obamacare

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Both the banks and the people who took the loans are responsible for the results of those loans. Still doesn't answer my question about lack of self reliance compared to when? The 1920's? 1970's? 2005? People throw out this crap without backing it up.

Since I've only been around since the 70's, I'll use the 70's through 90's as my measuring stick.
RIJimmy and Justplugit have already made the case, but clearly you don't get it. It's easy enough to see that there are more people on government assistance than there were in the past 40 years. Even someone as clueless as you could look that up. While some really need it, many people are on it because to them, it beats hard work. I also see it almost daily in my job. People get hired and work just long enough to be eligible for government programs. Then, they ask me to type them up a letter so they can get welfare, etc... This is a fact. I've had people tell me that's why they quit or got fired.

[striperman36]

I'm not in a position to write that letter for anyone, if I was I couldn't do it. That's the unfortunate truth, it's easier to get a 'kiss in the mail' than work for it, sometimes it even pays more.

I've heard many people say it's their money and the deserve it.

Unfortunately, I guess myself and others can't sleep playing the system like that, and we're the one's getting squeezed.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by fishbones

It's easy enough to see that there are more people on government assistance than there were in the past 40 years. Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Graph shows monthly benefits in 2006 dollars.

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Amazing statistics It appears (because it doesn't have adequate labeling) to be average monthly benefit per person, not total gvt outlay. It would be nice if it really showed something useful...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

Amazing statistics It appears (because it doesn't have adequate labeling) to be average monthly benefit per person, not total gvt outlay. It would be nice if it really showed something useful...

Label didn't show up. Value of monthly benefits adjusted to value of dollar in 2006.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Might want to check your numbers there mr. elightened. Sometimes people aren't as smart as they think, others may not be as clueless as you think. The population today is much larger, but all things equal, less welfare today than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Just as I thought, you throw crap around without knowing what you are talking about. I understand you get upset if someone has a different view of things than you, but you might benefit from actually looking at the numbers rather than going on your "feelings"

Graph shows monthly benefits in 2006 dollars.

And there you have it. The childish, uninformed response I was waiting for. You pick and choose your statistics to suit your weak argument. I'm not sure why you use only welfare statistics when I never mentioned welfare? I guess it's because it was the only graph you could find that worked for you? Since the 1970's there have been more and more government assistance programs introduced. Some of these programs got people off welfare and into a new or different assistance program. You need to take a broader, more informed look at things before popping off.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I was just going to add him to my ignore list because his comment was so ridiculous, but decided I might miss out on some really crazy, moonbat sh1t that he posts in here.

Originally Posted by fishbones

Even someone as clueless as you could look that up.

Originally Posted by fishbones

And there you have it. The childish, uninformed response I was waiting for. :

Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?

[zimmy]

The strange thing is that the conservative side usual lambasts liberals about basing their view points on "how they feel". That is much of what I see from the other side in these pages. Lots of perceptions and feelings and little factual basis or based on distortions of the truth. The discussions would have more value if the argument was that taxes shouldn't be raised on the wealthiest to pay for others health care or the amount of government assistance is too high. The argument that people are less self reliant than the 1970's or 80's is nearly impossible to back up with any data and is based on a personal perception rather than reality. Putting JFK up against that woman though is an amusing way to make the argument, though

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Might look at your own responses before you throw out the childish charge. There are more people today, so it is irrelevant to the discussion to point out that there are more people on government assistance. Also, ther people did not make your point for you. I asked you directly and you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your point. Here is another inflation adjusted graphic that covers social insurances and public assistance. Do you have anything to back up your statement or are you only going to give circumstantial evidence of what you "see at work"?

I never claimed that I'm not childish. There are a lot of people on this site that would verify that I'm about as childish as it gets.

As for your statistics, you post these graphs that back up your position, which is all well and good. What you don't post is a graph showing a state by state breakdown of state assistance to families. In 1996, Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.

Also, you need to look at the size of families when you compare numbers from the 70's to present. Benefits are paid out based on the number of people in the family receiving them, and the average family size has decreased since the 70's. That would also help to explain the decrease in dollars per family being paid out.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Clinton signed a bill taking much of the federal assistance money and allocating it to the states for state run assistance programs. There's a huge amount of state $'s going to families on these programs. Why don't you look it up.

Medicaid costs and CHIP are included in the second graph and they are definitely a concern. I will agree 100% on that. However, the reality is that those costs have grown astronomically with increase in costs for health care, not that people are less self reliant. The problem needs to be approached from the perspective that the rise in costs make the programs unsustainable, which gets lost in the argument when it is approached from the angle that people rely on the government more today than ever. It may cost more today, but a huge number of the people that receive assistance work 40 hours a week in low paying jobs that do not offer health care. The problem starts with the lack of good jobs and the insane rise in costs in medical care. 40 years ago if you were a laborer for Bethlehem Steel or in a textile mill, you had health coverage. Those jobs are gone. I have heard the same argument about lazy no good bums living off the government my entire life and to say it is worse now is factually untrue. Medical assistance and heating assistance cost more, and the economy tanked, so these are major issues that need to be addressed as much now as ever.