View Full Version : $1.5 trillion for the wealthy. But we have cuts for our wounded, sick, or aging vets
Crepitus
07-22-2018, 07:32 PM
White House: U.S. Can’t Afford Veterans’ Health Care Without Cuts (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-u-s-cant-afford-veterans-health-care-without-cuts.html)
Last year, the Trump administration insisted that its regressive tax cuts were so important, it was worth adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt to ensure their passage. Now, the White House is warning Congress that the United States cannot afford to add $1.6 billion to the deficit to expand health-care options for veterans.
Welcome to the *trump administration*.
MisterVeritis
07-22-2018, 07:37 PM
The right answer is to end all entitlements. No one should be entitled to anything. Put all spending back into one comprehensive budget. Then prioritize the federal spending based on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
Mr.Soxes
07-22-2018, 07:43 PM
Anything dealing with vetrans is corrupt and rife with wasteful spending.:flag:
Cletus
07-22-2018, 08:00 PM
White House: U.S. Can’t Afford Veterans’ Health Care Without Cuts (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-u-s-cant-afford-veterans-health-care-without-cuts.html)
Welcome to the *trump administration*.
Tax cuts don't add to the debt. Only stupid people believe they do.
ripmeister
07-22-2018, 09:38 PM
Tax cuts don't add to the debt. Only stupid people believe they do.
Ladidah!
ripmeister
07-22-2018, 09:40 PM
The right answer is to end all entitlements. No one should be entitled to anything. Put all spending back into one comprehensive budget. Then prioritize the federal spending based on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
So you are saying that those who served in our armed forces are entitled to nothing for thei service?
MisterVeritis
07-22-2018, 09:43 PM
So you are saying that those who served in our armed forces are entitled to nothing for thei service?
Correct. End all entitlements. We have no good reason to put most of the budget out of bounds of reasonable annual budgetary limits.
If you cannot afford to pay my retirement then cut it. Similarly, if we cannot afford Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security then cut them.
Cletus
07-22-2018, 09:49 PM
So you are saying that those who served in our armed forces are entitled to nothing for thei service?
I actually agree with that, the exception being long term care for service related disabilities.
I received a regular paycheck in exchange for my services. why should I expect more than that?
Cletus
07-22-2018, 09:50 PM
Ladidah!
Do you believe they do?
ripmeister
07-22-2018, 09:57 PM
Do you believe they do?
I believe that any balance sheet is affected by revenues and costs.
ripmeister
07-22-2018, 09:59 PM
I actually agree with that, the exception being long term care for service related disabilities.
I received a regular paycheck in exchange for my services. why should I expect more than that?
Because you put your life on the line? Or perhaps you didn't.
El Guapo
07-22-2018, 10:09 PM
$1.5 trillion for the wealthy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/99419-1-5-trillion-for-the-wealthy-But-we-have-cuts-for-our-wounded-sick-or-aging-vets/page2)
You have it backwards. The government gets its money the wealthy. Not the other way around.
Tahuyaman
07-22-2018, 10:13 PM
Revenues into government are at an all time high. Increased debt is not caused by cuts in tax rates. I don't know why liberals have such a hard time understanding this.
El Guapo
07-22-2018, 10:15 PM
Revenues into government are at an all time high. Increased debt is not caused by cuts in tax rates. I don't know why liberals have such a hard time understanding this.
Debt goes away like magic when government spending is cut.
Again- the progs have it backwards.
Tahuyaman
07-22-2018, 10:24 PM
Debt goes away like magic when government spending is cut.
Again- the progs have it backwards.
With them, taxation isn't about raising revenues. It's about punishment, redistribution of wealth and control. They need punish the achievers. Redistribute their wealth to the non achievers and then control behaviors.
Cletus
07-22-2018, 10:27 PM
I believe that any balance sheet is affected by revenues and costs.
Of course it is, but revenue doesn't increase debt. Spending increases debt. We could cut tax revenue by 90% and it wouldn't increase our debt. All we have to do is decrease spending to the point where revenue equals or exceeds it. By the same token, if we increased revenue by 150% and also increased spending by 175%, we will increase the debt, even though there was a large increase in revenue.
It is really pretty simple stuff. Spend less.
Cletus
07-22-2018, 10:30 PM
Because you put your life on the line? Or perhaps you didn't.
More than once, but that was part of the job I was being paid to do. It is part of the job every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine is paid to do.
Crepitus
07-22-2018, 10:55 PM
Revenues into government are at an all time high. Increased debt is not caused by cuts in tax rates. I don't know why liberals have such a hard time understanding this.
No, they aren't.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/06/movement-of-the-federal-tax-receipt-front/
Tahuyaman
07-22-2018, 10:58 PM
No, they aren't.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/06/movement-of-the-federal-tax-receipt-front/
They are, but facts don't matter in your world.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-revenues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
5/10/2018
Economy: The federal government collected far more taxes this April than it did a year ago, despite the "budget busting" Trump tax cuts. So, we'll ask again: Are the tax cuts paying for themselves?
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/14/news/economy/us-government-taxes-record/index.html
Crepitus
07-22-2018, 10:59 PM
They are, but facts don't matter in your world.
Lol, didn't bother with the link did you.
Tahuyaman
07-22-2018, 11:02 PM
Lol, didn't bother with the link did you. Facts don't matter to you, do they?
Even CNN will admit revenues are at an all time high.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/14/news/economy/us-government-taxes-record/index.html
U.S. tax revenues at record high. Who's paying?
by Heather Long @byHeatherLo (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=byHeatherLong)
Cletus
07-23-2018, 01:01 AM
Don't confuse him with facts. It's cruel. :grin:
Crepitus
07-23-2018, 03:11 AM
Facts don't matter to you, do they?
Even CNN will admit revenues are at an all time high.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/14/news/economy/us-government-taxes-record/index.html
U.S. tax revenues at record high. Who's paying?
by Heather Long @byHeatherLo (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=byHeatherLong)
You quoted that link without reading it, or even proofreading your post.
"By Heather Long August 14, 2015: 1:35 PM ET".
President Obama's tax revenues were at an all time high.
Crepitus
07-23-2018, 03:12 AM
Don't confuse him with facts. It's cruel. :grin:
You obviously wouldn't recognize a fact if I wrapped one around a soggy fish and slapped you with it.
Peter1469
07-23-2018, 04:58 AM
White House: U.S. Can’t Afford Veterans’ Health Care Without Cuts (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-u-s-cant-afford-veterans-health-care-without-cuts.html)
Welcome to the *trump administration*.
Tax cuts are not the same thing as redistribution of wealth.
hanger4
07-23-2018, 06:13 AM
You obviously wouldn't recognize a fact if I wrapped one around a soggy fish and slapped you with it.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/CCB2D338-52C4-11E8-B5CB-0B5EC4382EF2 ..................... https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue ....................... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-through-march-still-run
Crepitus
07-23-2018, 09:20 AM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/CCB2D338-52C4-11E8-B5CB-0B5EC4382EF2 ..................... https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue ....................... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-through-march-still-run
Two links from months ago and one of projections not actual.
=Nothing. Current revenues are dropping, as displayed in my current link (from July 2018) of actual revenues, not projections.
Tahuyaman
07-23-2018, 10:34 AM
You quoted that link without reading it, or even proofreading your post.
"By Heather Long August 14, 2015: 1:35 PM ET".
President Obama's tax revenues were at an all time high.
The fact is, revenues currently are at an all time high. If you don't like it, that's on you.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-revenues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
Tax Revenues Jump 13% To Record High In April — When Will Dems Admit They Were Wrong About Trump's Tax Cuts?
barb012
07-23-2018, 10:43 AM
Correct. End all entitlements. We have no good reason to put most of the budget out of bounds of reasonable annual budgetary limits.
How old are you?If you cannot afford to pay my retirement then cut it. Similarly, if we cannot afford Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security then cut them.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 01:38 PM
Of course it is, but revenue doesn't increase debt. Spending increases debt. We could cut tax revenue by 90% and it wouldn't increase our debt. All we have to do is decrease spending to the point where revenue equals or exceeds it. By the same token, if we increased revenue by 150% and also increased spending by 175%, we will increase the debt, even though there was a large increase in revenue.
It is really pretty simple stuff. Spend less.
Or we could increase revenue and cut spending. Imaging the effect that would have.
Tomato---Tomahto
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 01:39 PM
More than once, but that was part of the job I was being paid to do. It is part of the job every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine is paid to do.
I guess we differ in that I see it as more than just a job.
Cletus
07-23-2018, 02:32 PM
Or we could increase revenue and cut spending. Imaging the effect that would have.
Tomato---Tomahto
If you cut spending, why would you want to take MORE money from the citizenry? The government should take in what it needs to operate with a little in reserve for emergencies. That's all.
Cletus
07-23-2018, 02:32 PM
I guess we differ in that I see it as more than just a job.
What do you see it as?
Tahuyaman
07-23-2018, 03:00 PM
Or we could increase revenue and cut spending. Imaging the effect that would have.
Tomato---Tomahto
Revenues have already increased to an all time high. I guess it's time for you to contact your congressman and see where he or she stands on spending cuts. Just find out if they would support something easy like limiting spending increases to the rate of inflation.
MisterVeritis
07-23-2018, 03:04 PM
Barb? Quote box failure.
Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2386254#post2386254)Correct. End all entitlements. We have no good reason to put most of the budget out of bounds of reasonable annual budgetary limits.
[How old are you?] If you cannot afford to pay my retirement then cut it. Similarly, if we cannot afford Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security then cut them.Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2386254#post2386254)
The bracketed text was not in my original.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 03:06 PM
If you cut spending, why would you want to take MORE money from the citizenry? The government should take in what it needs to operate with a little in reserve for emergencies. That's all.
Of course the real debate is "what it needs to operate". This is where we would surely differ.
MisterVeritis
07-23-2018, 03:10 PM
Of course the real debate is "what it needs to operate". This is where we would surely differ.
Begin the search for your answer in the Constitution's Article I section 8. It contains the whole list of what we allow the federal government to do. Nearly everything the Federal government is currently doing falls outside the list.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 03:23 PM
Begin the search for your answer in the Constitution's Article I section 8. It contains the whole list of what we allow the federal government to do. Nearly everything the Federal government is currently doing falls outside the list.
Yes, provide for the general welfare.
MisterVeritis
07-23-2018, 03:25 PM
Yes, provide for the general welfare.
Provide for the general welfare is a phrase that specifically excludes all welfare programs we run today. Knock yourself out for once and look it up. That way you will remember.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 03:28 PM
What do you see it as?
More than just a job.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 03:29 PM
Provide for the general welfare is a phrase that specifically excludes all welfare programs we run today. Knock yourself out for once and look it up. That way you will remember.
How so? That's your interpretation. Others interpret that differently.
MisterVeritis
07-23-2018, 03:31 PM
How so? That's your interpretation. Others interpret that differently.
I rely upon what the Framers said. You should try it sometime.
ripmeister
07-23-2018, 03:37 PM
I rely upon what the Framers said. You should try it sometime.
Yes, and they said provide for the general welfare. Its pretty clear really.
MisterVeritis
07-23-2018, 04:38 PM
Yes, and they said provide for the general welfare. Its pretty clear really.
It is clear. You do not understand it. But I am done with you.
donttread
07-23-2018, 05:08 PM
White House: U.S. Can’t Afford Veterans’ Health Care Without Cuts (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-u-s-cant-afford-veterans-health-care-without-cuts.html)
Welcome to the *trump administration*.
If we can't afford Vets care maybe we should stop waging war?
Peter1469
07-23-2018, 05:30 PM
Yes, and they said provide for the general welfare. Its pretty clear really.
The general welfare is enumerated in Art.1 sec. I.
donttread
07-23-2018, 06:12 PM
Yes, and they said provide for the general welfare. Its pretty clear really.
Welfare had a different meaning in context at that time.
Crepitus
07-23-2018, 06:32 PM
The fact is, revenues currently are at an all time high. If you don't like it, that's on you.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-revenues-record-high-april-paying-for-themselves/
Tax Revenues Jump 13% To Record High In April — When Will Dems Admit They Were Wrong About Trump's Tax Cuts?
That was in April. They are down now, as my link shows.
Your squirming grows boring.
Crepitus
07-23-2018, 06:33 PM
If we can't afford Vets care maybe we should stop waging war?
I'm all for that.
Cletus
07-23-2018, 06:48 PM
Yes, and they said provide for the general welfare. Its pretty clear really.
Madison was quite specific about what it meant. He said it referred to the powers specifically enumerated and nothing more.
Cletus
07-23-2018, 06:50 PM
Of course the real debate is "what it needs to operate". This is where we would surely differ.
Refer to the enumerated powers. If something isn't listed, they shouldn't be doing it.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 10:27 AM
It is clear. You do not understand it. But I am done with you.
You don't have a legitimate response so you are done with me. I see.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 10:40 AM
If you cut spending, why would you want to take MORE money from the citizenry? The government should take in what it needs to operate with a little in reserve for emergencies. That's all.
I agree except for the "little in reserve" thing. They don't need anything in reserve.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 10:42 AM
Yes, provide for the general welfare.
How does the general welfare clause translate to specific welfare programs for some?
Cletus
07-24-2018, 10:54 AM
I agree except for the "little in reserve" thing. They don't need anything in reserve.
I agree in principle, but what I was thinking about was the unpredictable circumstance... natural disaster, pandemic, zombie apocalypse. Just some emergency that is not budgeted for because we don't expect it to happen, but does.
I would suggest the "emergency funds" be secured in such a way that they can only be tapped into by a full vote of Congress with the conditions under which Congress can disburse them clearly delineated by law.
Captdon
07-24-2018, 11:03 AM
How does the general welfare clause translate to specific welfare programs for some?
I think the word "general" throws him off. Food stamps aren't general.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 11:04 AM
I agree in principle, but what I was thinking about was the unpredictable circumstance... natural disaster, pandemic, zombie apocalypse. Just some emergency that is not budgeted for because we don't expect it to happen, but does.
I would suggest the "emergency funds" be secured in such a way, that they can only be tapped into by a full vote of Congress with the conditions under which Congress can disburse them clearly delineated by law.
Nope. If an emergency fund exists, they will make anything an emergency in order to get their hands on that money.
Captdon
07-24-2018, 11:05 AM
I agree in principle, but what I was thinking about was the unpredictable circumstance... natural disaster, pandemic, zombie apocalypse. Just some emergency that is not budgeted for because we don't expect it to happen, but does.
I would suggest the "emergency funds" be secured in such a way, that they can only be tapped into by a full vote of Congress with the conditions under which Congress can disburse them clearly delineated by law.
Like the way Social Security and Medicare were secured as trust funds? The government does what it wants with the money.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 11:30 AM
We had a tax limiting measure once in Washington state which said that it would take a vote of 60% to increase certain taxes unless a verified emergency existed. The 52% majority just designated everything an emergency.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 01:03 PM
How does the general welfare clause translate to specific welfare programs for some?
That depends on whether you follow the Madisonian view or the Hamiltonian view. Some would see the specific welfare programs for some as good for the nation as a whole.
MisterVeritis
07-24-2018, 01:05 PM
That depends on whether you follow the Madisonian view or the Hamiltonian view. Some would see the specific welfare programs for some as good for the nation as a whole.
No reasonable person would hold your position. If true the entirety of Article 1 Section 8 would simply say "The Congress can do anything it wants to."
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 01:07 PM
That depends on whether you follow the Madisonian view or the Hamiltonian view. Some would see the specific welfare programs for some as good for the nation as a whole.
Those are the same people who are confused over the placement of a comma in an amendment to the US constitution.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 01:13 PM
No reasonable person would hold your position. If true the entirety of Article 1 Section 8 would simply say "The Congress can do anything it wants to."
I guess Hamilton then was an unreasonable person?
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 01:14 PM
Those are the same people who are confused over the placement of a comma in an amendment to the US constitution.
A lot of it comes down to interpretation, kinda like the Bible.
Cletus
07-24-2018, 01:16 PM
I guess Hamilton then was an unreasonable person?
He was indeed.
MisterVeritis
07-24-2018, 01:17 PM
I guess Hamilton then was an unreasonable person?
If he believed that, then yes.
El Guapo
07-24-2018, 01:24 PM
That depends on whether you follow the Madisonian view or the Hamiltonian view. Some would see the specific welfare programs for some as good for the nation as a whole.
wel·fare
ˈwelˌfer/
noun
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
"they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families"
It's a noun. Not a government program.
Is English not your first language?
Are you retarded, maybe?
El Guapo
07-24-2018, 01:26 PM
Free money from 'government programs 'did not exist 300 years ago.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 02:09 PM
A lot of it comes down to interpretation, kinda like the Bible.
Not really. Developing, then expanding on the dependent class doesn't benefit the nation as a whole. It really isn't much of a benefit to those mired in that dependent class.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 04:02 PM
wel·fare
ˈwelˌfer/
noun
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
"they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families"
It's a noun. Not a government program.
Is English not your first language?
Are you retarded, maybe?
:rollseyes:
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 04:04 PM
wel·fare
ˈwelˌfer/
noun
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
"they don't give a damn about the welfare of their families"
It's a noun. Not a government program.
Is English not your first language?
Are you retarded, maybe?
To follow up actually a "government program" is a noun. Looks like you are the one who needs a little remedial help in English. :wink:
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 04:16 PM
Are liberals of the mind that the general welfare clause is a requirement from the framers of the US constitution to create a government program commonly referred to as "welfare"?
El Guapo
07-24-2018, 04:50 PM
To follow up actually a "government program" is a noun. Looks like you are the one who needs a little remedial help in English. :wink:
A simple yes to the question of your status as a retard would have sufficed.
AZ Jim
07-24-2018, 04:52 PM
Tax cuts don't add to the debt. Only stupid people believe they do.Wanna think about that?
Lummy
07-24-2018, 04:55 PM
:rollseyes:
He lives in Canada, so you'll never catch him. Just sayin'. :cool20:
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 05:00 PM
Wanna think about that?
Tax cuts don't add to the debt. Since the last round of rate cuts, revenues have increased to record levels. If you reverse those tax cuts, revenues will decrease through a slower growing economy.
When those revenues rise, we need to resist the liberal urge to increase spending more.
In reality, liberals are not concerned with raising revenues. If they were, they'd advocate keeping taxation as low as possible.
They look at taxation as a way to get even with the wealthy and attempt to control their lifestyle and reduce their standard of living.
Captdon
07-24-2018, 05:36 PM
That depends on whether you follow the Madisonian view or the Hamiltonian view. Some would see the specific welfare programs for some as good for the nation as a whole.
They aren't. They allow able-bodied people to be leeches. I can't see the good in that.
Hal Jordan
07-24-2018, 06:42 PM
A simple yes to the question of your status as a retard would have sufficed.
Threadbanned for insult
Cletus
07-24-2018, 07:07 PM
Wanna think about that?
I always think before I post.
You should try it sometime.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 08:57 PM
A simple yes to the question of your status as a retard would have sufficed.
It's not me that apparently doesn't know what a noun is. Just sayin.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 08:59 PM
They aren't. They allow able-bodied people to be leeches. I can't see the good in that.
It's not just that they allow it, they encourage it. It dispirits people. It robs them of their self worth.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 09:14 PM
Free money from 'government programs 'did not exist 300 years ago.
Neither did the US or its Constitution. Looks like more remedial work is in order.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 09:15 PM
It's not just that they allow it, they encourage it. It dispirits people. It robs them of their self worth.
Encourages it?
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 09:17 PM
Encourages it?
Yes. Not long ago the federal government was running advertisements encouraging people to go apply for subsistence. They were encouraging people to seek taxpayer assistance.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 09:29 PM
Yes. Not long ago the federal government was running advertisements encouraging people to go apply for subsistence. They were encouraging people to seek taxpayer assistance.
I think there is a difference between makin people in need aware of assistance programs and encouraging people to put themselves in that state which was your intonation.
Crepitus
07-24-2018, 09:33 PM
A simple yes to the question of your status as a retard would have sufficed.
Yes, you are a retard.
Happy now?
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 09:35 PM
I think there is a difference between makin people in need aware of assistance programs and encouraging people to put themselves in that state which was your intonation.
Government sure doesn't encourage people to get themselves out of the cycle of dependency. When someone does, people like you hyperventilate about it.
ripmeister
07-24-2018, 09:36 PM
Government sure doesn't encourage people to get themselves out of the cycle of dependency. When someone does, people like you hyperventilate about it.
Actually, no I don't. I celebrate it. That doesn't mean I oppose a social safety net though.
Crepitus
07-24-2018, 09:37 PM
Tax cuts don't add to the debt. Since the last round of rate cuts, revenues have increased to record levels. If you reverse those tax cuts, revenues will decrease through a slower growing economy.
When those revenues rise, we need to resist the liberal urge to increase spending more.
In reality, liberals are not concerned with raising revenues. If they were, they'd advocate keeping taxation as low as possible.
They look at taxation as a way to get even with the wealthy and attempt to control their lifestyle and reduce their standard of living.
We've already been over this in another thread. Revenues are dropping. Everything except import taxes is down.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/06/movement-of-the-federal-tax-receipt-front/
jimmyz
07-24-2018, 09:45 PM
I think there is a difference between makin people in need aware of assistance programs and encouraging people to put themselves in that state which was your intonation.
Would not a desperate person do more for himself if a support program were non existent?
jimmyz
07-24-2018, 09:46 PM
We've already been over this in another thread. Revenues are dropping. Everything except import taxes is down.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/06/movement-of-the-federal-tax-receipt-front/
Your opinion is not warranted as you are a welfare beneficiary.
Crepitus
07-24-2018, 09:52 PM
Your opinion is not warranted as you are a welfare beneficiary.
Well no, I'm not and that link isn't my opinion.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 10:01 PM
We've already been over this in another thread. Revenues are dropping. Everything except import taxes is down.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/06/movement-of-the-federal-tax-receipt-front/Revenues are at record highs and projected to rise even more. Partisan Hackery can’t change that fact.
Tahuyaman
07-24-2018, 10:04 PM
Actually, no I don't. I celebrate it. That doesn't mean I oppose a social safety net though.
When was the last time you celebrated someone advocating that people seek self improvement and get out of the cycle of dependency?
DGUtley
07-24-2018, 11:03 PM
Yes, you are a retard. Happy now?
NOTICE - @Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345) TB’D for insults. (@El Guapo TB’D earlier as part of same discussion.)
ripmeister
07-25-2018, 11:46 AM
Would not a desperate person do more for himself if a support program were non existent?
Some would such as the true scofflaws. The vast majority don't fit into that category though IMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.