Free diapers!

#26
#26
KiffinKiller said:
a lot of people just assume it's a ton. I have no idea what the number looks like - but I'm willing to admit that.
Click to expand...

Well, I've seen more than a few fatties abusing the system. Gross combined weight of the abusers I've seen this week would probably be about 8,000 lbs, or 4 tons.
 
#27
#27
KiffinKiller said:
a lot of people just assume it's a ton. I have no idea what the number looks like - but I'm willing to admit that.
Click to expand...

I've known a fair number of individuals/families who were sucking government teet, and more needed to than not. I'd guess 25-35% were outright abusing the system.
 
#28
#28
DinkinFlicka said:
I've known a fair number of individuals/families who were sucking government teet, and more needed to than not. I'd guess 25-35% were outright abusing the system.
Click to expand...

I don't know many....and I probably wouldn't get my figures from this poli board...no offense
 
#31
#31
DinkinFlicka said:
Exactly. There's no question there are a ton of people abusing government programs, but it doesn't mean we should dissolve certain programs altogether. Blanket statements are retarded.

It's "this or that" thinking that has this country looking like **** lately.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

Taxpayers are absolutely justified in wanting to abolish all entitlement programs of any kind. That is misuse of taxpayer funds that is not sanctioned by the United States Constitution no matter what twisted theories politicians come up with.

Whether people "need it" or not, is not the issue. The whole premise is wrong to begin with.

I've attached an article below that was a speech given by Davy Crockett. I encourage you to read it and understand where the originals founders of this country were, in regards to the use of taxpayer money, and where we are today.

Not Yours To Give | Foundation for Economic Education

".....The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other...."
 
#32
#32
As Mark Twain once remarked; "Politicians should be changed about as often as diapers."

Did someone mention government waste?

Fortunately we do still have a few representatives in Washington that don't reflect the absolute corruptness of those such as Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd.

Hot off the press:

Dr. Coburn Releases Report Exposing Billions in Giveaways for Millionaires - Press Releases - Tom Coburn, M.D., United States Senator from Oklahoma

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released a new report “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous” illustrating how, under the current tax code, the federal government is giving billions of dollars to individuals with an Annual Gross Income (AGI) of at least $1 million, subsidizing their lavish lifestyles with the taxes of the less fortunate.
------------------

These billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316 million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over $9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Additionally, millionaires borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college. On average, each year, this report found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion. As a result, almost 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009.
Click to expand...

Employment and Training Programs: | Downsizing the Federal Government

Congress should terminate federal spending on employment and training services. Such activities provide little practical benefit, are duplicative of private efforts, and are not a proper federal responsibility under the Constitution. Given today's large budget deficits, federal employment and training programs provide good targets for elimination.
------------------------

In a 2011 study, the Government Accountability Office found that there are 47 different and overlapping programs costing taxpayers $18 billion a year.14 The Obama administration has complained of "a complex set of rules and differing requirements and practices across the multiple federal agencies and programs that support job-related services."15 The head of a workforce board in Cincinnati described the complexity of these government programs to USA Today: "Most employers find it incredibly complicated. It's mind-boggling to me, and this has been my profession for the last 12 years."16
----------

The following are some examples of waste in recent years from the Coburn study:

A West Virginia criminal was the primary beneficiary of $100,000 in federal job training funds, which he used for luxury hotel stays and other excesses. The state official who awarded the grant funding turned out to be the criminal's mother.

A Tampa Bay government agency spent tens of thousands of dollars of federal job training funds on disallowed expenses such as free lunches, hotels, flowers, event tickets, and other perks for managers.

Federally funded trainees hired by San Francisco's transit authority spent months doing no work because hostile union members at the agency sidelined them.
Portage County, Ohio, job training officials blew more than $700,000 on all kinds of unauthorized and frivolous items.

The CEO of an Iowa training firm funded by federal dollars was thrown in jail for 84 months for essentially stealing $1.8 million, which she paid to herself and her top aides.

A Montana trade union misspent $1.1 million in federal training grants. An audit found that for every dollar the union spent on helping displaced workers, it spent four dollars on its own staff salaries and perks.

This sort of waste in federal job training and employment programs has been ongoing for decades. Local administrators of these programs have been known to inflate program accomplishments, overcharge the taxpayer for superficial services, and divert funds to illegitimate purposes.45
Click to expand...

The above link gives tremendous insight into ongoing governmental waste of resources.

Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Quincy Jones and Ted Turner Received Federal Subsidies.

Wealthy celebrities including Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Quincy Jones and Ted Turner have received federal subsidies, according to “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” a new report from the office of Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified several individuals receiving farm payments “whose professions had nothing to do with farming or agricultur[e],” says the report.

These individuals include real-estate developer Maurice Wilder, a “part-owner of a professional sports franchise [who] received total of more than $200,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.”

The report also says millionaires Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen and Ted Turner have collected farm subsidies.

“These individuals include Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner, respectively. Millionaires also receive state tax breaks on farm land. For example, Jon Bon Jovi paid property taxes of only $100 last year on his extensive real estate holdings in New Jersey that he uses to raise bees. At the same time, Bruce Springsteen received farm subsidies because he leases his property to an organic farmer,” the report explains.
Click to expand...

One of the more outlandish things that I know of myself had to do with the hurricanes that hit Texas and Louisiana and an entertainer I know who was also was an accomplished chef and had spent six months preparing food for displaced people and when he arrived in Nashville he had a case of truffle honey that he had brought up, he could have had a truck load of the stuff because they were just trying to get rid of it and nobody wanted it or knew how to use it.

In case you've never heard of it, it is waaaay expensive and although it is a tasty gourmet item, it had no business being sent to soup kitchens to feed homeless people.

It came from San Francisco, no doubt Pelosi had a hand in that and some of her friends made a tidy sum of the deal.
 
#33
#33
The babies would suffer without these diapers. Do you want babies to suffer? I thought republicans were pro-life? Oh wait...republicans are only pro-life UNTIL the baby is born. After that, you're f***ed!

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to diapers for infants than to bankers who ended up robbing us all and giving themselves million dollar bonuses. But I need to remember republican logic: trillions of tax dollars to rich people is awesome, a few thousand dollars to poor people trying to survive in this economy is thievery.

OP: "No way I'm paying for other people's babies! The babies need to get a job to support themselves!"

Me: "Um...these babies might die without getting the care they need..."

OP: "If they'd rather die, then they better do it and decrease the surplus population!"

Merry freakin' Christmas
 
#35
#35
We used cloth diapers on 2 kids and didn't bltch about it. You poor you make do. You don't ask for help or expect it.
 
#36
#36
KoachKrab127 said:
The babies would suffer without these diapers. Do you want babies to suffer? I thought republicans were pro-life? Oh wait...republicans are only pro-life UNTIL the baby is born. After that, you're f***ed!

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to diapers for infants than to bankers who ended up robbing us all and giving themselves million dollar bonuses. But I need to remember republican logic: trillions of tax dollars to rich people is awesome, a few thousand dollars to poor people trying to survive in this economy is thievery.

OP: "No way I'm paying for other people's babies! The babies need to get a job to support themselves!"

Me: "Um...these babies might die without getting the care they need..."

OP: "If they'd rather die, then they better do it and decrease the surplus population!"

Merry freakin' Christmas
Click to expand...

ah yes the ever popular "Repubs want the poor to die while the Dems are here to help the little guy"
 
#37
#37
I have an awesome idea. Let's abolish the Bush tax cuts that have coincided with the greatest decline in the American economy since the Great Depression (ie. the cuts did nothing but make the rich richer), and use a tiny fraction of that money to subsidize giving diapers to poor babies. The surplus can be used to decrease the federal debt and the babies don't have to sleep in ****ty diapers. Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
KoachKrab127 said:
The babies would suffer without these diapers. Do you want babies to suffer? I thought republicans were pro-life? Oh wait...republicans are only pro-life UNTIL the baby is born. After that, you're f***ed!

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to diapers for infants than to bankers who ended up robbing us all and giving themselves million dollar bonuses. But I need to remember republican logic: trillions of tax dollars to rich people is awesome, a few thousand dollars to poor people trying to survive in this economy is thievery.

OP: "No way I'm paying for other people's babies! The babies need to get a job to support themselves!"

Me: "Um...these babies might die without getting the care they need..."

OP: "If they'd rather die, then they better do it and decrease the surplus population!"

Merry freakin' Christmas
Click to expand...
This was an awesome rant. Ill-informed and reeking of popular media sheep thinking, but rant cred for days.
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
I have an awesome idea. Let's abolish the Bush tax cuts that have coincided with the greatest decline in the American economy since the Great Depression (ie. the cuts did nothing but make the rich richer), and use a tiny fraction of that money to subsidize giving diapers to poor babies. The surplus can be used to decrease the federal debt and the babies don't have to sleep in ****ty diapers. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
First, your timing is off on the cuts and the decline, but don't let that stop some idiotic implied causation.

Second, it's utterly senseless to assume that any politician will take federal dollars and pay down debt.

Third, acting like just a teensy bit of incremental free shiz is a no brainer ignores the in fathomable piles of money that have been tossed at our "poor" problem for decades and decades. Maybe you just like exacerbating problems rather than fairy tale style problem solving?
 
#41
#41
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
I have an awesome idea. Let's abolish the Bush tax cuts that have coincided with the greatest decline in the American economy since the Great Depression (ie. the cuts did nothing but make the rich richer), and use a tiny fraction of that money to subsidize giving diapers to poor babies. The surplus can be used to decrease the federal debt and the babies don't have to sleep in ****ty diapers. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

so you didn't benefit from the tax cuts in any way? How did they cause this decline anyway?

Also, why is it my responsibility to provide diapers to people that had kids they couldn't afford? I spend a decent amount on diapers as it is and would much rather spend that money on other things so can I get in on this too? I mean, is it my fault we waited to have a child until we were able to care for it? I think you touched on a big part of the decline of the US without actually meaning to
 
#42
#42
volger said:
We used cloth diapers on 2 kids and didn't bltch about it. You poor you make do. You don't ask for help or expect it.
Click to expand...

I worked 45 hrs a week while taking 15 hrs at UT. I was working for Applebee's at the time because they would pay for UT. As long as I worked for them the same number of years as the School they paid for. My oldest child was 2 at the time. The point is I was poor, still am by some standards, and my wife and I beat it back with hard work.
Others can as well.:good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
KoachKrab127 said:
The babies would suffer without these diapers. Do you want babies to suffer? I thought republicans were pro-life? Oh wait...republicans are only pro-life UNTIL the baby is born. After that, you're f***ed!

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to diapers for infants than to bankers who ended up robbing us all and giving themselves million dollar bonuses. But I need to remember republican logic: trillions of tax dollars to rich people is awesome, a few thousand dollars to poor people trying to survive in this economy is thievery.

OP: "No way I'm paying for other people's babies! The babies need to get a job to support themselves!"

Me: "Um...these babies might die without getting the care they need..."

OP: "If they'd rather die, then they better do it and decrease the surplus population!"

Merry freakin' Christmas
Click to expand...

Good job at a rather idiotic post.

Yes, since I'm not buying other people's diapers their babies will die. I'm glad you've connected the obvious dots because after all, I want babies to die.

And what planet do you live on that only a few thousand dollars go to poor people? Do you have any idea the amount of welfare from federal, state, and local governments that go to "save the children"?

Why is it okay for the govern't to take my money that goes to pay for my own kids' diapers and send it to someone else to pay for their child's diapers? Are there needs somehow more important than mine even though I worked for that money?
 
#45
#45
I would much rather have the diapers available for them than to give them the money and expect them to go buy them. At least we know what is being bought.
 
#46
#46
2ironVol said:
I would much rather have the diapers available for them than to give them the money and expect them to go buy them. At least we know what is being bought.
Click to expand...

So you assume that just because this program is enacted that the money is definitely going to purchase diapers for the needy that will be used for babies and not used for some other purpose like being sold to neighbors?

What exactly do you base this on? The history of incredible efficiency our welfare programs have that are currently in place?

Like the ones that allow homeowners to live in a multi-million dollar home and still collect welfare checks?

Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News
 
#47
#47
theFallGuy said:
So you assume that just because this program is enacted that the money is definitely going to purchase diapers for the needy that will be used for babies and not used for some other purpose like being sold to neighbors?

What exactly do you base this on? The history of incredible efficiency our welfare programs have that are currently in place?

Like the ones that allow homeowners to live in a multi-million dollar home and still collect welfare checks?Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

LOL............

You find one isolated case and then generalize it across the board. That's not intelligent debate, it's foolishness

I don't assume anything, Son. I just said what I would rather see happen if this diaper thing is already enacted.
 
#48
#48
things I've seen today in my limited world:

- my wife packing up 2 cases of diapers to donate
- 368 toys under our work tree getting ready to go to Toys for Tots
- 2 large crates of blankets that will be donated to the homeless in our area

Sorry but people can do this without massive gov't intervention
 
#49
#49
2ironVol said:
LOL............

You find one isolated case and then generalize it across the board. That's not intelligent debate, it's foolishness

I don't assume anything, Son. I just said what I would rather see happen if this diaper thing is already enacted.
Click to expand...

Yes there is no welfare fraud. There is only one isolated case of it. Nothing to see here. That is utter foolishness.

In my city, people pull up in Cadillac Escalades with shiny new rims and whip out their EBT cards to pay for their groceries.
 
#50
#50
But what does it matter, Obama wants us all to be on gov't assistance anyways. He just said that in his speech 2 days ago.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top