What is meant by “welfare checks” here? TANF? WIC? SSI? SSD? S8? something else? I like to get specific when people are complaining about “welfare.”
Which Republicans are on record in support of that legislation, specifically?.
You might want to remember that one large reason for the need to raise the debt ceiling is the “temporary” Bush tax cuts. They were ill-advised to begin with, but even so they were set to expire, which would have increased federal revenues, possibly negating the need for further debt. Of course the republicans with their scare tactics managed to find enough support to make them permanent, thereby further depriving the government of revenue which was both expected and needed.
Beware, Qin, of the right-wing kool-aide…
Well, what kind of welfare program is easy for the lazy to take advantage of? I would think it would be WIC or SSD, or whatever kind of welfare they give ex-cons to get them back on their feet. He’s not just lazy, he’s criminal, too.
Republicans can no longer claim to be pro-life. They are now doing their best to defund family planning clinics, and to discourage contraception, which will inevitably lead to more abortions.
Uh, off the top of my head…Orrin Hatch
Many of us are unfamiliar with the lavish benefits showered upon released convicts. Perhaps you could take a few moments to fill us in with the details?
Are you being sarcastic about treason, or my suggestion of it?
I don’t think I have a firm grasp of the legal definition of ‘treason’. I thought something like ‘raiding the US treasury’ was included, but upon inspection it appears Chronos is correct.
Still, Der Trihs has a point. I am sooo loath to use the word, not because I much care if 'dopers like me, or even take me seriously, but gawd please don’t label me a conspiracy theorist. What I am getting at is distinct from that, in that it is moral rather than legal. The pubbies have been sick and wrong even if it is not a crime. ‘Conspiracy’ and ‘treason’ are terms that do not apply in these cases- we need new terms to refer to immoral ‘conspiracies’ and economic ‘war’ against the middle and lower classes.
I’ve always assumed that is why the dems didn’t fight to end the war in 2007/2008, it was a leninist strategy to keep people discontent to channel that discontentment into political capital. After winning congress in 2006 on an anti-Iraq war platform they wanted to carry the resentment over the war into the 2008 elections, and use it to win more seats. So they didn’t end the war or use their congressional powers.
They did draw down the war after the 2008 elections, but I wonder if they were only half assing it before then. They pretty much gave Bush whatever he wanted before the 2008 elections.
The Democratic Party is “Leninist”? Well, I suppose, in much the same way that Barney Frank is exactly like Che Guevera.
Republicans do not care about any people anywhere in the world except themselves. So I do not believe that they would hesitate to destroy the US economy to achieve power. They are against minimum wages, unemployment insurance, public education that is not indoctrination, etc. etc. etc.
from Johnny L.A.'s link:
[
](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm)
I’d say that’s it in a nutshell.
I asked this in a thread of my own. Guess I had to be a little more… what’s the word… vituperative?.. in my topic line. 
Krugman may be an intelligent economist, but his political understanding is a bit weak.
Social programs are popular, as he notes. That said, anyone who says that they will cut spending will be re-elected. Anyone who does cut spending, will not. Obama may have been trying to be “bi-partisan” by reaching across the party divide to create a joint-committee to determine spending cuts, but it’s more likely that he hoped to lure Republicans in as a scapegoat or at least to share the blame enough that when election time comes, the Democrats can blame the Republicans and the Republicans can blame the Democrats, and both sides are spared.
If cuts have to be made, there’s no advantage to the minority party to join in the process of making those cuts until the time of the final vote. The majority party will have to lead and push through the vote, and subsequently they will eat the fallout. The Republicans can get the cuts they want in the places they want, evade nearly all blame (eventually they’ll have to allow themselves to be pulled in to vote for the cuts), and be able to take control of the government. Seeing as the end result for the US is the same – spending is reduced – regardless of whether the Republicans help out or sit back and laugh why wouldn’t the Republicans take the path that does them good as well?
Political brinkmanship is nothing new.
Not really sure how her brother caused her to lose her house..
Sounds like it was the banks fault, not her brother, and her employer for not making accommedations for her injury. Also, letting this slug move in with her (unless they jointly inherited their house from their parents) was probably a mistake, too. I think we need more detail here.
To the point, though, I think that it would be wonderful if we required welfare to be workfare. If you are otherwise able bodied, and you can’t find a job in the private sector, you show up at a government work office and you engage in a constructive activity. Painting over grafitti, cleaning litter off the streets, whatever.
I think the more apt question is, why would the Republicans have any obligation to save Obama from his own inepitude?
He’s the one who hasn’t presented a full-scale budget in 2 years. He’s the one who has failed to present any plans.
Now, the GOP has had its own share of foolishness, like insisting on the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts when they haven’t done anything to help the economy.
But it’s not like Obama has done much to help his own cause.
Damn, I wish Hillary had won.
How come when people start talking about the need to drastically cut government expenditures, somehow the military budget never, ever comes into consideration? The Soviet Union is gone, we could cut the Pentagon’s budget in half and still be more powerful than any other single nation.
Largely because we spend so much more on entitlements than we do on the military.
The US budget deficit in 2011 is projected to reach $1.65 trillion. (Cite, as if you needed one.) The entire amount that the US spends on the military (another unnecessary cite), even if you include the entire budget of the State Department and FBI counter-terrorism activities and Energy Department expenditures related to the military and NASA, doesn’t reach that amount.
SOP from the Left - borrow and spend based on fantasy, and demonize anyone who resists.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
If that’s true, wouldn’t a winning strategy of the Democrats be to just say no to anything but a clean debt-ceiling bill? Or, insist upon revenue increases or they walk away? It seems to me that if everyone knows for sure that the debt ceiling will be raised, why would Obama and the Democrats even negotiate?
Me, too!