I honestly can"t tell - was that sarcasm?

Probably referring to the Pro-Cruz PAC add that ran in Utah featuring Melania before she became Mrs. Trump in a provocative pose on a fur throw rug saying 'your next first lady?'

I have never wanted to be a fur throw rug so much my in my life BTW.  Hubba hubba.

In other words, Trump didn't start it and unlike others he makes no discernment between the candidate and the PACs that, wink wink nudge nudge do not coordinate with any candidate or candidate's committee.

'Gimp

Likewise, if it comes down to Cruz and (Hillary or Bernie), I will do all I can to help Cruz.  I'd rather have a poor leader with good ideas than a good or bad leader with bad ideas.

Thanks for putting it that way, well said.

'Gimp

I'd be interested in hearing an overall rationale. You don't need to expand on each. I read your initiatives as fairly typical ideas for welfare reform from a right perspective. They're focused on a few broad ideas: Get off your ass if you can, if you aren't eligible for welfare you don't get it damnit, don't even think about using the money for stuff I consider a luxury, and don't expect your support to last long. In short, they're focused on pulling back support and limiting duration.

Fine ideas. Plenty of arguments in favor of all of them.  But I wonder why you believe those changes will alter the course of the poor? Is it because you belief welfare causes poverty?

See my highlight - ding ding ding we have a winner.

You get more of what you incentivize, and less of what you disincentivize, it is pure human nature. 

I think you or Dav8or asked 'which is easier' when referring to working and getting an education or sucking off the work of your fellow citizens via crime or welfare in another post as if all 3 are morally, practically or financially equivalent - they are not, on all 3 fronts.  And since when is life supposed to be 'easy'?

I work not because I like to, not because it is expected of me, but because I have to.  I have a family to support, and a growing Yak to feed.  I do it because I cannot survive without it - would I prefer to just lounge at the hangar and fly all day - sure would and as soon as I figure out how I am all over it, but nobody owes me jackshit - I made MY plane happen, I made MY career happen, I made MY family, I am responsible for me and mine.

I have been employed since I was 13 (started in a family restaurant), with a grand total of 6 months of unemployment, in 33 years.  I don't take vacations like regular folks since there is always too much to do and never enough time because in addition to my job I have to help others do theirs as well because if I don't things don't get done.  I have sacrificed time with friends and family that I will never make up, so that my wife and daughter would have a roof over their head and three squares a day - at times working 1,000 miles way from them just to remain employed.

I have a child in college, I pay full freight, qualifying for no assistance of any kind, nice that she picked a less expensive community college for her first couple years but soon it gets more expensive, who pays I do.  Now, you and others think I should pay more, not for my child, but for somebody else's - not for my housing but for somebody else's.  If after all that I don't have enough for the movies or a new car, tough shit - work harder. 

I have had a business fail, been victimized by fraud and theft, lost a home and even been laid off a couple times but I always have found and continue to find a way because I am a man and that is what men fucking do.

When asked how much more I should pay there is no specific answer, only more - as if confiscating roughly half of my total income is not already enough.

Well fuck you (not you specifically, said for effect).

Yes, I believe with a less comfy safety net people would find a way to earn the lifestyle they desire, but with a comfy safety net there is no reason to. 

Dirtiest of the dirty little secrets about welfare and the New Deal - unemployment NEVER recovered to pre-Great Depression/pre-New Deal levels.  NEVER.  Unemployment in 1929 was 3.2%, Under Roosevelt it never dipped below 14% and averaged closer to 20% - only WWII caused the eventual recovery.

Want to end poverty?  End welfare, period.  But I recognize that cannot happen overnight and that is why I made the list of suggestions I made.  If it were up to me it would be sink or swim for anyone who is not demonstrably physically or mentally UNABLE to work.  We're all in this boat together, but 47% don't have their oars in the water.

'Gimp

Gimp, if his statements about wanting to "loosen up" the libel laws don't give you pause for concern, then I don't know what to say.  It's his mindset that concerns me.  A mindset that he "would" do something that imperils the freedom of the press, among other things.  What kind of conservative or Constitutionalist would say that?

Again, I don't call him a conservative or constitutionalist yet you keep saying that, then saying you didn't say that, when I call you on it. 

Is he more conservative than ANYONE on the Democrat side, hell yes he is.  Is he more conservative than Cruz?  No.  I never said it, I don't think he is.  And I don't fucking care.

I actually think our press does get away with far too much bullshit, in particular when writing about political figures anywhere to the right of Che Gueverra, it is one of the primary complaints we on the right have had for decades. 

Liberal bias has been a fact in our media since Walter fracking Conkrite, perhaps longer, but it has reached a fever pitch over the past couple decades, the pinnacle (or depths) being the treatment of George W. Bush by the entire media.  And with opinion masquerading as news with no clean break it gets stickier and stickier.

Trump didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't nice', he didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't flattering', he didn't say 'don't say or print things he doesn't like', he said don't say or print things that are wrong, that are not true - big fucking difference and if you don't or won't see or understand that then there really is nothing else to say on this topic. 

Look, just admit it - you are unwilling to give the guy a fair shake about anything.  He isn't a big C Conservative, didn't work; he is too unpolished, didn't work; he has no details, didn't work; he is Hitler, or Mussolini, didn't work; he is an authoritarian, didn't work; he beats up women reporters, didn't work; ummm, he has thin skin and is against the 1st Amendment, no.  Just keep throwing shit at the wall to see if anything will stick.

I think the Brits have libel and defamation far more correctly defined than we do, it clearly does not keep the UK press from criticizing their power elite but it does keep things more fact based and better researched.

Demanding responsibility from the media with respect to political reporting in general and in terms of libel in particular is a start to regaining some semblance of an even discourse in my opinion.  It is along the same lines as loser-pays and tort reform, needed changes that are foundational to bringing personal responsibility back to a profession that has totally lost its compass - see Gawker verdict to Hulk Hogan.

I knew there was no purpose to reply to Jeff's post, all it begets is more of the same shit.  I actually almost deleted this.  You guys can't be even be remotely fair to the guy, which is fine.  You're not changing any minds and clearly neither am I, so be it.

'Gimp

That's called a conversation, not moving the goalposts. Though you're certainly free not to respond.

I believe I understood your reasoning, now I'm trying to discuss how and whether it would work.

I agree.

Now, how do we break the cycle of poverty?

We've been through this multiple times.  It is not rocket science.

Means and drug testing required for all assistance, period.  Fail a test, out on your ass. 

Assistance limited to subsistence level only, essentially 3 hots and a cot, basic medical care to include non invasive birth control (e.g., condoms, diaphragms, the pill OK but no abortion). 

Food assistance ineligible for junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. - food only.  Unused aid is not transferable but can carry over to next period.

Able to work, evidence you looked for work every week.  You will be required to work around the shelter if nothing else.

Public/Private partnership for daycare for poor working mothers/families with a sliding scale to pay whatever a mother/family can pay.  Working in this daycare would count as workfare for those who are able.  Thinking programs like Catholic Charities, Rainbows United, etc.

There are already enough education and job training resources, use them more effectively (largely private charities).

Repeal Obamacare and return to previous approach.  Provide Medicare/Medicaid for those ineligible for open market insurance.

Aggressive paternity testing and outright brutal enforcement against deadbeat dad's.

Set English as the official AND ONLY language for education, commerce and government in the US.

Remove restrictions on government funds being used with faith-based organizations (less than $2B a year currently) for organization that focus specifically and in a non-proselytizing way on anti-poverty and early childhood.

NO BENEFITS OF ANY KIND FOR ILLEGALS AND THEIR CHILDREN - GET CAUGHT GO HOME.  SHOW UP AT EMERGENCY ROOM, GET LIFE SAVING TREATMENT ONLY - GO HOME.

The aforementioned reduction in bennies for mothers/families on aid when a new child is added.

And the safety net has a limited duration, say something like unemployment.

Pick any 2 or 3 of those and actively enforce them for a generation or two and see where we are.

'Gimp

That post is pure insanity, jumping the shark doesn't even begin to come close.

Supposed expert after supposed expert make these ridiculous assertions and we are just supposed to accept it, regardless of how outlandish.

If anything, this madness has helped to resort and refocus my reading list as I toss one formerly trusted analyst (or whole outlets) after another onto the ash heap of mistaken history given their obsession.

My prediction, Trump over Clinton, map will look roughly like 2000 with minor trades in the rust belt.

'Gimp

I'll start, and as a Trump supporter who can't stand Cruz and who is not currently sure that I will be able to vote for him were he to get the nomination.

He was a successful Solicitor General for the State of Texas, argued in front of the Supreme Court nine times (Death Penalty, State Rights, Voting Rights Act, US Sovereignty).

For more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-argued-before-the-us-supreme-court-nine-times-heres-what-happened/

That is most of what I would consider success for him since he has struggled to get anything done (or not done) in his short time in the Senate where it seems almost everybody from both sides can't stand him and as a result won't work with him.

This is why it is so frustrating for me that he is such a poor candidate and has demonstrated such terrible judgement during the campaign.  I WANT to like Cruz because on paper he is THE guy, but in real life he is some odd hybrid between Mr. Haney, Eddie Munster, a tent revival preacher and the worst caricature of the evil win-at-all-costs conservative that populate pop-culture.

'Gimp