JolietJake
Banned
Some people would probably love the idea of corporate run America. You wouldn't have to worry about social programs being provided probably, that is unless it gave The Company good PR.
Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I bet if we armed corporations and made it legal for them force the general population to give them money, some corporations could manage to bring in as much money as the Federal Government does.[/QUOTE]
You are one of the dumbest mother
ers I've ever met.
You are one of the dumbest mother
ers I've ever met.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Can someone name a US company that successfully defeated the Nazi war machine?[/QUOTE]
Ford? Is it Ford? It's Ford, right?
Ford? Is it Ford? It's Ford, right?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']That would be the answer if the question was name a US company that had close ties to the Nazi War Machine.[/QUOTE]
Awww, damn. Do I get partial credit? If those had been GM engines in those Panzers, there might have been no need for the Cold War with the USSR.
Awww, damn. Do I get partial credit? If those had been GM engines in those Panzers, there might have been no need for the Cold War with the USSR.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']It really, really bothers you to have to consider the fact that government is force, pure and simple, eh?[/QUOTE]
I understand the government gets all pissy when you don't pay taxes.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
If you want to send your kids to public school, pay for it.
If you want to drive to work instead of walking, pay for it.
If you want cheap fresh fruit in the middle of winter, pay for it.
If you want airplane travel to be safer than car travel, pay for it.
If you have a dispute with somebody who can easily kick your ass and you want to have an usually neutral third party arbiter, pay for it.
I understand the counter argument is that private industry could do more for less. I probably would have agreed five years ago. Unfortunately, we're all living in an era when loosened regulations damn near wrecked us all. In a generation or so when people forget about the Great Recession, that argument might get some traction.
If you think the government is a band of thugs, stop working. Burn all of your possessions and force the thugs to provide you basic services at their expense.
I understand the government gets all pissy when you don't pay taxes.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
If you want to send your kids to public school, pay for it.
If you want to drive to work instead of walking, pay for it.
If you want cheap fresh fruit in the middle of winter, pay for it.
If you want airplane travel to be safer than car travel, pay for it.
If you have a dispute with somebody who can easily kick your ass and you want to have an usually neutral third party arbiter, pay for it.
I understand the counter argument is that private industry could do more for less. I probably would have agreed five years ago. Unfortunately, we're all living in an era when loosened regulations damn near wrecked us all. In a generation or so when people forget about the Great Recession, that argument might get some traction.
If you think the government is a band of thugs, stop working. Burn all of your possessions and force the thugs to provide you basic services at their expense.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I understand the government gets all pissy when you don't pay taxes.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
If you want to send your kids to public school, pay for it.
If you want to drive to work instead of walking, pay for it.
If you want cheap fresh fruit in the middle of winter, pay for it.
If you want airplane travel to be safer than car travel, pay for it.
If you have a dispute with somebody who can easily kick your ass and you want to have an usually neutral third party arbiter, pay for it.
I understand the counter argument is that private industry could do more for less. I probably would have agreed five years ago. Unfortunately, we're all living in an era when loosened regulations damn near wrecked us all. In a generation or so when people forget about the Great Recession, that argument might get some traction.
If you think the government is a band of thugs, stop working. Burn all of your possessions and force the thugs to provide you basic services at their expense.[/QUOTE]
Wow just wow, your anwser to fighting the governments excessive spending is to leech off of them? Nice solution you got there, with unemployment and welfare spending at all time highs, it seems to be stopping them now...
I love how noone is taking this arguement seriously...the government is one big failing corporation that has most likely has a higher debt ratio than any US company and all of you just make jokes. It really highlights the thought process of this forum.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
If you want to send your kids to public school, pay for it.
If you want to drive to work instead of walking, pay for it.
If you want cheap fresh fruit in the middle of winter, pay for it.
If you want airplane travel to be safer than car travel, pay for it.
If you have a dispute with somebody who can easily kick your ass and you want to have an usually neutral third party arbiter, pay for it.
I understand the counter argument is that private industry could do more for less. I probably would have agreed five years ago. Unfortunately, we're all living in an era when loosened regulations damn near wrecked us all. In a generation or so when people forget about the Great Recession, that argument might get some traction.
If you think the government is a band of thugs, stop working. Burn all of your possessions and force the thugs to provide you basic services at their expense.[/QUOTE]
Wow just wow, your anwser to fighting the governments excessive spending is to leech off of them? Nice solution you got there, with unemployment and welfare spending at all time highs, it seems to be stopping them now...
I love how noone is taking this arguement seriously...the government is one big failing corporation that has most likely has a higher debt ratio than any US company and all of you just make jokes. It really highlights the thought process of this forum.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Knoell']No successful US company has the ratio of debt the US government has. What does that tell you about the government?[/QUOTE]
I can't understand how that's an apples to apples comparison. The government provides many services that otherwise wouldn't be provided. Defense, social safety nets, inspection, infrastructure maintenance and improvement, investigation, courts, intelligence, political forums, etc etc etc etc etc.
Companies don't have to do any of that, freeing them to focus on core competencies. We were told in biz school that focusing on core competencies is the driving force of profits. So how does you statement reconcile that?
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I bet if we armed corporations and made it legal for them force the general population to give them money, some corporations could manage to bring in as much money as the Federal Government does.[/QUOTE]
We tried that. We ended up with indentured servitude and Pinkertons.
I can't understand how that's an apples to apples comparison. The government provides many services that otherwise wouldn't be provided. Defense, social safety nets, inspection, infrastructure maintenance and improvement, investigation, courts, intelligence, political forums, etc etc etc etc etc.
Companies don't have to do any of that, freeing them to focus on core competencies. We were told in biz school that focusing on core competencies is the driving force of profits. So how does you statement reconcile that?
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I bet if we armed corporations and made it legal for them force the general population to give them money, some corporations could manage to bring in as much money as the Federal Government does.[/QUOTE]
We tried that. We ended up with indentured servitude and Pinkertons.
Yep, can anyone name a private industry regulator?
How about Moody's?
How well did thating work out?
---
No one is taking it seriously because it is a preposterous premise and even if there were something teachable you are a joke and wouldn't be worth it.
How about Moody's?
How well did that
ing work out?---
No one is taking it seriously because it is a preposterous premise and even if there were something teachable you are a joke and wouldn't be worth it.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Msut77']Yep, can anyone name a private industry regulator?
How about Moody's?
How well did thating work out?[/QUOTE]
Since that speaks directly to the issue and since that is so pertinent to today's issues and since they are a textbook case of industry wholly being unable to self-regulate to the detriment of the entire world economy, I'm going to ignore it.
How about Moody's?
How well did that
ing work out?[/QUOTE]Since that speaks directly to the issue and since that is so pertinent to today's issues and since they are a textbook case of industry wholly being unable to self-regulate to the detriment of the entire world economy, I'm going to ignore it.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='speedracer']I can't understand how that's an apples to apples comparison. The government provides many services that otherwise wouldn't be provided. Defense, social safety nets, inspection, infrastructure maintenance and improvement, investigation, courts, intelligence, political forums, etc etc etc etc etc.[/QUOTE]
You got the wrong Verizon Wireless plan, son.
I got a missle defense system, paved roads and 500 text messages a month.
You got the wrong Verizon Wireless plan, son.
I got a missle defense system, paved roads and 500 text messages a month.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Wow just wow, your anwser to fighting the governments excessive spending is to leech off of them? Nice solution you got there, with unemployment and welfare spending at all time highs, it seems to be stopping them now...
I love how noone is taking this arguement seriously...the government is one big failing corporation that has most likely has a higher debt ratio than any US company and all of you just make jokes. It really highlights the thought process of this forum.[/QUOTE]
It's protest. Obviously, you're not going to win a violent protest with this government. So, use nonviolent protest.
By leeching off the system, you are hurrying its demise. What are your concerns with that?
I love how noone is taking this arguement seriously...the government is one big failing corporation that has most likely has a higher debt ratio than any US company and all of you just make jokes. It really highlights the thought process of this forum.[/QUOTE]
It's protest. Obviously, you're not going to win a violent protest with this government. So, use nonviolent protest.
By leeching off the system, you are hurrying its demise. What are your concerns with that?
JolietJake
Banned
This was all i was able to find concerning debt around the world. Of course the US is at the top, but go down the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
I know the different levels of debt are due to a variety of reasons, my point though is that plenty of nations manage to operate with less debt than many companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
I know the different levels of debt are due to a variety of reasons, my point though is that plenty of nations manage to operate with less debt than many companies.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='Strell']Only 500? Phbhbhbt. Sweden, I'm told, gives you unlimited texts. And also, Swedish women.[/QUOTE]
Who come at you with a golf club when they discover you've been having an affair.:lol:
Who come at you with a golf club when they discover you've been having an affair.:lol:
[quote name='speedracer']I can't understand how that's an apples to apples comparison. The government provides many services that otherwise wouldn't be provided. Defense, social safety nets, inspection, infrastructure maintenance and improvement, investigation, courts, intelligence, political forums, etc etc etc etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Ask JJ - he was the one who first tried to compare a private company and the government.
Ask JJ - he was the one who first tried to compare a private company and the government.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Ok Sorry about that, I went to Washington D.C. for a few days, but now I am back to defend myself.[/quote]
You don't really have to defend yourself in replying to my post. It was just to clear up some factual confusion.
[quote name='Knoell']Firstly I was talking about the civil rights movement as a whole ,http://www.ushistory.org/more/timeline.htm not just the 20th century movement. If you do not consider freeing black slaves a civil rights issue then I dont know what to tell you. Which brings me to the original point before it was twisted and turned which is that the lack of the prior existence of a movement is not a valid reason to discount said movement.[/quote]
When someone says "civil rights movement," just about everyone in this country thinks about the movement in the 1960s to rid us of things like separate water fountains for blacks and whites. I would call the movement to free the slaves in the mid-1800s the abolitionist movement, and I suspect most Americans would as well. I agree with your point in your last sentence, but I doubt anyone disagrees with it since it would cause every movement in the history of mankind to be discounted.
[quote name='Knoell']Secondly We werent talking about the politicians, the nearly leaderless tea party itself was formed as a result of BUSH enacting the tarp bank bailout. You can say that it would have been formed as a result Obamas spending anyway, but bottom line is that the TARP deal triggered it.[/quote]
The tea party movement was formed in response to a number of policies, including TARP. But the original argument you made was that it was formed when Bush was president, and that is just not true. This is again a minor point but I like to have facts straight when having a discussion.
[quote name='Knoell']Thirdly I never said I was in favor of Clintons fiscal policy, the left always claim he balanced the budget, and I would say the majority of Americans believed that was the case, but someone argued that if the tea party was a valid movement why wouldn't it be formed then? And I simply stated that clinton supposedly balanced the budget.[/QUOTE]
Again this is a non-argument unless you are stating that the facts I listed aren't true, and non-arguments on the VS forum are boring.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ford? Is it Ford? It's Ford, right?[/QUOTE]
Disney
You don't really have to defend yourself in replying to my post. It was just to clear up some factual confusion.
[quote name='Knoell']Firstly I was talking about the civil rights movement as a whole ,http://www.ushistory.org/more/timeline.htm not just the 20th century movement. If you do not consider freeing black slaves a civil rights issue then I dont know what to tell you. Which brings me to the original point before it was twisted and turned which is that the lack of the prior existence of a movement is not a valid reason to discount said movement.[/quote]
When someone says "civil rights movement," just about everyone in this country thinks about the movement in the 1960s to rid us of things like separate water fountains for blacks and whites. I would call the movement to free the slaves in the mid-1800s the abolitionist movement, and I suspect most Americans would as well. I agree with your point in your last sentence, but I doubt anyone disagrees with it since it would cause every movement in the history of mankind to be discounted.
[quote name='Knoell']Secondly We werent talking about the politicians, the nearly leaderless tea party itself was formed as a result of BUSH enacting the tarp bank bailout. You can say that it would have been formed as a result Obamas spending anyway, but bottom line is that the TARP deal triggered it.[/quote]
The tea party movement was formed in response to a number of policies, including TARP. But the original argument you made was that it was formed when Bush was president, and that is just not true. This is again a minor point but I like to have facts straight when having a discussion.
[quote name='Knoell']Thirdly I never said I was in favor of Clintons fiscal policy, the left always claim he balanced the budget, and I would say the majority of Americans believed that was the case, but someone argued that if the tea party was a valid movement why wouldn't it be formed then? And I simply stated that clinton supposedly balanced the budget.[/QUOTE]
Again this is a non-argument unless you are stating that the facts I listed aren't true, and non-arguments on the VS forum are boring.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ford? Is it Ford? It's Ford, right?[/QUOTE]
Disney
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It's protest. Obviously, you're not going to win a violent protest with this government. So, use nonviolent protest.
By leeching off the system, you are hurrying its demise. What are your concerns with that?[/QUOTE]
Since you all like comparing this time period to prior time periods when taxes were so much higher for the "evil rich guys" here is a chart for you.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
It seems welfare spending has increased by a billion percent over the years lol. With so much more spending I wonder why there is still poverty.... well maybe if we spend more we can help those poor poor people.
By leeching off the system, you are hurrying its demise. What are your concerns with that?[/QUOTE]
Since you all like comparing this time period to prior time periods when taxes were so much higher for the "evil rich guys" here is a chart for you.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
It seems welfare spending has increased by a billion percent over the years lol. With so much more spending I wonder why there is still poverty.... well maybe if we spend more we can help those poor poor people.
[quote name='Knoell']Since you all like comparing this time period to prior time periods when taxes were so much higher for the "evil rich guys" here is a chart for you.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
It seems welfare spending has increased by a billion percent over the years lol. With so much more spending I wonder why there is still poverty.... well maybe if we spend more we can help those poor poor people.[/QUOTE]
Its because our system is set up to NOT raise people out of poverty but instead keep them there. The system penalizes saving, it penalizes investing and there are very few programs designed to help train/teach people....and those that there are are broken. Thanks to people like you the system will never change either.
If someone tries to squirrel away their money in order to eventually have a nest egg they feel they can use to not be on the system the amount they receive every month begins dropping fast. If you invest then your investments start counting as savings and again mean your stuck. So that leaves job programs, as someone that has been through these job programs I can attest most of them are designed less about helping the person and more about opening and closing cases. Even the people that work there were constantly apologizing to me as I tried to suggest things that would cost very little but help me move forward and they had to tell me time and time again that they were sorry their offices were not set up to do that or their bosses would not allow it. Basically every person that comes in has a case opened, and then whenever they do basically anything for you they close the case and you must see how the results turn out before they open another case. I kid you not, the first place I went to counted giving me papers with basic job training tips as a case closed. It is set up this way because they are rewarded for every case they close, plus because their systems are so overwhelmed they can not afford to spend the time or money giving someone the attention they need/deserve.
Again conservatives like to site and bitch about welfare, its one of the favorite targets for Republicans and its the reason the Tea Party exists. But yet again you prove what I said a few pages back, you only want to cut the programs that do not effect you and you refuse to take an objective look at them because at the end of the day as I said you feel the program is worthless since you do not need it. The problem with the welfare system is not that its over funded, its that its constantly underfunded and at its core designed to keep people poor. Maybe if the system actually gave people some serious training and didn't just set them up in housing projects or with so little money you can't afford to live anywhere but a a ghetto then we wouldn't have people on the system for life and more and more people using it.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
It seems welfare spending has increased by a billion percent over the years lol. With so much more spending I wonder why there is still poverty.... well maybe if we spend more we can help those poor poor people.[/QUOTE]
Its because our system is set up to NOT raise people out of poverty but instead keep them there. The system penalizes saving, it penalizes investing and there are very few programs designed to help train/teach people....and those that there are are broken. Thanks to people like you the system will never change either.
If someone tries to squirrel away their money in order to eventually have a nest egg they feel they can use to not be on the system the amount they receive every month begins dropping fast. If you invest then your investments start counting as savings and again mean your stuck. So that leaves job programs, as someone that has been through these job programs I can attest most of them are designed less about helping the person and more about opening and closing cases. Even the people that work there were constantly apologizing to me as I tried to suggest things that would cost very little but help me move forward and they had to tell me time and time again that they were sorry their offices were not set up to do that or their bosses would not allow it. Basically every person that comes in has a case opened, and then whenever they do basically anything for you they close the case and you must see how the results turn out before they open another case. I kid you not, the first place I went to counted giving me papers with basic job training tips as a case closed. It is set up this way because they are rewarded for every case they close, plus because their systems are so overwhelmed they can not afford to spend the time or money giving someone the attention they need/deserve.
Again conservatives like to site and bitch about welfare, its one of the favorite targets for Republicans and its the reason the Tea Party exists. But yet again you prove what I said a few pages back, you only want to cut the programs that do not effect you and you refuse to take an objective look at them because at the end of the day as I said you feel the program is worthless since you do not need it. The problem with the welfare system is not that its over funded, its that its constantly underfunded and at its core designed to keep people poor. Maybe if the system actually gave people some serious training and didn't just set them up in housing projects or with so little money you can't afford to live anywhere but a a ghetto then we wouldn't have people on the system for life and more and more people using it.
[quote name='Msut77']MSI, Just doing a quick glance at the link... the chart doesn't define "welfare" nor does it appear to adjust for inflation.[/QUOTE]
/shrug its just an issue that bugs me, largely because I have first hand experience with it. It feels like the old teach a man to fish story....but in this case people like Knoell do not want to teach the man to fish nor do they want to give him a fish....they just want to tell him to quit being so lazy and do everything on his own even if its not possible to do that.
If we just restructured things and spent a little more we could freaking get people off the system which would save money long term...but nope Democrats are too cowardly as always to do what needs to be done and the conservatives are too stupid and selfish....so nothing changes and everyone pays more and at the end of the day people are not truly helped, just passed along and kept on the tit.
/shrug its just an issue that bugs me, largely because I have first hand experience with it. It feels like the old teach a man to fish story....but in this case people like Knoell do not want to teach the man to fish nor do they want to give him a fish....they just want to tell him to quit being so lazy and do everything on his own even if its not possible to do that.
If we just restructured things and spent a little more we could freaking get people off the system which would save money long term...but nope Democrats are too cowardly as always to do what needs to be done and the conservatives are too stupid and selfish....so nothing changes and everyone pays more and at the end of the day people are not truly helped, just passed along and kept on the tit.
[quote name='Msut77']It isn't that I am not a fan of job training, I just feel that direct job creation would be better.
After all in the narrowest sense job training doesn't create jobs, it helps you beat out another person for a job.[/QUOTE]
Well two things. First off you can have every job in the world available but unless you give people the tools needed to work it wont matter. Many people on welfare are people that will never adapt to working instantly either because they did not receive the education/initial work opportunities needed for them to be able to work, or because they have been on the system for so long that just tossing them into a job would be an experience that would lead to pretty much instant failure. Our welfare system is not like where FDR sent people to work planting trees or doing other odd jobs to ensure it was not a handout. Our system basically is nothing more then a handout anymore and it means many people on the system have no skills in practice. Job training programs are needed to give people that have been welfare lifers or people that may have just started receiving welfare but have little to no education the tools they need to succeed. Again, I went through this process myself and not only did it not help me, I watched as it failed numerous others as well. I felt like crying as I listened to the instructor convince one poor woman who was obviously mentally retarded that her best option was to open her own knitting business with a loan. They sent her home with info on how to take out a business loan and other info on starting your own business. This woman hardly had the mental ability to freaking grasp what was being suggested....and they were moving her into running her own damn business without any help! Person after person after person got the same bad advice and I imagine they all never got the help they needed. This is why I support truly effective job training/placement programs...because I have been through them and seen how badly an effective program is needed.
Second thing is that these programs in themselves create jobs. You will need people to run these places as well as train others. Is it the best bang for the buck option? No, but it would still create a fair number of jobs throughout the nation. You would need at least one center in every county and at each center you would probably have a few people training, a few people handling paper work and a supervisor or two. Not to mention random jobs like drivers for people that are blind or disabled in other ways.
Edit - And I agree with you saying above that more job creation is needed. Like I said I was not suggesting this be our primary source of job creation. Id love to see some good old fashioned FDR styled welfare where we put people to work on both our infrastructure and our national parks.
After all in the narrowest sense job training doesn't create jobs, it helps you beat out another person for a job.[/QUOTE]
Well two things. First off you can have every job in the world available but unless you give people the tools needed to work it wont matter. Many people on welfare are people that will never adapt to working instantly either because they did not receive the education/initial work opportunities needed for them to be able to work, or because they have been on the system for so long that just tossing them into a job would be an experience that would lead to pretty much instant failure. Our welfare system is not like where FDR sent people to work planting trees or doing other odd jobs to ensure it was not a handout. Our system basically is nothing more then a handout anymore and it means many people on the system have no skills in practice. Job training programs are needed to give people that have been welfare lifers or people that may have just started receiving welfare but have little to no education the tools they need to succeed. Again, I went through this process myself and not only did it not help me, I watched as it failed numerous others as well. I felt like crying as I listened to the instructor convince one poor woman who was obviously mentally retarded that her best option was to open her own knitting business with a loan. They sent her home with info on how to take out a business loan and other info on starting your own business. This woman hardly had the mental ability to freaking grasp what was being suggested....and they were moving her into running her own damn business without any help! Person after person after person got the same bad advice and I imagine they all never got the help they needed. This is why I support truly effective job training/placement programs...because I have been through them and seen how badly an effective program is needed.
Second thing is that these programs in themselves create jobs. You will need people to run these places as well as train others. Is it the best bang for the buck option? No, but it would still create a fair number of jobs throughout the nation. You would need at least one center in every county and at each center you would probably have a few people training, a few people handling paper work and a supervisor or two. Not to mention random jobs like drivers for people that are blind or disabled in other ways.
Edit - And I agree with you saying above that more job creation is needed. Like I said I was not suggesting this be our primary source of job creation. Id love to see some good old fashioned FDR styled welfare where we put people to work on both our infrastructure and our national parks.
[quote name='Knoell']its not working because we need to spend more! I love that line.[/QUOTE]
Yes, ignore every good point that someone makes and focus on the punch line. I wish liberals did better talking points, would make my job so much easier if I could just be ignorant and repeat the same 4 or 5 lines at any given point in time.
Yes, ignore every good point that someone makes and focus on the punch line. I wish liberals did better talking points, would make my job so much easier if I could just be ignorant and repeat the same 4 or 5 lines at any given point in time.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']its not working because we need to spend more! I love that line.[/QUOTE]
Man after looking at the opposite of the proposition of fully funding our and fixing govt. agencies that are currently wasteful, I finally see the light knoell, and I propose we start cutting now. We should first start with education (Cause you know know Americans can't compare to the Chinese), infrastructure spending (cause I cant remember the last time I drove down a properly paved road), Medicare (because old people still die), lets cut government spending on renewable resources (Cause we have already spent a ton and I still don't get my electricity from a giant pinwheel in the sky), cut the funding of OSHA (because people still get hurt on the job and companies still break the rules), cut the national weather service (remember the last time a weather man told the truth?), and cut the FDA because people still get food poising. Man the opposite is such a better option to solve the problems in the US.
Man after looking at the opposite of the proposition of fully funding our and fixing govt. agencies that are currently wasteful, I finally see the light knoell, and I propose we start cutting now. We should first start with education (Cause you know know Americans can't compare to the Chinese), infrastructure spending (cause I cant remember the last time I drove down a properly paved road), Medicare (because old people still die), lets cut government spending on renewable resources (Cause we have already spent a ton and I still don't get my electricity from a giant pinwheel in the sky), cut the funding of OSHA (because people still get hurt on the job and companies still break the rules), cut the national weather service (remember the last time a weather man told the truth?), and cut the FDA because people still get food poising. Man the opposite is such a better option to solve the problems in the US.
[quote name='cindersphere']Man after looking at the opposite of the proposition of fully funding our and fixing govt. agencies that are currently wasteful, I finally see the light knoell, and I propose we start cutting now. We should first start with education (Cause you know know Americans can't compare to the Chinese), infrastructure spending (cause I cant remember the last time I drove down a properly paved road), Medicare (because old people still die), lets cut government spending on renewable resources (Cause we have already spent a ton and I still don't get my electricity from a giant pinwheel in the sky), cut the funding of OSHA (because people still get hurt on the job and companies still break the rules), cut the national weather service (remember the last time a weather man told the truth?), and cut the FDA because people still get food poising. Man the opposite is such a better option to solve the problems in the US.[/QUOTE]
You are missing the point, again conservatives arent for cutting everything to barebones, we recognize the need for government, but when we are throwing between 600 and 700 billion dollars into welfare 2010, compared to 2 billion in 1940, what are we really getting out of that additional 698 billion dollars? Sure you can adjust for inflation but that doesnt compare to the enormous growth of these programs. I would like to see how much the beloved europeans spend in welfare programs, I bet it isnt nearly as much...
You are missing the point, again conservatives arent for cutting everything to barebones, we recognize the need for government, but when we are throwing between 600 and 700 billion dollars into welfare 2010, compared to 2 billion in 1940, what are we really getting out of that additional 698 billion dollars? Sure you can adjust for inflation but that doesnt compare to the enormous growth of these programs. I would like to see how much the beloved europeans spend in welfare programs, I bet it isnt nearly as much...
[quote name='MSI Magus']Yes, ignore every good point that someone makes and focus on the punch line. I wish liberals did better talking points, would make my job so much easier if I could just be ignorant and repeat the same 4 or 5 lines at any given point in time.[/QUOTE]
you made no good points, you went on a rant about how you dislike the welfare system because it didnt help you enough. You also said the welfare system as it is is garbage, and its the republicans fault that it wont get reformed (who are the minority right now by the way). Did I get it right? what would you like me to respond to?
you made no good points, you went on a rant about how you dislike the welfare system because it didnt help you enough. You also said the welfare system as it is is garbage, and its the republicans fault that it wont get reformed (who are the minority right now by the way). Did I get it right? what would you like me to respond to?
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']You are missing the point, again conservatives arent for cutting everything to barebones, we recognize the need for government, but when we are throwing between 600 and 700 billion dollars into welfare 2010, compared to 2 billion in 1940, what are we really getting out of that additional 698 billion dollars? Sure you can adjust for inflation but that doesnt compare to the enormous growth of these programs. I would like to see how much the beloved europeans spend in welfare programs, I bet it isnt nearly as much...[/QUOTE]
Nope, I pretty much get the points you are trying to make, however I disagree with your assessments and am just getting tired of your continued abuse of welfare systems and the like. Your position (as I have gleamed from your posts) is like neither giving a man a fish nor teaching him how to fish, and instead beating him senseless with a fish for having the audacity to use taxpayer money for something you don't wish to fund. Cutting the taxes you propose most often is essentially just forcing lower income people to pay more, such as how cuts to transportation increase the cost of bus fares and put lower income people at an even bigger disadvantage. Your points are lack any real basis in reality and pull greatly from ideology. While I disagree with magus on some points, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation and blow your horn so loud that any respect for your position is rendered moot (admittedly I also offer little, but at least I keep my finger away from the enter key more often).
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.
Nope, I pretty much get the points you are trying to make, however I disagree with your assessments and am just getting tired of your continued abuse of welfare systems and the like. Your position (as I have gleamed from your posts) is like neither giving a man a fish nor teaching him how to fish, and instead beating him senseless with a fish for having the audacity to use taxpayer money for something you don't wish to fund. Cutting the taxes you propose most often is essentially just forcing lower income people to pay more, such as how cuts to transportation increase the cost of bus fares and put lower income people at an even bigger disadvantage. Your points are lack any real basis in reality and pull greatly from ideology. While I disagree with magus on some points, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation and blow your horn so loud that any respect for your position is rendered moot (admittedly I also offer little, but at least I keep my finger away from the enter key more often).
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']Nope, I pretty much get the points you are trying to make, however I disagree with your assessments and am just getting tired of your continued abuse of welfare systems and the like. Your position (as I have gleamed from your posts) is like neither giving a man a fish nor teaching him how to fish, and instead beating him senseless with a fish for having the audacity to use taxpayer money for something you don't wish to fund. Cutting the taxes you propose most often is essentially just forcing lower income people to pay more, such as how cuts to transportation increase the cost of bus fares and put lower income people at an even bigger disadvantage. Your points are lack any real basis in reality and pull greatly from ideology. While I disagree with magus on some points, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation and blow your horn so loud that any respect for your position is rendered moot (admittedly I also offer little, but at least I keep my finger away from the enter key more often).
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.[/QUOTE]
Sigh....same old excuses for not cutting back. If a particular arm of the government is costing taxpayers more, and more, and more every year, doesnt it warrant at least a look at it?
Here is something Obama may be doing right. Now are you going to disagree with him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.[/QUOTE]
Sigh....same old excuses for not cutting back. If a particular arm of the government is costing taxpayers more, and more, and more every year, doesnt it warrant at least a look at it?
Here is something Obama may be doing right. Now are you going to disagree with him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Sigh....same old excuses for not cutting back. If a particular arm of the government is costing taxpayers more, and more, and more every year, doesnt it warrant at least a look at it?
Here is something Obama may be doing right. Now are you going to disagree with him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html[/QUOTE]
"But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
So, he is stilling it up, right?
Is the Pentagon doing anything important right now?
Should foreigners receive aid before citizens?
Shouldn't veterans be saddled with all of their medical bills?
Is there a major threat against the homeland again?
Why are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security immune?
Here is something Obama may be doing right. Now are you going to disagree with him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html[/QUOTE]
"But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
So, he is still
ing it up, right?Is the Pentagon doing anything important right now?
Should foreigners receive aid before citizens?
Shouldn't veterans be saddled with all of their medical bills?
Is there a major threat against the homeland again?
Why are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security immune?
[quote name='Knoell']you made no good points, you went on a rant about how you dislike the welfare system because it didnt help you enough. You also said the welfare system as it is is garbage, and its the republicans fault that it wont get reformed (who are the minority right now by the way). Did I get it right? what would you like me to respond to?[/QUOTE]
No wrong on many levels. I guess it really does not matter though, if I clearly state it is the fault of both Republicans AND Democrats which is an easy thing to see in my post and you ignore it...as well as ignore things like my solution and things like it not just failing me but many others...and ignore the fact that I called for reform as well....its pretty obvious you are not looking for a debate just to stay stuck in your wars. Hey though, I guess like I said thats just the conservative way now! Watch the rest of the world change and spread lies to make it sound like its the worst thing ever and none of its your fault.
No wrong on many levels. I guess it really does not matter though, if I clearly state it is the fault of both Republicans AND Democrats which is an easy thing to see in my post and you ignore it...as well as ignore things like my solution and things like it not just failing me but many others...and ignore the fact that I called for reform as well....its pretty obvious you are not looking for a debate just to stay stuck in your wars. Hey though, I guess like I said thats just the conservative way now! Watch the rest of the world change and spread lies to make it sound like its the worst thing ever and none of its your fault.
[quote name='cindersphere']Nope, I pretty much get the points you are trying to make, however I disagree with your assessments and am just getting tired of your continued abuse of welfare systems and the like. Your position (as I have gleamed from your posts) is like neither giving a man a fish nor teaching him how to fish, and instead beating him senseless with a fish for having the audacity to use taxpayer money for something you don't wish to fund. Cutting the taxes you propose most often is essentially just forcing lower income people to pay more, such as how cuts to transportation increase the cost of bus fares and put lower income people at an even bigger disadvantage. Your points are lack any real basis in reality and pull greatly from ideology. While I disagree with magus on some points, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation and blow your horn so loud that any respect for your position is rendered moot (admittedly I also offer little, but at least I keep my finger away from the enter key more often).
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.[/QUOTE]
Considering that I talked about how the system needed reforms and restructuring to be effective and he basically reduced my argument to "spend more money" I think your assessment is fair. Anyways, thanks! Guess I will just drop this now...some(most)people are simply not willing to give an honest look at both sides...especially when its glaringly obvious how wrong their side is.
Sorry if that ran too long or is hard to follow, I am tired and it is Saturday.[/QUOTE]
Considering that I talked about how the system needed reforms and restructuring to be effective and he basically reduced my argument to "spend more money" I think your assessment is fair. Anyways, thanks! Guess I will just drop this now...some(most)people are simply not willing to give an honest look at both sides...especially when its glaringly obvious how wrong their side is.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
If you don't adjust for inflation you have NO BASIS for comparison and the very foundation of your argument is shot.
Also, anyone who wants to talk about reducing the size of government and does not
1) bring up;
2) cite numbers in staggering growth and funding of; or
3) put at the forefront of their demands for a reduced federal government
our defense spending is NOT someone I can talk seriously in the slightest.
I take seriously those who want to tackle excess government spending by starting with the albatross.
I do not take seriously those who think we can tackle excess government spending by targeting a few small things that don't impact us personally. So often advocates of smaller government spending want to carve up everything but the teats they themselves are suckling from. You're not as foolish as the "keep your government hands off of my medicare" folks, but your rationale is *no* different.
Also, anyone who wants to talk about reducing the size of government and does not
1) bring up;
2) cite numbers in staggering growth and funding of; or
3) put at the forefront of their demands for a reduced federal government
our defense spending is NOT someone I can talk seriously in the slightest.
I take seriously those who want to tackle excess government spending by starting with the albatross.
I do not take seriously those who think we can tackle excess government spending by targeting a few small things that don't impact us personally. So often advocates of smaller government spending want to carve up everything but the teats they themselves are suckling from. You're not as foolish as the "keep your government hands off of my medicare" folks, but your rationale is *no* different.
[quote name='mykevermin']If you don't adjust for inflation you have NO BASIS for comparison and the very foundation of your argument is shot.
Also, anyone who wants to talk about reducing the size of government and does not
1) bring up;
2) cite numbers in staggering growth and funding of; or
3) put at the forefront of their demands for a reduced federal government
our defense spending is NOT someone I can talk seriously in the slightest.
I take seriously those who want to tackle excess government spending by starting with the albatross.
I do not take seriously those who think we can tackle excess government spending by targeting a few small things that don't impact us personally. So often advocates of smaller government spending want to carve up everything but the teats they themselves are suckling from. You're not as foolish as the "keep your government hands off of my medicare" folks, but your rationale is *no* different.[/QUOTE]
I stated in the post that inflation adjustments do not make a dent in the massive expansion of the welfare system. There are many inflation calculators online, google one or let me know what exactly you want, and ill do it for ya.
Secondly, please find a post where I say we dont need to cut excess military spending, I actually said we need to find the right balance of spending in which we can protect this country, and help those of us who truely need it. (not everyone with their hand out.)
Im sorry but 38% of our GDP in spending just does not cut it.
Also, anyone who wants to talk about reducing the size of government and does not
1) bring up;
2) cite numbers in staggering growth and funding of; or
3) put at the forefront of their demands for a reduced federal government
our defense spending is NOT someone I can talk seriously in the slightest.
I take seriously those who want to tackle excess government spending by starting with the albatross.
I do not take seriously those who think we can tackle excess government spending by targeting a few small things that don't impact us personally. So often advocates of smaller government spending want to carve up everything but the teats they themselves are suckling from. You're not as foolish as the "keep your government hands off of my medicare" folks, but your rationale is *no* different.[/QUOTE]
I stated in the post that inflation adjustments do not make a dent in the massive expansion of the welfare system. There are many inflation calculators online, google one or let me know what exactly you want, and ill do it for ya. Secondly, please find a post where I say we dont need to cut excess military spending, I actually said we need to find the right balance of spending in which we can protect this country, and help those of us who truely need it. (not everyone with their hand out.)
Im sorry but 38% of our GDP in spending just does not cut it.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']"But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security."
So, he is stilling it up, right?
Is the Pentagon doing anything important right now?
Should foreigners receive aid before citizens?
Shouldn't veterans be saddled with all of their medical bills?
Is there a major threat against the homeland again?
Why are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security immune?[/QUOTE]
There is always a threat against the homeland, you people saying there is no need for a defense budget is as ridiculous as any of us saying there is no need for any social programs.
How exactly are foreigners receiving aid before citizens? He trims a tiny bit of spending that will only cut 3% off of the $12 trillion dollar deficit and you are up in arms. I hope you dont have credit cards man.
So, he is still
ing it up, right?Is the Pentagon doing anything important right now?
Should foreigners receive aid before citizens?
Shouldn't veterans be saddled with all of their medical bills?
Is there a major threat against the homeland again?
Why are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security immune?[/QUOTE]
There is always a threat against the homeland, you people saying there is no need for a defense budget is as ridiculous as any of us saying there is no need for any social programs.
How exactly are foreigners receiving aid before citizens? He trims a tiny bit of spending that will only cut 3% off of the $12 trillion dollar deficit and you are up in arms. I hope you dont have credit cards man.
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Considering that I talked about how the system needed reforms and restructuring to be effective and he basically reduced my argument to "spend more money" I think your assessment is fair. Anyways, thanks! Guess I will just drop this now...some(most)people are simply not willing to give an honest look at both sides...especially when its glaringly obvious how wrong their side is. [/quote]
........priceless
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Again conservatives like to site and bitch about welfare, its one of the favorite targets for Republicans and its the reason the Tea Party exists. But yet again you prove what I said a few pages back, you only want to cut the programs that do not effect you and you refuse to take an objective look at them because at the end of the day as I said you feel the program is worthless since you do not need it. The problem with the welfare system is not that its over funded, its that its constantly underfunded and at its core designed to keep people poor. Maybe if the system actually gave people some serious training and didn't just set them up in housing projects or with so little money you can't afford to live anywhere but a a ghetto then we wouldn't have people on the system for life and more and more people using it.[/QUOTE]
Nope....You don't blame conservatives for welfare issues, no not at all. Oh and you arent all about increasing record spending on welfare...not at all.
[quote name='MSI Magus']
No wrong on many levels. I guess it really does not matter though, if I clearly state it is the fault of both Republicans AND Democrats which is an easy thing to see in my post and you ignore it...as well as ignore things like my solution and things like it not just failing me but many others...and ignore the fact that I called for reform as well....its pretty obvious you are not looking for a debate just to stay stuck in your wars. Hey though, I guess like I said thats just the conservative way now! Watch the rest of the world change and spread lies to make it sound like its the worst thing ever and none of its your fault.[/QUOTE]
Stuck in my wars? man where do you get this stuff...
Oh yeah and pardon us capitalists for watching europe turn socialist and us not wanting to be just like them! we all know how well Greece is doing!
Considering that I talked about how the system needed reforms and restructuring to be effective and he basically reduced my argument to "spend more money" I think your assessment is fair. Anyways, thanks! Guess I will just drop this now...some(most)people are simply not willing to give an honest look at both sides...especially when its glaringly obvious how wrong their side is. [/quote]
........priceless
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Again conservatives like to site and bitch about welfare, its one of the favorite targets for Republicans and its the reason the Tea Party exists. But yet again you prove what I said a few pages back, you only want to cut the programs that do not effect you and you refuse to take an objective look at them because at the end of the day as I said you feel the program is worthless since you do not need it. The problem with the welfare system is not that its over funded, its that its constantly underfunded and at its core designed to keep people poor. Maybe if the system actually gave people some serious training and didn't just set them up in housing projects or with so little money you can't afford to live anywhere but a a ghetto then we wouldn't have people on the system for life and more and more people using it.[/QUOTE]
Nope....You don't blame conservatives for welfare issues, no not at all. Oh and you arent all about increasing record spending on welfare...not at all.
[quote name='MSI Magus']
No wrong on many levels. I guess it really does not matter though, if I clearly state it is the fault of both Republicans AND Democrats which is an easy thing to see in my post and you ignore it...as well as ignore things like my solution and things like it not just failing me but many others...and ignore the fact that I called for reform as well....its pretty obvious you are not looking for a debate just to stay stuck in your wars. Hey though, I guess like I said thats just the conservative way now! Watch the rest of the world change and spread lies to make it sound like its the worst thing ever and none of its your fault.[/QUOTE]
Stuck in my wars? man where do you get this stuff...
Oh yeah and pardon us capitalists for watching europe turn socialist and us not wanting to be just like them!
we all know how well Greece is doing!
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']There is always a threat against the homeland, you people saying there is no need for a defense budget is as ridiculous as any of us saying there is no need for any social programs.
How exactly are foreigners receiving aid before citizens? He trims a tiny bit of spending that will only cut 3% off of the $12 trillion dollar deficit and you are up in arms. I hope you dont have credit cards man.[/QUOTE]
Are the external threats to this country so bad that we can't consider spending freezes for defense?
How exactly are foreigners receiving aid before citizens? He trims a tiny bit of spending that will only cut 3% off of the $12 trillion dollar deficit and you are up in arms. I hope you dont have credit cards man.[/QUOTE]
Are the external threats to this country so bad that we can't consider spending freezes for defense?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell'] I stated in the post that inflation adjustments do not make a dent in the massive expansion of the welfare system. There are many inflation calculators online, google one or let me know what exactly you want, and ill do it for ya.
Secondly, please find a post where I say we dont need to cut excess military spending, I actually said we need to find the right balance of spending in which we can protect this country, and help those of us who truely need it. (not everyone with their hand out.)
Im sorry but 38% of our GDP in spending just does not cut it.[/QUOTE]
1) Don't care how you use it. Adjust for 2008 dollars for all I care. But they need to be mathematically comparable, or else you can't be confident - at all - about the 'massive expansion.' You've put the cart before the horse - in this case, the cart is your opinion and the horse is empirical evidence. Truth be told, you don't even really have a horse. And make it per capita while you're at it.
2) Your emphasis is on "welfare." You don't discuss the need to cut the albatross of military spending; the closest you come to that is in this quoted post where you echo a vapid bit of naively idealistic rhetoric. You say we need to find the "balance," but don't seem to recognize that this is what we are all always doing: trying to find the top of the bell curve where we get the most relative to our output without experiencing a harsh degree of diminishing returns. It's not noble of you to espouse such a trait; it's the very definition of rationalism, and something all of us believe. Big whoopie to you for trying to take some vague philosophical moving target that you haven't quantified and tried to treat it like a reasonable political opinion.
3) Your argument of people "with their hand out" is something you again have no evidence of. It's something you believe, something based off of the racist-and-sexist Reagan vision of the "welfare queen." You want to believe it exists because it helps reinforce your ideology. But you, by believing this, clearly don't look at welfare trends.
You have loads of opinions and not an iota of empirical evidence to support your worldview. Let me explain it to you this way: you don't have evidence to support what you believe, but you believe it strongly enough that you think you have the solution to the nation's policy problems.
That's frightening. It's like a student who substitutes an uninformed, I-didn't-do-the-reading-or-come-to-class opinionated diatribe for a genuine essay question answer and wants full marks for their work. That's positively asinine.
I stated in the post that inflation adjustments do not make a dent in the massive expansion of the welfare system. There are many inflation calculators online, google one or let me know what exactly you want, and ill do it for ya. Secondly, please find a post where I say we dont need to cut excess military spending, I actually said we need to find the right balance of spending in which we can protect this country, and help those of us who truely need it. (not everyone with their hand out.)
Im sorry but 38% of our GDP in spending just does not cut it.[/QUOTE]
1) Don't care how you use it. Adjust for 2008 dollars for all I care. But they need to be mathematically comparable, or else you can't be confident - at all - about the 'massive expansion.' You've put the cart before the horse - in this case, the cart is your opinion and the horse is empirical evidence. Truth be told, you don't even really have a horse. And make it per capita while you're at it.
2) Your emphasis is on "welfare." You don't discuss the need to cut the albatross of military spending; the closest you come to that is in this quoted post where you echo a vapid bit of naively idealistic rhetoric. You say we need to find the "balance," but don't seem to recognize that this is what we are all always doing: trying to find the top of the bell curve where we get the most relative to our output without experiencing a harsh degree of diminishing returns. It's not noble of you to espouse such a trait; it's the very definition of rationalism, and something all of us believe. Big whoopie to you for trying to take some vague philosophical moving target that you haven't quantified and tried to treat it like a reasonable political opinion.
3) Your argument of people "with their hand out" is something you again have no evidence of. It's something you believe, something based off of the racist-and-sexist Reagan vision of the "welfare queen." You want to believe it exists because it helps reinforce your ideology. But you, by believing this, clearly don't look at welfare trends.
You have loads of opinions and not an iota of empirical evidence to support your worldview. Let me explain it to you this way: you don't have evidence to support what you believe, but you believe it strongly enough that you think you have the solution to the nation's policy problems.
That's frightening. It's like a student who substitutes an uninformed, I-didn't-do-the-reading-or-come-to-class opinionated diatribe for a genuine essay question answer and wants full marks for their work. That's positively asinine.
JolietJake
Banned
I've never disagreed with anyone that there are of course some people who abuse social programs, i know some myself, but to judge the programs based solely on the fact that these people who abuse them exist isn't right. What about those who genuinely need them and don't unfairly abuse them?
It just seems to some people in this country that there is no good reasoning for social welfare programs, that the very idea itself is bad.
It just seems to some people in this country that there is no good reasoning for social welfare programs, that the very idea itself is bad.
JolietJake
Banned
Well the government wasn't going after those swiss bank accounts for nothing.
[quote name='JolietJake']Well the government wasn't going after those swiss bank accounts for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Well, the government isn't going after those who commit welfare fraud for nothing...
https://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/fraud/index.asp
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/PG269.htm
http://www.ucowf.org/fraud_contacts.htm
http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/fraud/welfare_fraud_home.cfm
http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.g...aud/ReportWelfareFraud/tabid/323/Default.aspx
Well, the government isn't going after those who commit welfare fraud for nothing...
https://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/fraud/index.asp
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/fraud/PG269.htm
http://www.ucowf.org/fraud_contacts.htm
http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/fraud/welfare_fraud_home.cfm
http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.g...aud/ReportWelfareFraud/tabid/323/Default.aspx
JolietJake
Banned
Yeah and you can report people for income tax evasion too, what's your point?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
You've *never* been able to stay even remotely on topic, Bob.
bread's done