marks2065
-
Content
2,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by marks2065
-
-
QuoteQuoteHow about we send some of these freeloaders over to your house for some free food and a place to sleep.
If you think it is such a great life to be a freeloader, why don't you try doing it for two months?
Try and live off welfare and foodstamps for 2 months. The concept that a majority of these people enjoy living like that is laughable.
Sorry but I couldn't lower myself to be dependant on someone else, I was raised better than that. -
Quote>I just don't like paying taxes when . . .
Yes, you have given all the usual reasons why you refuse to compromise unless your demands are met. Both sides have gotten very good at that.
We have to raise taxes and cut spending if we are going to close the budget gap. That will never happen, and you have given the reason why in your past few posts.
Bill, is it wrong to feel that ALL people should contribute? How about we send some of these freeloaders over to your house for some free food and a place to sleep. -
Quote>they do they pay 90% of the bill already.
And yet another example of why we will never get anywhere. You demand that everyone compromise their politics for the good of the many, as long as "everyone" does not include you. Congratulations; you've mastered the politician's way of thinking.
no you don't seem to understand how good resposible people are, I don't mind paying some taxes, just don't like paying taxes when some many don't. I don't feel me, or anyone has the right to not pay for things. If everyone pulled their wieght the job would be much easier on everyone.
The problem is people like you that feel some do not have to contribute. -
QuoteQuote>and we still got democratic fuck nugget politicians who use the rich against the poor
>tactic to get votes
And republican assholes who play the race card to garner votes. Nothing much changes.
Republicans play the race card???
You are reaching here my friend
he has to reach because he has nothing else. -
Quote>what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?
Nothing. What's wrong with having the rich share in the workload as well?
\
they do they pay 90% of the bill already. we have 10% paying 90%. Time to shift some of the burden to the bottom 30% of the people. -
QuoteQuoteQuote>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.
Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"
Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"
Result? What we have today.
what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?
It breaks up the voter base
I remember when people would work hard or got made fun of or chastized, now those that don't work get coddled and given things. -
Quote>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.
Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"
Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"
Result? What we have today.
what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload? -
QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you telling us that Romney is a hypocrite?
Even YOUR logic isn't that bad!! He's a politician... of COURSE he's a hypocrite.
Oh, sorry. I thought they were just all liars.
Romney's problem is that he has been to far left while governor of Mass and the reb's are having a difficult time accepting that. and yes you are correct that most politicians are hypocrits and liars. -
QuoteQuote>Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain?
>sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many.
Exactly. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. And yes, the taxes might cause you a little pain. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the many.
Obviously, he never saw Star Trek II.
I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should have an increase. untill that time we will just need to reduce spending.
But maybe you didn't see star trek III were the needs of the one (our country) outwiegh the needs of the many.(those paying no tax) -
QuoteWho would hire the government employees laid off?
Wendy P.
same people that are hiring now plus some that would start hiring because of the better, financially more conservative government.
Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain? sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many. Suck it up people, quit the fucking whining, not everyone can be a winner, that only happens in the dream world of the left. -
Quote>the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the
>first thing to go would be the waste in government
Ah yes, the myth that you can just "trim the fat" and not affect anyone - because no politician has ever tried that before.
I never said nobody would be affected -
QuoteQuoteIf you cut government spending by 12% this year and 12% next year and did it at 1% per month, the economy would not even feel the change. the economy would actually improve and unemployment would drop as the cuts took place.
Which has nothing to do with 5 million additional unemployed....
there would not be 5mil unemployed if you reduced the budget and allowed the improved economy to hire them as you went. the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the first thing to go would be the waste in government -
QuoteQuoteUnles it is done it will get worse than your numbers
Not sure what you mean with that sentence. Worse as in more employees? Worse as in ven more people unemployed? Worse as in a worse economic environment?QuoteDoing it now will help things turn around much faster
I doubt you will find too many respectable economics who would agree that adding 5 million people to the ranks of the unemployed will speed up recovery. How exactly do you think that would work?
If you cut government spending by 12% this year and 12% next year and did it at 1% per month, the economy would not even feel the change. the economy would actually improve and unemployment would drop as the cuts took place. -
QuoteThe only way to get food stamps with more than a 30K gross income is to have a large enough family. And guidelines vary from state to state. This is a good thing, since cost of living certainly varies from state to state.
In New York, as an example (just the first one I found in Google), the family has to be 5 people or more to get food stamps with an income of greater than 30K -- with "people" being verifiable citizens, or verifiable legal aliens who have been here more than 5 years (and that might be state-to-state). There is some variance if there are elderly or disabled in the household.
There are valid objections to how food stamps are administered. It's better to object based on knowledge, rather than just a blanket objection without a lot of fact behind it.
Wendy P.
All of government needs to be cut by about 20%, including welfare and food stamps. You would be suprised how fast things would change once this happens. A good struggle is good for ones characture. -
Quote>sorry but the abuse and fraud is much larger than it should be and the qualifications
>are way to easy.
I'm all for stopping the abuse and fraud. But as Wendy pointed out, that would save 3.5% of the costs of the program even if the efforts to stop it cost nothing. So while it's a good thing to do in general in this case it wouldn't save much.
taking all off the programm that make more than 30k a year would save millions -
QuoteNo program is without fraud or abuse. However, food stamps appear to be less so than many.
According to Wikipedia:QuoteAccording to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant. There are also instances of fraud involving exchange of food stamp benefits for cash and/or for items not eligible for purchase with food stamps. In 2011, the Michigan program was revised after it was discovered that about 26,000 full-time college students were receiving monthly food stamp benefits.
Nothing is perfect. And if you try to get rid of all error and/or fraud in a program, you'll drive the cost to far higher than the money you save.
Kind of like spending $6000 to replace the engine in a rusted out Pinto.
Wendy P.
sorry but the abuse and fraud is much larger than it should be and the qualifications are way to easy. -
QuoteQuoteQuote
In general I think that 1) is the hardest to accomplish.
Agreed that accomplishing societal objectives is difficult. Especially so where there are no accepted principles for doing so.
Our country has veered to the point where it's just fine to take money from people who work and give to those that don't.
I think the Wall Street execs did SOME work. They still took a lot of money, though, from taxpayers like you and me.
And who was stupid enough to give it to them? I think polosi had the gavel at the time. Who gives alot of money to the politicians, mostly the dem party? -
Quote>Maybe they should buy food instead of a big screen tv, $250 a month cable bill,
>multiple phones (land line & cell phone for each memeber of a family down to the one
>in first grade) 5k in rims for the junk car they drive.
Food stamp recipients, in general, are not who you think they are. For example, half are children. Many are veterans. A great many are recently out of work people who use what money they have to pay off educational and housing loans.
And a great many are people that make over 30k a year or have family memebers that are not citizens or work for cash under the table thus showing a low income to qualify. -
QuoteGo back and read Wendy's post. Food stamps are not what you think they are.
Yes they are what I think they are, free food for everyone that receives them, nothing more or less. What is being debated here is not what they are but whom they go to. Many that recieve food stamps don't need them or deserve them. Maybe they should buy food instead of a big screen tv, $250 a month cable bill, multiple phones (land line & cell phone for each memeber of a family down to the one in first grade) 5k in rims for the junk car they drive. -
Quotejust woke uP and you brother DO NOT know me very well... I said earlier that IF i'm wrong, i would say so! That brother, YOU and others can take it to the bank... FDIC backed or not! ;P I have admitted to those last THREE links being one in the same! I could end this (as you so eloquinty put it) "bullshit" all right here the same way the left twists words and intent with: ...they all fall under the federal government so they are all in the same dept! But i won't be like former potus B.C. re: "well that all depends on what the definition of IS is!" ;P lol So Mr. Stewert, please hang tight and watch the news for a little while...
What the liberals on DZ.com don't want anyone to know is that it doesn't matter who said it or where it came from, it is true. If we keep handing out food stamps at the rate we are doing it the people will become dependant on them and forget how to earn money to pay for themselves. They like to spin things until the real meaning is lost. getting you running around looking for the source just moves the entire conversation from the words and then the meaning is lost. -
QuoteQuoteQuoteIsnt this the same guy who is "pro-life" but supports the death penalty?
that makes more sense than pro abortion anti death penalty. Kill the inocent kids but save the mass murderer.
Death penalty, suicide, abortion, murder, caualties of war, etc.
Apparent contradictions in approach are just that - apparent. To know if the person's beliefs are consistent requires knowing the principles behind them.
If they have non-cntradicting principles that support each belief (for instance OK with abortion, against capital punishment), then there is nothing inconsistent going on.
I understand alot of people don't like abortion or the death penalty or like abortion and the death penalty or don't like abortion but like the death penalty, but I do not (and I have even tried debating this) understand how some one can abort a baby but not kill a mass murderer. -
QuoteIsnt this the same guy who is "pro-life" but supports the death penalty?
that makes more sense than pro abortion anti death penalty. Kill the inocent kids but save the mass murderer. -
QuoteQuoteWhere do you see the right to do drugs in the constitition?
Then I will ,at least, know where we are starting from
Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to.
PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/10/06/drugs-and-the-constitution/7584/ -
QuoteSince my shop has a group policy my wifes insurance has pregnancy covered with a higher premium eventhough my wife cannot get pregnant nor can I get her pregnant. these are some of the things in insurance that really piss me off because the pregnancy coverage is espensive but I don't want to pay for it. I am made to pay about $100 a month for something I don't want and cannot use. All this stuff in the health care bill adds to the list of things you pay for but don't use or want.
Expecting not to have to pay premiums for specific conditions is not reasonable. It would be like young people asking to have their premium reduced by whatever premiums amounts are reflective of Alzheimer's and other diseases of old age. In a way, plans that have rating bands based on age already do that, but it reflects general utilization by age, not by excluding benefits for specific conditions. It's not really insurance if each person gets to pick the specifics they want to cover or not. It really needs to be an all in or fold thing or the cherry-picking becomes destructive to the pool.
I understand what you are saying but then why make it an option on an individual policy?
Ponder, perhaps CHEW on this!
in Speakers Corner
If you look back you will see I was against tarp, stimulous and welfare. for some reason I think that everyone should contribute and not get handouts, but why would the left think that way.