Another Republican caught with pants down, GOP moves into lead over Dems
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
As I stated in another thread, I work retail sales. It's not an exciting job, but it pays the bills while leaving me with some cash for spending and time for my family. As you can guess, retail sales doesn't pay a whole lot of money, but as to the exact details of what I make, that's between me and my employer (and, I suppose, Uncle Sam...)
(By the way, I didn't mean the "as I stated..." to be snippy and that you should follow and memorize my every post - just establishing that I'm not making up some lie to answer your question... )
(By the way, I didn't mean the "as I stated..." to be snippy and that you should follow and memorize my every post - just establishing that I'm not making up some lie to answer your question... )
heh. Considering all I want the Federal Government to do is protect our borders (heh - great job there), settle disputes between the states and guarantee our basic freedoms from our state/local governments, anything else I'm "receiving" from the Federal Government is bunk. Do tell though - I own my own home, do not send children to government school, work my fare share while paying in my 30%+ to the Government. I receive no direct government aid of any kind (Welfare, Medicare, Social Security - and probably never will receive that one, despite all I am forced to pay into it). What, exactly, do you feel I'm getting from the Federal Government that I'm not paying for?
lol... nice try. 
Because I receive services that I generally don't use, I basically don't want and generally vote in such a way to get rid of, I'm on welfare because the services are there and I can't do much about them?
Interesting concept.
Now, if it were up to me, instead of paying taxes on a percentage of your income basis, we'd pay a flat per-head tax. I know this isn't realistic, as it'd never pass - heaven forbid everyone realize exactly how much the government is spending once they start paying for it - but it's what I'd like to see.
As for your idea that we have a stronger society because of welfare programs - overall, I disagree. We've raised a nation of fools that believe that, if they fail, the government will be there to take care of them. Ask the poorer residents of New Orleans how that worked out for them. I wonder - if another Katrina-like Hurricane hit the area, how many residents would be waiting around on their roof tops for Uncle Sam's failboat to come and pick them up... (sadly, there'd probably be quite a few, as I'd bet a lot of them didn't learn a lesson).
So, no, I don't think I'm benefiting from a stronger nation. We have more people than ever on government-provided Welfare. If anything, though, it's our children that are being ass-raped. They're the ones who are going to get to enjoy trying to pay this mess off (hell, the way the economy is going, perhaps we might get to see the fruits of our labor sooner than later. Man, it'd be nice if I live to see the day our government leaders have to step up to the podium and say "Well folks, it was nice, but now we have to pay it all back.")...
Because I receive services that I generally don't use, I basically don't want and generally vote in such a way to get rid of, I'm on welfare because the services are there and I can't do much about them?
Interesting concept.
Now, if it were up to me, instead of paying taxes on a percentage of your income basis, we'd pay a flat per-head tax. I know this isn't realistic, as it'd never pass - heaven forbid everyone realize exactly how much the government is spending once they start paying for it - but it's what I'd like to see.
As for your idea that we have a stronger society because of welfare programs - overall, I disagree. We've raised a nation of fools that believe that, if they fail, the government will be there to take care of them. Ask the poorer residents of New Orleans how that worked out for them. I wonder - if another Katrina-like Hurricane hit the area, how many residents would be waiting around on their roof tops for Uncle Sam's failboat to come and pick them up... (sadly, there'd probably be quite a few, as I'd bet a lot of them didn't learn a lesson).
So, no, I don't think I'm benefiting from a stronger nation. We have more people than ever on government-provided Welfare. If anything, though, it's our children that are being ass-raped. They're the ones who are going to get to enjoy trying to pay this mess off (hell, the way the economy is going, perhaps we might get to see the fruits of our labor sooner than later. Man, it'd be nice if I live to see the day our government leaders have to step up to the podium and say "Well folks, it was nice, but now we have to pay it all back.")...
[quote name='Msut77']I do so love hearing Randian supermen drivel from someone who probably barely makes the national median wage and has no higher education.
The kind of guy who thinks he has no use for highways and all that gubberment flim flam.[/QUOTE]
A.) You have no idea how much I make, how much my wife makes, and how much we take in in regards to investments and inheritance (which puts us over the $80,000/year mark that Kogett used - so I guess I'm not on welfare by his definition anyway.)
B.) You have no idea what my level of education is (which is beyond High School and I'll leave it at that).
C.) I, personally, believe that Federal Tax dollars should not be used for state and local road projects - and the only roads Federal Taxes should be used for are the interstate highways that make up part of our national security. Also, the taxes I pay in every time I purchase fuel are used in exchange for the wear-and-tear my vehicle puts on the road.
Now, by Kogett's definition - every single American who pays a dime in taxes is a warmonger - your tax money goes to support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, regardless if you supported the wars then, support the wars now or vote for politicians who say they're going to end the wars (haha, go Obama!) - your tax dollars are responsible for the wars. You receive the benefits of the war - a "more stable global political environment", cheap blood-oil from Iraq, a safer country because we're killing all those terrorist... whatever. Warmongers.
The kind of guy who thinks he has no use for highways and all that gubberment flim flam.[/QUOTE]
A.) You have no idea how much I make, how much my wife makes, and how much we take in in regards to investments and inheritance (which puts us over the $80,000/year mark that Kogett used - so I guess I'm not on welfare by his definition anyway.)
B.) You have no idea what my level of education is (which is beyond High School and I'll leave it at that).
C.) I, personally, believe that Federal Tax dollars should not be used for state and local road projects - and the only roads Federal Taxes should be used for are the interstate highways that make up part of our national security. Also, the taxes I pay in every time I purchase fuel are used in exchange for the wear-and-tear my vehicle puts on the road.
Now, by Kogett's definition - every single American who pays a dime in taxes is a warmonger - your tax money goes to support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, regardless if you supported the wars then, support the wars now or vote for politicians who say they're going to end the wars (haha, go Obama!) - your tax dollars are responsible for the wars. You receive the benefits of the war - a "more stable global political environment", cheap blood-oil from Iraq, a safer country because we're killing all those terrorist... whatever. Warmongers.
haha.. not the same at all..
that'd be valid if i had called you a liberal based on our liberal government (i think we've had a moderate administration for 15+ years, but that's beyond the point)
saying you're on welfare is just stating the facts
well, not if you're in the 80k+ bracket.. in that case you're actually paying for other people's welfare, and your conservatism is less hypocritical.
note, before anyone says anything, i'm not saying conservatives making
that'd be valid if i had called you a liberal based on our liberal government (i think we've had a moderate administration for 15+ years, but that's beyond the point)
saying you're on welfare is just stating the facts
well, not if you're in the 80k+ bracket.. in that case you're actually paying for other people's welfare, and your conservatism is less hypocritical.
note, before anyone says anything, i'm not saying conservatives making
I guess we just have different ideas of what qualifies as welfare. Let's break it down a little. There's "general welfare" - which the Constitution provides for. This would be, say, schools, libraries, roads, etc. Then, there's the bastardized "specific welfare" - welfare that's given directly to one individual.
For the most part, I'm fine with general welfare. Now, of course, it has to make sense - a library is good - a staduim to increase tax revenue? Not so much. Specific welfare ("here's a check for $250 of someone else's money because you have three kids and no job" or "here's $4,500 to go buy a new car from the failing auto industry") I do have a problem with. I have absolutely no problems with charity - taking or giving. The difference between specific welfare and charity, however, is one of those, I'm forced - at gunpoint - to give to no matter my personal opinion on the recipient. I honestly don't think our founding fathers ever intended for such a thing.
As per your father - I hate him already. As someone who loves soda with real sugar, he's one of my mortal enemies. Him and corn farmers.
However, even though we disagree, I must give you props. No, I don't honestly make more than $80K/year between my wife and I. I just threw that out there to see your response. I was expecting something like "Oh, well, you don't know what it's like to blah blah blah...". Props for not breaking down to that.
For the most part, I'm fine with general welfare. Now, of course, it has to make sense - a library is good - a staduim to increase tax revenue? Not so much. Specific welfare ("here's a check for $250 of someone else's money because you have three kids and no job" or "here's $4,500 to go buy a new car from the failing auto industry") I do have a problem with. I have absolutely no problems with charity - taking or giving. The difference between specific welfare and charity, however, is one of those, I'm forced - at gunpoint - to give to no matter my personal opinion on the recipient. I honestly don't think our founding fathers ever intended for such a thing.
As per your father - I hate him already.
As someone who loves soda with real sugar, he's one of my mortal enemies. Him and corn farmers. However, even though we disagree, I must give you props. No, I don't honestly make more than $80K/year between my wife and I. I just threw that out there to see your response. I was expecting something like "Oh, well, you don't know what it's like to blah blah blah...". Props for not breaking down to that.
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) You have no idea how much I make[/quote]
There are statistics on this sort of thing and it is simply not very likely that you make so much more than others in your field.
A sugar momma? Congrats I suppose.
You inherited some money, not exactly a pull yerself up by your bootstraps story.
Still doesn't mean you don't use things like highways all the time. You basically admit you would be the definition of a freerider of you thought you could get away with it.
Obviously I had some idea. College drop out?
Again that is not the same thing as you don't use or benefit from these very things above and beyond what you pay.
Figures.
There are statistics on this sort of thing and it is simply not very likely that you make so much more than others in your field.
A sugar momma? Congrats I suppose.
You inherited some money, not exactly a pull yerself up by your bootstraps story.
Still doesn't mean you don't use things like highways all the time. You basically admit you would be the definition of a freerider of you thought you could get away with it.
Obviously I had some idea. College drop out?
Again that is not the same thing as you don't use or benefit from these very things above and beyond what you pay.
Figures.
[quote name='UncleBob']You claim I have a sugar momma[/quote]
Notice the question mark?
So that is two cags so far who have trouble knowing on exactly what a question is.
You have admitted to making things up and then you claim not be fans of infrastructure you use/benefit from every day.
That would be the logical conclusion.
No thanks.
Notice the question mark?
So that is two cags so far who have trouble knowing on exactly what a question is.
You have admitted to making things up and then you claim not be fans of infrastructure you use/benefit from every day.
That would be the logical conclusion.
No thanks.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']If I believe drugs are bad, tell my kids not to do drugs, then they go out and try drugs anyway, does that mean my view of "Don't do drugs" is wrong?[/QUOTE]
You mean like when Governor Jeb Bush signed legislation that would evict people from public housing if they or even family members used drugs and then it was found out his daughter used? I don't remember him moving out of the mansion. The difference is when you act to enforce your position and then find yourself in that same position and don't take your own medicine.
Eliot Spitzer looks like a damned saint compared to these Republican cheaters.
You mean like when Governor Jeb Bush signed legislation that would evict people from public housing if they or even family members used drugs and then it was found out his daughter used? I don't remember him moving out of the mansion. The difference is when you act to enforce your position and then find yourself in that same position and don't take your own medicine.
Eliot Spitzer looks like a damned saint compared to these Republican cheaters.
speedracer
Banned
Personally, I don't give a shit who he bangs in his spare time. This is the part that pisses me off.
[quote name='speedracer']Personally, I don't give a shit who he bangs in his spare time. This is the part that pisses me off.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just thinking - perhaps he's refunding the money because of the appearance that it may have been misused in that situation?
I doubt that's the case and I'll be glad when he's out of office, but if I was going to extend him the benefit of the doubt, that would be a reasonable response.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just thinking - perhaps he's refunding the money because of the appearance that it may have been misused in that situation?
I doubt that's the case and I'll be glad when he's out of office, but if I was going to extend him the benefit of the doubt, that would be a reasonable response.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not trying to defend the guy, just thinking - perhaps he's refunding the money because of the appearance that it may have been misused in that situation?[/quote]
I was thinking about that too. I figure the first time he has the guts to take questions that that'll be the first one. Your answer was the only one I could think of that he could use.
During my time interviewing with companies for a job, I would look at their hiring process as a metric of how the company operates and could be expected to think about business. If their process resulted in consistently crap candidates, I would stay away. Not because they hired shit (everyone does at some point), but because if you aren't consistently reevaluating the way you value and acquire talent, your process is shit and your business will be shit.
Man, we're shit. Up and down and in every direction. Utter shit.
I was thinking about that too. I figure the first time he has the guts to take questions that that'll be the first one. Your answer was the only one I could think of that he could use.
During my time interviewing with companies for a job, I would look at their hiring process as a metric of how the company operates and could be expected to think about business. If their process resulted in consistently crap candidates, I would stay away. Not because they hired shit (everyone does at some point), but because if you aren't consistently reevaluating the way you value and acquire talent, your process is shit and your business will be shit.
Man, we're shit. Up and down and in every direction. Utter shit.
JolietJake
Banned
Anyone who thinks appearances don't matter obviously isn't in politics.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_spiritual_boot_camp
What a joke...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_spiritual_boot_camp
What a joke...
Last edited by a moderator:
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
I haven't seen that video in years! What happened to those crazy Swedes anyway?
Has anyone else noticed that since a Republican did this, the talk radio guys have given him a free pass? If it was a Dem, I think there would talk of crucifixition and jail time. Elliot Spitzer is still a laughing stock but I don't think Sanford will get the same treatment.
Has anyone else noticed that since a Republican did this, the talk radio guys have given him a free pass? If it was a Dem, I think there would talk of crucifixition and jail time. Elliot Spitzer is still a laughing stock but I don't think Sanford will get the same treatment.
JolietJake
Banned
Well of course, you think Limbuagh or Hannity are going to criticize one of their own?
paddlefoot
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, I'm just saying Sanford is a giant hypocrite. He lambasted Clinton for cheating but then went and cheated.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='KingBroly']Of course he is, but how many people remember that he did? And how many news outlets are saying he's a hypocrite for what he said?[/QUOTE]
A few did, because if they hadn't, I would have never known.
Good for the news organizations that did. Not always a fan of extrapolating news beyond the current story, but his actions during Clinton's impeachment trial puts this story in context. He's a self-righteous hypocrite.
I'll admit, my first thought was, well at least this time it was a woman.
[quote name='KingBroly']Of course he is, but how many people remember that he did? And how many news outlets are saying he's a hypocrite for what he said?[/QUOTE]
A few did, because if they hadn't, I would have never known.
Good for the news organizations that did. Not always a fan of extrapolating news beyond the current story, but his actions during Clinton's impeachment trial puts this story in context. He's a self-righteous hypocrite.
I'll admit, my first thought was, well at least this time it was a woman.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='paddlefoot']
I'll admit, my first thought was, well at least this time it was a woman.[/QUOTE]
Funny, that's what i thought when i heard about that catholic priest having an affair.:lol:
I'll admit, my first thought was, well at least this time it was a woman.[/QUOTE]
Funny, that's what i thought when i heard about that catholic priest having an affair.:lol:
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
I'm sure the Republican Party is relieved that it was a woman also. I'm pretty sure that they can spin this to say that Republicans love Latinas as much as Dems do.
[quote name='depascal22']Has anyone else noticed that since a Republican did this, the talk radio guys have given him a free pass? If it was a Dem, I think there would talk of crucifixition and jail time. Elliot Spitzer is still a laughing stock but I don't think Sanford will get the same treatment.[/QUOTE]
You're listening to the wrong talk radio guys...
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/06/sanford-and-the-argentinean-fl.html
You're listening to the wrong talk radio guys...
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/06/sanford-and-the-argentinean-fl.html
bread's done