sleeper;1836141 wrote:A nation that wants to cut services to poor people is also the same nation that wants to use those funds privately to do it.

Nice logic!

sleeper;1836143 wrote:Using LT's logic, let's cut defense spending to $0 and give that money back to the citizens. If they want to fund military expenditures, they can donate it to respective armed forces group.

I have faith that people would do this. My logic is solid.

LOL

sleeper;1836144 wrote:Or better yet, let's just remove the federal government and turn it into a non-profit. People don't pay any tax and can donate to any service the government provides that it wants.

I will donate $0 and keep all my money; can everyone else cover my roads, regulations, healthcare, military, retirement, nuclear arms, infrastructure, etc?

Thanks!

LOL

like_that;1836147 wrote:Now you are just going full retard.

sleeper;1784712 wrote:No one I know supports Trump so that correlates well since I don't know or care about trash/poor people.

sleeper;1781192 wrote:

like_that;1781188 wrote:I have three rules for my wedding if I get married.

1. Not in the winter.
2. No religious affiliation
3. Not during football season.

This is pretty much mine except I would add:

4. No poor people

sleeper;1778591 wrote:I think everyone agrees they should contribute. It's the question "What is their fair share?" that people disagree on.

From my perspective, we already have the highest or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. This scenario has created numerous tax strategies by companies to hold trillions of dollars in cash overseas. Maybe instead of raising taxes on corporation we lower them to be more competitive with the rest of the world and reduce the incentive to hold cash abroad. Again, that doesn't fit the narrative of the left that corporations are the reason people are poor.

sleeper;1778598 wrote:I'm still in the tank that we need to cut spending, across the board before I'm willing to consider paying more in taxes. The DoD in particular is BLOATED beyond imagination and I will be dancing in the streets when that budget is slashed and burned to pieces.

sleeper;1778497 wrote:Maybe the latter of you statement is untrue but the former is mostly true. There is the group of rich people of inherited/generational wealth that didn't do anything to earn their money however that is mostly an exception. not the rule. The left likes to pretend its the rule because it fits their narrative better and makes it easy to wage class warfare. The reality is, poor people and Democrats don't see the failure and the sacrifice of those who are rich and instead want to demonize the eventual success as those people being greedy.

sleeper;1783252 wrote:So Obama gets credit for the recovery but none of the blame for creating poor quality jobs.


Plenty of credit for the troll job pulled on this thread.

Nice.

sleeper;1836130 wrote:Abortion will never be illegal in this country. The moment Roe v. Wade is overturned is the moment Civil War 2.0 will break out.

We will not go backwards.

sleeper;1816705 wrote:There's no such thing as child poverty. It's poor parents making poor choices and wanting to blame others for their own choices.

Want to end 'child poverty'? Then make parents accountable for their own poor choices. Reality!

sleeper;1742187 wrote:That correlates highly with my statement. Poor people remain poor because in the long run they continuously make poor choices.

sleeper;1700076 wrote:In summary, people are poor because of their own poor choices. Good.

sleeper;1648079 wrote:I think probably most of you already know my answer, but I agree with the statement. I think poor people can be given a bad starting point and what not but consistently making smart choices will eventually pull you out of poverty regardless of where you started.

sleeper;1518859 wrote:Poor people are poor in the long run because they consistently make poor choices. Why would we want that to be anything other than punitive and demeaning? Why incentive stupid behavior?

I'd be for a system in which every time an EBT card is used, they announce over the speaker the name and location of the EBT user "EBT user LaShaqinua Johnson spent $40 of taxpayer dollars on Ruffles potato chips and Mountain Dew on register 3. Have a nice day". Demeaning, yes. Appropriate and accurate, absolutely.

sleeper;1515065 wrote:I think what upsets me about it other than being young and healthy, paying more, and rarely using the service is that with the current system I can choose to pay lower prices for healthcare. For example, if I cut my hand I can go to the ER and pay a crap load of money to subsidize those with no health insurance OR I can go to the CVS and buy some ointment and a bandaid for $10. Under ACA, I'm already being forced to pay for those who cannot pay regardless of my health care choices and then being forced to subsidize them again via higher taxation.

ACA is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy.

sleeper;1836119 wrote:Yes, let's eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization that single handily is responsible for lowering abortions and providing low cost healthcare to the nation's most vulnerable women.

Those evil bastards, DEFUND THEM!

HitsRus;1836246 wrote:Yeah, , let me see the link to how they are responsible for lowering abortions....yeah, they "take care" of our most vulnerable by eliminating the "little problems" that occur after a night of irresponsible behavior.

Having quotas to meet...yeah, that helps lowering abortion numbers says no one ever with a shred of logic in their head.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444685/

Azubuike24;1836276 wrote:McCain is awful. Not sure anyone, anywhere likes him. Maybe his kids.

Azubuike24;1836276 wrote:McCain is awful. Not sure anyone, anywhere likes him. Maybe his kids.

CenterBHSFan;1836248 wrote:Page not found.

ptown_trojans_1;1836266 wrote:Funny, no mention of Trump's just crazy tweets he keeps posting? He went after McCain today.....

isadore;1836292 wrote:Hail Trump!
Why is our leader trying to destroy an American Company with 72,000 employees. Just because they made a financial decision to stop pushing his daughter's tacky clothes line. And Gosh his Press Secretary and Chief Political advisor both join in the effort.

O-Trap;1836295 wrote:I mean, I don't even see Trump's shenanigans on Twitter as news anymore. He's a pre-teen girl wrapped in an old-man-with-funny-hair body.



Let it be known that on the ninth day of the second month, here in the year of our Lord 2017: I, O-Trap, and the troll pseudonym isadore have actually reached an agreement in sentiment.

HitsRus;1836246 wrote:Yeah, , let me see the link to how they are responsible for lowering abortions....yeah, they "take care" of our most vulnerable by eliminating the "little problems" that occur after a night of irresponsible behavior.

Having quotas to meet...yeah, that helps lowering abortion numbers says no one ever with a shred of logic in their head.
https://www.facebook.com/nationalreview/posts/10158344084135093

sleeper;1836311 wrote:...

Remember, every time you say "Defund Planned Parenthood" you are advocating for an increase in abortions. Enjoy!

Con_Alma;1836318 wrote:Abortion is legal. People can have all the abortions they want. Taxpayers shouldn't* pay for it, however. "Defund Planned Parenthood"!

Azubuike24;1836326 wrote:Yeah, I'm actually pro choice, but I don't believe we should force all taxpayers to support it. Especially if we're doing nothing on the front-end to prevent unwanted pregnancies, etc.

I'm also for everyone having healthcare, but not with a complete ignorance of why healthcare costs so fucking much to begin with.

sleeper;1836334 wrote:Taxpayers are not paying for abortions. This is a myth that won't die because conservatives are lying to people.

O-Trap;1836295 wrote:I mean, I don't even see Trump's shenanigans on Twitter as news anymore. He's a pre-teen girl wrapped in an old-man-with-funny-hair body.



Let it be known that on the ninth day of the second month, here in the year of our Lord 2017: I, O-Trap, and the troll pseudonym isadore have actually reached an agreement in sentiment.

Azubuike24;1836316 wrote:Syria's President says there are definitely terrorists among the refugees leaving Syria and others are "aligned" with terrorists. Will this get the same mainstream barrage as the announcement of the "ban" to begin with? Probably not. Basically, one of the countries who are banned, backing up the justification.