Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The poor shouldn't be having kids in the first place, they should be aware that they can't afford kids, and that's a burden to both their kids, and to society.
It's a sort of senseless stupidity.
Since the dawn of mankind, the poor have realized they may not have material wealth....but at least they can still fuck
Why would you take that away?
A lot of the poor can afford cell phones nowadays, but somehow can't afford condoms, really?
Besides, they seem to be creating hardship, as they create kids who will lack the resources of their counterparts, how is this good?
So you oppose defunding planned parenthood?
Sex education?
You are not a very good conservative
I'm more of a Fascist, rather than a Conservative.
I'm certainly no Christian Conservative, I'm Agnostic.
I could care less if the government hands out condoms to the poor masses.
I was just teasing you
Doesn't take much to figure out you are a Nazi
Once again you duck the questions.... last opportunity to prove you're not completely cluelessYou didn't answer my questions.How do income tax cuts help the poor?Helping the poor through tax cuts, and government assistance not only helps them to survive, but it helps them spend back into the economy in consumerism.
As far as the poor getting government assistance helping the economy "in consumerism" where does the money come from to provide that "government assistance"? Isn't it the case that it first has to come out of some other consumers pocket, then be run through a bureaucracy (which takes it cut off the top) at which point the bulk of it is spent on basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) because government assistance doesn't provide enough to spend on higher end consumer items (or even mid level consumer items).
So as far as consumer stimulus effects of "government assistance" it's focused on a narrow section of the economy at the expense of the broad economy.
Are you aware that government spends around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar on people that are actually at or below the poverty line (i.e. the poor) the rest goes to subsidizing people that are NOT poor, doesn't make a real strong case for the effectiveness of "government assistance" for the poor now does it?
Having more consumers makes more sense, than having the rich as bigger consumers.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
LOL, "the rich" are more likely to INVEST money (newsflash: nobody gets or stays rich by "hoarding money" since it's a depreciating asset) which leads to higher productivity and business expansion which in turn leads to higher wages and more jobs and no it wasn't "the rich" that caused the 2008 market collapse, it was a combination of idiotic monetary policy coupled with excessive leveraging and shortsightedness by the Investment Banks and poor decisions by home buyers and lenders.The rich are more likely to hoard money, and invest in housing, didn't that already cause a recession from the housing bubble?
"It is ludicrous to believe that asset bubbles can only be recognized in hindsight" -- Michael Burry
If you cut down government assistance programs, there would be far less consumerism.
LOL, You do realize that it's a co-dependent relationship, right? Since without investment there is nothing to consume since their is no PRODUCTION.But, investments would be useless without consumerism.
No , i don't remember the Conservatives complain bitterly about the 47%, ]...who pay no income taxes?
Trump's tax plan would dramatically increase that number. Now you support that?
That would be attributable either to your being uninformed, or dishonest.
Once again you duck the questions.... last opportunity to prove you're not completely cluelessYou didn't answer my questions.How do income tax cuts help the poor?Helping the poor through tax cuts, and government assistance not only helps them to survive, but it helps them spend back into the economy in consumerism.
As far as the poor getting government assistance helping the economy "in consumerism" where does the money come from to provide that "government assistance"? Isn't it the case that it first has to come out of some other consumers pocket, then be run through a bureaucracy (which takes it cut off the top) at which point the bulk of it is spent on basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) because government assistance doesn't provide enough to spend on higher end consumer items (or even mid level consumer items).
So as far as consumer stimulus effects of "government assistance" it's focused on a narrow section of the economy at the expense of the broad economy.
Are you aware that government spends around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar on people that are actually at or below the poverty line (i.e. the poor) the rest goes to subsidizing people that are NOT poor, doesn't make a real strong case for the effectiveness of "government assistance" for the poor now does it?
Having more consumers makes more sense, than having the rich as bigger consumers.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
LOL, "the rich" are more likely to INVEST money (newsflash: nobody gets or stays rich by "hoarding money" since it's a depreciating asset) which leads to higher productivity and business expansion which in turn leads to higher wages and more jobs and no it wasn't "the rich" that caused the 2008 market collapse, it was a combination of idiotic monetary policy coupled with excessive leveraging and shortsightedness by the Investment Banks and poor decisions by home buyers and lenders.The rich are more likely to hoard money, and invest in housing, didn't that already cause a recession from the housing bubble?
"It is ludicrous to believe that asset bubbles can only be recognized in hindsight" -- Michael Burry
If you cut down government assistance programs, there would be far less consumerism.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
... and nobody said anything about cutting down "government assistance" , just that you back up your reasoning that it stimulates consumption.
LOL, You do realize that it's a co-dependent relationship, right? Since without investment there is nothing to consume since their is no PRODUCTION.But, investments would be useless without consumerism.
You're the one making the assertions so it would be up to you to "prove" them, I asked you reasonable questions and all you do is respond with poorly thought out and unfounded assertions.....Once again you duck the questions.... last opportunity to prove you're not completely cluelessYou didn't answer my questions.How do income tax cuts help the poor?
As far as the poor getting government assistance helping the economy "in consumerism" where does the money come from to provide that "government assistance"? Isn't it the case that it first has to come out of some other consumers pocket, then be run through a bureaucracy (which takes it cut off the top) at which point the bulk of it is spent on basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) because government assistance doesn't provide enough to spend on higher end consumer items (or even mid level consumer items).
So as far as consumer stimulus effects of "government assistance" it's focused on a narrow section of the economy at the expense of the broad economy.
Are you aware that government spends around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar on people that are actually at or below the poverty line (i.e. the poor) the rest goes to subsidizing people that are NOT poor, doesn't make a real strong case for the effectiveness of "government assistance" for the poor now does it?
Having more consumers makes more sense, than having the rich as bigger consumers.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
LOL, "the rich" are more likely to INVEST money (newsflash: nobody gets or stays rich by "hoarding money" since it's a depreciating asset) which leads to higher productivity and business expansion which in turn leads to higher wages and more jobs and no it wasn't "the rich" that caused the 2008 market collapse, it was a combination of idiotic monetary policy coupled with excessive leveraging and shortsightedness by the Investment Banks and poor decisions by home buyers and lenders.The rich are more likely to hoard money, and invest in housing, didn't that already cause a recession from the housing bubble?
"It is ludicrous to believe that asset bubbles can only be recognized in hindsight" -- Michael Burry
If you cut down government assistance programs, there would be far less consumerism.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
... and nobody said anything about cutting down "government assistance" , just that you back up your reasoning that it stimulates consumption.
LOL, You do realize that it's a co-dependent relationship, right? Since without investment there is nothing to consume since their is no PRODUCTION.But, investments would be useless without consumerism.
Having more consumers definitely makes more sense than having few consumers.
Prove otherwise?
Link?...who pay no income taxes?
Trump's tax plan would dramatically increase that number. Now you support that?
Use your head.
You're the one making the assertions so it would be up to you to "prove" them, I asked you reasonable questions and all you do is respond with poorly thought out and unfounded assertions.....Once again you duck the questions.... last opportunity to prove you're not completely cluelessYou didn't answer my questions.Having more consumers makes more sense, than having the rich as bigger consumers.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
LOL, "the rich" are more likely to INVEST money (newsflash: nobody gets or stays rich by "hoarding money" since it's a depreciating asset) which leads to higher productivity and business expansion which in turn leads to higher wages and more jobs and no it wasn't "the rich" that caused the 2008 market collapse, it was a combination of idiotic monetary policy coupled with excessive leveraging and shortsightedness by the Investment Banks and poor decisions by home buyers and lenders.The rich are more likely to hoard money, and invest in housing, didn't that already cause a recession from the housing bubble?
"It is ludicrous to believe that asset bubbles can only be recognized in hindsight" -- Michael Burry
If you cut down government assistance programs, there would be far less consumerism.
How do tax cuts help the poor?
Isn't it true that the stimulus effect of "government assistance" is offset by the fact that you're taking money from other consumers, paying bureaucrats on the pass-thru and then focusing the remainder on lower end goods and services at the expense of the ENTIRE REST OF THE ECONOMY?
... and nobody said anything about cutting down "government assistance" , just that you back up your reasoning that it stimulates consumption.
LOL, You do realize that it's a co-dependent relationship, right? Since without investment there is nothing to consume since their is no PRODUCTION.But, investments would be useless without consumerism.
Having more consumers definitely makes more sense than having few consumers.
Prove otherwise?
So far you're batting ZERO with respect to "proving" anything other than your fondness for attempts at deflection and your intellectual laziness.
Perhaps you might want to go and do some research with respect to what I've asked you and get back to me when you have formulated some answers that are not just different versions of your original assertions?
No , i don't remember the Conservatives complain bitterly about the 47%, ]...who pay no income taxes?
Trump's tax plan would dramatically increase that number. Now you support that?
That would be attributable either to your being uninformed, or dishonest.
More likely you being ignorant and/or dishonest.
Tell me if it is so common can you provide references to conservatives complaining about this multiple times through the past year? I don't think you can.
Link?...who pay no income taxes?
Trump's tax plan would dramatically increase that number. Now you support that?
Use your head.
Not "use your head". Where's the link?
Since the dawn of mankind, the poor have realized they may not have material wealth....but at least they can still fuck
Why would you take that away?
A lot of the poor can afford cell phones nowadays, but somehow can't afford condoms, really?
Besides, they seem to be creating hardship, as they create kids who will lack the resources of their counterparts, how is this good?
So you oppose defunding planned parenthood?
Sex education?
You are not a very good conservative
I'm more of a Fascist, rather than a Conservative.
I'm certainly no Christian Conservative, I'm Agnostic.
I could care less if the government hands out condoms to the poor masses.
I was just teasing you
Doesn't take much to figure out you are a Nazi
I'm not a Nazi, either, seeing them as catastrophic for European peoples, especially my beloved Polish people.
But, I think Nazis still had more good ideas than Capitalists, or Communists.
No, Nazis didn't kill the most people, the Capitalists of the British Empire, and the Communists of the Soviet Union killed far more.
Capitalism, and Communism each has killed probably over 100 million, as opposed to Fascism which killed maybe 30 million.
A lot of the poor can afford cell phones nowadays, but somehow can't afford condoms, really?
Besides, they seem to be creating hardship, as they create kids who will lack the resources of their counterparts, how is this good?
So you oppose defunding planned parenthood?
Sex education?
You are not a very good conservative
I'm more of a Fascist, rather than a Conservative.
I'm certainly no Christian Conservative, I'm Agnostic.
I could care less if the government hands out condoms to the poor masses.
I was just teasing you
Doesn't take much to figure out you are a Nazi
I'm not a Nazi, either, seeing them as catastrophic for European peoples, especially my beloved Polish people.
But, I think Nazis still had more good ideas than Capitalists, or Communists.
No, Nazis didn't kill the most people, the Capitalists of the British Empire, and the Communists of the Soviet Union killed far more.
Capitalism, and Communism each has killed probably over 100 million, as opposed to Fascism which killed maybe 30 million.
No, you are a Nazi
You may call yourself something else...but you still are a Nazi
So you oppose defunding planned parenthood?
Sex education?
You are not a very good conservative
I'm more of a Fascist, rather than a Conservative.
I'm certainly no Christian Conservative, I'm Agnostic.
I could care less if the government hands out condoms to the poor masses.
I was just teasing you
Doesn't take much to figure out you are a Nazi
I'm not a Nazi, either, seeing them as catastrophic for European peoples, especially my beloved Polish people.
But, I think Nazis still had more good ideas than Capitalists, or Communists.
No, Nazis didn't kill the most people, the Capitalists of the British Empire, and the Communists of the Soviet Union killed far more.
Capitalism, and Communism each has killed probably over 100 million, as opposed to Fascism which killed maybe 30 million.
No, you are a Nazi
You may call yourself something else...but you still are a Nazi
Nazis are those who support Hitler, which I do not.
I'm more of a Fascist, rather than a Conservative.
I'm certainly no Christian Conservative, I'm Agnostic.
I could care less if the government hands out condoms to the poor masses.
I was just teasing you
Doesn't take much to figure out you are a Nazi
I'm not a Nazi, either, seeing them as catastrophic for European peoples, especially my beloved Polish people.
But, I think Nazis still had more good ideas than Capitalists, or Communists.
No, Nazis didn't kill the most people, the Capitalists of the British Empire, and the Communists of the Soviet Union killed far more.
Capitalism, and Communism each has killed probably over 100 million, as opposed to Fascism which killed maybe 30 million.
No, you are a Nazi
You may call yourself something else...but you still are a Nazi
Nazis are those who support Hitler, which I do not.
LOL, you just support his policies
