Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well said, imx :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:
[quote=”imxploring”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]… who has more to GAIN by massaging the numbers and the resulting “truth” about current US unemployment, inflation, and current monetary policy…. right wing bloggers or politicians concerned about their next election?[/quote]
Right wing bloggers of course. Graham Summers peddles gloom and doom for a living, he directly benefits financially by making things look bleak.
The people who prepare and publish the numbers are not politicians, they are professional economists and statisticians and you seem to assume that they would let their political bosses tamper with their work without a murmur of protest. And you assume that with absolutely no evidence, merely because you are confronted with a fact that contradicts your preconceived conclusions.[/quote]
You seem to believe that career politicians (Congress, The Senate, elected officals at all levels, and all those political appointees) have no influence whatsoever over the “professionals” that you hold in such high regard. THAT statement in itself tells me you have NO idea how government and politics actually function. With 28 years of government involvement I Can speak personally that nothing could be further from the truth. That’s NOT a preconceived notion, that’s personal knowledge and experience? What might I ask is the personal knowledge you have in drawing your conclusion? Or is it just and idealistic vision of how society should function in the utopia that you envision the US as?
When the State Department spokesman was repeatedly telling the public that the Secretary of State (Kerry) WASN’T out on his boat sailing around while Egypt was coming apart was that a true statement? Were they just mistaken because the professional in charge of keeping tabs on his whereabouts lost track of him? NOPE…. that was an out and out LIE designed to serve a POLITICAL purpose. If that small issue was something they were willing to lie about what makes you think that many OTHER issues and FACTS are not being manipulated to serve political purposes of those desperately trying to keep their jobs?
Was it a Secret Service agent that broke the story that Clinton was getting personal service from an intern in the oval office yet was providing sworn testimony (lies) that he had not? Seems those “professionals” were willing to keep their mouths shut unlike the intern.
It happens EVERY day in politics. Worker bees in government keep their mouths shut and follow orders.There are no truly independent offices in government that buck the system with any true force. Even the GOA is not truly independent or objective. If they were the public would be aware of the true national debt and how deep in trouble the US is![/quote]
Tend to believe, Vic, those three traits would make for lack of success anywhere and everywhere …….
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Other traits of the unsuccessful:
Self-aggrandizement
Intolerance for the opinions of others
Ego-centric[/quote]Scott, you can’t condemn an entire people for the words/philosphies/thoughts of an extremist (in this case the Rabbi). His remarks were condemnded by the American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League (amongst other groups) http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews-1.320235
Also, as a point of information, there is no such thing as “a Jewish Pope”. Each congregation chooses their own Rabbi.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]According to the 2010 Census, the number of people receiving benefits in Illinois under TANF has [b]DECREASED from 234,000 in 2000 to 54,000 in 2009[/b]. Nationwide the number has dropped from 5.9 million in 2000 to 4.2 million in 2009. In 1997, the year welfare reform was implemented the number on welfare was over 12 million.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0566.pdf
This is where you get all huffy about my daring to cite an internet source right?[/quote]
The chart also shows: Illinois’ TANF expenditures:
2000 $879 mil, 2005 $998mil and 2009 $1,091 mil.Year 2000 234,000 recipients costing Illinois $879 mil
Year 2009 54,000 recipients costing State $1,091 mil. Something very wrong with the info here (even if it is coming from a “reliable” source).[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Nice sound byte … but there are enough exceptions written in to Illinois’ law (and very intentionally written in) that can be manipulated to enable lifetime “membership” in your State’s welfare program. http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464%5B/quote%5DHere are those exceptions:
[i]Exceptions to the 60-month limit
A family might be able to receive more than the 60 months of TANF benefits if the parent:Has a pending SSI application and is determined disabled by IDHS; or is determined unable to work at least 30 hours per week due to a medical condition; or
Is in an intensive program that prevents working at least 30 hours per week (includes DCFS, domestic violence, homeless services, mental health, substance abuse, and vocational rehabilitation programs); or
Is in an approved education or training program that will be finished within 6 months after the end of the 60 months; or
Is approved to care for a related child under 18 or spouse due to their medical condition; or
Has a disabled child under 21 who is approved for a Home and Community-based Care waiver.[/i]
Aside from the one that refers to a permanent disability, the others would be temporary in nature too. And the disability has to be of a nature that prevents someone from working – so just being in a wheelchair for example wouldn’t qualify.[/quote]
FYI, Illinois defers to the Federal government’s definition of disability. So, yes, even in Illinois, many a person sitting in a wheelchair will and DOES qualify.
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=252http://www.illinoislegaladvocate.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=240
[quote=”imxploring”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Nice sound byte … but there are enough exceptions written in to Illinois’ law (and very intentionally written in) that can be manipulated to enable lifetime “membership” in your State’s welfare program. http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464%5B/quote%5DHere are those exceptions:
[i]Exceptions to the 60-month limit
A family might be able to receive more than the 60 months of TANF benefits if the parent:Has a pending SSI application and is determined disabled by IDHS; or is determined unable to work at least 30 hours per week due to a medical condition; or
Is in an intensive program that prevents working at least 30 hours per week (includes DCFS, domestic violence, homeless services, mental health, substance abuse, and vocational rehabilitation programs); or
Is in an approved education or training program that will be finished within 6 months after the end of the 60 months; or
Is approved to care for a related child under 18 or spouse due to their medical condition; or
Has a disabled child under 21 who is approved for a Home and Community-based Care waiver.[/i]
Aside from the one that refers to a permanent disability, the others would be temporary in nature too. And the disability has to be of a nature that prevents someone from working – so just being in a wheelchair for example wouldn’t qualify.
Now I don’t know how many people are able to get past the 60 month limit based on these [b]AND NEITHER DO YOU.[/b][/quote]
Seems to be MORE than enough ways to make it possible to enjoy a lifetime on Welfare….so much for a real hard limit.
No wonder they all breed every other year and always have a child diagnosed with some type of alphabet disorder…. that is if they are using the same label to keep the money coming in from the state.
[/quote]
sweikert925 (conveniently?) omitted the domestic violence exclusion. The exclusion combined with a claim of PTSD is
guaranteed success in winning Illinois’ Welfare lottery.“The Domestic Violence Exclusion went into effect in Illinois on July I, 2002. It provides needed relief to domestic violence victims and their families as they struggle to break out of the cycle of violence. A client who qualifies for a Domestic Violence Exclusion is not required to participate in work and training activities and the TANF 60- month counter stops.
To qualify:
The client must experience difficulty participating in work and training activities for at least 30 hours a week due to domestic violence, or participation in work or training activities is unsafe.
The client must request to be excused from work and training activities because of a domestic violence problem (a written request is not required). The client must give proof* of being a current or past victim of domestic violence. The client’s request must be approved by a team of staff and consultants (i.e., the multidisciplinary staffing that always includes the caseworker and a domestic violence expert). A person does not have to be receiving services from a domestic violence service provider to qualify for the Domestic Violence Exclusion. *Proof may include a written statement from another person (e.g., relative, friend) who has knowledge of the circumstances that support the claim; a police, government agency, or court record; a statement or documentation from a domestic or sexual violence program or rape crisis organization; documentation from a professional (e.g., doctor, lawyer, clergy); or any other credible evidence, including physical evidence, that supports the claim. If approved, the initial waiver lasts only two months. The client’s Responsibility and Services Plan, or RSP, is amended to reflect what the client is doing to deal with the domestic violence (e.g., counseling, legal action, medical services). After two months, the waiver may be continued for as long as necessary, but the client is obligated to undergo a reassessment of her situation once a month.”[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[/quote]I can’t comment about what other states do but in Illinois the traditional cash assistance that is generally referred to as welfare is also limited. There is a lifetime limit of 5 years. And to qualify for even that you must participate in a job program and demonstrate progress toward getting a job.[/quote]
Nice sound byte … but there are enough exceptions written in to Illinois’ law (and very intentionally written in) that can be manipulated to enable lifetime “membership” in your State’s welfare program. http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now). [/quote]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now). [/quote]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Pixframe replied:
Untrue. Corporations issue bonds but they don’t have the power of the printing press, as the Feds do, to create more money to purchase their bonds.[/quote]No, that’s not correct. If by “The Feds” you mean the Federal Reserve, they don’t simply whip up a batch of currency. The purchasers of Treasury bonds pay for them just exactly as they do if they purchase a corpoate bond.
There’s no dispute, the purchase process is the same BUT the nature of the “pool” of funds to purchase them is different. Fed bonds are purchased with an infinite source of “self-manufactured” money and Corporate’s are purchased with a finite amount. The Feds printing presses, of late, never sleep and are constantly in perpetual motion watering down the value of every dollar out there. BIG difference! The issue I was directing my comments to are your statements “The Fed does NOT “create” money as you seem to suggest, i.e., it doesn’t just tramp down to their basement printing presses and whip off a new batch of $100 bills. It floats bonds, which people buy USING ACTUAL MONEY. The sale of those bonds finance the portion of federal spending that isn’t covered by tax revenue.” and “This is no different than when a corporation issues bonds and offers them for sale on the open market.”.
[quote=”sweikert925″][/quote]
The Fed does NOT “create” money as you seem to suggest, i.e., it doesn’t just tramp down to their basement printing presses and whip off a new batch of $100 bills. It floats bonds, which people buy USING ACTUAL MONEY. The sale of those bonds finance the portion of federal spending that isn’t covered by tax revenue.
Pixframe replied:
If the Fed doesn’t “create” money how do you explain the growth of the amount of it in circulation? Your explanation implies a finite amount of currency in circulation … which isn’t true. Yes, the Feds float bonds. Yes, people buy them using actual money … BUT the amount of actual money in circulation is ever growing (thanks to the Feds printing presses) and ever diluting the worth of the money in circulation.[quote=”sweikert925″][/quote]
This is no different than when a corporation issues bonds and offers them for sale on the open market.Pixframe replied:
Untrue. Corporations issue bonds but they don’t have the power of the printing press, as the Feds do, to create more money to purchase their bonds.
