There's another way of looking at things though...not everyone who is stuck in relying on government assistance is doing so because they have no incentive to become financially independent. A lot of us would love to be in a better situation, but simply haven't had things work out correctly just yet, due to either the economy or just luck in the world, whatever.

 

The question is...what happens to people who hit the bottom or come close to it? If people lose their jobs and there is no backstop, then people are going to be in much worse shape. Things like your medical state, that goes dramatically downhill if you can't afford basic medical care...you wind up in this sh*tstorm of trying to figure out whether to pay the rent or the medical bills, you pay the rent, and you get sicker and sicker because you can't afford to go see a doctor, and there winds up being no way out because you can't save up anything.

 

People don't like being in poverty. It isn't fun. A few people who don't mind it doesn't mean that we should condemn everyone else who has trouble at some random point during their life to never having a chance to recover.

 

I just don't think this is reality. My main history in this is a public housing law class where we dissected the Chicago Housing Authority (and visted cabrini green and the new mixed housing developments and got to hear a drug addict with 3 kids complain about her 150 dollar a month rent payment for a 2bed 2 bath condo that easily could fetch 2k a month...and in fact does, because we all pay the 1850 dollar difference). Roughly 140,000 people are in the public housing system (only 7k of which are seniors btw). Results have shown that the odds of getting out of the system are incredibly small, meaning that the system is not a "lets give you some temporary help to get you back on your feet" it's a "lets make sure you have a home, even if it means paying for your home, food, and whatever else you need for the rest of your life."

 

I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people that receive welfare in any form end up staying on it for the long term. How many of those 140k people are truly going to leave? What's the net change on a year to year basis (hint: there's a waiting list for public housing). That's a gigantic cost on the public that doesn't amount to much of a return. We're supposed to be aiding people through tough times, but in reality the budget for public housing (and welfare systems) on the local, state and national levels have risen every single year.

 

So it goes back to forcing people with money, including the middle class, to pay for a relatively large portion of the population to have a home and have food and whatever, without nearly any conditions - like staying drug free, staying out of trouble with the law, and actively searching for a job - for a lengthy period of time (in some cases, life).

Edited May 13, 200916 yr by Jenksismybitch

The Dems rise to power from 2006 to 2008 worked primarily for three reasons:

 

1. The anti-Bush push (as noted here), and just the presence of Bush and his policies

2. Dean and the DNC's 50 state effort

3. The emergence of an unusual good Prez field, led by a charismatic guy named Barack

 

Now, the GOP is on its way downhill in a hurry. So let's look at those three items above. Can the GOP do similar things?

 

1. The anti-Obama push will only succeed if Obama does pretty badly, and the economy stays in the s***ter for too long. If the economy has improved by 2011 in a noticeable way, and Obama's policies haven't sunk the country, then its a tough road for the GOP to win the Presidency OR significant moves in Congress in 2010 or 2012.

 

2. The GOP's general push has been to narrow the party, which of course as we all agree is ridiculous. This is the opposite of the 50 state strategy - its the southern state strategy, and will likely fail.

 

3. The GOP needs to find some charismatic young leadership who isn't psychotic (like Steele) and doesn't make a complete buffoon of themselves in their early appearances (Palin, Jindal). Not sure who that is.

 

I'd suggest the GOP can probably get a nice little rubber band bounce in 2010, by focusing on the insane levels of spending by the government. Not enough to regain any control, but enough to stop the bleeding.

 

But the next step from there depends on how the country looks in 2010 and 2011. If Obama is doing well and the economy is OK, I think you need to pretty much focus on Congress - focus on fiscal restraint, and the idea of not allowing the Dems to control EVERYTHING.

 

Last bit. As completely untrue as it is, the public perception is still that the Republicans are some how better at national security. Any major events that cause problems in that area for the US, especially if on US soil, will help the GOP.

 

 

Agreed.

I'm sure they'll gain even more independents with the increase in negativity and name calling.

I just don't think this is reality. My main history in this is a public housing law class where we dissected the Chicago Housing Authority (and visted cabrini green and the new mixed housing developments and got to hear a drug addict with 3 kids complain about her 150 dollar a month rent payment for a 2bed 2 bath condo that easily could fetch 2k a month...and in fact does, because we all pay the 1850 dollar difference). Roughly 140,000 people are in the public housing system (only 7k of which are seniors btw). Results have shown that the odds of getting out of the system are incredibly small, meaning that the system is not a "lets give you some temporary help to get you back on your feet" it's a "lets make sure you have a home, even if it means paying for your home, food, and whatever else you need for the rest of your life."

 

I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people that receive welfare in any form end up staying on it for the long term. How many of those 140k people are truly going to leave? What's the net change on a year to year basis (hint: there's a waiting list for public housing). That's a gigantic cost on the public that doesn't amount to much of a return. We're supposed to be aiding people through tough times, but in reality the budget for public housing (and welfare systems) on the local, state and national levels have risen every single year.

 

So it goes back to forcing people with money, including the middle class, to pay for a relatively large portion of the population to have a home and have food and whatever, without nearly any conditions - like staying drug free, staying out of trouble with the law, and actively searching for a job - for a lengthy period of time (in some cases, life).

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct about this - it's still pretty irrelevant as far as national politics go. Most of these things you're talking about are state and local governments, whereas the feds try to do things like welfare, education, etc. which is a whole other argument in itself.

I'm sure they'll gain even more independents with the increase in negativity and name calling.

 

It sure worked for the Democrats over the last eight years...

It sure worked for the Democrats over the last eight years...

 

Yes it did, but I'm going to guess the Republicans are smart enough to stop.

The Dems rise to power from 2006 to 2008 worked primarily for three reasons:

 

1. The anti-Bush push (as noted here), and just the presence of Bush and his policies

2. Dean and the DNC's 50 state effort

3. The emergence of an unusual good Prez field, led by a charismatic guy named Barack

 

Now, the GOP is on its way downhill in a hurry. So let's look at those three items above. Can the GOP do similar things?

 

1. The anti-Obama push will only succeed if Obama does pretty badly, and the economy stays in the s***ter for too long. If the economy has improved by 2011 in a noticeable way, and Obama's policies haven't sunk the country, then its a tough road for the GOP to win the Presidency OR significant moves in Congress in 2010 or 2012.

 

2. The GOP's general push has been to narrow the party, which of course as we all agree is ridiculous. This is the opposite of the 50 state strategy - its the southern state strategy, and will likely fail.

 

3. The GOP needs to find some charismatic young leadership who isn't psychotic (like Steele) and doesn't make a complete buffoon of themselves in their early appearances (Palin, Jindal). Not sure who that is.

 

I'd suggest the GOP can probably get a nice little rubber band bounce in 2010, by focusing on the insane levels of spending by the government. Not enough to regain any control, but enough to stop the bleeding.

 

But the next step from there depends on how the country looks in 2010 and 2011. If Obama is doing well and the economy is OK, I think you need to pretty much focus on Congress - focus on fiscal restraint, and the idea of not allowing the Dems to control EVERYTHING.

 

Last bit. As completely untrue as it is, the public perception is still that the Republicans are some how better at national security. Any major events that cause problems in that area for the US, especially if on US soil, will help the GOP.

well stated on all points.

I must be the only one that remembers this commercial from 2004 when the Republicans were acting stoic and the democrats were dividing the country with their name-calling:

 

''Howard Dean,'' the husband says, ''should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New-York-Times-reading'' -- at which point the wife interrupts to finish the sentence -- ''body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.''

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct about this - it's still pretty irrelevant as far as national politics go. Most of these things you're talking about are state and local governments, whereas the feds try to do things like welfare, education, etc. which is a whole other argument in itself.

 

The federal government does fund a lot of public housing, but yes state/local governments also fund these things. But i think the argument can extend to welfare/health services since we're talking about the same people.

The federal government does fund a lot of public housing, but yes state/local governments also fund these things. But i think the argument can extend to welfare/health services since we're talking about the same people.

The unavailability of health care to people isn't just about poor people which is why I say it's a different argument. It's a whole other set of problems.

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”

 

 

agreed

 

I want to know why the Republicans can't be "classy" and disagree with Obama on his policies without bringing the debate down to a 3 year old level. I'm ready for the GOP to just start calling Obama a stupid nose picker. That makes about as much sense as this (and i'm someone who DOES believe Obama is moving this country in a socialist direction - way too much government involvement in the private sector).

 

If I were leading the Republican party I'd be hitting the American people with future projections of what Obama and the Dem leadership have signed into law and what they eventually plan to sign into law. There's nothing they can do right now to combat Obama...everyone in the country is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until we're at a point where the GOP can show X policy was a failure, and harmful to the country, they're not going to get anywhere with name calling.

 

And anyone else tired of the "liberals" basically mocking the GOP for this (among everything else they do), all while a mere 5 years ago the Dems were doing the exact same thing? Yeah, so there wasn't an official meeting/resolution/memo regarding party directives, but please, like the Dem leadership didn't come up with their "the GOP are stupid hick gay hating cowboys" ad campaigns? Or, instead of talking about issues, lets talk about how Bush can't finish a sentence without mispeaking. Or, instead of talking about how we'd fix the country's problems, we'll just point and say "look how much they screwed up" (IMO, the main reason they lost in 2004 and why they won in 2008). The GOP is a party completely out of favor with the majority of Americans, so they're resorting to every tactic in the book. I'm pretty sure EVERY party in the same position has done the same thing. So get over it.

 

 

i agree. if the Republican party wants to be successful on a nationwide level, they need to pattern themselves on the success of the Democratic party over the past 4 years. Become the party of many, not just a few. Look at where the Democrats have picked up Senate seats over the past few years... Alaska, Montana, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Missouri... not necessarily hot-bed spots for Democrats. But they ran moderates and expanded the party. Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Democrats won. Unless the Republicans start following the same model in Liberal states, they'll be in the minority for a long, long time. Plus attacking a very, very popular President wont accomplish anything.

Well, most of them are socialists, but the problem is, look what Bush did in his final year. Both isles have them, IMO, but one side more than the other.

Well, most of them are socialists, but the problem is, look what Bush did in his final year. Both isles have them, IMO, but one side more than the other.

20% of the GDP being related to the government: wonderful capitalism, like the Reagan years.

 

22% of the GDP being the government: National Socialism!

20% of the GDP being related to the government: wonderful capitalism, like the Reagan years.

 

22% of the GDP being the government: National Socialism!

And the government is MUCH bigger then in the 1980's. Numbers can mean anything you want them to mean, Balta. I like how you cherry pick numbers to what you want to comment on. And yes, that goes both ways.

 

And the government is MUCH bigger then in the 1980's. Numbers can mean anything you want them to mean, Balta. I like how you cherry pick numbers to what you want to comment on. And yes, that goes both ways.

 

So it seems as we grow the government we grow the GNP!

So it seems as we grow the government we grow the GNP!

Following the same logic that the Republicans use to say that Tax Cuts pay for themselves, I conclude that increasing the size of government to infinity would result in infinite economic growth. Why don't the Republicans get it?!

Following the same logic that the Republicans use to say that Tax Cuts pay for themselves, I conclude that increasing the size of government to infinity would result in infinite economic growth. Why don't the Republicans get it?!

I think the sad part is you believe that.

 

Actually paying for government is no longer why we pay taxes, we only pay taxes to influence the economy.

Following the same logic that the Republicans use to say that Tax Cuts pay for themselves, I conclude that increasing the size of government to infinity would result in infinite economic growth. Why don't the Republicans get it?!

 

 

On the contrary:

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...0,6465292.story

 

This doesn't seem to be the answer either.

On the contrary:

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...0,6465292.story

 

This doesn't seem to be the answer either.

He was being sarcastic.

Cooler heads prevail...

 

Democrat Socialists no more

Members of the Republican National Committee appear to have reached a compromise that would let GOP leaders avoid a possible dispute over a controversial resolution that calls on Democrats to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."

 

Steele has come out against the resolution, calling it "not an appropriate way to express our views on the issues of the day." One of Steele's allies on the committee, Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer, told CNN the resolution is "stupid" and "ridiculous."

 

However, New Jersey committeeman David Norcross, one of the sponsors of the resolution, told CNN the language is being massaged so that Steele and others on the committee will be more receptive.

 

"The language is being changed so that the proposers and chairman Steele are on the same page," Norcross said.

 

He said that as of Tuesday afternoon, the chairman of the RNC Standing Committee on Resolutions had changed the language to "condemn the Democrats' march to socialism" instead of "talking about the 'Democrat Socialist Party.'"

Much much much more reasonable. Seriously they were about to make themselves look really stupid.

Can we keep our thread name?

Can we keep our thread name?

 

Commie Bastard.