Ryan: Obama 'sowing social unrest'

[Pirate_Talker]

In the case of the New York office of ACORN, the “New York Communities for Change (NYCC) – which is led by a former ACORN official.”

“…New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names…”

Did you not read your own link?

so anyone who gets a job now, and had previously worked for acorn, is now starting a new acorn? Wow!! this is serious stuff!! I’ll alert the media.

 

[rlg94086]

so anyone who gets a job now, and had previously worked for acorn, is now starting a new acorn? Wow!! this is serious stuff!! I’ll alert the media.

:yawn:

 

[Pirate_Talker]

:yawn:

typical right wing response. Nice talking to you, but I’ve had enough fun for one night. God bless

 

[rlg94086]

typical right wing response. Nice talking to you, but I’ve had enough fun for one night. God bless

Indeed. You’ve made me grow tired, as well. I can only read so many irrational posts before I doze off.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

As for the rest of the programs, we all accept the fact that government at each level must exist and be responsible for a certain amount services to provide to the taxpayer. It’s unfortunate that people can not see that the problems with socialist programs manifest when the highest level of government controls them and uses them in ways that they are not meant to be used. Local officials know better than to abuse taxpayer money. Federal officials could care less.

I think your cynicism towards the Federal government is misplaced. The Federal government doesn’t directly disperse tax payer dollars for “socialist programs” (with the exception of SS); it merely allocates the funding to the States. Its the individual States and municipalities which are responsible for dispersing those tax payer dollars to eligible recipients so, if there is a problem with the abuse of those funds, the blame lies squarely with State and local officials. It basically works as follows:

Federal Government: You! Here’s some money. Fund this program with it.

State Government: Yeah, what they said! Except we’re going to do it the way I decide.

Municipality: Ok.

The Federal government only spends money, in terms of these programs, on paper. Its the States which spend it in practice and they abuse those funds all the time.

 

[rlg94086]

I think your cynicism towards the Federal government is misplaced. The Federal government doesn’t directly disperse tax payer dollars for “socialist programs” (with the exception of SS); it merely allocates the funding to the States. Its the individual States and municipalities which are responsible for dispersing those tax payer dollars to eligible recipients so, if there is a problem with the abuse of those funds, the blame lies squarely with State and local officials. It basically works as follows:

Federal Government: You! Here’s some money. Fund this program with it.

State Government: Yeah, what they said! Except we’re going to do it the way I decide.

Municipality: Ok.

The Federal government only spends money, in terms of these programs, on paper. Its the States which spend it in practice and they abuse those funds all the time.

Wow. That simple?

Even if it was, it’s hardly efficient. How much money is wasted from taxpayer to Feds to State to Municipality?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Wow. That simple?

That is the process in a nutshell.

Even if it was, it’s hardly efficient. How much money is wasted from taxpayer to Feds to State to Municipality?

I agree, it is inefficient. The States and municipalities should be cut out entirely and the Federal Government should implement these programs directly.

 

[rlg94086]

That is the process in a nutshell.

I agree, it is inefficient. The States and municipalities should be cut out entirely and the Federal Government should implement these programs directly.

:doh2:

You apparently have no clue about bureaucracies and their inefficiencies. That, and the offense to human dignity, when those bureaucracies treat people as numbers. Sad.

 

[Raskolnikov]

:doh2:

You apparently have no clue about bureaucracies and their inefficiencies. That, and the offense to human dignity, when those bureaucracies treat people as numbers. Sad.

I suppose you consider not being treated at all to be preferable. By your logic, you realize, patronizing a branch of pretty much any fortune 500 company is to insult one’s own dignity, as well as te dignity of the workers. Or do private sectors treat consumers and employees as full human beings while just those evil governments treat them as numbers? Do you know any McDonalds employees? Ask them please if they think McDonalds Corporation cares for them and their dignity.

 

[rlg94086]

I suppose you consider not being treated at all to be preferable. By your logic, you realize, patronizing a branch of pretty much any fortune 500 company is to insult one’s own dignity, as well as te dignity of the workers. Or do private sectors treat consumers and employees as full human beings while just those evil governments treat them as numbers? Do you know any McDonalds employees? Ask them please if they think McDonalds Corporation cares for them and their dignity.

You’re comparing private business to government? Nice.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

To you, maybe.

That’s exactly the point. When I say that the President doesn’t represent me, it isn’t because of me, but because he chooses to represent an ideology I find revolting. He makes no attempt to be representative of everyone, and has even gone out of his way to say that people who don’t think like he does are “the enemy” or “stupid”.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That is the process in a nutshell.

I agree, it is inefficient. The States and municipalities should be cut out entirely and the Federal Government should implement these programs directly.

Why don’t you just move to Venezuela and leave the process of limited, self-government to the adults.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you admit that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, a transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

No, it’s not a ponzi scheme, that’s a rediculous notion.

SS is not an investment program, never was never will be. It’s a retirement program for those who are in their retirement years, and a saftey net for those who unfortunately become disabled and unemployable.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Correction, he is the President of the American Democrats.

Hmm, last I remembered, he was elected President of the United States, not just president of American democrats.

Jim

 

[gnjsdad]

I suppose you consider not being treated at all to be preferable. By your logic, you realize, patronizing a branch of pretty much any fortune 500 company is to insult one’s own dignity, as well as te dignity of the workers. Or do private sectors treat consumers and employees as full human beings while just those evil governments treat them as numbers? Do you know any McDonalds employees? Ask them please if they think McDonalds Corporation cares for them and their dignity.

One of the problems with libertarians is that they make meaningless distinctions; in this case, the distinction between government and large corporations (you mention McDonald’s but a couple of score others can be included) and banks.

As someone who has watched this economic debacle unfold, one thing is crystal clear to me: to the extent that government can be blamed for anything it is for the FACT that it has become the tool of powerful private interests. The revolving door between government and the private sector, the way they move from one to the other, is so obvious to me, that saying we live in a plutocracy is stating the obvious.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Hmm, last I remembered, he was elected President of the United States, not just president of American democrats.

Jim

Well then he should start acting like it. He should have started acting like it 2.5 years ago.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, it’s not a ponzi scheme, that’s a rediculous notion.

SS is not an investment program, never was never will be. It’s a retirement program for those who are in their retirement years, and a saftey net for those who unfortunately become disabled and unemployable.

Jim

So, if its not an investment program, in which you have ea realistic notion of seeing a return on the investment of your money, but rather funds from new contributions are used to pay off the commitments of people who put into the system first IS the classical definition of a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

One of the problems with libertarians is that they make meaningless distinctions; in this case, the distinction between government and large corporations (you mention McDonald’s but a couple of score others can be included) and banks.

As someone who has watched this economic debacle unfold, one thing is crystal clear to me: to the extent that government can be blamed for anything it is for the FACT that it has become the tool of powerful private interests. The revolving door between government and the private sector, the way they move from one to the other, is so obvious to me, that saying we live in a plutocracy is stating the obvious.

Libertarians know fascism when they see it, and that is the current economic model in place in the United States.

Look it up for yourself. Fascistic Corporatism, although a case can be made that it more closely resembles sydicalism. But we do not have free market capitalism in this country anymore and haven’t since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. To claim that we do is to admit ignorance of history and economics.

Here is a good working definition of fascist corporatism:

Fascism’s theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This method, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of putting this model into place.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So, if its not an investment program, in which you have ea realistic notion of seeing a return on the investment of your money, but rather funds from new contributions are used to pay off the commitments of people who put into the system first IS the classical definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Web Definition: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by.

SS doesn’t fraudulantly take people’s money with the promise of a higher return on their investment.

SS is a retirement program funded by SS taxes.

There is a difference.

Jim

 

[rlg94086]

One of the problems with libertarians is that they make meaningless distinctions; in this case, the distinction between government and large corporations (you mention McDonald’s but a couple of score others can be included) and banks.

As someone who has watched this economic debacle unfold, one thing is crystal clear to me: to the extent that government can be blamed for anything it is for the FACT that it has become the tool of powerful private interests. The revolving door between government and the private sector, the way they move from one to the other, is so obvious to me, that saying we live in a plutocracy is stating the obvious.

A) I’m not a libertarian

B) You really don’t see a meaningful distinction between government and private enterprise?

One is funded by tax dollars, so we, as voters, get to determine the best way to use our money. The other is a private enterprise, so we, as consumers, get to determine the best use of our money.

If a smaller, local business does a better job and cares more, than we can choose to patronize that business, rather than the large, bureaucratic company. We can, and do, regulate businesses where reasonable (sometimes, we go a little overboard). Outside of those reasonable regulatory measures, we let them run their business, as we should.

When it comes to government ventures, we the people get to decide what is best. Do you think that a bloated, federal bureaucracy best serves the people? I don’t. I think the state level is the highest we should go for items outside of the pervue of the Constitution. In many cases, the municipality is the best place - for example: police and fire.

Why is it important to liberals that social welfare be provided at the federal level?