2021-11 Election Discussion

[crays]

Anecdotal experiences are pretty powerful and I doubt I could put up an argument that would change minds. Fortunately, that's not what I'm trying to do. My anecdotal experience is that I don't know anyone personally that is actively abusing any system like that. Of course those people exist, but how many are there really? I bet I do actually know people like that, but just don't realize it because they aren't telling me.

People abusing the system is definitely a problem. I'm trying to ask if the story we tell ourselves is bigger than the reality though. There is obviously more to the story. I don't like talking about family at all. The current situation Ginsue's son is in sounds like he should be voting left and collecting checks. But, I can confidently assume he's not. So there must be something else besides "free" stuff that keeps people in that mind set. It just seems lazy to assume the equation is that simple, and being lazy leads to all kinds of other problems. From losing people from your political side, to not being able to convince/teach people to take care of themselves.

I'm getting side tracked. Of course those people exist, just like the loud political extremes exist. But they aren't MOST people, and aren't MOST of the problem.

Just because you don't see/experience it in the circle you operate in doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It definitely happens on a grand scale, and as stated above, the system is rife with endemic/systematic abuse.
Generations of it, actually.
It is a learned behavior brought about by a continued abuse of the system, allowed by hopeful candidates (incumbents as well as new), that play on those dependencies.
Is everyone that receives government assistance bad, lazy or worthless?
Certainly not. There are many people that truly benefit from assistance programs, because they need and even deserve the help.
The greater problem lies in the culture that has developed around the system currently in place, which pols are intrinsically aware of and copiously use to their "electability" advantage.
The entire system was supposed to be temporary in nature, not a career path. (You can apply that to politics and food stamps, btw. )

.gov assistance was originally meant to be a hand up, not a handout. (though that statement in itself may be a bit Pollyanna-ish in and of itself, as I'm sure there were deeper and darker intentions from the get go considering the originations)



Sent from somewhere

[Irving]

I never said that abuses don't happen, of course they do.

I'm not trying to debate whether government assistance programs should exist either.

[theGinsue]

Is everyone that receives government assistance bad, lazy or worthless?
Certainly not. There are many people that truly benefit from assistance programs, because they need and even deserve the help.

Agree with this 100%.

I honestly believe that for every 1 person/family that legitimately needs assistance there are at least 5 people/families that are abusing the system.

Government assistance programs drastically need significant reform in the form of skills/capability evaluations, training programs and employment and childcare assistance. Make participation mandatory to receive the benefits unless physical or mental incapacity are factors preventing participation. Have established goals/standards with a "2 strikes and you're out" policy. If you are capable of, yet unwilling, to work for your own future and success then you don't deserve benefits. And stop incentivizing the breeders who continually add to their brood in order to increase their benefits.

[KAPA]

Anyone know who the conservatives are for school board in Castle Rock? Usually I just vote against the names I see on the back of SUVs and minivans but I am pretty sure I have seen this on both sides this time around.

[Joe_K]

Anyone know who the conservatives are for school board in Castle Rock? Usually I just vote against the names I see on the back of SUVs and minivans but I am pretty sure I have seen this on both sides this time around.

Here ya go:
https://www.vote4kidsfirst.com/

*All the candidates answers to basic questions.
*Except one Justin V Mathew who is on the ballot. Ive been unable to find ANY information on him aside from he is running.
https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/s...s-guide,383148

Found this. He might be an intentional divide the vote candidate. https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/Publ...px?SeqID=50860

[KAPA]

Awesome, thank you, yeah it seems the Peterson/Winegar/Williams/Myers is the conservative choice. The others are trying to defend equity education and CRT in a few cases.

It is amazing how difficult it is to find quality information on these school board races. It's like they all try their best to use buzzwords and not say anything real other than "we are for the kids". No shit, I don't think the "hates kids" candidate is going to do very well.

Agree on the Mathew guy, he is fishy!

Oh and the CommUNITY group with Lueng Watkins Martinez and Holtzman is the crew with the minivan paintings on the back.
Scroll to the bottom: https://www.dcsdcommunitymatters.com/

[Joe_K]

[KAPA]

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ential-lawsuit

Ok, I am no on everything since Dems seem to want most if not all of this stuff and I am sure they thought it all up. The one I am stumped on is Prop 120. Polis is for it but all the other Dems seem to be against it. Then I read the article above and it talks about a lawsuit that can revert it if it is passed. Seems like it will help the Denver area most since property values went up here so much but then the money that would be no longer spent on taxes tends to be what rural areas depend on so a Yes vote seems to hurt rural areas more than front range areas.

I am trying to read this on and off today during downtime at work and it is a shame that they can't make this more simple. Question should just be do you want to reduce property taxes by 7%? The end, let the gov feel the squeeze and have to figure out what to cut. I'd vote for that but anything more than two or three sentences allows for them to put too much pork in it. Screw it, going with NO.

[KAPA]

Yep, that's the enemy!

[Eric P]

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ential-lawsuit

Ok, I am no on everything since Dems seem to want most if not all of this stuff and I am sure they thought it all up. The one I am stumped on is Prop 120. Polis is for it but all the other Dems seem to be against it. Then I read the article above and it talks about a lawsuit that can revert it if it is passed. Seems like it will help the Denver area most since property values went up here so much but then the money that would be no longer spent on taxes tends to be what rural areas depend on so a Yes vote seems to hurt rural areas more than front range areas.

I am trying to read this on and off today during downtime at work and it is a shame that they can't make this more simple. Question should just be do you want to reduce property taxes by 7%? The end, let the gov feel the squeeze and have to figure out what to cut. I'd vote for that but anything more than two or three sentences allows for them to put too much pork in it. Screw it, going with NO.

2 year minimal tax break to allow the thives to keep $25 million per year for 5 years if passed. I don't care if it funds the homestead exemption. A no vote on this is easy. Same for the MJ tax. I don't use, but allowing a new government office to form is a big NO.