The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Please Read: The choice 2012

Working as intended.

I hope this thought will comfort you while Romney guts what left of social nets and drives the economy into the ground, Bush-style, while giving out unfunded tax breaks to 1%-ers to re-invest into China.

Yes, both are through-and-through shit candidates, but Romney's potential to cause damage is much, much higher than Obama's. Plus with Romney there is a possibility of two terms (if Bush could, why not him?), with Obama we _know_ that in 4 years we will get someone who is NotObama and NotRomney next round. With Obama worst-case scenario is that things won't get any better, and in 4 years we are about where we are today and we get to try again with somebody new.

That argument re: Obama had more weight before Bernanke decided on QE:Infinity.

As far as social programs and safety nets, I dont see Romney doing much there. Its obvious he isnt going to go with the "Ryan plan" , and even then it was mostly medicare.... unless you count Obamacare as something necessary... but only the diehard left wing partisans even want it, so no loss there for most of us.

The *real* danger of a Romney Presidency, has nothing to do wwith social programs - Romenys pretty moderate in that regard truth be told, when it comes to actually governing ( he just had to swing right in GOP primary... yeah hes a liar, like most pols.. but hes still pretty moderate ) is the *WAR MACHINE*.

Increased military spending, soaring our fedgov expenditures.... we currently spend 800B/yr on military not counting wars and if Romney gets his way it will go over 1T. Not counting new wars, in places like Iran and Syria he is likely to start.

The idea that Romney will somehow take us back to a pre New Deal era (as nice as that might be) is a complete fallacy and just not accurate. The warmongering is,however, a legitimate concern.

I'd honestly prefer the warmongering to increased social programs. I'm sorry but I donate some money to charities, I don't need or want the government taking my money to give people who don't deserve it. Oh, and before you pill the elderly grandma and disabled vet cards on me, let me tell you about the mentally handicapped weed dealer i know.

He gets social security disability cause he can't work. He takes 90% of that money and buys weed with it. He then sells that weed to make more money then he was given. Now, i have no issue with the weed part of this. My issue is that after years of doing this he no longer needs the social security. He still gets it though.

Or how about a girl who works 3 jobs but all off the books and so she also gets food stamps and Medicaid?

Or the crackhead mom who uses her food stamps and welfare check to buy more rock?


I'm all for helping out grandma or vets. I'm all for a little unemployment for someone that's on the down and out, but 99 weeks of unemployment.... No! That just encourages them to not look sk hard right away cause the government is here to hold you.

Safety nets are bullshit. We need to get a bit more Darwinian and stop trying to save everyone. Some people need and deserve the help. Others are just going to take advantage, with no way to tell the difference until it's to late.

So Stubs, if you were to guess, what percentage do you think are tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads out of all social net recipients?

When you mention "get a bit more Darwinian and stop trying to save everyone", are you actually suggesting we let people die on the streets? Also, if we get more Darwinian, would you object if starving people committed crime to stay alive? If we speak in strictly-Darwinian terms do you think "I was starving to death" is justifiable defense for robbery? How would you reconcile that with the letter of law as it exists today? Last but not least, how much do you think it cost to the government to imprison someone and how does it compare to social spending in similar cases?

Please at least consider, if not reply, to these questions.

The Frontline report was pretty good and I agree with Jet, but I wish they had spent some time on third party candidates since PBS is basically the only venue willing to consider it. My choice is not presented here.

If I had to guess I'd say at least 50%, more if you count illegals. Dying in the streets might be a little much. I'm thinking more like, x amount of time on welfare or food stamps or whatever program. If you can't manage to find work after a set amount of time, your off. There are always feed the hungry/homeless programs, and I am willing to support those more if we cut the cash handouts. You can't take a hot meal to your dealer for your next fix.

It wouldn't hold up in a court of law but yeah, if I was starving and I couldn't find food id steal food or the money to get it.

I think it's something like 60,000 a year per prisoner but I'm mot 100% sure. Honestly unless were talking petty crimes, like minimum security 30 days kinda stuff then it should be no more then 10,000 a year. As for the worst it would be nice to not pay for them at all, cut off a rapists twig and berries, one bullet for a murderer and loss of hands for armed robbery. Things like that are a better deterrent then life in prison. At least you'd still have a bed, 3 squares, internet and cable tv. Not to mention gyms and libraries. That's better quality of life then some people that haven't committed any crimes.

So in hypothetical case where choice is welfare or crime and imprisonment, would you agree that welfare is cheaper for the taxpayer?

It depends on how long there in prison but yes, over a year I would think a prisoner costs more. Otherwise im going on welfare.

My problem isn't the social safety net itself sinij. My issue is with the people who abuse it. If you need help fine, here's some money. I fully expect you to pick yourself up after a time. It is a safety net, to catch you when you fall, it is not there to hold you forever and always.

Stubs, abuses do exist, but they are minority. Your 50% estimate is off by at least 30%. Still, if we accept 50%, what do you suggest we do with 50% who do not abuse it, need it and will get thrown under them bus?

So what is more important to you, helping people who need and deserve it or punishing those that abuse it?