church assistance and ipad

[Levin]

And on top of it, there is essentially no difference between someone being on WIC or Medicaid and someone having a Guaranteed Student Loan or a Pell Grant, or someone getting Earned Income Credit, or a mortgage deduction, or a deduction or credit for children, or...

Put on your thinking cap and repeat after me: "The purpose of a program matters. Not all programs have the same purpose."

[CardiacCoug]

Our Stake President has made a big push of selling the concept that church assistance "sustains life, not lifestyle".

What is interesting about this is that kids and mothers on WIC are obese. They need to eat LESS food, not more. The government food is actually doing more harm than good. So the programs actually function to support the "lifestyle" of excessive eating while actually hurting rather than sustaining "life" (health) in the process.

A funny thing happened on the way to preventing hunger among America’s poor — the nation got fat. And the populations most prone to obesity are the poorest. A 2006 study published in The American Journal of Public Health found that 35 percent of low-income three-year-olds were overweight — double the rate for the rest of the population. The prevalence of obesity among low-income women is 50 percent higher than among wealthier women, and the poor are disproportionately overweight at all ages and in both sexes.

http://article.nationalreview.com/434169/the-first-lady-and-fat-government/mona-charen

[Goatnapper'96]

I think Levin's just propounding his view. I didn't think he came across as arrogant.

Even taking out a student loan to pay insurance is still taking public money, unless your loans are not subsidized.

Just a little plug for WIC. I really like this program even though I've never been on it, used it, or know anyone on it. I used to be a cashier in a grocery in high school, and saw woman after woman come in and get really nutritious food for their baby. I really like that the program only allows you to get the best food that your baby needs, and specifies down to the percentage of milk, or juice in a product. Then, after they're no longer in the program, these same women would still make good choices in food. Its a great teaching tool, as well as being free food.

I have never dealt with it but I do recall watching some mother get indignant at the Piggly Wiggly outside of Fort Knox when she couldn't buy a jar of Reeses peanut butter with her wic stamps. I thought to myself that was a good thing.

[Goatnapper'96]

so is it just me or is there something wrong when members who receive church assistance show up to church with ipads or in a mercedes benz? But then again, I don't know their entire circumstance so I can't judge but it looks pretty bad, no?

I find that in my life it is easier to just get along if I just don't care. Let others deal with their situations how they feel fit and I do likewise in mine. Now if I were in the situation where I was responsible for dispersing these funds it is likely I would put some budgetary expectations and expect some sacrifices by those receiving the funds.

I had a Bishop while in the Leesville Ward at Fort Polk that was beyond cool. He was a former Green Beret turned Chaplain. He cleaned out the welfare rolls like it was nobody buisness. He made those getting welfare work for it and justify their budgets. Most left the rolls volunatarily. One day he called me and my wife into his office and essentially asked us to feign a friendship with some old lady to try and figure out if she was fleecing the Church for welfare, as well as if she was planning to take her grandkids and run. It wasn't an "official" calling and told us to only report back to him. It was a crack up. He was at his best whenever he dealt with domestic violence, something all to prevalent in young enlisted soldiers with famalies. He did not mince words about what he would do to husbands or fathers that beat their wives or kids. His strong and usually profane opinion flowed in Ward Council, from the pulpit or anywhere you visited with him. "I tell you Brothers and Sisters, if you lay a hand on your spouse I will beat your sunofabitch ass!"

HUAH!

[statman]

Put on your thinking cap and repeat after me: "The purpose of a program matters. Not all programs have the same purpose."

No. It doesn't. We live in a welfare state where the "rich" pay all the money and money is given at the pleasure of the government. As long as you're keeping the government's rules, there's nothing wrong or immoral about taking their money. They're going to take half your money for the rest of your life...

[SoonerCoug]

No. It doesn't. We live in a welfare state where the "rich" pay all the money and money is given at the pleasure of the government. As long as you're keeping the government's rules, there's nothing wrong or immoral about taking their money. They're going to take half your money for the rest of your life...

Based on this logic, shouldn't people who don't REALLY need Church welfare take advantage of the Church welfare system when they can get away with it (even if they have wealthy families, waste money on luxuries, or are clearly going to be rich later in life)?

[Levin]

No. It doesn't. We live in a welfare state where the "rich" pay all the money and money is given at the pleasure of the government. As long as you're keeping the government's rules, there's nothing wrong or immoral about taking their money. They're going to take half your money for the rest of your life...

This is a really pernicious attitude for a democratic citizenry to have. Its democracy devouring itself. Financially, that is what we're doing.

ERCougar asked earlier why this attitude you have is prevalent among the new generations. I don't think the answer is very hard: You put raw meat in front of a dog, it will eat. And once you put the raw meat there, the dog won't let you take it back. Especially in a democracy. It's the rare canine that turns away from red meat even if offered b/c it knows it doesn't really need it, and because it is self-aware enough to recognize what is being slaughtered to supply the raw meat.

[statman]

This is a really pernicious attitude for a democratic citizenry to have. Its democracy devouring itself. Financially, that is what we're doing.

ERCougar asked earlier why this attitude you have is prevalent among the new generations. I don't think the answer is very hard: You put raw meat in front of a dog, it will eat. And once you put the raw meat there, the dog won't let you take it back. Especially in a democracy. It's the rare canine that turns away from red meat even if offered b/c it knows it doesn't really need it, and because it knows what is being slaughtered to put the red meat in the dog dish.

No. You take half my money for all my working life, and I'll take as much of that damned money back as I possibly can! Taxes are the pernicious thing. But since you have to pay them, you may as well take advantage of the 'benefits' they supposedly give you. It's idiocy to think otherwise...

[Levin]

No. You take half my money for all my working life, and I'll take as much of that damned money back as I possibly can! Taxes are the pernicious thing. But since you have to pay them, you may as well take advantage of the 'benefits' they supposedly give you. It's idiocy to think otherwise...

Is "statman" some ironic misnomer? "Taxes are the pernicious thing." Why do you think your taxes are going to rise dramatically during this decade? I'll give you a hint: it contains the same derivative word as your attitude.

. . .

Okay, here you go: Entitled. Entitlement spending. Medicaid spending.

And no, I don't think the wealthy should receive social security either. Means-testing payments for social security is one of the few ways to save the program. Even Minority Leader Boner gets that.

[Levin]

I must say that I admit my argument is like a snowflake trying to stay cool in the Sahara. One of the ways we insured the 30 million uninsured in the healthcare bill was to dramatically increase the rolls of Medicaid by raising the bar to qualify.

Medicaid will soon be (if it's not already) on par with Medicare and Social Security -- just something you do. All the more likely to acclimate the nation to nationalized health insurance.

But if it's going to be nationalized healthcare, let's get there and do it.

If we're still going to keep the fiction that Medicaid is for the needy, then let's keep it as such.

This limbo is just too trying for men's souls, and we're all losing our heads.

[il Padrino Ute]

Is "statman" some ironic misnomer? "Taxes are the pernicious thing." Why do you think your taxes are going to rise dramatically during this decade? I'll give you a hint: it contains the same derivative word as your attitude.

. . .

Okay, here you go: Entitled. Entitlement spending. Medicaid spending.

And no, I don't think the wealthy should receive social security either. Means-testing payments for social security is one of the few ways to save the program. Even Minority Leader Boner gets that.

How else will enough money be generated to fund Obamacare?

[Levin]

Obamacare

Obamacare = expansion of Medicaid (to a large extent). It's going to hit state budgets like a jackhammer, and funding for public universities will continue to fall through the floor.

I'm curious: was statman for Obamacare? I'd wager good money he wasn't. But he's all for being on Medicaid! lol.

[Goatnapper'96]

At the risk of altering the course of this thread (which I don't want to do) I'll observe that for at least a decade now the young lawyers coming into law firms have demonstrated very different "wants" from a job than my own generation (graduating in the late 70s and early 80s) did. Not all of the change is bad, but I think anyone at any good-sized law firm will tell you that the "Gen X" and "Gen Y" and "Millennials" are very interested in how much vacation they will have, how hard they will have to work, whether the firm supports pro bono efforts, and similar matters. This seems to be a universally-recognized phenomenon. Also, we've noticed that our younger male associates who are new parents take full advantage of family leave that is offered to both parents on the birth of a child, without even asking whether that will be a problem for anyone. (I think they get six weeks of paid leave, whether they are the mom or the dad.)

Now, I've just made a list of items, many of them controversial, the merits of which can be debated at length. I really am not making any judgments on any of these apparent trends, just noting that I think they are remarkable. When Levin refers to "a new age, a new generation, a new ethos," the above is what comes to mind for me. It really is new and different, regardless of how one feels about it.

Didn't need no welfare state....everybody pulled their weight...guys like us we had it made....those were the days!

[Goatnapper'96]

Obamacare = expansion of Medicaid (to a large extent). It's going to hit state budgets like a jackhammer, and funding for public universities will continue to fall through the floor.

I'm curious: was statman for Obamacare? I'd wager good money he wasn't. But he's all for being on Medicaid! lol.

I think it was the extending of a health care entitlement to the middle class without any serious efforts to actually decrease the actual cost of of healthcare that bothers many conservatives. It is the visceral reaction to everything from a growing nanny state to the inevitable increase of taxes to fund it.

In my world I think if we do what we can to decrease health care cost, fundamentally by making consumers aware of the actual cost, then the middle class would not need the subsidy.

[Levin]

I think it was the extending of a health care entitlement to the middle class without any serious efforts to actually decrease the actual cost of of healthcare that bothers many conservatives.

I think this bothers most people.