"No He [Obama] Can't" by Anne Wortham

BethFromVA · June 24, 2009

I wouldn't eliminate any of these programs....but I don't think anybody would agree that these programs are "run quite well". If anything they all serve as a cautious reminder of how the government can screw up a good idea.

Bingo. I was gonna say the same thing.

BJean · June 24, 2009

Just because the Congress jumps in and fouls certain programs up, like Social Security, doesn't mean that it isn't a well run program. You all sound like you're speaking with great authority. I sincerely doubt if you have actually worked on any of those programs and you probably haven't even been exposed to precisely what they accomplish. Or have you?

But as for the Republican negative-speak vs. the Democratic speak-too-much, compromise is the only way anything gets accomplished.

BJean · June 24, 2009

patty: What was the population of this country when the founding fathers worked their magic? What was the standard mode of travel? How did they get across great rivers and the great divide?

If it were only as simple as you'd like to make it, we'd all be very happy campers. It just is not that simple when there are so many people who comprise such a vast area of land. Problems come up and they must be solved for the good of the state and the good of the people. It absolutely would never get done if we all just chose up sides and donated a few bucks.

If you prefer living in a country like you suggest, why don't you find a little island and live there? If you want to be an American, and you want to live here, don't you want it to be better? It won't be better if everyone just decides to stop paying their taxes. And it is disengenuous to say that everything can be run on donations.

I get that you resent welfare. I get that you think that there are too many people who depend on it their whole lives. Why don't you get involved in revising the programs instead of just making the claim that they're unfair because you have to help pay for them.

Someone also seemed to be suggesting that black people and Indians are primarily the ones on welfare in this country. I think that there are more white people on welfare than any other race in this country but that may depend wholly on which programs you are researching.

BethFromVA · June 24, 2009

Just because the Congress jumps in and fouls certain programs up, like Social Security, doesn't mean that it isn't a well run program.

But that's a contradiction in and of itself.

I guess what we consider well-run differs.

BJean · June 24, 2009

I disagree. Congress doesn't run the programs. But they have been known to raid one program to fund another.

wootsie73 · June 24, 2009

It's interesting that I can read the post that said I was going to leave, but I can't see the two other posts in this thread. Does anyone know what could be wrong either with my computer or my settings. I would say it is probably a setting or something easily fixed, I just don't know what it is.

Joan

Joan, respectfully, are you pretty comfortable with how to navigate around these forums? Because none of your posts have been pulled. I can read them all.
Only a mod can delete posts, and nobody has done that. If you're sure you're "moving around" correctly, than maybe something is wrong with your computer? Because, again, I can see all your posts.

BJean · June 24, 2009

Joan there's some phantom something or other going on with your computer link up, I guess. You do know to advance to the next page at the bottom of each page, don't you?

wootsie73 · June 24, 2009

I think there probably are more white people using these programs than any other race, but that's because there are more white people than any other race in this country. If you average per capita, I highly doubt there are more white people than other races that are using the social programs available. Besides, even though this thread was started as a racial thread, I haven't observed anyone posting here being racially motivated. Personally, I don't care if Obama was purple, I still wouldn't like his policies. SOMEONE PLEASE TAKE AWAY THE TELEPROMPTER!!!!!!

Someone also seemed to be suggesting that black people and Indians are primarily the ones on welfare in this country. I think that there are more white people on welfare than any other race in this country but that may depend wholly on which programs you are researching.

plain · June 24, 2009

Just because the Congress jumps in and fouls certain programs up, like Social Security, doesn't mean that it isn't a well run program. You all sound like you're speaking with great authority.

Ok, if we're speaking of social security as an example of a really well-run government program, fine. Aside from the solvency issues (because like you said, congress has a track record of dipping in to fund other numb-nut programs), there's a little matter of the amount. How many of us here have heard of seniors on a fixed income (SS) having to sometimes decide between food / rent / whatever else. How about fraud? There's a ton of stuff wrong with SS. I guess it's all in what you consider "well run"...

I sincerely doubt if you have actually worked on any of those programs and you probably haven't even been exposed to precisely what they accomplish. Or have you?

No, I'm purely civilian sector...never worked on any of these programs. However, I'm pretty familiar with some of the ones that you listed: I have a grandma that gets SS, I have numerous uncles that deal with the VA (and let's not get started on the sub-par quality of medical care that we give our vets. It's free, but.....you get what you pay for), I myself repaid some federal student loans, I have friends that went to school via the GI Bill and were active military, and my wife teaches and is very familiar with the weird quirks of the school Breakfast program (hope enough poor kids apply to the program, or the feds will cut off ALL funding to the school....yep, the fed wants to feed x% of poor kids or none at all). I guess what I'm saying is, intimate knowledge of federal programs isn't really required to judge the results. I can't fly a plane, either....but I can judge a successful landing vs a crash by observation.

pattygreen · June 24, 2009

I am not suggesting that everyone stop paying their taxes, as you say. Everyone should pay their taxes. The government needs to stop making any more gov jobs, and eliminate many that they have right now. They need to stop spending so much on stupid projects and things that are not detrimental. They need to stop adding more and more programs to the vast number of them that we have already and can't afford, they need to set term limits, they need to stay out of the world of business, they need to allow free enterprise, they need to allow the people to support and better themselves in every area of their lives from their education to their health care. Basically, they need to step back. Enough is enough. With each passing year, America is digging itself in deeper instead of pulling herself out. With every new president comes the blame of the president before him. But I have to say, this new president has been detrimental to our well being financially from day one. Oh, they've all done their share of spending our hard earned money, but Obama has outdid them all. Imagine that you could spend more money than all the past presidents put together, and only in your first 4 months of office. Then turn around and say it's because of the actions of the one who left me this mess. No. We don't buy it. There is never any need to spend more than you have. When a problem comes up and you don't have the funds on hand, the answer is NO. That's what all of us do in our own households. All of us except those that are fully stressed out with credit card debt and feeling the strain of how to pay them off every day of their lives. The drug campaign has a great slogan that this country needs to adopt. "Just say NO."

BethFromVA · June 24, 2009

I have numerous uncles that deal with the VA (and let's not get started on the sub-par quality of medical care that we give our vets. It's free, but.....you get what you pay for)

Whoa, good point! Look at how shabbily our vets' medical care is, and they're a relatively small number compared to the ENTIRE COUNTRY! And it's also "free," like socialized medicine would be.

All anybody needs to do to determine if socialized medicine would work on a grand scale would be to look at the much narrower scale of vet care.

I can't fly a plane, either....but I can judge a successful landing vs a crash by observation.

Awesome analogy!

BJean · June 24, 2009

Oh I agree, that's a good analogy. But if all you've ever done is seen the word "airplane" you wouldn't know much about it, would you?

Social Security was never, ever meant to be the total income for retired people. It was intended to supplement retirees income. The fact that people do rely on it as their only source of income doesn't mean that it is a poorly run program.

We were talking about programs that are run well. Not whether they are fabulous programs or not. Of course you disagree with the Breakfast program. You don't want our government dishing out money to schools for children who don't have food. It means you might have to pay more in taxes. I do see your point.

BJean · June 24, 2009

Patty, we've had a "hands-off" approach when it comes to business in this country. Are you unaware of what part THAT played in the mess that Obama inherited? And if you think that things were running smoothly and the economy was in good shape when the new president took over, you have short term memory loss.

I don't have a quarrel with keeping spending within limits. But what the president has been trying to do is to save the economy. It was not improving. It was tanking. And no one knew for sure if what the politicians proposed would solve the problem or even improve it.

Nearly every financial wizard in this country recommended and supported what Bush proposed and what both he and Obama agreed to. Actually the jury is still out, but what we've learned is that things were actually even worse than we thought they were.

You can bellyache all you want and point fingers at the man who is currently in the drivers seat, but I believe that we should give it a chance and continue to learn from our mistakes as well as our successes. This economy is a tricky business and it is teetering a bit more everyday. All the doom and gloom doesn't do much for getting us out of this mess. In fact, confidence in our ability to recover and some confidence in our government would be a big step in improving the economy.

pattygreen · June 24, 2009

Patty, we've had a "hands-off" approach when it comes to business in this country. Are you unaware of what part THAT played in the mess that Obama inherited? And if you think that things were running smoothly and the economy was in good shape when the new president took over, you have short term memory loss.
I don't think that things were running smoothly for quite some time, no matter who was in office. With each new president, you hope for some fiscal responsibility and you get none.

I don't have a quarrel with keeping spending within limits. But what the president has been trying to do is to save the economy.

His 'trying' by spending has failed miserably. Since when can you get out of financial ruin by maxing your credit cards? It doesn't work for families, towns, businesses, or states, and it won't work for the Nation. Any fool could have told him that! I don't even have a business degree, but I can understand that.

It was not improving. It was tanking. And no one knew for sure if what the politicians proposed would solve the problem or even improve it.

Top economists all over this nation made it known that his plan was foolish. He chose to spend more anyway.

Nearly every financial wizard in this country recommended and supported what Bush proposed and what both he and Obama agreed to.

From what I heard, they were all against 'stimulating' by spending.

Actually the jury is still out, but what we've learned is that things were actually even worse than we thought they were.

No. Things are worse, NOW that he's blown trillions.

You can bellyache all you want and point fingers at the man who is currently in the drivers seat, but I believe that we should give it a chance and continue to learn from our mistakes as well as our successes. This economy is a tricky business and it is teetering a bit more everyday. All the doom and gloom doesn't do much for getting us out of this mess. In fact, confidence in our ability to recover and some confidence in our government would be a big step in improving the economy.

I have zero confidence in him. he has shown himself to be quite incompetant. From his unwise stimulus packages, to his stand on abortion, his rushing to get everything he proposes done "imminently", his socialistic plans for us, his national medical care plan, his picks, his pork spending, his many broken campaign promises, his involvement in things he says he wasn't involved in, even his filthy smoking habit which is a bad example for children to follow. No, I have no confidence in him doing the right thing for this country. (But mostly, his spending sprees with our money.)

..............................................................

plain · June 25, 2009

Oh I agree, that's a good analogy. But if all you've ever done is seen the word "airplane" you wouldn't know much about it, would you?

Well, I see your point, but mine was that people don't need to speak the jargon or know the minute details to judge whether or not a program is efficiently working.

Social Security was never, ever meant to be the total income for retired people. It was intended to supplement retirees income. The fact that people do rely on it as their only source of income doesn't mean that it is a poorly run program.

You know, I actually totally agree with you on this (and I'm a little surprised by your stance here, actually). This is a good example of the government giving people incentive to do nothing. Personally, I feel that the government should not limit SS benefits if seniors make above x dollars / year (within limits, of course.....for example, they should be able to earn as much money per year as a public school teacher makes). That way, there is incentive for seniors to continue working (if they want).

We were talking about programs that are run well. Not whether they are fabulous programs or not. Of course you disagree with the breakfast program. You don't want our government dishing out money to schools for children who don't have food. It means you might have to pay more in taxes. I do see your point.

I don't have any problem at all with the school breakfast program theory. My problem is, (at least it works this way in Texas where my wife teaches) that the program gives the school x amount of dollars to feed poor kids, but only if a certain number of families apply to the program. Otherwise, they'll eliminate program for the school entirely. In effect, if not many families apply (whether due to apathy or.......as is the case where my wife works, pride), then the government is telling the kids that DO apply, "Sorry kids. It's not efficient to just feed the 3 of you. Good luck, though". That's not a well-run program, IMO.

BTW, the county that I live in (and surrounding counties, for the most part) are rual and poverty-stricken. I know there's a need for school breakfasts, but the way the program is run kinda sucks. That's all I was saying.