Vol_Doc
Vol in "The Ville"
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,826
- Likes
- 2,440
Can you link that? I'm not trying to be a smart___. I have NEVER seen the federal government give federal grants to states with no oversight, or strings attached.Federal grants, yes, but I'm pretty sure the administration is at the state level.
Correct.Ah... So, you all want government as a security blanket for failure and misfortune, not yourselves personally (unless you fail and fall on misfortune).
In any case. You want government as a security blanket. You just want to split hairs about why you want it. OK.
Lol, I don't think our government has ever shrunk! I don't have a link. Just relying on memory. Someone please correct me, if I'm off track.Can you link that? I'm not trying to be a smart___. I have NEVER seen the federal government give federal grants to states with no oversight, or strings attached.
And the federal gvmt matching state $$$ isn't really the definition of shrinking government is it?
Just the fact that you took issue with his original statement that matches exactly what you just said. You're a strange cat, luther. It's like you're ashamed of being proud of the crap you believe.Correct.
If your neighbor comes home from Afghanistan with PTSD and a missing a limb. I'm okay with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your uncle just lost his house and pecan farm to Hurricane Michael and his insurance is slow or insufficient, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your grandchild is born with a disability that requires services beyond what health care covers, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
If the lady down the road is a meth head and her kids need food and shelter, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
Not sure where the hair splitting comes into play. Possibly in your own 2 dimensional mind.
According to this article by the history channel:Lol, I don't think our government has ever shrunk! I don't have a link. Just relying on memory. Someone please correct me, if I'm off track.
wait a minute. we have had multiple posters pushing for this very think. I forget which thread but we had one guy arguing about bigger and bigger government safety nets. Its exactly what you are pushing for.No one wants a system that offers life long dependence. If you actually think that is the liberal objective, you've been drinking way to much Kool-Aid.
Correct.
If your neighbor comes home from Afghanistan with PTSD and a missing a limb. I'm okay with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your uncle just lost his house and pecan farm to Hurricane Michael and his insurance is slow or insufficient, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your grandchild is born with a disability that requires services beyond what health care covers, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
If the lady down the road is a meth head and her kids need food and shelter, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
Not sure where the hair splitting comes into play. Possibly in your own 2 dimensional mind.
Basically, that means the grant money is not given indiscriminately, and states must match funds. It also described work requirements and stricter guidelines for receiving benefits. So, Clinton did successfully shrink welfare...a bit.According to this article by the history channel:
https://www.history.com/news/clinton-1990s-welfare-reform-facts
The federal grants were dependent on newly created requirements developed (read: overseen) by the feds.
My point is that you have to have a federal level of oversight and administration as well as a state level of oversight and administration, as well as both a federal and state level of financing. The point of the conversation was government size. Clinton didn't shrink the government by pushing administration of welfare down to the state level.Basically, that means the grant money is not given indiscriminately, and states must match funds. It also described work requirements and stricter guidelines for receiving benefits. So, Clinton did successfully shrink welfare...a bit.
Correct.
If your neighbor comes home from Afghanistan with PTSD and a missing a limb. I'm okay with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your uncle just lost his house and pecan farm to Hurricane Michael and his insurance is slow or insufficient, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping him out.
If your grandchild is born with a disability that requires services beyond what health care covers, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
If the lady down the road is a meth head and her kids need food and shelter, I'm fine with my tax dollar helping out.
Not sure where the hair splitting comes into play. Possibly in your own 2 dimensional mind.
Basically, that means the grant money is not given indiscriminately, and states must match funds. It also described work requirements and stricter guidelines for receiving benefits. So, Newt did successfully shrink welfare...a bit.
Still a far better POTUS than Zero was by a long shot. More people working and keeping what they earn... etc.... Well, you know the list.
Thought with the conservatives in total control we would get the budget under control, but sadly they have made it worse.
779 Billion