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.
Are you dishonest with yourself as well?Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.
Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
White Folks in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp ‘Moochers’ in the Country
It s Official White Folks in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp Moochers in the Country Americans Against the Tea Party
Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
White Folks in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp ‘Moochers’ in the Country
It s Official White Folks in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp Moochers in the Country Americans Against the Tea Party
The problem I have with this is that most of them are not moochers. Most of them actually work but don't earn enough to keep food on the table. Everyone seems to miss the point that most people are not on welfare because they want to be on welfare. They are on it because it is the only way they can keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.
Yeah.....i'm sure you see people on face book all the time telling the world they're on welfare.
I happen to know a number of people who work full-time but still need some assistance to get by. They don't tell me on Facebook. They've told me in person. I happen to live in the real world where I see and know people from many different life situations.
Perhaps their interests are not the same as yours. I imagine that never even crossed your excuse for a mind.What are the odds any welfare recipient will vote republican?
Lots will. Some of them post on this board.
Others who are anxious to cut off their own noses with their votes: women, vets, gays and more. Apparently, a lot of people vote against their own interests, the interests of their families and against their own country.
$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.
Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.
Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.
Most of them actually work but don't earn enough to keep food on the table. Everyone seems to miss the point that most people are not on welfare because they want to be on welfare. They are on it because it is the only way they can keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.
Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.
Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.
You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.
There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.
So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.
There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
And they play jigaboo music and eat lots of fried chicken and watermelon.Most of them actually work but don't earn enough to keep food on the table. Everyone seems to miss the point that most people are not on welfare because they want to be on welfare. They are on it because it is the only way they can keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
most of them are poor single mothers without Republican family values, instead they have liberal hip hop values. Do you understand now?
Most of them actually work but don't earn enough to keep food on the table. Everyone seems to miss the point that most people are not on welfare because they want to be on welfare. They are on it because it is the only way they can keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
most of them are poor single mothers without Republican family values, instead they have liberal hip hop values. Do you understand now?
America did well because we profited handsomely from two world wars, and the economy boomed due to a massive imbalance in trade.$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.
Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.
Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.
You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.
There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.
So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.
There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
Which is why America did so well when corporations and multimillionaires paid higher taxes.
America did well because we profited handsomely from two world wars, and the economy boomed due to a massive imbalance in trade.$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.
Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.
Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.
You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.
There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.
So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.
There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
Which is why America did so well when corporations and multimillionaires paid higher taxes.
Most people on Welfare (TANF) do not vote....so you don't need to worry about them....Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?
It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?
.
Then the candidate that is going to take away welfare from the poorest among us, should be able to tell them WHY it will be better for them in the long run....
. Progessive = progress.
America did well because we profited handsomely from two world wars, and the economy boomed due to a massive imbalance in trade.$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.
Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.
Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.
You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.
There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.
So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.
There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
Which is why America did so well when corporations and multimillionaires paid higher taxes.
most of them are poor single mothers without Republican family values, instead they have liberal hip hop values. Do you understand now?
