Goodbye, America! It Was Fun While It Lasted

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,567
Reaction score
41
Location
KS
GOODBYE, AMERICA! IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED

It's bad enough when illiterate jurors issue damages awards in the billions of dollars because they don't grasp the difference between a million and a billion. Now it turns out the Democrats don't know the difference between a million and a trillion.

Why not make the "stimulus bill" a kazillion dollars?

All Americans who work for a living, or who plan to work for a living sometime in the next century, are about to be stuck with a trillion-dollar bill to fund yet more oppressive government bureaucracies. Or as I call it, a trillion dollars and change.

The stimulus bill isn't as bad as we had expected -- it's much worse. Instead of merely creating useless, make-work jobs digging ditches -- or "shovel-ready," in the Democrats' felicitous phrase -- the "stimulus" bill will create an endless army of government bureaucrats aggressively intervening in our lives. Instead of digging ditches, American taxpayers will be digging our own graves.

There are hundreds of examples in the 800-page "stimulus" bill, but here are just two.

First, the welfare bureaucrats are coming back.

For half a century, the welfare establishment had the bright idea to pay women to have children out of wedlock. Following the iron laws of economics -- subsidize something, you get more of it; tax it, you get less of it -- the number of children being born out of wedlock skyrocketed.

The 1996 Welfare Reform bill marked the first time any government entitlement had ever been rolled back. Despite liberal howling and foot-stomping, not subsidizing illegitimacy led, like night into day, to less illegitimacy.

Welfare recipients got jobs, as the hard-core unemployables were coaxed away from their TV sets and into the workforce. For the first time in decades, the ever-increasing illegitimacy rate stopped spiraling upward.

As proof that that welfare reform was a smashing success, a few years later, Bill Clinton started claiming full credit for the bill.

Well, that's over. The stimulus bill goes a long way toward repealing the work requirement of the 1996 Republican Welfare Reform bill and rewards states that increase their welfare caseloads by paying unwed mothers to sit home doing nothing.

Second, bureaucrats at Health and Human Services will electronically collect every citizen's complete medical records and determine appropriate medical care.

Judging by the care that the State Department took with private visa records last year, that the Ohio government took with Joe the Plumber's government records, that the Pentagon took with Linda Tripp's employment records in 1998, and that the FBI took with thousands of top secret "raw" background files in President Clinton's first term, the bright side is: We'll finally be able to find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis -- all thanks to the stimulus bill!

HHS bureaucrats will soon be empowered to overrule your doctor. Doctors who don't comply with the government's treatment protocols will be fined. That's right: Instead of your treatment being determined by your doctor, it will be settled on by some narcoleptic half-wit in Washington who couldn't get a job in the private sector.

And a brand-new set of bureaucrats in the newly created office of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will be empowered to cut off treatments that merely prolong life. Sorry, Mom and Pop, Big Brother said it's time to go.

At every other workplace in the nation -- even Wal-Mart! -- workers are being laid off. But no one at any of the bloated government bureaucracies ever need fear receiving a pink slip. All 64,750 employees at the department of Health and Human Services are apparently absolutely crucial to the smooth functioning of the department.

With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives.

Also, thanks to the stimulus bill, the private sector will gradually shrivel and die. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the bill's nearly trillion-dollar debt will shrink the economy within a decade.

Robert Kennedy famously said: "There are those who look at things the way they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

The new liberal version is: There are those who look at things and ask, "Why on earth should the government be paying for that?" I dream of things that never were funded by the government and ask, "Why not?"

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
 
I was soooo excited - I looked at the headline, and then I looked at the author and thought - Oh my gosh, she is finally leaving the country. ;)

But, no, my excitement was short lived. And I should have realized, who else would take her? Where would she go? :)
 
I was soooo excited - I looked at the headline, and then I looked at the author and thought - Oh my gosh, she is finally leaving the country. ;)

But, no, my excitement was short lived. And I should have realized, who else would take her? Where would she go? :)

Do you dispute any of her points?
 
Well, if Ann had gone after TARP in the same manner - I would give her a bit more 'cred' here...

Ann Coulter didn't go after TARP, she had a article about mortgages, but mostly it defended McCain's involvement Keating 5, and how Democrats failed the mortgage industry - but nothing about the 'rights or wrongs' of that particular bailout.

Obviously it isn't the money, honey, it is who is in charge... And who knows - maybe where it is going. I am sure she has plenty of buddies on Wall Street and in big banking.

I won't go after Ann, unless a paycheck is involved. I can dispute almost everything in her Chicken Little 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' tirade - but, then I would have to read the hateful thing again - wouldn't I? I really can avoid that if substantial sums of money aren't involved ;)

However, I am sure that somehow it was really important that she tie Bill Clinton and syphilis together, it certainly gives a lot of veraciousness to her article, and doesn't seem like disparagement at all. She is constantly doing this - did Bill turn her down :p ?

Just as a little side note - I went back and did a quick count of the financial bailout (TARP) threads on this site - a dozen (I could have missed a couple... quick count).
Actual cost to the tax payers - $700 billion dollars - no tax breaks...

Stimulus package threads on this page alone - 16, the previous page - about a dozen.
Actual cost to the tax payers - $789 billion - tax breaks, $270 billion dollars - bottom line - $519 billion.

hmmmm.... And who in the heck knows what we have gotten with the first $350 Billion in TARP - other than excessive executive compensation, pricey trips and big bonuses. Thank you Bush/Paulson for forgetting to write any accountability into those little sums you handed out.
 
Well, if Ann had gone after TARP in the same manner - I would give her a bit more 'cred' here...

Ann Coulter didn't go after TARP, she had a article about mortgages, but mostly it defended McCain's involvement Keating 5, and how Democrats failed the mortgage industry - but nothing about the 'rights or wrongs' of that particular bailout.

More disengenuous, specious foxpaws arguments. Weather or not she went after TARP (she did, but not in her articles), says nothing about what she has to say or her credibility in saying it. It is nothing but a dishonest ad homeniem smear.:rolleyes:

Just because she didn't write the articles you think she should, doesn't mean she has no crediblity. Her arguments are much more solid, factual, logical and honest then most anything you post here.

Obviously it isn't the money, honey, it is who is in charge... And who knows - maybe where it is going. I am sure she has plenty of buddies on Wall Street and in big banking.

More smears and ad hominem attacks, this time based purely in speculation.

I won't go after Ann, unless a paycheck is involved.

You say this after you have already attempted to smear her twice in this post...:rolleyes:

I can dispute almost everything in her Chicken Little 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' tirade

Then do it...or can you only "dispute" it by attempting to smear her?

I don't thing you can reasonably dispute anything she bases her argument on in that article.

- but, then I would have to read the hateful thing again - wouldn't I? I really can avoid that if substantial sums of money aren't involved ;)

More smears and red herrings (calling it "hateful").

Your posts on her are just as "hateful" (in your uniquely passive agressive manner) as you seem to think her article is...

However, I am sure that somehow it was really important that she tie Bill Clinton and syphilis together, it certainly gives a lot of veraciousness to her article, and doesn't seem like disparagement at all. She is constantly doing this - did Bill turn her down :p ?

Oh, well then we should totally disregard her argument.:rolleyes:

God forbid that she actually injects a bit of facetious humor into her writing. You never do that.
 
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL!

2/13/09

FRIDAY THE 13TH


This day should be remember like 9/11/01. The date America was attacked from within.​

Capitol_Building_at_Night.jpg
 
A million dollars in $100.00 bills will stack up to a height of 3 feet.
A trillion dollar stack is 575 miles high.
My advice to America
is to:
Drink Heavily.

My advice to foxpaws
is to: Grow-------UP
 
More disengenuous, specious foxpaws arguments. Weather or not she went after TARP (she did, but not in her articles), says nothing about what she has to say or her credibility in saying it. It is nothing but a dishonest ad homeniem smear.

Just because she didn't write the articles you think she should, doesn't mean she has no crediblity. Her arguments are much more solid, factual, logical and honest then most anything you post here.
So, shag - got for me where she went after TARP - while it was being voted in or before?

I don't care what she writes, but, here she is inconsistent. If she were that worried about the money she should have been worried about the money 3 months ago,

More smears and ad hominem attacks, this time based purely in speculation.

Yep, it is pure speculation, because I haven't had time to give her a call about this Shag. Everything I would write here regarding her reasons is speculation - just the same as whatever cause you might want to bring forth...

You say this after you have already attempted to smear her twice in this post...

Just attempted shag - come on, I did better than merely attempt ;)

I adore going after her personally - because it is soooo much fun watching the right rally around their bantam legged cheerleader, the sheer entertainment value is well worth it. However, going after her misconceptions (see, I am being very nice here) that she states as 'facts' in her articles and books... those cost.

I don't thing you can reasonably dispute anything she bases her argument on in that article.

From Ann's article
For half a century, the welfare establishment had the bright idea to pay women to have children out of wedlock. Following the iron laws of economics -- subsidize something, you get more of it; tax it, you get less of it -- the number of children being born out of wedlock skyrocketed.

The 1996 Welfare Reform bill marked the first time any government entitlement had ever been rolled back. Despite liberal howling and foot-stomping, not subsidizing illegitimacy led, like night into day, to less illegitimacy.

I don't have to do research into this - because I worked on this for someone a few years ago, so it stood out as wrong right away.

I was a bit surprised the paper was still available. So, this one is easy - just the facts Ann....

Births to unmarried women... 1996 - 32.4% of births, 2005 - 36.9% (it has increased, or remained flat one year - 1997, every year since the Welfare Reform Act.)

Now, there are lots of reasons - acceptance of single motherhood among older women, but that seems to be offset by the large decrease in teenage pregnancies - about 25% over the same time period (mostly due to education and empowerment of young women, regarding control of their own bodies, that is what I was helping doing research on).

And it has also increased less these past 10 years than it did then the previous 10 years (1986 - 1995) by about 1/2. However Ann didn't state that it was increasing at a reduced rate (in just raw numbers it has increased by over 1/4 million per year - 1.26m in 1996, 1.52m in 2005), she stated that there was 'less illegitimacy'. There is 'more illegitimacy', unlike Ann's supposition that it has decreased.

No smear, just numbers...

Since this only took about 15 minutes of my time to dig this back up - I won't charge you my minimum shag...;)

There were other statements she made that I knew were wrong right away, but, you know, by arguing against her, I in some way validate her. And why in the heck would I want to do that?

Hello Mr dtangerini - My advice to you - buy cheap booze stock - probably beer, hold on to McDonalds, dump small energy, and "growing up" is highly overrated...:)
 
I adore going after her personally - because it is soooo much fun watching the right rally around their bantam legged cheerleader, the sheer entertainment value is well worth it. However, going after her misconceptions (see, I am being very nice here) that she states as 'facts' in her articles and books... those cost.
Once again, you think you're clever, but you're not. Going after someone with false claims may give you some sense of pride, but that's a very twisted sense. The fact that you get some sort of perverted glee out of smearing someone falsely just so you can see the defenders rally around her speaks volumes about the degeneracy of your character.
 
I don't care what she writes, but, here she is inconsistent. If she were that worried about the money she should have been worried about the money 3 months ago,

Where are you getting the insane idea that she is being incosistent? Because you can't go back and find her writing a article on a subject you think she should have?

Her columns are op-eds. She can write what she wants to. It is absurd to try and say she is "inconsistent" simply because she didn't comment on something when you think she should have.

What is clear here is not that she is being in any way "inconsistent", but that you are desperate to find any reason to smear, marginalize and thus illogically discredit her.

Yep, it is pure speculation, because I haven't had time to give her a call about this Shag. Everything I would write here regarding her reasons is speculation - just the same as whatever cause you might want to bring forth...

more pathetic illogical arguments. This time, and ad hominem tu quoque logical fallacy.

However, going after her misconceptions (see, I am being very nice here) that she states as 'facts' in her articles and books... those cost.

Never mind that her "misconceptions" almost always factually check out and are based on sound, logical reasoning. They're still misconceptions, right?



I don't have to do research into this - because I worked on this for someone a few years ago, so it stood out as wrong right away.

I was a bit surprised the paper was still available. So, this one is easy - just the facts Ann....

Births to unmarried women... 1996 - 32.4% of births, 2005 - 36.9% (it has increased, or remained flat one year - 1997, every year since the Welfare Reform Act.)

Now, there are lots of reasons - acceptance of single motherhood among older women, but that seems to be offset by the large decrease in teenage pregnancies - about 25% over the same time period (mostly due to education and empowerment of young women, regarding control of their own bodies, that is what I was helping doing research on).

And it has also increased less these past 10 years than it did then the previous 10 years (1986 - 1995) by about 1/2. However Ann didn't state that it was increasing at a reduced rate (in just raw numbers it has increased by over 1/4 million per year - 1.26m in 1996, 1.52m in 2005), she stated that there was 'less illegitimacy'. There is 'more illegitimacy', unlike Ann's supposition that it has decreased.

No smear, just numbers...

Your "analysis" is a bit oversimplified and seems cherry-picked, especially in trying to disprove the statement of Coulter's you highlighted.
 
Where are you getting the insane idea that she is being incosistent? Because you can't go back and find her writing a article on a subject you think she should have?

Her columns are op-eds. She can write what she wants to. It is absurd to try and say she is "inconsistent" simply because she didn't comment on something when you think she should have.

What is clear here is not that she is being in any way "inconsistent", but that you are desperate to find any reason to smear, marginalize and thus illogically discredit her.

I don't 'think' she should have written about TARP, I am just pointing out that she didn't. Not only is she inconsistent, her silence also speaks volumes. Why was she silent about a spending package, that actually spends more than the stimulus package, with far less accountability, yet goes ballistic on the current bill... because it is the 'right' thing to do ;).

And desperate is the last word I would use when disagreeing with Coulter - easy would be the first...

Your "analysis" is a bit oversimplified and seems cherry-picked, especially in trying to disprove the statement of Coulter's you highlighted.

Shag - I didn't just 'try' to disprove Coulter's statement - I did. As I said, it was easy - I knew the numbers. As a percentage of births, illegitimacy is increasing, it is easily verified.

Ann does this a lot - and actually is easiest to call her on. She often puts in odd little statements, like the one regarding illegitimacy, for really no reason other than to rally the right around her. Here, she inserts an incorrect statement to pat the Republicans on the back regarding 'their' (that is another really funny one Ann) welfare bill. "Look at how good we are doing." Why use a wrong statistic, that is easily verified as being incorrect? There are lots of great statistics regarding the reduction of Welfare since 1996, but that isn't one of them. But the whole idea of single moms making more and more babies, sitting around getting welfare is something that has been pointed at by the right since Reagan's 'welfare queens driving a cadillac' days. She was riding on those coattails.

Is she sloppy? Perhaps, but doubtful. She is smart and knows what her audience wants to hear. This is a flash point - and therefore she injected it into her op-ed piece.

So, against my better judgement - let's discuss the 'meat' of her argument against the welfare change in the stimulus package. What the stimulus package does regarding welfare is that it is cutting back on the state's goals that they have to show the federal government that they are moving people off of welfare in smaller and smaller timeframes. This is a clause that will be grandfathered (it will end at the end 2010) and is stated to be only in times of economic hardship, so if the economy improves before the sunset takes place it can be removed from the package earlier than 2010.

People are staying unemployed longer because there aren't any jobs, and as they run out of unemployment they may need to move to welfare rolls while still looking for work. In this way the welfare rolls are expected to rise somewhat in the next couple of years, placing strains on state finances. Also, the jobless already on welfare are having a harder time getting jobs. During the economic downturn, people who are extremely employable are often 'settling' for jobs that would have gone to people on welfare, leaving the unemployed on welfare without certain job opportunities. Once again, leaving more people on welfare for a slightly longer time while they are looking for jobs.

The stimulus package is relaxing the state's requirements to move people off welfare in a small time frame. It is not rewarding states that increase their welfare caseloads by paying unwed mothers to sit home doing nothing. It is realizing the reality of the current situation and not removing funds from states that are going to be strapped by the economic downturn. There is nothing in there that is rewarding mothers for having more children on welfare, there are still the incentives that require support to be paid by fathers (one of the biggest helps in reducing welfare rolls has been getting 'dead beat dads' to pay their share in child rearing costs, often by court required payments that are garnished from paychecks). There are still requirements that welfare recipients look for work, and guidelines that are followed regarding that. The states that include the community work clauses aren't going to be changing that. There are still retraining and training opportunities, as well as child care help and child care health coverage that has also been shown to be very effective in moving single mothers off of welfare. There are still the same limits regarding the length of time you can be on welfare, for both the incident and cumulative numbers. It is not abolishing or changing the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, it is temporarily changing the states' goals regarding getting people off of unemployment.

It is sensibly understanding that during the next couple of years that the welfare rolls will probably rise, not because the states aren't doing their jobs, but because of the economic downturn. And that punishing the states for not being able to move people off welfare as quickly isn't going to accomplish anything other than to get the states deeper in debt.

Creating environments where women can become economically and emotionally self sufficient has long been a cause of mine, ever since some pretty good stump speeches from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Welfare reform has been and is still a vital part of that vision. The stimulus package does not recreate the situation we had in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
 
Coulter is right when she says the Democrats will just give money to single moms and not require them to do anything for it.
This can only be seen as making the single mom lifestyle
quite attractive to single women especially the one's who have nothing going for them.
Their (democrat) whole theory is that the many single-mom recipients are "hard-to-employ" types with "multiple problems" who basically need to be supported on the dole.
Have babies and the government will pay you for it and not make you work..
I posted this earlier but it seems to fit into this post better than standing alone:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/

As promised, here are the gory mechanics of the liberal conspiracy to expand welfare rolls through an insufficiently publicized provision in the stimulus bill:

Under the welfare reform regime established in 1996, states were basically required to engage 50% of their caseload--mainly single mothers--in some kind of "work activity" (workfare, job search, training, etc.). But there was a problem with this half-the-caseload requirement: What about would-be recipients who got off the rolls entirely when the states found jobs for them--or who were diverted into jobs before they ever signed up for welfare? Shouldn't states be able to count these "successes" toward the 50% requirement? You wouldn't want to give states an incentive to somehow keep these people on welfare in order to count them. Thus was born the "caseload reduction credit," which let states count the net decline in their caseloads against the 50% work requirement.​
Fair enough. But because caseloads declined dramatically after 1996--they've gone down by two-thirds--the "caseload reduction credit" effectively absolved many states of the requirement to get half of their caseloads working. When Congress reauthorized welfare reform it updated the baseline to 2005. States could still take the credit for any reductions after that date. Many did so, as caseloads continued to fall.​
Now, though, Congressional Democrats want to encourage states to expand their caseloads, offering billions of federal dollars in the "stimulus" package as an incentive to do so. But wait, if states expand their welfare caseloads as the Dems want, they'd lose the "caseload reduction credit," since their caseloads would not, in fact, have been reduced. They might then have to start enforcing the "work activity" requirements on those caseloads. Can't have that! That might discourage states from expanding welfare, for one thing, since enforcing work requirements costs money, and states have no money. And Congressional Money Liberals** never liked work requirements much in the first place. The last thing they want to do is increase them. (Their whole theory is that the many single-mom recipients are "hard-to-employ" types with "multiple problems" who basically need to be supported on the dole.)
What's a good Money Liberal to do?​
Answer: Rewrite the law, in the stimulus package, to let states expand their caseloads but pretend, for "caseload reduction credit" purposes, that the caseloads have declined. Specifically, the revision would allow states take the credit they would have gotten based on their caseloads in 2007 or 2008 even if their caseloads soar (as the Dems would like) in 2009 and 2010.​
In other words, they can expand their caseloads but still use the now-fictitious "reduction credit" to avoid the law's work requirements.​
Lots of new people on welfare. Lower work obligations. The best of both worlds for welfare-unreforming Dems.​
The major difference between the House and Senate versions of this deeply troubling provision, apparently, is that the Senate allocates only $3 billion to induce states to expand their caseloads, while the House bill might spend more than twice as much.

P.S.: On bloggingheads my colleague Bob Wright routinely ridiculed me as paranoid for worrying that if Democrats got back in power they would unravel welfare reform. Even I thought I was paranoid. If only for political purposes, I figured, Dems would have to wait a few months or years before sabotaging Bill Clinton's major domestic achievement. It took them two weeks. ...
**--By "Money Liberals" I mean liberals who define the equality they seek entirely in economistic terms. Confronted with the indignity of poverty, Money Liberals seek to end it by the simple expedient of sending cash to the poor. Money Liberalism, in this definition, ignores non-material distinctions, like those between those who work and those who don't, that (in an alternative, more Clintonian view) are fundamentally bound up in our ideas of dignity and civic respect (i.e. social equality).

Specifically, an able-bodied person who fails to work and relies instead on the dole can't have full respect in our society, and shouldn't. The attempt to confer equal respect by spreading around cash--as opposed to guaranteeing work, and making work pay--is doomed.
_______________________________________________

Coulter says single mothers produce more criminals and strippers than 2 parent families.
This concept is easy to understand but hard to critisize without hurt feelings,
due to the many successful people who grew up in a single parent home and made a success of themselves.
But overall I agree with her opinion that families with no father and an indigent single welfare mother are not good for society in general and should be discouraged and not celebrated.
 
Hello 04SCTLS - have you read the bills in your links - I have - this isn't about reforming the reform act, it is allowing the states to increase their welfare rolls for 2 years while we are going through the economic downturn. Things revert back after those two years, and the restrictions regarding time frames that people are allowed to be on welfare won't change, in fact the requirements regarding the people within the system won't change at all. States will be allowed to increase their rolls without being punished. But that doesn't mean people will be allowed to remain on the rolls for longer periods of time - that remains the same.

The people on welfare are still required to look for work, and in states where it is part of the act, do community service if they aren't employed. The individual requirements and restrictions for receiving welfare hasn't changed at all.

There will be more people applying for welfare the next two years - that is a reality - states will be paying for that - that is also a reality. Punishing the states for that shouldn't be a reality...
 
especially the one's who have nothing going for them.
You must mean the ugly ones that spread their legs for any loser that cums along.

We should feel for these women. They only want what every women wants; a kid(s) to fulfill their lives. We should give them a free ride. After all comrade, we are the new USSA.
 
There will be more people applying for welfare the next two years - that is a reality - states will be paying for that - that is also a reality.

You freaking liberals just don't get it. There is nothing in the StealFromUs bill that creates jobs.

Liberals have never owned a business and created jobs, therefore, they don't know jack.

I do. I've employed hundreds of people.

There is nothing here in this bill that makes us more competitive with the world.

There is sooo much we could have done to push this country into the future.

Instead, Democrats jerked off to give more handouts to their constituents to make them dependant on the government for decades to come.

I'm done with this forum.

Have a crappy day.
 
is allowing the states to increase their welfare rolls for 2 years while we are going through the economic downturn. Things revert back after those two years, and the restrictions regarding time frames that people are allowed to be on welfare won't change,

So this is temporary.:D
I'll believe that when I see it 2 years from now :rolleyes: ,
new rules in the meantime notwithstanding.
 
I don't 'think' she should have written about TARP, I am just pointing out that she didn't. Not only is she inconsistent, her silence also speaks volumes. Why was she silent about a spending package, that actually spends more than the stimulus package, with far less accountability, yet goes ballistic on the current bill... because it is the 'right' thing to do ;).

Just because she didn't write anything on TARP at the time it was passed does not mean that she is in any way being inconsistent here! That is an illogical conclusion giving the single fact you cite; a non sequiter.

You are jumping from point 'A' to point 'Q' and connecting the dots with nothing more then assumptions. If you can find her actually defending TARP in some way, you might have an argument, but as it stands you are jumping to conclusions.

Shag - I didn't just 'try' to disprove Coulter's statement - I did. As I said, it was easy - I knew the numbers. As a percentage of births, illegitimacy is increasing, it is easily verified.

You didn't disprove it; you simply showed evidence that, as you presented it, seems to contradict her claim. But of course, you have a bad habit of taking information out of context to distort it and oversimplifying things to mischaracterize them. In short, you lack credibility. The way you presented the info was very vague. I will get into that more in a minute.

You don't know what info Coulter is basing her claim on. You need to know that before you claim one peice of evidence that you cite in any way counters what she says; otherwise you are simply cherry picking and spinning.

If you want to disprove her without knowing what info she is basing her claim on, you need to have facts that both disprove her and create the most accurate picture available (and not simply be a statistical distortion).

You need to show why those numbers in the light you present them are the most accurate representation of reality and why they counter her specific claim.

I am not inclined to waste time checking your sources and doing research on this issue to counter your claims. I am frankly not all that interested in the "plight" of single mothers who are too irresponsible and lazy to get off their back and get a job; they get enough of my time in the form of taxes I pay from the money I work for.

But weather or not illegitimacy rates today (or 2005, for that matter) are more or less then they were in 1996 is irrelevant to Coulter's claim. What matters is the more immediate effect of the legislation in 1996. If there was a drop in illegitimacy rates, then her point stands. If you find conflicting numbers on this, then you should present both and make an argument why one would be more accurate then the other.
 
You didn't disprove it; you simply showed evidence that, as you presented it, seems to contradict her claim. But of course, you have a bad habit of taking information out of context to distort it and oversimplifying things to mischaracterize them. In short, you lack credibility. The way you presented the info was very vague. I will get into that more in a minute.

Look at my source sweetheart - you might want to check it before you start 'dishing' it - it is from the CDC site - they watch birth populations and relationships for healthy births/problem births regarding age, race, legitimacy, etc.
Here is a copy of the chart I used - as you can see it is on page 12 if you want to check it in the original source. But, why do that - it might prove your cheerleader is mistaken on this point.

chart1.jpg


And, check out my numbers anytime Shag... very rarely do I use anything other than government source. You can claim I lack credibility, but you have yet to show that I make up numbers, or use numbers from sites that are biased. This is not oversimplification - it isn't even hard to find these numbers.

You don't know what info Coulter is basing her claim on. You need to know that before you claim one peice of evidence that you cite in any way counters what she says; otherwise you are simply cherry picking and spinning.

If you want to disprove her without knowing what info she is basing her claim on, you need to have facts that both disprove her and create the most accurate picture available (and not simply be a statistical distortion).

Nope - all she stated was that illegitimacy was 'less'. If she would have clarified that it would be great, however, she created the blanket statement, not me. And this is the most accurate picture available - I didn't make up the numbers, I didn't pull just blacks, just whites, women over 35, women under 25, This is it, total population.

You need to show why those numbers in the light you present them are the most accurate representation of reality and why they counter her specific claim.

There we go shag - the government statistics, her claim, the difference in outcome.

I am not inclined to waste time checking your sources and doing research on this issue to counter your claims. I am frankly not all that interested in the "plight" of single mothers who are too irresponsible and lazy to get off their back and get a job; they get enough of my time in the form of taxes I pay from the money I work for.

That is great - continue to turn your back on the plight of single mothers. It is people like you, who categorize, and never see people as individuals, that is the biggest problem. Until these women have a face, a voice, the prejudice they face is immense. You were the one who said, when we were talking about charities, that government systems didn't work because they weren't one on one. Yeah, that sounds great, but when the real dirty work needs to take place - you can't believe the number of people who say - 'don't bother me, I pay my taxes, that is enough'. Guess what - it isn't enough. And unless people get in there, and work hard for these people, then your taxes will continue to go to things like welfare. Pay it forward Shag. Spend time working to change things. Look at the individual and not the problem.

That is why part of the welfare reform is working so well. Finally people realized that when these women did go to work, they ended up with less take home pay than their welfare benefits because suddenly they had to pay for child care and child health care insurance. They started to look at the individual. By subsidizing those items, the women could work, and see that their paychecks were bigger than their welfare check. Plus, as time went on, they got raises, got better jobs, jobs that maybe paid for their kids' health insurance, and they were able to start paying for child care. So by the government investing the small amount up front for child care and health care (which wasn't really an investment at all, because medicaid was paying those healthcare costs when the women were on welfare), women were able to see the difference that working made in their daily lives. It made their lives better, and they were able to get off welfare, and guess what - they pay taxes now.

But weather or not illegitimacy rates today (or 2005, for that matter) are more or less then they were in 1996 is irrelevant to Coulter's claim. What matters is the more immediate effect of the legislation in 1996. If there was a drop in illegitimacy rates, then her point stands. If you find conflicting numbers on this, then you should present both and make an argument why one would be more accurate then the other.

Check out post #9 - I said that the year following the percentage was flat - in 1997 it was the same as it was in 1996. And, as you can see, and as I stated, every year since then it has increased. I have only seen preliminary numbers on 2007 (it takes quite a time for these numbers to get through) illegitimacy is still increasing, but is slowing way down. Mostly due to the falling teenage pregnancy rate among white, middle class teenagers, with the overall Hispanic rate declining as well.

Foss, I do put in odd little statements - but usually I take time to make sure they are correct... ;)
 
So this is temporary.:D
I'll believe that when I see it 2 years from now :rolleyes: ,
new rules in the meantime notwithstanding.

I do hope it is temporary - I was very concerned when I heard about the stimulus bill undermining welfare reform. I did some research and found out about how it doesn't change the individual restrictions, just the number of people who may end up on welfare because of the current employment situation.

And hopefully it won't even change those numbers much. The people who are expected to apply for welfare are not the hard core unemployed, or single 'welfare' moms. These are people who have been working up until recently - and can't find jobs, even though they are looking. When the economy does turn around - those people don't want to be on welfare - they want to be working, and as soon as they can they will be off welfare.

And we really do need to watch this - I am, because welfare as it was in the time frame before 1996 really doesn't work. It is finally becoming a system that is doing what it is suppose to - a stop gap measure whose real purpose is to get people working.

It still has flaws, but, hopefully those can be addressed as well.
 
Look at my source sweetheart - you might want to check it before you start 'dishing' it - it is from the CDC site - they watch birth populations and relationships for healthy births/problem births regarding age, race, legitimacy, etc.
Here is a copy of the chart I used - as you can see it is on page 12 if you want to check it in the original source. But, why do that - it might prove your cheerleader is mistaken on this point.

And, check out my numbers anytime Shag... very rarely do I use anything other than government source. You can claim I lack credibility, but you have yet to show that I make up numbers, or use numbers from sites that are biased. This is not oversimplification - it isn't even hard to find these numbers.

But Coulter never said she used CDC numbers. She just made the claim. Yes it is a statement that is harder to disprove, but not impossible, so still a valid statement because it is disprovable.

As the thread where we discussed the Heritage numbers shows different government agencies can have different numbers, so the CDC numbers don't necessarily constiute the government stats.

Another question would be, what methodology did they use? Maybe their methodology wasn't as accurate as another government agency or a private sector organization. Any number of questions like that need to be answered in some fashion before you "disprove" Coulter.

Considering your lack of credibility, I am not willing to simply take your word that these are the official government number and that is all there is to it. Coulter usually bases this on some sort of factual evidence (though she clearly didn't say it). If you have done accurate research (and not simply cherry picked your info) I imagine you would have come across that.

I wanna see that info and see you show why that info is not as accurate.

Also, what about illegitimacy concerning mother on welfare? Do the stats you cite make that distinction, because that is clearly what Coulter is talking about. Not all women with children born out of wedlock, only those on welfare.

As I said, this issue doesn't interest me that much. So I am not going to do the research on it. If you can logically disprove Coulter, fine, but I am gonna be devils advocate here (that doesn't take much time or effort). You are not gonna get away with anything less then conclusively and logically disproving her on this one. If you don't know where she is likely coming from (the facts she is likely basing her argument on), then you can't disprove her. You need to find those and then logically show why those would be less accurate then the facts you cite. What facts would prove her claim and why are they not as accurate as yours.

I think this would be a good exercise for you; to have to make a logical argument.

It is people like you, who categorize, and never see people as individuals, that is the biggest problem. Until these women have a face, a voice, the prejudice they face is immense. You were the one who said, when we were talking about charities, that government systems didn't work because they weren't one on one.

And this is why you are incapable of intellectual honesty; your passions rule you. Thought is only applied when the need arises to rationalize and justify your passions. Critical thought is only applied when you look at an opposing point of view. And there are no limits to your arguments imposed by any concerns for honesty, or anything like that. You emotions and passions determine your political prinicples and views. This is a prime example of that.

The problem is, that is the way high school students and most college students think. I think dtangerini was right; you need to grow up.

As to my "judging" this single mom's; yes I am, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that. I am not judging them for being a woman or for simply being anything, I am judging them on the actions they take which says something about their character. In short; I am judging them as Dr. King thought all people should be judged; by the content of their character.

Shame on you for attacking me for that. Apoligists like you are what allows irresponsible and lazy women to create another generation of leeches on society.

They screw up, it is not my responsiblity (or the responsibility of society in general).

And you clearly have no idea what I am talking about when it comes to private charity. You are making assumptions. The difference between government handouts and private charity is the catch that comes with the help. With government there is no catch so it becomes an incentive to stay on wellfare. The government can try to impose some negative incentives to staying on wellfare, but it is a losing battle. With smaller private charities, they do not get assistance unless they meet certian, individually set criteria and have much more pressure to get off of welfare. In short; smaller private welfare can bring "tough love" to bear while the government can't.

You really should read that book and not just assume you know what I am talking about. I linked to that book for a reason. You clearly haven't read it (or even a summary of it). You are clearly attacking me through ignorance here.

Yeah, that sounds great, but when the real dirty work needs to take place you can't believe the number of people who say - 'don't bother me, I pay my taxes, that is enough'. Guess what - it isn't enough. And unless people get in there, and work hard for these people, then your taxes will continue to go to things like welfare. Pay it forward Shag. Spend time working to change things. Look at the individual and not the problem.

Actually, government welfare has been shown to crowd out private charities (much the same as government spending will crowd out private investment). Without welfare, people give more and get more involved. Government welfare provides them an excuse to not do anything, as they can already say they do something. Without government welfare, you get people more proactively involved.

Besides, with government welfare, it is a lossing battle on the societal level. You get involved and try to change someone for the better, the government is providing way more with incentive to stay where they are and leech off society.

Your bleeding heart approach has never worked in the aggregate in dealing with welfare; it only perpetuates the problem. Doing nothing would be better, because at least their would be consequences to their actions. Helping them stay afloat but giving them incentive to pick themselves up (tough love) would be best of all, and the government cannot do that, only private, smaller, community based charities can.


There is a reason I have Herbert Spencer's quote in my signature. It summarizes this rather accurately:
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools
"Single, unemployed Moms" apply to that statement as much as "men" do.
 
And of course,
To Coulter's statement

GOODBYE, AMERICA! IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED

Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever.
 
I wanna see that info and see you show why that info is not as accurate.

I have shown you my stats – where I get them and how I use them. I haven’t a clue where Ann got her idea that illegitimacy is less now than 1996, she didn’t state where she got the information for her statement. There really aren’t other locations for this information.

Shag, I happen to know a lot about this – it is something I have given my time and my skills to for a long time. No one says that overall illegitimacy is less now then it was 12 years ago, No one. That is why that was a red flag.

She could have stated teenage pregnancy is decreasing, but, she didn’t. And I believe CDC and the Census Bureau (and they cross reference each other) are the only locations where the birth mother’s marital status is kept – it is where I have gone the entire time I have been working with this subject, which is since the Clinton administration. It is also where people who do research into single motherhood, rates, race, economic breakdowns go. All this stuff is needed for TANF. States get federal bonuses for reducing out-of-wedlock births - especially in teenagers. I bet she went there when researching her newest book, but maybe not, mostly she was concerned with single mothers and their children who are in prison and working strip joints.

I think this would be a good exercise for you; to have to make a logical argument.
So, since you are the arbitrator of all source, tell me where I can find other source on this, I haven’t a clue, and I have been working with this problem, as an advocate for placing women back into the workplace and off welfare rolls for over 15 years. No one other than CDC, as far as I know, keeps numbers like this.

As to my "judging" this single mom's; yes I am, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that. I am not judging them for being a woman or for simply being anything, I am judging them on the actions they take which says something about their character. In short; I am judging them as Dr. King thought all people should be judged; by the content of their character.
How insensate Shag. You ‘judge’ them without even knowing their circumstances… You know, I don’t know your circumstances. Why at 29 are you still in college? Some would say that you were lazy, and that you are just a perpetual student living off student loans. They would judge you as you are judging those women, on one known fact. I would never assume to know why you are in college at 29, and I would never judge you on that fact alone. You could have had to go to work right out of high school to help out at home. You could have decided somewhere down the line that you wanted something better for yourself. You may have never taken out a student loan. I can’t judge you, I don’t know you or your circumstances.

However, you feel quite righteous in judging unemployed single moms, without knowing anything of their circumstances, their lives, their problems, their past. Well… isn’t that special.

With government there is no catch so it becomes an incentive to stay on wellfare.
Do you have any clue how 1996 changed welfare? The head of the household has to be employed within 2 years of the start of receiving funds. They have to get job training, and they are only allowed 60 months in total over their lifetime (in most states – I believe in 5 states there isn’t a limit, and in about 15 states the limits vary, but are less than 60 months).

Government welfare provides them an excuse to not do anything, as they can already say they do something. Without government welfare, you get people more proactively involved.

Yep, it provides you an excuse not to help. People like to sit in their little safe houses and not do anything. And if they didn't have that excuse, they would find another. If you care, you do it whether or not there is involvement with government funds. If you care about your child’s school, you get involved, even though the government provides funds. If you care about the arts, you get involved, even though museums receive large funds from the government. Just because the government isn’t involved doesn’t guarantee more help will be there. There probably will be very little difference. People who get involved and provide time and that all important ‘one on one’ do so because they feel a need to. Because they want to make someone else’s life better. Not because the government does or doesn’t do it. It makes no difference if the government is giving money, I need to help as well.

Your bleeding heart approach has never worked in the aggregate in dealing with welfare; it only perpetuates the problem. Doing nothing would be better, because at least their would be consequences to their actions. Helping them stay afloat but giving them incentive to pick themselves up (tough love) would be best of all, and the government cannot do that, only private, smaller, community based charities can.

I worked hard in Clinton’s administration to change welfare – my ‘bleeding heart’ approach is practical and realistic. If you worked with these women you would have some idea of what is involved.

"Single, unemployed Moms" apply to that statement as much as "men" do.
Shag, I work with unemployed, underemployed women all the time, I give my time and my skills to help them. I know their problems and the reasons.

Many times it is because they have been lazy, or just want to ‘live on the dole’. But, you know, just stopping giving them money does very little. I have seen that. Welfare now runs out in 60 months in this state (most states). They quit being leeches on the state, and become leeches elsewhere – I know. And unless you have taught those women skills, and I mean basic skills like how to get up in the morning and get to work. How to punch a time clock, how to manage money, how you pay your rent, how you go home and stay with your kids instead of drinking, they stay unemployed. People on welfare now have to get this type of training. However, you know there are plenty that just find another way to get money once welfare runs out. Selling drugs, selling themselves, scams, begging. They do fall through the system, but now the government will only continue providing for them once they end up in jail.

Did you know though there are many who come to need help because they have left abusive situations. Go ahead and judge these women because they asked for it. Or, some guy knocked them up in high school and they never got to finish school,and that boy is long gone. Blame the girls for that too. Many times they have a sick child that has become a strain on both their finances and their ability to work a full time job. And guess what - the Dad has skipped town, is nowhere to be found, and hasn't paid child support in 2 years. But, he probably has a good reason. If you aren’t realistic and give these women help – and a chance to be better, they too will become hardcore unemployed.

I give my time for a private, smaller community based charity, and there is no way, without government assistance that these women can enter or re-enter the workforce and continue on with their lives in a meaningful and productive way. I know how much comes in with private contributions, I know how much time is volunteered. It isn’t enough. And, if you think there would be this great influx of private funds if everyone were given a tax break on the funds used for welfare well, shag, lets see your numbers on that? I don’t want just assumption here – I would like to see some real figures. Preferably 2 sources, one that shows your supposition, and one that shows the opposing (my) viewpoint and then I will be able to judge. ;)

But, go ahead and judge those women. They are all alike – right? They are all lazy and don’t care about anything but themselves and what is in it for them. Because it is easier to see and judge the overall problem, then to take the time to know a single person.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top