It's about god damn time!!!!

[Disclaimer]

And of course that leads into the bigger issue of:

"If they can't check their numbers then they're lazy and can't be trusted, or they're intentionally misleading and can't be trusted"

Because the premise of the entire article is based on wrong numbers, you'd think you'd verify your foundation before you build a 'house' on top of it. Right?

[robhawk]

OK lets also add from your source the other factors in supporting the free loaders.. some might be wrong so I will under shoot. But I figure at least Medical needs added for sure.

Defense (FY 2007): 653.9B

Welfare (FY 2007): 254.2B(federal)+121.4B(state costs)+82.9B(local costs)=423.1

+

Health care services (FY2007):269.0B (from state but still money)=

total

692.1B

Doesnt matter if the money is federal or state, still comes out of our pockets.

[Todd#43]

and of course that leads into the bigger issue of:

"if they can't check their numbers then they're lazy and can't be trusted, or they're intentionally misleading and can't be trusted"

because the premise of the entire article is based on wrong numbers, you'd think you'd verify your foundation before you build a 'house' on top of it. Right?

Где вы получили ваше ознакомление, камрада?

[robhawk]

Где вы получили ваше ознакомление, камрада?

Where you obtained your acquaintance, comrade? \

Edit:

HAHA Im slow I get it now

[Cdubyah]

how did you find that

Lots and lots of research

[Todd#43]

Where you obtained your acquaintance, comrade? \

Edit:

HAHA Im slow I get it now

Actually, its "Where have you received your indoctrination, comrade"

But you got it...

[wrillo]

After just reading all of that my brain is twisted from all angles.

Besides the morality and legality of sterilization for welfare, what about the kids themselves? If you stand up for the rights of children when it comes to abortion, why do you not stand up for the kids that would have been born had the government not sterilized their parents? In both cases, the kid would have been born and in neither case is the kid actually here breathing. What I am trying to get at is that some of the greatest success stories come from the drive to leave poverty. They make movies about this shit... Good Will Hunting, October Sky.. (two of my favorite movies) and for some real life examples October Sky was based on a true story. The main character (Homer) grew up to work at NASA.. and if the stories are true, our president didn't start life in the best financial situation

Aside from that, I like this thread a lot. I like the idea of drug testing... oh yeah, one more thing that just popped into my head.. don't all these programs currently have enrolled length limitations? You can no longer be on food stamps (etc) forever, right?

[Disclaimer]

Actually, its "Where have you received your indoctrination, comrade"

But you got it...

We had a good debate going... crack jokes all you want, that's funny, but an actual rebuttal would be nice along with the jokes.

[Disclaimer]

OK lets also add from your source the other factors in supporting the free loaders.. some might be wrong so I will under shoot. But I figure at least Medical needs added for sure.

Defense (FY 2007): 653.9B

Welfare (FY 2007): 254.2B(federal)+121.4B(state costs)+82.9B(local costs)=423.1

+

Health care services (FY2007):269.0B (from state but still money)=

total

692.1B

Doesnt matter if the money is federal or state, still comes out of our pockets.

Where did the 269B come from? And what does that all "lump in"? You can't lump in Medicare for seniors (because we're talking about welfare as in 'freeloaders' here)...

[Todd#43]

We had a good debate going... crack jokes all you want, that's funny, but an actual rebuttal would be nice along with the jokes.

I'd hardly call it a debate, and It wasn't meant to be a joke.

Seriously, why dont you pack up your act and take it on the road? China? Cuba? Russia?

Heyyyyyy....I know....that Chavez guy in Venezuela could probably use a guy like you. He's all about the government running everything.

[Cdubyah]

don't all these programs currently have enrolled length limitations? You can no longer be on food stamps (etc) forever, right?

Not that I know of. You could be on forever. However there are stipulations. Eligibility is determined by the amount of income available, savings, mutal funds, bonds, stocks, cash at hand, low paying job etc. Then you factor in the AG size, or household size. Which is determined by the USDA. Here's another link. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/government/FY09_Income_Standards.htm

Basically what that says, is if you are in a household, (note *not family*) of say 4, your combined income has to be under $1,767.00 a month.

You must report all income up front, in order to receive assistance, which is determined by an eligibility specialist. They then determine what you are eligible to receive.

The person must report, changes in the household, job start or stops, and any income that could change eligibility. They are required to come back every three to sixth months for re-determination.

Oh if if you fail to report something that would change your eligibility, uncle sam will come after you, and get his money back. It might take a while, but it does happen.

[Disclaimer]

Ohh noes, I don't agree with Todd - so I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

We talk about welfare, and all of a sudden because I don't believe the best solution is to round up all the poor people, sterilize and execute them, I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

Got it.

[robhawk]

Where did the 269B come from? And what does that all "lump in"? You can't lump in Medicare for seniors (because we're talking about welfare as in 'freeloaders' here)...

read your damn source and quit trying to skew everyone elses points

—[+] Health care services (551) 233.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 233.9

 —— Federal Intergovernmental - Healt (B42) 0.0 -25.0 0.0 0.0 -25.0

 —— Federal Intergovernmental - Publi (B79) 0.0 -225.6 0.0 0.0 -225.6

 —— Current Operations - Health - Oth (E32) 0.0 0.0 33.7 39.7 73.4

 —— Current Operations - Hospitals (E36) 0.0 0.0 43.3 67.4 110.7

 —— Current Operations - Public Welfa (E74) 0.0 0.0 269.0 3.3 272.3

 —— Construction - Health - Other (F32) 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.2

 —— Construction - Hospitals (F36) 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.4 4.3

 —— Other Capital Outlay - Health - O (G32) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8

 —— Other Capital Outlay - Hospitals (G36) 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.2

that is under medical not seniors, look it up here:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2007_0.html#usgs30210

I even left out 3.3B

now your trying to discredit the source you brought to the table? WTF dude?

[Disclaimer]

No, I wasn't... I was just asking where the number came from... because I couldn't find it in the table. I found it after you posted where it was.

But you do know that it's red italicized, so it's a "guesstimate" not an actual.

Regardless, I don't know what that proves... it shows that the people receiving public assistance use medical providers (i.e. Emergency room) and it's expensive. You think that if/when you put them out on the street that they'll use it less?

Edited March 27, 2009 by JRMMiii

[robhawk]

No, I wasn't... I was just asking where the number came from... because I couldn't find it in the table. I found it after you posted where it was.

But you do know that it's red italicized, so it's a "guesstimate" not an actual.

Regardless, I don't know what that proves... it shows that the people receiving public assistance use medical providers (i.e. Emergency room) and it's expensive. You think that if/when you put them out on the street that they'll use it less?

I think It shows that my original source is not that skewed about the stats like you said, a lot is spent not just over 200B like you tried to say off the bat to discredit my source. I'm tired of spending my money on supporting individuals that freeload off my country. You did not agree with the source that I gave, so you went and found whatever numbers you could to disprove it. But that medical is the medical that is spent on welfare, not private insurance like I pay for. Its part of the free loading package, some people see it as a way of life and it cost’s the ones who try and work for a living. This my friend is just wrong in my eyes. And estimated or not I'm sure its pretty close.

[Todd#43]

Ohh noes, I don't agree with Todd - so I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

We talk about welfare, and all of a sudden because I don't believe the best solution is to round up all the poor people, sterilize and execute them, I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

Got it.

Has nothing to do with you agreeing with me or not. It has everything to do with your continued insistence that the government knows best when it comes to spending your money.

This isn't the first time you've espoused socialist leanings.

No, I wasn't... I was just asking where the number came from... because I couldn't find it in the table. I found it after you posted where it was.

But you do know that it's red italicized, so it's a "guesstimate" not an actual.

Regardless, I don't know what that proves... it shows that the people receiving public assistance use medical providers (i.e. Emergency room) and it's expensive. You think that if/when you put them out on the street that they'll use it less?

I'm still waiting for you to prove that welfare costs less than prison. So far I've seen plenty of numbers. None of them from you.

[Disclaimer]

I'm still waiting for you to prove that welfare costs less than prison. So far I've seen plenty of numbers. None of them from you.

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showpost.php?p=54720&postcount=60

Took about 5 seconds to plug in "welfare prison" into the search bar here.

I don't even know why you'd need numbers anyway. SIMPLE logic says that if you have 100 "pets" (you might as well consider them pets because you're footing their bills) taking care of themselves, then you decide you need someone to look over them, it's ANOTHER bill on top of the cost of the 100. How do you not understand that?

Edited March 27, 2009 by JRMMiii

[robhawk]

Originally Posted by JRMMiii

I just asked... there's no link to where the site pulls their numbers.

They quote these mysterious 'Appendix A' and 'Appendix B' documents that don't exist? So, I can't confirm their numbers or the source where they pulled them from.

Take this graphic for instance:

Well it says at the bottom of the graph the source:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Look closer next time

[Todd#43]

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showpost.php?p=54720&postcount=60

Took about 5 seconds to plug in "welfare prison" into the search bar here.

I don't even know why you'd need numbers anyway. SIMPLE logic says that if you have 100 "pets" (you might as well consider them pets because you're footing their bills) taking care of themselves, then you decide you need someone to look over them, it's ANOTHER bill on top of the cost of the 100. How do you not understand that?

Ok, comrade, I'm going to type real slow so that you can read this. You're assuming that EVERYONE that is taken off the welfare roll is going to end up in prison. Are YOU suggesting that every poor person is a theif, rapist, or worse? I don't believe that if you took 100 people off public assistance that you'd have anywhere close to 100 ending up in prison. At any rate, if TWO of those people don't end up in the pokey, and I have 1 person to watch them, I'm still money ahead (I'm only paying for 99 people at that point instead of 100). Get it?

Your first link in that post is an article from a brit that has absolutely NO numbers to show that prison costs exceed welfare costs. The only thing remotely relevant is that as welfare spending increases, so does the prison population.

Your second link is a pdf from ODJFS. An interesting paragraph:

"The department’s State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2006 budget of more than $17.1 billion represents the largest budget of any “State of Ohio” agency. About 62 percent of funding comes from the federal government."

It seems to say that in Ohio we spend MORE on welfare than we do on prisons.

You're 0 for 2. Show me some numbers that clearly illustrate your point that "welfare is cheaper than prison"

[Disclaimer]

I saw it was OMB related, but that website is horribly designed, I can't figure out how to search historical information on it.

The numbers still don't reconcile - I think the issue lies with how Heritage categorizes their spending buckets.

[SAMBUSA]

Ohh noes, I don't agree with Todd - so I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

We talk about welfare, and all of a sudden because I don't believe the best solution is to round up all the poor people, sterilize and execute them, I'm a SOCIALIST!!!

Got it.

Socialist dick:lol:

[Disclaimer]

Ok, comrade, I'm going to type real slow so that you can read this. You're assuming that EVERYONE that is taken off the welfare roll is going to end up in prison. Are YOU suggesting that every poor person is a theif, rapist, or worse? I don't believe that if you took 100 people off public assistance that you'd have anywhere close to 100 ending up in prison. At any rate, if TWO of those people don't end up in the pokey, and I have 1 person to watch them, I'm still money ahead (I'm only paying for 99 people at that point instead of 100). Get it?

I'm suggesting that desperate people do desperate things. I'm not saving that 100/100 people would be in prison, I'm saying that some part of that 100 would end up incarcerated, some would die, and others would somehow sustain. But $1 for $1, giving people money to take care of themselves is cheaper than paying someone to take care of them.

Person A is on welfare, you remove Person A from welfare and he gets incarcerated. Not only are you still paying for Person A to be housed, clothed, medically treated, fed, etc. you're paying for the supervision by guards, materials to enforce the supervision (handcuffs, guns, etc).

On the outside with welfare, you don't have to pay for guards, handcuffs, guns, and 3 squares a day. And, the money in circulating back into the economy via the landlord he pays rent to, the food stamps he uses to buy food he wants (he may only eat 2 times a day), the clothes he buys, etc. You're all anti-government - so why are you against letting the welfare people spend money in the private sector?? Instead of the government not only giving them welfare in prison, but using government contracts to buy government clothes, government food, etc.

How do you still not understand that?

Your first link in that post is an article from a brit that has absolutely NO numbers to show that prison costs exceed welfare costs. The only thing remotely relevant is that as welfare spending increases, so does the prison population.

No, in fact it's the opposite. As welfare spending increases, prison expenses decrease. It's an indirect relationship. Tay appention.

The researchers establish that the link is statistically significant - i.e. unlikely to be explained by any chance quirk of the data - but they do not settle the question of why it arises, which is all-important for policy. One interpretation, which I read Downes and Hansen as preferring, is that more generous welfare cuts poverty and exclusion, and with it the risk of crime and incarceration. If that were right, governments could cut imprisonment by raising benefits. But in theory, it could also be that jails somehow cut welfare bills - for example, by taking out of society people who would otherwise be on benefits, a conclusion that might encourage some governments to lock more people up. ...[A] third account is also possible, one that sees both mass imprisonment and minimal welfare as flowing from some single underlying factor, such as a particular strain of political culture. ...

First interpretation is increase welfare, cutting poverty and the risk of crime/incarceration.

Second, the anti-thesis - reduce welfare, and just lock everyone up. Moving funds from one pocket (Social Benefits) to another pocket (Prison)

Third - find the 'it' factor causing all this.

Your second link is a pdf from ODJFS. An interesting paragraph:

"The department’s State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2006 budget of more than $17.1 billion represents the largest budget of any “State of Ohio” agency. About 62 percent of funding comes from the federal government."

It seems to say that in Ohio we spend MORE on welfare than we do on prisons.

No, it doesn't. You're still missing the fact that, that number is ALL inclusive. It's not the total amount that goes "to the lazy bums" - it coves a plethora of activities that are noted in the following paragraphs.

[robhawk]

I saw it was OMB related, but that website is horribly designed, I can't figure out how to search historical information on it.

The numbers still don't reconcile - I think the issue lies with how Heritage categorizes their spending buckets.

So how they spend their money negates the statistics they put on their charts from the sources you cant navigate? I think I’m tracking now, you’re basically saying your point of view is different then that of the site hence this could never be true.

You would not even accept information from the source you gave. I’m not hating on you, it’s all in good sport, just be more objective in your views when checking your sources. The numbers on the American Heritage site are accurate, the ideas might not be agreeable with what you think. Don’t discredit the facts based on opinion, as you have stated to so many others.

We should all get together and drink beer and debate this, which would be more fun. LOL

[robhawk]

From http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2007_0.html#usgs30250

Protection 41.2 0.0 82.9 158.2 282.3

—[+] Police services 19.6 0.0 11.7 71.9 103.2

—[+] Fire-protection services 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 37.1

—[+] Law courts 15.3 0.0 28.3 25.1 68.7

—[–] Prisons 6.3 0.0 42.9 24.1 73.3

 —[+] Federal correctional activities (753) 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3

 —— Current Operations - Correctional (E04) 0.0 0.0 34.5 19.2 53.7

 —— Current Operations - Corrections (E05) 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.8 10.8

 —— Construction - Correctional Insti (F04) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.7

 —— Construction - Corrections - Othe (F05) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

 —— Other Capital Outlay - Correction (G04) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6

 —— Other Capital Outlay - Correction (G05) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

—[+] R&D Public order and safety 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

—[+] Public order and safety n.e.c. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Current Operations - Correctional (E04) 0.0 0.0 34.5 19.2 53.7

 —— Current Operations - Corrections (E05) 0.0 0.0 7.0 3.8 10.8

 —— Construction - Correctional Insti (F04) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.7

All bolded are state totals, alot less then the Welfare system in Billions

[Disclaimer]

So how they spend their money negates the statistics they put on their charts from the sources you cant navigate? I think I’m tracking now, you’re basically saying your point of view is different then that of the site hence this could never be true.

You would not even accept information from the source you gave. I’m not hating on you, it’s all in good sport, just be more objective in your views when checking your sources. The numbers on the American Heritage site are accurate, the ideas might not be agreeable with what you think. Don’t discredit the facts based on opinion, as you have stated to so many others.

We should all get together and drink beer and debate this, which would be more fun. LOL

I was just saying that website design sucks... the info is there, but it's easier obtained on the other site I posted.

No no no, I don't like debating politics in person. I have a very short attention span and don't have google to back me up. It's one thing to know you're right, it's another thing to prove it. So, I don't debate unless I can fact check things on the spot. And, on here we all have written record of our views at points in time - you have to own up to what you say in the future on here.

But, by all means, I'll sit and listen to your views over beer whilst I nod my head. Ask IP. Beer in front of me and 'google-less' - I won't bother debating, it's not worth it. I don't want to say something where I'm wrong. You did say there'd be beer right?

Free-time at work on a high speed internet connection - now that's debate territory.

Edited March 27, 2009 by JRMMiii