515 Crew

R.I.P. AMERICA!

"if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess"

Adrian Rogers

ilikehorses wrote:"if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess"

Adrian Rogers

oh man, it's on!

ilikehorses wrote:"if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess"

Adrian Rogers

Welfare is slavery.

Big Fat Retard wrote:

ilikehorses wrote:"if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess"

Adrian Rogers

Welfare is slavery.

Damn!!
Ed?

Big Fat Retard wrote:"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


Adrian Rogers, 1931

I was trying to figure out who Adrian Roger was and all I could come up with was this asshole Baptist preacher who was born in 1931. I'm guessing he didn't say this in 1931.

Are you kidding with this? You are quoting a crazy southern baptist snake handler?

See the problem with this idea is we are not talking about half the population controlling most of the wealth. We are talking about, what 1% controlling a majority of the wealth. The idea that the main motivation of gathering wealth has anything with supporting one self is nuts. Wealth in this case is power and control of a minority over a majority. The majority is not going to work less or more if their standard of living improves. In fact if their standard of living improves they will work hard and be more productive. I'm guessing we are talking about the tax increase to support social programs. Why would anyone on this board be against this. It doesn't effect any of us in a negative way. Taking income from people making over $300,000 a year to improve the situation of a majority of the rest of us. Who loses on that one? Oh I know you are going to bring up this whole theory that people will lose jobs cause they won't be spending as much. It's bullshit, trickle down economics don't work. The 80s proved that. The rich will eat the poor regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

DaVo wrote:I was trying to figure out who Adrian Roger was and all I could come up with was this asshole Baptist preacher who was born in 1931. I'm guessing he didn't say this in 1931.

Are you kidding with this? You are quoting a crazy southern baptist snake handler?

See the problem with this idea is we are not talking about half the population controlling most of the wealth. We are talking about, what 1% controlling a majority of the wealth. The idea that the main motivation of gathering wealth has anything with supporting one self is nuts. Wealth in this case is power and control of a minority over a majority. The majority is not going to work less or more if their standard of living improves. In fact if their standard of living improves they will work hard and be more productive. I'm guessing we are talking about the tax increase to support social programs. Why would anyone on this board be against this. It doesn't effect any of us in a negative way. Taking income from people making over $300,000 a year to improve the situation of a majority of the rest of us. Who loses on that one? Oh I know you are going to bring up this whole theory that people will lose jobs cause they won't be spending as much. It's bullshit, trickle down economics don't work. The 80s proved that. The rich will eat the poor regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

are you kidding?
im against any tax increase. i dont care what its for. how is taking income from someone making more than 300,000 gonna help me?

joseph wrote:

DaVo wrote:I was trying to figure out who Adrian Roger was and all I could come up with was this asshole Baptist preacher who was born in 1931. I'm guessing he didn't say this in 1931.

Are you kidding with this? You are quoting a crazy southern baptist snake handler?

See the problem with this idea is we are not talking about half the population controlling most of the wealth. We are talking about, what 1% controlling a majority of the wealth. The idea that the main motivation of gathering wealth has anything with supporting one self is nuts. Wealth in this case is power and control of a minority over a majority. The majority is not going to work less or more if their standard of living improves. In fact if their standard of living improves they will work hard and be more productive. I'm guessing we are talking about the tax increase to support social programs. Why would anyone on this board be against this. It doesn't effect any of us in a negative way. Taking income from people making over $300,000 a year to improve the situation of a majority of the rest of us. Who loses on that one? Oh I know you are going to bring up this whole theory that people will lose jobs cause they won't be spending as much. It's bullshit, trickle down economics don't work. The 80s proved that. The rich will eat the poor regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

are you kidding?
im against any tax increase. i dont care what its for. how is taking income from someone making more than 300,000 gonna help me?

HMMMM, in crease in public funding to social programs and education, balancing the federial budget, increased funding to public works like transportation and parks, health care reform and on and on. These are the same people that saw their income tax decrease from 50% to 28% in the 80s. With that extra income they have only increased their investments outside of the US, their wealth and power while social programs in the US have steadily decreased. Since 2000 there has been a steady reduction in both social programs and taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

There has to be an increase in tax income for the country to move ahead. So who are you going to tax? Those that can't afford it or those who can?

DaVo wrote: There has to be an increase in tax income for the country to move ahead.

Wrong.

DaVo wrote:
HMMMM, in crease in public funding to social programs and education, balancing the federial budget, increased funding to public works like transportation and parks, health care reform and on and on. These are the same people that saw their income tax decrease from 50% to 28% in the 80s. With that extra income they have only increased their investments outside of the US, their wealth and power while social programs in the US have steadily decreased. Since 2000 there has been a steady reduction in both social programs and taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

There has to be an increase in tax income for the country to move ahead. So who are you going to tax? Those that can't afford it or those who can?

ok, i understand now. we want different things. i dont want social programs, public transportation(i want roads), national health care or higher taxes.
i want lower taxes. if my taxes were lowered i would have more of my own money to spend or save how i choose.
im not trying to debate. the reason more money is going overseas is because those are blossoming markets that are new and have the potential to make a profit. & bringing up the 80s as a economic model isnt really valid. nobody brought up trickle down(jfk) other than you.
i want all the budgets balanced but i want them balanced within the budget. i do not want them looking for more reveue(taxes). the govt is not a business it shouldnt be looking to make more money

DaVo wrote:There has to be an increase in tax income for the country to move ahead. So who are you going to tax? Those that can't afford it or those who can?

No, there has to be a decrease in taxes and a decrease in government programs and government altogether.

How is taking money from people like me who work for a living and giving it to people who would rather smoke crack and drink malt liquor all day rather than work, going make the country move ahead?

If you accept welfare, you are a slave to the government. If you have your money extorted by the government so they can give it to people who are too lazy to get a fucking job, then you are also a slave.

Now tell me again how bigger government and more taxes is the answer?

I think the answer has something to do with an aus rotten album. fuck I can't remember, I smoked too much weed.

thats ok. so has johnny

Big Fat Retard wrote:

DaVo wrote:There has to be an increase in tax income for the country to move ahead. So who are you going to tax? Those that can't afford it or those who can?

No, there has to be a decrease in taxes and a decrease in government programs and government altogether.

How is taking money from people like me who work for a living and giving it to people who would rather smoke crack and drink malt liquor all day rather than work, going make the country move ahead?

If you accept welfare, you are a slave to the government. If you have your money extorted by the government so they can give it to people who are too lazy to get a fucking job, then you are also a slave.

Now tell me again how bigger government and more taxes is the answer?

OK do you in fact know anyone on welfare? Have you ever spent any time with anyone on public assistance of any kind? I'm guessing not. Most are in a situation that it is caused by a combination of lack of education or career and children. How welfare fails is in providing educational programs to improve their situation. Instead it creates a situation where the person is trapped in a cycle where they have a better chance of supporting their child on welfare then they would getting a job. In fact, punishing the care provider for getting a job.

A long time ago, it was decided that the civilized world would give up some freedoms for the better good. At that point it became the responsibility of the government to provide and protect the well being of it's citizens. This conservative idea that small government is going to some how going to improve the life of it's citizen is joke. Many of the government funded services that you rely would not exist without taxes and a large government. The private sector is not going to fund things like the transportation infrastructure, education, public health, parks, law enforcement and on and on. Every time any public services has been privatized it has been a disaster. Most of these services can not be ran correctly at a profit and those services suffer.

A more balanced tax system is the answer, along with more effective government programs is the answer. If increased taxing on 1% of the population betters the living standards of the other 99% it's a step in the right direction.

The problem with the whole idea that this some how is slavery is that we all have the right to vote and effect the policies of our government.

DaVo wrote: OK do you in fact know anyone on welfare? Have you ever spent any time with anyone on public assistance of any kind? I'm guessing not. Most are in a situation that it is caused by a combination of shitty genetics, subscribing to a shitty culture, bad attitudes and poor decision making and breeding when you shouldn't.

Fixed it for you.

We used WIC for a year. It was actually pretty embarassing a lot of the time: "we have a WIC person at register 3, need a manager at register 3". And it would always take a long time to scan the coupons and stuff. It was really useful though.
I was in line the other day at Dahl's and a lady used WIC checks to get, literally: 10 gallons of milk, 10 dozen eggs, 10 gallons of juice, 10 lbs of cheese. Every 2 items or so required a new transaction. Don't know how a person gets so many WIC checks, but i left the line and it was still going when i left.

"people aren't expendable, government is."

oh fuck there it is. I solved this problem.

back to hanging out and having fun.

Thom wrote:"people aren't expendable, government is."

oh fuck there it is. I solved this problem.

back to hanging out and having fun.

"fight war not wars, destroy power not people''



"fight crass, not punk"

those are crass lyrics, dude.

Hank Fist wrote:We used WIC for a year. It was actually pretty embarassing a lot of the time: "we have a WIC person at register 3, need a manager at register 3". And it would always take a long time to scan the coupons and stuff. It was really useful though.
I was in line the other day at Dahl's and a lady used WIC checks to get, literally: 10 gallons of milk, 10 dozen eggs, 10 gallons of juice, 10 lbs of cheese. Every 2 items or so required a new transaction. Don't know how a person gets so many WIC checks, but i left the line and it was still going when i left.

That's pqart of what I'm talking about when I say welfare is slavery. The sad thing is that there are families for whom welfare has been a way of life for many generations.

If the government didn't end up with almost half of my paycheck, I'd be able to donate more money to places like food banks and other charitable organizations that help families in need. the government should get out of welfare altogether. I should be able to choose who to donate my money to and how much i want to donate, rather than have the money extorted from my check and given to someone who doesn't want to work and that's after most of that money has been gobbled up paying a bunch of lazy ass state and federal goons.
The only purposes government should have are a military, infrastructure, and a justice system. Nobody should have to give more than 10% of their money to the government.

i have decided i am sick and tired of all the crap the government does to me so i am going to burn down a humvee dealership. whos with me?

servo wrote:i have decided i am sick and tired of all the crap the government does to me so i am going to burn down a humvee dealership. whos with me?

I was thinking more along the lines of a ski resort, but I'm down.

Big Fat Retard wrote:

Hank Fist wrote:We used WIC for a year. It was actually pretty embarassing a lot of the time: "we have a WIC person at register 3, need a manager at register 3". And it would always take a long time to scan the coupons and stuff. It was really useful though.
I was in line the other day at Dahl's and a lady used WIC checks to get, literally: 10 gallons of milk, 10 dozen eggs, 10 gallons of juice, 10 lbs of cheese. Every 2 items or so required a new transaction. Don't know how a person gets so many WIC checks, but i left the line and it was still going when i left.

That's pqart of what I'm talking about when I say welfare is slavery. The sad thing is that there are families for whom welfare has been a way of life for many generations.

If the government didn't end up with almost half of my paycheck, I'd be able to donate more money to places like food banks and other charitable organizations that help families in need. the government should get out of welfare altogether. I should be able to choose who to donate my money to and how much i want to donate, rather than have the money extorted from my check and given to someone who doesn't want to work and that's after most of that money has been gobbled up paying a bunch of lazy ass state and federal goons.
The only purposes government should have are a military, infrastructure, and a justice system. Nobody should have to give more than 10% of their money to the government.

It was really helpful. I have by now paid thousands back into the system.

Big Fat Retard wrote:

Hank Fist wrote:We used WIC for a year. It was actually pretty embarassing a lot of the time: "we have a WIC person at register 3, need a manager at register 3". And it would always take a long time to scan the coupons and stuff. It was really useful though.
I was in line the other day at Dahl's and a lady used WIC checks to get, literally: 10 gallons of milk, 10 dozen eggs, 10 gallons of juice, 10 lbs of cheese. Every 2 items or so required a new transaction. Don't know how a person gets so many WIC checks, but i left the line and it was still going when i left.

That's pqart of what I'm talking about when I say welfare is slavery. The sad thing is that there are families for whom welfare has been a way of life for many generations.

If the government didn't end up with almost half of my paycheck, I'd be able to donate more money to places like food banks and other charitable organizations that help families in need. the government should get out of welfare altogether. I should be able to choose who to donate my money to and how much i want to donate, rather than have the money extorted from my check and given to someone who doesn't want to work and that's after most of that money has been gobbled up paying a bunch of lazy ass state and federal goons.
The only purposes government should have are a military, infrastructure, and a justice system. Nobody should have to give more than 10% of their money to the government.

You believe this fable? That a majority of those on welfare are the product of households that were on PA. Let's see most of these programs are only 30 years old, so that's what 2 generations that you are basing this on? Keep in mind that if we are going to talk about everything that is paid with your with holding, we have to include your unemployment insurance, social security, etc... So let's pull all those programs too. So when you lose your job, retire or can't work, you can be out of the streets with no evil government programs to help you out.

Private charities? That's your answer, the facts are that what a majority of what private charities do is pick up the slack of what the government programs don't cover. Most of them are so overwhelmed that they can't even take care of that. And are you really telling me that you would donate even 1% of what you are paying in taxes if given the chance? I'm calling bull shit on that one. Such a small percentage of your tax dollars goes to social programs by comparison to what go to military spending.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and will be bankrupt by 2042, long before I can collect its supposed benefits, yet I still pay a portion of my paycheck into and will continue to do so as long as the government can keep this scam going. How is that fair?

It's not.

Shane wrote:Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and will be bankrupt by 2042, long before I can collect its supposed benefits, yet I still pay a portion of my paycheck into and will continue to do so as long as the government can keep this scam going. How is that fair?

It's not.

I think you will find that this has been an on going dooms day forecast. I remember hearing 1999 when I was in high school, then 2019 about ten years ago and no 2042. Granted the Baby Boomers will put a huge strain on the trust but a lot can and will change in the next 33 years. For example as less people enter the work force and people live longer, the age of retirement will be raised. Now will the echo boomers be able to support putting the baby boomers out to pasture? I think so, especially if they raise the age of retirement to 70 within the next 10 years. I think everyone forgets that the idea of retiring at age 65 was to clear space for the younger out of work during the depression. I for example don't plan on retiring and working until I die. This idea of the golden years of sitting around on your ass isn't attractive to me.

No, he's right, you're all fucked.

DaVo wrote: Keep in mind that if we are going to talk about everything that is paid with your with holding, we have to include your unemployment insurance, social security, etc... So let's pull all those programs too. So when you lose your job, retire or can't work, you can be out of the streets with no evil government programs to help you out.

YES. this is exactly what i want.

You're right Davo. I think I'll quit my job, sit around and get wasted all day, do meth and let the gub'ment and people who work take care of me.