[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

But its a great plan according to the president.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbo-23-millio...22181.html

[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

http://www.wymt.com/content/news/CNN-air...l?facebook

[RunItUpTheGut]

Need full repeal.

If you want insurance, work for it.
Only people that should receive entitlements are seniors who were robbed of it there entire life and deserved to be paid back.

[TheRealThing]

Need full repeal.

If you want insurance, work for it.
Only people that should receive entitlements are seniors who were robbed of it there entire life and deserved to be paid back.

Amen^^ I never really minded to pay my taxes for a number of reasons. First among them being the fact that from even the most cursory level of awareness regarding man's history of war and the dangers posed by his immutable warlike nature, it is an extreme comfort knowing the US Armed Services are the very finest ever. I've been overseas and was privileged to see a US warship coming into port more than once. The awe and respect on the faces of the people of that land was abundantly obvious. Not to mention the pride and exhilaration we all felt to be representing our nation's interests overseas, which BTW, was greatly appreciated by the host nation. From the preamble of the US Constitution--- "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.". I have been safe, and life gave me what I worked to achieve. Now that's a fair deal.

Secondly from the Great Generation onward, Americans knew they were quite literally helping to build this nation. Therefore and because those of us following knew that our government, who at the time were not comprised of a bunch of liars and rabid ideologues, had promised us that Social Security would be waiting for us after we were too old to work any longer and that in compensation for the financial sacrifices of our youth. These millionaire talking heads who get up on TV everyday talking about the Congress needing to address entitlements, and further equating food stamp and giveaway programs for the listless, with the noble sacrifices of this lands' trusting seniors should be hamstrung and stood up in the stocks.

Entitlements are 'earned' rewards, and as Gut put it, are meant to pay people back. The aforementioned guile-mouthed rabid ideologues, in their attempts to transform America, renamed welfare and repackaged it as they do everything on their list, from conscientious objector status to abortion on demand. Nowadays free cell phones along with the entire gambit of government give-aways, WELFARE, has been given the same kind of manufactured dignity that the so-called gay population recently received. Welfare 'programs,' are no longer welfare, they are entitlements. Has a certain ring of dignity to it, doesn't it? In reality, welfare and entitlements live at opposite ends of the social spectrum, that is except those areas of jurisdictional overlap where La-La Land anti-logic have successfully made infectious intrusions into the moral realm. According to Schumer and Pelosi et-al, such downward spiraling of social aspirations denote the artistic side of our society. And they should be given art supplies too. :please: 2018 is the perfect time to show anybody not representing California the legislative door, and as for California daily prayer for their conversion or secession.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ Thank you for your brief remarks.

Social Darwinism is, indeed, alive and well.

[TheRealThing]

⬆ Thank you for your brief remarks.

Social Darwinism is, indeed, alive and well.

Oh really?

1 Timothy 5:7-8 (KJV)
7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.



Like I've been telling you, you're continually on the wrong side of the argument. You Sir, are a denier of the faith.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh really?

1 Timothy 5:7-8 (KJV)
7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.



Like I've been telling you, you're continually on the wrong side of the argument. You Sir, are a denier of the faith.

Yes, yes, TRT, the whole, entire whole, of the safety net is for those able to work but who won't. And, you get from Christ the idea that the mentally handicapped, the workplace injured, the otherwise physically disabled are somehow hung out to dry by your prooftexting use of Scripture? "Why that guy lying by the road? He can just rot there. I heard he was a liberal and out of work. Pass him by." True enough, there are multitudes who get on the dole and trifle the system. However, the social safety nets are more than just that "either/or" nonsense.

[TheRealThing]

Yes, yes, TRT, the whole, entire whole, of the safety net is for those able to work but who won't. And, you get from Christ the idea that the mentally handicapped, the workplace injured, the otherwise physically disabled are somehow hung out to dry by your prooftexting use of Scripture? "Why that guy lying by the road? He can just rot there. I heard he was a liberal and out of work. Pass him by." True enough, there are multitudes who get on the dole and trifle the system. However, the social safety nets are more than just that "either/or" nonsense.

Now you've stopped distorting and gone to outright lying in the open. All liberals eventually do that when cornered. The able bodied are to work. Statistics bear out the fact that most on welfare are healthy.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Now you've stopped distorting and gone to outright lying in the open. All liberals eventually do that when cornered. The able bodied are to work. Statistics bear out the fact that most on welfare are healthy.

Cornered? What goes on in that swollen head of yours? "Those who are physically and mentally employable should be employed." I doubt any of us disagree with that. "There are very few people who are not physically and mentally employable." The waters are a bit murkier here, but, still, in principle, not a lot of disagreement. Yet in a nation of some 350 million people, it is misleading to suggest that only the elderly need a safety net. One doesn't have to be particularly perceptive to see that quite a few folks are born into this world not physically and/or mentally employable.

[TheRealThing]

Cornered? What goes on in that swollen head of yours? "Those who are physically and mentally employable should be employed." I doubt any of us disagree with that. "There are very few people who are not physically and mentally employable." The waters are a bit murkier here, but, still, in principle, not a lot of disagreement. Yet in a nation of some 350 million people, it is misleading to suggest that only the elderly need a safety net. One doesn't have to be particularly perceptive to see that quite a few folks are born into this world not physically and/or mentally employable.

Misleading is from the left. One in six people are not disabled. But you got the number of those who are mentally lacking about right, about 20% of Americans are liberal. That's one in five and bingo on them not being particularly perceptive.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Misleading is from the left. One in six people are not disabled. But you got the number of those who are mentally lacking about right, about 20% of Americans are liberal. That's one in five and bingo on them not being particularly perceptive.

Aren't you a clever peacock. Safety nets for the working poor, the disabled, the elderly, children are a test of a mature society. Efforts to target those who abuse safety net programs have to be constructed in narrow latitude, else they end up hurting the very most vulnerable folks. These are issues where one wishes there were more moderate voices, left and right. There was a time when center left and center right could forge workable solutions.

[TheRealThing]

Aren't you a clever peacock. Safety nets for the working poor, the disabled, the elderly, children are a test of a mature society. Efforts to target those who abuse safety net programs have to be constructed in narrow latitude, else they end up hurting the very most vulnerable folks. These are issues where one wishes there were more moderate voices, left and right. There was a time when center left and center right could forge workable solutions.

Clever enough to recognize your constant attempts to drag the conversation into the familiar territory of liberal talking points. The safety net principle is not in dispute, neither are caring for the mentally infirm or the truly disabled. Rather, the immoral financial drag on the American taxpayer as is being foisted upon them by 'generational' able bodied neer do wells such as this guy... "A man who has fathered 30 children by 11 different women is asking the courts to give him a break from paying child-support."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z4iVgn7joi


I've gone into detail on this subject on here before, but I'm sure you know that. The VAST majority of those out howling at the moon every night for most of their adult lives, take no responsibility for the ramifications of their sexual misdeeds. The unfortunate children (of which there are millions born each year) are left in many cases largely on their own to become wards of the state from cradle to grave. When you hear Democrats going on and on about children starving to death, they are speaking to those who are wards of the state. Put succinctly, the American taxpayer has by their own elected officials, been forced to pay for raising and supporting the masses of unfortunate children produced by the party generation.

Back when LBJ declared the taxpayer would literally buy out poverty in this land, the number of folks on the take went from a near invisible 336,000 nationally, to the now staggering number of nearly 50 million. At the launch of the Great Society back in 1964, the present standard of millions of out of wedlock births was unthinkable. But we have seen, of the 4 million US births each year, over half are born out of wedlock and windup on the welfare rolls. Thus as many conservatives warned, the financial tipping point was passed on July 10, 2013, when the number of people on welfare passed the number of people there were working to pay for it. https://moneymorning.com/2013/07/10/late...full-time/

Now, if you want to call the aforementioned state-subsidized debauchery a safety net, you might as well go for it. I mean, why be honest about this subject when you lie about everything else?

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ I do not call the "I got thirty kids" father the "design" of the safety net. I do not call seven "mentally and physically fit" men in a holler driveway staring down into a raised hood's car motor the "purpose" of the safety nets. I do not call the multitudes of non-working opioid and meth and heroin addicts the "vision" of the social safety net. And, I agree with much of your analysis above. However, in addressing the vast abuses of public assistance programs, there is tremendous difficulty because it is very likely that folks in actual need will be harmed. This is not reason to avoid reform efforts, but a caution.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ I once suggested to a Representative this: a person receiving public assistance benefits totaling $842 gets a minimum wage job. At that time, including childcare costs, working full time came up to a net loss of $67. My thought was why not cut the benefit in half, which would then mean over $300 more income, thus incentive, while saving the taxpayer $421. Multiplied across the system, that would be a large chunk saved.

[TheRealThing]

⬆ I once suggested to a Representative this: a person receiving public assistance benefits totaling $842 gets a minimum wage job. At that time, including childcare costs, working full time came up to a net loss of $67. My thought was why not cut the benefit in half, which would then mean over $300 more income, thus incentive, while saving the taxpayer $421. Multiplied across the system, that would be a large chunk saved.

And when benefits are cut in half would you support criminal prosecution for all those out looting, burning and destroying property in exercising their right of assembly and petition of government? Because that's exactly what would happen, and meanwhile the Dems would be on the news loop 24/7 telling the nation that rich white Republicans are evil, but if the Dems are put back into the majority it will be back to the good ol days of belly up to the bar boys.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And when benefits are cut in half would you support criminal prosecution for all those out looting, burning and destroying property in exercising their right of assembly and petition of government? Because that's exactly what would happen, and meanwhile the Dems would be on the news loop 24/7 telling the nation that rich white Republicans are evil, but if the Dems are put back into the majority it will be back to the good ol days of belly up to the bar boys.

I have already stated that peaceful protest is quintessentially American, and the other is not. However, your "benefits cut in half" does not quite encompass what I was suggesting. Wouldn't it be viable to say to ardent Trump supporters right now that when it comes to filfilling Putin's wet dream of a division between the US and Germany, nay, between the US and NATO, it's "belly up to the bar?" Back to your question, arson is a crime. Shoplifting (looting) is a crime. So, yes, I would support criminal prosecution.

[TheRealThing]

I have already stated that peaceful protest is quintessentially American, and the other is not. However, your "benefits cut in half" does not quite encompass what I was suggesting. Wouldn't it be viable to say to ardent Trump supporters right now that when it comes to filfilling Putin's wet dream of a division between the US and Germany, nay, between the US and NATO, it's "belly up to the bar?" Back to your question, arson is a crime. Shoplifting (looting) is a crime. So, yes, I would support criminal prosecution.

What a load of ambiguity. I'm out, the smell of monkey puke has become overwhelming.

[The Urban Sombrero]

What a load of ambiguity. I'm out, the smell of monkey puke has become overwhelming.

Blah, blah, blah

While you're out, I'll take an ice cold Coca Cola.

[TheRealThing]

Blah, blah, blah

While you're out, I'll take an ice cold Coca Cola.

Better try about a gallon of Listerine.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Better try about a gallon of Listerine.

Now, Listerine is not good after an ice cold Coca Cola. Oh well, you can get me one when you buy my steak dinner at Pine Mountain Grill.

[TheRealThing]

ttt

[TheRealThing]

Now, Listerine is not good after an ice cold Coca Cola. Oh well, you can get me one when you buy my steak dinner at Pine Mountain Grill.

April 4th, 2017.

I will be at Pine Mountain Grill on the Wednesday following election day 2024. If Mike Pence is President, order the T-bone or filet, or both, send the bill over to the Sombrero. My treat.

I hope that day finds you in good health. I will make it a point to be there.

It's a deal. Note the time and date. We've agreed on something: a Wednesday, 2024, Pine Mountain Grill. Now that's funny; I don't care who you are.

You were so certain Trump won't last two terms that you put this forth in "I'll eat my hat" fashion. I didn't call a bet, I just agreed to be there when Pence is elected in 2024 because that's what you offered. As I have tried to explain to you before, when you write something you can't change it like you can when you just say something.

[The Urban Sombrero]

April 4th, 2017. From the "Who's next?" thread.



You were so certain Trump won't last two terms that you put this forth^^ in "I'll eat my hat" fashion. I didn't call a bet, I just agreed to be there if Pence is elected in 2024 because that's what you offered. As I have tried to explain to you before, when you write something you can't change it like you can when you just say something.

As I have suggested many times, the wager was void IF Trump was impeached. Are you forgetting your part of the equation? The triumphalism of something akin to a thousand year Republican reign? From time to time, accept a bit of good-natured humor. In a culture where a tone deaf comedienne could possibly think holding up a bloody, severed head (ISIS style) likeness was a good choice, a liitle light-heartedness is needed. Now, TRT, you and I engage in pretty rough and tumble back and forth, but did we know each other, I would break bread with you and discuss Revelation and new guttering and gardening. It's all good American back and forth.

[TheRealThing]

As I have suggested many times, the wager was void IF Trump was impeached. Are you forgetting your part of the equation? The triumphalism of something akin to a thousand year Republican reign? From time to time, accept a bit of good-natured humor. In a culture where a tone deaf comedienne could possibly think holding up a bloody, severed head (ISIS style) likeness was a good choice, a liitle light-heartedness is needed. Now, TRT, you and I engage in pretty rough and tumble back and forth, but did we know each other, I would break bread with you and discuss Revelation and new guttering and gardening. It's all good American back and forth.

If you say so, I rather prefer a not so moving goalpost,