Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump slip up...I think

Habebe Member	Wed Dec 04 18:54:21 Cutting food stamps now imho is not a good move for him or the country. 1. Food stamps are really a miniscule amount of govwrnment expenditures. So your not saving much. 2. Most economists agree that economically FS are good for reducing poverty and as a nice little stimulus package as ppl on FS spend them regularly. 3. At a time when he wants to garner more black votes I dont think this will sit well. Even much of his own base is poorer working class whites. 4.This could further effect US farmers which have bit the bullet for long term benefit but are hurting due to tarriffs. However im glad he got Japan tonopen up their markets more to US agriculture.
obaminated Member	Wed Dec 04 19:25:52 Yah not sure what he expects out of this, but I'm not good at 4D chess.
kargen Member	Wed Dec 04 19:33:33 Right now, in a state without a waiver, able-bodied adults without children cannot receive food stamps for more than three months during a 36-month period without working or participating in a work program. States can grant waivers to areas that have insufficient jobs or a 24-month average unemployment rate that is at least 20 percent above the national average. Under the rule, effective April 1, 2020, an area eligible for a waiver would have to have a 24-month average unemployment rate that is not only 20 percent above the national average but also at least 6 percent. ------------ Sounds fair to me. Will save an estimated 5.5 billion. Sure just a drop in the bucket when looking at the overall budget but every drop helps.
Average Ameriacn Member	Wed Dec 04 23:06:03 Private charity could replace all government charity.
kargen Member	Wed Dec 04 23:39:28 You can change the word could for should.
Dukhat Member	Thu Dec 05 00:01:50 Fake facts chasing bad arguments. Typical cuckservative incels at work.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 01:39:08 dukhat how long has it been since you last had a coherent thought?
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 07:39:29 Anyone who believes that the government shouldn't be involved in something like public "charity" (you're using that word wrong) should be banned from use of all public rights. Like roads, the electric grid, and plumbing, for starters. Next take their phones away, and remove them from the internet, as public funds have paid quite a bit to build out capability. No police, fire department. Enjoy! Private charity will save you, yeah?
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 11:03:38 THe government providing for infrastructure and public safety is actually something the government has from the beginning been allowed to do. Infrastructure should involve federal, state and local governments. Public safety should be mostly state and local government with the federal government providing assistance in times of disaster. Government aid programs should when needed be done at the state level. To much redundancy and waste with a federal system of aid. Most the aid provided could easily and more efficiently be handled though private charities and should be. You need to read up on your documents before you post this silly stuff hood.
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 11:16:28 I wasn't arguing what the government is or isn't allowed to do, because that's a silly fucking argument. The government is 100% allowed to provide aid to citizens. There is absolutely nothing illegal about food stamps, college tuition assistance, or welfare in general. Because of the absurdity of the argument of whether the government is ALLOWED to do this, I instead decided to argue what seems to be the argument: SHOULD the government do it? The obvious answer is yes, yes it should. And if you don't believe it should, put up or shut up. Forgo the use of anything paid for or developed by the Fed. Anything less is hypocritical cherrypicking.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 12:00:38 I'm not saying food stamps and all that is illegal. I am saying there is a better way. Your examples of roads and emergency responders was bad because from the very beginning of our country it was agreed those were things the government should provide. You have now doubled down on that argument. Thinking the federal government shouldn't be doling out food stamps is not anywhere near the same thing as saying the federal government shouldn't help maintain our highway systems. The constitution does allow the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the country and the vagueness of that statement is why all these programs started at the federal level. Again not saying they are illegal I am saying there is a much better way. If the government is to be involved it should be at the state an local levels. Much less waste that way.
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 12:06:36 "I am saying there is a better way." You are laughably wrong. Hilariously, retardedly wrong. "I'm not saying food stamps and all that is illegal." Then there's no reason to cite that it was "allowed from the beginning." That is completely irrelevant information generally used to attempt to call other government functions "overreach" or "grabs of power."
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 12:44:23 Kargen From what I can tell, the Federal Government built exactly one road between 1811 and 1839 when Congress defunded the project.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 05 12:46:24 I see no reason why fs cant be funded at the federal level. Again data suggests its an all around winner and a is cheap. If anything I would think this is one program where local government should have less controll over who they can bar from it.
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 12:47:51 It literally took a red Dawn style argument to get the national highway system funded. But that's not really important to the argument. It's just side fodder that kargen is throwing up to distract from the actual point: The government providing benefits to the populace is a good thing, and much MUCH better than private enterprise doing so. Nobody except Robber Barons liked the Robber Barons. Well, nobody except modern American conservatives.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 13:29:09 Virtually every time someone touts all of the benefits of government, the lion's share, if not all, are provided by municipalities, coops, and states.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 13:43:52 "Virtually every time someone touts all of the benefits of government, the lion's share, if not all, are provided by municipalities, coops, and states." how about Medicare? Why not try to run for a federal office on a platform of replacing Medicare with private charity?
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 13:49:59 Sure, if you can audit and recompense every living soul that's paid into it. States with the populations of European nations are certainly capable of providing such programs if their electorate wishes it.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 13:52:43 Yes, you could amend the platform. "I will abolish Medicare, it will be replaced by charity, and states will have an option to set up their own program, states are capable. Vote for me".
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 13:54:45 We did the math for HR. Refund him what he paid into the medicare with interest, less the costs for medical services. He would have ended up owing the government less than a million dollars!
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 13:54:49 "Sure, if you can audit and recompense every living soul that's paid into it." Why? If you die just before being elible, do you get recompensated?
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 13:55:12 Not as popular as, "free shit for all", of course
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 13:55:48 It would have been petty to include the payments made to his mother as deductable from his "refund", so we did not do that.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 13:56:14 "Why? If you die just before being elible, do you get recompensated?" Sure. Write checks to the dead, so they can get funneled into the Clinton Foundation. Presumably they already received Medicare though
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:00:07 "Not as popular as, "free shit for all", of course" Who says free? Somebody will pay.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:01:19 "Sure. Write checks to the dead, so they can get funneled into the Clinton Foundation." You want to take out the stupid? Wtf are you talking about? Do you get recompensated for everything you paid or not?
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 14:02:00 Thus, Social Security is — and always has been — a transfer system from younger generations to older generations. "We’re not really entitled to get our money back since we didn’t save it but rather spent it on our parents," said C. Eugene Steuerle, who helped assemble the Urban Institute’s calculations. "Moreover, when ‘things happen,’ like a decline in kids per adult, society has to adjust regardless." ============ Forwyn You should actually just ask your parents for the partial refund. They in turn can ask their parents (and quite possibly may have already gotten it in the form of inheritance).
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 14:03:52 http://www...ecurity-what-you-paid-what-yo/ The article is a bit misleading as it is giving every wage earner the employer contribution too. That, by rights, should be returned to the employer (you can hash it out with them if you think you should have it).
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 05 14:05:10 Hood, I'm all for private charities for some things or even a mixed government/ private. I think we can both agree they both jabw a place and do things differently. FS for example give a guaranteed minimum allotment for food. While something like philabundance is great for distributing excess food from retail/ church collections. Both play a role and both would do poorly at doimg the other ones job.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:08:03 The point is that SS and Medicare are extremely popular federal(!) programs and there is no charity that can replace them.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 14:15:14 Who said anything about charities? I don't think anyone is laboring under a fantasy of charities garnishing wages and then cutting checks to tens of millions.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 14:16:06 "We’re not really entitled to get our money back since we didn’t save it but rather spent it on our parents," said C. Eugene Steuerle, who helped assemble the Urban Institute’s calculations. "Moreover, when ‘things happen,’ like a decline in kids per adult, society has to adjust regardless." That's literally the definition of a Ponzi scheme, so I guess that term is back on the table.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:17:07 "Who said anything about charities? " go up the thread.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 14:19:13 So, kargen, not me, and in response to a "muh roads, police, and fire", which is what my first post was directed at.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:25:17 yes, kargen is the one imbecile that "is laboring under a fantasy of charities garnishing wages and then cutting checks to tens of millions", as you put it. Hence my mentioning of charities. You, I mentioned in responce to your claim about everything beneficial that govt does in not done by feds. Hence, the medicare point
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 14:40:57 No, kargen started the charity talk by responding to the troll spouting retarded talking points. It wasn't in response to me. Can you even read? Habebe: While I'm not against private charity in theory, the implementation of them is so consistently awful that I just categorically say that charities are pretty shit. Some of them (I'd say most, but I don't give enough shits to go get the numbers to back it up so I'll stick with some) are far less efficient than even the worst examples of government inefficiency. As for food stamps, it does seem like we agree. Feeding people is a pretty minimum standard of decency and it isn't expensive.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 14:48:36 "You, I mentioned in responce to your claim about everything beneficial that govt does in not done by feds. Hence, the medicare point" "the lion's share, if not all" Yes, a lot of harping gets done over roads and first responders. "No, kargen started the charity talk by responding to the troll spouting retarded talking points. It wasn't in response to me. Can you even read?" ROFL what? kargen was clearly responding to you.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:54:04 "the lion's share, if not all" How do you calculate the share? Thats first. Second, if other govt are unable or unwilling to provide services, why not federal government, there is nothing inherently wrong with federal government doing it
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 14:57:58 Also, for the folks who pretend to care about the budget in some years, food stamps spending is way more cost effective than other govt actions, for growth and for budget. Because the money will definitely be spent, not saved, and this is beneficial for the whole economy. For reference, Donald's farmer bailout is 10x bigger than the expected saving from this food stamp move
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 15:03:05 Dear Forwyn, Average Ameriacn Member Wed Dec 04 23:06:03 Private charity could replace all government charity. kargen Member Wed Dec 04 23:39:28 You can change the word could for should. hood Member Thu Dec 05 07:39:29 Please note the text of kargens post and the date/time, and compare it to the date/time of my first post. Who, exactly, brought up charity first? Cause if you're still convinced it's me, there's no solution to your malfunctions as a human being.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 15:18:46 "From what I can tell, the Federal Government built exactly one road between 1811 and 1839 when Congress defunded the project." I paid my way through college working construction during the summers. Helped put in water lines and sewer systems for entire towns and helped reconstruct roads. The projects were often funded through the federal government. As an aside the federally funded projects pay much better than state or locally funded projects. Also more regulations. "The government providing benefits to the populace is a good thing," and doing it at the federal level is less efficient because of all the different levels of bureaucracy and other wastes created at that level. Better that either state government or private sectors do it. Some of those programs would be better served if they depended more on charity and less on the federal government.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 15:23:43 I actually didn't even see kargen's one line response. But then, I make it a point to ignore non-TC troll accounts
hood Member	Thu Dec 05 15:25:43 That's fine. We all miss things on occasion.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 16:04:11 "yes, kargen is the one imbecile that "is laboring under a fantasy of charities garnishing wages and then cutting checks to tens of millions"" not at all. There would be no garnishing of wages. Private charities thrive on voluntary donations not forced donations. Private charity is just a part of the private sector that could do a better job than the federal government does. "The point is that SS and Medicare are extremely popular federal(!) programs and there is no charity that can replace them." Social security is a fund we pay into separately and if we were allowed to invest that money on our own instead of letting the government play with it we would have much more available when we retire. There would need to be some regulation to prevent high risk investing though. Medicare is a great example of government waste and misappropriation of funds. People with mobility problems are eligible to get one of those little scooter things you see in Walmart's. They (unless regulations finally changed) don't purchase the little scooters but rent them. The companies that rent them through medicare charge enough a month so that the scooter would be paid for in three months if they were to just buy the damn things. Instead they pay month to month sometimes for years. This problem was highlighted a couple of years ago so maybe it got fixed? Still there are many more examples like that of mishandling of funds and overpaying. There isn't enough oversight on the program. Privatizing much of the program and letting state governments handle the rest would make the system run more efficient and it would be less expensive. A little private competition can do that.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 05 16:04:14 kargen Member Thu Dec 05 01:39:08 dukhat how long has it been since you last had a coherent thought? Rofl!!! That was funny. Now back to the point, it is clear that the government should help some people and should let others starve. Where you draw the line is the real question.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 16:06:27 Kargen I was speaking to "always" The Federal Government did not see roads as its responsibility in its inception and quite far along its historic timeline. Food stamps are paid for by the federal government and administered by the States. Federal admin is less than 1%. What about farmers? Should they get their aid at the state level or from private charities too? Its not a small point. Current aid to farmers is 2/3ds that of SNAP. Are you sure you want a federal assistance programme that is mainly administered by the VA? I have always found it a bit silly that the only way US citizens can partake in social democracy is by doing a stint in the US military.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 17:39:04 "What about farmers? Should they get their aid at the state level or from private charities too?" My opinion is an unpopular one around here but I think the farmers and ranchers get way to may subsidies. I also think ranchers are not paying enough to graze their cattle on public land. If the subsidies are to continue then yes it would be better at state levels. The abuse in farm subsidies is massive. When the federal government announced a five year program providing crop insurance for corn large corporations leased vast amounts of land for those five years and planted corn. They leased dry land and in the area they did this corn must be irrigated. They planted the corn knowing it would fail and collected checks way beyond the amount it cost them to lease the land and plant the drop. A state level insurance program for drought conditions in the same area caught many of the people trying to fraud the system as they have the resources to investigate where the federal government often doesn't. My point on the roads is the constitution actually mentions the federal government establishing roads. I would think that also includes maintaining them. That is why it pisses me off when a president threatens to withhold transportation funds if a state doesn't comply with one idea or another. "Are you sure you want a federal assistance programme that is mainly administered by the VA?" I think the VA is a travesty and is a prime example of something that needs more private involvement.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 17:51:46 "not at all. There would be no garnishing of wages. Private charities thrive on voluntary donations not forced donations" I meant your imbecility in general, regarding your claim that private charity is capable of replacing something like Medicare, garnishing of wages was just a mechanism "Social security is a fund we pay into separately and if we were allowed to invest that money on our own instead of letting the government play with it we would have much more available when we retire. There would need to be some regulation to prevent high risk investing though." The last sentence of this paragraph neatly explains the stupidity of the sentences before. Just elaborate why you think such regulations are needed and you have your answer on why what you suggest is not feasible "Medicare is a great example of government waste and misappropriation of funds. " It is not a great example, a) there are plenty of studies showing that Medicare is not more wasteful than private insurance in US, and b) just look at every other developed countriy, all spent half of what US spends on healthcare, with comparable outcomes. Why do they spend so much less? Because, in healthcare sector govt is better at containing costs
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 18:37:28 I mean, people lose their 401k's every day through tremendous stupidity and lack of research. Not necessarily a pressing need to regulate that individual stupidity.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 05 19:23:12 Is this addressed to me? I do not see anything that I disagree with in your post. Maybe you gotta reach some critical mass of people who lose their 401k through tremendous stupidity, for voters and politicians to start addressing this issue through regulations.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 22:29:21 "I meant your imbecility in general, regarding your claim that private charity is capable of replacing something like Medicare," I didn't say anything about medicare other than it would be better off privatized and/or administered by the states. You made assumptions you shouldn't have.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Dec 06 07:44:43 "I didn't say anything about medicare other than it would be better off privatized and/or administered by the states." You said that all government charity should be replaced by private charity, in response to the post that was, probably sarcastically, calling all govt programs charity. But ok, you say that some programs, such as Medicare, cannot be replaced by charity, clearing that one up, no problem. I will try to separate your retardation about replacing some govt programs with charity, from your retardation about replacing federal govt programs with state govt programs or with privatization of services. As for Medicare being privatized or administered by the states - by all means, state your goals, like the forms of coverage, number of covered people, the costs and how you are planning to budget for it. Politically speaking, I don't believe you can carry a single state, campaigning on replacing Medicare with private insurance or with anything else, but who knows, maybe you can present some arguments I did not think of. Not the folksy anecdotes that you love to tell, arguments backed up by some numbers.
hood Member	Fri Dec 06 08:02:31 The funny thing about the Medicare argument is that Medicare patients are covered by private entities who then go to Medicare for reimbursement. The Fed just acts as the purse to which the entire medical industry uses as a baseline for contact negotiations.
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 06 08:22:59 Not to interrupt, but we just gained a strong argument in support of the cuts: "Ocasio-Cortez on food assistance cuts: 'If this happened then, we might've just starved'" http://the...en-we-mightve-just-starved?amp
Dukhat Member	Fri Dec 06 08:23:36 Cuckservatives get owned so hard but they think that being the last word somehow is a retort. Doubling down on stupid since the days of Reagan.
hood Member	Fri Dec 06 08:33:44 Typical rugian, perfectly representing good Christian values. Advocating for the death of the less fortunate, how holy.
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 06 08:39:25 Helping the less fortunate I'm okay with. Helping literal enemies of humanity...I'm less on board.
hood Member	Fri Dec 06 08:41:54 Are you secretly a teenage girl? You put their pension for being obsessively dramatic to shame. Also, that comment is impressively stupid.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Dec 06 08:42:20 I posted before that Donald's bailout of farmers, this year, affected by the trade war that he chose to start, is 10x that the planned savings per year from cutting food stamps for 750k people. But it is bigger than ten times. Savings for cutting food stamps per first year are estmated $1.1 billion, while the bailout is $28billion
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 06 08:52:03 AOC literally tells her fanbase that the world is going to end in twelve years and strongly implies that people should stop procreating because they would just be forcing their children to live in a world that's going straight to hell. It's not dramatic to call her an enemy of humanity.
hood Member	Fri Dec 06 08:56:04 Whatever you say, Ronda.
Rugian Member	Fri Dec 06 09:02:01 It's cute that the poster who tries to turn every thread into a catfight is pursuing this particular line of attack. Great strategy there, Hope.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 06 09:23:20 I decided to do some research on a startup farm because of the farmer bailout mention in the thread. Things are going to change in a relatively short time period. Holy cow, pun intended. http://www...oes-it-take-to-become-a-farmer
jergul large member	Fri Dec 06 11:17:23 The subsidy format will certainly change with time. Recarboning soil (SOC) to alleviate global warming is a thing. So is bio char. Seems we have accidentally removed 125 terratons of carbon (about 15% of carbon released into the atmosphere) from the top soil over the last 12000 year. Cultivated land is far, far, far away from carbon saturation. We can put some of that back quite easily (the challenge is scaling it enough to make a difference).
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: