Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:
Tamerlan and his bride and their three-year-old daughter all have been on welfare as recently as last year. Isn't that wonderful? I was wondering where they got the money to buy all this stuff. The whole family's on welfare. So we have another great example of your tax dollars at work. Your tax dollars helped to pay for the explosives, as well as Tamerlan's at least two trips back to Dagestan, his late-model Mercedes, his $900 shoes... How could welfare pay that much money? How can welfare pay for all this? Okay, let's say welfare didn't pay for all of it. If they're able to get this other stuff, what are they doing on welfare in the first place, is the question?
Posts
133 comments:
This is why I now see the Democrats not as incorrect or deluded or voicing mere policy differences, but as the enemy.
Rush is a troglodyte because ... shut up.
Interesting, I did not know welfare rolls were private. I know that unemployment isn't (here in NC) and voting registration isn't and the value of your home isn't and what you paid for your house and car aren't.
Wonder why Welfare is "private?"
-XC
From Jeff Goldstein:
"Instead, my tack is not to assume a posture of defensiveness or even anger. Instead, I choose a combination of pity and disgust...
...I am here today to announce that I am through considering these people part of a greater national we. They, like the extremists they reward with teaching positions or defend against the yokels, the wingnuts, the small-government second amendment supporters and bourgeois small business owners they so vehemently and viscerally despise and seek to control and reshape, are the very Other they like to pretend they champion.
And having met their gaze — and having found it cold, cynical, manipulative, and tyrannical — I reject their claim to a separate and equal American authenticity. In fact, I reject them entirely.
They are my enemies and the enemies to my children, to children like Martin Richards and his sister. They are the enablers and the justifiers, the propagandists and the self-loathers, the liars and the fabulists.
What they want is power and control. And if it takes humanizing Marathon bombers while laying blame on American culture to shame Americans into malleability as a precondition for their re-education into collectivist economic units, they are willing to make that trade off. For the Greater Good. For their vision of Utopia."
I used to think they were merely unserious or overly PC or morons about terrorists.
Now I don't.
Working under the table.
Were they legally married? Or just married in a mosque?
I just trying to figure out the logistics of it all, as a family of three.
A few years ago, when my husband had a temporary pay cut, we actually qualified for 'food stamps'. Thank God, the raised his pay and we didn't go forward, but the actually food stamp application was a pain in the rear end. You needed a lot of documentation.
Who filled out the paper work for them at the DTA?
Renee said...
Working under the table.
Drug dealing...
Pogo
word
Due to the high costs of living, I find that Massachusetts is pretty generous with benefits overall.
Many working poor, don't even realize they qualify.
I know I shouldn't of said that.
And no, not off-topic.
Criminey, if we cannot discuss the ways that someone trying to kill us was also robbing us (both by shoplifting and by theft of tax dollars), then the motives of the Governor are in serious question.
And it is reasonable to assume that he has chosen their side, and defends them accordingly with all his government powers.
No other explanation makes sense.
How could welfare pay that much money?
Well, it couldn't. Some diplo blogs are speculating if he was on FBI dole.
This according to
The Boston Herald The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
lemondog,
DTA is for the working poor, not 'welfare moms'.
I would be more offended, if the daughter was in state paid day care (which many working poor qualify for), while he was making bombs.
Why should welfare benefits be private? It is public money. I am a public employee, and every year a local newspaper publishes my name and salary along with the names and salaries of all the other public employees in the area. There's a reason for that, and it's a good one. Why doesn't the same reason apply to welfare recipients?
I see more abuse with the state funded daycare/pre-k Headstart.
Wonder why Welfare is "private?"
Answering the rhetorical question: Because that would be embarrassing ... to the state, and to the people that PUSH for more welfare. The fact that it might be embarrassing to the recipients is merely helpful cover.
They could easily be "triple dipping."
Here's Howie Carr: We deserve to know what our tax $ paid for
"It’s time for all the bureaucrats, paper-shufflers and flak-catchers to come clean on the Tsarnaev clan, those chiseling Chechens who tried to kill us last week.
Open the damn books! If somebody tries to murder you, you have a right to know everything about them, privacy be damned. I want to know everything about them, and I want to know it now, right down to the quality of the weed Dzhokhar was peddling down at UMass Dartmouth.
Were they living in Section 8 housing in Cambridge?
Did they use Obamaphones to detonate the pressure-cooker bombs?
Did lovebirds Katherine and Tamerlan sign up for the WIC program as soon their daughter was born?
Mass Health? SSI? SSDI? Were there any handouts these deadbeats weren’t grabbing?
Did Tamerlan really become “radicalized” when the state took away his EBT card and, by the way, why should I even believe that he had to give up his card, because no other layabout has ever had to?
Considering that Massachusetts supported them in their leisure, can you call their bombings “state-sponsored terrorism”?
Did the Tsarnaevs collect the so-called earned-income tax credit, even though they worked about as often as Santa Claus?
Where did all their cash come from, and don’t tell me that Tamerlan owned an “old” Mercedes — save that Vaseline for the Globe. How did he have a Mercedes when he was 25 years old, even though he’d never had a job?
Why is most of the state-controlled media trying to turn Dzhokhar into the white Trayvon Martin?
Does DTA stand for Department of Terrorist Assistance?
Did the Tsarnaev brothers’ mother, Zubeidat, file quarterly estimated income taxes on her shoplifting earnings?"
If they're able to get this other stuff, what are they doing on welfare in the first place, is the question?
And a very good question it is. Someone in Boston has some 'splainin' to do.
But they won't.
"I know I shouldn't of said that."
Shouldn't have said that...shouldn't have...aarghh!!!!
I've known people on public assistance, both in NYC and in Florida, and the benefits are meager. If Tamerlan and his family owned expensive things, they were not paid for by welfare funds.
The reason is not privacy.
The reason is political embarrassment.
Many of the murderous immigrants of the last 40 years or so have been people on the periphery of American society and Teddy Kennedy's immigration bill has insured they would come from the lowest strata.
lemondog, my wife has been wondering who was watching the daughter at various time over the last several days of Tamerlan's life. She read that apparently on the final day of his life Katherine left the daughter in Tamerlan's care when she went to work, and that was the last she saw of HIM. So who took care of the daughter when he went off on the last killing spree?
Robert,
Sorry.... I say Medford as "Meffa".
My apologies.
Thank you for correcting me.
I'll remember that the next time I'm in line at Piggly Wiggly and I see a woman decked out in designer clothing and swiping a Wisconsin Quest card to pay for groceries.
Pogo, you magnificent bastard!
online resource for Massachusetts residents in need of basic services
Robert, There are many forms of assistance. It's like 'extreme couponing', if you know the right agency there is funding for everything. From direct cash, food, clothes, and fuel assistance.
How in hell can welfare be a private matter when it is the public that is paying?
@Robert, you are lying.
The point of welfare in the 21st century United States is not to provide help for people down on their luck. It is to lock people into a gilded cage so they will vote "appropriately." You know that, I know that, and now Pogo gets it too.
We should keep in mind, as Big Sis noted at the immigration bill hearings, our betters feel they are only bound to enforce the laws they want to.
Plain and simple the left is the enemy of America.
How in the world did we arrive at this point in our society?
Tax money being squandered everywhere. Welfare, boondoggles, crony capitalism, and yet ..... and yet, Owebama is laying off air traffic controllers. This country is toast.
Keeping the taxpayers ignorant is why these same politicians are re-elected over and over.
If the taxpayers knew the half of it, the politicians would be thrown out of office, or put in jail.
However, there are certain groups of people who are going to vote for the Democratic party politician whether they know they are crooks.
Did I make any mistakes, Mr. Cook?
We have met the enemy and it is NOT us.
That's one of the reasons social progressives can get us to back off. We are so worried about being called haters, bigots, racists, that we tiptoe around the truth.
This should be a moment when we take our stand and declare no more. No more being intimidated by liars and thieves. No more wondering if it is our fault. No more giving the benefit of the doubt to cold blooded criminals.
If Tamerlan and his family owned expensive things, they were not paid for by welfare funds. -- Robert Cook
Shit. Didn't you ever take an econ course? Money is fungible. They were on welfare. They lived well (as do many on welfare). Therefore, welfare helped fund this lifestyle, at least by freeing up certain expenses (food, rent) to allow them to spend elsewhere (fancy shoes, cars, etc.)
Another black lefty affirmative action pol whose made some bones in Mass. covers up his embarrassing failures, and the media will gladly help him.
Patrick 2016! Enjoy the decline, sheeple!
Renee,
I'm sorry to be pedantic, but that use of "of" for "have" is a particular bugaboo of mine.
As for there being many forms of assistance, yes, I'm aware. As I said, I knew someone in Florida on assistance for a while (years ago) when her husband left her with a newborn child and no assets, and I know someone now in NYC on assistance. Even with the combined forms of assistance available to each of them--different states, different times--their accrued monthly benefits, respectively, were and are barely enough to stave off absolute destitution.
I don't deny that there are those who know how to game the system, work off the books somewhere, etc., and who may get more than most, but most are just struggling along.
If we're going to bother getting angry about our tax dollars going to feed others, we should be more exercised about the various forms of welfare to the rich that absorbs much more of our tax dollars than the crumbs thrown to the poor. I'm very happy to know my tax dollars can help someone get a little food to eat or to see a doctor if necessary.
Old news:
The British Government, through the dole, welfare programmes, and social initiatives, was in considerable part funding the IRA.
But enough about welfare. What about the household budget? I wonder if this scene occurred in the Tsarnaev household:
-- Where's the groceries? I sent you out for groceries. Where's the money I gave you?
-- I spent it.
-- What do you mean you spent it?
-- I spent it on pressure cookers.
-- Oh of course! You spent it on pressure cookers! You can never have enough pressure cookers! And here I was worried you spent it on hookers again.
Voices by Andy Kaufman and Carol Kane.
Seriously, Tamerlan lived in a cramped apartment with multiple relatives. I don't think the family was rolling in dough.
If the democrat party could tax our thoughts, they would.
At least the democrats are amazing at wasting our money. They should be given an awards show and golden statues for wasting our money.
"@Robert, you are lying."
No, Big Mike, I'm not.
"The point of welfare in the 21st century United States is not to provide help for people down on their luck. It is to lock people into a gilded cage so they will vote "appropriately." You know that, I know that, and now Pogo gets it too."
I cannot hope to argue you out of your baroque delusions, so I won't bother, other than to say, nope...you're wrong!
@Robert Cook:
lol. You negro-worshiping totalitarian lefties are always hoot. You would deny the sun came up in the morning if you thought it would push us to a commie goal.
Which is why you deny all the statistical evidence showing blacks to be more criminal, more savage, and more anti-social than all other non-black groups.
Anyone trying to "prove" something to Robert Cook that is against his dogma is going to lose. Robert Cook isn't moved by facts, he is moved by his dogma. Facts are just things to deny or make up to serve his agenda.
Enjoy the decline, fools!
"baroque delusions" is very well phrased.
Robert Cook said...
we should be more exercised about the various forms of welfare to the rich that absorbs much more of our tax dollars than the crumbs thrown to the poor
Conservatives and libertarians are generally against corporate welfare. It's interesting though that you voted for a man whose only accomplishments are corporate welfare on an unprecedented scale (GM bailout, stimulus, Obamacare) and (according to you) war crimes. It almost seems your criticisms are for show.
I googled for a source for the $900 shoes and came up with this:
The financial affairs of the Tsarnaev brothers
Seems like good context for this discussion.
we should be more exercised about the various forms of welfare to the rich that absorbs much more of our tax dollars than the crumbs thrown to the poor
Except that "the rich" aren't blowing peoples' fucking limbs off in public.
@Sofia King:
Except that "the rich" aren't blowing peoples' fucking limbs off in public.
---Threadwinner.
But Robert Cook will deny it...just like he will deny that Bed-Sty is dangerous because of black dysfunction.
Enjoy the decline, idiots!
Relax. The New York Times will have the information on the terrorists finances for you in a day or two.
I'm 100% certain.
Robert Cook - Like Goldman Sachs?
And Solyndra?
oh wait - can't talk about the millionsandbillions lost there.
I see Robert Cook lives under the delusion that taxes not collected from law-abiding entities is morally equivalent to money given out falsely to undeserving individuals. Nice set of consistent values and typical of the left.
Tamerlan's in-laws must be so proud of the Islamic welfare queen they raised in spite of the life of upper middle class white "privilege" she was born into.
Might I politely suggest to Katherine Russell Tsarnaev that if she believes Islam is so great then perhaps she should find an Islamic country to move to? And she should bring Tamerlan's spawn with her. There are plenty of Islamic garden spots to choose from.
Maybe someone with more talent than I have could create a "Life of Katherine" parody of Obama's "Life of Julia" ad.
Sofa King said...
we should be more exercised about the various forms of welfare to the rich that absorbs much more of our tax dollars than the crumbs thrown to the poor
Except that "the rich" aren't blowing peoples' fucking limbs off in public.
I suppose someone could, if they felt like it, start an argument re the rich and corporate welfare and pollution and industrial poisoning and so forth and so on.
Not as dramatic as a bomb in public, but maybe deadlier in the end.
Say, for example, GE has some fancy new lightbulbs. They use a lot of mercury. Mercury is bad. If a lightbulb breaks there's a whole protocol about how to clean up the area. Yet, Democrats in Congress band together and order these lightbulbs to be used (yes, it's a simplificaton). Then we find out how much money GE gave to the Democrats.
But it's nowhere near as dramatic as boom boom in public.
I don't understand why anyone would think this was important. It's hardly surprising that a murderous terrorist would scam welfare.
Here in Texas all state employees salaries are public knowledge. So why should welfare people have it 'private'?
I feel everyone on the government dole WHO IS NOT DISABLED should a) have mandatory drug test, b) work in some capacity (pick up trash along the road, janitorial work, etc..) c) the government can check their house and car anytime for unusual income.
And if they don't like it.. get off welfare and work like everyone else.
I've been working since I got out of college (wait... I worked while I was IN college and paid taxes) and never have been on welfare. Yes well over 30+ years I've done this yet there are so many welfare kings and queens that live off of people like ME.
One day... one day I will go galt and say to hell with them.
@CEO-MMP --
A much easier example is this:
Say you owned a fertilizer plant...
Public assistance does not amount to a lot of money. Really. When you live in a tiny apartment with multiple relatives, occasional trips or owning a few conspicuous consumer goods is not evidence of great wealth.
Could the various Tsarnaevs have benefited from unreported income streams. No reason why not.
Whether or not the family received benefits at some point is a pretty trivial issue in the bigger scheme of things.
@Freeman Cunt:
Don't you have a woman making a false charge of rape to go defend, man-hater?
Maybe someone with more talent than I have could create a "Life of Katherine" parody of Obama's "Life of Julia" ad.
Oooh, I like that idea.
Of course it is important. Most people don't realize many legal immigrants are immediately on the public dole. If you are an immigrant you should be excluded from the public dole.
Henry said...
@CEO-MMP --
A much easier example is this:
Say you owned a fertilizer plant...
Public assistance does not amount to a lot of money. Really. When you live in a tiny apartment with multiple relatives, occasional trips or owning a few conspicuous consumer goods is not evidence of great wealth."
And yet they owned various fancy things including the Mercedes, took foreign trips blah blah blah.
Henry, it's not that they might have gotten a (small? Not in Mass) sum from The Guvmint every month, it's that they took the money while hating the people that gave it to them to the point of wanting to kill and maim them.
If America is such a rotten country these fucks would've been living hand to mouth as beggars on the street the way so many do in the enlightened Islamic paradise countries.
Fuck. Liberals and their rationalizations and defense of the indefensible.
I don't understand why anyone would think this was important. It's hardly surprising that a murderous terrorist would scam welfare.
It's not important insofar as its just a reminder that the people of Masschusetts subsidized the guy who blew them up.
Maybe something to consider for those clamoring for citizenship for all.
It's not important insofar as its just a reminder that the people of Masschusetts subsidized the guy who blew them up.
Maybe something to consider for those clamoring for citizenship for all.
Because all public policy questions should be decided by the behavior of wildly extreme outliers.
phx: If you're reading this thread, this is another case in point for why I consider the left, i.e. most of the Democratic Party, as de facto allies with radical Islam.
Here we have two Islamic terrorists killing us and robbing us and who has got their back?
@Henry:
Buddy, demanding citizenship for all is a wildly extreme outlier position.
But you're a lefty, you'll deny the sun coming up in the morning to serve your commie needs.
Seig Heil, Mein Obama!
Because all public policy questions should be decided by the behavior of wildly extreme outliers.
One word: Newtown.
Henry said...
It's not important insofar as its just a reminder that the people of Masschusetts subsidized the guy who blew them up.
Maybe something to consider for those clamoring for citizenship for all.
Because all public policy questions should be decided by the behavior of wildly extreme outliers."
Yeah...cuz The Left never does that about things like gun control or anything, right?
Marshall said, (presumptuously),
It's interesting though that you voted for a man whose only accomplishments are corporate welfare on an unprecedented scale (GM bailout, stimulus, Obamacare) and (according to you) war crimes. It almost seems your criticisms are for show."
I didn't vote for a man. I voted for Jill Stein, (Green Party).
And if they don't like it.. get off welfare and work like everyone else.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but there aren't enough jobs in Obama's Utopia for everyone that wants one.
"@Robert, you are lying."
Yesterday Mr. Cook stated we were the biggest purveyors of violence in the world. I suppose when you remove Assad killing 80,000 Syrians, Sudanese backed jihadists killing 250,000 Darfurians, a couple million butchered in the Congo, jihadists indiscriminately planting bombs in marketplaces in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed thousands, etc.
So its either lying or flat out ignorance.
Robert Cook said...
I didn't vote for a man. I voted for Jill Stein, (Green Party).
Did you do that because you were against what Barry stood for, because you really liked Stein, or you just didn't care but didn't want to not vote?
Maybe the family set up their own Chechen Amazon Portal that loyally got orders from all over the Muslim world for IED parts, Anti-Semitic Propaganda on Kindle and Burqas.
Did you do that because you were against what Barry stood for, because you really liked Stein, or you just didn't care but didn't want to not vote?
Voting for the Green Party is the equivalent of voting for the communist party in this country. They just do slightly better at the polls.
Did you do that because you were against what Barry stood for, because you really liked Stein, or you just didn't care but didn't want to not vote?
He did it because Obama isn't destroying the country fast enough for his liking. He wants death camps for Republicans TODAY, Marx-dammit!
Because all public policy questions should be decided by the behavior of wildly extreme outliers.
Like gun control?
Robert Cook said...
I didn't vote for a man. I voted for Jill Stein, (Green Party).
The Greens = The Watermelons
Green on the outside. Red on the inside.
Robert Cook said...
I didn't vote for a man. I voted for Jill Stein, (Green Party).
Fair enough. I thought I recalled you writing you would vote for Obama, but maybe you just said you preferred him to Romney. Is that right?
Robert Cook,
Maybe you should drop that cultural imperialistic attitude of yours and accept that "Medfonics" is a legitimate dialect of English and it ain't goin' away.
"Fair enough. I thought I recalled you writing you would vote for Obama, but maybe you just said you preferred him to Romney. Is that right?"
No, I never intended to vote for Obama, and I didn't see him as preferable to Romney in the least, (or Romney to Obama).
For the record, I have never voted for Obama. In 2008 I voted for Ralph Nader.
"Did you (vote for Obama) because you were against what Barry stood for, because you really liked Stein, or you just didn't care but didn't want to not vote?"
The first two out of the three.
"The point of welfare in the 21st century United States is not to provide help for people down on their luck. It is to lock people into a gilded cage so they will vote "appropriately."
Indubitably. Dems work relentlessly to increase the size of the lower class and decrease the size of the middle class because this helps them win elections, this is basic lefty politics. The down side is that democracy tends to go down the tubes as the middle class shrinks.
I have a friend who worked as a personal banker who came in contact with hundreds of people who worked the system to get max gov benefits who had no incentive to work more (or at least report more income) cuz they would have netted out worse. There are subsidies for food, rent, health insurance, daycare, aid to dependent children, earned income tax credit, and other stuff. It nets out well cuz not only do welfare recipients get the benefit of the welfare but they also pay less taxes cuz they earn less money. The secretary of state in Pennsylvania published a report showing that a normal citizen making $60k/year did no better than a single parent making $30k/year (my numbers are not exact but are pretty close).
Cook, what do you do for a living (maybe an academic?)? It seems like you are completely out of touch with the reality of America.
I guess I should have said "Meffonics."
I bet Cookie is the first one preaching tolerance too.
CEO-MMP wrote Henry, it's not that they might have gotten a (small? Not in Mass) sum from The Guvmint every month, it's that they took the money while hating the people that gave it to them to the point of wanting to kill and maim them.
Despicable, true, but the question of the Tsarnaev brother's evil is conclusive without this factoid.
Now the attempt to conflate something conservatives dislike (welfare) with something everyone hates (terrorism) is a different issue. It's useful to keep in mind which way one's anger is flowing. Is it flowing from terrorism toward welfare? From terrorism toward immigration? The other way around? Or is it just a foggy accumulation of trigger points that reinforce each other without any real definition?
I linked to the history of the IRA above, because that is a useful counterexample -- a fully formed political & criminal enterprise that leveraged public services in a systematic way.
The Tsarnaev brothers are not that. They are something different. Distinctions are important.
Colonel Angus wrote: Like gun control?
Exactly. We agree.
@ Robert Cook: fair enough. I like a person with the courage of their convictions...or something.
I usually wind up being more pragmatic in the general, I save my idealism for primaries. So I suppose you're one up on me.
@Nomennovum and Colonel Angus -- Newtown is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. We don't make gun law based on Newtown. We don't make immigration or welfare law based on the Tsarnaev brothers.
Robert Cook said...
Robert, you are lying.
No, Big Mike, I'm not.
No, he isn't. all those days at the daily worker have softened his brain.
The point of welfare in the 21st century United States is not to provide help for people down on their luck. It is to lock people into a gilded cage so they will vote "appropriately." You know that, I know that, and now Pogo gets it too.
I cannot hope to argue you out of your baroque delusions, so I won't bother, other than to say, nope...you're wrong!
No, he's right, and a smarter man than Cook agrees with Mike.
A comment from Protein Wisdom's blog post in relation to Pogo @ 7:35:
Just last February, for example, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic cleric and popular preacher in the United Kingdom, was secretly taped telling a Muslim audience to follow his example and get “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance” from the government—a pun on “Job Seeker’s Allowance.” The father of four, who receives more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits, referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” adding, “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for "right"], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar ["Allah is Great"]. We take the money.
Is VDH the one who got kicked out of the National Review nest for being racist or something?
Not that there's anything bad about being kicked out of the NRO nest. Apart from Steyn they're all a little light loafered. Steyn's just English.
Of course it is important. Most people don't realize many legal immigrants are immediately on the public dole. If you are an immigrant you should be excluded from the public dole
What is your basis for this claim? Exactly what do you mean by "many legal immigrants?" By law legal immigrants are barred from receiving welfare benefits; the sponsoring relative signs a declaration that they will be responsible for the immigrant's upkeep.
@Nomennovum and Colonel Angus -- Newtown is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. We don't make gun law based on Newtown. We don't make immigration or welfare law based on the Tsarnaev brothers.
I'll concede the point. How about an immigration law that requires immigrants to enter legally rather than by any means necessary?
I only bring it up because I'm old enough to remember the evil Ronald Reagan passing an amnesty bill some 30 years ago and here the left is again demanding the same thing.
How about a moratorium on low skilled immigrants until we can get enough low skilled citizens back to work? I just can't see the justification for wanting to add millions more to unemployment and welfare rolls other than to create another voting block for a particular political party.
By law legal immigrants are barred from receiving welfare benefits; the sponsoring relative signs a declaration that they will be responsible for the immigrant's upkeep.
Does this apply to political refugees like this family supposedly was? Presumably fleeing from Russian oppression, or, maybe more likely, retribution. They don't coddle their internal terrorists, or give them tenured positions at prestigious universities, but rather, hunt them down and kill them. And, maybe their families. It mostly seems to work. And, so, the question really becomes, why were they fleeing Russia? Was it just to get the free benefits here in the U.S.? Or, had they been terrorists back there, and that is why they got in here?
"We don't make gun law based on Newtown."
Some of us certainly tried.
"Dems work relentlessly to increase the size of the lower class and decrease the size of the middle class because this helps them win elections, this is basic lefty politics."
Insane.
Everyone in Washington, Dems and Republicans alike, are servants of the financial elites, and they work to further policies that will, as the saying goes, "make the rich richer." Unfortunately, their result of this is that the middle class becomes poor and the poor become poorer.
I don't say every single person in Washington is there to help the wealthy; I'm making a broad generalization, of course. However, the majority are there to serve the powerful.
Washington's policies are likely not directed specifically at wounding the middle class but at further aggrandizing the rich and powerful. The consequences of this are the destruction of the middle class and the further debasement, disenfranchisement, and exploitation of the poor.
Some of us certainly tried.
And luckily, failed.
If the republicans had any brass and brains they would push for complete disclosure of someone's complete needs based assistance. It's time to amp up the class warfare between those who pay and those that live off them.
Tamerlan was some piece of work: welfare thief, pimp and murderer. A real Islmo-gangsta.
CEO-MMP said...
Is VDH the one who got kicked out of the National Review nest for being racist or something?
You're thinking of John Derbyshire, who seemed to get a kick out of trying to outrage people.
VDH is very good.
Crazyland.
I'm stuck at $900 shoes and how to recognize same, so next when I see such this link gives me confidence to say "Haaay, nice shooooes...."
What a timely subject.
From the Washington Post profile of a Food Stamp Recruiter:
it is Nerios’s job to enroll at least 150 seniors for food stamps each month, a quota she usually exceeds.
Robert Cook said...
"Dems work relentlessly to increase the size of the lower class and decrease the size of the middle class because this helps them win elections, this is basic lefty politics."
Insane.
Everyone in Washington, Dems and Republicans alike, are servants of the financial elites, and they work to further policies that will, as the saying goes, "make the rich richer." Unfortunately, their result of this is that the middle class becomes poor and the poor become poorer.
I don't say every single person in Washington is there to help the wealthy; I'm making a broad generalization, of course. However, the majority are there to serve the powerful.
Washington's policies are likely not directed specifically at wounding the middle class but at further aggrandizing the rich and powerful.
If you change a few words in this the analysis isn't that far off. For example replace "financial elites" (a marxist scapegoat Cook has apparently swallowed whole) with "institutional and/or voting bloc interests" and it's not terribly wrong. The problem is his solution is to grant the people he's criticizing vastly more power under the bizarre belief that doing so will improve the results.
Most people on welfare live shabby lives with bleak expectations. But there are exceptions. Some know how to play the system and tap into other revenue streams--a generous boyfriend, small time drug dealing etc. Tamerlane looked like the kind of hustler who looked for the edge in all his transactions. He wasn't the kind of guy to work eighty hours a week to support his kid, but he was willing to let his wife do it. The man was scummy in many dimensions.....While it's not unusual for welfare recipients to hustle a buck, I would think it rare for people to subsidize their religious studies by selling drugs, but, as noted, Tammy was a multidimensional scumbag.
Thank you Marshal.
I think that maybe the key to how they were able to buy all that nice stuff is in the wife working 80 hours a week. At $10 an hour, that translates into $40,000 a year. Add in, maybe a bit of residual welfare, and him occasionally working off the books, and they could probably afford the Mercedes, nice clothes for him, etc.
Not the first guy I have seen have his wife or girlfriend go to work, and work hard, to support him. Somehow most of us think that less honorable then when the women do it to the men, but should it be? Well, maybe here, with the young kid in the house. One woman I know had a husband who didn't like people, and so didn't work. Then, she became pregnant, and as she came close, forced her to quit working, since it wasn't manly to have his obviously pregnant wife working. Not surprisingly, the state paid for the delivery, provided WIC, EBT, etc., because, of course, it is for the children. Never mind that they had two able bodied non-working adults in the household.
There is so much of this any more. Females getting pregnant at a young age without the benefits of marriage to get their own checks. Then, waking up in their late 30s or so without any education, training, or job prospects. And, they seem to find ways to stay on the public dole thereafter, even without the kids justifying it. Maybe disability - not surprising in many cases, due to the sedentary nature of so much welfare.
Part of the problem here for many of us is that the Obama Administration has been trying to effectively broaden many of the federal welfare programs as much as they can. Recruiting people to be on food stamps, that sort of thing. And, of course doing so with federal dollars (that don't appear to have been affected by Sequestration). So, these programs have mushroomed during the Obama Recession. There is a fine line between a safety net and building a permanent welfare class with our money, and the Obama Administration seems to have crossed it.
So, what is going on here with this discussion about the terrorists and welfare is two different things coming together that the right has problems with - unrestricted immigration and welfare for the able bodied. Throw in that these brothers were Islamic terrorists, and the issue is starting to get traction.
James: By law legal immigrants are barred from receiving welfare benefits; the sponsoring relative signs a declaration that they will be responsible for the immigrant's upkeep.
And, of course, like all of our laws governing immigration, that one is scrupulously enforced. (E.g.)
"The problem is his solution is to grant the people he's criticizing vastly more power under the bizarre belief that doing so will improve the results."
Where have I advocated giving the people I'm criticizing "vastly more power?" To the contrary, I advocate that we, the people, demand that Washington works for us, and not for the wealthy, that the rule of law once again be enforced against the powerful (among the wealthy and in Washington) with the same or greater vigor as it's currently applied (as with a kick to the head) to the poor.
Washington's policies are likely not directed specifically at wounding the middle class but at further aggrandizing the rich and powerful. The consequences of this are the destruction of the middle class and the further debasement, disenfranchisement, and exploitation of the poor.
I think that you are discounting the efforts of the Dems in general, and Obama and his Administration in particular, to build a permanent dependency class that will hopefully, for them, entrench Dem power for a generation, if not permanently.
Of course, it is the rich and powerful pushing this - just look at the wealth of many of those, esp. on the left, pushing this. What I see is them squeezing the middle class as much as possible to achieve this power base. I have never understood how very rich Dems could claim to speak for the poor and be credible. But they do.
Friend is on Capital Hill lobbying on the immigration issue today (in his case, for green cards instead of H1B visas for those with advanced STEM degrees so that we don't lose them when their visas are up). At least in the Senate, the fix is already in. He believes that an immigration bill will shortly pass the Senate that does little for border security, but will give not only the millions already here an easy path to citizenship, but also their relatives, without much in terms of making our borders safer. And, won't help with his issues, because of all the money behind H1B visas, most from companies that are major job exporters.
Define wealth, comrade Bob.
Robert Cook said,
"Everyone in Washington, Dems and Republicans alike, are servants of the financial elites, and they work to further policies that will, as the saying goes, "make the rich richer." Unfortunately, their result of this is that the middle class becomes poor and the poor become poorer."
The free market has been the only force in history to raise people out of poverty on a mass scale. Government power has always served the rich. If it is as you say wouldn't it be a better idea to reduce the size and redistributive power of the government? The policies pushed by the left have always resulted in a two tiered system of rich and poor. Why do you cling to policies that are historically doomed to failure.
And why does it seem like the left advertantly or inadvertantly always seems to support people that want to tear this country down in numerous ways?
If they would of went Gay For Pay they wouldn't have to be on Welfare.
Sad.
What a waste.
>>Does this apply to political refugees like this family supposedly was? Presumably fleeing from Russian oppression, or, maybe more likely, retribution. They don't coddle their internal terrorists, or give them tenured positions at prestigious universities, but rather, hunt them down and kill them. And, maybe their families. It mostly seems to work. And, so, the question really becomes, why were they fleeing Russia? Was it just to get the free benefits here in the U.S.? Or, had they been terrorists back there, and that is why they got in here? <<
No, it doesn't apply to asylum seekers and refugees who are given assistance immediately on arrival; but that wasn't the claim...he/she said "legal immigrants" who in fact are required to demonstrate the have the resources so they wouldn't end up on welfare.
I wonder if they ever "experimented" with a guy? And then that guy cums forward (on Anderson Cooper) to let the world know the story of them "experimenting" sexually, including specific details-blowing, jerky jerky, perhaps rimming, anal?
That would be hot.
tits.
Robert Cook said...
"The problem is his solution is to grant the people he's criticizing vastly more power under the bizarre belief that doing so will improve the results."
Where have I advocated giving the people I'm criticizing "vastly more power?" To the contrary, I advocate that we, the people, demand that Washington works for us, and not for the wealthy, that the rule of law once again be enforced against the powerful (among the wealthy and in Washington) with the same or greater vigor as it's currently applied (as with a kick to the head) to the poor.
You note that our government is completely unresponsive to the public interest today, and yet advocate that services be removed from the private sector (where at least we have the right to refuse to contract) and placed under their control. Specifically you consistently advocate the government directly provide medical care but you can't understand how that increases the government's power? You have some blind spot.
I advocate that we, the people, demand that Washington works for us,
Yeah, hippies shitting in the streets made a mark. What's next, the government fairy wand made of ground unicorn horn?
The government is really sucking. Bastards.
"Specifically you consistently advocate the government directly provide medical care but you can't understand how that increases the government's power?"
No, I advocate that the government provide payment for medical care via tax-funded govt. "health insurance," i.e., Medicare or something like it. The care providers would still be private practitioners. Medicare recipients see private doctors, not government doctors.
"You note that our government is completely unresponsive to the public interest today, and yet advocate that services be removed from the private sector (where at least we have the right to refuse to contract) and placed under their control."
Our lack of control over the government is indicative of the corrupting power of the private sector, as virtually the entire cohort of Washington pols are bought and paid for lackeys of private corporate and financial interests. The power of money trumps all.
The private sector is the problem, and we can only regain our rightful greater influence over government if we can diminish to the greatest possible extent the money power over Washington of the private sector.
I am shocked they did not put any dick picks out there or at least some videos of them having sex.
Very disappointing.
Robert Cook said...
No, I advocate that the government provide payment for medical care via tax-funded govt. "health insurance," i.e., Medicare or something like it. The care providers would still be private practitioners. Medicare recipients see private doctors, not government doctors.
A distinction without a difference. Whoever writes the checks controls the service. Your preference gives more power to the government and removes power from the customer.
Our lack of control over the government is indicative of the corrupting power of the private sector
Government is inherently corruptible by all institutions only one of which you see as a problem. It's corrupt primarily by serving its own interests when faced with a conflict between their interests and those of the pubblic. Knowing this you nevertheless advocate a structure which increases both the frequency and impact of those conflicts, yet manage to convince yourself somehow the corruption disappears. In fact government medical service will become less responsive as we've seen in other government controlled industries like teaching and law enforcement.
Shorter comrade Bob
Running dog imperialist pigs.
To think I almost took you seriously.
Pitiful.
Our lack of control over the government is indicative of the corrupting power of the private sector, as virtually the entire cohort of Washington pols are bought and paid for lackeys of private corporate and financial interests. The power of money trumps all.
Comrade Bob apparently doesn't understand the term rent seeking. Compadre riddle me this: who is worse the one who offers the bribe or the one who takes the bribe?
I suspect their income was neither reportable nor traceable.
"Compadre riddle me this: who is worse the one who offers the bribe or the one who takes the bribe?"
They're equally corrupt and should both be criminally sanctioned; the one who wants something and has the money to buy it initiates the bad act, so he is the root of the problem, the more active bad guy, (but, admittedly, it's a fine distinction).
The private sector is the problem, and we can only regain our rightful greater influence over government if we can diminish to the greatest possible extent the money power over Washington of the private sector.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Best laugh I had all day.
Now where did I read that headline about those 2 idiot female profs who wonder what America is doing wrong to assimilate poor souls like the terror bros?
Robert Cook said...
"Compadre riddle me this: who is worse the one who offers the bribe or the one who takes the bribe?"
They're equally corrupt and should both be criminally sanctioned; the one who wants something and has the money to buy it initiates the bad act, so he is the root of the problem, the more active bad guy, (but, admittedly, it's a fine distinction).
Indeed. But what if the cost of doing business is to bribe. The demand is one sided.
@Henry
You said: "Because all public policy questions should be decided by the behavior of wildly extreme outliers."
Nice sarcastic dig.
But no one is proposing enacting law or policy 100% on the terrorist bombing Chechen brothers.
On the other hand, it would be the height of stupidity to completely ignore a plain example when attempting to craft better policy, or adjust existing policy.
Most conservatives I know, including enthusiastic gun supporters and myself, had to completely reconsider their attitudes toward gun rights in the wake of the Newtown shootings. Most of us ended up in the exact same position: the best way to prevent that sort of gun violence is to make any potential shooter worried about being shot himself before accomplishing anything; monsters intent on massacres choose gun-free zones for a reason.
But we considered the outlier and compared it against the mainstream situation.
I actually heard some suggestions for gun control that made sense, or at least were worth considering on a state or national level. But none of the ideas ever made it to the national stage, because the tragedy was exploited by people who had an agenda completely separate from actually stopping gun violence. Moreover, the laws they proposed on the basis of the outlier were not rejected because they were based on an outlier, but because they would do nothing at all to prevent other outliers.
So in this case, it only makes sense to reconsider our immigration policy and our assimilation norms when we look at how/why the immigrant brothers become terrorists. If welfare was a part of it, perhaps the welfare laws can be adjusted.
Not to end welfare, which no one is proposing.
But perhaps welfare isn't as helpful as its advocates insist.
If it takes an outlier to stimulate the populace to look at a policy more objectively, why would you or anyone else have a problem with that?
But you did succeed in using sarcasm to make two significantly different circumstances seem ostensibly similar, so I guess you can consider your mission at least temporarily accomplished.
@Nathan -- Consider the whole conversation. Context, my friend.
No?
Shame.
Well let's face it. This is the normal SOP for jihadists. They use the various welfare systems in the West to finance their operations.
The private sector is the problem, and we can only regain our rightful greater influence over government if we can diminish to the greatest possible extent the money power over Washington of the private sector.
I think that the problem here is that you are equating extremely large companies that are able to engage in crony capitalism with the private sector. Rather, the sort of crony capitalism that we are seeing these days is little different from the type of fascist socialism practiced by Italy and Germany in the 1930s and into the mid 1940s.
These aren't the companies that succeed with working harder, with better marketing plans and products. Rather, they are the companies that maintain their market share and dominance through use of government force. That isn't the important part of the private sector, that part that creates jobs and new industries, or the part that can afford Obama's war on capitalism and the private sector.
Let me also note that big labor, and, esp. government unions these days, also have a seat at the table with the federal government, along with big business. And, yes, again, the unions in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were co-opted just as they have been in our economy.
So, let's carefully distinguish between most of the private sector, which is at the mercy of the government, and the big corporations (and unions) that are engaged in cutting special deals as part of their crony capitalism.
Bruce Hayden said...
Don't waste your breath.
Cook, you're a commie, but I'll say this for you, you argue without ad hominems, and you are consistent.
There are large companies that make a living helping the states get people off the welfare rolls and onto SSI disability. Colorado paid them $2,300 / head.
States pay for welfare. Feds pay for SSI.
Anchor wifey.
Who was living with her doctor father and nurse mom in a very nice house but still possibly collecting.
Charge doctor dad and nurse mom with welfare fraud. Who was getting the Section 8 housing voucher? Who was lying about where the daughter and her terrorist boyfriend were living?
And Salon has this self-serving little story about a chick who goes to the family's apartment for facials for ten years.
Did she really believe the family was paying taxes on that income? No, they were keeping everything off the books and we were paying their rent and everything else.
This is the sort of behavior you see every day when you work with "poverty" communities. Everyone does it. And illegal status does little to prevent people from accessing our tax dollars in dozens of different ways.
Expect more of the same.
You know you're a lefty when ...
the government-media complex is tewwibly tewwibly concerned about your rights.
"Cook, you're a commie, but I'll say this for you, you argue without ad hominems, and you are consistent."
I disagree with Cook nearly 100%, but this is true, rare, and appreciated.
Post a Comment