RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kdsub -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 8:31:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch


That's kinda chilling there, Butch.



I think there would be little argument that birth control is necessary in countries that cannot feed their people...There should be no politically correct over this issue.

Butch




kdsub -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 8:37:28 AM)

tj if you read the link I provided you would see where programs are included to encourage local food production. No huge program like this is problem free but no one has come up with something better. With all its faults it is the generosity of the American people through their taxes that feed much of the hungry world. They deserve more than ridicule for their sacrifices.

Butch




thompsonx -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 9:28:22 AM)


ORIGINAL: kdsub
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch[/quote]

That's kinda chilling there, Butch.



I think there would be little argument that birth control is necessary in countries that cannot feed their people...There should be no politically correct over this issue.

Perhaps you might want to check out why those countries cannot feed their people? By your metric there are areas of amerika that would qualify for your nazi like policies.




vincentML -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 9:29:56 AM)

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.


America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.




thompsonx -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 9:32:42 AM)

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Because its morally wrong thompson, regardless of how many people do it.

And the fact that you couldn't even imagine that answer pretty much says a lot about you.


So you would be good with being tossed in prison for being on this site because some may find it morallyy wrong.
For someone who is constantly pimping the libratarian model you seem to be backsliding into a desire for a "dictatorship of the moral majority".
Which, by the way, is what I have always suspected of your adolescent perspective.





WickedsDesire -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 9:33:41 AM)

You were doing okay up until we are the only nation able or willing to do it.

Resources - you are 16 trillion in debt (aye and the rest), owned by china, effectively china's wee bitch and its coming to get you
The moral obligation - Your nation is morally bankrupt and corrupt to the core and mentally paranoid - spy on its own people - everyone else in the world too

Yes the UK is 1.6 trillion in debt and we Adopt Gawd bless America Codswallop, for the sheople, blame it all on johnny foreigner and those, who our policies, have reduced to ruination or utter poverty with our political (fukemall)acumen and non astute arguments/debates scrounging bastards*

I could talk about food banks usage at an all time high in the UK, EU food mountains - Although farmers in many European Union countries are efficient and produce ... This basic system led to the infamous "butter mountains" and "wine lakes" (me want) of the whether my plums (you women know exactly what I mean) are so large are they are snow capped and is my man jizz the true elixir of life(Ursula Andress in SHE)....which you can buy on muffinbay essenceofmuffinman, a brew of utter wretch, for 4 bars of gold and a titty picture

As for the majority of the American electorate, also the UK electorate, simply lack the capacity and wherewithal - that word reminds of Withnail and I


You would make a good dalek

Timothy Dalton - Spitlord




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 9:57:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The thing to do is encourage governments to instigate programs to reduce the population to levels they can support.
Butch


That's kinda chilling there, Butch.



I think Butch might have chosen some poor words, there.

Encouraging birth control is a good idea. Mandating it isn't.

However, I think Butch has spoken out against the death penalty (I could be wrong). That would certainly reduce the population. So, we seem to have contradiction.

Then, there are the obvious issues that the original wording could be twisted to support, which you picked up on, DS. I am positive, though, that that was not what was meant.

I believe that there is a "tipping point" (which we may have already reached) as far as the amount of people specific countries and, ultimately, the globe, can support. The argument is: Are we there? Are we close? It's an interesting discussion.



Michael


If we put everyone in the world in one place as densely packed as New York City, it would take up a space the size of Texas. The rest of the world would be available for food production. We're not near maxing out.




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:02:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

but not morally wrong when corporations do it.


GD pinko and corporations. Corporations take advantage of laws...as they should. I expect them to make my retirement stock as valuable as possible.




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:06:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.


America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

you'll have to provide a citation for that statement. I know it's the sort of thing leftists get with their koolaid, but I'd like you to provide evidence it's actually true.




vincentML -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:06:54 AM)

Phydeaux!

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.



Those who want to cut corporate tax rates are uninformed or disingenuous to point to statutory rates or artificially high effective rates like Pfizer's to argue that corporate taxes are too high. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleague Chye-Ching Huang says here, the big problem with taxing multinationals today is "stateless income": profits that aren't taxed anywhere. Cutting the corporate rate doesn't bring that income into the U.S. tax base or greatly reduce multinationals' search for "tax havens" (countries with very low or zero corporate tax rates); it mostly just costs public revenue on the profits that the government would otherwise tax.


STATELESS MONEY:

U.S. Senate scrutiny of Apple Inc.’s tax strategies turned the spotlight on a unit with $30 billion in profit since 2009 that’s incorporated in Ireland, controlled by a board in California, and doesn’t pay taxes in either place.

Apple officials acknowledged yesterday at a congressional hearing that the entity -- a key subsidiary in Apple’s offshore tax strategy -- is managed and controlled in the U.S., yet it still isn’t paying U.S. federal income taxes.

The shifting of profits by multinational companies is costing the U.S. and Europe at least $100 billion per year in lost tax revenue, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

Apple & Google










Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:11:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Phydeaux!

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.



Those who want to cut corporate tax rates are uninformed or disingenuous to point to statutory rates or artificially high effective rates like Pfizer's to argue that corporate taxes are too high. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleague Chye-Ching Huang says here, the big problem with taxing multinationals today is "stateless income": profits that aren't taxed anywhere. Cutting the corporate rate doesn't bring that income into the U.S. tax base or greatly reduce multinationals' search for "tax havens" (countries with very low or zero corporate tax rates); it mostly just costs public revenue on the profits that the government would otherwise tax.


STATELESS MONEY:

U.S. Senate scrutiny of Apple Inc.’s tax strategies turned the spotlight on a unit with $30 billion in profit since 2009 that’s incorporated in Ireland, controlled by a board in California, and doesn’t pay taxes in either place.

Apple officials acknowledged yesterday at a congressional hearing that the entity -- a key subsidiary in Apple’s offshore tax strategy -- is managed and controlled in the U.S., yet it still isn’t paying U.S. federal income taxes.

The shifting of profits by multinational companies is costing the U.S. and Europe at least $100 billion per year in lost tax revenue, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

Apple & Google








Good for them. I'm sure with an attitude like that my, and millions of other people, Apple stock will do well.




vincentML -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:36:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.


America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

you'll have to provide a citation for that statement. I know it's the sort of thing leftists get with their koolaid, but I'd like you to provide evidence it's actually true.


http://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 10:46:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

bounty!

quote:

not in disagreement in the least, but at the same time I would add, and im confident we are pretty much in agreement here, it is for situations like that we should also be turning to family, friends, neighbors, the local churches and charities.

to the extent that we cannot, don't or wont do those things speaks to how the impersonal government, and somewhat liberal policies have interfered with, and caused the breakdown of traditional, conservative methods of help and support.


America is no longer Ozzie & Harriet nor Father Knows Best. Contemporary families are fractured.

Prior to the New Deal traditional and conservative method for supporting the needy was to ignore them or to look down upon them as low-lives. During the Irish migrations of the 1840s and the Italian/Jewish migrations of 1880s - 1920s the ghetto poor received help from Progressive soap kitchens and care-givers, which was insufficient imo. Today, we still have impoverished communities. Conservatives blame the people in those communities generally for having weak moral fiber and being economically lazy. But, the Clintons reformed welfare by disqualifying many people who needed help (imo) An even more insidious cause of distress is the economic system we have turned to: trickle down economics which just doesn't trickle down, the exportation of manufacturing to foreign slave labor, the accumulation of idle wealth offshore and non-productively in the Wall Street Casino. The flow of wealth is upward. The rich have gotten richer and poor communities are still neglected like their people were rabid dogs.

you'll have to provide a citation for that statement. I know it's the sort of thing leftists get with their koolaid, but I'd like you to provide evidence it's actually true.


http://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor

A couple of different comments:

First, you seem to believe we're still in the early 1900's. We're not. There is a lot of oportunity around here and people who don't take advantage of it can be described as making poor choices.

Second, so your entire moral philosophy in life is based from this one guy's blog. It's a pretty poor attempt to justify your over arching statements.




Lucylastic -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:15:01 PM)

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory




vincentML -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:26:34 PM)

Nnanji !

quote:

First, you seem to believe we're still in the early 1900's. We're not. There is a lot of oportunity around here and people who don't take advantage of it can be described as making poor choices.

Second, so your entire moral philosophy in life is based from this one guy's blog. It's a pretty poor attempt to justify your over arching statements.


You asked for a link. I gave you a link. Now you give me shit about the link. Asswipe!

Actually, my moral philosophy is based upon Liberation Theology.

You think prosperity blossomed for everyone after the early 1900s? You think the elite classes don't have hoards of lobbiests tilting the playing field to protect their riches, get tax breaks and government favors for their interests, and generally exploit the poor and working class, wringing every last drop of sweat and blood from them? Shit! And where the fuck is "around here" where there is so much opportunity?

Jesus Christ on a popcycle, search for your own damn links. Are you an idiot!




Phydeaux -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:38:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Phydeaux!

quote:

But it doesn't change the insanity of our current tax law. Companies are never going to voluntarily give away 35% of their profits. To expect them to do so - is lunacy.

Right now, expecting companies to pay 35% - highest in the world - and shrilly demagoging on it is ridiculous. Lefties should take a lessen and set it at a flat 15%, no deductions.



Those who want to cut corporate tax rates are uninformed or disingenuous to point to statutory rates or artificially high effective rates like Pfizer's to argue that corporate taxes are too high. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleague Chye-Ching Huang says here, the big problem with taxing multinationals today is "stateless income": profits that aren't taxed anywhere. Cutting the corporate rate doesn't bring that income into the U.S. tax base or greatly reduce multinationals' search for "tax havens" (countries with very low or zero corporate tax rates); it mostly just costs public revenue on the profits that the government would otherwise tax.


STATELESS MONEY:

U.S. Senate scrutiny of Apple Inc.’s tax strategies turned the spotlight on a unit with $30 billion in profit since 2009 that’s incorporated in Ireland, controlled by a board in California, and doesn’t pay taxes in either place.

Apple officials acknowledged yesterday at a congressional hearing that the entity -- a key subsidiary in Apple’s offshore tax strategy -- is managed and controlled in the U.S., yet it still isn’t paying U.S. federal income taxes.

The shifting of profits by multinational companies is costing the U.S. and Europe at least $100 billion per year in lost tax revenue, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed University in Portland, Oregon.

Apple & Google




And?

As for your representation that people who want to cut coorporate taxes are - what were the words you used, hmm? Oh yes, uninformed or disingenuous.

At to you it isn't even the slightest bit possible that they aren't uniformed or disingenuous? Its not even the tiniest bit possible that they could be anti-government?

It couldn't possibly be because they believe that oppressive governments have a history of restricting human freedom?

Alternatively, it couldn't possibly be because they understand that corporations don't pay taxes? That these taxes are in fact passed along to the people that consume their goods and services.

The truth of the matter is, that it is those on the left that are disingenuous. They know that there are great numbers of people on the right that actually do care about individuals, and yet oppose taxes - both corporate and personal, for any of the variety of reasons I just mentioned.




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:47:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

I read that. I've always been against the McCain-Fingold law.




Nnanji -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:51:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Nnanji !

quote:

First, you seem to believe we're still in the early 1900's. We're not. There is a lot of oportunity around here and people who don't take advantage of it can be described as making poor choices.

Second, so your entire moral philosophy in life is based from this one guy's blog. It's a pretty poor attempt to justify your over arching statements.


You asked for a link. I gave you a link. Now you give me shit about the link. Asswipe!

Actually, my moral philosophy is based upon Liberation Theology.

You think prosperity blossomed for everyone after the early 1900s? You think the elite classes don't have hoards of lobbiests tilting the playing field to protect their riches, get tax breaks and government favors for their interests, and generally exploit the poor and working class, wringing every last drop of sweat and blood from them? Shit! And where the fuck is "around here" where there is so much opportunity?

Jesus Christ on a popcycle, search for your own damn links. Are you an idiot!

Your statement was "Conservatives" plural and meant to be all encompassing. You provided a link to a nut job blog who doesn't identify his politics and doesn't represent anyone other than himself. The real question is, are you an idiot who uses that blog to justify your well defined hate?




Phydeaux -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:53:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy April 15 at 2:11 PM
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_superpacs-830a_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

I read that. I've always been against the McCain-Fingold law.


Any man with a brain would be. You might more appropriately call the bill the "protect incumbents Act".




WickedsDesire -> RE: Damn Welfare Queens! (4/15/2016 12:54:01 PM)

I am in a smiting mood tonightLucylastic Understand that many are too far gone with the mange and the fleas and bubonic plague




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125