So you think pushing this through under budget reconciliation was the only means to get this done?

So who is going to pay this back? Future generations seems most likely to me, so "think of the children" is very apt at least if you are looking long term.  Can you look long term?

Do you not agree that this is a band-aid?  How does this fix long term poverty?

No, people only care about waste or fraud when its convenient.  Could you please prove this statement? Seems like a blanket statement one I don't agree with. I get that... People only raise an issue when they do not support any particular item but seem to be ok to ignore fraud and waste for things they do support. ...seems to reflect your attitude toward the particular fraud I brought up.   What I am saying is that no one moves to do anything when they are not the ones affected by waste or fraud but when it comes to politics people tend to put their blinders on depending on which side they happen to support. Your use of the word 'tend' makes this acceptable but what came before was rubbish that I would guess was born of your own frustration.

The statement is my opinion just like everything I have stated so far.  If there was proof, I would have posted a link to a study.  My attitude towards the fraud is that its not big enough to stop doing something for people in need now instead of waiting for a solution that probably will never come.  We have a DOJ, let them do their job.  I do not have any frustration, I just like things to keep moving instead of some BS reasons people look for to do nothing.

Lets take your analogy.  If you are a business owner and you are in a situation where you do not control the route to your customers.  As a business you would think about if I can get 90% of my goods to the customer and only lose 10% would you hold your business up until some time in the distant future someone will take care of the situation so you can get 100%.  If your customers need the goods today, next week or even next Month, how long are you willing to wait until the situation is fixed. Personally I would change carriers, I am in the transportation business and 10%+ loss is not acceptable.  If you suggest that the transportation of goods is outside of your control then I would change to a different model that puts it in my control.

Why would changing carriers be any different.  Its out of your control so changing carriers mean you just wasted time and money for the same result.  Since you have no solution, you solution is to do nothing.  You are correct, your customer would seek someone else because while you sit there and wait for a favorable outcome, your customers are hurting now.

The point is that there is so much waste and fraud for anyone to get on a high horse but if you are only going to care when something happens you happen to not fully support then its more show then caring. I see this a lot, case in point would be the conversations about the debt. People were ok on the GOP side about the Debt and it wasn't that big of an issue when the current administration was raising it a Trillion a year but now the new administration is in power now its an issue again. I've heard people bitching before and after Clinton / Newt Gingrich & the GOP had a "balanced" budget all those years ago.  The true scope of the national debt (when you include social security) is staggering at over 100 trillion. If you're interested this is an ok read. They are more right-center but a pretty factual source.

Yes, the debt is staggering but I like to know where was your concern before or is it like the current GOP concern.  It only really matters when someone else is in power.  I am all for balancing the budget, reducing the deficit and getting rid of programs and waste.  We actually was going towards that route but then again, we get the GOP into office and their fiscal promises goes right out the window.  Right now its time to help people in need so adding to the debt is what it is.

With the current situation within our federal government, lets be honest, how long do you believe it would take to shore up anything with both parties can barely get anything done because each party is looking to score points then actually fix anything. I don't know, I just am not crazy about kicking the can down the road and burning money.  These are strange times though, the loss is just disheartening. Naw, Dems have a short window to get things done so they need to move while they have a chance.  Waiting for the GOP to actually look to meanfully come to the table to do something is wishful thinking especially if they are going to still prop up Trump as the party leader. If that's true then it seems weird that any relief packages got through before Dems had the power to "move while they had the chance" ....

You call it kicking the can, I call it moving forward.  You are either moving forward or standing still and doing nothing.  I rather see things getting done then waiting for opportune time to do anything.  Yes, thank GOD something got through filibuster but then again, how many bills never made it to the Senate floor.  I can tell you this much, you do not have enough fingers to count.

You sound like that guy on Twitter... 

...Excuse me what?

As in, "What the hell are you talking about?"

You sound like that guy on Twitter... 

I feel like we've discussed in this thread how bad metaphors make for bad arguments countless times, but lets look at this metaphor.

If you are insinuation that this is a bad analogy (I wasn't being poetic and using a metaphor),  you would have been better off arguing it was an oversimplification, and in many way it is. 

Here is where you start to make a real mess of things:

It doesn't really make sense to suggest that you are sending the employee to the bank to make a deposit, but instead it would be a withdrawal. The government is sending you money, you aren't sending money to the government in this scenario. As such, lets say that your employer went to the bank and made that withdrawal. When they got back, some of the money is missing. 

Where does the government get money? Answer taxes.  Who pays taxes? I do. 1) So here I made myself the employer.  So the first part of the analogy stands. 2) I've entrusted the "government" with money (i.e. my taxes) to make a deposit (i.e. dispense aid.)  Remember I'm the employer not the employee.  Can you follow that?

This leads to part two of what seems weird to me. You don't just fire the employee on the spot if they tell you that they were robbed (but still managed to keep most of the money). If you are working in a vast system like the entire country, robberies will happen. It is unfortunate but what is your solution? Find someone (in this case a reliable system) that will not lose / pocket 10%+ of the money on the way to the bank.  You are twisting the analogy to suit your argument though. You have made it a mess by (below and above) saying they are getting money from the bank, to what, pay their bills in cash?  You also make the employee out to be the victim when in the original analogy they are either incompetent or a thief.

What you seem to be suggesting is to stop moving money. Nice attempt to put words into my mouth. Did I say "stop making deposits" or did I say "I probably should fire that guy or send someone else to make the deposits".   I'll wait for you to read it again ... ok so I won't even address the next paragraph.

Now, remember, you are receiving funds. In the context of the metaphor, why does an employer receive funds? To pay their bills. Now lets consider in the context of the metaphor the employer says "Clearly there is a fault here, so lets stop moving money". The employer then fails to receive the money from the bank. As such, they are unable to pay their bills to maintain their business, so the business falls apart. They have no product to sell, expenses add up: Catastrophic failure.

On the other hand, if you keep receiving money, you are losing money, however in business the idea of inevitable loss is fairly common. ok I can agree with that much at least. If you own a book store, while you may try to avoid it, some product will be stolen. It doesn't make sense to close the store. You however accept the losses as a part of doing business while patching holes which seem feasible... correct, you patch the holes, you don't just sit on your hands for an extended period of time and do little to nothing to stem the loss.  You don't just say clearly there is fault here but lets not do anything meaningful to stop it, not yet.

Just, the deeper you go, the more of a mess this metaphor is. At the end of the day, it is not a good option to simply not provide the help that Americans need, so while I am sympathetic to the idea that "losing money is bad", the alternative is worse. Bad metaphors don't change that. The more you twist the ANALOGY the more it falls apart, yes.

I ask this every time I see their posts. 

Maybe because you're too blind to admit the US system sucks and both parties suck. Period. 

People asking "who is going to pay back the money we gave to poor people" clearly do not have a grasp on how an economy works. Where do you think the money goes? It goes straight back into the economy, where it'll trickle up to the most wealthy, who are then supposed to pay it back to the state via taxes. However thanks to decades of campaigns fighting against those taxes it'll get instead funneled away either towards other countries or other rich people.

Poor people aren't a "black hole" where money disappears and neither are small time criminals. The black hole is right at the top. The super rich and politicians. They're the ones sucking it up and refusing to give it back to the economy. The economy is the process of moving money, the only people who stop that movement are the rich.

People asking "who is going to pay back the money we gave to poor people" clearly do not have a grasp on how an economy works. Where do you think the money goes? It goes straight back into the economy, where it'll trickle up to the most wealthy, who are then supposed to pay it back to the state via taxes. However thanks to decades of campaigns fighting against those taxes it'll get instead funneled away either towards other countries or other rich people.

Poor people aren't a "black hole" where money disappears and neither are small time criminals. The black hole is right at the top. The super rich and politicians. They're the ones sucking it up and refusing to give it back to the economy. The economy is the process of moving money, the only people who stop that movement are the rich.

The rich spending lavishly IS an example of them putting it back into the economy: that lavish spending creates/maintains employment. The rich don't stop being part of the economy just because they're rich.

Thankfully, money is not scarce the same way other vital things are like food or water.

Hell, the poor have just as much reason as the rich to hoard too.