patrick.net

indigenous says

The welfare argument is somewhat related.

No, it's really not. You haven't made any connection between welfare and voter ID fraud (or welfare and undocumented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants and voter ID fraud), much less a weak connection. Just a bunch of hand-wavy stuff that doesn't logically flow together. And that's just how weak your case is with the distraction.

With the primary argument, you haven't done anything.

corntrollio says

No, it's really not.

Yes it really is. In Calif 1/3 of the welfare is going to 12% of the population there is something that does not reconcile. This is caused by the tyranny of the democracy in other words politicians buying votes and immigrants.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

When reducing one's expenses to fit a budget, the biggest wasteful spending must be addressed first.

That would be the entitlements.

Clearly not from the raw data available at usgovernmentspending.com. I know you want it to be because you don't give a crap about social safety nets, but its just not true.

The largest expense has been the $16 trillion bank bailout sited above. The second largest expense is warfare spending.

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire. And Social Security is damn popular.

Eight in 10 Americans think Social Security has been good for the country, with 70 percent of young adults agreeing and almost nine in 10 senior citizens saying the same.

Rew says

That becomes a judgment on whether the military and current wars are more or less wasteful than the social programs we have.

America has received no benefits from the past 13 years of war. In fact, terrorism is on the rise as a result of that warfare. Meanwhile, we have lost basic human and civil rights and human dignity and completely trashed our national reputation. Finally, these wars have left America impotent in fighting back against Russia's aggression in the Ukraine and the genocide in Syria.

Even if all social programs were 100% wasted, they would still be less wasteful than our warfare spending simply because warfare spending has negative consequences.

One last thing about entitlement spending. Even if you don't care about American children being malnourished and subjugated to a lifetime of poverty they have no hope of escaping, social safety nets keep your family safe by reducing the number one cause of violent crime, abject poverty. A man who has nothing to lose will rob you at gunpoint for enough money to feed his family. And that is why you should support social safety nets even if you don't care about anyone else's family.

In contrast, warfare spending beyond 10% of what we are currently spending has no benefits for our society and, in fact, makes us less safe by promoting war profiteering and the instability that comes with that. As long as war is big business, big business will ensure that there is war.

indigenous says

Yes it really is. In Calif 1/3 of the welfare is going to 12% of the population there is something that does not reconcile. This is caused by the tyranny of the democracy in other words politicians buying votes and immigrants.

Where is the connection to voter fraud other than your saying so? Politicians buying votes (even if true) with favorable policy has nothing to do with voter fraud that voter ID laws would protect. Hand-waving doesn't work here.

And of course, if you read your own article, you'd see some other explanations that have nothing to do with non-existent voter fraud:

California by far spends more than any other state on welfare. But broken down on a per-capita basis, the story is a little different.

That overall figure amounts to $179 annually for every man, woman and child in California. That trails New York ($256) and Hawaii ($233).
...
Take Texas for example. For every 100 families below the poverty line there, only six receive assistance, she said. In California, 66 of those below the poverty line are helped.
...
CalWORKS’ Bland said historically the state has been committed to a “safety net for children of parents who either cannot or will not help themselves.”

Caroline Danielson, a policy analyst who tracks welfare issues for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, said the unconditional support for children is “a pretty rare policy in the country as a whole.”
...
Policy experts say California’s large rolls are the byproduct of numerous factors: sheer size, tough job market and sheer numbers of single-parent households, among them. The state has nearly 30 percent of the nation’s one-parent welfare families.

ohhhh..look at that! 3rd grade playground humor!
hear ya go...."I'm rubber your glue, words bounce off me...shit sticks to your fist"...
wait, that doesn't sound right...oh yeah. you didn't learn the 'fist' stuff until you were 13 going on 6.

sbh says

Limpy,

Single Bitch Hoe,
You are right. I do want to ask you where you came out of.
But yesterday, when I tried to look, it was like pulling apart a grilled cheese sandwich..

sbh says

If you really want to ask me out just go ahead and get it over with

corntrollio says

Where is the connection to voter fraud other than your saying so? Politicians buying votes (even if true) with favorable policy has nothing to do with voter fraud that voter ID laws would protect. Hand-waving doesn't work here.

The only thing a politician cares about is election. This is empirical and true, this is observed by observing what politicians do, not what they say.

Earlier we were talking about gerrymandering, this is a legal practice but none the less allows the politician to pick his constituents rather than the way it should be, that the constituents can pick there representatives. In my opinion this practice is fraud none the less.

Catering to the tyranny of the democracy is also fraud as they are co-opting the constituents to the process. "Free" or reduced cost healthcare is a
co-opting of the voters.

Paying public employees at the FED level twice as much as their private sector counter parts is co-opting voters. IMO is voter fraud.

Calif pays public sector workers more than any other state this is co-opting voters and IMO fraud. This was done by Jerry Brown allowing the collective bargaining for the state employees. Even FDR said he would not allow this as it was going to far.

Obama bailed out GM and their retirement plan and at the same time telling the bond holders to pack sand, who were legally at the front of the line in bankruptcy. This was nothing more than buying votes it was illegal and fraud

corntrollio says

Policy experts say California’s large rolls are the byproduct of numerous factors: sheer size, tough job market and sheer numbers of single-parent households, among them. The state has nearly 30 percent of the nation’s one-parent welfare families.

The sheer size has come about by immigration, as the Calif natives have left in droves for retirement or better employment, as business has left the state in droves, which has led to one of the highest unemployment rates.

The high percentage of one parent families is also a result of incentives to remain that way. The Mexicans have a higher percentage of this because they don't want to lose their benefits.

If you think none of this buys votes you are smoking dope.

control point says

I just renewed my passport, it cost $110. Would you change the burden of cost to the issuer if making a passport a requirement to vote?

Social security card is free, I don't see why they can't make passports free.

in your words, Weak...weak...and more weak...
get back to me when you have insults of substance.
It's still your turn.....

sbh says

SoftShell says

sbh says

Limpy,

indigenous says

the 1/3 and 12% is hard not to find

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

It's not hard to find but the ut didn't bother to say where the number came from. The 15% comes from the federal government. I'm pretty sure they know how much they spend. California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments. Any other convoluted number you can scare up from any random website is meaningless. Weren't you the guy who was just bragging about how he looked at the facts?

A friend of mine posted on a patriotic Facebook link that praised dogs used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The link said something like "salute our war heroes." My friend made what appeared to be a factual post, saying that they were just dogs, and didn't have a grudge against the Iraqis or Taliban. They didn't know any better. The amount of vitriolic e-mails he received in response was shocking. Folks claiming that the dogs did indeed hate the bad guys, that they were true patriots. Lots of threatening posts. Unbelievable, but true. Knuckledraggers who cannot tolerate contrary viewpoints. Cannon fodder for the front lines, except these folks are all talk, and would likely run.

bob2356 says

It's not hard to find but the ut didn't bother to say where the number came from. The 15% comes from the federal government. I'm pretty sure they know how much they spend. California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments. Any other convoluted number you can scare up from any random website is meaningless. Weren't you the guy who was just bragging about how he looked at the facts?

Show me the link to your numbers

No comment on my last post?

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

indigenous says

Show me the link to your numbers

No comment on my last post?

sure.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend
California 15% of federal, 19% federal and state combined. Long way from 33% and not very far off population and wealth numbers by state.

What's to comment on about your last post? You are agreeing with my earlier comment that voter fraud is virtually all at the state capital level.

I'm still waiting for some kind of reasonable explanation from anyone how and why illegals would vote in large enough numbers to affect an election. Lot's of ducking on dodging on the question from all the people screaming about it.

zzyzzx says

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

You don't pay into medicare and unimployment insurance? How is that?

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Finally, entitlements like Social Security are called entitlements because people spend their entire working life paying into the system, so they are entitled to get benefits when they retire.

That's really the only entitlement that people actually earn, except for all the deadbeats on Social Security "Disability" AKA the new welfare.

Total Social Security Disability spending for 2013 was less than $150 billion. See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2019USb_15s6li111mcn_02f

That's about 18% of what was spent on warfare that year. So even assuming that 100% of Social Security Disability was fraudulent, it would still be peanuts compared to the waste created by war profiteering. And compared to the bank bailout I mentioned earlier, total SS Disability spending isn't even a rounding error.

If you were truly concerned about the money rather than politics, you wouldn't even think about SS Disability while the bank bailouts haven't been clawed back and the warfare spending hasn't been cut by at least 90%.

And all of that doesn't even take into account the fact that there is no evidence that SS Disability fraud counts for more than a few percentage points of the total budget. And that many of the people on SS Disability are vets who got their disabilities in wars. The best way to decrease the need for SS Disability is to stop funding warfare.

bob2356 says

California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments.

Your chart shows 49 billion?

bob2356 says

What's to comment on about your last post? You are agreeing with my earlier comment that voter fraud is virtually all at the state capital level.

That is what got me thinking and prompted me to post # 199

bob2356 says

I'm still waiting for some kind of reasonable explanation from anyone how and why illegals would vote in large enough numbers to affect an election. Lot's of ducking on dodging on the question from all the people screaming about it.

Controlio made that point. My point is that votes are bought through welfare and gerrymandering and things like Obama bailing out GM while taking care of the union pensions and fucking the bond holders.

Dan8267 says

The largest expense has been the $16 trillion bank bailout sited above. The second largest expense is warfare spending.

Hi Dan,
is this $16t an actual expense? that would be a lot given that the fed budget is around $3t. I thought that there were $16t of loans given to banks, but, they are mostly paid back. And many of the loans were short term, even overnight. Fed lends $2m to a bank for short term cashflow and gets paid back the next day.

for sure there was a bank bailout, and banks can borrow money at 0.25% in a way that normal people can't. Pros and cons. But I am not sure that there was actually $16t handed to the banks.

SiO2 says

is this $16t an actual expense?

According to Forbes, the $16 trillion is an under-reporting of the expense. The actual figure was higher.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

However, even if all of these were paid back, the banks got to paid interest on this money created out of thin air. And we, the taxpayer, flipped the bill for this interest. Additionally, the currency debasement effectively transferred a lot of wealth to the banks. So this bailout, which is pure corporate welfare for corporations that behaved badly, is way more than any abuse done by the common poor person. And the moral hazard is far greater for letting these banks get away with their criminal behavior.

So, the point is that a person who is concerned about not wasting the finite financial resources of our nation, would be far more concern with this big expenditures than the tiny amount of fraud in social safety nets. When budgeting, you eliminate the largest wasteful spending first.

I suspect that conservatives aren't upset about the money wasted, but about who gets the money, wasted or not. They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off. Of course, they are completely ignorant as many people on these social programs are white families and veterans.

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts

Nope!

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off.

Not true

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts

Nope!

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

They are fine with big corporations getting huge bailouts, but the idea of a black guy getting a hand up out of poverty pisses them off.

Not true

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

Actions speak louder than words. I'll believe that conservatives truly believe in the free market when they stop subsidizing farms and big oil.

Dan8267 says

I suspect that conservatives aren't upset about the money wasted, but about who gets the money, wasted or not.

Where you wrote "conservatives," I think you meant Republicans. Both major parties have become imperial patronage networks, and complain only when the opposing party wastes money on the opposing network. Democrats lament the expense of the Iraq war, Republicans lament the expense of Obamneycare, but neither side acknowledges its own role in the bipartisan consensus to maximize spending including bailing out TBTF bankers.

BTW, in the aftermath of the 2000 election debacle, a bipartisan commission favored voter ID laws, provided that voters could get the ID at no cost. The commission included former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State and Treasury James Baker. Neither of them is usually called dumb. President Carter had to overcome voter fraud that would have cost him his first election to state Senate, in 1961, and the Carter Center supervises elections around the world. In recent years, voter ID laws have been used by Republicans trying to disenfranchise Democrats, and Democrats have responded stupidly by saying the laws are unnecessary, instead of saying voters should have access to free ID. More than a decade after 2000, Americans continue to rely on a system that many people mistrust: electronic ballots in Ohio with no paper record, voters with no ID, and so on; the risks grow higher as more states decide to cast their electoral votes whichever way the national popular vote goes, for example if Ohio casts 10 billion invisible electronic votes for Richard Daley or Richard Nixon.

Dan8267 says

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

The choice between R and D is sort of like head or gut?

The Rs are just as much whores as Ds.

I think if it were possible to for Ls to get publicity they would take from both parties.

But the Soros' ilk make too much money from things the way they are, dumb asses like you are happy to have your world colored as they tell you it is colored.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

California spends 25 billion in welfare of the 146 billion in welfare payments.

Your chart shows 49 billion?

Go to the line that has the totals. I've carefully pointed out the difference in federal and state. Let's try again. Federal only is 25 billion of 146 billion. State and federal combined 48 billion of 250 billion. That's 15% vs 12% population for Federal only and 19% combined which is more generous but California is also one of the wealthiest states. These are in my head numbers so it could be off a percent. Both those numbers are still a long way from 33%.

indigenous says

Controlio made that point. My point is that votes are bought through welfare and gerrymandering and things like Obama bailing out GM while taking care of the union pensions and fucking the bond holders.

Welfare and GM bailout are small potatoes. A hell of a lot more votes were bought (and campaign contributors paid back) with obamacare (the health insurance increased profitablilty act) and medicare D (the pharmacucital increased profitability act) if you want to talk federal level. Not to mention almost unlimited corporate money being thrown around. Business outspends labor 15 to 1. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.php?cycle=2012 Without this huge spending advantage the republican party would be in deep trouble. Troll through opensecrets.org sometime. The numbers are pretty interesting. Of course we all know those billions of dollars corporations are spending only represent free speech and don't have any affect on legislation whatsoever.

Dan8267 says

Then why do you always vote for politicians who unquestioningly support corporate welfare and bailouts for big banks?

Well Obama and the dems are spearheading the TPP-the biggest free trade zone evah. It will allow corporations to supersede national laws and of course not a single banker went to jail-I think a few years ago Obozo was praising Goldman. Then of course there is the NSA.

I think many voted for Obozo and the dems because they were tired of the status quo. But what they got was not just more of the same-but turbocharged more of the same. if there is someone who seems a bit more true-I would vote for him/her irrespective of their positions on other issues-because this country is in deep trouble. But alas-do not see anyone-perhaps it is time for the American empire to go down. A nation found on the ideals of freedom, now throws more people in jail than any nation on earth-what else can you say.

bob2356 says

Welfare and GM bailout are small potatoes.

Not when it comes to buying votes.

bob2356 says

hell of a lot more votes were bought (and campaign contributors paid back) with obamacare (the health insurance increased profitablilty act) and medicare D (the pharmacucital increased profitability act) if you want to talk federal level.

No doubt, I'm not a R. Not to mention the Lawyers who are staunchly democrat. Anyway O came up with the billion dollar ante.

bob2356 says

Of course we all know those billions of dollars corporations are spending only represent free speech and don't have any affect on legislation whatsoever.

The same thing goes for unions. I don't see in your numbers how much it cost to give jobs away that pay twice what the free market. A number that surely dwarfs the 1.27 billion the R spent in your chart, the Ds are at 883 million are not nothing on this line item.

lostand confused says

Well Obama

Obama is a republican in everything but name.

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

Dan8267 says

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

So was Don Quixote.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Support Elizabeth Warren. She's visibly fighting the corporate take-over of America and the rest of the world.

So was Don Quixote.

Don Quixote is a fictional character. Warren is a U.S. senator.

Dan8267 says

Warren is a U.S. senator

Actually she is not that bad except that she is economically illiterate.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Warren is a U.S. senator

Actually she is not that bad except that she is economically illiterate.

ElizabethWarren
- Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law
- Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Author of
-- The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke
-- The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt
- U.S. Senator

indigenous
- some random Internet troll

Yeah, I'll go with Warren.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, I'll go with Warren.

You do that.

Warren is wrong with regards to her mantra regarding the war between income quintiles. As I have said many times the quintiles are not occupied by the same people for very long. Secondly she does not realize that the driver in a lower household income is simply divorce.

I might forgive her as she was indoctrinated at Harvard as was Obama (cronies?). But Harvard creates statists.

But your highly degreed Lizzy doesn't address these two common sense points.

I have a point which does not agree with yours but I do not argue for the sake of arguing.

The fact that conservatives are so scared of her is enough to give immense credence to Warren. I've never seen a more visceral reaction from the right to the mere possibility of a person gaining political power. Now that's fear.

Here's what a conservative looks like when he imagines Warren as president.

She's coming. She's coming to get you.

I put you in a two day tailspin twisting in the wind...and this is the best you can come up with?
Still your turn. Try again.

sbh says

SoftShell says

get back to me when you have insults of substance.

C'mon, Limpy, give us some credit.

with you in a tailspin? YES!
sbh says

Counting the days, hmmmm?

Eject the LongJohn from your lips and with a little luck your vowels may self-correct.
sbh says

Oh somebody's got his wittle knickews in a twist.

No. I plan on telling Everybody here.

sbh says

you can tell yourself you put me in two week "tailspin"

I know...you can have her back now...I'm tired.
sbh says

But your balls are still in momma's