Hjeada

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts? Oh, so your comments about fraud were simply meant as distractions from the issue under discussion. Got it. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that any of these mean proposals will save any taxpayer money at all, and policing them will actually COST taxpayers money. So it really is all about being mean. Again, please show me, very carefully, where I made any statement about preventing fraud...or are your assumptions wrong again? If you honestly think personal responsibility is the best approach, and those on the gov't dime should be able to spend money on whatever they please, then you need to re-evaluate your comments about Mercedes and Maseratis . You seem to have a problem when corporations receive gov't money and spend it how they please, but when individuals get gov't money, they can do whatever the hell they want, hypocritical for sure. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts? Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Btw, the personal attack didn't go unnoticed, really quite sad you aren't capable of having a conversation with someone that doesn't see the world in the same way as you do without taking a shot at them. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bubba Dudeist Skydiver #0511

You can put me down in whatever category you would like, your opinion is meaningless to me. I simply called him out as consistently bashing one party, while virtually blindly supporting the another. You can assume all you like from that. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I do agree that some level of waste is inherent in any program, it's the nature of the beast when dealing with the gov't. Estimated savings in one state, per the article, are just shy of $5m in one year, seems to lend itself to being more beneficial to apply oversight than to blankly write checks, especially when extrapolated out over multiple years. Should the savings have been $500k, then no, it probably wouldn't make sense at all...$5m is a totally different story. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

So you support subsidizing food for those that have money to spend on swimming lessons, movies, whatever non-essential you would like to lay out...but somehow don't have enough money to feed themselves or their children? It's an insane contradiction. That individual has priorities out of line and wants the gov't to give money to them for what they 'can't afford' (food) when they have money for entertainment. If that is ok in your worldview, then it is telling why we have such a dependency on social welfare programs. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

And you need to make less assumption about the propaganda I follow, or my political leanings (I don't post nearly enough here for you to have any idea where I fall), especially when 90+% of what you do here is bash the GOP and spew liberal drivel. From your own link: "Kansas expects to have lost $2.2 million last year to fraud in the program, down from more than $7 million in 2013, according to O'Donnell." But hell, it's just shy of $5m in one year...good to know you are in support of tax dollars going to hookers and blow, personal responsibility and all. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Bolding mine...and exactly. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

IMHO, if those on gov't assistance have expendable money for entertainment, then they don't need money from the gov't, and is thus a waste of tax payer dollars, which should be put toward education, roads, the deficit, etc. Giving recipients money with no regulation is nothing more than enabling behavior. In your stance of personal responsibility (which most who are on gov't assistance have no concept of or they wouldn't be on gov't assistance), they could spend that money on hookers and blow, and while you may not have a problem with your tax dollars being spent that way, I sure as hell do. Those of us who earn our own money have earned the right to spend it however we please, those who get mine from the gov't for free should have oversight. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I have a huge problem with the farm subsidies, and the bail outs (if the corporation can't succeed without a bailout, then it should be allowed to fail), no argument there. While I don't take a mortgage deduction myself since I don't own a house, I agree, shouldn't be a deduction. I do drive on roads and my children do go to a taxpayer supported school, however, I pay a considerable amount of tax which goes to fund those so you won't guilt me there. When people ask for direct gov't assistance, it should be for needs, not wants. I regularly make sacrifices for both me and my children because I can't afford it. I don't have cable since it is expensive and I have other priorities, like feeding my children and paying my bills. Where do you draw the line? Movies and pools are obviously quite ok with you, what about skydiving? Should the gov't pay for tandems, I mean, even poor people should be allowed to jump. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Please tell me how a trip to the pool or the movie theater is a basic necessity? Does one need to go swimming or see a movie on the big screen to live? The fact that you are advocating for this to be paid for by the gov't is more than disturbing. Those are not basic needs and the gov't should not be funding them. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Geez, don't doctors have enough to do without becoming gun experts who are qualified to give people advice about gun safety? Of course, you're twisting the words of the act anyway . . . Q. Who are the people who treat gunshot injuries. A. That would generally be doctors. Q. Who signs the death certificates for dead gunshot victims? A. That would generally be doctors too. Therefore it is a legitimate topic for doctor/patient conversations. There are also a number of crib related fatalities/accidents every year. Doctors would treat those that suffer injuries due to cribs, or God forbid, sign the death certificate. Should doctors also become experts in cribs? What about training wheels, should doctors be advising parents on when to take the training wheels off of their children's bikes? Your argument is ludicrous. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

*** NSA has never meta phone it wouldn't tap. That's funny shit, right there, I don't care who you are!! Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I was thinking the same, just call up the NSA and have them pull the emails from their server farms in Utah, you know they are tracking them Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Yeah, I agree with him telling you to leave...not because of your extreme leftist views, which isn't why he told you to leave either...it's because of the incessant hate you spew on this forum, and your obvious disdain for this country. You are like the obese person that bitches about how overweight they are, all while eating as many donuts as possible. If you hate it so much, either change your situation, make constructive suggestions, or STFU...otherwise you are just a troll...well, no, you are a troll regardless. Funny that nobody is telling Kallend to leave, and he's easily as far left as you are...the issue is you, not your leftism. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Seriously? As a father of a child that has hearing issues, that aren't at all due to genetics or inbreeding (if you would like to argue that, I can refer you to a world class geneticist at Gillette's), your comments are completely uncalled for, intolerant, and hateful, among a number of other things. I personally think your posts are full of vitrol, and have no value or purpose on this forum. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to agree with. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Hmmm so the US was wrong to drop the bombs on japan? In my opinion, yes. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Flat Tax makes too much sense, so we all know that won't happen. God forbid everyone is treated equally. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

This hasn't worked so well with Israel, I would expect it to work about the same the next time around. Third parties carving out countries for another area of the world is not the best approach and won't solve any fighting in my opinion, and will most likely lead to even more resentment of the western world. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

None. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

I'm not confused about anything. Should there have been a contingency plan for an ongoing affair, sure, is Bush at fault for that, absolutely. But acting on a faulty plan once it's known to be faulty is a much larger issue, but in your mind Obama is clean as a whistle, which is just utterly obtuse. Acting on a faulty plan is a significantly bigger mistake than not developing a plan to address all situations. Looks about as bad as when you put words into others mouths, and make sweeping assumptions. But I will address, negotiations for a new SOFA were happening as late as the fall of 2010 rolling into 2011. There was plenty of opportunity for garnishing a new SOFA. Had the administration not pushed the issue of immunity for US troops, then perhaps a deal could have been struck in order to leave troops on the ground and avoid the instability. Again, you push blame backwards instead of where it is due. Next time you start a new job, please tell your boss that you will follow the plans laid out by your predecessor without owning any accountability and see how well that turns out for you. Would it not be worse to get on ship that wasn't designed for handling waves even if you knew the ship wasn't designed to handle them? You don't see the problem with following an obviously flawed plan, enacting decisions based upon that plan, then blaming the person before you? Did Obama inherit a mess, sure. Did he amplify the situation by making blunders of his own, absolutely. This blanket immunity that you are giving him is ridiculous. I love how you make leaps as to my partisanship, keep reaching, maybe you will get a lucky guess one of these tries... Dudeist Skydiver #0511

It wasn't the logical extension, the logical extension of having a plan that didn't account for a situation that wasn't identified at the inception of the plan would be to alter the plan, which Obama simply didn't do. Nope, instead he disregarded the advice of many and pulled us out anyway...if you are looking for dumb fuck actions, there it is. Failure to amend a plan to adapt to a changing scenery, would, at best, get you in some very sticky situations in the private sector, and at worst, get you fired. A plan, as with any major undertaking, simply can't address every situation, and building one for every situation is an exercise in futility. You are trying to blame the plan maker (for having a plan, but not having a plan...still not sure how that logic works) instead of the person who made the decision given the current set of data. I find significantly more fault with the person who makes a erroneous decision given current data than the person who made a plan that doesn't account for every scenario. There you go again, putting words into others mouths...and no, this isn't why I think Bush is a dumb fuck, thanks, but try again. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

OK, good. So you agree that Bush was a dumb fuck for not having a project plan to deal with a long term Iraqi insurgency. Please don't put words in my mouth, or make any assumptions as to what I think...and for the record, you are spinning your own words now... You establish above that Bush created a timeline (i.e. project plan), but then say it was a dumb fuck move to not have a plan...so just so I have it right, you think it's a dumb fuck move to have a pre-established timeline (damn Bush is a dumb fuck), and in the next breath say Bush is a dumb fuck for not having a plan...got it, super logic used there. Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Right... so it was a dumbfuck move to retreat from Iraq under Bush's pre-established timeline, but it wasn't a dumbfuck move for Bush to create that timeline? And on that note, how unbelievably moronic was it for Bush to believe that after invading Iraq there would be no insurgency to deal with at all? Let's take this to a business case...it would be a dumb fuck move to not have a project plan/timeline for a major initiative/project...so developing a timeline is not a dumb fuck thing to do. Now, due a the moving nature of almost every project I've ever worked on, not adjusting the timeline based on a changing scenery would be very dumb.... Dudeist Skydiver #0511