Red states are welfare queens?

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Originally posted by Creamo
Or your at home at Dads house or running up a internet cafe bill.

There are no wagons next to my liquor cabinet jr.

Oooo trying to insult me, when you really know nothing about me. Welcome to the intertard ladys and gentlemen.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by lazs2
there are far less welfare queens in red states.   The blue states have second and third generation women on welfare.

Now... if you are talking about tax money going to areas then that is different.   The solution is simple.   Just stop subsidizing the federal land..  in other words sell it to private companies who could make a lot of use out of it.  As for the farms... simply stop the subsidies.  Let the dust bowl begin... we could pave over the old farms once they are played out.

food is not a big deal anyway... it doesn't benifiet the elite city dwellers so why subsidize the process?  

who needs federal land anyway?  I bet oil companies would give us a pretty penny for Alaskan land... if we sold all the federal land to private companies or individuals then the amount of "welfare" or, money being spent (taxes) on red and blue would have a dramatic shift.

Contrast that with the worthless social programs that we are spending money on in the blue areas.   I have no interest in having my money extorted from me to perpetuate the generations of non productive welfare families in the blue areas.

So... do you want to spend money on increasing drug addiction and breeding worthless people or on food production and national parks.   that is the choice.

Tax breaks for producers is a correct thing to do... it is done every day in every town and city.... cities, states etc ... give tax incentives and such to attract bussines which in turn supports the city/state... when the grey man in California instituted his social and environmental bussiness unfriendly policies in California the state about went under.

No taxes is the best but if you are going to extort money from the people then it is best to give it (actualy take less of it) from the productive than the non productive.   If you give it to the non productive you help very few of em but you create many more times the amount of em...  you create democrats.

lazs

NICE!

[strk]

Originally posted by Toad
Mini, it's just Strk doing the thinking for the multimillionaire and making his decisions on taxation for him.

Who could complain about that? Why shouldn't Strk be able to decide if a guy will notice the tax bite?

Im just saying the guy isnt gonna miss his rent payment or have to go to bed hungry if his rate goes up 5 %

[Toad]

Like I said, it's always easy to spend someone else's money and obviously you're the man for the job. In your own mind, anyway.

[strk]

Originally posted by NUKE
strk, can you point out one thing in that link that says the fed money is going for welfare? It's talking about Federal dollars going back to the states and is compairing the state's taxes paid to that. It has nothing to do with welfare. The government spends on military, disasters, highways, etc.....

Also, the article does not take into account the vast difference in income/cost of living between some states. Someone working in NYC is going to make 10 times as much as someone at the same job in New Mexico, plus there are 10 times more people in NY ( not literally) so they will pay a larger dollar amount in taxes, but federal money being returned to those states is just a flat figure. So if NM  paid 1 million in taxes, and recieved 2 million in fed funding, and NY paid 100 million in taxes, yet recieved 90 million in funding, you can see how it the ratio could be a distortion. ..... and that's just a hypothetyical example. In this example, NY would be getting 90 million  in federal funds, while NM got only 2 million, yet the ratio for NM is used to distort the figures.

But eiher way, there was no breakdown in that link for welfare figures.

oh I see what you are saying.  Welfare has more than one meaning, I suppose it was a poor choice of words. i.e. "for the good of"

and regarding your example - yes I agree but only to a point.,  There are far more people in NY than NM.  That is why the per dollar ratio is an important one.

[strk]

Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, it's always easy to spend someone else's money and obviously you're the man for the job. In your own mind, anyway.

its not someone else's if its taxed, now is it?  Why do you insist on making this personal?  Got nothing better to say?

[Mini D]

This is pretty shrecking hillarious.

I'd argue a simple point on the mistatement about someone not really caring if their taxes go up, but it's rather pointless.  Afterall, it's just kappa and frogboy hiding behind shades accounts pretending to be cool and mature.  Hell.. buy a pack of cigarettes guys... that will impress the chicks.  It will save you from having to impress one of your typing hands.

MiniD

sorry estes... got the names backwards

[strk]

Originally posted by Creamo
This is why I although hate the Republicans on abortion, Gays, and other religious topics, will still vote that way, every election.

Strk ain't got a pot to piss in, and if he did, wouldn't think he should give a donut shake out for anyone below him in the piss pot. But in the mean time, thinks he deserves a break and anyone successful should do more. If your extra clever and make money, you need to repent more taxes? That’s insane.

What a Democrat avacado.

I want to put a picture of you in the bottom of my piss pot.  Got one you can send me?

here is a clue - try addressing the argument instead of attacking the person who is making it.  

And I thought it was the dems who were bleading hearts for all those poor women and children you would be happy to starve.
So it appears you seem to think I am a Democratic "twat" AND I dont care about those who are not as fortunate as myself - lower in the piss pot, where I guess you place me in the scheme of things.

BUt that sounds like a REPUBLICAN, not a democrat.

So which is it genius?  Because you have confused me.  

and why would you call me a avacado?  Usually when ignorant adults and children (not sure which applies) start throwing around petty insults they call people things that are revolting to themselves, and things that they are unfamiliar with

so I guess that means you are either repulsed by or unfamiliar with those things we call "twats"

Maybe when you actually see one in real life you wont hate them so much.  

you want some more, cupcake?  I can keep going

back to the topic - you are, it appears, one of those GOP voting americans who will sell out his beliefs in favor of whoever is going to give him the lowest tax bill.  I pay my taxes gladly, and I am happy to pay my share because I love my country and I understand that if we all chip in a little we can do great things that benefit us all.  When I see f-18s overhead I take pride in the fact that I am a part of that, because my tax dollars pay for it.  I guess you see it a little differently, huh?

But you just sell your vote in hopes of shaving a few hundred off of your taxes.  Unpatriotic imo.  Unless of course you are rich, then I totally understand why you would vote for the GOP.  Otherwise, you are just like the chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders.

rich or stupid - you decide.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by strk
Im just saying the guy isnt gonna miss his rent payment or have to go to bed hungry if his rate goes up 5 %

Just using your off the wall figure there of 3 mill a year income...

30 percent is 900k
35 percent is 1mill 50k...

Now I'm no brain surgeon..but take away 150k a year from me and I might be a lil bit upset...no matter HOW MUCH I made.

[strk]

Originally posted by Creamo
Frogman, please. Don't start with me, Im not a political retard that will bait and switch with you. Send me a post card from your Dad's next hotel.

Dude, what he wants is in print. " I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient."


Oh I see, cream acts like a self righteous jerk to everyone.  Why hasn't cream-o been banned-o?  

and his posts deleted-o?

oy

[strk]

Originally posted by RedTop
Just using your off the wall figure there of 3 mill a year income...

30 percent is 900k
35 percent is 1mill 50k...

Now I'm no brain surgeon..but take away 150k a year from me and I might be a lil bit upset...no matter HOW MUCH I made.

well brother I hope you make 3 million some day, but until you do its hard to say what 150k would mean to you.

[Yeager]

the term "welfare queen" is derogatory and racist.

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!:mad:

[strk]

Originally posted by Yeager
the term "welfare queen" is derogatory and racist.

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!:mad:

wow Yeager has gone PC.  I have now seen everything.  Did you send money to Dennis Kucinich too?

[Toad]

Originally posted by strk
its not someone else's if its taxed, now is it?  

Well, that's exactly the attitude I'd expect.

As long as we call it a tax, then we don't have to call it theft.

Let me ask you this....... if a guy earns it, who does it belong to?

You ever figure out why governments are not run on a "voluntary donation" program yet?

Personal? Nah. If I was making it personal, I'd call you the names the other guys call you. See the difference?

Kappa huh? Guys that have to hide behind shades

[RedTop]

Originally posted by strk
well brother I hope you make 3 million some day, but until you do its hard to say what 150k would mean to you.

This statement holds same for you that 5 percent would mean nothing. Until YOU have 3 million a year income....You don't know what 5 percent would mean either.


I have several friends that are Multi Millionaires....Ill garuntee you that 150k means alot to them....I have had a similar conversation with them over this very Idea of a flat tax. Which btw I agree with. Each one of them to a man says 150k is alot of money to give back to the government over what they already pay each year. Now , you may think that it's chump change when they make all that money. But most of there income is invested...and to have to shell out 150k a year more would mean a change.

Now , by the same token they have all said that if they would do a flat tax they would be more than happy to pay there share. They advocate taking alot of loopholes out as well. They all have worked hard to make the money they made. They all live conservative life styles as well.

Here's another Idea they mentioned one day while we were all playing golf....

Why not do away with regular income tax and tax EVERYTHING sold at 8-12 percent up to a certain amount. And after that amount charge a 35 percent luxery tax. Think about how much money we could collect form the local Crack dealer everytime he buys a new expensive car. Think about all the tax we could collect off the illeagle immagrants that are collecting government handouts. Hmmmm....food for though there huh. All thses people that squirm out of paying there fair share of taxes now have to pay no matter what.

I have no figures as to what or how much it would change....But think of it like this....When you go buy groceries , would you mind paying 5 , 10 , 15 more dollars at the register and have money in your check...or just never see it..have to worry if ya paid enuff , and then at the end of the year after you paid 11k of your salary to the government to get 137.52 back.