RE: Mitt Romney

RE: Mitt Romney (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 7:31:27 PM)
FR The "octomom" does sound like a mess. I'd been happily unaware of her. Can't help wondering: Should she have aborted? Also, I'm curious about who paid for her IVF, which is not cheap and (I think) falls outside the scope of insurance. ETA: Naturally, another question arose just after I posted. How typical is this lovely lady of welfare recipients--or anyone else, for that matter?

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 7:51:51 PM)
In terms of how common she is, DC, thankfully, I think she's a one of a kind, fucked up bitch. The Dr. who got her pregnant with the octuplets lost his license over it. What she is accused of doing though, is a very typical for fraud. She earned money, and didn't report it to the welfare dept.

dcnovice -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 8:21:31 PM)
quote: What she is accused of doing though, is a very typical for fraud. She earned money, and didn't report it to the welfare dept. As we saw in another thread, there's a keen, sometimes heartbreaking, tension between the worthy goal of encouraging independence and the civic need to prevent double-dipping. Resolving that lies, alas, far beyond my ken.

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 8:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice As we saw in another thread, there's a keen, sometimes heartbreaking, tension between the worthy goal of encouraging independence and the civic need to prevent double-dipping. Resolving that lies, alas, far beyond my ken. And there is a worse unintended consequence than that, DC. Too often, the people who most desperately need help simply don't have the skills and perseverance to get through the hoops of the process, and wind up getting nothing at all because they don't meet some reporting requirement. Meanwhile, those who view welfare aid as a birthright and the family business are working every angle, and first in line for every pilot/test program that comes along.

Lucylastic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 9:44:38 PM)
no I actually know about it Rich..there you go assuming things.. I stand on what I said. her case is extra extraordinary.. a feeble attempt at best. Have you heard about ..Benefits Street"??? have a look its a brit program, talking about a street in the UK where a huge number of them are on benefits... sensationalism everywhere... We had always had class warfare...the only difference from a hundred years ago, is that they actually dare to have housing,,,and money for fags n boooze. Oh an DONT forget healthcare....that sucks Not dying in workhouses or on the streets better than they deserve <end sarcasm> In other news, the top 85 "earning" people(according to forbes) are worth more than 3 billion people.. no outrage there. still hoping to get there or grab a slice of it?

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/23/2014 10:12:55 PM)
C'mon, Lucy. US welfare is enough of a mess for me, and I don't get my knowledge base from programs on the telly. Besides, I generally don't comment on the domestic policies of countries I don't live in. (Plus, I'm basically on dial-up for maybe another week - no Netflix.) Octomom may be an extreme individual and famous, but her alleged crime was a clear answer to Tweak's snark about welfare participants who manage to have some very nice things. No, most recipients don't have advertisements and media coverage when they go out to earn some cash. When it comes to welfare fraud in the grand scheme of things though, earning money and not reporting it is a leading method.

cloudboy -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 7:21:01 AM)
What I take from the recent posts is the following: (1) When I can't refute the weakness of the cuckoo Republican brand, I'll simply bring up deadbeat welfare recipients. The problem here is that the democrats adopted and got on board with welfare reform a long time ago. (2) changing the subject by re-routing anger to a different, unrelated target is a simple case of avoidance. This is what happened with bridge gate, the republican answer was Benghazi. Avoidance and logical fallacies will simply lead to more election losses. Mention Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum, and Herman Caine and the response is "well, undeserving shitheads are on welfare." Mention skyrocketing health care costs, a broken immigration system, income inequality, the sadness that is the drug war, and the needs for environmental protections and you hear NOTHING. The rage and blame machine doesn't problem solve.

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 8:39:41 AM)
FR Actually, Cloudboy, I thought the initial premise for the thread had been exhausted, And we were just moving along to some tangents before it died.

cloudboy -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 11:13:11 AM)
I'll tell you this, if republicans had their way with abortion laws, there'd be a legion of new OCTO MOMS. It is all part of their great incoherency: cut the deficit by upping military spending, cutting taxes, and eliminating NPR.

Estafania -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 2:52:42 PM)
ok but mitt loves bunnies :D

graceadieu -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 9:45:18 PM)
Watching the movie right now. It's interesting-ish. Not sure how authentic all the behind-the-scene stuff actually is, and how much is for show. Romney seems like a decent guy - personable, in the way a decent manager is, if you know what I mean. He seems a lot more likeable than how he presented in the campaign. But on the other hand... I think it's easy to be a decent guy to the people you're most comfortable with, and people in your socioeconmic level. The real test is how you treat people who are different from you or have less power than you.

graceadieu -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 9:52:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Meanwhile, those who view welfare aid as a birthright and the family business are working every angle, and first in line for every pilot/test program that comes along. No matter what system humans can devise, there are always going to be people trying to cheat it. In my experience, some people would rather spend an hour scamming someone out of $3 than work for an hour and earn $8, they just get a thrill out of getting away with something. I'd rather give benefits and just accept that 1% of recipientswill be scammers than to let the other 99% go hungry.

graceadieu -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 9:58:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Righties love their rrevisionist bull flop. For example.... the left put the 47 percent bull shit in his mouth.......?? In what dimension. They did show that in the movie, though it was only addressed in the context of something that hurt his chances - the guy dying the film didn't ask him about it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 10:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu I'd rather give benefits and just accept that 1% of recipientswill be scammers than to let the other 99% go hungry. Yeah, I think we could live with that. I'm guessing though, that you missed the investigation that turned up 40% fraud in the cell phone benefit. We don't have a 1% situation with fraud and abuse, and we are not doing the best we can to aid the participants who are not gaming. I think it is right and proper for a nation such as ours to have safety net programs, but the system needs some dramatic reforms.

graceadieu -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/24/2014 11:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu I'd rather give benefits and just accept that 1% of recipientswill be scammers than to let the other 99% go hungry. Yeah, I think we could live with that. I'm guessing though, that you missed the investigation that turned up 40% fraud in the cell phone benefit. We don't have a 1% situation with fraud and abuse, and we are not doing the best we can to aid the participants who are not gaming. I think it is right and proper for a nation such as ours to have safety net programs, but the system needs some dramatic reforms. I hadn't heard that about the phones, but from what I've read 1% is the fraud rate for food stamps. There has to be some verification, but I'd rather err on the side of helping people.

DomKen -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/25/2014 12:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu I hadn't heard that about the phones That's because it's a bogus claim. When the FCC tightened the rules in 2012 41% of the 3 biggest carriers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or failed to respond at all. However the only way to get the phone in the first place was to be enrolled in one of the eligible programs so the papers claims are suspect unless the phone companies and not the supposed customers were committing a knowing fraud. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888?mod=ITP_pageone_0&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html%3Fmod%3DITP_pageone_0 So just like all attacks on so called "welfare" it is much less than it appears.

TheHeretic -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/25/2014 6:45:39 AM)
Why do you tell so many dumb lies, Ken?

mnottertail -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/25/2014 6:52:57 AM)
as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service. Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped. A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification. The program, which is administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., has grown rapidly as wireless carriers persuaded regulators to let people use the program for cellphone service. It pays carriers $9.25 a customer per month toward free or discounted wireless service From the article, there is the gravamen.

MrRodgers -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/25/2014 8:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice As we saw in another thread, there's a keen, sometimes heartbreaking, tension between the worthy goal of encouraging independence and the civic need to prevent double-dipping. Resolving that lies, alas, far beyond my ken. And there is a worse unintended consequence than that, DC. Too often, the people who most desperately need help simply don't have the skills and perseverance to get through the hoops of the process, and wind up getting nothing at all because they don't meet some reporting requirement. Meanwhile, those who view welfare aid as a birthright and the family business are working every angle, and first in line for every pilot/test program that comes along. What happens in most jurisdictions is one needs a fixed address in order to receive any benefits and many of the long term poor (homeless) don't have one. In the county I just left back east, the county govt, would provide their post office box for a fixed address so people could get SSI and SS and as far as I know...'free' phone...even medicaid and medicare, Look this country has millions that are very poor and almost unemployable and yes, they are continually dependent on whatever govt. benefits they can get their hands on. However, the amount of money in big subsidies, tax credits and tax advantages offered to the rich who are the vast majority of those that can take advantage...is countless billion$ more than what the poor get and trust me, they live in a culture of dependency and entitlement, while they are not job creators or risk takers. Corporate and capitalist welfare is strong as it ever was and is still growing while welfare for the poor is weak and shrinking.

DomKen -> RE: Mitt Romney (1/25/2014 8:30:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Why do you tell so many dumb lies, Ken? You're the one who chose to make a claim that was patently untrue.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375