Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
NewsMeBack
6470 Followers
I_Keeps_It_RealFeb 1, 2012
They should also ban welfare funds at shooting ranges
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
I think the conservatives, republicans, and libertarians here would agree 100%.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Nope. Obviously one of them disagrees.
superkendallFeb 1, 2012
Who? Sounds like a good idea. Welfare should be for necessities, Strippers and Firearms both are not "necessities".
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Don't know who, it's whoever buried the OP for the remark.
vectorbFeb 1, 2012
Good, they have spent way too much time passing jobs bills. Im sure that the taxpayer time and money that the Republicans are wasting by writing and trying to put this through, is way less than the number of $1 from unemployment making it down the g-strings of strippers.
rocannonFeb 1, 2012
Hey, if someone is caught using their welfare that way, just permanently reduce their welfare by the amounts involved. With any luck they will eventually "self reduce" their welfare to ZERO.
classydaveFeb 1, 2012
I'd back that - as long as ANYONE that draws an income from the taxpayer is subject to the same laws.
And I'd OK drug tests for welfare recipients - as long as every politician passes FIRST.
laurahoustonFeb 1, 2012
Same holds true for Gov. employees like GOP 'leadership' that we americans pay...no more strip clubs and 'topless' resorts to deduct as 'business/meals expenses'
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Yep. No taxpayer money for strip clubs. That means no more Senators or Congressmen, no more military.
I could support that.
johnnybrooksFeb 1, 2012
Do we really need a law for this?
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
Sadly, yes. We need to narrowly define how welfare money can be spent.
johnnybrooksFeb 1, 2012
Why?
chordonblueFeb 1, 2012
Because some people are greedy and stupid at the same time.
frumblerFeb 1, 2012
Why are you switching to talking about wall street now.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Because they're the ones teaching the rest of the country how to steal and not be accountable for it
bluenose2Feb 1, 2012
Congress members, Bankers, Oil Companies, wall street.....Ooops , they are just greedy.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
The problem is that you're narrowly defining "welfare."
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
I went to a Super Walmart to buy some groceries in the middle of the night not too long ago. My Walmart-sized shopping cart was pretty full. A guy approached me in the aisle and asked if he could buy my groceries on his welfare card. In return, I would give him the cash amount for the groceries, less $50 (my compensation for the transaction).
s**t like that happening is near impossible to crack down on. But not accepting government debit cards for certain frivolous transactions? That's a no-brainer.
adaguyFeb 1, 2012
So, you saved $50.00!
mlw4428Feb 2, 2012
Sounds like somebody who knew he had received too much welfare that month and tried giving it back to "the people" by doing some charity.
What's wrong with that? Also, did you accept the offer? Lastly, how would you "police" ATM transactions or Walmart purchases where you choose to receive cash back? Sounds like useless legislation to me!
ferretmanFeb 1, 2012
This honestly sounds completely reasonable.
rotfoxFeb 1, 2012
Definitely reasonable.
Being able to police this would be almost impossible though and if it were possible it would waste a lot more money than it's worth.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
Very easy to police, as the burden of not accepting the welfare debit cards is on the credit card processing companies. Zero cost to the government, too.
rednipFeb 1, 2012
Actually, it's nearly impossible to police as it would mandate that strip clubs (or other forms of adult entertainment depending on how it's written/interpreted) be classified as special case which may be rejected. The costs to the banks could be tremendous. Also the government would face various court challenges and all of the costs related to enforcement are not 'free'.
It's just another example of GOP grandstanding for the illusion of moral superiority. Typical.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
Every company that handles credit cards has an account representative from the processing company. It's up to that account representative to flag the business as a strip club.
Not allowing the government debit card to be used there is not a big deal; it's a checkbox in their software interface, where they check off all the cards that will be accepted (MC, Visa, Amex, etc).
Court challenges? Please. What judge is going to move forward on cases challenging this? Only the most nutty left wingnut judges, only to be quickly shot down by the next higher court.
Tremendous cost to the banks because welfare recipients can't go to strip clubs? I can't see it.
ageofmasteryFeb 1, 2012
And it will still accomplish NOTHING because anyone wanting to blow their money there will just hit the ATM at a gas station on the way....
rednipFeb 1, 2012
I had assumed earlier that the money was distributed using 'regular' debit card, but it's likely that they use the EBT cards given to food stamp recipients (the article, and you didn't mention specific type of card). However aren't there already rules as to where they can be accepted?
http://www.ebt.ca.gov/caebtclient/usebenefit.jsp
oh, yea.
Considering that the report which has that House Republican in a tizzy was from 2010, it looks like the state has already closed that 'loop hole'.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
Playing sex police instead of creating jobs...yep...sounds way reasonable. After all, that's gotta be costing the taxpayer more than millionaires and billionaires dodging taxes by hiding their money in other countries. You go, GOP. Stay predictable.
crashdvisFeb 1, 2012
You must not pay taxes. There is no way you would not care about this if that were your money going to make sure people who need hand outs get to go to strip clubs. I know I go to my stressful ass job every day to make sure these folks get free lap dances.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotFeb 1, 2012
Yes there is because they aren't giving me my money back in fact they are spending twice as much to watch the recipient and then arguing that this will at least stop that money from being wasted when in reality they will just get the cash elsewhere and go to a strip club. Nothing they proposed here will stop this abuse of the system. It's also an unfair portrayal of the majority in the system doing what is right.
I agree that it should be done but until you can propose a way that doesn't cost me or our government more money then you need to stop treating all the poor as if they are thieves and crooks. I also find it comical that conservatives say I can't regulate what a company does with their bailout money but we can do this when it's the poor. Why can't we do both? The argument against regulation is invalidated by silly conservative policy like this.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
A FB post I saw today said that "If the workers who earn the money for welfare have to take a urinalysis, the people who receive the welfare should also have to take a urinalysis".
While I know it would be a cold day in Hell before the Democrats would allow such a law to be passed, that's another law I could certainly support.
mlw4428Feb 1, 2012
There isn't a law required to piss test employees in most companies. Those companies CHOOSE to do so at their own expense and for their own reasons.
Just because some PRIVATE entity does something by CHOICE, it doesn't mean PUBLIC entities should be required to do so.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Meh. Florida already did it, and the one fact they got from it was that they spent millions more than they saved.
Gee, who could have seen that coming?
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
A real conservative wouldn't want this. Unless you're telling me you'd want everyone in the GOP Congress drug tested (since they and their families are being subsidized by the tax payer) too, right?
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
You wouldn't get any argument from me on that one.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
Great. So we start with Congress--because they should lead by example, right?
ncmusicFeb 1, 2012
No the bill in Indiana was withdrawn when an amendment requiring congressional drug testing was added.
superkendallFeb 1, 2012
Come on, who here does NOT think drug testing every Congressman, every day is a fantastic idea? In fact I don't think Congressmen should even be allowed to use a toilet, they should be hooked to tubes and EVERY output from them analyzed.
mtownFeb 1, 2012
They already tried this in some states and only 2% of the welfare recipients used drugs.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
They determined that running the tests would cost more money than would be saved by denying the few drug-positive welfare recipients money.
superkendallFeb 1, 2012
You mean only 2% of the drug users were stupid enough to use their own urine.
I'm against drug testing but lets not pretend the results are not easy to fake.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
You don't read, do you? Try thinking for yourself and ask yourself if this is just the GOP trying to capitalized on your misguided hatred for poor people again (because we both know they have SQUAT to say about all the rich people screwing you over for your tax dollars) or is this a REAL issue. Learn to read. Thanks.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
You patch the fraud and abuse loopholes where you find them. It doesn't mean that you don't care about other issues.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
LMAO. Right. And if your party just *happens* to favor the extremely wealthy, then there's no bias or conflict of interest as to where you focus your energies, right?
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
It does sound reasonable, I admit that. But there are simple ways around it and all this legislation will do is remove the convience of where the card is able to be used. If a person can take cash out of the ATM with these cards, they can stop on the way to the casino, strip club or liquor store. That is the point why people are against this. It doesn't stop the problem, it just makes it a little more inconvenient for the people manipulating the system.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
Some congressman was just annoyed because a welfare recipient was in his favorite seat at the strip club.
Seriously, if you are going to give people money, you can't control how they will spend it. If you want to make sure they use it to buy food, give them "food stamps" instead of cash.
Do you also want to prevent them from using the money for sporting events and movies? Do you want to pass a bill to prevent them from buying designer clothes? How about cigarettes and junk food? This bill is a really silly gesture, but the thought process behind it is actually scary.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
You can control it if their money is issued via a debit card.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
How about this. I have a one of these cards ( I really don't but lets pretend) but my friend has regular cash. Now we both want to get something to eat and go to the strip club. I tell my friend that my card wont work there and he tells me not to worry, you just pay for dinner for the both of us with your card and then I will pay for club.
What happens in that situation?
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
The moral moronity get their panties in a bunch and try to pass a bill where people using regular money can't go to strip clubs either. It's no less idiotic than any other bill they've tried to pass.
superkendallFeb 1, 2012
We throw both of you in jail for a year if found out?
That might make you think twice before agreeing to defraud the government.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
Prove it.
zjm9133Feb 3, 2012
You could be found guilty of bartering your EBT card, which in most states is illegal. However, most of them the benefits can only be used in certain establishments and supermarkets.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
I understand that the technology exists, but is that what we want to do? We are assuming that these people are adults that need some help, so we give them money; do we want to treat them like 12 year olds?
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
It seems for some people life just isn't worth living unless they can advocate for big government only when it serves their agenda. These people want to monitor every crumb that passes a poor person's lips but when it involves the military, they'll open the money spigot full blast and walk away.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
I'd be all for providing food in the form of limited quantities of rice, beans, flour, and potatoes. No one starves to death and if you want more than 4 items on your menu then you better get a job.
It's really hard to sell those 3 things to get enough money for a hit of any drug but I'm sure someone would still manage it.
.....and I don't mean "money for" those things, but give them actual food.
drcrankFeb 1, 2012
I'm betting there will be no restriction for using Senatorial pay in strip clubs.
reaper527Feb 1, 2012
completely unrelated.
at whatever job you have now, you can take your pay at the end of the week and go to a strip club with it. you can't go to a strip club and then expense your trip through your employer.
welfare is a benefit for a specific purpose, not free money to be used on whatever
mostieJan 31, 2012
I don't want to live in a world that won't let me have boobies when the chips are down.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
sounds okay but tough to do unless you bar cash from food cards. we'll see what the final bill is.
samthurstonFeb 1, 2012
I think we also need a law that forbids congresspersons from spending money in strip clubs. After all, that's my tax dollars you're spending you goddamn government-employee leeches.
Oh and can we drug-test them too?
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
Sorry. No can do. The GOP (with its near single digit approval ratings) told us that stalking poor people is more important than having the IRS go after billionaires hiding their income in other countries. And if the GOP says poor people are the scourge of the universe...well, it must be so. We can trust Republicans. They have no biases or possible ulterior motives. ;-P
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
Great pass the law that prevents the card being used at Strip CLubs, Casinos and Liquor Stores. I can quarantee you that the people receiveing these benifits will still find ways to spend that money in Strip Clubs, Casinos and Liquor Stores, very easily I might add.
mlw4428Feb 1, 2012
I love how when someone says something like "This is stupid and useless legislation because one would simply need to go to an ATM prior to going to a strip club or use one of the ATMs at the strip club." they just get buried by DPs without ANY attempt at arguing that point.
It's a perfectly valid point and a method that cannot simply be "policed." I know I'll just get buried because most DPs are too stupid to come up with an intelligent response, but let's face it...they're wrong. The GOP is just wasting time as they did when they "Reaffirmed the Nation's In God We Trust motto" which was in no danger of being changed.
GOP should change their name to the GWT = Giant Waste of Time.
jackkerouacFeb 1, 2012
Kind of like how idiots bring up Digg Patriots every time some idiot comment they make gets dugg down? You can come out from behind the couch - the Digg Patriots are not coming to get you!
ikorkyiFeb 1, 2012
i would love to see a "who dugg this" "who buried this" option with comments with some kind of analytics attached.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Yep. Me too. Won't happen though.
superkendallFeb 1, 2012
Yes, that would show clearly the effect of the Digg Hatriots, the liberal group that uses backchannel communication to bury (or vote) for stuff En Masse. While they are complaining about a small organization of conservative Digg users, they have a far larger and more organized group of Liberals doing the same thing...
ikorkyiFeb 1, 2012
its part of the southern strategy. it doesn't need to be factual or effectual, it just needs to stir up feelings of anger in their base.
jefffurryFeb 1, 2012
Total waste of time and money. More trouble than it's worth to implement.
Yet another unfunded mandate.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Yep. Hasn't been effective before, won't be now, BUT WILL cost more money than it could possibly save. Standard GOP policy.
novenatorFeb 1, 2012
Correct title: GOP builds another straw man
IF the cons really cared about improper use of money in government, they would support an end to revolving door lobbyists and serious campaign finance reform. As usual though, they're hypocrites.
austinjameshereFeb 1, 2012
I wonder how much money the GOP is going to waste trying to police this... I don't like the idea of people using welfare money to visit strip clubs, but let's be honest... a lot of companies which receive millions in corporate welfare use company money to wine and dine clients at strip clubs... Are they going to go after those fat cats too? Seems to me, the GOP is more concerned with going after the people who are getting crumbs, than the people who are stealing the majority of the pie.
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
No money needed to police it, as welfare is issued as a government debit card. Credit card processing companies would be obligated to follow the new rules, and not accept these transactions.
BluntzworthFeb 1, 2012
"Credit card processing companies would be obligated to follow the new rules, and not accept these transactions."
Why would they (the processing companies) choose to follow these rules?
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2012
I can't believe you're that naive. A card's not going to do anything. We're talking about men. Why are you pretending you don't know the lengths to some of us will go for some TnA? Men take enormous risks (look at politicians) for sex and they will figure out some some alternate form of currency (just consider what happens when men are locked behind bars).
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2012
I think it was past my bedtime when I typed this...;-x
mlw4428Feb 2, 2012
I imagine there would have to be some sort of fee required for those companies to do that extra work. You've YET to answer the issue with ATM withdrawals and/or "cash back" options at major retailers.
Cash is untraceable...please lemme know how you're gonna get around that, because with that little catch 22 your GOP's retarded ass "no strip clubs" law will be totally useless and just more costly.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
The government has way too many handouts - to both the rich and the poor and it should be taken care of on both ends.
breadfredJan 31, 2012
I notice a lot of digg-downs in this without rebuttal. It comes to mind that the GOP wants to imprint the opinion that people on welfare have enough money to go to strip clubs. Have they got any study that confirms this? Of course not. Please, let them study who visits strip clubs - AND their political leanings - and publish that data. I DARE YOU REPUBLICANS. I bet you the majority of people visiting strip clubs are Christian Republicans. In the Netherlands I think it is business men taking clients - taking them for a ride, so to speak. but in the States? Christian Republicans every time.
I WANT YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
Actually it's mostly men...........
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
Stupid men.... If I'm going to pay $5 or $6 dollars for a beer, I want a football game in front of it.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
If I'm at a strip club for beer, then apparently I do not understand the intended use of the product.
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
Um.. To watch a bunch of young kids wiggle their naked butt in front of you trying to get you excited... and then you are not allowed to touch?? No different than going to a restaurant to watch other people eat.
dauntless1Feb 2, 2012
Exactly.
Which is why the price of a beer in that strip club is meaningless. It's not why you're there.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2012
They aren't here to debate. They're here to spread propaganda and stroke one another over their misguided hatred for the poor.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
So you think that tax payers should be paying for strip club expenses now?
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
If we don't care when congressmen, senators and the military do it, then nope. Every one of those dollars are taxpayer money, different in NO way than what welfare recipients get.
Except that the welfare recipient has done more work than our current Congress.
kasha34Feb 2, 2012
Congressmen, Senators and the military are the same as welfare recipients?
dauntless1Feb 2, 2012
Why yes, for the purposes of this analogy, they are. They are all receiving taxpayer money, and the majority of them are doing NO WORK to earn it.
And yes, that includes the military. We have not mobilized any statistically significant portion of our military in decades, meaning the majority are warming barracks and wasting ammo at the range, all on NOT their money. Keep in mind, I'm not knocking the idea of compensating those servicemen actually in combat, doing their jobs. It's the 80+ percent of our military that is about as useless as t**s on a boar hog I mind.
kasha34Feb 2, 2012
So firefighters who are training and preparing most of the time are like Welfare recipients as well?
crom99Jan 31, 2012
Dugg for the lulz. I bet the cost of legislation far exceeds the amount of welfare money spent at strip clubs.
tcbishop12Jan 31, 2012
And by the way -- people elected because Republicans in 2010 because you pledged to focus on jobs -- and you've blocked every single job creation bill.
So we're going to fire you Republicans this fall. Every damn last one of you.
lew2048Feb 1, 2012
Standard Progressive thinking : The government can manage the economy. The government can create jobs. The government can make everyone homeowners. The government can give everyone a job.
What evidence do you have to support any of this?
All of the governments of the world have gone broke following Progressive policies. A lot of countries will be rebooted as a result.
Unstable governments who borrow too much money and crash their economies are very hard on poor people. You know, the poor people, completely ignorant now from education in government schools and watching Hollywood entertainment, Progressives are supposed to be working for? As compared to the Oligarchs who actually benefit the most?
Aren't you guys a bit ashamed of your record in this?
tribbledotFeb 1, 2012
You misunderstand the government and the economy and they are interconnected and yes responsible governing can create a healthy economy. The evidence is complex and I can show you chart after chart and you would just see magic because you aren't open to this belief.
It's not completely relevant though because you don't provide an alternative plan. Mitt is promising to bring back the jobs. Newt is promising to bring back the jobs. Paul is promising to bring back the jobs. Where is the choice for the other guys like you?
I believe the government should not be involved in everything and this is true but it would be irresponsible to believe that government should ignore real problems like healthcare which hasn't worked under the for-profit system for all Americans. We pay double. We pay double because medicare will care for you when you are old or when your kidney fails but noone cares for you while you have high blood pressure which is a leading cause of organ failure, heart attack, and stroke all of which are much more costly then taking care of the smaller initial problems. Is medicare flawed? Absolutely but if your a solution is to cut it and see how much more those people cost us when noone is paying then this is not a solution. We need healthcare reform. The two candidates most likely to run against the current President are people who have supported such reform in the past. The problem is how they must pretend it's an evil corruption of our government just to pander to a few people who don't realize that real costs don't disappear just because you stop paying for them. It's not a conservative view but it has to be now because the current party is just about obstruction.
lew2048Feb 1, 2012
Ron Paul is promising to stop the government trying to improve the economy, whereupon it can recover. That is completely different than the others.
Again : What is the evidence that the government can improve the economy?
Forget charts. What country has done so over a period of 50 years?
There are none. Every large-government country is deeply in debt with a trashed economy and growing unemployment, especially for the young and for minorities. Almost every large-government country has zero- or negative-growth in its native population. (China will go negative in 2 or 3 years.)
Why should I propose an alternative plan for something I know to be impossible? That will make the situation worse if implemented?
Nobody knows enough to manage an economy. That is an intellectual task far beyond the capacity of human minds.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
Healthcare is hardly a "free market" system right now. Nearly every hospital has a sign that says "you will not be denied services because of your inability to pay".
Have you ever seen that kind of a sign at a McDonalds or a Walmart?
Neither my employer or the government pays for my auto insurance, my car insurance, or my home insurance. Why do we expect companies and the government to micromanage and pay for health insurance?
The system IS screwed up but it's because of the government's over-involvement that it is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 1, 2012
Whether the government is involved or not, the system will ALWAYS be a failure as a for profit system because no can choose whether or not to get CANCER.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
You understand the government is destitute right? It is broke. Our elected officials are having to BORROW money just to pay for EXISTING spending. And you honestly think they can manage the economy and create jobs? Seriously..?
norman619Feb 6, 2012
You understand the government is destitute right? It is broke. Our elected officials are having to BORROW money just to pay for EXISTING spending. And you honestly think they can manage the economy and create jobs? Seriously..?
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
Silly lib. Just because Barry tells you a bill is a "jobs bill" doesn't mean it IS a jobs bill.
killersquirelFeb 1, 2012
keep doling out the kool-aid kasha. Your friends need more.
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
Yes, I know you believe that a govt can borrow/print/confiscate money and hire enough people to "stimulate" the economy.
killersquirelFeb 1, 2012
Yep, I believe in George W Bush's plan! He was pure genius!
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
Which Bush plan? The one to get Fannie/Freddie to stop buying bad mortgages? Too bad Barney Franks, et al blocked that.
Besides, Bush was a big govt spender too. At least we thought so until Obama got his hands on the national Mastercard.
killersquirelFeb 1, 2012
Oh, those evil, evil Democrats. If only they could go away so the savior Republicans can make everything better.
Keep drinking that koolaid kasha.
tribbledotFeb 1, 2012
Pass it then. Prove that it doesn't create jobs and run on that. Run on something. Do something. All this obstructionist bs by idiotic modern conservatives like yourself is just ruining this country. If it doesn't work then we can definitely find out but it does require your politicians actually doing their JOBS!!!
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
This has all been tried over and over for thousands of years, going back to the Roman Empire.
We know what WOULD work, but Obama blocks it.
chordonblueFeb 1, 2012
Please. The only thing that held back the Dems from their whole program was... The Dems. You guys had it all. The House. The Senate. The presidency... WASTED! You barely got out a half-assed healthcare bill (which may be struck down as unconstitutional anyway), and that was all she wrote.
No, don't bother replying. Don't call disagreement 'obstructionism' simply because some of us out here don't agree with your worldview. Our government was designed this way for a reason - no doubt you'd like to change that...
tribbledotFeb 2, 2012
Some of us don't agree with facts. Fact we pay double every other nation for healthcare which generally results in us dying younger then every nation. Fact every civilized nation has decided to invest in their greatest asset, people, and they do better than us. Fact: Mitt Romney came up with a similar plan and now must fight against this democratic plan not because he disagrees with plans he is the inspiration before but because this modern conservative view is about OBSTRUCTIONISM. I know I'd love to think Newt and Mitt had valid disagreement then I'd settle for the idea that my world view is wrong but the reality is these supporters are now the largest opposition to legislation they said they agreed with, wanted to see, and wanted it to have 100% coverage for all Americans. I didn't imagine this crap like you would like to believe. It's real. Stop pretending that this isn't obstructionism.
tribbledotFeb 2, 2012
Want to add as well. You would like to change that. You want democrats to run all the legislation through while your representatives aren't watching. Would that have really looked good if they chose to do so? We got healthcare reform through and it wasn't an easy debate there either with several changes required and accepted by your representatives. We compromise though. We make choices that are good for this nation as a whole and while no political party is without their obstructionists, we have proven that as a whole we are focused on what is important. I don't think all Republicans are bad or obstructionists but I'm very upset with the ones who are. I'm also upset that they are the frontrunners of your political party and this reflects badly on your worldview.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
We've already made these discoveries over the past 100 years. The problem today is what the government is doing......they're trying to do way too much. They need to do a lot more of "getting out of the way"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 1, 2012
Really, what about these 28 jobs bills passed by the House that are sitting waiting for Senate Democrats to take action?
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled
This isn't one-sided, both parties are playing the same game and I honestly don't know if you're just grossly misinformed about the legislative state of this Country or if you're just a partisan hack spewing talking points and ignoring whatever truth doesn't support your viewpoint.
Also, I don't think I've ever actually seen you reply to a comment, which tells me you have zero interest in doing anything more than providing one-sided commentary. In short, you are a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today.
bookantFeb 1, 2012
Removal of environmental regulation, removal of a host of regularions on Wall Street, union-busting, anti-tax measures, anti-Net Neutrality . . . . I'm sorry, where were the "jobs" bills again?
samthurstonFeb 1, 2012
Didn't you hear? it's only because we have laws that companies have to follow that business isn't booming.
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
Yes, that's true. This has all been tried over and over for thousands of years.
What brings the most prosperity is freedom.
You libs pretend that we're against clear air and clear water.
What we're against is regulations based on phony science. Any regulations designed to reduce "global warming" is just pointless and destructive, for example.
samthurstonFeb 1, 2012
"What brings the most prosperity is freedom."
I don't argue with that. Is it restricting your freedom to have laws that require you not to stab people? How about directly poisoning their drinking water?
Well, how is a law preventing you from indirectly poisoning someone's drinking water any different? These regulations (and I'm not going to say EVERY one of them is good, but on the whole) exist to address the HIDDEN COSTS of industry. Cleaning up pollutants costs money. Go check the list of Superfund sites
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/
Check the area you live and see how well unregulated industry did in looking out for your best interests in the past.
"pretend that we're against clear air and clear water"
Republicans field candidates that publicly say they will abolish the EPA. Am I pretending that? You think if there are no regulations the market will magically force companies to do the right thing if it's not cost effective?
"based on phony science"
Ahh, excellent. You're a scientist, so you are qualified to point out the flaws in the HUNDREDS of peer reviewed studies that dispute your argument. I look forward to your peer-reviewed paper getting published any day now.
Where was your doctorate from again?
asfinktersezwutFeb 1, 2012
Have you seen the air in Beijing?
That's what you get when you don't have environmental regulations like we do here.
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
Right. The air in Beijing.
Did we have air like that here in 2001, for example?
No. But we've added thousands of pages of environmental regs since then.
Is there no end? If we get 99.9% of the actual pollutants (not CO2) out, do we have to spend billions more to get the last tenth of a percent?
Also, Beijing air isn't like that because of CO2. It's real pollutants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
samthurstonFeb 2, 2012
So are you saying the ONLY regulations you're against are CO2 emissions standards?
What would it take to persuade you that human CO2 emissions (fossil-fuel and burning related) are contributing to global warming in a significant way?
What sort of evidence would you require to believe this relatively well-accepted fact?
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
"Did we have air like that here in 2001, for example? no....."
because we HAVE the EPA, that you and your shortsighted moronic brethren want to get rid of as hard as possible.
kasha34Feb 1, 2012
OMG. What a fantastic list. These are things that would actually unleash American capitalism. So, of course, Obama et al are against it.
Attention lefty/lib/progressives:
The list says "Reduce" regulations. So don't pretend it says "eliminate all regulations."
pinskiaFeb 1, 2012
Lets look at each of those "jobs" plans (http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs/tracker):
1) HR 10: a plan to get rid of Regulations aka kill more jobs
2) H.R. 3630: tacks an environmental kill to a real jobs plan
3) H.R. 1633: remove farm dust regulations: aka does not improve anything
4) HR 3010: Another remove Regulations plan
5) HR 527: Another remove Regulations plan
6) HR 3012: Allows hiring more foreign workers inside the US so this is not a jobs creator for US people and might threaten US workers
7) HR 3094: A plan to kill unions aka a way to kill the middle-class more
8) HR 2930: Remove Regulations about VC money being registered with SEC aka time to hide money again
9) HR 2940: just like HR 2930
10) HR 1965: likewise.
11) HR 1070: again
12) HR 1904: A mining bill: do we really want more mining or better usage of our restricted resources?
13) HR 2273: like HR 1904 but for coal
14) HR 2681: cement this time
15) HR 2250: destroy the EPA even more act
16) HR 2401: likewise.
17) HR 2587: protect business rather than employees act
18) HR 1938: Keystone act which is being more and more toxic based on insider trading and such
19) HR 1315: Restrict Dodd-Frank from working
20) HR 2018: restrict EPA water act
21) HR 2021: Another restrict EPA act
22) HR 1231: offshore drilling act
23) HR 1229: Likewise
24) HR 1230: Likewise.
25) HR 910: don't allow EPA to do its job act
26) HJR 37: non-net-neturity ACT
27) HR 872: restrict EPA water act
Lets look at the list:
10 are destory the EPA acts
3 are offshore drill acts
2 include Keystone acts
All are pro-business
All will hurt the Americian people in the long run
asfinktersezwutFeb 1, 2012
Nice work.
kasha34Feb 2, 2012
Uh, pro-business = more jobs
Pro-business also means more products and better prices. Which means a better standard of living for all.
samthurstonFeb 2, 2012
"pro-business = more jobs"
Not when most businesses are offshoring and outsourcing everything they can.
No amount of deregulation, de-unionizing, tax breaks and MMR giveaways is going to help us seriously compete with less than $2/hr labor.
rrouseFeb 2, 2012
This bill is a slight-of-hand. When your worried about defending or correcting the people on welfare. The politicians and this rich owners are picking your pockets.
rrouseFeb 1, 2012
They should be implanted with an RFID chips and tracked every place they go but should be everybody because at some time in your life your going a break a law. Everybody should start out in prison and have to work to get out.
neondistractionFeb 2, 2012
Perhaps you should lead by example and volunteer for implanting.
ageofmasteryJan 31, 2012
Since there are ATMs just about everywhere, and you can get cash back when you make a purchase with your card at most stores this is just another waste of time bit of theatrics from the GOP.
pinskiaFeb 1, 2012
Can then remove them for congress instead?
matthrFeb 1, 2012
Gotta say, I'm with the GOP on this one, that sounds completely reasonable.
salbatrossFeb 1, 2012
I can get behind this.
roofviewFeb 1, 2012
Apparently not that many welfaare recipients go to strip clubs but GOP members say they engage all the best dancers and their members have to wait in line.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherFeb 1, 2012
If they simply created a specialized welfare currency that only had cash value once the business that takes it cashes it in at a bank, they could easily enforce this.
If you receive welfare, it comes in the form of a specialized paper currency. You couldn't trade this currency in anywhere because eventually the businesses that accept it will have to convert it to proper money. At that point, the funds can be audited. So if a strip club tries to cash in a bunch of these welfare vouchers, they will get rejected, and be left with a host of worthless paper. As such, they'll simply stop accepting it and the problem will be self-solving.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012
Wouldn't it be easier to make them all wear badges on their clothes so they could be easily identified and reported to the proper authorities?
charlotte_webFeb 1, 2012
>> If they simply created a specialized welfare currency that only had cash
>> value once the business that takes it cashes it in at a bank, they could
>> easily enforce this.
Government welfare comes on a debit card these days, so they're pretty much there. Now it's just a matter of more narrowly defining what transactions can be used for these debit cards.
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
If they are spending at strip clubs does that mean that the benefits are set too high?
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
It would take about 10 minutes for a black-market economy to emerge if this were the case.
agmlauncherFeb 1, 2012
How? If the end point of that currency must go through a legitimate business transaction with the government, then that currency is essentially worthless to the entire chain until it does.
hibby76Feb 1, 2012
Easy........that's basically what we have now. Food stamps are now given in the form of a Credit card. They're only accepted at authorized vendors and for authorized products.
People often sell $100 worth of food for $50 cash. They'll either buy the groceries in behalf of the individual or sell the card.
I've been offered discounted food stamps and I know people who have sold them for drugs.
paultripFeb 1, 2012
is this the biggest issue they can deal with......assh**es!
barackalypseFeb 1, 2012
This is exactly why food aid should be distributed directly in the form of food staples direct to recipients. That eliminates all possibility of people making poor purchasing decisions and eliminates all stories about people seeing food stamp recipients buying steak while they could only afford hamburger.
particleman420Feb 1, 2012
that sure sounds like it would be cheaper than the occasional made-up person that goes to the titty bar on food stamps.
why do most of your solutions seem to spend millions to save hundreds?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 2, 2012
Except food stamp fraud is more than just that one specific kind of abuse. And food stamp waste occurs every-time a welfare recipient buys over-priced crap foods from the corner store instead of buying bulk staples at a real supermarket or warehouse club.
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
so all they have to do is hire a bunch more people to hand out the food that you give them permission to have, hire people to investigate everyone receiving welfare to make sure they deserve it, and then pay for the transport and distribution of your pre-approved foodstuffs, pay for or find a place to do it out of, figure out where to get the food from originally (someone's got to grow/manufacture it, and work out deals on buying it in bulk.
it's so simple and would save...probably nothing
ChuppacabraFeb 1, 2012
I wonder what kind of lap dance you'd get for 3 cups of pinto beans?
We actually may be able to answer that question if ObaMessiah gets elected for another 4 years.
leonard2Feb 1, 2012
lmao
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
if?
LOL!!
ChuppacabraFeb 3, 2012
Jimmy Carter couldn't hide the truth from the American People.
ObaMessiah won't be any more successful.
Just wait till we get done paying $5 a gallon for gas this summer.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
gas isnt $5 a gallon
ChuppacabraFeb 8, 2012
yet.
Wait until August.
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
Mmmmmm.. I love government cheese. Way better than those individually wrapped Kraft or Borden cheese slices in the dairy case.
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
as long as you dont try to melt it
mkautzFeb 1, 2012
This seems like a fine idea.
tcbishop12Jan 31, 2012
Why stop there with the scare hate tactics against welfare recipients, Republicans? Why not stop welfare recipients from eating their own children?
muffcakesJan 31, 2012
That wouldn't work, they could give their children up for adoption and then eat them. Or simply stick to a diet of other peoples children.
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
Heck... we already pay to have their kids killed prenatal if the kid is too much of an inconvenience.
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
In separate news, House Republicans from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida are preparing legislation that will ban landing by extraterrestials on public property in the US. The legislation had been delayed over concerns expressed by San Antonio evangelical leader Reverend John Hagee that it might cause interference with the deepspace aliens who will be arriving after the apocalypse to rescue Reverend Hagee's supporters.
bluenose2Feb 1, 2012
LOL LOL
bluenose2Feb 1, 2012
I will have to pilfer that for a later time.
mlw4428Jan 31, 2012
A bit stupid when you consider that both the company AND the person pay into unemployment. I agree with Federal Extensions, but your initial unemployment should be yours to spend however you wish. As long as you are looking for a job there shouldn't be a restriction on social activities.
Plus a pair of boobies if your face when you're feeling down is a great motivator.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 31, 2012
How will they know what the money is spent on -- unless the GOP spend a lot of time in strip clubs.
mlw4428Jan 31, 2012
Well if push comes to shove you can take the money you want to spend out at an ATM or after a Walmart purchase...in the long run this is just stupid and a waste of time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
"I agree with Federal Extensions, but your initial unemployment should be yours to spend however you wish."
This is all kinds of stupid. Your unemployment is supposed to go to help you pay BILLS and groceries while you look foe another JOB. It's not given to you to spend it at the titty bar. If you can afford to spend money there then you clearly aren't in need of assistance.
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
It's amazing to see how the far right nutcases jump all over something like this. Thanks for the humor to those rational enough to understand just how crazy this is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 1, 2012
the republicans are sure good at creating bills to fix things that arent problems while ignoring and obstructing anything that might actually do something.
they've got the do-nothing act down pat. i hope they enjoy it for the few months they have leftComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chordonblueFeb 1, 2012
Funny! I could swear there were a whole bunch of bills piled up in the Senate waiting for passage, but, gosh darn it, it seems the Democrats aren't interested in actual debate.
Yes my friend, we will see about this next election cycle. It should prove to be very interesting indeed! :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
It's pretty easy to create nonsense partisan bills with no chance of passage, just for the kind of propaganda just expressed. There is overwhelming proof of Republican obstinacy to finding any solutions, and of the obstructionism that has prevented solutions and interfered with the functions of government; purely in an effort to say "look what Obama couldn't do!".
chordonblueFeb 1, 2012
The people, who you spit on, put the Republicans in the House, remember? Partisan bills or no, this is why they were put there. If your side doesn't want to even DEBATE said bills, that's on you guys, but don't call it 'obstructionism' just because it doesn't include more handouts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hexiadetrixFeb 2, 2012
So if government money should not be used in strip clubs. How about banning all public employees from such venues, they all live on government money, so that should apply to those, which also includes police, politicians and soldiers. And all employees in banks/cooperations that received bailout money should also be barred from entering such venues.
That would be the only fair and equal rule.
But i do not think that such a rule would be passed.