Jump to content

Tax Cuts


baddog

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This is sad

What's sad is that you feel the need to comment on a bill you know nothing about. I would be willing to bet the farm that if this was a Democrat proposal you would be praising it's virtues. Regardless, you will comment exactly the way your Liberal gods tell you to comment. Now that is just sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This is sad

No. Not sad. In my opinion it doesn't go far enough. The government shouldn't be in the entitlement business. I believe that those in need should get help from charities such as the church or other local entities. They have a much better idea of what the needs in a community are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Englebert said:

What's sad is that you feel the need to comment on a bill you know nothing about. I would be willing to bet the farm that if this was a Democrat proposal you would be praising it's virtues. Regardless, you will comment exactly the way your Liberal gods tell you to comment. Now that is just sad.

This is the hidden content, please

I am for helping the working poor and the elderly whom have worked all of their lives and can't afford to live. Not many folks are out to help people that can and should be working (despite what Rush tries to lead us to believe). Many that voted for Trump were so worried about erasing Obama that they didn't realize that Paul Ryan and his friends with tales would be cutting their food stamps, medicare, health care and social security. Whether it be the Republican or Democratic rich that control government we need to start trying to effect their money. Ive been working since I was 12. Live pretty well and don't mind helping people that deserve it. Even when that person on the street ask for help, i try to figure out who is sincere. I usually count the ones that have cigarettes out. Race doesn't matter. Geographic location doesn't matter either. The man above ultimately controls this world. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, texanabroad said:

No. Not sad. In my opinion it doesn't go far enough. The government shouldn't be in the entitlement business. I believe that those in need should get help from charities such as the church or other local entities. They have a much better idea of what the needs in a community are.  

That's can work in small communities but not big ones like Houston Dallas etc etc. Welfare is like a addiction you can't expect someone to go cold turkey overnight. You have to wing them off with alternatives. That's the only true solution. Just randomly cutting won't help anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work to raise my family. I also pay taxes. Where it all goes, who knows? No one cares that it was taken from deserving folks, why should I care that it is going where it should have in the first place? Next time you see a panhandler, offer to let him cut your grass for $25. See what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

That's can work in small communities but not big ones like Houston Dallas etc etc. Welfare is like a addiction you can't expect someone to go cold turkey overnight. You have to wing them off with alternatives. That's the only true solution. Just randomly cutting won't help anything.

I agree that welfare is an addiction and I agree cold turkey isn't the best way to handle the problem. It should be phased out over a short period of time. I do believe that charities can care for those in need in big cities. Big cities are just a bunch of smaller cities closely packed together. I also like the fact that people could choose which charity to support rather than the government deciding for them. When people choose one that they care about, they are more willing to give more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

This is the hidden content, please

I am for helping the working poor and the elderly whom have worked all of their lives and can't afford to live. Not many folks are out to help people that can and should be working (despite what Rush tries to lead us to believe). Many that voted for Trump were so worried about erasing Obama that they didn't realize that Paul Ryan and his friends with tales would be cutting their food stamps, medicare, health care and social security. Whether it be the Republican or Democratic rich that control government we need to start trying to effect their money. Ive been working since I was 12. Live pretty well and don't mind helping people that deserve it. Even when that person on the street ask for help, i try to figure out who is sincere. I usually count the ones that have cigarettes out. Race doesn't matter. Geographic location doesn't matter either. The man above ultimately controls this world. 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted me for your reply.

And I'm not sure why you think that people on here do not want to help the truly needy. I guess when your Liberal leaders pound that lie into your skull then you capitulate. And it is particularly amusing that you feel you have the ability to analyze the internal thinking of Trump voters. Just because you are easily manipulated by the media doesn't mean all are. And your example is truly revealing as to your lack of understanding of many voters who vehemently did not want Hillary for president. You say you try to figure out who truly deserves help, but then advocate for the Federal government to seize wages from the American worker to re-distribute to the "needy". The Federal government has repeatedly shown (and even admitted by you) that it is terrible at running these types of programs, and yet you advocate for more. If you were sincere in helping the needy you would advocate for more charities who are far and away more adept in identifying who is truly needy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

I'm not sure why you quoted me for your reply.

And I'm not sure why you think that people on here do not want to help the truly needy. I guess when your Liberal leaders pound that lie into your skull then you capitulate. And it is particularly amusing that you feel you have the ability to analyze the internal thinking of Trump voters. Just because you are easily manipulated by the media doesn't mean all are. And your example is truly revealing as to your lack of understanding of many voters who vehemently did not want Hillary for president. You say you try to figure out who truly deserves help, but then advocate for the Federal government to seize wages from the American worker to re-distribute to the "needy". The Federal government has repeatedly shown (and even admitted by you) that it is terrible at running these types of programs, and yet you advocate for more. If you were sincere in helping the needy you would advocate for more charities who are far and away more adept in identifying who is truly needy.

The federal government has been and will be doing this for a long time. This didn't start in 2008 and won't end in 2017!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

The federal government has been and will be doing this for a long time. This didn't start in 2008 and won't end in 2017!

And you still want to increase the size and scale of the Federal government. That is incomprehensible to most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

And you still want to increase the size and scale of the Federal government. That is incomprehensible to most.

Never said I wanted to increase government side, maybe we need to put a limit on Grab um personnal spending. mainly all of these golf trips. Maybe the wall money can be spent on drinking water and roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Never said I wanted to increase government side, maybe we need to put a limit on Grab um personnal spending. mainly all of these golf trips. Maybe the wall money can be spent on drinking water and roads.

You advocate for every government expenditure proposed, and are constantly saying "what has the government done for me". You can deny all you want, but it is easy to deduce your mindset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He still does not understand that, if the government does not remain solvent, those who need help the most wont be able to get it.  Greece and Venezuela are prime examples.    He believes that the government is the "gift that keeps on giving" and doesn't grasp the concept that what the government has is nothing more than what it collects from a portion of the citizenry that supports then entire country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baddog said:

I work to raise my family. I also pay taxes. Where it all goes, who knows? No one cares that it was taken from deserving folks, why should I care that it is going where it should have in the first place? Next time you see a panhandler, offer to let him cut your grass for $25. See what happens.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Englebert said:

You advocate for every government expenditure proposed, and are constantly saying "what has the government done for me". You can deny all you want, but it is easy to deduce your mindset. 

I give , I don't and never have collected anything from the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
34 minutes ago, new tobie said:

Grab um 

And yet somehow we are to blame for running off posters. Maybe if we send some examples of this "debate" style to the 3rd graders we can get some new recruits. On second thought, even those are too mature to engage in such nonsense. At least they can share in the entertainment value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...