So very true, however you missed the point. I didn't sign up for the "college". Back when I put my name on the line there was no such thing as a "bonus" and the GI Bill paled in comparison to the boat load of cash they get today. Even the old timer version that I have is amazing (at least in my opinion). My argument was that was a shitty angle for MM to take. While it may be a Gvt program at least that one is earned.
You sure do ask a lot of questions about where da wimins folks come from. You might find Marie if you spelled her name correctly....without the "x", oui? Shoot or go home.
Look here lassie, I aint got time to put up with lip from some left coaster. I don't give a rats ass if I spelled her name wrong, got my point across didn't I? Doesn't matter, the crap doesn't work any damn way. Tried dolls, spells, all that crap. Still come up in the same damn mess I was in before so be a good lass and continue to bring the fight to red and his bunch of liberal hippies will ya. I got shit to do.
Pay attention. Those "limitations" are rarely applied. Exceptions and credits are given so frequently at the state level to render the limitations almost useless. And like I said, the federal payouts don't apply to single parent households with dependent children. 75% of federal welfare goes to that demographic. Conservative in CA....there's this little geographic niche known as the Orange Curtain. I live behind it. You have to be a dedicated voter in this state if you aren't a lib/Democrat.
Im not talking bad about the program, just pointing out that its a government program in which the person has to make the sacrifice to get the benefit. Its not an attack either, i was making a point not a statement, dont cry about t.
Its still corporate welfare all of the money has not been paid back and its providing a safety net to corporations that engaged in risky and bad behavior and lost the bet. So yes it is comparable. And no there was not a concerted effort to do anything about it. See JPMorgan, still engaging in bad behavior while losing billions. And to strictly adhere these programs to a Democrats is majorly dishonest of you. Bush could have gotten rid of welfare completely with the numbers he had in the house and the senate and no one could do a thing about it.
Okay, so every penny is yet to be paid back but let's be real....The program went into effect in 2008. As of March, 2011, 70% of it had been paid back. 88,600 jobs added by Chrysler and GM since emerging from Chapter 11. Taxpayer proceeds from GM's IPO....$13.5B. Estimated lifetime profit from TARP is $20B. "The U.S. Treasury didn’t actually end up loaning out the full $700 billion allotted for the program. In fact, it only disbursed $387 billion of the funds, namely to hundreds of banks and a few large automobile makers. In the past year, the final cost estimates of the program have shrunk as banks have pulled away from the recession and paid back most of their bailout money in the process. In August, the Treasury estimated TARP at a $66 billion loss. In early October, that estimate fell to below $50 billion. At this point, the government is actually reducing the federal budget deficit with TARP repayment funds." Banks engage in the business of creating wealth, not creating life. They have every incentive to improve business processes and profit. There is almost nothing in common between individual welfare and TARP. No effort to find wrong doing you say? No say. "TARP creates three monitoring entities, one of which has the authority to prosecute crimes relating to TARP, the Special Inspector General (SIGTARP). SIGTARP is headed by Special Inspector General in charge, Neil Barofsky, dubbed the "TARP Cop." SIGTARP has set up a hotline for citizens to report fraud or “evidence of violations of criminal and civil laws in connection with TARP” and had received 200 tips and launched 20 criminal investigations by the end of April. SIGTARP has released a 250-page report on TARP to educate the public http://sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/April2009_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf. And...." With the passage of recent legislation that includes billions of dollars being infused into the U.S. economy, including the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and other asset relief programs, we anticipate an increase in fraud. In addition to the agents that are currently on board, the FBI’s 2010 budget includes 143 new positions (50 special agents and 93 professional staff) and $25.5 million to assist the FBI in combating mortgage and corporate fraud." What do you want to bet that Obama (who voted for TARP BTW) claimed those 143 jobs as part of HIS jobs added report. JPMorgan should never have applied nor accepted TARP funds. But they did and repaid it in full by June of 2009 including $795,138,889 in dividends. So Bush could have gotten rid of welfare with congressional support but I'm being dishonest? Please. Extreme red herring there. How many Republicans would have voted to eliminate welfare in totality? Not very many. FDR introduced the idea of welfare to this country. I'm sure none of the lawmakers of that time had any idea how big or abused it would become, nor did the consider any of the social aspects of government nannyism. TARP is a 4 year old toddler with more life skills and profitability than the 70 year old welfare senior looking to claim octogenarian status.
But they campaign against it and demonize it just like you are doing. Welfare is welfare, its a safety net, corporations were provided that safety net mostly under GOP watch. Dont split hairs with the intention of the programs. It is what it is and both sides do it, so yes you are being dishonest. Its ok for multi million dollar corporations to get a bailout, paid back or not, your premise is welfare, but not a single mother who making 8.75 an hour whether she pays it back or not. Thats the message your pushing and it is a dishonest one imo And the point of welfare isnt to create life, its damn lie to say people have babies to just to get welfare. Yes people have babies for the wrong reasons mainly stupidity and not protecting themselves but the indication of people setting out to have children just to get welfare is really far fetch and very dishonest.
