Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Bush really doesn't care about DarkiesFollow

#27 Sep 15 2005 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Neph wrote:
Fixed you stupid hippy whiner.

Best, Quote, Evar!

But Joph, there are poor people who actualy do somthing, and those who don't.

As for 2billion helping out Government Healthcare... they already go through 67billion or so a year. Thats like a 3% increase. Yay... healthcare gets 3% better!

Piggything wrote:
The majority of this country can barely pay our taxes as it is, and those that can afford to pay more will make sure they never have to...


So basically you're saying that people who make 10k a year shouldn't have to pay taxes because they can't afford it... but our bigas[/u]s government and high taxes to support the poor can take 33% of my paycheck to do so. Fu[u]ck that shi[u][/u]t. Too bad they already do it. I'm under the personal belief it should be 15% or so across the board. None of this "make more, pay higher percentage" crap. Thats like saying "You're more valuable, but we don't believe it, so we'll take more of it. That'll fix you!"

Its crap. Cut down the size of the government, cut down the size of the military, focus on force multipliers... etc, etc.

If you've ever worked for government or military (or even a moderatly large company) you know that half (or so) of the people there are completely worthless.

My company contracts me out at around 80$/hr so they can make a profit, pay the people who don't actually make money for them, and then pay me around 1/4 of that. If they cut out the middle man, they might be able to pay me more, and make more... just my theory. keep it small and efficient.

People should be entitled to healthcare though. Especially in life threatening situations. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars saving someone's life. I do have a problem with people cheating the wellfare system or riding it like an old horse.

That is all.

Edited, Thu Sep 15 12:38:18 2005 by AngryUndead
#28 Sep 15 2005 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Quote:
Are we down with that?


Who is supporting the baby? If there is no baby... no problem.

Sex isn't the issue... just don't get pregnant if you can't support the results.

In the words of Chris Rock... "Put the di[u][/u]ck down!"
#29 Sep 15 2005 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
AngryUndead wrote:
But Joph, there are poor people who actualy do somthing, and those who don't.
But all the poor people who do something should be rich! That's how America works!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Sep 15 2005 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Joph wrote:
But all the poor people who do something should be rich! That's how America works!

Silly. Only the poor people who work really hard, and then do somthing zany or crazy or smart. And don't get ripped off by the man. Or the ones who have crazy lawsuits. Or win the lottery.

Other than that no.

However, my great grandfather came to this country with nothing. He left his son a farm. His son built a resturaunt. His sons moved south and started a resturaunt chain. My father sent me to college, and I have to look "restaurant" up on google to spell it right.

Progress is grand.
#31 Sep 15 2005 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
AngryUndead wrote:
My father sent me to college, and I have to look "restaurant" up on google to spell it right.

Progress is grand.


It's not your fault. Some people are just limited by their genetics no matter how hard they try. Good breeding is the key to a sustainable future. Smiley: kingSmiley: queen




Edited, Thu Sep 15 13:24:01 2005 by ElderonXI
#32 Sep 15 2005 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Ambrya wrote:
Nepthys wrote:
If you're ******* poor, stop *******.


Yes, because only the affluent should be allowed sexual gratification or parenthood.



Well, we could sterilize the poor so they can at least have the gratification.
#33 Sep 17 2005 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
"Darkies" is offensive, Whitey.
#34 Sep 17 2005 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
They'll get treated, but they'll be ****** for life.


Think Dr. Nick Smiley: lol
#35 Sep 18 2005 at 4:47 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Who is supporting the baby? If there is no baby... no problem.

Sex isn't the issue... just don't get pregnant if you can't support the results.


I guess thats why we have abortion then huh? So poor people can keep having sex without a financial burden in the future. How convenient.

Edited, Sun Sep 18 17:58:55 2005 by PraetorianX
#36 Sep 18 2005 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes, that's exactly why Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Sep 18 2005 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Cooterbrownx wrote:
it seems Kanye West agrees with the topic

Your density is staggering.


#38 Sep 19 2005 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jaell wrote:
Quote:
The problem is, to do that we have to increase taxes.

No, you don't have to increase taxes. You just have to stop spending over 50% of the budget on defense. I mean really, does the U.S. navy really need another aircraft carrier that costs over 2 billion dollars to make. 2 billion dollars can do wonders for the health system.



You are aware how dumb your post looks considering that defense spending is only about 17% of the total US budget, right?

Then again, you probably aren't.


Um. The topic is pretty stupid though. The value is irrelevant. You're measuring "poor" as any child growing up in a home earning less then 20% off of the average income mark (actually, I thought it was calculated off median, but whatever). Um... But that makes no assessment of how "well off" the average person is. If we suddenly magically doubled every single person's income in adjusted dollars (so real increase, not affecting inflation), that same person could buy twice as much stuff, and live (presumably) twice as well, right? But you'd still have the exact same number of people under that 20% line.


It's irrelevant. All it's really measuring is the range of scale between rich and poor (which I think some people are waaaay too obsessed about). If everyone in your country exists within a percentage range of the average income, then no one would be below this line. Doesn't say anything about how well your citizens live though. It just says that they're all "closer" in terms of income. There's no inherent right or wrong in that spread. You could have nation A where everyone is poor and miserable, but they are all equally poor and miserable, and nation B where there's a huge range between rich and poor, but the poor earn 100 times as much as the poor in nation A. By this measurement, nation A would be "better". I don't think so...


I suppose it's another one of those statistics that really impresses people who don't actually stop to think about what they really mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 19 2005 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
There's no inherent right or wrong in that spread. You could have nation A where everyone is poor and miserable, but they are all equally poor and miserable, and nation B where there's a huge range between rich and poor, but the poor earn 100 times as much as the poor in nation A. By this measurement, nation A would be "better". I don't think so...


Which is why nation B should annex nation A and create nation C! Now nation C has an upper, middle, and lower class... brilliant. I'll inform president Bush immediately to give amnesty to all Mexicans and annex the nation.





oh wait...
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 154 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (154)