The Republican Party: The Death of America’s "Angry White Man"

[Texdentist]

Here is an article that speaks to where we are headed if we just keep voting for the party that won't mess with our benefits. For some reason, people think of the Pubs as the bad guys who want to take away their benefits and the Dems as the good guys who will keep them coming. But we can....not....keep them coming without significant reform. And voters are the biggest obstacle to doing what needs to be done to keep them going. This is the absurdity of the holier-than-thou attitude of Democrats. They are strictly head-in-the-sand about the consequences of their promises. Sorry for the length of the article, but it's spot on. By Robert Samuelson:

WASHINGTON -- If you doubt there's an American welfare state, you should read the new study by demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, whose blizzard of numbers demonstrates otherwise. A welfare state transfers income from some people to other people to improve the recipients' well-being. In 1935, these transfers were less than 3 percent of the economy; now they're almost 20 percent. That's $7,200 a year for every American, calculates Eberstadt. He says that nearly 40 percent of these transfers aim to relieve poverty (through Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and the like), while most of the rest goes to the elderly (mainly through Social Security and Medicare).
By all means, let's avoid the "fiscal cliff": the $500 billion in tax increases and federal spending cuts scheduled for early 2013 that, if they occurred, might trigger a recession. But let's recognize that we still need to bring the budget into long-term balance. This can't be done only by higher taxes on the rich, which seem inevitable. Nor can it be done by deep cuts in defense and domestic "discretionary" programs (from highways to schools), which are already happening. It requires controlling the welfare state. In 2011, "payments for individuals," including health care, constituted 65 percent of federal spending, up from 21 percent in 1955. That's the welfare state.
Yet, the subject is virtually taboo. Because Americans disapprove of government handouts, we don't even call the welfare state by its proper name, preferring the blander term "entitlements" (the label used by Eberstadt). Mitt Romney's careless comment about "the 47 percent" receiving government benefits -- implying they're all deadbeats -- squelched any serious discussion in the campaign. Interestingly, his figure is probably low: More than 50 percent of Americans may already receive benefits. Obamacare will raise this, because families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty line ($91,000 in 2011 for a family of four) qualify for insurance subsidies.
Granting the welfare state's virtues -- the safety net alleviates poverty and cushions the effects of recessions -- it's time to pose some basic questions. Who deserves support? How much? How long? How much compassion can society afford?
Programs have strayed from their original purpose. Take Social Security. Created to prevent destitution among the elderly, it now subsidizes the comfortable. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about a couple (he 66, she 70) touring the world. They've visited London, Paris, Florence and Buenos Aires. Their financial adviser sends them $6,000 a month from investments and proceeds from their home sale. They also receive Social Security. How much? They don't say. My hunch: between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. (I emailed the couple for details but received no reply.)
Is this what Franklin Roosevelt intended? Should Social Security be tilted more toward the less affluent? Good questions, but politicians rarely ask them. Anyone who does risks being attacked as hard-hearted.
Welfare programs tend to expand. Advocacy groups discover coverage "gaps." Economic downturns understandably sow sympathy for the needy. Arcane eligibility rules are liberalized. In 2010, a fifth of food stamp recipients had incomes exceeding twice the federal poverty line (about $45,000 for a family of four), estimates a study by David Armor and Sonia Sousa of George Mason University.
Eberstadt, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, sees three dangers in the welfare state's unchecked growth.
First, it squeezes other government programs. This is already happening. President Obama's budget assumes that defense spending, as a share of the economy, falls 39 percent from 2011 to 2022. The Army is to drop by 80,000 soldiers, the Marines, 20,000. Domestic "discretionary" spending is cut even more, 45 percent. Research, education, transportation, law enforcement and other programs face pressures.
Second, it undermines work incentives. This, too, is occurring. Social Security's eligibility ages influence retirement. If eligibility were higher, people would work longer. Eberstadt thinks that relaxed disability requirements have lowered work effort. In 2011, about 4.5 percent of working-age adults (20-64) received Social Security disability benefits, up from 1.3 percent in 1970.
Finally, there's a moral cost. It encourages "gaming" the system to maximize benefits. It devalues the ethic of "earned success." There's tension between helping the truly needy and fostering dependence on government and helplessness.
The welfare state's great contradiction -- the reason its politics are so messy -- is that what seems good for the individual is not, when multiplied by thousands or millions of cases, always good for society. Politicians appeal to individuals who vote, but in doing so may shortchange the nation. Most obviously: The welfare state's costs may depress economic growth.
The need is not to dismantle the welfare state but to modernize it gradually, preserving its virtues, minimizing its vices and not doing it abruptly so as to derail the recovery. But first we need to admit it exists.

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

Then you should let the faithful in on it because most of the O-whatdoIgetwithmyvote watch him as news

Quit making stuff up Wally. You and I both know that is not true. Next you're going to be claiming that SNL is a news show. C'mon, you can do better than that.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

.....He says that nearly 40 percent of these transfers aim to relieve poverty (through Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and the like), while most of the rest goes to the elderly (mainly through Social Security and Medicare).
.....They also receive Social Security. How much? They don't say. My hunch: between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. (I emailed the couple for details but received no reply.)

There...this is what we're talking about.


Unemployment helps (but certainly doesn't sustain) someone who gets canned for no reason. The max (depending on salary) in FL is like $275 a week. "Abuse" that system and you're hauling home a heaping $1100 a month. The reporting standards are pretty strict and the State does ask for it's money back if they suspect fraud. $1100 a month...it's hard to survive at all on that in Florida. Especially if you were the sole bread winner. Plus, if I am not mistaken, the employers pay into the unemployment system, so it's not like it is totally unfunded.

So unemployment benefits, Medicaid for the poor and food stamps are 40% according to the study. Then MOST OF THE REST (even if "most" means 51% of the remainder) is 35% of other programs for the elderly. SS and Medicare. Again, SS is paid into by the employee every week, so they need to get SOMETHING out of it. And $25-50K a year? BS. And these are jetting setting well off retired people...WHY are they collecting these benefits?

That leaves at the least 25% of "other" programs that go unmentioned. What are they...who gets them...how...how long?

It seems to me that the problem is not the existence of these programs...but the ADMINISTRATION of them. Road block the paths of "abuse" (which I am still waiting for real numbers on from both vette_newb and ponch) and maybe we'll get somewhere without having to look like the bad guys.

The more and more I hear "abuse"...and it starts sounding like a hollow talking point...where's the beef. Similar to the less than 1% voter fraud (it's even less than that, but I'm not looking right at the same article now).

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

There...this is what we're talking about.


Unemployment helps (but certainly doesn't sustain) someone who gets canned for no reason. The max (depending on salary) in FL is like $275 a week. "Abuse" that system and you're hauling home a heaping $1100 a month. The reporting standards are pretty strict and the State does ask for it's money back if they suspect fraud. $1100 a month...it's hard to survive at all on that in Florida. Especially if you were the sole bread winner. Plus, if I am not mistaken, the employers pay into the unemployment system, so it's not like it is totally unfunded.

So unemployment benefits, Medicaid for the poor and food stamps are 40% according to the study. Then MOST OF THE REST (even if "most" means 51% of the remainder) is 35% of other programs for the elderly. SS and Medicare. Again, SS is paid into by the employee every week, so they need to get SOMETHING out of it. And $25-50K a year? BS. And these are jetting setting well off retired people...WHY are they collecting these benefits?

That leaves at the least 25% of "other" programs that go unmentioned. What are they...who gets them...how...how long?

It seems to me that the problem is not the existence of these programs...but the ADMINISTRATION of them. Road block the paths of "abuse" (which I am still waiting for real numbers on from both vette_newb and ponch) and maybe we'll get somewhere without having to look like the bad guys.

The more and more I hear "abuse"...and it starts sounding like a hollow talking point...where's the beef. Similar to the less than 1% voter fraud (it's even less than that, but I'm not looking right at the same article now).

The abuse falls in the category of "gaming" that the article mentioned. But blocking abuse won't save the programs. They must be fundamentally reformed, and that will inevitably cause pain which voters won't tolerate. They refuse to think about these programs going bankrupt with no alternative funding source. But this will happen if we keep our heads in the sand. And that is exactly what a vote for the Democratic Party is in this instance. Just for starters, SS is going to have to have an eligibility age increase and a means test. This will extend it for quite a while. But there is little hope for real Medicare savings short of cutting benefits. If that happens, it will start with the oldest and sickest. How likely are we to accept that? Well, then, what do we do when there is no money left for Uncle to borrow? That day will come if we don't get realistic. The only party even pretending to be realistic right now is the Republican Party, and their willigness to discuss the pain is just used as political ammunition by the Dems to scare voters. How do we ever get out of this vicious cycle? Payday is going to be hell when it comes.

[c6vettedude]

Perhaps Republicans and Conservatives throughout the country don't really care. Could that be why they didn't come out and vote?? You ARE fooling yourself if you think that things would be different if a Republican was in office.

Also, as long as you're talking about those #'s with regards to welfare for the average citizen, then I guess know one cares about the TRILLIONS in welfare that is given to corporate?... not Republicans anyway.

[Dadman1950]

Originally Posted by Front Runner

Junkman,

I think those articles are spot on and describe the way I've been feeling about the republican party for quite some time.

On election night at each campaign headquarters in Boston and Chicago; I couldnt help but notice the racial demograhic breakdown at both places.

The Chicago crowd appeared to be very diverse and all racial demographics were well represented, while I saw nothing but whites in Boston. I looked very hard when the new cameras swept the crowd just to openly observe but I just didnt see any at all. If there were any minorities there, I must have missed them.

Just an election night observation, but I wasnt the only one who noticed it...............

Whether the Republicans can learn from this stunning defeat is the question. What you say above about the demographic makeup of the audience is absolutely a rerun of the audience after the McCain/Palin debacle. You would think they would have learned something from that. Someone in that party has to wake up and look around.
And it needs to start in Congress right now. Compromise is a first step but it seems like most Republicans are digging in far a confrontation. If they do, barring some unforeseen circumstance , they will in all liklihood not only lose the next election but lose the house as well as the senate!

[c6vettedude]

Originally Posted by Dadman1950

Whether the Republicans can learn from this stunning defeat is the question. What you say above about the demographic makeup of the audience is absolutely a rerun of the audience after the McCain/Palin debacle. You would think they would have learned something from that. Someone in that party has to wake up and look around.
And it needs to start in Congress right now. Compromise is a first step but it seems like most Republicans are digging in far a confrontation. If they do, barring some unforeseen circumstance , they will in all liklihood not only lose the next election but lose the house as well as the senate!

[walleyfisher]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

Perhaps Republicans and Conservatives throughout the country don't really care. Could that be why they didn't come out and vote?? You ARE fooling yourself if you think that things would be different if a Republican was in office.

Also, as long as you're talking about those #'s with regards to welfare for the average citizen, then I guess know one cares about the TRILLIONS in welfare that is given to corporate?... not Republicans anyway.

I hope you tune in when Obarrycare kicks in full force and then after the taste left, you tell me again having a Pub in office today didn't matter much

[the machine]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

I hope you tune in when Obarrycare kicks in full force and then after the taste left, you tell me again having a Pub in office today didn't matter much

Walley....one thing that would go a long way toward a republican resurgance, would be for republicans to stop believeing the doom and gloom that they make up to scare us into voting for them. So many of the horrors that you feel about what democrats will do are no different than what republicans would do. We tell ourselves that our national debt is killing the country and our children will be screwed, but of course the debt just didn't matter when the pubs were in office, and of course our national debt is not realy any worse than after WWII, but if the pubs told the truth about that then we could spend to spur the economy as we should now and make a solid plan to pay down the debt over time as we did after WWII. If we spent now on repairing the infrastucture of this country we would start a very strong recovery that would also set us up to better compete in the world tommorow. But because we pubs say that there should be no spending when we are not in power, we hold the country hosatage and just piss the people off more. The people can see the truth....the only people we are fooling is ourselves.

[walleyfisher]

Originally Posted by the machine

Walley....one thing that would go a long way toward a republican resurgance, would be for republicans to stop believeing the doom and gloom that they make up to scare us into voting for them. So many of the horrors that you feel about what democrats will do are no different than what republicans would do. We tell ourselves that our national debt is killing the country and our children will be screwed, but of course the debt just didn't matter when the pubs were in office, and of course our national debt is not realy any worse than after WWII, but if the pubs told the truth about that then we could spend to spur the economy as we should now and make a solid plan to pay down the debt over time as we did after WWII. If we spent now on repairing the infrastucture of this country we would start a very strong recovery that would also set us up to better compete in the world tommorow. But because we pubs say that there should be no spending when we are not in power, we hold the country hosatage and just piss the people off more. The people can see the truth....the only people we are fooling is ourselves.

So all I read from this is you are in denial.

We have never had this much Debt with no economy. We have never had medicare, welfare and now Obamacare draining our resources. We have never had a President of the United State promoting class warfare like this. I also don't remember when our boarders mean nothing to our law makers like they do today. I have never seen a government broke and still going full speed ahead on more spending. So if you are expecting me and people like me to lay down and take it you are dumber than Biden

[Poncherello]

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

Next you're going to be claiming that SNL is a news show.

Would that be any different than the ones here who claimed they got their news from comedy central?

[the machine]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

So all I read from this is you are in denial.

We have never had this much Debt with no economy. We have never had medicare, welfare and now Obamacare draining our resources. We have never had a President of the United State promoting class warfare like this. I also don't remember when our boarders mean nothing to our law makers like they do today. I have never seen a government broke and still going full speed ahead on more spending. So if you are expecting me and people like me to lay down and take it you are dumber than Biden

Take your head out of the oven, my friend. We have had many worse times than we do today. Things will get better. Far less people are crossing our borders today than when GWB was in the whitehouse. And spending is far lower too. I don't expect you to lay down and take it, but it would help immensly if you realy understood what was going on. And anyway.....what are you going to do????? The election is over and we lost. We can cry like babies and hold our breath. We can even push the house to block anything Obama does.....but I think that would just mean less power for the pubs next election and even less after that.

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

So all I read from this is you are in denial.

We have never had this much Debt with no economy. We have never had medicare, welfare and now Obamacare draining our resources. We have never had a President of the United State promoting class warfare like this. I also don't remember when our boarders mean nothing to our law makers like they do today. I have never seen a government broke and still going full speed ahead on more spending. So if you are expecting me and people like me to lay down and take it you are dumber than Biden

There are two sides to every story and you've squirted out your side. But what about the other side of the moon, the other shoe dropping or as Paul Harvey would say, "The REST of the story?"

The pubs and the dems like to use these scare tactics to win votes or push their agenda. This time around, it didn't work for the pubs. But then, maybe it did. Check out this story...


Police: AZ Woman Runs Over Husband for Not Voting

GILBERT, Ariz. - A Mesa woman critically injured her husband by running over him with an SUV during an argument about the presidential election, police said.

Holly Solomon, 28, was upset about President Barack Obama's re-election and began arguing with her husband when she found out that he didn't vote, authorities said.

Daniel Solomon, 36, told investigators that his wife believed her family was going to face hardship as a result of Obama's election to a second term.

During the argument, Daniel Solomon got out of the SUV and gave his wife a dirty look, according to a police report obtained by Phoenix television station KPHO. That's when she started chasing him through a Gilbert parking lot.

Police said he took refuge behind a light pole as she circled him numerous times while continuing to yell at him.

She struck him as he tried to run toward the road, pinning him between the SUV's underside and a curb, police said.

Holly Solomon told police that she was trying to scare her husband by stopping the vehicle close to him but she accidentally stepped on the accelerator and struck him.

Daniel Solomon remained in critical condition Monday.

There were no signs Holly Solomon was impaired. She was booked on an aggravated assault count.

Holly Solomon had no listed phone number, and it wasn't clear whether she has a lawyer.

Witnesses reported hearing yelling before Holly Solomon got into the SUV. Several people also called 911 to report seeing a man get run down in the parking lot.


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...WIRE/121119854


So the pub's message is getting through to some people but I don't think that story is the reaction that the pubs are wanting. The gloom and doom story is already beginning to look untrue as unemployment numbers are improving, albeit at a slow pace. The economy is slowly turning around and I don't believe that there is anything that anyone could have done that would have turned it around any faster. Add to that, who wants to be around all that negativity?

Originally Posted by the machine

Walley....one thing that would go a long way toward a republican resurgance, would be for republicans to stop believeing the doom and gloom that they make up to scare us into voting for them.

BINGO.

Originally Posted by Poncherello

Would that be any different than the ones here who claimed they got their news from comedy central?

I'd say that would be the same exact thing.

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by the machine

Far less people are crossing our borders today than when GWB was in the whitehouse.

That's because their were actually JOBS for them during Bush's teneur.

Originally Posted by the machine

And spending is far lower too.

Some body is delusional.

Originally Posted by the machine

I don't expect you to lay down and take it, but it would help immensly if you realy understood what was going on. And anyway.....what are you going to do????? The election is over and we lost. We can cry like babies and hold our breath.

I'd say either you'r head is up your ass or you don't understand what is going on.

Originally Posted by the machine

We can even push the house to block anything Obama does.....but I think that would just mean less power for the pubs next election and even less after that.

I say the House should give the Senate and Obama everything they want. Fuck it! Spend ALL of China's money. Let the FED print like there is no tomorrow.

Then we can see who takes control in 4 years.

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

Let the FED print like there is no tomorrow.

Then we can see who takes control in 4 years.

The FED has been doing that since the 70's. No news there. And that has been a major contributor to why we are where we are now.