The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

From a pragmatic point of view the ammount of money saved from not putting weed smokers in jail and prison outweighs sometimes using welfare money to buy weed at a regulated shop.

That would be one of the three reasons states are legalizing pot: An average of at least $40K per year per prisoner for jail and prisons, when it could be adding $100 million into state coffers makes it a no-brainer decision.

 

[verbster]

Well, that's just the start of it, just suggesting they might want to....nip it in the bud. :p Sorry, had to go there. I wou ld agree with you, it is something that has ticked me off for years. I know of examples where people have used the money for tanning. Misuse of the program is widespread, but relatively unsupervised. I recall one study that suggested as much as 2 billion each year from the SNAP program is used on soda pop and candy. Our government could require reporting of that, but they do not, because stores that accept SNAP cards whine that giving out that information about their sales gives their competitors am advantage. The real reason, imo, is that the soda and snack lobby do not want the American populace to be aware of how much tax money is being funneled into their industry. The EBT cards are just another venue for abuse, a good idea that has become an unsustainable entitlement.

I don't understand why a core list of necessities aren't drafted and encoded on EBT, SNAP and other social support cards and only those core products' bar codes would be purchasable. Allowing cash withdrawals is too much temptation. Grocery stores would still make their money even if soda and doughnut sales were not allowed. Of course, in a matter of days there would be an app out to confuse and bypass the card coding and disguise a six-pack of hard cider to look like a gallon of milk.

 

[RogueWriter]

Yeah, 'milk' sales would skyrocket 40,000%, lol. I don't agree that not putting pot smokers in jail is going to save any money... there will be increased health issues, long term effects of weed lowers ambition, less personal growth which means they are more likely to end up on welfare rather than earning their own living, it's just a bad idea. All of our health plans will cost more because of course any weed caused cancer or heart disease will need to be covered, and the percentage of smokers is about to skyrocket. But, there are enough numbnuts in power now that are willing to legalize it in order to remain in power, so it will pass. There's no guidance from the top to restrain them anymore; Obama is not exactly a bastion of moral character on the issue. He will probably be the first one to light up in the Oval Office if it passed nationally. Well, okay, the second one.

 

[verbster]

Yeah, 'milk' sales would skyrocket 40,000%, lol. I don't agree that not putting pot smokers in jail is going to save any money...

Well, we're spending a minimum of 10 billion each year just on prison and jail housing. Throw in just a few things like law enforcement and the costs increase rapidly.

there will be increased health issues,

Not really. Since the 60's revolution, millions upon millions have smoked pot regularly, and I've not heard of major health costs associated over the last 50 years.

long term effects of weed lowers ambition, less personal growth which means they are more likely to end up on welfare rather than earning their own living, it's just a bad idea.

Sounds like you've been watching reruns of Reefer Madness or something. If what you said were true, at least some of my friends from college should have ended up on welfare. None have. Neither have I. Didn't seem to affect ambition or personal growth, either.

All of our health plans will cost more because of course any weed caused cancer or heart disease will need to be covered, and the percentage of smokers is about to skyrocket.

The medical studies I've read don't agree with you. Once again, where is the weed caused cancer and heart disease from smokers over the last 50 years? What makes you think the percentage is about to skyrocket. There are already 25 million regular smokers.

But, there are enough numbnuts in power now that are willing to legalize it in order to remain in power, so it will pass.

If people vote to legalize pot, that's simply democracy in action.

There's no guidance from the top to restrain them anymore;

Restrain them from what? Carrying through the will of the people? Or do you mean there's no guidance to make them see things your way as the right way?

Obama is not exactly a bastion of moral character on the issue. He will probably be the first one to light up in the Oval Office if it passed nationally. Well, okay, the second one.

Not a bastion of moral character? Because he smoked pot and admitted it? Jeez. That's a pretty narrow measure of morality, but wait, he was elected President of the United States by a majority of US voters. How's that for personal growth and ambition?

 

[eyedomainous]

Truth is, there are very few healthy food options in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. Supermarkets, with fresh produce, are rare. Dime stores and liquor stores dominate, so yes Food Stamps are frequently spent on soda, chips and cigs.

Beyond that reality, one's freedom of choice is not lost because they get food stamps or financial aid. People have the right to buy what they want, for whatever reasons... even if others don't understand.

Cigs can have psychological effects that may help some relax when stressed.

A few years back, I helped someone who was on welfare for years, stay off the street with a sizeable cash gift. While I had, and shared, my ideas of what they should do with the money... I also stressed the fact that this was now Their money, and as an adult, its their decision.

Long story short, she "blew" the money on a new car... costing $600 a month in payments, even with 4K down. Insurance cost another $300 a month (she had a DUI). Today, she has two jobs, is in college, and has not missed a payment. Turns out, the new car is what she needed to motivate her.

So be it candy, cigs, a tan or a new car, don't underestimate the positive psychology of 'rewards' shopping. People, especially poor people, sometimes need to 'reward' themselves, when shopping... in order to feel good about themselves.

The fact that there are people who would to deny the poor, even a soda -because they bought it with food stamps, reflects a form of impoverishment money can't lift them out of.

Just like I don't believe food stamps should be used to buy cigarettes, welfare money shouldn't be used to buy pot.

I would agree with you, it is something that has ticked me off for years. I know of examples where people have used the money for tanning. Misuse of the program is widespread, but relatively unsupervised. I recall one study that suggested as much as 2 billion each year from the SNAP program is used on soda pop and candy. Our government could require reporting of that, but they do not, because stores that accept SNAP cards whine that giving out that information about their sales gives their competitors am advantage. The real reason, imo, is that the soda and snack lobby do not want the American populace to be aware of how much tax money is being funneled into their industry. The EBT cards are just another venue for abuse, a good idea that has become an unsustainable entitlement.

 

[iowadawg]

Legalize Pot!
There is too much real information out there that says it aint bad.
And from what I gather, vaping the bud is super for those with all sorts of medical problems and constant pain.
Take a pain pill that may kill you?
Or a few sippies from the vape?

 

[RogueWriter]

Truth is, there are very few healthy food options in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. Supermarkets, with fresh produce, are rare. Dime stores and liquor stores dominate, so yes Food Stamps are frequently spent on soda, chips and cigs.

Beyond that reality, one's freedom of choice is not lost because they get food stamps or financial aid. People have the right to buy what they want, for whatever reasons... even if others don't understand.

Cigs can have psychological effects that may help some relax when stressed.

A few years back, I helped someone who was on welfare for years, stay off the street with a sizeable cash gift. While I had, and shared, my ideas of what they should do with the money... I also stressed the fact that this was now Their money, and as an adult, its their decision.

Long story short, she "blew" the money on a new car... costing $600 a month in payments, even with 4K down. Insurance cost another $300 a month (she had a DUI). Today, she has two jobs, is in college, and has not missed a payment. Turns out, the new car is what she needed to motivate her.

So be it candy, cigs, a tan or a new car, don't underestimate the positive psychology of 'rewards' shopping. People, especially poor people, sometimes need to 'reward' themselves, when shopping... in order to feel good about themselves.

The fact that there are people who would to deny the poor, even a soda -because they bought it with food stamps, reflects a form of impoverishment money can't lift them out of.

Well, you know what, I'd be willing to bet those dime stores would start stocking fresh food if that's the only thing their customers could buy with the billions of dollars that are put into the program each year. I don't buy the whole 'Hey the neighborhood is impoverished so they have to buy potato chips to survive' arguments.

Second, I'm not denying them the ability to buy chocolate so they can feel good about themselves. I just want to deny them the right to use MY money to buy chocolate for themselves. I have two kids in college, and am accumulating debt to the tune of 23K a year. Two more years and maybe the financial bloodletting will ease up on me, but that's a long time for a 50+ year old guy to put in the hours I am putting in. Why should people like me have to buy candy bars and soda pop for millions of people? Cause I can tell you right now, if my taxes got lowered for a change, I would start to feel slightly better about my position, which pretty much sucks right now. If you count my day job, helping my wife at night with her business, and my affiliate programming in the middle of the night instead of sleeping, I'm working 3 jobs, 7 days a week, with maybe 3 days off every month, averaging 5 hours of sleep at night; I'm a heart attack waiting to happen. So, I really, really have no sympathy for someone who is choosing not to work wanting to buy a soda pop on my dime.

My mom had a very simple philosophy on how to raise a child, it consisted of six words. "Hard enough, low enough, soon enough." That may sound harsh, but the truth is mom was a very gentle soul. I got paddled, once, when I was really young and asking for trouble. The ground rules were set, I understood the ground rules from that point on, and I grew up into a responsible adult that contributes to society. I think that same philosophy would get a large percentage of the generational welfare class into the work force. You may think that is unfeeling, but the truth is, that would do more to help them than coddling them for generations will ever do.

Speaking of work, I am off right now - 9:25pm - to go make two more batches of caramels, and cut /wrap a batch I made last night. Should finish up about 12, then 1 hour to add a few more pages to LosAngeles.supply, in bed by 1 and up at 6. The only candy I'm going to eat tonight will be a couple caramels that I made with my own hands.

 

[eyedomainous]

Produce does not have the shelve life of Chips, soda, cigs. And, fresh produce cost more... so being impoverished does dictate what one buys... even if you don't 'buy it'.

But, I know how you feel. I don't like the thought of my hard earned money going to feed cattle grazing on gov grass. Some don't like to feed the military... and so forth.

But, as mentioned, once you pay for something, including taxes, its no longer "your money", its "our money". Once the Gov pays it out, it no longer 'our money', its Their Money.

I understand you work hard, and come from a hard working family... and that that shapes your outlook. Try to understand that this 'generational poverty' you speak off has a lot to do with people who no longer believe the "hard work ethic" because of centuries of hard work with no pay. In addition to coming from families that don't even know their real names... and that this shapes their outlook.

 

[iowadawg]

Fresh produce cost more?
Not according to the grocery stores around here.

 

[GILSAN]

Well, you know what, I'd be willing to bet those dime stores would start stocking fresh food if that's the only thing their customers could buy with the billions of dollars that are put into the program each year. I don't buy the whole 'Hey the neighborhood is impoverished so they have to buy potato chips to survive' arguments.

Second, I'm not denying them the ability to buy chocolate so they can feel good about themselves. I just want to deny them the right to use MY money to buy chocolate for themselves. I have two kids in college, and am accumulating debt to the tune of 23K a year. Two more years and maybe the financial bloodletting will ease up on me, but that's a long time for a 50+ year old guy to put in the hours I am putting in. Why should people like me have to buy candy bars and soda pop for millions of people? Cause I can tell you right now, if my taxes got lowered for a change, I would start to feel slightly better about my position, which pretty much sucks right now. If you count my day job, helping my wife at night with her business, and my affiliate programming in the middle of the night instead of sleeping, I'm working 3 jobs, 7 days a week, with maybe 3 days off every month, averaging 5 hours of sleep at night; I'm a heart attack waiting to happen. So, I really, really have no sympathy for someone who is choosing not to work wanting to buy a soda pop on my dime.

My mom had a very simple philosophy on how to raise a child, it consisted of six words. "Hard enough, low enough, soon enough." That may sound harsh, but the truth is mom was a very gentle soul. I got paddled, once, when I was really young and asking for trouble. The ground rules were set, I understood the ground rules from that point on, and I grew up into a responsible adult that contributes to society. I think that same philosophy would get a large percentage of the generational welfare class into the work force. You may think that is unfeeling, but the truth is, that would do more to help them than coddling them for generations will ever do.

Speaking of work, I am off right now - 9:25pm - to go make two more batches of caramels, and cut /wrap a batch I made last night. Should finish up about 12, then 1 hour to add a few more pages to LosAngeles.supply, in bed by 1 and up at 6. The only candy I'm going to eat tonight will be a couple caramels that I made with my own hands.

Great Post. You deserve a minimum of 10 likes and a lot of success in life.

Unfortunately Family values and honest work ethics are being thrown out of the window, especially in the US.

All that money being spent on lazy people could be better spent on helping people going to colleges without being left with massive student loans that will financially strangle many families for many years.

 

[Domainace]

Unfortunately Family values and honest work ethics are being thrown out of the window, especially in the US.

A Chinese friend told me how pervasive Mao's Little Red Book was in China when she was still a girl. When she had family fights with her mother or sister, it was normal for them to yell back "Mao says that (whatever) so you are wrong and I am right!" They would often be holding the book when they said this stuff, as it had all the answers for everything, no matter how small or personal. These were family fights, with nobody listening in. The Red Book basically superceded the family, as family values were competition to government power.

 

[DU]

n/m

 

[verbster]

Unfortunately Family values and honest work ethics are being thrown out of the window, especially in the US.

What and who determines good family values from bad ones?

All that money being spent on lazy people could be better spent on helping people going to colleges without being left with massive student loans that will financially strangle many families for many years.

How is giving four years of free taxpayer money to a bunch of 18-22 year olds going to teach them the "honest work ethic" you complain is being thrown out the window? Besides, I'd have thought giving free taxpayer money, paid in by those with "honest work ethics" to welfare recipients or college students a form of socialism that you normally ascribe to liberals.

 

[GILSAN]

What and who determines good family values from bad ones?

Non-Liberals obviously. Look how Looney Libs have screwed up society.

How is giving four years of free taxpayer money to a bunch of 18-22 year olds going to teach them the "honest work ethic" you complain is being thrown out the window? Besides, I'd have thought giving free taxpayer money, paid in by those with "honest work ethics" to welfare recipients or college students a form of socialism that you normally ascribe to liberals.

You're very good at twisting things around. Who the f-ck said they should go to college to learn "honest work ethic". Is there such a course in universities?.What I said is, take that money from the lazy asses and put it to help students through their college years.

 

[RogueWriter]

Produce does not have the shelve life of Chips, soda, cigs. And, fresh produce cost more... so being impoverished does dictate what one buys... even if you don't 'buy it'.

The stores are more likely to stock chips over fresh fruit because there is a higher margin on junk food, and because SNAP is being given to many who are working the system rather than needing food; it's a bonus of sorts, something they use for their snacks. I've seen people buying 2 liter bottles of soda and chips as they head to a party, using their snap card. I've seen people buying t-bone steaks. I've seen people arguiong about why their snap card should cover their 5 hour energy shots ( eight of them ) because the shots are drinkable. If, however, billions of dollars could only be spent on fresh fruit, the stores would find a way to replace the chips, that would not be an issue. A delivery system is not the issue. It is purely about profit.

The other problem is that our government is not responsible with money, so it's not really 'my money' they are taking, it is our grand childrens' future earnings. I'm not entirely sure what monetary source our grand children are supposed to use to administer THEIR government when the time comes a couple of decades from now, we will have already spent every dime that will ever be created. Maybe they will trade fruit for chips. -shrugs-

 

[eyedomainous]

I agree with you about the profit motive. And, Michelle Obama agrees with you on Gov spending so store owners in poor areas can carry more fresh fruit. While its not in the 'billions', the First lady's 'Healthy Food Financing Initiative' has so far given $500 million in tax credits. But, many are addicted to junk food so even when available folks often choose Doritos.

Also, consider, the average monthly SNAP benefit per person was less than $1.50 per person per meal, hardly enough for an adequate nutritious diet. But Republicans in Congress thought that was too much, so cut it to $1.40 per person per meal, in Nov. 2013.

Ironically, ranchers pay $1.35 a month to graze one cow and her calf, or five sheep or goats -- several times lower than the cost of grazing on private lands. Its all-you-can-eat for animals, yet only 5% of that meat goes to American dinner tables.

Note: The last time the BLM moved to raise the fee to $4, Republicans were outraged, which prompted the firing of then BLM Director Jim Baca, in '94, -- and the fee was dropped to the minimum the Forest Service and BLM can legally charge: $1.35 -- where it has been ever since.​

And, this year... the House of Representatives passed a bill that would extend public lands grazing permits from 10 to 20 years, exempt ranchers from some environmental review, and restrict the ability of environmental groups to sue over grazing plans.

The poor are fed far worst than cattle, sheep and goats... as none of them 'go to bed hungry'.

http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/r...g-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html

Finally, when it comes to food stamps the Gov is "responsible" with the money:

"SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011. The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high.

http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fi...-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx

 

[verbster]

Non-Liberals obviously. Look how Looney Libs have screwed up society.

You're very good at twisting things around. Who the f-ck said they should go to college to learn "honest work ethic". Is there such a course in universities?.What I said is, take that money from the lazy asses and put it to help students through their college years.

yeah, those darn liberals sure have messed things up. How dare they support civil rights . . . or national parks . . . or museums . . . I mean what kind of people would put stuff like clean water and child labor laws ahead of someone's profit margin? Who would want stuff like social security, public schools, public libraries and such?

Speaking of twisting things around. . . Please take another look at what was written. What I wanted to know is how will giving free taxpayer money to college students teach them about honest work ethic? Doesn't matter if it's welfare recipients or college students, giving either money that they didn't earn is subsidizing them.

 

[Theo Goodman]

yeah, those darn liberals sure have messed things up. How dare they support civil rights . . . or national parks . . . or museums . . . I mean what kind of people would put stuff like clean water and child labor laws ahead of someone's profit margin? Who would want stuff like social security, public schools, public libraries and such?

Regardless if so called liberals or conservatives supported "X"
All that stuff sounds good, but it was all funded by thieft. If a thief feeds his family by using stolen property is that good?

Verb asks:

verbster Who would want stuff like social security, public schools, public libraries and such?

WIth all respect, who asked me if I wanted "all that stuff"?

 

[RogueWriter]

Also, consider, the average monthly SNAP benefit per person was less than $1.50 per person per meal, hardly enough for an adequate nutritious diet. But Republicans in Congress thought that was too much, so cut it to $1.40 per person per meal, in Nov. 2013.

Finally, when it comes to food stamps the Gov is "responsible" with the money:

"SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011. The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high.

Part of this Democrat controlled congresses mismanagement would be the way they allow snack goods and soda pop to be purchased using SNAP funds, without statistical reporting. It would be very easy for the government to require any corporation that accepts SNAP money to generate a detailed report as to sales. Showing which items were purchased with these funds would end any question at all as to the usefullness of the program. But, our government does not do that. The argument used for not generating those reports is privacy concerns for the corporations; they suggest it would be an unfair advantage to their competitors to see what they are selling, even though the government could collate these reports anonymously.

The real reason, I suspect, is that lobby groups for the soda and snack industry does not want Joe Public to see that $2-$4 billion of SNAP money is being spent in their niches every year.

For some reason, the democrat controlled congress thinks it is important for them to know when someone looks at pollups in your intestines by sticking a hose up your butt, but they don't want to know if people are spending billions of government money on junk food and soda pop.

So no, government is not being responsible with SNAP money, or they would be generating analytical reports on how every user purchases milk, bread, fruits, vegetables and ground beef with the funds.

 

[RogueWriter]

yeah, those darn liberals sure have messed things up. How dare they support civil rights . . . or national parks . . . or museums . . . I mean what kind of people would put stuff like clean water and child labor laws ahead of someone's profit margin? Who would want stuff like social security, public schools, public libraries and such?

-Civil rights: On a percentage basis, more than 80% of republican congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act, while just over 60% of the Democrats voted for the Act's passage. I do wish liberals would get their facts right as to civil rights activism in the 60s. I know, the idea that republicans were more active than the democrats in civil rights issues does not fit snugly into the wacky liberal revisions of history, but you need to at least try to be objective. If not, the next thing you know, liberals will be saying Lincoln was a democrat.

( oh wait, my bad, that already happened: )

-Social Security: I would be rich now, if I could have put that same amount of money into a savings account and allowed it to accrue interest without the government screwing around with how much of it they think I deserve back. Seriously, I would not have worked a 23 hour day last Saturday, nor 16 hour days since. I would be retired, polishing my vintage wooden Chris Craft on a lake front cottage. But no, liberals want me to work until I am at least 70 so that their voting block can continue to whine about a lack of opportunity while not actually accomplishing anything in their lives. Then, of course, liberals want me to die immediately, so I do not actually get some modicum of revenue back from my vestment.

-Water: Given that Republicans drink water too, this is a fallacy to throw something like that out.

-Public Schools: Republicans obviously want public schools, but they also want those schools to actually teach students. Liberals are more interested in schools as a source of union revenue than they are in doing what is right for the children. Name an industry, other than teaching, where you can slack off for years and not get fired. -crickets chirping-

-Child labor laws: You mean like slavery, which a Republican led administration ended in our country.