win - they get the profit

They lose - and we taxpayers pay the bill

So, you see, it is the PRIVATE SECTOR, WALL STREET BANKS, THAT HAVE MISUSED OUR MONEY AND BROUGHT OUR ECONOMY TO NEAR COLLAPSE, BUT YOU ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR THEM WHILE DEMONIZING THE GOVERNMENT. I WILL TRUST THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE I TRUST WALL STREET ANYDAY.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

You say you are for some government help for those who need it. But you never say which programs, entitlements, or subsidies you would eliminate. You never define how the government is more and more intrusive into your life. I don't feel any more intrusiveness under Pres. Obama than I did under bush. Actually less, now that I know my phone conversations aren't being listened to without a warrant.

Unemployment is high but the recession is getting better thanks to Pres. Obama's economic policies. He has extended unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks. Ask any of those who receive it if they feel this is intrusive.

You say you can't afford to help everyone. Who would you leave out?

If we don't help the least among us, we cease being the great country we are and we become morally bankrupt.

Here's a list of programs I wrote the words cut next to the ones that should be eliminated.

Medicaid $118,067

AFDC 24,923

food Stamps 24,918

Supplemental Security Income 22,774

Lower income housing asst. 12,307 cut

Earned Income Tax Credit 9,553 cut

Veterans medical care 7,838

Stafford loans 5,683 cut

Social Services (Title 20) 5,419 cut

Pell Grants 5,374 cut

Low-rent public housing 5,008 cut

General medical assistance 4,850

Foster Care 4,170

School lunch 3,895 cut

Pensions for needy veterans 3,667

General Assistance 3,340 cut

Head Start 2,753 definitely cut

Food supplements,

Women, infants and children 2,600 cut

Training for disadvantaged

youth and adults 1,744 cut

Low-income energy assistance 1,594 lower eligibility requirements

Rural housing loans 1,468 cut

Indian Health Services 1,431 cut

Summer youth employment 1,183 cut

Maternal and child health 1,059 cut

JOBS and WIN 1,010 cut

Job Corps 955 cut

Child care block grant 825

School Breakfast 782

Child care for AFDC 755

Nutrition Program for Elderly 659

Housing interest reduction 652

Child and adult care food program 624

"At risk" child care 604

Over the past sixty years, America has turned into a welfare or “entitlement” state. Government now takes up to 50 percent of our income in taxes to pay for entitlement programs and regulations. Middle-class taxpayers have become beasts of burden; we pay for handouts, subsidies and entitlements to an endless list of special-interest groups who demand the money we earn.

These special interest groups include not only the classic “welfare” recipients, but far worse, corporations and millions of average middle-class Americans. We have corporate tax breaks, big farmer subsidies, college tuition grants, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, rent subsidies, “free” public schools, government-employee pensions, and free healthy care for millions of illegal aliens. Hundreds of special-interest groups, large and small, now feed at the public trough.

All these entitlement programs have one thing in common; someone has to pay for them! That someone is you, the hardworking, middle-class taxpayer. The Welfare-Entitlement State requires legal theft on a massive scale because government confiscates our money through taxes to pay for these handouts, subsidies and entitlements.

How do liberals, Democrats, and too many Republicans justify this legalized theft? They tell you it is your moral duty to “help” others, whether you like it or not. That means you have no right to your paycheck or your profits while others are in “need”. If you refuse this alleged moral duty, they call you cruel and mean-spirited.

Most of us are not dumb enough to voluntarily hand over 50 percent of our income to bureaucrats. So liberals and Republicans alike use goverment to foce this moral “duty” down our throats. Our elected representatives, our agents, put their hands into our pockets at the point of a legislative gun, and turn compassion into compulsion.

The author Joel Turtel asks, “by what right?” Why do we let our elected officials turn us into beasts of burden? Should government force us to “help” strangers at the expense of ourselves and our family? Does government have the arbitrary right to take 50 percent of everything we earn? What is the purpose of government? Is it supposed to protect our rights, property, and hard-earned paycheck, or is government our lord and master?

Turtel explores these vital issues. He also attacks the one vicious idea that’s used to justify the Welfare-Entitlement State…that government has the right to force us to be our brothers keeper, whether we like it or not. He shows how this ideas spawned the Welfare-Entitlement State that now devours us with taxes, regulations, huge deficits and skyrocketing health care costs. Lastly, the author shows us a way out.

He proposes a startling new Amendment to the Constitution that would end the Welfare-Entitlement State, once and for all. This amendment would permanently restrict government power and forbid local and state governments and Congress from stealing our hard-earned money and violating our liberty. The Amendment would end most regulations, abolish the income tax, and phase out all entitlement programs. It would give us a bright new future.

[pattygreen 5]

So, you see, it is the PRIVATE SECTOR, WALL STREET BANKS THAT HAVE MISUSED OUR MONEY. BUT YOU ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR THEM WHILE DEMONIZING THE GOVERNMENT. I WILL TRUST THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE I TRUST WALL STREET ANYDAY.

I NEVER adocated for them! While it's true that I demonize the government, it doesn't mean that I advocate for Corporate businesses in America. But, One can't have free enterprise without others who abuse it. But I feel that free enterprise is still worth the fight, rather than have the government, who screws up everything they touch, in control.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's a list of programs I wrote the words cut next to the ones that should be eliminated.

Medicaid $118,067

AFDC 24,923

food Stamps 24,918

Supplemental Security Income 22,774

Lower income housing asst. 12,307 cut

Earned Income Tax Credit 9,553 cut

Veterans medical care 7,838

Stafford loans 5,683 cut

Social Services (Title 20) 5,419 cut

Pell Grants 5,374 cut

Low-rent public housing 5,008 cut

General medical assistance 4,850

Foster Care 4,170

School lunch 3,895 cut

Pensions for needy veterans 3,667

General Assistance 3,340 cut

Head Start 2,753 definitely cut

Food supplements,

Women, infants and children 2,600 cut

Training for disadvantaged

youth and adults 1,744 cut

Low-income energy assistance 1,594 lower eligibility requirements

Rural housing loans 1,468 cut

Indian Health Services 1,431 cut

Summer youth employment 1,183 cut

Maternal and child health 1,059 cut

JOBS and WIN 1,010 cut

Job Corps 955 cut

Child care block grant 825

School Breakfast 782

Child care for AFDC 755

Nutrition Program for Elderly 659

Housing interest reduction 652

Child and adult care food program 624

"At risk" child care 604

School lunches: This is sometimes the only meal a poor child eats all day.

Head Start: For every dollar we invest in head start we save $7 in incarceration costs.

Women, Infant, Children: You want to cut this and you call yourself pro-life? This program provides care for pregnant women and their babies. WOW.

Maternal and Child health: Cutting this would be consistent with the anti-abortion philosophy which is to believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Again, WOW. Denying poor women and their children healthcare.

Rural housing loans: Have you ever seen those programs about Appalachia? Those people live in shacks, literally, and you would cut programs that would allow them to do what, move up to a trailer?

I am glad you posted this. It confirms what those of us who consider ourselves progressives always knew about those of you on the extreme right.

[pattygreen 5]

The Entitlement Society

01/13/10 08:51:04 am, by Tony Quain

Left and Wrong author: Michael Lind

Left and Wrong article: The Case for Economic Rights

Salon columnist Michael Lind thinks he’s put together something special with the attached article. To punctuate his hubris, he even begins his words with “Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century … ” as if to excite the reader that what they are about to absorb is something on par with a great speech that many had to memorize in grade school.

Lind cites Roosevelt’s fourth inaugural address in which the 32nd president calls for a “Second Bill of Rights", prescribing a society where many economic wants and needs are provided by the state. Lind indicates that many of the rights mentioned are now delivered by the government and many more deserve to be so. This vision is (supposedly) one of “economic citizenship":

… there would be a single, universal, integrated, lifelong system of economic security including single-payer healthcare, Social Security, unemployment payments and family leave paid for by a single contributory payroll tax (which could be made progressive in various ways or reduced by combination with other revenue streams).

But this is not all! In another part of the article, Lind refers to “the right to a good education", “the right of every family to a decent home", “the right to a useful and remunerative job", and “the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation” (ha ha, yes you read that right). Once it is accepted that one economic provision is an inviolable right of citizenship, the generosity of the progressive knows no bounds. If a “good education” and a “decent home” and a “useful job” and “adequate recreation” are to be provided to me by the state, why not a “wonderful retirement", a “comfortable car", a “meaningful leisure life", and “satisfying sexual encounters"? If an individual must not earn everything for himself, why must he earn anything? Lind’s limited list is a beginning, not an end.

He contrasts this with what he calls “welfare corporatism", where private industry sells regulated, subsidized versions of these “necessities” as “commodities” to an unwary public. This especially is where Lind detaches from reality. The following paragraph is indicative:

In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today’s public benefits – Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs – would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog’s breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave – well, if you’re not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you’re out of luck.

First of all, Lind himself is a Policy Director at a think tank (The New America Foundation), also coporate-funded in part. How is anything that CATO or Heritage produces any more ideological or harebrained than what he has produced in this article? He could just as easily have said, “in the utopia of economic citizenship, your rights—life, liberty, and property—would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by socialist ideologues like myself at corporate-funded think tanks like the New America Foundation.” Progressives are so often blind to their own hypocrisy.

Second, libertarians don’t believe in “tax subsidies” or “tax-favored” treatment. Insurance companies, brokers, and banks all benefit from tax deductions that liberals and progressives protect. Income tax exemption of savings, for retirement, health, or anything else, is consistent with taxing consumption instead of work. And “bewildering miscellany” and “Rube Goldberg scheme” more correctly identify the hundreds of government programs and byzantine tax structures that attempt to provide the economic citizenship Lind proposes.

He then makes the ridiculous claim that “[e]conomic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit.” This bit of nonsense keeps popping up on the left among those who try to sway the economically illiterate or those who are economically illiterate. The main overriding reason why government is far less efficient than private industry is this: government takes financial responsibility and incentives away from the consumer, thereby destroying all reason for producers to be efficient and price competitive. In fact, that’s the whole reason why none of these so-called economic citizenship programs work. They all cover an area of individual responsibility, where decisions are made on a personal level, and then make 300 million people responsible for them. When a decision is made about cost, the individual does not care; when a decision is made about quality, the individual has no say.

Also, for the record, profits are not a cost and are returned to society, incentivizing investors to find and support those providers who are more efficient.

It seems that Lind is really arguing over the means (state vs. private) to a supposedly undisputed end (economic equality and welfare). At one bizarre point, he even speaks of the “libertarian myth of market competition in the provision of social insurance", as if libertarians agree with social insurance. Yet I believe that he and his kind have largely lost the battle of means (government now attempts to use free market methods where possible). And the real battle is whether these economic “necessities” and insurance should be socially provided by government at all.

There is a reason why FDR’s fourth inaugural is not ‘ranked with Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” and King’s “I Have a Dream” speech’, why American’s have not heard of a “Second Bill of Rights", and why a man who did much to work against Roosevelt’s legacy consistently polls higher than he as “the greatest president": what FDR proposed is economically inefficient, anathema to liberty, and morally repugnant. And while I see that Mr. Lind waited until the anniversary of FDR’s speech to unveil this well-written but sickening essay, there is perhaps no time since that speech was given and ideals expressed that Americans are in greater denial of their merit and awareness of their guile.

[LeighaMason 19]

Once again, she cant answer your post so she cuts and pastes. Hey Patty, I am wondering, you didn't cut the foster care program. Did you get foster care money for your "adopted kids"?

[pattygreen 5]

Here's a list of programs I wrote the words cut next to the ones that should be eliminated.

Medicaid $118,067

AFDC 24,923

food Stamps 24,918

Supplemental Security Income 22,774

Lower income housing asst. 12,307 cut

Earned Income Tax Credit 9,553 cut

Veterans medical care 7,838

Stafford loans 5,683 cut

Social Services (Title 20) 5,419 cut

Pell Grants 5,374 cut

Low-rent public housing 5,008 cut

General medical assistance 4,850

Foster Care 4,170

School lunch 3,895 cut

Pensions for needy veterans 3,667

General Assistance 3,340 cut

Head Start 2,753 definitely cut

Food supplements,

Women, infants and children 2,600 cut

Training for disadvantaged

youth and adults 1,744 cut

Low-income energy assistance 1,594 lower eligibility requirements

Rural housing loans 1,468 cut

Indian Health Services 1,431 cut

Summer youth employment 1,183 cut

Maternal and child health 1,059 cut

JOBS and WIN 1,010 cut

Job Corps 955 cut

Child care block grant 825

School Breakfast 782

Child care for AFDC 755

Nutrition Program for Elderly 659

Housing interest reduction 652

Child and adult care food program 624

"At risk" child care 604

School lunches: This is sometimes the only meal a poor child eats all day.

I have personal experience with this one. I happen to know that most people who get free lunches don't 'need' them. They meet the income guidelines so they figure, "hey, why not. I can get it for free, I'll take it.

Head Start: For every dollar we invest in head start we save $7 in incarceration costs.

A new study proved that children who went to head start where on equal levels with every other child in the class by the beginning of first grade. It is a horrible waste of tax payer dollars and is not needed.

Women, Infant, Children: You want to cut this and you call yourself pro-life? This program provides care for pregnant women and their babies. WOW.

This is a program that gives away free milk, eggs, ceral and juice. It is a waste of money. The majority of people who get these checks do not need them and sometimes sell them to others. How does that compare to not wanting babys murdered? Oh brother!

Maternal and Child health: Cutting this would be consistent with the anti-abortion philosophy which is to believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Again, WOW. Denying poor women and their children healthcare.

I would never deny them HC. They may go to any Dr. they choose and pay for it like everyone else does.

Rural housing loans: Have you ever seen those programs about Appalachia? Those people live in shacks, literally, and you would cut programs that would allow them to do what, move up to a trailer?

I am glad you posted this. It confirms what those of us who consider ourselves progressives always knew about those of you on the extreme right.

You would love to live in a Utopia where everything you ever wanted or needed would be provided for you by someone else. Where all are equal and have the same number of apples as you do. This would satisfy you? Life is not a bowl of cherries. But it can be if you 'work' towards bettering your situation. (you know, that 'pursuit" of happiness clause.) Oh yeah, that's a bad word for you liberals, isn't it? "work"

[Cleo's Mom 257]

According to OMBWATCH.ORG:

1. Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
   
2. Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)
   
3. Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor — programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).
   
4. Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.
   

Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.

1. Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.
   
2. Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress.
   

…and we already know of the multi billion dollar bailout that American tax payers are in the midst of shelling out to save some of Wall Streets most profitable companies. The largest Government handout in the History of the United States.

If we followed Mr. Savages logic, that would mean thousands of corporate executives, and company employees would be turned way from the polls.

But I am sure that the back lash against welfare is against individuals. Americans. Struggling Mothers, and laid off workers trying to feed their families. Not corporations, right ?

The fact of the matter is , Moderate and Conservative republican groups continue to pull off the biggest con job in America politics.

By literally scarring hard working Americans who are not wealthy by any means, and feeding into this country’s underlying racism and hang ups, they continue to sell the bill of goods that Democrats want to give money to some fictional “home boy’s” outside of a liquor store, and unwed teen mothers (like Bristol Palin - who’s baby and health insurance is paid for by tax dollars). And each and every time, they pull off this con, they cut benefits from people that really need it, some of them are your neighbors, parents, and friends who have hit a rough patch, and give it to their buddies in corporate America so they don’t have to spend their own money to expand….and thousands of people fall for it every election.

Americans are truly misinformed about who really gets the lions share of Government handouts. As long as your attention is mis-directed at fear, ignorance and racism against fellow Americans, the con job will continue to be a success. Apparently in the eyes of conservatives it is better that corporations and executives get a government handout instead of actual people that need a lift, right? How’s that working out for ya ?

Courtesy of: TheMansfiedHearld.com

[pattygreen 5]

Once again, she cant answer your post so she cuts and pastes. Hey Patty, I am wondering, you didn't cut the foster care program. Did you get foster care money for your "adopted kids"?

no, I didn't get money. I didn't cut the foster care program because children can not help themselves if left orphaned or neglected. Also, Foster care is not a 'federal' program. It is run by the states.

But I did recieve WIC when my kids were young, and energy assistance, and I was once on welfare for 2 years or so when I was 19. I was one who took advantage of these programs simply because I could. It was a huge waste of federal funds.

Edited April 3, 2010 by pattygreen

[LeighaMason 19]

Oh yeah, that's a bad word for you liberals, isn't it? "work"

Patty, I am still waiting for you to tell me where you "work". I have never heard you tell what your job is.

[pattygreen 5]

According to OMBWATCH.ORG:

1. Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
   
2. Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)
   
3. Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor — programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).
   
4. Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.
   

Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.

1. Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.
   
2. Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress.
   

…and we already know of the multi billion dollar bailout that American tax payers are in the midst of shelling out to save some of Wall Streets most profitable companies. The largest Government handout in the History of the United States.

If we followed Mr. Savages logic, that would mean thousands of corporate executives, and company employees would be turned way from the polls.

But I am sure that the back lash against welfare is against individuals. Americans. Struggling Mothers, and laid off workers trying to feed their families. Not corporations, right ?

The fact of the matter is , Moderate and Conservative republican groups continue to pull off the biggest con job in America politics.

By literally scarring hard working Americans who are not wealthy by any means, and feeding into this country’s underlying racism and hang ups, they continue to sell the bill of goods that Democrats want to give money to some fictional “home boy’s” outside of a liquor store, and unwed teen mothers (like Bristol Palin - who’s baby and health insurance is paid for by tax dollars). And each and every time, they pull off this con, they cut benefits from people that really need it, some of them are your neighbors, parents, and friends who have hit a rough patch, and give it to their buddies in corporate America so they don’t have to spend their own money to expand….and thousands of people fall for it every election.

Americans are truly misinformed about who really gets the lions share of Government handouts. As long as your attention is mis-directed at fear, ignorance and racism against fellow Americans, the con job will continue to be a success. Apparently in the eyes of conservatives it is better that corporations and executives get a government handout instead of actual people that need a lift, right? How’s that working out for ya ?

Courtesy of: TheMansfiedHearld.com

I am against corporate welfare as well, so I don't know why you bring it up here. That's probably the only thing we agree on.