StrangeSox

Two charts courtesy of Kevin Drum that I found interesting.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) You clearly do not since you think it's worth 45 a month. It pays for everything a child needs - food, diapers, formula, etc. It's not some 15 dollar a week coupon. It's a significant chunk of change that she's CHOOSING to accept because she WANTS to stay at home. I have no problem supporting stay-at-home mothers or fathers in families where the spouse's income isn't enough.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) The sad thing is you actually think there's something wrong with this statement whereas a majority of people would think it's perfectly normal to want to stay home and raise their kid. Nothing is more noble than working to make someone else rich!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) Or they could have just not been the rubberstamps they claim to have been and actually done something about it. Right, Congress could have paid down debt in the early 00's instead of blowing it on tax cuts. That would have been the Keynesian thing to do, eliminate debt when the economy is doing better so you've got a buffer when the business cycle rears its head again. Hell, that just seems like the "common sense way to run federal budgets" thing to do if you expect future economic downturns and the drops in revenue they bring.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) I am saying they made the decision knowing full well they'd probably have to use WIC. Which is substantially different from jenks' strawman which derives straight from the "welfare queen" popping out babies to collect money mythology.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:49 PM) Lol, oh so you get to create facts to support your view? I get it. No, I clearly added a qualifier, you even bolded it! But if you want to insist people have babies to collect that sweet, lucrative WIC money, let me know how much it is a month, and we'll compare it with typical child cost estimates.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) How about instead of being a condescending ass you read what the original post was about: She had a child BECAUSE SHE WANTS A BABY! She quit her job BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO RAISE SAID BABY! She didn't quit her job so that she could collect WIC, she was able to quit her job and raise her child because of WIC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:47 PM) Sorry AHB, apparently SS thinks you are a liar. You honestly believe someone had a baby and quit her job to get WIC stamps?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) Or it is the scenario that AHB just posted minutes ago. Oh, that mother had a child and quit her job to raise that child "just to collect a government check" that likely doesn't cover the cost of raising a child? Impeccable logic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) Because that doesn't fit a talking point. No, because no one is having babies and quitting their jobs "just to get a government check." If you honestly believe that...well...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) No, f*** that. I'm not saying the system is pointless. But when you actively choose to start a family and quit your job just so you can start getting a check from the government, that's f***ed up. How am I the only one that sees that? Because the bolded is a really dumb strawman of your own creation, along the lines of the really dumb myths of "welfare queens" popping out babies to collect that sweet, sweet government cash.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) Why are you praising this garbage? Human value can be measured in dollars, and the market sorts out your value by salary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) I'm promoting not having a kid if you can't afford it. Why the f*** should I have to contribute to a system that rewards people like her, who simply choose to sign up for welfare because she wants to have a kid? Why the f*** work? Government will just pay me to live! Ugh. I have to live this thread before I get banned. Unplanned pregnancies, especially in poorer communities, are unheard of!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) in all fairness to my friends, they had their first kid when the economy was still good... or at least better than it is now. They should be giving them up for adoption to wealthy families who make smart life choices. Poor people deserve exactly what they get: nothing.

Seriously though, this idea that POOR PEOPLE have CHILDREN who don't starve because of programs like WIC and SCHIP is INSUFFERABLE! That's what's wrong with this country: support for poor families with children.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) We are actually seeing this being used to force changes in the future. I would call that accountablility, even if the brinksmanship is ridiculous. Then again if the Democrats took the Republicans seriously months ago, maybe we wouldn't be at this point. We're seeing it used by one party to force the other to give up substantial fiscal ideological positions to fix a deficit that's largely caused by the first party's fiscal, domestic and foreign policy over the past decade. If only those Democrats, who still control the WH and the Senate, had agreed to the House GOP's radical changes months ago! Woo accountability!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:29 PM) It's there for accountability purposes whether voters use them for that or not...that's what all congressional votes are there for. So you can see if the incumbent actually did what they promised you they'd do, or if they voted yes or no on things you agree with or not. Just because most American voters don't give a s*** about this sort of thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist for an actual reason. I can see if they vote for or against various spending measures without needing to see if they voted to approve paying for the spending measures they already voted for.

I want to know when Congress forcing itself to default on obligations it made would ever be a good idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) *cough* Obama tax cuts *cough* Yeah, those were really dumb too, he shouldn't have caved to terrible Republican fiscal policy, but he did. So both he and the Republicans can own those.

Families: Only for Wealthy People! I want to amend this to Families: Not for the Poor! because it's a little more accurate.

lol

*cough* bush tax cuts *cough*

Yeah, I've got zero problems with helping support stay-at-home moms, even if I loathe the conservative "women's work" ideology that drives some of those choices.

This isn't being used for "accountability" and never has been in the past. It seems far too easily exploitable if one party really deludes itself into believing that it won't really be a big deal to run into the debt ceiling. Do other governments have similar arbitrary limits on debt?

Could she find enough to cover daycare? It was impossible for a friend of mind without government assistance for the daycare.